The Foundation for Peer to Peer Alternatives
Traffic Signs for Online Conversation Flow Management
I had a creative burst two years ago that resulted in many ideas. I was able to articulate some of those ideas on my blog, while others proved too difficult to assimilate into my consciousness at that time. Sam Rose, whom I interacted with back in 2006, could attest to the level of noise I had when attempting to articulate those ideas that have yet to be fully assimilated into my consciousness. So I waited.
Now, at least two of those ideas, namely, programmable money and structured online conversation, have finally been assimilated and I can start articulating them.
Articulating the programmable money idea was easy. I did that over night, then I came here to discuss it, and following Michel's response I was able to articulate the full model I had in mind. That was not hard at all, given that the idea itself had been fully assimilated into my consciousness.
However, my intention with respect to that idea was not as assimilated into my consciousness as the idea itself.
So then it took me, Dante, and Josephine some time to get that intention articulated.
In doing so, I realized that if someone wants to talk about something that has not been fully assimilated into their consciousness they will have difficulty articulating it, and that difficulty has to do with units of the global evolving thought, or rather units of the conversation, having conflict/tension, friction and even collision with each other.
Then I realized that, two years ago, in the same creative burst period, I had thought of a solution to the problem of conversation flow management, and that solution *maybe* fully assimilated -or at least assimilated enough- into my consciousness that I can actually articulate it with some degree of success.
The idea is that it's very difficult for people to manage the flow of a simple conversation let alone a multi-dimensional conversation without the use of some structuring implements.
It's like giving everyone in a highly populated city (with old roads built for horse carriages and poor city planning), i.e. a highly unstructured environment, a car and letting them drive without traffic signs.
Just as there are many different types of traffic signs, we can have many different types of 'tags' in the text of the conversation to prevent tension, friction and collision between the units of the conversation.
Here is an example of one sign (the Request sign) in usage, but I am sure that there can be many different types of signs, e.g. ones that the forum application acts on (like HTML but for directing conversation flows) vs ones that the reader acts on, and meta tags etc.
This is the on-the-fly example I used in my previous reply to the P2P Social Currency thread:
That sounds like a precise definition of your intention.
>>
It is.
===Request: please defer any comment on this content of this section (if any) and put in another thread===
The whole dialog so has been a mix of many needs: "the need for dialog about the dialog", "the need for intention to manifest," and "the need to discover," so I'm happy that we've arrived at a precise definition of my intention, through what seems to be a process of mluti-dimensional zooming in. It's very hard to achieve that normally, especially online using unstructured text, so I'm really happy that we've somehow managed it. This section is enclosed in a Request Tag to prevent re-de-focusing of the discussion. I think online conversation can benefit from such structuring and I have plenty of ideas on a language for structured online conversation, that relies on user supplied "request tags" like the ones encapsulating this section that act like "traffic signs for conversation" that direct the conversation and eliminate all the shouting, friction and collisions between the units of the conversation
===End of request===
Do you look forward in using video?
>>
Video of audio. I prefer audio personally. But video maybe more powerful.
Discussing with various people?
>>
Interview format, yes, but the interviewer can talk about their own story too.
Editing presentations?
>>
I take it to mean Text/Graphics presentation, and if so, my answer is that that would be dry and would not create empathic connection with regular folks who would be the users of this new money. My thesis is that, given that I sense the coming unraveling of the current definition of money, I believe the time is right to switch from aloof intellectual discussions to a process of stirring up emotions, radical integrative listening, and empathy creating, engaging dialog about the definition of money and how it affects society, through story format, stories by common people. So no to text/graphics presentation, in general rule, but ===Request: consider the following in future post-first-stage context=== in the larger integrative view, there is room for every type of communication.==End of Request===
Documentaries?
>>
Video or audio documentaries, primarily.
Are there people you shared this specific intention with and that may collaborate?
>>
No, that's why I reached out to Michel to connect with others here.
Where are you currently based?
>>
Seattle, Washington (state), US
Now, at least two of those ideas, namely, programmable money and structured online conversation, have finally been assimilated and I can start articulating them.
Articulating the programmable money idea was easy. I did that over night, then I came here to discuss it, and following Michel's response I was able to articulate the full model I had in mind. That was not hard at all, given that the idea itself had been fully assimilated into my consciousness.
However, my intention with respect to that idea was not as assimilated into my consciousness as the idea itself.
So then it took me, Dante, and Josephine some time to get that intention articulated.
In doing so, I realized that if someone wants to talk about something that has not been fully assimilated into their consciousness they will have difficulty articulating it, and that difficulty has to do with units of the global evolving thought, or rather units of the conversation, having conflict/tension, friction and even collision with each other.
Then I realized that, two years ago, in the same creative burst period, I had thought of a solution to the problem of conversation flow management, and that solution *maybe* fully assimilated -or at least assimilated enough- into my consciousness that I can actually articulate it with some degree of success.
The idea is that it's very difficult for people to manage the flow of a simple conversation let alone a multi-dimensional conversation without the use of some structuring implements.
It's like giving everyone in a highly populated city (with old roads built for horse carriages and poor city planning), i.e. a highly unstructured environment, a car and letting them drive without traffic signs.
Just as there are many different types of traffic signs, we can have many different types of 'tags' in the text of the conversation to prevent tension, friction and collision between the units of the conversation.
Here is an example of one sign (the Request sign) in usage, but I am sure that there can be many different types of signs, e.g. ones that the forum application acts on (like HTML but for directing conversation flows) vs ones that the reader acts on, and meta tags etc.
This is the on-the-fly example I used in my previous reply to the P2P Social Currency thread:
That sounds like a precise definition of your intention.
>>
It is.
===Request: please defer any comment on this content of this section (if any) and put in another thread===
The whole dialog so has been a mix of many needs: "the need for dialog about the dialog", "the need for intention to manifest," and "the need to discover," so I'm happy that we've arrived at a precise definition of my intention, through what seems to be a process of mluti-dimensional zooming in. It's very hard to achieve that normally, especially online using unstructured text, so I'm really happy that we've somehow managed it. This section is enclosed in a Request Tag to prevent re-de-focusing of the discussion. I think online conversation can benefit from such structuring and I have plenty of ideas on a language for structured online conversation, that relies on user supplied "request tags" like the ones encapsulating this section that act like "traffic signs for conversation" that direct the conversation and eliminate all the shouting, friction and collisions between the units of the conversation
===End of request===
Do you look forward in using video?
>>
Video of audio. I prefer audio personally. But video maybe more powerful.
Discussing with various people?
>>
Interview format, yes, but the interviewer can talk about their own story too.
Editing presentations?
>>
I take it to mean Text/Graphics presentation, and if so, my answer is that that would be dry and would not create empathic connection with regular folks who would be the users of this new money. My thesis is that, given that I sense the coming unraveling of the current definition of money, I believe the time is right to switch from aloof intellectual discussions to a process of stirring up emotions, radical integrative listening, and empathy creating, engaging dialog about the definition of money and how it affects society, through story format, stories by common people. So no to text/graphics presentation, in general rule, but ===Request: consider the following in future post-first-stage context=== in the larger integrative view, there is room for every type of communication.==End of Request===
Documentaries?
>>
Video or audio documentaries, primarily.
Are there people you shared this specific intention with and that may collaborate?
>>
No, that's why I reached out to Michel to connect with others here.
Where are you currently based?
>>
Seattle, Washington (state), US
Views: 35
© 2024 Created by Josef Davies-Coates.
Powered by
