I. The Question

Taking the position that how one thinks about something is influenced by the 'colour' of the language (that is, the terms in which one thinks about it), I raise the question,

Can two people think about unity without finding that their thinking is identically coloured? (1)

Others besides me have studied how people solve problems, but it is helpful to note that for some folks, the failure of solution A to solve a problem implies a need to go 'on' to solution B, while for others, it implies they had not addressed the proper problem and a need to go 'back. It is convenient to call the first group 'rigid' -- because how they came to know 'it' is a problem is not an issue for them: it may be 'set,' or it may be 'obvious', but its origin or definition is outside their 'sphere of responsibility' -- and call 'flexible' those who are less certain of the dimensions of that sphere. For the latter, anything in it which is not properly understood is a problem (and equally, anything is a possible solution if it is); that is, the same test of propriety applies whether 'it' refers to the issue, how one came to see the issue, or why one decides that one's sphere includes it. The test itself is simple: does 'it' fit consistently with other 'things' one is (or has elected to be) responsible for? Its application as an 'algorithm' for problem-solving is the present focus.

In the course of this essay, how and why I recognized this as an issue and decided to address it will become clear -- or at least as clear as the algorithm itself (which, as it can doubtless benefit from additional input and clarification, may be said to be a flexible solution).

=============
While there are great numbers of issues which have been 'computerized,' they are characterised by already having solutions; what is 'programmed' is the sequence of (often tedious) steps by which one 'inputs data,' 'plugs in' various 'givens' or fixed parameters (or results of other programs), and 'generates the outcome,' which can be checked, if desired, against the results obtained by 'traditional' methods.

Such programs rarely, for instance, calculate the value of pi from 'first principles,' or check whether a person who was 99 years and some months old yesterday could actually be 1 year old today, or recognize that particular survey statistics to two decimal places is not meaningful. To the extent that (to the program), the data are 'given' just as certainly as the constants, the problem itself is given; if in fact there is a real problem, it is not 'what is the volume V of a sphere of radius R?' but 'Why does this data-set (R, pi) not yet have a (positive) third element V?' -- not, note, 'Is the volume best described by spherical functions?' 'Is V necessary?' or even 'Who wants to know?'

It's obvious that this state of affairs is only temporary; it is still early days of the networked age, and are only catching up with the 'conversion' of traditional problems -- or at least that's what we tell ourselves, as one traditional problem after another comes home to roost, and such 'traditional' solutions as it may have been proclaimed that they had not only didnt work then, but dont compute now. One predictable consequence -- solution B, one might say -- has been to redefine the magnitude (and thus the 'seriousness') of the matter -- be it the norm for American students' SAT scores, purity of foods, roughness of consensus, amount of plutonium stock, numbers of unemployed, etc, etc. -- as if then new 'approaches' are warranted to education, pollution, governance, security, precarious economic sectors, and so on.

On the other hand, looking at the situation with a flexible perspective, it is not at all obvious that it is temporary, or indeed, that it is very much different from any other snapshot of the industrrial era. In this view, the Problem (if I may solve the problem of distinguishing this 'higher-level' problem from more 'mundane' ones by capitalization) is that the nominated problem solvers can apply only the 'rigid' approach, as if the answers are all known, the parameters all delineated, the algorithms all in place needing only a button to be pushed to fill in the values which for some 'inexplicable' reason have come up blank.. Since this Problem,

how to have more than one mode of problem-solving in ones repertoire (2)

Specifically, the rigid response to having this pointed out might be, 'So what's your answer? Tell us what we could have done if you're so smart.' Of course, since it could not possibly be my 'responsibility' to give such an 'explanation,' much less to tell or 'teach' anyone what to do, there is no 'reason' for my suggestions to be followed; indeed, if one were to fall into that trap, the advantage is to the other: not to show that one's 'solution' is unworkable, but to attack one's presumption to have the authority to be shown anything. Even on this level, in other words, the mindset is the same: a problem is what the system is prepared to handle; it is prepared because it has handled it before. Within this rigid conceptual frame, there are no problems without solution; if there was a solution, one would have it by now. One does not have it; therefore there is no problem, and pointing it out is frivolous if not insubordinate. Thus the 'problem-solving' institution preserves itself, insulated from both (a) whether the input appropriately describes the state of affairs, and (b) whether the outcome is a solution or not. In short, the rigid perspective, in lieu of recognizing a problem, creates a Problem.

