[p2p-research] on the myth of attention scarcity

Sun Nov 28 03:28:40 CET 2010

Hi Brian,

this is actually a good direction I feel, as really, I'm not an optimist,
but rather, I feel hope is very important and crucial to constructive
action, and my own hope was indeed born out of an experience of great
despair,

we're all gonna die anyway, and this can lead either to the greatest
despair, all is naught, or to live life more to the fullest, in connection
with others but especially those coming after us, in a great chain of being,
life, and consciousness

you can always dwell on the direst possible outcome as something inevitable
and beyond human agency, or you can see this as an opportunity for change
for recreating the social world

there is a popular saying in my language, Flemish, which says:

"dear God, grant me the wisdom to see what can be changed, to recognize what
can't, and to see the difference between both"

the world is a tragic place, with most of our good intentions turning to
errors and fiasco's, if not to their opposite,

but there is one thing worse, to trying to make the world a better place,
and that is to do nothing,

change agents may fail again and again, but if they wouldn't be there, it
would be so much worse,

even if we only achieve a homeopathic dosis of change, it does make a
difference,

Michel

On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 10:18 PM, Brian Davey <briadavey at googlemail.com>wrote:

> I think I've told you about the book, of which I am a contributor,
> that is just out. ("Fleeing Vesuvius" published by Feasta). Another
> one of the articles in that book is by John Sharry, who is a
> psychotherapist. The article is titled "Cultivating Hope and Managing
> Despair". It is quite a nuanced view, but I think very relevant and on
> the ball on these kind of issues.
>
> Hope and despair are part of a dynamic process and Sharry quotes
> Miguel de Unamuno who writes that
>
> "It is in the deepest despair that is born the greatest hope"
>
> He quotes too the work of Buddhist Joanna Macey who leads "despair and
> empowerment" workshops designed to help groups express and process the
> feelings of grief at the destruction of the people and planet, with a
> view to helping overcome helplessness and hopelessness and reach a
> more empowered, constructive decision. In this view hope and despair
> are not either/or - one can flow out of the other....
>
> There are other quotes about hope in this article that I think are
> useful. For example:
>
> "Hope is definitely not the same thing as optimism. It is not the
> conviction that something will turn out well, but the certainty that
> something makes sense regardless of how it turns out" (Vaclav Havel)
> and "Hope is the process of arriving at a goal - no matter how much it
> has shifted - and making sense of the journey there" (Kaethe
> Weingarten ).
>
> So in this view hope is something to do with making sense of
> things....(I would add - and thus not being lost, disorientated and
> hence frightened and confused and not knowing what to do or where to
> turn)....
>
> Sharry also quotes Kaethe Weingarten to the effect that "you can do
> hope without feeling hope". Creating hope is largely a choice about
> taking constructive action and you don't have to wait until you feel
> hopeful to take this action.
>
> So my reply to you would be to ask two questions - what you mean by
> "hope" and what do you mean by "offering"  in the phrase "offering
> hope"?
>
> The movement that we create certainly has to engage with the issue of
> hope but how we do that may be quite nuanced, and may involve
> accompanying people through despair, setting an example by "doing
> hope" even if, and when, we do not feel it.
>
> This is about understanding and feeling "hope" as a real emotional and
> psychological phenomena inside ourselves, and in the dynamic of our
> dealings with others, and not regarding "hope" as if it is an
> important optional ingredient in a successful PR strategy that we
> decide to add to get a maximal market response to our messages....
>
> Brian
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>
> Date: Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 1:12 PM
> Subject: Re: on the myth of attention scarcity
> To: Brian Davey <briadavey at googlemail.com>
> Cc: Peer-To-Peer Research List <p2presearch at listcultures.org>, Julio
> Lambing <julio.lambing at e5.org>
>
>
> Thanks Brian,
>
> I also doubt that this issue will be solved by an abundance of
> information, but I don't think it would be solved by restricting free
> peer to peer communication either,
>
> what is at issue here is not the internet, but the rage of a middle
> class that sees only the way down, a left that decides to manage
> austerity, and a right that speaks to their class anger,
>
> but here is something I wanted to say earlier, a question really: have
> you ever seen a successfull social movement, that presided over a deep
> phase transition, that did not offer hope to its adherents?
>
> this is why it is important, not just to focus on blood and tears and
> 'it's only going to get worse', but also on a plausible promise for a
> better reality for all,
>
> Michel
>
