Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 332
Netizens-Digest Monday, August 16 1999 Volume 01 : Number 332
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
Re: [netz] danger, safety, power.
[netz] power and PIE
Re: [netz] danger, safety, power.
Re: [netz] danger, safety, power.
[netz] What new institutional form is needed to replace ICANN?
[netz] Re: What Institutional Form is Needed to Replace ICANN?
Re: [netz] danger, safety, power.
[netz] Re: danger, safety, power.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 14 Aug 1999 23:29:40 +0000
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: Re: [netz] danger, safety, power.
Jamal,
> > your... surmise that a further contribution by me to this
> > thread would be a *correction. Why shouldnt it simply be a
> > further contribution?
...
> Because correction is part of the communication process. I
learn by my mistakes, and ... I want to make sure that I'm not
> misinterpreting your words. Because I wouldn't take offence to a
> correction; because my sense of security (as you put it) was
> cautious about 'putting words in your mouth'.
>
From your first statement, the others indeed follow: mistake,
making sure, minsinterpreting, taking offence -- this is the
vocabulary of *rectitude. But I disagree with your first statement ;-)
-- now, are you *wrong? Is this proof of misinterpretation? Must
someone be offended? I dont see it -- and whats more, isnt it a lot
easier to announce an occasional correction than to continually
reassure each other that a contribution is really just a contribution?
> Because I think that my interpretation of your post B (for lack of a
> better term B[1]) was an attempt to increase my understanding of
> what you had said. Inevitably, there would be something lost in
> transmission (signal degradation?).
Of course. Thats what communication is, and in any natural
process there are always spurious signals. (Thus in the broader
context, trying to segregate 'accurate' reportage from hogwash by
Good Viewing codes, or domain names, or any other *pre-
judgement* is to supererogate the individual's responsibility. We
each have a filter, we only need to put it in gear -- see the
dishonesty bit below.)
> I just wanted to make sure
> that you understood my vocabulary, and that your meaning was
> essentially untouched.
Here's the rub: how can vocabulary make (another) vocabulary
'sure'? ('If you dont believe me, just ask me again!')
*My* meaning? How do I know what I mean until I see what Ive
said? (E.M.Forster said that.) -- or until I see what others *think Ive
said? (I said that -- didint I?) Comm is *reflexive; the
dichotomaceous approach says its linear, unidirectional -- thats the
difference I'm after. But dont suppose for a minute that that's The
Answer, that My Meaning Must be Preserved for Posterity, that
your poor miserable existence is any poorer or more miserable
than mine! (As it happens, Im the 3rd or 4th happiest man in Nova
Scotia...;-))
> But I note that later in your response you mention that "Whether
> you 'meant' 'your' words to be 'taken' that way is irrelevant to my
> seeing the possibility", so it doesn't matter whether my
> interpretation was your meaning or not, does it? Does this make
> my response from your post modulate from B[1] to C?
>
> In this case, how do we get anywhere? Except stuck at [Z]. !
For one thing, there arent all that many ideas in the world ;-)
But, in general, when our interps *agree, it reinforces the readiness
to go look for more - in short, being connected *feels good.
> > (Objective measures of power all fail one way or another, but at
> > least this approach lets us infer that if your balance point is
> > further out towards the dangerous end than mine, we are likely to
> > say that you have more power.)
>
> Please explain? Why is power closer to danger than safety?
_Potentio is risky business; any kid with his finger in a socket
knows that. More profoundly, where's the safest place? The Past.
The future is home to all sorts of possibilitesque gremlins. Being
'ahead of the curve' is to be powerful.
> I'm not sure where we are going here Kerry, but it sounds like
> we're digging a garden with a sheet of paper. My assertion
> (oops!) was that your spectrum of d...s could be replaced by the
> one concept of power. I'd like to take a look at a copy of your
> paper if it goes online. Please let me (or the list) have the
> url.
http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/kerryo/dev/power1.htm
Again: replacement of spectra by single concepts is the critical
issue. My idea is that we *useta rely on the 'natural world' to
provide the continuum, and names 'obviously' referred to
contextualized phenomena. Technology -- literacy in particular --
strips down the context, people adopt words without experiencing
the phenomena, and conclude *thats all there is*. And not just that
'This is a Thing which can be referred to without context, but *This
Reference is as good as the thing.* (Pornography does no harm to
the *image -- but dont both the pervert and the bluestocking react
as if it does?)
