Thanks Olivier ! I like the word / concept of Anopticism, which I got to know about through you / p2pfoundation wiki <http://p2pfoundation.net/Anoptism>,
and mentioned it not later then yesterday in some other exchange. Thanks for having clarified it on this conversation thread :) I hope we can find ways of collaborating around making such solutions more available, technically speaking, reducing thresholds for such crowdsourcing of contextualizations... I like efforts converging around http://www.netention.org/ - its constantly brewing new ideas, evolving, ... Perhaps there are other places / software development approaches with such spirit in mind ? Ways to converge / create synergies towards the development of such tools ? On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 1:24 PM, olivier auber <[email protected]>wrote: > Just a word to say that I strongly disagree to say that the concept of > holoptism may describe what we are seeking and trying to do here (P2P > foundation). > > I think that the concept of "Anopticism" may describe it better. > > If it seems quite paradoxical to name the project of making the > collective intelligence visible : "Anopticism" [from the Greek "a" > (without) and "optiké" (vision)], it’s certainly because it needs some > explanations ... > > Of course, the anopticon is the opposite of the "panopticon". In a > certain manner, the concept of "Anopticism" also differs from the > concept of "holopticism" [from the Greek "holos" (whole)], which > "consists of a physical or virtual space whose architecture is > intentionally designed to give its players the ability to see and > perceive all that occurs there ". If we consider the opposition of the > Greek roots, we could even believe that there is a radical antagonism > between Anoptic and holoptic. It's not quite the case: if Anopticism > and holopticism, "are designed to give to each individual a modeled > representation of space [...] in which he operates", the Anopticism > mourns for the idea that the "totality" of this space is the > "objectivity" of its representation, it insists instead on the > arbitrary and subjectivity of the points of view that govern the > models and on the rules that determine them. > > For the Anopticism, human relationships are not reducible to the > establishment of a cybernetic feedback loop between the group and the > individual: the essential is forever invisible to us. The mourning of > objectivity is made bearable by the fact that everyone is potentially > the author of the points of view and the actor of the implemented > rules and codes. In this way, the Anopticism intends to legitimate a > "digital perspective" which may be applied within social systems. > > more : http://perspective-numerique.net/wakka.php?wiki=Anopticism > > -- > Olivier Auber > Evolution, Complexity and COgnition group (ECCO) & Global Brain Institute > Free University of Brussels (VUB) http://ecco.vub.ac.be > Paris +33675038880 / Bruxelles +32492050697 > http://perspective-numerique.net > http://twitter.com/#!/OlivierAuber > > > > 2013/2/7 Dante-Gabryell Monson <[email protected]>: > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 9:24 AM, flawer <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > the visualization of past transactions as a form of reputation , > >> > or of currently described contexts and suggestions, can speak for > >> > itself :) > >> > > >> > I guess, very much like on e-bay or couchsurfing > >> > >> i tend to dislike these models.. people forced me to comment in cs and > >> i am browsing too much of a overhappied load, but i admit that it works > >> for the majority. i prefer the 'no news are good news', archive bad > >> reputation only, and then having a little of bad reputation could be a > >> wished reputation (it is better some visible reputation than no visible > >> reputation, maybe :). > > > > > > It was only to make a parallel... with concepts / approaches to > reputation > > online. > > > > the way I imagine it, there would be no need to comment, or add stars, or > > whatever... > > > > Transactions would happen, and based on the privacy levels people choose, > > they are publicly available or not... > > > > hence people can understand interdependencies and choose to interact > based > > on past, present, and future actions or suggestions... > > > > The past, present and future are defined in this introduction : > > > > http://www.netention.org/intro/ > > > > (Watch in full-screen) > > > >> > >> > >> > i guess this depends on the > >> > owner of the ontology, the relations he allowed that concept to be > >> > transferable with.[...] > >> > yes, ideally ontologies would be free to use... > >> > >> but not that much free to relate to other ontologies (concept creator > >> moderate its semantics, altough it could be crowdsourcedly inputed or > >> reviewed too).. or it's pure folksonomy. > > > > > > as I see it, combination of the two... ontologies and folksonomies... > > + people can use the tool to define their own meaning / ontologies > > > > when combined with tags, I imagine that bridges can be made, through > > emergence and patterns evolving out of it, between a potential diversity > of > > ontologies used ? > > > >> > >> > >> > one would need to convene to use the same ontologies... > >> > though perhaps som > >> > > >> > meaning giving ? > >> > >> through the defining, and the adding of (reviewable, crwodsourced) > >> hints for developing for the concept (i.e. coward) and +1s for those.. > >> is how i initially thought this karmic wealth (coward, etc points) to be > >> generated. It can be used for relating material resources transactions > >> > >> >> Or natural language processing... but perhaps that becomes more > >> >> complex, and I do no > >> > >> uhm... let's start by trying to find universalizable meaningful sets of > >> things: > >> > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colour > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromatic > >> human values maybe.... > >> > >> or play with just verbs or just nouns for defining other things.. > > > > > > or we can start simply with units such as apples and pears ( such as > within > > a collaborative consumption and/or shareable approach ) > > > > and also express the conditions related to such transactions, > > > > and then add / experiment with any other algorithms later ? > > > >> > >> > >> or go back to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onomatopeia (although it has > >> some dialects by longitude and latitude :) > > > > > > :) > > > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> P2P Foundation - Mailing list > >> http://www.p2pfoundation.net > >> https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > P2P Foundation - Mailing list > > http://www.p2pfoundation.net > > https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation > > >
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