> On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 7:46 PM, Brian Davey <briadavey at googlemail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > "there is a hardening taking place in times of social stress" -
> >
> > Indeed. Here's a quote from an article that someone just sent me:
> >
> > "Republican Party activists, in collaboration with fossil fuel
> > interests and conservative think tanks, had successfully associated
> > acceptance of global warming science with “liberal” views. In other
> > words, they had activated the human predisposition to adopt views that
> > cement one’s
> > connections with cultural groups that strengthen one’s definition of
> > self. In the 1990s
> > views on global warming were influenced mostly by attentiveness to the
> > science; now
> > one can make a good guess at an American’s opinion on global warming by
> > identifying their views on abortion, same-sex marriage and gun-control.
> >
> >
> http://www.clivehamilton.net.au/cms/media/why_we_resist_the_truth_about_climate_change.pdf
> >
> > I don't know whether you went to see the exhibition in Berlin on
> > Hitler and the German people. A big section of that was on
> > "Gleichschaltung" - how people yearned to a UNIFIED view that everyone
> > shared without the chaos as they saw it of multiple viewpoints, all
> > agreeing on someone to say what the correct unified viewpoint was (too
> > much immaterial abundance you might say, they couldn't stand it!) -
> > naturally everyone outside that was then persecuted...to their
> > graves....
> >
> > What we are watching here watching US Gleichschaltung taking place.
> >
> > It is an ugly spectacle and I doubt that it will be solved by an
> > abundance of information - because an abundance of information
> > typically represents an abundance of different viewpoints and
> > perspectives, which is what such people cannot cope with....
> >
> > Brian
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 12:40 AM, Michel Bauwens
> > <michelsub2004 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > yes, I had read the email, not the full link, and indeed, I agree, many
> > > differences arise this way ..
> > >
> > > but overall I would think the paradox is that more people than ever are
> now
> > > able to take on multi-perspectives, though of course, not all, and
> there is
> > > also a hardening taking place in times of social stress,
> > >
> > >
> > > Michel
> > >
> > > On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 5:37 PM, Brian Davey <briadavey at googlemail.com
> >
> > > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Here is something from the email that you just sent
> > >>
> > >> "the second is whether the pathologies you describe are the result of
> > >> internet, or of a host of reasons ... have you ever heard of
> > >> capitalist competition, on the pressure to produce ever more?"
> > >>
> > >> Michel, in the email that I sent there was a link to a web essay that
> > >> I had written on time pathology. This web essay makes perfectly clear
> > >> that I have a major place in my thinking for capitalist competition
> > >> and "a host of other reasons"
> > >>
> > >> Perhaps you did not have the time to read it? Perhaps you shot back a
> > >> reply without devoting attention to my full viewpoint.
> > >>
> > >> If so I think this makes my point rather well.
> > >>
> > >> Let me hasten to add I don't blame you for this. This is the form of
> > >> most disagreements. People "impatient" with each other - without the
> > >> time to clarify differences.
> > >>
> > >> How may times do disagreements arise from different viewpoints - you
> > >> look over a valley from north to south and I, on the other side, from
> > >> south to north, and then quarrel about what is the correct statement
> > >> of what is in the valley
> > >>
> > >> A major reason for this quarrel would then be, not only the different
> > >> viewpoints, but the sheer lack of time to settle and work through the
> > >> differences.
> > >>
> > >> You have clearly made no effort to actually try to understand my view
> > >> by reading the link. But then it would be unrealistic and perhaps
> > >> unreasonable of me to insist that you did. You might indeed resent me
> > >> for demanding that you did - especially in an era in which I can cut
> > >> and pasted several days worth of reading and study in a second. You
> > >> might interpret a demand from me that you read and interpret my full
> > >> ideas as attention seeking and get impatient with me for demanding you
> > >> devote too much of your time to my ideas....
> > >>
> > >> Most of us do not have adequate time to fully investigate the ideas of
> > >> other people and I think that many problems, perhaps most, would be
> > >> resolved if we had infinite time to work through differences.
> > >>
> > >> We do not have infinite time however - and there is the problem....we
> > >> have limited time so we "get impatient with each other"
> > >>
> > >> I'm afraid I do not have time to resolve this difference either.
> > >>
> > >> Brian
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 10:15 AM, Michel Bauwens
> > >> <michelsub2004 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > Hi Brian,
> > >> > there are several issues,
> > >> > two are important to me,