===
> Now why is it dishonest to "lay power off on some.. 'established'
> authority"? I don't see how I cannot work within certain
> dimensions *previously determined*
Isnt the Q, Who determined them? I agree, living is the continuous
accretion of previousness (experience); one packs and repacks the
slag to make the present as comfy as possible. The dishonesty is
in *adopting someone elses previousness ('priority'), and then
pretending its as good as the real thing. Again, literacy puts
temptation in ones path at every turn: 'I *know that; I read it in a
buk!'
Of course now it's, I saw it on the Web, but even so: no one in a
pre-literate culture would take a picture of a fire, say, for *proof that
a fire exists* (emphasising only that *nobody yet takes the picture
for the fire iteself - I guess!) -- so even as we go back to 'multi-
mediated' iconography, we bring our 'literated' sensibilities or
susceptibilities along: OOh, there *was a fire in Alberta!
So long as it is *efficient to get real pix of real fires, of course thats
what we'll do -- but what then, when the break-even point moves to
the E-rsatz? 'News' is already on its last legs; simulation will finish
it completely. The top 10 web sites will be virtual tabloids...
kerry
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 14 Aug 1999 23:29:40 +0000
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] power and PIE
> http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/kerryo/g9/pie1.htm .]
>
> Unfortunately, I can't see how cyberspace redefines politics
> *essentially*, which is I think, the point you are trying to make. It
> is politics that you are talking about? I mean, the words conflict,
> consensus, compromise, debate etc. can all be found in
> undergrad textbooks on political science.
>
What we call politics has been on the concentration side of the
curve for quite a while; c-space lets us at least *simulate the
rarefaction phase, so that we can easily grasp that *vibration is the
'real2' politics...
> And let us not forget that cyberspace is rooted in reality. I do not
> "live" online as separate from my existence offline.
Is your existence *the same* as what it was pre-Net? I dont think
so (would you be writing a dissertation on it? ;-)) So what *is the
difference? -- that's the Q Im trying to clarify. One way to tackle the
job is to find an area where there are lots of ideas, but not a heck
of a lot of facts, and see if one idea lets more facts dangle from it
than another. PIE is one such adventure: what if *clarifying the Q*
is enhanced by being online (CMC in general)? What scraps of
political history, techo-wizardry, personal experience and
inspiration can I get to hang together on that? What fails to hang?
> Politics as rigidity has been around for a long time. What we see
> in the current trends of the Internet's development also leads to a
> recognition of politics as rigidity continuing.
>
> The Internet, imho, doesn't change the fact that discussion occurs
> in *real- time. The Internet facilitates communication between
> individuals. This list (as well as others) is like a chat-show on a
> radio. I dial-up and give my opinion. Someone else does the
> same. There's a conflict, and perhaps agreement.
>
Am I just more optimistic than you? I think there is an
opportunity to double our vocabulary, so that 'discussion' and
'opinion' and 'conflict' and 'agreement' -- maybe even 'real,' why not?
will have a 2-for-1 split, and in 3 or 4 (net-)years, some learned
Shamal Jahin will be saying, "The 20th c delusion that nothing had
changed kept the Internet from facilitating2 communication2
between individuals2... For instance, two people dialing into the
same radio station were said to be in conflict or in agreement!
Fortunately, the PIE emerged to provide an adequate conceptual
apparatus, and 10 or 20 thousand such ambiguities were
resolved..."
kerry
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 11:48:47 +0200
From: "Jamal Shahin" <J.Shahin@selc.hull.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: [netz] danger, safety, power.
Kerry,
Aware that this debate could go on for ever, I think.. believe.. that I am
beginning to understand your way of approaching the Internet, and CMC
in general.
But, I'd like to ask one question. Doesn't Real Life Demand Dichotomous
Answers? I think that for the purposes of our discussion, your method has
worked well. And in many other arenas (perhaps 10 or 20 thousand :)), I'm
sure this would work. But I'm dubious as to its application in events which
are affected by the real world. Perhaps we should try out your pie on this
list, with a couple of issues.
For the time being, can you or anyone else give me straight answers to the
following (seemingly) simple questions?
Does the DNS system *need a single point of authority? If so, why are
there nine (??) servers? Does *every request to view a website go through
one computer somewhere in the world? (I don't think so!)
How is the DNS system affected by the work of those at AlterNic and eDNS
(now defunct, right?)?
Why is there a gTLD? Why can't we just abolish it? Surely it would save a
lot of problems in the future (and now) regarding trademarks etc.
