hi Dave, my apologies for being slow in responding
  to your interesting observations. what surprises me
  is that everyone has a different perspective about
  the questions and i had not considered these points
  of view, so it is exciting to consider it further...

  one difference i tend to see between views is that
  of making them tangible in examples which could/can
  be related to everyday experience. whereas it is a
  bit hard for me to realize a literal manifestation,
  as it is still an abstraction for me and it may not
  correspond 1:1 to more developed views of culture
  in which the economics/politics/sociality are more
  clear, or less fuzzy. i don't know so i am going to
  put some more ideas out here in case others have a
  better idea of what this really is as a questioning.

  for me it is not traditional categories of commerce,
  and political organization which bounds the ideas of
  commercial communism or social capitalism. it does
  not seem to be a thing, possibly it is more of some
  kind of process, a manifestation of proceeding in a
  certain way, regardless of mission statements, etc.
  maybe it is a type of organization of effort, work,
  though, and maybe this appraisal is confused as it
  is only a sketch whereas others who know structures
  that relate to these concepts, inside and out, could
  bring greater fidelity to the domain of these ideas.

  i.e. a given corporation can function with a type of
  governance, even to succeed as a model of governing,
  and yet there would still likely be a dynamic which
  could pursue social capital vs 'communal commerce'
  or commercial communism (to me it is close to being
  equivalent and neutral, to this idea).

  i guess what i am trying to get at, as an idea, is
  that it may not be 'traditional', rather conceptual,
  possibly, in relation to superstructural relations
  with these ideas as they are usually contextualized.
  it may be a function of bureaucracy vs individualism,
  or of a type of cultural determinism, which is also
  not one or the other as a static choice and pathway,
  rather a shifting switch for cultural manifestations.

  for instance, if placing the ideas in a traditional
  bureaucratic organization, two examples might show a
  similarity and difference in the way these ideas seem
  to exist in the macro-sense...

  Thomas P. Hughes (STS, science-technology-culture) is
  a historian of technological systems and i believe in
  one of his works he looks into NASA as an innovational
  organization of large systems. to me NASA is emblematic
  of a 'social capital' approach to ideas in which the
  role of the individual and ability to change, question,
  review, adjust and to invest in long-term exploration,
  research and development, and to make it break-even in
  some cultural sense - shows the potential and a unique
  value system which harnesses human goals, imaginations,
  and translates this way. a bureaucracy could not come
  up with the idea of hitting a comet on the 4th of July
  and the social value as an event, and real scientific
  value, etc. there is something about NASA that is in
  some way a counterpoint to most everything else, in
  the corporate world, maybe DARPA too (though possibly
  less altruistic), the national park systems, etc. an
  aspect that ideas have an overriding value and guide
  decision-making and ideas of how profit is evaluated.
  as such it may be how it interacts with the 'frontier'
  and this makes it a necessity, avant-garde bureaucracy.

  the opposite approach could be seen in something like
  the World Trade Center redevelopment efforts where the
  bureaucracy functions as a giant automatized machinery
  which 'develops' by way of a process that is fixed and
  unable to change, to question, as it has an answer of
  its own design that requires that it does not need to
  ask particular questions, or special values, as it is
  a monolithic approach to, say, business-as-usual. it
  may be a functionalism, a pragmatism that this is how
  things get done and all that needs to be done is to
  get out of the way. maybe this is how countries are
  terraformed over time, developed by fixed processes,
  like programming code for a 'suburb' as an idea, in
  which the variables are figured out by earlier tests
  (in social capital ideas/investments) then to later
  become steamrollered as a prefigured solution, which
  may have its profit and economic value in not opening
  up the processes to questioning (as it would lose its
  efficiencies this way, reinventing the wheel at every
  junction, or reinventing the suburb at every city).
  in this way it may be considered the rear-guard and
  may function within a simple uninterrupted agenda.

  the thing about it, is that it would not necessarily
  have to be a judgment (social capital good, commercial
  communism bad), as it could feasibly exist as the same
  time within an organization or approach, in that some
  problems could require one approach or the other given
  the context and the goals. if it is a dynamic situation
  and the questions need to be reconsidered to improve
  upon existing methods/approaches, then a social capital
  approach may open up possibilities. whereas, if there
  are too many choices, and all that is needed is static
  solutions without openly questioning every move as it
  has already been refined and works suitably well given
  the evaluative criteria, then it may be the best option.

