reply to post by JacKatMtn
I pretty much have to agree with you, Jack.
(As usual with my lonnnng posts, what follows is really for everyone.)
Until we get some feed
back that will enable us to determine what work should be taken further and what should be scrapped, there is actually no
point in continuing. Were are simply putting in a lot of time and effort and probably most of it is being wasted. I'm not saying we should give up,
of course, but the only thing we know more-or-less for certain is that "TV" (in some form) is probably
within one of the spheres. Recalling
that Crakeur gave me an applause for a post where I said the centre sphere is not ATS alone and of itself, that could also be useful.
The only thing I can see any use in doing while we await words from the wise, is for each of us who got applause (about the spheres) to state their
opinions of what it was probably for. That might enable us to assign some words.
However, I am not sure that even this effort is worth while. Our task is to discern this image based upon what the "dollnean" statement says it
depicts in simplified form.
For anyone new to this thread or just in case you don't have it memorized word-perfect already, here is the statement:
A continually evolving self-feeding content creation, ideation, and publishing ecosystem.
That is what the spheres image represents in simplified form. Our process of trying to identify what the words are within that image has, in its very
essence, followed this process, and so we have given the answer very accurately.
"But we have all been getting different
answers," some may protest.
Yes. Of course we have. Because we are all different
Look, this is what I mean: seeing as the spheres image clearly shows that all the outer ones mutually relate to the inner one, and hence in effect
every sphere connects to every other one through it, I personally
don't see why any particular sphere must contain only certain words. Yes,
be certain words required, but if I want eg TV in the pink one and podcasting in the yellow, and another person wants them the other
way round or even in other spheres entirely...then why not?
I'll say it like this: if it is fundamentally people/the crowd/our minds/our imagination/[other similar concepts that mean all living members of the
ecosystem] at the centre -- because it's "us": all the humans who will input, feed, grow, evolve and ideate this ecosystem -- then it matters
not at all
which specific outer spheres hold which sub-concept/technological interface. It's "us" who decide what we individually use, input
(ie add content), and ideate to evolve this ecosystem on a continual basis. We choose. We control it.
There is no compulsion, no requirement
that we must draw more upon one component than another -- they are balanced, they are all equally accessible; they do not control us. We control
and it's our use of them that determines their own individual but "interfaced" evolutionary contribution to the whole.
This is a full digi-astral plane above "Myspace", if you will...This is "Ourspace", one that we co-inhabit and share and evolve for mutual
So, to be frank, the notion that all the words within those outer spheres must be fixed and immutable goes against the concept of continual evolution.
For the same reason, I don't see why they need to have the colours they do or even if there is
a reason why -- beyond Bill's personal
aesthetic sense. If I wish to change some of those colours or give them different names, then I can, because while it's a collective concept it also
has a uniqueness for every person. Without some degree of flexibility, there will always be people who will be excluded, and that is not good for
evolving such an ecosystem that embraces ideation. Yes, there must be some components that we will see as commonly needful, for we need
communications, information and content input/development technology to make this work, but as long as "I" -- the collective "I", meaning all of
those who are in this ecosystem but are still recognized as individuals -- am/are at the centre then it will all function fine. Put us out of the
centre and we become just a cog in a machine again.
I don't even think that we have to be limited to the number of spheres that are depicted in the image. Bill said it is a simplified
representation (or words to that effect), so why should we limit ourselves to only the very small number of options available within those 8 outer
spheres? Are there only eight components that can belong? No, I don't think so. There can be multiple layers of "spheres of influence" within the
"real" ecosystem, and how close they are to the centre -- meaning how valid or necessary they are -- will depend upon the individual user or groups
of interacting users. "We" (the greater we) are the source of gravity around which all this revolves, and our own interactions and ideation may well
evolve completely new spheres that we cannot even imagine. Yet.
If my thoughts are completely off track then I'd appreciate being told. Meanwhile, I'll wait.
[edit on 2-11-2007 by JustMike]