> > >> > the first is that you assume a static human mind,
> > >> > but this is absolutely not the case,
> > >> > when I taught my students about internet search, what takes me about
> 2
> > >> > minutes would take my students more than an hour, even as they
> thought
> > >> > they
> > >> > were internet savvy .. this has nothing to do with smartness per se,
> but
> > >> > with skill, and skills can be taught
> > >> > stowe is right, just as our tribal forefathers had to distill a huge
> > >> > amount
> > >> > of natural signs, and they were so much more sensitive to this than
> us,
> > >> > so
> > >> > we have with virtual signs ..
> > >> > of course, I'm not saying there are no issues, but you do a huge
> > >> > disservice
> > >> > to people by painting them as mere victims,
> > >> > have you not heard or experienced in previous times, teenage girls
> who
> > >> > were
> > >> > addicted to the phone, scholars who can't stop reading books, but
> would
> > >> > this
> > >> > really lead you to the conclusion that the telephone or books are
> bad,
> > >> > rather than just think this is an issue of the proper place of
> various
> > >> > media
> > >> > in our lives, and of seeking balance between them?
> > >> > just as with the invention of writing, then printing, and now the
> > >> > digital,
> > >> > we are faced with a challenge, positives AND negatives, progress AND
> > >> > regress, not one OR the other
> > >> > the second is whether the pathologies you describe are the result of
> > >> > internet, or of a host of reasons ... have you ever heard of
> capitalist
> > >> > competition, on the pressure to produce ever more?
> > >> > so this is a form of vulgar technological determinism (nothing
> personal,
> > >> > just stating a analytical category here), when stating that the
> > >> > internet, or
> > >> > more information, is the sole perpetrator
> > >> > so, yes, the ability to create collective intelligence is a social
> > >> > progress,
> > >> > and micromedia are better than corporate controlled mass media, and
> it
> > >> > presents huge opportunities for self-organising and facing
> > >> > sustainability
> > >> > challenges and solutions, but along with opportunities, come
> challenges,
> > >> > difficulties, and new problems,
> > >> > as mcluhan already showed, every technological advance brings new
> > >> > affordances to us as a species, but 'handicaps' us as individuals,
> > >> > the problem is not technology and tools, the human has been a
> > >> > tool-making
> > >> > animal from the very beginning and language is one of our tools (and
> > >> > perhaps
> > >> > not unllike the logic you propose, john zerzan yearns for for a
> return
> > >> > to
> > >> > the human condition 'before language')
> > >> > the problem is how techhnology and tools are embedded in social
> systems,
> > >> > who
> > >> > directs their development, how individuals and societies adapt,
> > >> > yes, we can reject particular technologies, for example GMO or
> nuclear
> > >> > energy for their deleterious effect, and it is legitimate for you to
> > >> > reject
> > >> > digital technologies (which you seem to do only theoretically, since
> you
> > >> > seem an avid user of the technologies you are decrying), and I
> admire
> > >> > hermits, amish and others, but it is not a solution for all,
> > >> > and as long as social conflict endures, it would be unwise for
> social
> > >> > change
> > >> > agents and the mass of the people, to renounce autonomous media,
> > >> > acquiesce
> > >> > corporate controlled mass media as the sole reality that is
> acceptable,
> > >> > digital media are a weapon for social change, the 'enemy' uses it
> and
> > >> > used
> > >> > it 15 years before we could create our own, and it would be unwise
> to
> > >> > let
> > >> > tools of bottom-up and egalitarian organisation lay fallow, just
> because
> > >> > of
> > >> > a fear of complexity and a fear to learn new skills
> > >> > I don't mind that you have a different vision of this, but of
> course,
> > >> > when
> > >> > you approvingly quoted a proposal to abolish our civil rights for
> > >> > communication, that is an entirely different matter, because I
> realize
> > >> > that
> > >> > people who choose this path are positioning themselves as enemies of
> the
> > >> > digital commons, instead of seeking commonality between commoners
> across
> > >> > the
> > >> > board
> > >> > I think this, rather than the technology itself, is the real danger
> for
> > >> > our
> > >> > movement,
> > >> > what is the point of your list at the end?
> > >> > that you think some people think that computing will "solve all our
> > >> > problems", that computing is directly causing these pathologies? I
> think
> > >> > none of these two statements is valid,
> > >> > the only truth is that some people will develop these symptoms, for
> a
> > >> > variety of complex reasons, mostly due to personal dispositions,
> > >> > neurotic
> > >> > family structures, and a particular social orders which may favour
> them
> > >> > ..
> > >> > they occured way before the internet, and will occur way after the
> > >> > emergence
> > >> > of the internet
> > >> > to suggest that they occur as the result of the internet, which
