How economists have misunderstood inequality: An interview with James Galbraith – The Washington Post
Autopoiesis and how hyper-connectivity is literally bringing the networks to life | Trends in the Living Networks
This has been written from an enterprise perspective, and infers business opportunity. I can’t help but think that ‘business’, vested in self interest as it is, is the antithesis of the very concept being considered. That aside, the articulation of network characteristics is a s good as I’ve read (I’m not a scholar).
There are several important aspects of the emerging network which I think warrant special attention: Firstly, like the networks organic counterpart ‘it’ needs to be able to address information errors, the source of dissonance and unnecessary reiteration and potential lockup. While this is largely a semantic issue it is important, I think, to avoid compound definitions.
By way of example consider the definition of traditional liberalism as articulated by wikipedia:
Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis) is a political ideology or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally liberals support ideas such as constitutionalism, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, capitalism, and the free exercise of religion.
Liberalism first became a powerful force in the Age of Enlightenment, rejecting several foundational assumptions that dominated most earlier theories of government, such as nobility, established religion, absolute monarchy, and the Divine Right of Kings. The early liberal thinker John Locke, who is often credited for the creation of liberalism as a distinct philosophical tradition, employed the concept of natural rights and the social contract to argue that the rule of law should replace absolutism in government, that rulers were subject to the consent of the governed, and that private individuals had a fundamental right to life, liberty, and property.
The revolutionaries in the American Revolution and the French Revolution used liberal philosophy to justify the armed overthrow of tyrannical rule. The nineteenth century saw liberal governments established in nations across Europe, Latin America, and North America. Liberal ideas spread even further in the twentieth century, when liberal democracies were on the winning side in both world wars and liberalism survived major ideological challenges from fascism and communism. Today, liberal political parties remain a political force with varying degrees of power and influence on all major continents.
A twenty-first century development is an emerging new liberalism that is centred on the concept of timeless freedom (ensuring the freedom of future generations through proactive action taken today). This is an idea that has been endorsed by the President of Liberal International Hans van Baalen.
Sorry about the extended quote, I am not disregarding the important debate surrounding concepts and ideas. Importantly, this definition is from wikipedia and may be considered a ‘base’ source of understanding, common knowledge if you will. Liberalism, in these terms conflates concepts of liberty, property, democracy, human rights, capitalism and religion; interestingly not science.
The point being that from a network perspective it is all but meaningless, with each of us able to bring a unique structure to it’s meaning. It does not serve as a meaningful network definition and should not reside in active memory.
Secondly, the resource overhead of securing ‘property’ in information, acting as it does, as a barrier to the transmission and reception of information, strikes me as being, in the long run, untenable. So what of the ‘property’ ‘rights’ considered above?
Third, it can be argued that trust is an essential aspect of network security the question becomes what is the most ‘efficient’ method of securing trust? Generally, it would seem this trust has been reduced to processes which aim to; identify, map, label and monitor both participants and their transactions at an individual level. While I recognise the network’s need to detect and eradicate ‘cancerous’ cells this approach is not only inefficient but conceptually flawed.
What is being attempted, on a network level, is to target the contributions of individual people (cells), or cell blocks (collectives) premised on a presupposed (ordained) yet non existent understanding of the true nature of the network.
In the article Dawson considers the work of the “…eminent German sociologist Niklas Luhmann…” and writes he:
…worked for two decades applying the concept of autopoiesis to social systems, and he too found that their central component is communication. A social system is made up of processes that recursively produce communication, which is the essence of a social system. It produces itself. And by means of the flow of information and ideas through our minds and digital systems, we all participate in a living system vastly greater than ourselves.
An important aside, network ‘development’ is a key consideration. At it’s conceptual heart, development, infers a knowledge of the network beyond even the network’s capacity to know. The contrast, most starkly, is between emergence (self development) and management.
These ideas, the integrity and voracity of information, network well being (security) and development (guided or evolutionary), when considered together, infer a very different incarnation of the network than that which we currently experience.
In conclusion, the futurist in me, envisages the emergent network as being primarily beyond the scope of property, indiscriminate in that resonate ideas remain beyond preference or ideal and largely anonymous for two reasons. Firstly, beyond the data required for error checking there is no need for the additional resource usage associated with verification and secondly because it creates a vulnerability in that those who seek to manage the network, and consequently harm it’s emergent form, may misuse personal information in a manner which overall is detrimental to the network’s well being.
The network’s overall function is, indiscriminately, to secure the well being of it’s component parts through the transmission of ‘good’ information and securing adequate resources to sustain the organism into the future. Securing ‘good’ information is the role of network security, albeit in the negative form, by excluding ‘misinformation’ and it’s purveyors from it’s form. Ultimately the network will define it’s epistemological form congruent with methodological naturalism and the ‘sciences’. The network is, if not exclusive, exclusionary and a likely scenario is that parasitic forms currently infesting the network, free riders, will attack the network itself. The exclusion, and consequent division, is a necessary and certain path.
As regards the acquisition and distribution of resources, there are three imperatives. One, that acquisition, consumption, and waste are managed in a sustainable manner, and therefore dependent on accurate feed back information and feed forward forecasts. Two, the network must identify essential services and functions (hydration, nutrition, heathcare and housing spring to mind). Further, that while resource distribution must be intrinsically egalitarian, where surplus accumulates, that surplus must be accessible for redistribution to secure essential services during times of need.
How the Conservative Worldview Quashes Critical Thinking — and What That Means For Our Kids’ Future | | AlterNet
Press Freedom Declines in the US With Arrests of Journalists at Protests–and More Will Likely Come | | AlterNet
As an opinionated lady who shares those opinions for a living, writer and broadcaster Clementine Ford is no stranger to debates about freedom of speech. She explains why freedom of speech is often misread to mean a licence to spread bigotry – and why true freedom of speech can never be over-rated. – The Wheeler Centre: Books, Writing, Ideas
Freedom of speech where? In the broader scope interruptions forestall effective communication. Not every communication takes place, nor is it suited to, an open forum.
As an opinionated lady who shares those opinions for a living, writer and broadcaster Clementine Ford is no stranger to debates about freedom of speech. She explains why freedom of speech is often misread to mean a licence to spread bigotry – and why true freedom of speech can never be over-rated. – The Wheeler Centre: Books, Writing, Ideas.