I think that you can see that all these questions require answers the posit
one argument against another (maybe there is a third or 'n'th argument
involved, but I think the process is the same). Dichotomous (or perhaps
binary) thought. Perhaps it is only because it is what we are used to, but I
think that it is more than that. We will actually get somewhere if *honesty
and *openness are shown in people's answers. And it might be that there
won't be many facts in the answers that this list receives, but at least
there maybe something to hang on to. (Recalling your words, Kerry.) I
don't think that this eliminates a dichotomous way of thought at all,
however.
In the end, we all have to make choices, in what we do (turn left or right),
what we say ("that's nice", "I hate it") etc.
And they generally come down to one of two. "Do I support the free flow
of Information on the Internet?" Well, I'm only capable to answer that if I
know what the question-poser means by all his terms. How far does he
want my support to go? Physical action? What's free flow? Can stop free
flowing information? What's information?! But there is always a sense in
which the question asks for a yes or no. [Like you say, a tick or no tick.]
By the way, I think that perhaps I (B) have just convinced myself that A
makes sense, but still can't believe that it actually works. I'm going to find
someone else to explain it to, to see if they can help me understand what I
think I'm saying.
Regards,
Jamal
- --
Jamal
http://www.internetstudies.org/
http://www.hull.ac.uk/eurstuds/
tel: +39(0)348 794 6568
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 08:37:54
From: John Walker <jwalker@networx.on.ca>
Subject: Re: [netz] danger, safety, power.
At 11:48 AM 8/16/99 +0200, you wrote:
>And they generally come down to one of two. "Do I support the free flow
>of Information on the Internet?" Well, I'm only capable to answer that if I
>know what the question-poser means by all his terms. How far does he
>want my support to go? Physical action? What's free flow? Can stop free
>flowing information? What's information?! But there is always a sense in
>which the question asks for a yes or no. [Like you say, a tick or no tick.]
>
What is the free flow of information?
That is a question that each Netizen must answer.
While it's difficult to define what it is it's not too hard to identify
what it isn't.
The recent attacks by the Government of China (PRC) on servers around
the world that hosted the Falun Gong Web site is a prime example.
Those attacks have eased but only because the PRC is now involved in
a vicious cyber war with Taiwan.
It is doubtful that the nation states will do anything about this...so
that leaves it up to us.
Cyber activism does work...we've proved it time and time again.
All we have to do is organize.
On-line Learning Series of Courses
http://www.bestnet.org/~jwalker/course.htm
Member: Association for International Business
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
_/ _/
_/ John S. Walker _/
_/ Publisher, CSS Internet News (tm) _/
_/ (Internet Training and Research) _/
_/ PO Box 57247, Jackson Stn., _/
_/ Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, L8P 4X1 _/
_/ Email jwalker@hwcn.org _/
_/ http://www.bestnet.org/~jwalker _/
_/ _/
_/ "To Teach is to touch a life forever" _/
_/ On the Web one touch can reach so far! _/
_/ _/
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 09:08:23 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] What new institutional form is needed to replace ICANN?
Opening up a real discussion over what to do about ICANN
and recognizing that this is *not* confined to a contest between
NSI and ICANN as it is being portrayed in the U.S. media,
See in Telepolis:
What Institutional Form is Needed to Replace ICANN?
URL: http://www.heise.de/tp/english/inhalt/te/5183/1.html
Ronda
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 10:13:10 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jay Hauben <jay@dorsai.org>
Subject: [netz] Re: What Institutional Form is Needed to Replace ICANN?
> From: "A.M. Rutkowski" <amr@netmagic.com>
At 09:08 AM 8/16/99 , Ronda Hauben wrote:
> What Institutional Form is Needed to Replace ICANN?
Useful question to raise. However, it should have been
plural - i.e., forums or fora.
ICANN is an experimental replacement for IANA -
which just coordinated activities in three
relatively disparate areas. Clearly there is
no need to have the same institutional forum
for all three areas. Indeed, doing so is bad
organizational practice, since it exacerbates
the tendency to centralize control with no
positive benefits.
- --tony
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 13:30:42 +0000
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: Re: [netz] danger, safety, power.
> I'd like to ask one question. Doesn't Real Life Demand Dichotomous
> Answers? I think that for the purposes of our discussion, your method has
> worked well. And in many other arenas (perhaps 10 or 20 thousand :)), I'm
> sure this would work. But I'm dubious as to its application in events which
> are affected by the real world.
