[Arisbe] Re: Inquiry Into Inquiry

[Jon Awbrey]

¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤

| It's true that all the men you knew were dealers
| who said they were through with dealing
| Every time you gave them shelter
| I know that kind of man
| It's hard to hold the hand of anyone
| who is reaching for the sky just to surrender.
|
| Leonard Cohen, 'The Stranger Song'

¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤

Seth Russell wrote (SR):
Jon Awbrey wrote (JA):

SR: Sorry your response is a bit too cryptic
    for me to grok your intented meaning.

JA: If it were insipid clear, if it were not deep,
    what gusto would there be in the quench of it,
    what quaff could there rest in the grok of it?

SR: Yes there is that :)  You would have loved my dad who's native language was
    English  ... yet he, thinking that the mysteries of projective geometry cum
    mysticism were not sufficiently esoteric in and of themselves, pointed them
    out with his own Chinese characters.  Sometimes I think that my love of
    clarity ... even simplicity ... is yet a rebellion against that.

I know that kind of man.
I was that kind of man.
And the man that became
The son of that child
Is my rebellion again,
That kind of man, too.

JA: Here's a hint:

PS: http://www.songfta.com/songs/ghe-ssa.html

JA: Yet another clue in a labyrinth I never made:

PS: http://www.songfta.com/songs/otp-hthawiy.html

JA: Have you never seen the resistance that a community
    will exhibit against moving in the direction of its
    e-spouted aim?  Yes, I'm sure you have seen it, but
    acknowledging the pattern of it is another question.

SR: One does not impose any direction (even its e-spouted one)
    on a community by providing it tools.

JA: Did I say that?  Show me where it says I said that.

SR: No sir, you did not.  Yet we are talking here about the ~will~ (the intent acted up)
    of the community ... are we not?  Here I use the word '~will~' and it's alternate
    sign 'the intent acted upon' only as a vague pointer put in a bottle thrown in
    the ocean of this dialogue hoping it will find some similar referent in your
    mind.  And is it not this ~will~ towards (referentOf 'e-spouted aim') which
    you say slip slides away? ... and yes i have seen such tendencies .. which
    tendencies I am against ... and, No! ... the knowledge that my againstness
    is pissing into the wind, will not change the direction of my stream.

Nor will it change the direction of the wind.
So watch out for that.

The question is whether a Community Will
will do what it will espouse as its will,
that is to say, will it ever do, in deed,
in just so many deeds, what it will say,
in all too many words, what is its will?

JA: My point is that this ~will~ of the community is not even in question in my proposal.
    Rather the tools in question could be provided by a enterprising third party which
    would profit in some symbiotic way by their usage.  So the third party panders to
    those communal aims which are against your dreaded slippage;  but since the
    third party (or automated tool set) is not infected with the disease to
    which you refer, it can be eliminated from the equation.  To be a tad
    more tangible ... I would provide the service to the community gratis ...
    not asking the ~will~ of the community for approval ... yet I would
    contrive to profit by its use.  To the extent it is useful and
    effective, I would profit.

The price would be this, that you would threaten the community with
facilitating the potential actualization of what they say they will.
Are you aware of the "practical consequence" (PC) of promising that?

SR: In fact such orgazitional tools can be developed externally
    to the actual community's endeavors.

JA: On my premiss, necessarily so.
    On my premises, potentally so.

SR: Well we apparently agree on that.
    But what is the significance of the
    conjunction (and necessarily potentially)?

If we agree on the premiss and the premise,
then the problem reduces to acknowledging
the consequence.  Pattern acknowledgement
is apparently far more recalculant than
patter perception or patter recognition.

SR: As they become effective tools, the community member will use them else
    they will find themselves at a disadvantage within their own community.

JA: No, I afraid it's the pathe of least resistance
    for the entired community to resist as one mime.

(=> (successOf TheEnterprise) (isa (resist TheEnterprise) Futility))

Do not discount the attractions of futility.
Otherwise you underestimate the force of it.

SR: For example:  suppose that I were to read the entire corpus of the
    Generic Ontology Group archives into an indexer, automatically isolate
    clusters of concepts using SOM and LSI and provide a mechanism for people
    to retrieve documents from those clusters.  I would call such a tool AI in
    the sense of (Amplifying Intelligence);  and I rather suspect that the members
    of this group would find no problem with contributing energy to sophisticating
    the vocabulary\ontology used in the indexing process.

JA: I am guessing that this Hive is far too buzzy being about
    its Fodder's buzziness to bother bussing its own Arc-Hive.

SR: This Hive need do nothing ...

And so it will do
Exactly what it
Needs to do.

SR: ... members of the Hive will be motivated by their own objectives.

Do Bee Do Bee Do.

Jon Awbrey

¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