> > >> > therefore is
> > >> > a bad thing, is a huge simplification,
> > >> > I'm with you on sustainability, but indeed, we have a huge
> divergence on
> > >> > the
> > >> > social benefits of peer to peer communication,
> > >> > Michel
> > >> > Michel
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 9:16 PM, Brian Davey <
> briadavey at googlemail.com>
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Once again I wish I had more time because I find myself in
> fundamental
> > >> >> philosophical disagreement with you Michel.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Once again I find myself completely at odds with your assumptions
> and
> > >> >> the complete absence of any reference to the mental health
> dimensions
> > >> >> of what you are publicising.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> "The framing of the argument includes the unspoken premise that
> once
> > >> >> upon a  time in some hypothetical past attention wasn’t scarce, we
> > >> >> didn’t suffer from too much information, and we had all the time in
> > >> >> the world to reason about the world, our place in it, and therefore
> to
> > >> >> make wise and grounded decisions."
> > >> >>
> > >> >> There are two issues here - the amount of information that "we"
> > >> >> (humanity) had then and that we have now. That is issue number one.
> > >> >> Issue number two is about time.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> You want to process more information then you need to do it more
> > >> >> intensively and you need more time. The more  time you take the
> > >> >> greater the complexity of the picture of the world you build up and
> > >> >> the greater the complexity of the responses.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> The greater the complexity of the responses to be managed in a
> given
> > >> >> amount of time then the greater the time pressure....
> > >> >>
> > >> >> The pace of life speeds up....it speeds up because electronics
> makes
> > >> >> possible the processing of huge quantities of data, because
> transport
> > >> >> technologies move people around faster, because production
> processes
> > >> >> can occur faster.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Fossil fuels and the technologies that they make possible,
> including
> > >> >> data processing ones, are aphetamines to the pace of social and
> > >> >> economic life.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> This temporal dimension of modern technologies rarely gets
> considered
> > >> >> - or how destructive it is and the general assumption is that more
> and
> > >> >> faster is better.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> At some point however the speed becomes incompatible with the body
> and
> > >> >> mental rhythms on which we are based.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Hyped by (toxic) fossil fuels we start to find that society has
> become
> > >> >> manic.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> More and more information can only be processed and used by
> carrying
> > >> >> society into a kind of social and economic and cultural mania.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> As far as I can see, you appear to be unaware of the dangers of
> this
> > >> >> dimension and publicise this process as if it was some kind of
> > >> >> progress, when it is not progress at all - it is a society going
> out
> > >> >> of balance with profound health effects...if is
> > >> >>
> > >> >> SOCIAL INSANITY
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Here's the other way of looking at it:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> http://www.bgmi.us/web/bdavey/Pathologies.htm
> > >> >>
> > >> >> The fact that I do not have enough time to engage is part of the
> > >> >> problem that I am pointing to.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Further to that the idea that more and more information can ever
> > >> >> provide us with all the information we need is itself an untenable
> > >> >> idea. There are many reasons for this - one of them being we do not
> > >> >> only lack information because there is a lack of processing and
> > >> >> storage capacity but also because of taboos, censorship, secrets,
> > >> >> errors, delusions and so on...
> > >> >>
> > >> >> There was a book published recently called "The Virtues of
> Ignorance.
> > >> >> Complexity, Sustainability and the Limits of Knowledge." It is a
> quote
> > >> >> from it that I heartily endorse as consistent with my own world
> view:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> " Ignorance does not mean the rejection of all knowledge. Rather,
> it
> > >> >> entails an acknowledgement of how much we do not know, coupled with
> an
> > >> >> awareness that anything we claim to know..... we know only
> partially
> > >> >> and tentatively and this is always subject to revision. (This does
> not
> > >> >> imply, it is worth pointing out, that an ignorance based worldview,
> > >> >> and its corresponding ethic, must go as far as some post-modernist
> > >> >> approaches in denying the possibility of any knowledge). We need to
> > >> >> approach knowledge, and action that leads from knowledge, with
