I agree with you that when it comes to model/modal building it is best not to
envision utopian conditions or solutions -- nor is sheer pragmatism enough
because such a model lacks the necessary generalized qualities and
characteristics for it to remain dynamic -- consequently for my self the
network model in which each node has the potential to inform/ limit and
influence each corresponding node is the most practical means of thinking
through these things -- because it represents the least deterministic construct
due to the fact that the number of variables at play -- in turn to realize any
project within this structure -- which may be seen to be inherently anarchistic
-- but in actuality is not -- requires collaboration and agreement for short
as well as long term initiatives.
As for the sliding scale thing I find this too dualistic and constructed more
often then not on false dichotomies that do not render up a point of
differance -- again, it is one of the reasons that networking is of interest
to me in that its form tends to be 4 dimensional existing in time and
space -- while its structure is either a hybrid or synthesis of the
geometric and organic
John Hopkins wrote:
| | . As for the sliding scale thing I find this todualistic and constructed
more or less on false dichtomies
I generally present networks as a social/technical concept versus
heirarchies each at the ends of a sliding scale. The axis of this
scale is a qualitative measure of the 'quality' and especially
'balance' of bi-directional exchanges of human energies (which are
specifically NOT limited to linguistic-based exchange), but refers to
the TOTAL 'spectrum' of 'real' energy exchange occuring. It is
possible to position a variety of different types of social
organization on this scale using this criteria.
The scale may also incorporate general values like static/dynamic,
death/life, closed/open, filtered/unfiltered and other fuzzy
concepts...
Neither ends of the scale exist as absolutes in the actual social
sphere; and the social matrix that we are embedded in dynamically
oscillates along the scale. Positions on the scale are also
determined by the macro/micro social situation (personal,
locative/local community, nation-state, corporation, global society,
etc) that one is attempting to model. So, unless we get into utopian
model construction where we limit too many variables, we are
generally always in a hybrid and very dynamic situation...
For example -- a situation where there is a rigidly defined set of
exchanges between nodes from top-down and bottom-up, where lateral
exchange is discouraged except in certain forms, as one has in the
military, this would locate that organization towards the heirarchic
end of the scale.
On the contrary, in the situation where there is open and shared/
'balanced' bi-lateral energy exchange between all nodes
(individuals), this is located closer to the network end of the scale.
refer to http://neoscenes.net/hyper/silke/silke01.html for a few more
maxims on networks and energy...
(these notes are extracted from a larger framework that identifies
the dialogue (again, NOT a linguistic concept, but that total
spectrum of human exchange) at the center of creative action), and
that human dialogue is a constituent element of any larger social
structure -- hierarchy or network. It also reflects on the
phenomenon where there is a condition of dynamic open bi-directional
flow between two people, that each may be literally inspired and walk
away from the encounter with an excess of energy! If that is the
core dynamic of a network -- a con-sequent conglomeration of
energy-surplus-producing 'dialogues' -- then the network becomes the
site for enormous potential energy reserves!
jh
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
http://freecooperation.org
Archive:
http://www.topica.com/lists/collaboration/read
|
|
|
freecooperation mailinglist
archive