From: Jef Allbright (jef@jefallbright.net)
Date: Wed Dec 14 2005 - 10:17:18 MST
On 12/14/05, Richard Loosemore <rpwl@lightlink.com> wrote:
> I am entirely at a loss to know how what you just wrote bears on the
> text that I sent to the list.
>
> Did you mean that what I wrote was in the category of
>
> > <--snip--> // astute points about poorly defined concepts that are
> > meaningless upon deeper inspection
>
> What *I* wrote was meaningless upon deeper inspection???
Well, my statement would have been self-contradictory if it said what
you thought it might have. Since I started by calling them "astute
points", then it would not be likely that I would proceed to refer to
them as "meaningless upon further inspection." Much more likely that
I meant you made astute points about (poorly defined concepts that are
meaningless upon deeper inspection.) Namely, goal statements like
"thinking is good".
I was *supporting* you. Is that so unusual in your experience that
you don't easily recognize it when it occurs?
>
> And I am not sure what your suggest below is directed at.
>
> Clarification?
Sorry, it seems very clear to me. I don't know what kind of
clarification you want.
> > [more on evolving understanding]
> > I am increasingly frustrated by the observation and experience that on
> > the various transhumanist lists, a graph of posting frequency by
> > individual would show a hump, with those who have enthusiastic but
> > relatively incomplete thinking posting far more than those who have
> > more coherent views or those who may not have strong views at all.
> >
> > This is to be expected, but it tends to promote regression to the mean
> > more than leading-edge growth.
> >
> > Creative growth requires diverse input, but mining these transhumanist
> > lists for nuggets of leading edge ideas, or planting seeds of thought
> > when a fertile opportunity seems to be presented, provides such sparse
> > payback that I and many others question whether we've long since past
> > the point of diminishing returns.
> >
> > I think we've reached the point that we need new tools--an improved
> > framework--for collaborative thinking including concept mapping,
> > argument mapping, and shared knowledge that goes qualitatively beyond
> > the wiki and the email list. I don't have the available bandwidth to
> > create this or even to organize such a project, and I see it coming
> > just around the corner with all the growing awareness of "web 2.0" and
> > social software, but I would be very interested in contributing some
> > time and resources to such a project.
> >
> > - Jef
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:54 MDT