--
Ann Racuya-Robbins
Founder and CEO World Knowledge Bank www.wkbank.com
----- Forwarded message from ad...@wkbank.com -----
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 11:47:29 -0600
From: Ann Racuya-Robbins <ad...@wkbank.com>
Reply-To: Ann Racuya-Robbins <ad...@wkbank.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Invitation to Conversation/Discussion/Debate
To: Steve Smith <sasm...@swcp.com>
Thank you so much for all your thoughts. I enjoyed reading it
all. We do have many differences and I too want to respond in more
detail to you. As I mentioned www.wkbank.com/govern the Constitution
and Founding Principles is a good place to start. Again let me know if
you have any trouble with the site and I will get it corrected. Don?t
worry about writing too much on my account I think it is wonderful to
hear all your comments.
BW
ARR
--
Ann Racuya-Robbins
Founder and CEO World Knowledge Bank www.wkbank.comQuoting Steve
Smith <sasm...@swcp.com>:
Ann -
I started to write one of my arbitrarily long and excruciatingly
detailed responses to this and to your Seminar invitation. In fact, I
did write it and then decided to try to write a concise summary
instead. We'll see how that turns out (the first missive, just
deleted, was about 5 screens worth, just for comparison).
You have most of us at a disadvantage. While no two of us on this
list are likely to agree on the details of much of anything, I think
we all have differing levels of understanding and agreement on what we
mean by /Complex Systems/ (capitalization is mine). Despite these
differences, most of us are roughly talking about the same concept,
albeit in widely varying domains and with varying preferred formalisms
and tools for simulating, generating, and studying them. I'm not sure
we know what your ideas on the topic are, or if we are talking about
the same thing.
I think you may mean something different than I do when you say
"complex system". It is evidenced both in your specific phrasing of
"systems (complex)" and in the way I've heard you use the term. In
particular, I don't think the phrase "creating a Complex System" is
even a sensible phrase. In my use of the term, a /Complex System /is
a system whose qualitative complexity arises or emerges, often out of
a relatively simple (quantitatively not-complex) system. Created
systems may be quantitatively simple or complex (by many measures) but
the very definition of a /Complex System /in the sense that I use the
term is that its /qualitative/ complexity could not be designed,
created, or even predicted in any detail.
So /I/ would never say that science nor art creates a /Complex
System/ though I would have to agree that many systems used by
science (not created by /science/ per se, but rather created by
/scientists/ in pursuit of understanding) are quantitatively complex,
and that many types of artistic endeavors as I know them may create or
generate quite quantitatively complex systems. I suppose, one could
view what I call /Complex Systems/ as having artistic value or
interest, but I would have a hard time saying that the artist
/created/ these systems, and more to the point, certainly not saying
that the artist created the exhibited /Complexity/ in them.
In the spirit of our /former/, former President, perhaps this depends
on what /create/ means. From some of the discussions I have observed
you having during sfX presentations, I think you may mean something
different by /create/, than I do. If I were to be pressed on the
topic, I suppose I would often use the term /discover/ when you would
use /create/. This is germane to the question you pose about "how
people should be rewarded for what they know".
Since I don't think knowledge can be /created/, only /discovered/,
it is hard for me to think of there being any absolute or intrinsic
value to what I (or anyone else) might know at a given time. In a
relative, context, I might /know/ something that you do not, that you
find useful and we might agree to exchange some other form of value
for that knowledge, but I would not begrudge you the possibility of
arriving at that /knowing/ some other way (like discovering it
yourself or having someone else share their own discovery with you).
I might hold all kinds of knowledge which I might never be rewarded
for. I might choose to share as freely as possible all knowledge I
hold. So the notion that knowledge itself could have intrinsic value
and the holder of the knowledge can have any specific expectation of
reward is a little foreign to me. I know that in the pragmatic
world, that secrets can be valuable, and their value can be realized
both by holding them close and by sharing them selectively or broadly.
I think before most of us would want to have a public
discussion/debate/conversation (on air, in a very short time interval)
on a topic, we would like to have some idea of the opposing viewpoint
we are discussing/debating/conversing-about.
