Homeqube Philosophy
Deconstructing?Systems.?Decentralizing?Power.?Democratizing?Knowledge.?
The proverbial expression ‘modern problems require modern solutions’ is a fitting description for the face of 21st?century innovations. But this can sometimes be hit-or-miss. The shock value of unveiling an innovation is not enough to guarantee its success.?
By looking into the philosophies behind successful creative solutions, we unraveled the formula that best suits our depiction of a good technological innovation:?deconstruction, decentralization,?and?democratization. Deconstruction is an overarching idea that seeks to challenge the production of old ways and reconstruct new ones. With decentralization, the goal is to become independent from authority. Finally, democratization celebrates freedom and access. When combined, these three forms of disruption can serve as strong philosophical foundations for an ideal 21st?century innovation.?
The goal is, therefore, to achieve unity in encompassing this trinity of concepts: Deconstruct systems. Decentralize power. Democratize knowledge.?
Let’s look at these concepts more closely.?
Deconstructing systems.?
The idea of?destruction?is often seen as a negative event. It connotes the death of pre- established structures. A destruction of a building entails the loss of all resources, planning, and efforts that were put into the very act of building it, to begin with. It is perceived as the direct antagonist of?creation.?When the Library of Alexandria was torn into pieces, centuries’ worth of knowledge was destroyed along with it. Similarly, the destruction of natural resources prompted the emergence of climate change.?
Destruction, generally speaking, can be catastrophic.?
But perhaps, this manner of thinking is simply a product of convention and could, in principle, be unlearned – or better yet – contested. A French philosopher by the name of Jacques Derrida introduced the idea of?deconstruction?as a disruption to the conventional ways of seeing things – a break from the old-fashioned?binary?modes of thinking.1?For the longest time, we have been attracted to the concept of putting things into?binary oppositions?or?dualities. We understand?love?in terms of how it opposes?hate,?text?as it opposes?speech,?man?as it opposes?woman,?reason?as it opposes?emotion, and?creation?as it opposes?destruction. Often, these binary oppositions, or dualities, carry with them an unnecessary hierarchy – where one is superior, and the other, inferior:?love?as being better than?hate,?text?as more privileged than?speech,?man?as being better than?woman,?reason?as being stronger than?emotion, and?creation?as being superior to?destruction.?
But the truth of the matter is that these binary oppositions tend to create more boxes for us to put our conventional methods into.?Deconstruction?deviates from this very tradition.?
As a philosophy, deconstruction redefines the way we look at the world. We no longer see?text?as being superior to?speech2; a revolution for the equality of the sexes is ongoing as we speak; and gone are the days when?emotion?is perceived as irrelevant to societal relationships. Perhaps, the same can be said of the opposition between?creation?and?destruction. Perhaps, rather than seeing creation and destruction as polar opposites, they can be seen as cooperative components in a more holistic and harmonious process.?
But this breaking of binary oppositions is only the first step in the deconstructive method. The reason why we want to break these binaries is to demonstrate that structures are not set in stone and that, in fact, they can be broken.?Love?andhate?can be contradictory, but they can just as easily co-exist as a human emotion.?Man?and?woman?may not be equal in all respects, but they are not fixed within predetermined roles. Breaking these dualities entails that we can disassemble the structure and reassemble them to form a new one – one that works. The structures, in short, are never fixed.?
This notion that structures are not set in stone and can, therefore, be broken into pieces is visible in several industries today. In gaming, the development of Virtual Reality (VR) technology allowed players to fully interact with the fictional components embedded within a game. No longer do we see a fixed opposition between?reality?and?fiction, as such technology demonstrates; on the contrary, we see them intermingle with each other.?
The oposition between?big?and?small?machines, where the ‘bigger is better’ slogan seemed to have originated is also evidently challenged. Smartphone companies appear to be aiming for more minimalist and compact mechanisms to sell in the market. And even in healthcare, nanotechnology reinforces the idea that tiny inventions can generate gigantic impacts.?
These successes can be attributed to a courageous venturing into a destruction of pre- established structures. The key is to start deconstructing systems.?
Decentralizing power.?
If deconstructing systems involve a disruption of traditional binaries, what about decentralizing power??
When we think about the concept of a?center, we think of a middle point within a network. Every point must pass through the center to get to the opposite pole. Any legitimate business, for instance, has to pass through a central government in order to get his goods and services to his target consumers. Centralized systems are systems that involve this very middle point. It is no secret then that in such systems, the center holds a lot of power.?
So, what happens when we remove the center??