Now, 'One (system) does what one does' may (if pleonasm is description) describe an instance, but it is not a process algorithm that applies to a continuing series of instances such as those mentioned. Another means of referencing this all-too-human perplexity is therefore required, but no rigid structure can find it, because no rigid structure can define the task.

To the flexible orientation, it's obvious that this state of affairs is not temporary at all, it is not 'early days' of any networked age, and traditional problems are not being converted at all, but merely passed along in slightly disguised form. But the 'state of affairs' now is taken to include the state (of mind, if you prefer) of those who see it, and it is as much in their sphere of responsiblity as anywhere else. The Problem thus becomes simply one of 'converting' rigid minds to flexible ones -- simply stated, that is, but perhaps impossible to accomplish, if only because there are so many out there, and they are so well reinforced by rigid institutions. ('Establishment,' 'foundation,' 'state' -- all reflect a determination to freeze the social fluid in concrete forms.)

Nevertheless, very little human development occurs ab novo; practically everyone learns by imitation ('trial and error,' for instance, directly implies a model or pattern against which ones effort is to be tried or tested) and the global network of communication channels called the Internet makes it conceivable that a model could be developed which would be accessible to millions of people for imitation. If 'conversion' proves not to be the right word, perhaps 'upbringing' will serve, as they help their children realize that not being able to change is a recipe for disaster, and that one cant change unless there is something to change to.

To introduce the model, I return to the subject of the domain name system, but in order to look at the implicit, and more general, problem of reaching consensus. The difficulty for the CDT seminar was that participants stated their positions; that is, their solutions; what if they had put their initial conditions -- their assumptions -- on the table? Of course, the discussion would have taken much longer, and the logistical conditions of bringing so many people together in one place foreclosed having so much time available. What if there had been no temporal or geographic constraints? What if, in fact, anyone who wanted to contribute could, and instead of supposing that some 'operational decision' should be reached by some 'deadline,' the deliberation process was as unbounded as the process that is its ostensible subject? Under those circumstances, I submit, reaching consensus -- and domain-name conflict resolution -- become practical possibilities; conversely, absent those circumstances, consensus is impossible by definition and conflict continues.

But having said this, a very real difficulty is exposed: how to keep track of all the contributions? How to correlate ideas which lead the same direction but use different terminology, as well as ideas which lead in different directions but which are cast in similar terms? How to distinguish 'salient' ideas from red herrings? How, in short, to relate a veritable ocean of notions to the topic? On top of all that, who will be the track-keepers, and who will keep track them? But just as there was no clear consensus at the CDT because the 'approach' to the meeting of minds excluded it, and just as there is no fixed or rigid or rule-based 'solution' to the multiplicity of human desires to make names meaningful, only from a rigid perspective are these separate questions (I shall not call them problems now), not from a continuous, dialogical, flexible one.

II. Some Clarification

   I.  A unified approach is needed to the Internet domain name system   ( ) Yes     ( ) No (3)

To assure competent voters, someone may suggest introducing a preliminary stage, a net-literacy test, a credential so that only qualified parties can vote. How is the qualification determined? If it is not also open to be voted on, who sets the exam? If it too is open, arent we launched on an infinite regression? But still these questions are cast in rigid terms (4); that is, they allow only one consistent conclusion, that some agency must be 'in control,' and that it is 'independent' of the outcome of any such voting process. Thus one sees, over and over, and despite their often strident insistence that they seek diversity and competition and an open and equitable market of ideas, discussants of such questions sell their position down the river by the conceptual framework -- the, if you like -- manifested in the language they use. (Indeed, their very stridency suggests that their arguments dont sound convincing even to themselves.) With the epistemological battle lost, the best they can do is 'debate' details; for instance, ways in which such autocracy may be made palatable to the 'public.' (A more honest term might indeed say 'subjects.')