  example: the garbage pickup of trash cans is not working
  well as aluminum cans have entered the waste stream and
  are being thrown into landfills while they still have
  some value. the commercial communism approach would be
  working fine if there was no change, the centralized
  and static organization of picking up trash, evaluating
  the exchange, and making a profit based on the value--
  yet some social capitalist enterprises have started to
  collect the cans and make a break-even or better profit
  just by collecting the cans themselves as recycling. so
  the garbage company could employ a new open questioning
  to review their processes, and evolve their models of
  how they model things, ideas of what garbage pickpup
  is about, their economic- and social- models/missions,
  and they may 'switch' and make a change, then go back
  to normal unquestioning, automated processing of the
  flows as a way to secure their systematized approach.

  this fictionalized scenario attempts to capture some
  dynamism and stasis that is mediating by the different
  approaches, ideas really, of what is of value, profit.
  and they both are legitimate it would seem, up to the
  point where questions are asked, reviewed, answered.

  that is, a process (such checks and balances in a
  democracy, or ideally, protest or advocacy of issues
  in relation to status-quo procedures versus the need
  to take into account other values, economics, social
  aspects beyond the ken of traditional concepts of,
  say, use of genetically modified crops in foodstreams,
  or any number of given issues). the solutions that may
  arise, say an entrepreneur who finds a pathway towards
  a type of profitability, may actually be the R&D arm
  of the communal commerce that is a societal automaton.

  the question of individuals (and groups) in relation
  to these automated procedures, then, could be seen or
  considered as functioning as a type of open questioning
  of things in relation to questions already answered,
  then the role of ideology versus these ideas, etc.
  for the above-mentioned aspects of WTC redevelopment
  i have broken down this entire concept of ideology in
  which business-as-usual (development) wreaks havoc on
  a unique questioning in terms of cultural values. as
  such, in this instance it is the unique questioning
  that should be developing this specific site, and it
  is not, and so the dynamic and static aspects are put
  in relation to one another in a shared design context.

WTC Memorial Park vs Ground Zero (1)

definitions (1)

  now i am not sure how well this will translate as a
  'finished idea' to present as a whole worldview of how
  everything relates to everything else in the fidelity
  of traditional analyses. yet to me it is not a goal as
  much as anecdotal evidence that something is afoot with
  the concepts that defines/reveals/unveils something of
  an essence of cultural decision-making or choices or
  something. what it is, beyond a sketch, i do not know.

  though i relate it to a concept which i do have a bit
  more thinking on, and so would like to introduce one
  more aspect as a matter of comparison and to contrast:

  much is written about worldviews and the world as a
  machine, organism, film, all sorts of perceptions...
  and to me this conceptualization of culture (economic,
  social, political) fits within one of these that is
  particular interest to me: the world as a circuit.

  there is something worthwhile to trying to learn a
  bit of the basics about electronics as it translates
  rather well conceptually with most everything that
  is in question today, yet often answers are coming
  from different paradigms other than its own (electro-
  magnetic, if going further, with conceptualization).

  the thing about 'circuits' that is interesting to
  learn about is the power of something so simple as
  a 'parallel' versus a 'serial' circuit layout.

Series and parallel circuits

  each allow different things to happen within a
  given circuit, and often they are used together
  in order to do more complex things. the aspect
  which corresponds to the ideas of 'social capital'
  and 'commercial communalism' is that both are, in
  my opinion, working in the same network, using a
  particular approach designed for specific reasons.
  that is, in some places the parallel circuit is
  most optimal and in others a series approach is.
  likewise with aspects of value, exchange, outcomes
  in relation to culture, development, and questions.

  e.g.  if one does not go on autopilot with certain
  things, becoming autonomous in a sense, say to take
  out the trash or clean the sink, more effort than
  is needed may be exerted on things that are likely
  better to just do as they have been done before,
  as it is the best approach given the circumstances.
  whereas if there is a raccoon in the trash can in
  the alley, and bringing out the garbage repeatedly
  results in being bitten by an animal with possible
  rabies, it would be optimal to question procedures,
  in other words to adapt to the dynamic changes, etc.

  the part relating the 'circuit' as conceptualization
  of worldview, then, may see these questions as a
  type of ecological relationship that is shifting
  and changing and also unchanging and challenging.
  and what are the interactions between these two
  aspects of the circuit mediated by- that is, how
  do different views or ideas of the two approaches
  relate and interact with eachother? is it Live8
  and the G8, in a way, both working on African aid?
  it would seem closer than 'capital' vs. anticapital,
  corporate vs anticorporate, empire vs. multitudes.

  the world as governed could be considered also as
  a type of circuit, self-balancing at that, if it
  is in some kind of equilibrium (terrorism, even,
  as being a feedback mechanism for closed questions
  and the need to change/adapt/optimize to transform
  the circuitry, is one possible interpretation where
  views of what is valued or profitable as an idea,
  ideology, belief, or philosophy may inform actions
  in a similar processing). the world as a circuit,
  if governed in terms of ideas and values held in-
  between static solutions and dynamic options may
  be the crux of questions like democracy as it is
  related to issues of economic, society, beliefs
  of organization - where the circuit may balance
  in a different way in different cultures and with
  different needs, yet open and closed approaches
  may always, still, exist and need to be defined,
  considered, reconsidered, changed, over time...

  another great thing learning about electronic
  circuits is the relationship of these concepts
  into more complex conceptualizations manifested
  within the computers of electronics engineering.

