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

[olivier auber]

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
>