Editing Main Page (section)

=== Concept: Open Source Social Algorithms ===

Here I take the ubiquitous example of ‘social programming’ as understood in the context of social media and repurpose it for the generation of whole-human social technologies.

==== Algorithms guide us through known solutions ====

In the context of mathematics or computer code an algorithm is a process or set of rules to be followed, that can produce a desired change in state.

For a tangible example: the rubik's cube. This is a puzzle that most would consider challenging or complex but that is in fact "solved".

There is a sequence of steps someone can use to complete the cube from any state. No knowledge of the patterns in the cube are required, no creative experimentation and discovery, just reading the cube and following instructions. This is the essence of most algorithms.

==== ‘Social Algorithms’ help humans decide what to do ====

To the concept of algorithm we then add a modifier: a ‘Social’ Algorithm is a process or set of rules that allow humans to solve complex creative problems in collaboration.

Unlike numbers or geometric concepts, humans are constantly changing. The challenges that we face in society are of a type that resists fixed sequences and predetermined outcomes. They require both the sensitivities and the creative inspiration of the human spirit to witness new solutions and bring them into being.

Social algorithms then are fluid feedback loops that place these human faculties at the center of a communal solution generation process.

===== Democracy =====

Democracy gives a set of practices for arriving at a prosperous society but it doesn't define what that state looks like. It merely creates a context where humans can have a better chance at assessing and improving their conditions. Steps: Talk about it. Vote on a course of action. Execute. Reassess who gets to talk about it. Repeat.

===== Science =====

Science is a social context for observing the world and arriving at common understanding. It doesn't tell us which experiments to perform or when we have it figured out or what the truth is. Humans remain the creative agent. In order for individual experiences to translate to others we perform a common set of steps. Something like, “Describe your observations, form a hypothesis, outline your methods, share your results.”

==== Open Source is Explicit ====

In the context of software, “open source” describes a codebase that is visible to all. Not only does this allow it to be audited by anyone. It also allows anyone to copy and modify its contents, put them to their own use. While democracy was certainly a step toward open source—when compared to monarchy—much of the operating system remains in the sphere of culture, an implicit understanding of ‘how things get done’.  Here is where the specifics of open source software lend a powerful example.

Creating open source cultural practices then is not just about revealing secrets, it is about making the necessary steps (or thoughts and beliefs) explicit.

Holoscopic is explicit in that each social map frames a very specific conversation space, sequences of maps allow groups to navigate a specific chain of thought. Both of these are visible and repeatable.

==== Open Source is Evolutionary ====

The open source software movement has generated tools used by billions. It generates collective knowledge and technologies worth trillions [Harvard Paper]. All of this is made possible not just through hard work and goodwill but with a piece of technology for making the development process visible to and modifiable by the crowd.

Git and [Github] is a piece of crucial infrastructure that enables this asynchronous global collaboration, revealing not just the final product but every incremental change to the system. The experiments and missteps, the negotiations between collaborators, every step of the process remains accessible to all. When a party wants to take a piece of code in a new direction, copying the codebase to a new project is called “forking”. What results is a complete tree of decisions, divergences and convergences that reveal not just what worked but the process through which it came about.

Holoscopic is evolutionary in that sequences can be copied and altered. Users can begin with established tools and make nudging improvements or adapt them to their community. The evolution of how the collective accesses key ideas becomes visible through the chain of adaptations as their work their way through the community.

==== ‘Whole’ Programming ====

Nobody wants to be programmed. That is, no one wants to lose agency, to be changed against their will. On the other hand if we can gain knowledge that makes our life better, we like that.  Workshops, degrees, physical and spiritual disciplines are often turned into programs for transferring knowledge from one to many.

As soon as we begin to discuss the design of collective programs there are territory battles about what is good, who knows how to create it and its impact on the broader environment. Here I would like to reimagine this process, taking leadership from a game of authority and winner-take-all to one of collective investigation and iterative discovery.

Collectives gather, map their perceptions, intentions, and actions, and share the processes that generate insight. Imagine this like the spec of dust dropped into super-cooled water that produces a chain reaction of crystallization. Not via economic or peer pressure but because like all good technology it answers a question or solves a problem that was seeking completion.