On 09/25/2013 11:24 AM, Marcus G. Daniels wrote: > I don't really see what you mean by "arise naturally",
Hm. A classification can be descriptive or prescriptive. You can imagine any process being observed and every aspect being classified according to a theory-laden measure. Then you can imagine either multiple simultaneous observers or multiple, sequential observers. Each measure is theory-laden. But unless they are all structured around the same theory, you'll eventually see some generic properties across all the individual measures. This meta-measure usually arises without the imposition of a "master theory". The multiple discretized classifications, because they classify the process slightly differently, the meta-measure that arises will often 'smooth out' many (most?) of those discretizations into things like real number percentages. > nor do I see why > W's historical significance is something that needs to be anticipated. Well, many of the examples we talk about where humans control the openness of whatever channels is a direct function of the individual's expectations of the audience/receiver. Managing expectations is the primary justification for opening or closing a channel. > It seems to me the difference between the > `classification' that government or a corporation performs is just that > the rules are formed by powerful organizations rather than individuals > or families, political advocacy groups, churches, etc. OK. But the difference underlying _that_ difference is that individuals/families don't usually write down the rules. I assert that the bases for individuals' closing/opening channels is not _rules_, it's perfectly situational. But even if there are rules, they are implicit or unstated, allowing the higher degree of variability in their control over the opacity of the information. The govt or corporation, being artifacts in themselves _must_ encode and make somewhat permanent their rules. > I think no, unless they go to the trouble of thinking hard about how > they reveal information, and employ a means by which they enforce it > (not just relying on mechanisms provided by a company that will happily > betray their users when the government comes down on them). This may > just make them, or select them as, morlocks. I agree. Personally, I think I'd love it if we were all morlocks. And if we buy into the arguments of the utility of specialization (exhibited best by large corporations like walmart), then to some extent, we _are_ all morlocks. We all have our area of expertise and can be considered asymmetrically powerful within that domain. But for some reason I can't articulate, I don't buy that. I think there are zombie-like humans wandering around who never get good (or adequate) at anything. Or perhaps they get good at one thing but then unjustifiably believe they are good at other things without doing the work needed to become actual morlocks in that new domain. (If that's true, then it brings a whole new dimension to "outsider everything".) Regardless, open artifacts don't _facilitate_ morlocks. Morlocks are facilitated by other morlocks and the artifacts are just media for morlock-morlock communication. Perhaps the openness of the artifacts is (largely) irrelevant. -- ⇒⇐ glen e. p. ropella I learned how to lie well and somebody blew up ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