Alternatively, a flexible person, asking herself what 'preliminary' means in an open-ended process and, exercising her judgement as to the relevance of putative 'qualifications,' would say that those who can clarify should be given the opportunity to do so while those who want clarification should be able to 'dig down' and find it -- and those same options should be available at each 'level' or stage of the terminological investigation.

That is, the 'interactive voting' instruction would read, "If and only if you agree that the terms of I. are fully qualified, then use the checkboxes; otherwise click here to edit." and the latter would let one link in ones points of concern; e.g. behind

 I.A.  A unified approach is needed to the Internet domain name system.

I. B. Unified: across all domains, TLD, 2LD, 3LD? 
I.C. What about subdirectory names?
or
I.D. Is the overhead necessary to maintain unity justified by
the result? 
Each of these would have the same checkbox options as I.A, while
further links on <result> might expand what results could be
expected (simplified language?), to whom those results might be
beneficial/ detrimental (what jurisdiction?), whether results would
be
transitional or permanent (convergence?). Other branches would sprout
from  <overhead> and so on -- and on.

(As there is no entirely satisfactory topology by which to orient cyberspace and hypertext,  I visualise myself starting at the base ('root') of a tree whose forked branches continuously recede until the crown is lost to view -- but whether this puts them above, beyond, beneath (as subdirectories apparently are meant to be) or behind me, I leave to the reader's imagination. In addition, rather than declare one part of this essay 'hyper' to another, I have instead put in angle brackets words which are either clarified 
in situ or addressed explicitly later in the text, while those in italics may deserve to be clarified but havent been. Words in 'ironic quotes' are to be read in a dirigiste voice. Such <code> as may be found links either to end notes about the writing (as this para should be), to 'outside' pages, or to 'deepening' discussion.   

To put it another way, conventions such as these themselves symbolise hyper-levels of discourse -- one which is not normally expected or required to be made explicit, as 'everybody knows' that italics serve to emphasise a word. Is the phase into which the meaning is put a hyper-linguistic dimension? Only your cognitive faculty knows for sure -- but one might keep in mind that it is the precisely the nature (or construction) of such a phase-space which is the objective of the present essay. Why settle for expectation, assumption, guesswork and so on when there is time and space and brainpower aplenty to spell things out? Haste lays waste, as no other century ever proved as thoroughly as the late 20th. )


It should be clear by now that finding a formulation that 'everybody' agrees on, 'once and for all,' is (as the CDT probably suspected) a chimera. But if
<all>  ifs and buts, conditions and reservations and
implications
and booundary conditions and liabilities can be explicated, then
<each> interested party can pick their way through the
branches of the tree, either accepting that 'there's nothing more to be
said,' or asking, 'have you thought about this?'


II.A. All: The Net guarantees that every conceivable consideration
is
held by somebody.  (Thus, at no point is any one entity
responsible for specifying all of them, or which are 'significant.')
II.B. Each: What degree of <identity verification = invasion
of privacy> is appropriate? 
II.C. Appropriate: Shall we vote on it? Why not?  (Anyone who
wants
to contribute to the development of the issue is welcome to
stick his hyper-oar in; multiple entries, company employees, spoofed
arguments are all grist for this mill.
II.D. Can one hyperlink one's own linked clarifications? See III.A.

=========

III. Addition: Will a vote never end?


What a fascinating possibility! While the replacement of Time as the
measure of all things (in the form of conference schedules and drafting
deadlines and polling days and so on) is a clear advantage, how does
one know when the clarifications are 'close enough for government
work'? Rather than the number of levels (which, given the free input,
would be highly uncorrelated), isnt it the rate at which 'amendments'
accrue which best provides the measure of readiness? That is, besides the
originator, there will be (relatively few) others who have been
thinking about the proposition will promptly add their 'fine tunings';
those (many) whose thinking has been stimulated by the very process
of seeing ramifications emerge will have a few bits and pieces to add;
while those ('scounds,' as my Ohio friend says) who come just to see
what's cooking may not add anything -- so a plot of disk usage/ visitor
would typically have a steep initial rise and a long tail-off like a
Poisson curve;  one could then take the tally at, say, the Poisson
equivalent of three standard deviations (approximately 95%, IANAS
('I am not a statistician'). See  V.C.) 