You and I have had a number of very pleasant discussions online and
in-person, and I've browsed through your World Knowledge Bank, but I
do not yet have a sense of what your position (or what you refer to as
a "differing opinion") is.
Perhaps you have written some kind of position paper that would
introduce us to your ideas and how they contrast with those which you
believe you have fundamental philosophical differences with? I went
to World Knowledge Bank tonight to see what you might have there on
the topic, but alas, it seemed to be having technical difficulties.
If there is such a description there (or elsewhere) please point me to
it.
I think something of the same nature (a concise description of the
position you hold and how it contrasts with the positions you differ
with) would help prepare folks considering your seminar series to
decide if it is of interest to us, and to help us come up to speed on
your ideas more easily.
Anyone who has read this far in my "concise summary" is clearly a
patient reader, and would likely find the same patience with reading
any new way of thinking about complex systems and how we value
knowledge and reward those who hold it, that you might offer.
- Steve
I have come to the conclusion a number of thoughtful people at
Friam, the Santa Fe Institute and the Complex and I may well have a
fundamental, important, genuine and sincere philosophical difference
of opinion about the future of the information/knowledge culture that
is emerging in the world today. This difference includes how and when
people should be rewarded for what they know? What is the most
equitable way for people to share what they know? What does it mean
for something to be ?free?? These are some of the areas of difference.
I have spent decades thinking about these things but no one knows
everything and I am sure I have more to learn.
These are important and timely issues. I think we should engage
this conversation. I would like to invite anyone of you or someone you
might know to have a conversation/discussion/debate about these
issues. I have asked Mary Charlotte of KSFR?s Radio Café if she would
be interested in hosting this conversation/discussion/debate on the
Radio Café and she said she would.
I have confidence that this interaction between us will likely
enlighten both of us and the listeners as well.
I am ready to proceed at any time.
I look forward to your response.
Best Wishes,
Ann Racuya-Robbins
Founder and CEO World Knowledge Bank www.wkbank.com
-------------------------
============================================================ FRIAM
Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at
St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at
http://www.friam.org[1[1]]
Links:
------
[1] http://www.friam.org/[2]
----- End forwarded message -----
Links:
------
[1] http://www.friam.org[1/
[2] http://www.friam.org/
Wow thank you so much for all your thoughts. I enjoyed reading it
all. We do have many differences and I too want to respond in more
detail to you. As I mentioned www.wkbank.com/govern the Constitution
and Founding Principles is a good place to start. Again let me know if
you have any trouble with the site and I will get it corrected. Don?t
worry about writing too much on my account I think it is wonderful to
hear all your comments.
BW
ARR
--
Ann Racuya-Robbins
Founder and CEO World Knowledge Bank www.wkbank.comQuoting Steve
Smith <sasm...@swcp.com>:
Ann -
I started to write one of my arbitrarily long and excruciatingly
detailed responses to this and to your Seminar invitation. In fact, I
did write it and then decided to try to write a concise summary
instead. We'll see how that turns out (the first missive, just
deleted, was about 5 screens worth, just for comparison).
You have most of us at a disadvantage. While no two of us on this
list are likely to agree on the details of much of anything, I think
we all have differing levels of understanding and agreement on what we
mean by /Complex Systems/ (capitalization is mine). Despite these
differences, most of us are roughly talking about the same concept,
albeit in widely varying domains and with varying preferred formalisms
and tools for simulating, generating, and studying them. I'm not sure
we know what your ideas on the topic are, or if we are talking about
the same thing.
I think you may mean something different than I do when you say
"complex system". It is evidenced both in your specific phrasing of
"systems (complex)" and in the way I've heard you use the term. In
particular, I don't think the phrase "creating a Complex System" is
even a sensible phrase. In my use of the term, a /Complex System /is
a system whose qualitative complexity arises or emerges, often out of
a relatively simple (quantitatively not-complex) system. Created
systems may be quantitatively simple or complex (by many measures) but
the very definition of a /Complex System /in the sense that I use the
term is that its /qualitative/ complexity could not be designed,
created, or even predicted in any detail.
