[P2P-F] emergent holoptism as OCL Re: open capital License?

Thu Feb 7 13:45:48 CET 2013

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 <olivierauber2 at gmail.com>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 <dante.monson at gmail.com>:
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 9:24 AM, flawer <flawer at shareful.be> 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
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.ourproject.org/pipermail/p2p-foundation/attachments/20130207/34b4a540/attachment.htm 