In place of Yes/No checkboxes, there are Approve/ Edit buttons. (If
one doesnt understand a statement, doesnt find it germane, or thinks
its an immaterial spoof or simply isnt interested, one simply leaves it
blank and goes on to another <fork>.)  Approval and editing both
register as activity, but the first is calculated within the branch as
it stands; the second within the extended branch.  Ones approval of
Prop. I 'as it stands' (or I.A,  I.A.1, etc. see Figure 1)
implies that all 'pickier' levels are immaterial in ones judgement,
but it is still only one vote in the 6-level tree of this example; that
is, at least 6 others have already registered their approval. The rate
of approval is then calculated (and graphed for the voter) over the
time that level has existed; if it meets the '3SD' criterion (determined
empirically from all activity in the tree as a whole), the tally
<issues> (see IV.A). 

To one accustomed to 'fixed' time(frames) and 'linear' chains of
implication, this may be confusing, so I elaborate. (It's easier to
program that to explain, however.) If Prop I is so perfect that
everyone who sees it approves, without reservation or qualification
or
clarification, then there is no issue (N votes on 1 level is
N) -- but our concern here is with disputation, expressed by
qualifying the proposition and adding further levels; for N
approvals registered over M levels (of  implicit disapproval), we take their time-rate
into account. Suppose that, for a given level (including all M-1 branches
beyond or behind it), N actions (approvals and edits) have occurred: N/2 in the
first week, N/4 in the second, and N/4-1 in the third, while 3SD has
been found to be 4 weeks for M levels. The algorithm does not 'time
out,' but when the Nth approval  is given on (or after) the 29th day,
the tally for that level issues. (Neither N nor the distribution is critical
except insofar as the latter affects the Poisson parameters, 
including 3SD.)  Action, of course, continues (why should the polls ever
close?) but unless it is of such distribution (not magnitude) as to let N/M
again fall inside 3SD, the issue will not be retallied.  Note also
that because there are parallel branches, a branch tally may issue either
before or after that of the root proposition. 

In this process of collaborative elaboration, a voter decides not
'Yes, I like it' in response to some previously dictated statement of
the 'issue' but 'Yes, this point expands the issue I would like to have decided.'
It is not her submissiveness but her interest which is reflected. A
netizen is no one's demographic, and this is not your grandmother's voting. 

 FIG. 1 Caption
If  I.A.1.c.iii.(a), say, satisfies as a condition for
I.A.1.c.iii, then thats it for that branch. If there are no (b),
(c), etc.  conditions at that level, then that is to say
I.A.1.c.iii is also approved as a condition for
I.A.1.c. Depiction of an actual 'worked example' awaits the reader's
contribution.

III.A. Fork: which one? A graphical <map> of her
path could show which levels hold unexplored options; alternatively, a
'forward' button could switch automatically to the topologically
nearest one. Or, if she wishes to to clarify her concerns with the
present level, she clicks the problematic <word, see V.A.> to use the editor to introduce a new level
--
which may be either to go behind ('under-stand') the present level,
or to interpolate a level ahead; that is, between the present
one and the one to which it is linked.  (5)
 Ones 'vote' on the proposition thus consists of a pattern of
'levels' which one approves. When all one's reservations have been
addressed, there will be a click of approval somewhere (at least on
ones own contribution if the act of 'entering' an amendment can
stand as approval); or if the proposition is entirely untenable (or one
cancels an edit), there is none.  One approves, or one abstains;
what other information is relevant, in terms of either ones individual
<profile> or  the collective will?

III.B. As several WWW services provide today, if the 'page' is
subsequently amended, one is invited by email to reappraise a decision.
(One might wish to specify how much change triggers notification,
but let 3SD stand as a default value; that is, one is notified when a
tally issues.) 

III.C.  Map and Profile: a record of ones path
followed through the decision tree can be preserved locally for
future reference.  On a later visit, this can be compared to the
state of the tree, and one may then switch directly to the nearest
changed level. (This becomes significant for 'identity verification';
a bot intended to stuff the ballot box would have to not merely
duplicate a previous path, but account for new edits, especially
interpolations.) The option to reappraise the entire decision tree
is of course available on entry to the root. 