  'hardware' and 'software' are based in circuits,
  the switches on circuitboards and their mathe-
  matics directly originate from the circuitry,
  the logic used, the worldviews constructed upon
  these foundations also. that is, just like with
  issues of RISC and CISC or digital and analog,
  they all go back to the basic concepts of the
  circuits from which they have evolved, in some
  way. the 'all or nothing' ideologies, belief-
  systems of 'digitalism' is one example of this
  becoming detached from the physical truths of
  circuits, the tangible stuffs, whereby little
  is (if at all possible) simply 'digital' in
  manifestation, likewise, most things mix the
  realms of parallel-series and digital-analog.
  so too, social capital/commercial communism.

  my thinking is fuzzy and may not be accurate
  yet it is a sketch of how these relate as ideas
  and how, whatever the questions are with the
  concepts, they appear to share a circuit or
  world in which they operate, right now it is
  often to the detriment to each other though
  it has also been shown to be possible to work
  such systems together as, bridging circuitry.

  world as a circuit, then, could also be a way
  of relating the world together as both being
  similar and different, whole and part, one
  and many. ideas of social capital and commercial
  communism, may offer potential relation beyond
  traditional concepts of these, as organizations
  of government or business, so that commonalities
  in North Korea for instance, between open- and
  closed- access to the larger or smaller systems
  may be able to change in relation, to integrate
  yet have some autonomy afforded by circuitry.
  trade between Cuba and the .US too, communism
  and capitalism being quite crude if compared
  in terms of shared ideas of human values, of
  health, prosperity, and differences of view.
  a healthy and sustainable Russia and Eastern
  Europe, in relation to hybrid circuits, ideas
  which merge fixed and changing conditions and
  questioning so as to evolve static systems to
  improve, while securing a need for balancing
  of dynamics so as to not break the circuitry.
  it is a more subtle way, possibly, to approach
  issues of values, profit, ideas, outside of a
  monetary-only perception of the worth of action,
  inaction, questions of scale and organization.

  what if the middle-east is a circuit that is,
  ultimately, needing to find a new relation to
  the whole world, through serial and parallel
  adjustments, and vice-versa. to 'not change
  our way of life' as a ideology pretty much
  fixes the 'war on terrorism' as a dumb and
  mindless approach to a new questioning of
  how new situations are addressed. right now
  it is on autopilot, the machinery of world-
  state, the circuit seeking to self-balance
  by short-circuiting itself, by shorting out
  parts of the circuit to force changes in a
  relation of approaches, closed ideas that
  are answered, unquestioned and all that that
  entails in terms of 'communal commerce' of
  that, 'commercial communalism' of Homeland
  Security as an id=E9e-fixee, and the 'social
  capital' of better ways of approaching new
  conditions, questioning, changes, adapting,
  altering -- these are not invested in as a
  strategy, to use human imagination, ideas
  of peace, diplomacy, ingenuity, respect,
  to enter into a better organization and
  manifestation of a shared cultural circuit.

  with human beings added into this circuitry,
  themselves also a circuit, having hardware,
  software, and the code which mediates them
  (nervous system, brain, and consciousness),
  the balancing of peoples differences can
  also be considered in this way, belief as
  a type of automatism, fixed decision making,
  xenophobia as a type of ideological coding
  which preordains interactions, programming
  of cultural interactions in this way are
  a signal of things to come unless circuits
  are designed differently, to interact with
  others in ways that are optimized, evolved.

  as such, the .UN itself is a testing ground
  for employing such ideas of a world circuitry
  which is balanced and self-balancing, as a
  type of governance and a type of corporation,
  of the most complex order where the potential
  is for ideas of social capital to be questions
  among varying views, instead of the locked-in
  ideological (answered questions) approach that
  limits any possibility of change, improvement
  and tries to determine circuitry based on only
  one view as being the only right approach, etc.
  maybe there are partial truths, falsehoods,
  distortions, though in a shared common context
  which can structurally relate and clarify what
  is held in common, goals, agenda, relationships
  in which to work to improve the common lot...
  or, world circuit, both communal and capital.
  some imperfect ideas approximated as sketches.

  brian thomas carroll: research-design-development
  architecture, education, electromagnetism

#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: [EMAIL PROTECTED] and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net

Reply via email to