> > >> >> humility because we are fallible... we can hold better and worse
> > >> >> knowledge but never any complete, perfect, or final knowledge. And,
> > >> >> whatever we know it is always from a specific, partial perspective
> - a
> > >> >> standpoint that fundamentally shapes our way of knowing as well is
> the
> > >> >> content of our knowledge."  from Anna L Peterson in  "The Virtues
> of
> > >> >> Ignorance. Complexity, Sustainability and the Limits of Knowledge"
> > >> >> edited by Bill Vitek and Wes Jackson.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> For my own clarification last year I drew up this list, partly
> based
> > >> >> on the taxonomies in the Vitek and Jackson book, but expanded a
> little.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> No matter how powerful the computing, some of these problems will
> > >> >> never be resolved:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Known unknowns - things/situations that you know you don't know
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Unknown unknowns - things/situations that you don't know you don't
> know
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Taboos - things/situations that your peer group/the law/the culture
> > >> >> think you should not try to get to know
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Errors - things that you think you know which are wrong/are not the
> > >> >> case.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Delusions - errors in which you (and perhaps your group) have an
> > >> >> emotional investment which are thus difficult to shift
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Paranoias - hypotheses about the nature of unknowns that impute
> > >> >> motives by others that are to be feared.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Denials - things which are too painful to know so you ignore
> > >> >> information that confirms them
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Unknown knowns - things that you know but are unaware of knowing
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Disorientation - unknowing in a (changed/changing or new) field of
> > >> >> interrelationships or interconnections - often when it is in
> movement
> > >> >> from one stable state to a new stable state.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Madness - disorientation plus anger and/or distress
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Informational assymetry - unknowns for some people that are known
> to
> > >> >> others (vested interests blocking information flow)
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Costly information - situations where getting to know costs so much
> > >> >> that partial or innaccurate knowing or even ignorance may be chosen
> > >> >> instead
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Deception - hiding knowns from others or fostering errors or
> delusions.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Perspective - partial knowns perceived one sidedly, from a
> particular
> > >> >> viewpoint
> > >> >>
> > >> >> End of list
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 7:59 PM, Michel Bauwens
> > >> >> <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>
> > >> >> wrote:
> > >> >> > excerpted from stowe boyd at
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> http://www.stoweboyd.com/post/764818419/the-false-question-of-attention-economics
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > This thread of Western philosophical discourse — attention
> scarcity,
> > >> >> > future
> > >> >> > shock, information overload — has become the conventional wisdom.
> It
> > >> >> > seems
> > >> >> > to be based on unassailable and unshakable logic. But what is
> that
> > >> >> > logic?
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > The framing of the argument includes the unspoken premise that
> once
> > >> >> > upon
> > >> >> > a
> > >> >> > time in some hypothetical past attention wasn’t scarce, we didn’t
> > >> >> > suffer
> > >> >> > from too much information, and we had all the time in the world
> to
> > >> >> > reason
> > >> >> > about the world, our place in it, and therefore to make wise and
> > >> >> > grounded
> > >> >> > decisions.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > But my reading of human history suggests the opposite. In the
> > >> >> > pre-industrial
> > >> >> > world, business people and governments still suffered from
> incomplete
> > >> >> > information, and the pace of life always seemed faster than what
> had
> > >> >> > gone on
> > >> >> > in earlier times. At every point in human history there have been
> > >> >> > philosophers claiming that the current civilization has fallen
> from
> > >> >> > an
> > >> >> > earlier halcyon state, that the ways of the ancients had been
> lost,
> > >> >> > and
> > >> >> > modern innovations and practices threatened to destroy all that
> was
> > >> >> > good
> > >> >> > in
> > >> >> > society and culture.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > So, this is merely the most recent spin on an ancient theme, as
> the
> > >> >> > Diderot
> > >> >> > quote indicates.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > Imagine for a moment that it is true — there was an idyllic time
