While dwelling about my own domestic model of energy consumption I had this crashing thought: am I an information builder? If  so, of what kind? It may sound odd thinking but parallell thoughts have their own way of functioning and I accept them when they come.

 

Advertisements

Everyday my email is crying out for help:

Sign this petition, fight injustice wherever, eua, mexico, new zealand.

Clic here and give rice, become a facebook  fan and give 10 cent, fight hunger, discrimination, death penalty, write this letter, sign this petition.

Sometimes I do it, sometimes I don’t. Which factors weigh on my decision to do it or not?

How far are we in touch? Do we become aware? Do we believe? Do we want to believe? Is it believable?

Where are the roots of all this global correspondance? And does it blossom? Where? When? Why?

 

Observations about an e-learning experience in the 3rd person:

1 – in a physical classroom speech is taken over upon many factors. Less people talk, because time of reunion is limited and sometimes someone is more efective in taking up the time available.

2- in a e-learning environment everyone talks. Each presence becomes present through speech.

3 – in a physical classroom are the goals of communication fulfilled? We may feel that we’ve missed the point…

4 – in a e-learning environment are the goals of communication fulfilled? Everyone talks/writes extensively. But listening to others is not assured. It seems like everyone is talking in its own behalf, not trying to build upon others views.

Today my colleague said this: people have a lot of information, but don’t know reality.
We were talking about going to a social security center, with a problem, asking for help. Someone told us about a nasty experience.
So tough we have information about things that are wrong, we don’t really know reality.
Said I: imagine going to that same center through the eyes, the body, the position of an immigrant.
Though this proposition could be in many ways dissecated, I will put only this forward: embodied information is quite different from just information.
And there’s a lot of un-embodied information.

Cool reading! Worth thinking. I’ll publish an extended comment over it.

Proust & Bergson –

Cognitive Psychology –

Libraries –

Archives –

The Collective Memory –

a link to a post here

The adventure into Knowledge Economy didn’t went on so well. My application to a scholarship in Finland has been refused. Being left out I came up with some random reflective thoughts about KE. So here goes nothing:

– in KE many pay to get knowledge, few get paid for doing it. Although I see myself more like Ismael than like a turist (remember Ismael getting into the boat in the beggining of Moby Dick?) the fact is that  I am on the side of the payers not of the receivers.

– Economic logic is fallacious, it goes on in a circle: to get a job you need a job. To be a researcher (paid as such) you need to be a researcher.

–  Kuhn was right: where do you stand?  Ambiguities don’t exist. We should behave as one of them. Cannot stand in between  – Am I to be a philosopher? An information researcher?

–  KE has strange consequences: things will get to this rather obscure point, in which the imperative of learning: “keep learning, throughout life” will amount to a Devaluation of Knowledge you already hold. There is no definitive knowledge, K has perishable value.

I strongly desagree with many of the premisses of KE I have stated here. But of course, all of these premisses are disputable, and might be false. Don’t put your emotions into your applications, they might blur your judgements. Probabilities is the right framework to view your application’s efforts.

A new style of management is described in this article :

“The company began to be run through unstructured collaboration. A never-ending management stream-of-consciousness based on e-mail, instant messaging and internal social media became the center of the action. This style of working is taking hold at many young companies.”

The positive feature of this style imprinted by young digital native  CEOs (20-30 years old) is trust:

“The positive part of meetingless management is that it assumes everyone is doing his or her job and checking in if they need help. It is an empowered, management-by-exception model. The meetings that the 50-something CEO held were a way to enforce control, to keep people from working on their own. The digital native CEO says implicitly, “I trust you. Take care of it, and let me know if you need help.”

How are work flows understood and managed? I would call it: meta-work data. A “stream-of-consciousness management” is thus created by reinforcing metrics, milestones, progress monitoring and predictive power. A list of six sucess critical factores is presented in the end of the article.

Though overall this is a positive account of this (r)evolution, a final warning is made:

Empowerment needs some structure to avoid confusion and at worst chaos. Stream-of-consciousness management must take place within a defined context to succeed in the long term. It is the rare chief executive of any age that gets this balance right.”

Post-scriptum: Let me add this curious detail. I came across this article through Facebook. It was published by one of the participants in one of the world’s largest collaborations. A scientific collaboration at CERN. Is the model of collaboration @ CERN worn-out? This is also a slight variation on the narrative of internal, immanent structures of HEP’s field, exported to the outside. I’m curious about this, because of my previous reference frame of these questions. I will make a post about it. Later.