yak
[Top] [All Lists]

[yak@collab] Re: Notes on Social Hacking

To: yak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: Eric Armstrong <Eric.Armstrong@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 15:29:51 -0800
Message-id: <3FCD206F.90901@sun.com>
Good thoughts, Peter.    (01)

Peter P. Jones wrote:
> Blogging on list...
> 
> I think the key point turns on 'preparedness to break'. I can see why 
> Tom is upset about that. I think it only makes sense if you are 
> breaking new ground in the sense of offering significant improvement 
> and being able to prove such.
> In relation to social norms it seems to me that they shouldn't be 
> broken. They should be understood, and if they are hurting more than 
> improving, then they should be tuned within a dialogical process.
> If you break norms unilaterally, then you risk shattering the fragile 
> stained-glass window of civilisation altogether.
> (N.B. This simple model does not define what counts as civilisation. 
> There are historico-cultural differences on that score. But why they 
> have to generate friction I am not sure.)
> 
> Where previous national revolutions have occurred I think some things 
> should be noted:
> 1) The vast bloodshed involved in all cases.
> 2) That those revolutions came about because dialogue had died and 
> frustrations were vented as violence. There came a point where those 
> who would have rescued the dialogue were dismissed and ignored as the 
> craving for bloodshed kicked in.
> 3) That imbalances in power relations tend to amplify the speed and 
> force of counter-oscillations when dialogue fails, and amplify 
> tensions before dialogue fails.
> 
> It is interesting to ask whether certain things in history were 
> unavoidable or not, and it is very relevant to ask whether the future 
> should contain as much bloodshed as the 20th Century did. Preventing 
> more bloodshed stands upon the successful maintainence of dialogue.
> (If I sound sage it is because I try to learn from my scars.)
> 
> Dialogue in a material world is not just about words. And dialogue in 
> a world full of intransigent creeds is much harder to maintain.
> So there needs to be real giving to back up the words, and an ability 
> to see past one's creed to accept the words of the other as they 
> really are.
> Whatever the definition of civilisation might be I don't think the 
> world is civilised yet. There are still too many tribal apes wielding 
> clubs.
> 
> Reach for subtlety, list citizens! :)
>     (02)


-- 
This message is archived at:    (03)

http://collab.blueoxen.net/forums/cgi-bin/mesg.cgi?a=yak&i=3FCD206F.90901@sun.com    (04)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>