I recently responded to a fellow who popped up in the middle of
another list to proffer YAOS (yet another online survey). Yes, it was
a relevant topic; yes, it seems to be part of a genuine dissertation --
but, to his followup note (backchannel) in which he wrote,
> joining a discussion list like this one, a member indicates an
> above average level of interest in environmental issues and
> problems and may therefore give highly insightful answers.
I said,
"The assumption that a respondent is interested in the issues on
the on hand, and, on the other, *disinterested in the survey process
itself enough to give the same answers regardless who is asking,
distorts the online survey out of all relation with reality."
"Sure, run your survey; but then join *this discussion list;
indicate an interest in the issues and problems of *this list; and
you may thereby get highly different answers.
"Is it 'observer bias' or is it a real person searching for real
answers to real problems instead of chasing a degree?"
Isnt it the 'objective' or synoptic 'surveyor's view' such as his where
the dichotomies arise? People have lived in a 'dialogue with nature'
for several thousand years longer than the Enlightenment Project
has gone on. If you feel the _explanatory force_ of the latter as a
_demand, doesnt that merely show how easily persuaded one can
be to give up all connection with the *real* world by smooth talk
that one doesnt have to pay for what one gets? 'Life is Easy; just
tick here,' the (MMX) papers say -- or do you still think the devil
has to have a tail?
Have you read John Ralston Saul's books yet? ;-)
kerry
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 14:31:42 +0000
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] Re: danger, safety, power.
Jamal,
> I think that you can see that all these questions require answers
> the posit one argument against another ... Dichotomous (or perhaps
> binary) thought. Perhaps it is only because it is what we are used
> to, but I think that it is more than that.
I think it might be less than that ;-) What we are used to is
answers that *stay put*; solutions which *fix* things. Every real
world Q has an A, of course (isnt that how one tells it from an
unreal world Q?), but -- especially now, when tenure and job
security and parts inventory and political allegiances and personal
worth all have been converted to 'ad hocery' -- why on earth do we
continue to speak as if any question can be answered *once and
for all time*?
> We will actually get somewhere if *honesty
> and *openness are shown in people's answers. And it might be that there
> won't be many facts in the answers that this list receives, but at least
> there maybe something to hang on to. (Recalling your words, Kerry.) I
> don't think that this eliminates a dichotomous way of thought at all,
> however.
>
Thus I prefer to call the idea of dichotomous or binary thought
_extremism_. Its not that *at the present time* one somehow can
avoid saying yes or no; its the scale on which that decision
persists and how soon the next present moment of consciousness
occurs. An 'extreme extremist' might say we have all been
doomed from Day One, and there is *never any need to revisit that
'option' (of course there was never any option 'then' either); but even
arguing in terms of extremes is a typical extremist reaction and is
not necessary. Im sure Ronda, for instance, does not consider
herself an extremist; that's precisely why I hope she *is* able to
see that extremist language undermines her own philosophy. (I
havent yet found a dialogical way to *make a person see...)
> In the end, we all have to make choices, in what we do (turn left
> or right), what we say ("that's nice", "I hate it") etc.
In the interim, we all *entertain choices in how we prepare to act
(look left and right, 'I guess I'll go to bed,' 'Let's see what can be
done') etc., but what we do is merely what we do. Then we cycle
through, reiterate, learn, 'start over' and 'go on' together.
> And they generally come down to one of two. "Do I support the free flow
> of Information on the Internet?" Well, I'm only capable to answer that if I
> know what the question-poser means by all his terms. How far does he
> want my support to go?
'Do I support the free flow or the free stoppage?' Can I support one and not the other?
I hit a website yesterday that offered to let me 'vote': 'Do I agree or
disagree that a website should control others' links to it?' -- There
was no option simply to *know who was linking, which is an
obvious 'first step' if one 'agrees' to control; factored out, papered
over, taken off the table and out of consciousness, but entirely
relevant: What is required of TCP/IP to be able to know? What
other uses would that implementation have - for, say, network
security/ personal privacy? One might well *wish to control links,
but *decide not to -- but one wont get the information one needs
from that site, or that approach.
> By the way, I think that perhaps I (B) have just convinced myself
> that A makes sense, but still can't believe that it actually
> works. I'm going to find someone else to explain it to, to see if
> they can help me understand what I think I'm saying.
Congratulations! You have just announced your citizenship of the
world. You may now wish to have 'Hundred Flowers Publications'
as your organization. ;-)
kerry
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #332
******************************