> back
> > >> >> > in
> > >> >> > the
> > >> >> > Garden of Eden — when we knew all that was necessary to know, and
> we
> > >> >> > had
> > >> >> > all
> > >> >> > the time in the world to make decisions. Maybe. I am betting it
> is a
> > >> >> > shadow
> > >> >> > of our psychology, the same sort of magical thought that believes
> in
> > >> >> > guardian angels and reincarnation. Just a slightly more
> intellectual
> > >> >> > superstition.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > Another thread of this argument is that human beings don’t have
> the
> > >> >> > capacity
> > >> >> > to winnow out the information we need given the torrent of
> > >> >> > information
> > >> >> > streaming past, which is in a sense Diderot’s conjecture. But we
> > >> >> > really
> > >> >> > don’t know what we are capable of, honestly.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > The human mind is exceptionally plastic, especially when young
> people
> > >> >> > are
> > >> >> > exposed to media and symbolic information systems at an early
> age.
> > >> >> > This
> > >> >> > is
> > >> >> > why those that take up the study of music, or programming, or
> karate
> > >> >> > at
> > >> >> > a
> > >> >> > young age, and study for 10,000 hours gain mastery of these
> skills,
> > >> >> > which
> > >> >> > can be accomplished before reaching 20 years of age. And even
> older
> > >> >> > people
> > >> >> > can have significant improvements in cognitive skills — like
> juggling
> > >> >> > or
> > >> >> > flight simulation games — with relative small exposure.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > I suggest we just haven’t experimented enough with ways to render
> > >> >> > information in more usable ways, and once we start to do so, it
> will
> > >> >> > like
> > >> >> > take 10 years (the 10,000 hour rule again) before anyone
> demonstrates
> > >> >> > real
> > >> >> > mastery of the techniques involved.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > These are generational time scales, people. And note: the only
> ones
> > >> >> > that
> > >> >> > will benefit in the next ten years will be those that expend the
> time
> > >> >> > needed
> > >> >> > to stretch the cognition we have, now, into the configuration
> needed
> > >> >> > to
> > >> >> > extract more from the increasingly real-time web.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > The most difficult argument to make is the following:
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > We have always been confronted with a world — both natural and
> > >> >> > human-made —
> > >> >> > that offers an infinite amount of information.
> > >> >> > We have devised cultural tools — like written language,
> mathematics,
> > >> >> > and
> > >> >> > the
> > >> >> > scientific method — to help understand the world in richer ways,
> over
> > >> >> > and
> > >> >> > above our emotional and inbuilt cognitive capabilities.
> > >> >> > We are heading into a post-industrial world where information
> systems
> > >> >> > and
> > >> >> > the social matrix of the web have become the most important human
> > >> >> > artifact,
> > >> >> > one that is repurposing everything that has come before.
> > >> >> > We will need to construct new and more complex cultural tools —
> > >> >> > things
> > >> >> > like
> > >> >> > augmented reality, massively parallel social tools, and
> ubiquitous
> > >> >> > mobile
> > >> >> > connected devices — and new societal norms and structures to
> assist
> > >> >> > us
> > >> >> > in
> > >> >> > using them effectively.
> > >> >> > Many commentators — including Armano and Peterson — allude to the
> now
> > >> >> > generally accepted notion that we will have to leverage social
> > >> >> > systems
> > >> >> > (relying on social tools) to accomplish some part of the heavy
> > >> >> > lifting
> > >> >> > in
> > >> >> > whatever new schemes we develop for understanding this new world.
> But
> > >> >> > it
> > >> >> > has
> > >> >> > only been 10 years since we’ve been talking about social tools,
> and
> > >> >> > less
> > >> >> > than five that we had anything like real-time streaming
> applications
> > >> >> > or
> > >> >> > tools involving millions of users. It’s early days.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > I think that the rise of the social web, just like writing, the
> > >> >> > printing
> > >> >> > press, and the invention of money, is not really about the the
> end of
> > >> >> > what
> > >> >> > came before, but instead is the starting point for what comes
> next:
> > >> >> > richer
> > >> >> > and more complex societies. These technologies are a bridge we
> use to
> > >> >> > cross
> > >> >> > over into something new, not a wrecking ball tearing down the
> old.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > In the final analysis, I am saying there is no ‘answer’ to those
> that
> > >> >> > say we
> > >> >> > are overloaded, that we are being driven mad by or enslaved to
> the
> > >> >> > tools
> > >> >> > we
> > >> >> > are experimenting with, or that there is some attention calculus
> that
> > >> >> > trumps
> > >> >> > all other value systems.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > I suggest we just haven’t experimented enough with ways to render