III.D.  There is no re-writing, but otherwise
one may visualise the map as a process of literary composition (for
instance, a story titled 'Poll Banyan'). One writes because one has
something to say, and the process of saying it brings in new ideas and
trims away others according to the way they fit together. Computer
mediation makes this once private process of judgment ('creation') a
public collaborative affair -- not to produce a completely different
essay from what one might have written, but quite likely different from
what one would have written. Similarly, one used to research
candidates and issues one was interested in, and evaluated them in the
light of ones experience. Interactive voting casts this process in
(only slightly) more technical form, by combining ones research and
judgement with everyone else's, with no one 'outside the system' or with  'public' and 'private' roles to conflict.  



=========

IV. Names

The root proposition has a name (e.g. 'Prop. I'), but names of 'levels'
are of use only in talking about the process -- not the
contribution/ evaluation process itself.  (What it would be for the
database maintainer is another interesting question, but one
<irrelevant = beyond my scope> here.)  This detail is reflected
in the 'de-hypered' notation I have used above. For a voter, reading
through a proposition for the first time, they would not exist; so why
valorise the result of her involvement rather than the
antecedents? (Nor is there a difference between what is seen by the
'first time' voter and by those who follow; the words to which one
links a comment will not be visibly distinguished (by underline or
colour changes) in the original text. However, a voter's visited
links are revealed for her own use.)    

Antecedent/ result 'ambiguity' may be identified with past/ present
and
description/prescription -- that little matter of time, again. The
rigid epistemology sees time as segmented, each with a beginning and
an end, while flexibility takes time as a continuous function. Rigidity
has its place in analysis; the interpretation of an event
after it is over and done (that is to say, the event is defined or
bracketed by its endpoints, and analysis tests the consistency of a
'prediction' or guess (made by an 'observer' researcher who is 'outside the
system') of those points with the 'information' gained) -- and it works best
(what do you know!) when the experiment is prepared; for
preparation is control. 

On the other hand, the Internet continues, non-stop, '24/7'; should its
decision-making process (what we may call its governance) not then be
<synthetic>?  What predictions can be made or hypotheses tested
or data compared when the way the thing 'works' is identical to what it
'does'? Where does one stand to separate observer from the thing
observed? How does one bracket reader apart from writer, or governor
from governed? To reiterate the only point that is here to be made,
to (pre)suppose that what the voter has done is more 'important'
than what she sees to be done  is to define power, to
separate decision from execution, and to put the 'ad' in administration.  It
is appropriate where time and place impact events (literally, as teeth
are impacted); it is not appropriate to communication (as, for instance,
the US Bill of Rights and the Canadian Charter
understand), and the fact that we now refer to 'technologies' or 'systems' of communication  (rather than 'languages')  does not change the fundamental concept.  

IV.A.  Resolving the terminology of the issue (like instigating the proposition) remains in
human hands, but that 'working' group need simply take account  of
all the clarifying points that were 'identified' and their
corresponding weights of 'approval.' No Solomonesque decision is
required; the entire process is open and accountable -- indeed, it deserves to
be a tree in itself , as interested persons offer their 'tidy'
formulations of the points which the voting has brought out.  (N.B.
It is only in this tree that the weights are known for the 'original'
tree.)

==========

V. Multiplication

So much for a single proposition. What of the next one? Sooner or
later, it is safe to assume, points raised under one proposition
will be found relevant to another one; indeed,  it is not at all unlikely
that some point in the depths of one tree will touch fertile soil
and sprout ramifications in new directions.  The rate of propagation
again provides the criterion by which such an issue becomes a proposition
(entry point) in its own right; thus it is useful (but not required)
to formulate each clarification as a question. 

For a single tree, a voter enters at the root, the foremost
proposition. For multiple trees, there is a 'front end,' a table of
contents if you like, setting out the various propositions. (This too
is tree-like and can be edited in the same way to introduce new
propositions.) The navigation map of  III.C.
need only show the receding branches from that point. There is no way to
create 'overlapping' links; one may of course clarify the present
level. by introducing the fact that a similar point came up in some
other connection. 