French thinkers Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari introduced the concept of networks that are decentered, but which are nevertheless interconnected.3?Networks that embody this nature are considered?rhizomic. A rhizome has multiple entry points, so that transactions can be made through multiple ways, without any need for a central authority.?
But the idea of removing the center is only at the surface of decentralization, (even though it is literally what the name implies). A second layer to unpacking this concept is the notion of?power.?
Decentrlization in technology is all about the redistribution of power. When a system, let’s say, a banking system, is regulated by an external party, control is often compromised as a result of regulation. It is the middle point, the center, that profits out of the disproportion in power. It is for this very reason that?decentralization?became widely celebrated in tech industries (i.e., in the Silicon Valley)?4; particularly, those industries that utilize the blockchain technology, from BitTorrent to Bitcoin, and more recently, non- fungible tokens (NFTs).?
In what is perhaps the most recognizable article in the cryptocurrency space, the anonymized author/s under the guises of the name ‘Satoshi Nakamoto’, wrote that in Bitcoin, “there is no central authority” that will issue the incentives for its transactions.5?Having no central authority means that the transactions that take place within such a system can be purely peer to peer, as it removes the middle point. More importantly, in this system, control is redistributed to the peers within the network.?
The blockchain technology in Bitcoin is historic because, for the first time, the value of currency can be determined by the people. One can only imagine what other industries could potentially progress through the very act of removing centers and distributing powers.?
Power and control are traditionally seen as tools of oppression. But in a decentralized, rhizomic network, it is possible to overturn this perception. Indeed, power and control – in the wrong hands – can be oppressive. But when redistributed, they can be liberating.?
And this liberty is all thanks to the process of decentralizing power.?
Democratizing knowledge.?
Having a deconstructed system in place, combined with the decentralization of power is already a strong start. The only thing left to do at this point is to identify proper channels for the acquisition of knowledge.?Knowing?entails that one is involved in the intellectual process. And this involvement can only be guaranteed when knowledge becomes democratized.?
But what’s in it for us? Why would we want to know??
Knowledge, according to Francis Bacon, is power.6?In philosophy, this is considered?pragmatic?in approach, because it entails that not only is knowledge useful in the mind, but this value can be extended into practice. It not only satisfies our intellectual appetites and curiosities, but it can also be used as a means to get by in our practical lives. Knowing that the plate is hot prevents us from touching it. Knowing the trends in the stock market directly affects our trading decisions. Knowing the intricate details of a disease allows us to create measures that will eventually stop it from spreading.?
When one knows, one is capable of turning that knowledge into action. And the way to make this happen is through democratization.?
Democratization is all about celebrating freedom and access. A democratized platform is one that puts?accessible mechanisms?that?maximize people’s freedoms?in place. When knowledge is monopolized and deprived from the public, it makes it very difficult for people to maximize its use. After all, how can we use something we that we don’t have access to??
In current affairs, democratization, as a process, has made its way onto the forefront of information sharing. YouTube is a very good example of a democratized platform where one can participate in the so-called “marketplace of ideas.” Rather than serving as passive consumers, the participant can be both a viewer and a content creator. And even non- creators have the opportunity to engage in the creation process by utilizing the comment sections and other engagement features.?
The same can be said about PC building cultures where freedom in customization had become of utmost priority. In the past, computers were not commercially available, and when they became so, they came with preexisting components and features which were quite difficult to reverse-engineer. But these days, options to customize computers by handpicking their individual parts are accessible to consumers. People are given the freedom to not only use these computers, but to modify them according to their liking.?
Democratized platforms are therefore platforms that give people the opportunity to?know?and?be involved?in the creation process.?
When we democratize, we allow freedom and access.?
Closing?
The formula is simple but groundbreaking: Deconstruct systems, decentralize power, and democratize knowledge. By deconstructing systems, we challenge the conventional structures that are in place, break them down, and build new ones. By decentralizing power, we remove authority and redistribute control over to the hands of the people. And by democratizing knowledge, we make information free and accessible to the public, and, consequently, involve them in the creation process.?
Now, imagine putting all these together in our efforts to revolutionize the process for home building. This is where Homeqube enters the picture.?
1?Jacques Derrida (1992).?Positions.?
2?In reference to the so-called?linguistic turn?in continental philosophy.?
3?Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari (1980),?A Thousand Plateaus?
4?Marcella Atzori (2017). “Blockchain Technology and Decentralized Governance: Is the State Still Necessary?”?Journal of Governance and Regulation.
5?Satoshi Nakamoto (2008). “Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System.” www.bitcoin.org.?
6?Stephen Gaukroger (2004),?Francis Bacon and the Transformation of Early-Modern Philosophy.?