> > >> >> > information in more usable ways, and once we start to do so, it
> will
> > >> >> > like
> > >> >> > take 10 years (the 10,000 hour rule again) before anyone
> demonstrates
> > >> >> > real
> > >> >> > mastery of the techniques involved.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > Instead, I suggest we continue experimenting, cooking up new ways
> to
> > >> >> > represent and experience the flow of information, our friends’
> > >> >> > thoughts,
> > >> >> > recommendations, and whims, and the mess that is boiling in the
> huge
> > >> >> > cauldron we call the web.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > There is no “answer” since they are asking a false question, one
> that
> > >> >> > hides
> > >> >> > preconceived premises and biases. Starting out with the
> assumption
> > >> >> > that
> > >> >> > we
> > >> >> > have moved past our abilities to cope with the stream of
> information,
> > >> >> > and
> > >> >> > therefore something has to give, is a bias.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > In part, this arises from the desire of economists like Simon to
> find
> > >> >> > what
> > >> >> > is scarce, and ascribe a value to it. Or to media and PR types,
> who
> > >> >> > want
> > >> >> > to
> > >> >> > control discourse, and fill it with their ‘messages’ and
> influence
> > >> >> > social
> > >> >> > opinion or buying behavior.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > But from a cognitive and anthropological viewpoint, these
> concerns
> > >> >> > are
> > >> >> > something like Socrate’s argument that learning to read and write
> > >> >> > would
> > >> >> > debase the cognition of those that had become literate. In his
> era
> > >> >> > the
> > >> >> > ability to remember thousands of verses of poetry was the
> baseline
> > >> >> > for
> > >> >> > being
> > >> >> > enculturated, and he believed that something fundamental would be
> > >> >> > lost
> > >> >> > if we
> > >> >> > were to rely on books instead of our memories. He believed that
> > >> >> > writing
> > >> >> > was
> > >> >> > the fall from a better time, a lesser way to think and understand
> the
> > >> >> > world.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > I think that the rise of the social web, just like writing, the
> > >> >> > printing
> > >> >> > press, and the invention of money, is not really about the the
> end of
> > >> >> > what
> > >> >> > came before, but instead is the starting point for what comes
> next:
> > >> >> > richer
> > >> >> > and more complex societies. These technologies are a bridge we
> use to
> > >> >> > cross
> > >> >> > over into something new, not a wrecking ball tearing down the
> old.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > There is no golden past that we have fallen from, and it is
> unlikely
> > >> >> > that we
> > >> >> > are going to hit finite human limits that will stop us from a
> larger
> > >> >> > and
> > >> >> > deeper understanding of the world in the decades ahead, because
> we
> > >> >> > are
> > >> >> > constantly extending culture to help reformulate how we perceive
> the
> > >> >> > world
> > >> >> > and our place in it.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > --
> > >> >> > P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  -
> > >> >> > http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
> > >> >> >
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens;
> http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
> > >> >> > http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > Think tank:
> > >> >> > http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > --
> > >> > P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  -
> > >> > http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
> > >> >
> > >> > Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
> > >> >
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
> > >> >
> > >> > Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens;
> http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
> > >> > http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
> > >> >
> > >> > Think tank:
> http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  -
> http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
> > >
> > > Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
> > > http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
> > >
> > > Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
> > > http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
> > >
> > > Think tank:
> http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>
>
> --
> P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
>
> Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>
> Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
> http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
>
> Think tank: http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
>

-- 
P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net

Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org

Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens

Think tank: http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20101128/437c90c3/attachment-0001.html>