V.A. Multiple trees (root propositions) are
distinguished  (by index or name); interior levels are not. A cross
reference to a cerrtain word must mention the index of the word (the
tree in which that word exists); the edit routine then adds a branch
in a 'glossary tree' (stemming from the root, 'What does <it> mean?')
linked to both trees. If a link already exists (if that term has
been previously pointed to), then the new reference is added to that
branch. The glossary (as a read-only 'meta-tree') has neither index -- thus
an (indexed) edit saying 'this word is glossed' is either <wrong>
or redundant;  nor root entry flag -- thus 'ad lib' edits are not possible. 

V.B. Does such pointing affect the Poisson curve for another tree?
No. One investigating such a 'similarity' pointer may enter the tree
pointed to (from the root, of course) and add commentary to the word
pointed to if they wish (e.g. to extend the glossary links). Someone
else, following the glossary links ('browsing'), could not so
contribute (as the 'root-entry flag' is not set). 

V. C. Does an 'offshoot' reopen its ancestral proposition? Of
course,
by the '3SD rule' again. Can one enter the offshoot root and work
'forward' to the ancestor? Yes, but again, editing requires a known
entry point; viz., the original root; one cannot wander through the
'banyan' adding comments at random. 


============

VI. Wrong 
    "An error is simply a failure to adjust from a
preconception
to a reality." --  John Cage, Jr, __Silence, 1961

Confusion is chronic regarding the apparent need to discriminate
'serious' entries from frivolous, mischievous or even malignant ones.
(ICANN's desire for an at-large membership that is representative but
not subject to monopolization ('capture') by any one segment reflects
the same concern.) But if installing (not to mention maintaining!) a
mechanism to pass 'right thinking' is a cure worse than the disease,
the obvious alternative is 'autodidactics':  there is no precession;
all entries are acceptable, and 'common' sense will effectively nullify
spurious branches (by neither approving nor clarifying them) because
coherence is stronger than random blither-blather (despite what our
politicians say).  
  

Suppose a concerted effort is launched to 'stuff the ballot box' by
approving some misleading level in hopes the proposition is adopted
that 'All men are mortal provided they eat grass.' But such a 'spam
attack' has no control over either a) other equal-level branches being
added, b) when the '3SD' point is reached or c) the question being
reopened when the tally is issued. Indeed, a great influx of votes will
only change the Poisson parameters, and then towards delaying the tally.

Common sense may be rare, but it is not extinct. The metaphysic that
admits the public is 'relevant' (that is, interested in expressing
its
views) implies that it will seek to situate those views where they
believe they are relevant (that is, where they will be
recognized. Interactive voting acts on the first directly (by
branching), and the other indirectly (a branch with greater 'depth'
will be taken as more serious). Admittedly, this is to say that, judged
by outcome, more opportunities for approval 'means' more
approval; but as a process, it simply implements the
'propedeutic' principle that more people learn from ('imitate')
what they see expressed and thus express themselves.  In sum, the
algorithm generates common sense. 

Conversely, to hold one principle and not the other -- either to
deny
public relevance, or to deny that people learn 'automatically' given
the opportunity -- is the essence of autocracy ('fascism' in the
repertory of isms): 'You will be told what you need to know; while I
know what you need without being told.'  (Solipsism, denying both,
is the remaining logical possibility.) Does this suggest that in fact
people learn at any opportunity, only we may not be able to
'keep track' of what they learn? Indeed it does; and to the extent that
the algorithm here may be understood as a way of keeping track in an
entirely impartial unprejudiced 'democratic' way,  it is also
recognizable as an interactive education. (see III.D.) 

The present design is framed in terms of Internet governance as a
result of my participation in IFWP (6), an online
discussion of the Dept of Commerce White Paper (1998), but it is also an application of
another (2 years and running) conversation on how one learns. (The concepts
of rigidity, flexibility and  <synthesis = the outcome of
dialectical education> originate with Dr Antonio Rossin,
some of whose work is [online].) Naming --
 'identifying,' and language generally -- is a natural organismic
function to 'organize' a continuous stream of sense perceptions;  it is fundamental to human consciousness. Understanding
that this is how anyone creates coherence from a 'data stream' of
undifferentiated ('uncontrolled') truth and falsity ('reality') is
central, not merely to my attempt here to translate thinking into
'things to think with,' but to every creative effort, regardless of
the number of individuals or ideas involved 'at any one time.' The
question (can one call it a 'problem' when one has the
resolution in hand?) is how to express this understanding; that is,
what language to use.  
For the present, I frame it thus: 

 One recognizes spam by the control ('reduction') of responses
to two: Buy and(/or) Discard. Is the control any less when one votes
in a language consisting of Yes, ma'am and No, sir?