So /I/ would never say that science nor art creates a /Complex
System/ though I would have to agree that many systems used by
science (not created by /science/ per se, but rather created by
/scientists/ in pursuit of understanding) are quantitatively complex,
and that many types of artistic endeavors as I know them may create or
generate quite quantitatively complex systems. I suppose, one could
view what I call /Complex Systems/ as having artistic value or
interest, but I would have a hard time saying that the artist
/created/ these systems, and more to the point, certainly not saying
that the artist created the exhibited /Complexity/ in them.
In the spirit of our /former/, former President, perhaps this depends
on what /create/ means. From some of the discussions I have observed
you having during sfX presentations, I think you may mean something
different by /create/, than I do. If I were to be pressed on the
topic, I suppose I would often use the term /discover/ when you would
use /create/. This is germane to the question you pose about "how
people should be rewarded for what they know".
Since I don't think knowledge can be /created/, only /discovered/,
it is hard for me to think of there being any absolute or intrinsic
value to what I (or anyone else) might know at a given time. In a
relative, context, I might /know/ something that you do not, that you
find useful and we might agree to exchange some other form of value
for that knowledge, but I would not begrudge you the possibility of
arriving at that /knowing/ some other way (like discovering it
yourself or having someone else share their own discovery with you).
I might hold all kinds of knowledge which I might never be rewarded
for. I might choose to share as freely as possible all knowledge I
hold. So the notion that knowledge itself could have intrinsic value
and the holder of the knowledge can have any specific expectation of
reward is a little foreign to me. I know that in the pragmatic
world, that secrets can be valuable, and their value can be realized
both by holding them close and by sharing them selectively or broadly.
I think before most of us would want to have a public
discussion/debate/conversation (on air, in a very short time interval)
on a topic, we would like to have some idea of the opposing viewpoint
we are discussing/debating/conversing-about.
You and I have had a number of very pleasant discussions online and
in-person, and I've browsed through your World Knowledge Bank, but I
do not yet have a sense of what your position (or what you refer to as
a "differing opinion") is.
Perhaps you have written some kind of position paper that would
introduce us to your ideas and how they contrast with those which you
believe you have fundamental philosophical differences with? I went
to World Knowledge Bank tonight to see what you might have there on
the topic, but alas, it seemed to be having technical difficulties.
If there is such a description there (or elsewhere) please point me to
it.
I think something of the same nature (a concise description of the
position you hold and how it contrasts with the positions you differ
with) would help prepare folks considering your seminar series to
decide if it is of interest to us, and to help us come up to speed on
your ideas more easily.
Anyone who has read this far in my "concise summary" is clearly a
patient reader, and would likely find the same patience with reading
any new way of thinking about complex systems and how we value
knowledge and reward those who hold it, that you might offer.
- Steve
I have come to the conclusion a number of thoughtful people at
Friam, the Santa Fe Institute and the Complex and I may well have a
fundamental, important, genuine and sincere philosophical difference
of opinion about the future of the information/knowledge culture that
is emerging in the world today. This difference includes how and when
people should be rewarded for what they know? What is the most
equitable way for people to share what they know? What does it mean
for something to be ?free?? These are some of the areas of difference.
I have spent decades thinking about these things but no one knows
everything and I am sure I have more to learn.
These are important and timely issues. I think we should engage
this conversation. I would like to invite anyone of you or someone you
might know to have a conversation/discussion/debate about these
issues. I have asked Mary Charlotte of KSFR?s Radio Café if she would
be interested in hosting this conversation/discussion/debate on the
Radio Café and she said she would.
I have confidence that this interaction between us will likely
enlighten both of us and the listeners as well.
I am ready to proceed at any time.
I look forward to your response.
Best Wishes,
Ann Racuya-Robbins
Founder and CEO World Knowledge Bank www.wkbank.com
-------------------------
============================================================ FRIAM
Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at
St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at
http://www.friam.org[1]
Links:
------
[1] http://www.friam.org/
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