===========

Remarkably, immediately following the paragraph I quoted at the beginning, Vint Cerf said, "The Internet is
becoming
the repository of all we have accomplished as a society" -- as if
society is not continuing to accomplish! Such a statement
epitomises the antinomy I am spelling out here. Certainly, if
the end of the world is at hand, then it is fitting that a record be compiled of everything
that  humankind has done. Treat the existing state (of affairs, if you
prefer) as something to be recorded, replace (re-write!) the present
with the past, control the input stream so that the  of reality one has to deal with are bracketed out of another's view
(to 'help' or 'make life easier' for them, of course!) --  all are
symptomatically rigid thought and language patterns.

On the other hand, if we really are "making the Internet the medium
of the new millennium," in Cerf's closing words, rigid understanding
doesn't cut it, as the trail of irreconciliation over three years of
debate on the  of the Internet testifies. Even overlooking the inevitable bickering, one can not merely record and report and analyse, but must be thinking that life is indeed going on and society is accomplishing (indeed, that the Internet is becoming)
-- that is, thinking flexibly and expressing it in flexible language. Simply
put, one must live in the present rather than the past -- and what one does, any number
can do -- if they can find between them a language to communicate
that that is what they are doing.
Yes, by fixing the past, rigidity saves time: 'There's
no need to reinvent the wheel,' it is said -- but who
thinks time needs saving, or that the past deserves fixing, when
flexibility is, exactly, making time and creating futurity? When
what signifies is not having wheels, but learning to make
them?  (Perhaps you have to go somewhere in a hurry, and a handbasket is just not suitable?)

Visualising the array when there is not just one or two, but a
multitude of exhaustively developed propositions, isnt it much
more
than a 'repository'? Is it not an effective, dynamic compilation of all
knowledge as it happens? If each netizen participated fully
('consciously'), is not each profile his or her biography as it
happens? In place of incoherent, fragmentary (but well-preserved!)
information, as well as the fruitless quest to then 'organize' it, are
we not gaining Practically Infinite Exformation (PIE)?  

One can think with language, or (I think) in spite of it.  Here is my
best shot at enunciating some principles of thinking-with. The names
I have given them can freely change (and doubtless will) as their
practice is realized. As noted, I await your contribution -- in good
time, please, not against some dead line.

kerry miller-mulvale 

Wilmot, 11 July 1999

kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca




Notes
(1)      Cf. Soren Kirkegaard, Purity of Heart is to Will One Thing.   
(2)      One could also ask how to change one's mind, but, to my mind, this obscures the  similarity between one mind and another. That 'we have ways' to change your mind is well known; it is not as easily grasped that our minds have therefore been changed. 

(3)      Despite the lack of consensus, ICANN began to implement the unified approach in Oct 1998.


(4)     This easily happens when the subject is omitted syntactically. The 'understood subject,' like the passive voice, allows one to move from simply doing, to being justified in doing, what one does. That is, when doing is done for its own sake, the subject becomes an insignificant speck under the 'hegemony of the object.' Edward Abbey's observation that 'Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell,' may help one appreciate the persuasiveness of this totalizing view.

(5)      The idea is that someone else
might have 'jumped a cog' which deserves explication -- but any
intention to lay a complex trail of (ir)relevance is limited to one
(actually another SD function computed for the given activity/ depth
of the branch) interpolation per visit. 
 
(6)      The transactions of the IFWP
are archived.

(7)     [Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms],  Article 2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: 
     (a) freedom of conscience and religion; 
     (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression,
         including freedom of the press and other media of
         communication; 
     (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and 
     (d) freedom of association.










Comments? Contributions? Write to
Serchan Efi Mira.