TED Talks, the Future, and Collaboration

If you haven't seen this one yet, Clay Shirky talks about the differences between institution and collaboration, and what social interaction is going to look like in the future. If you're a fan of open source, what he has to say may hold very promising. From what I understand, he's saying that the huge influx of our information age enables organizations to sort information and contribute knowledge, not by professionalizing (or institutionalizing), but by opening the gates to everyone. The results are far from anarchy. Instead we see a major increase in participation, innovation and progressiveness. He uses the example of Linux and open source software- the fact that one person can develop a program, never be hired professionally, and better Linux without every looking back, is a new and vital tool for media developers, social networks and so much more. In short, I think, open-source is the future. A flexible way to handle the information age without getting overloaded (at least not too much.) Flickr, Digg, and Reddit come to my mind instantly; can you name a few more? The future doesn't look so bleak after all...  

here's the video:

Letter to a Post-Modernist

The dissolution of the meta-narrative allows us to see the underlying vast network of "micro-narratives," as if unearthing a simplistic skin to observe a networking root of vines, earth, and complex structures. Like lifting a rock to see the vast life beneath, we see what we have been missing from our understanding. The importance of each leaf, twig, tunnel and worm become vastly more interesting than the concealing rock above, but take note; it is important not to forget how these vast web of life is itself a greater picture. Note the worm that builds the tunnels, that the beetles crawl through, observe the spider, spinning webs around roots, the centipedes and millipedes- all these things are interwoven, no matter what their individual intricacy.

See the wonder of this microcosm, but do not hesitate to sink deeper into the earth, to see the greater flowing networks that bind life and, dare I say, a new grand-narrative, a web of holistic patterns emerges- one that is always flowing and growing, emerging and manifesting in vibrant patterns like life itself. Your awe, wonder and adventure within each microcosm may be valued to greater and greater degrees, but do not forget that all that is, no matter how small, is in relation to other. There are revelations in recognizing the spider web, and not getting caught one one thread or another.

The Answer to Post Modernism

No matter what academic department you'll find yourself in, this is the most they can or want to offer:

Modernism: Belief that reason is humanity's trump card. Rational thinking and high-cognitive faculties are our greatest potential. With them, we can understand and explain away everything. We can even create grand-unified theories.

Post-Modernism: Reason is not humanity's trump card. Things are much more complicated than that. The world is a dynamic, complex environment which simple abstract thoughts over-generalize and often marginalize many points of view. Science, reason and the enlightenment age are not the answer.

But Post-modernism doesn't provide anything but a critique of modernism: break things down, complicate them, see the dynamics, see how everything is ultimately relative- too complex to ever generalize. 

Well, if you look at that for a few minutes, you begin to notice it's not really doing anything but critiquing its predecessor. 

All it can do is tear down a flawed house, and point out every flaw within it.

But it offers no alternatives.

In a metaphor, it is likened to two men lost in a forest. One of them has developed a close-circle logic on how to get back to camp. It failed, not taking into account the dynamic nature of the trees, the hills, etc. It didn't fit nicely in a box.

So his friend yells at him, telling him, "It's way too wild out here, no way to box it in like that! Now we're just lost!"

But there is a third option here neither are getting.

Say they bump into a third man, who, instead of either build up artificial concepts, or breaking them down, just decides to look at the trees.

And he starts to look at the hills.

And starts seeing natural patterns that arise.

"There is a river, we were by the river. Maybe if we follow it..."

And so he ultimately overcomes the sea of complexity by discovering patterns, and tendencies in the intricacy. 

This is in itself a more evolved form of science, because it requires a more developed sense of perspective. Nevertheless I argue that we all have it.

But, the answer to post modernism is simple: Pattern, tendency, Potential and Correlation.

Seeing underlying causes, roots within the intricacy. Ironically, the best of both modernism and post modernism.

To give one final example:

Notice if you will, that a brain up close appears to be a complex, overwhelming network of cells, organic and not clearly fitting into right angles and grids. It's a mess up close, or at least appears to be.

But if we take a step back, and start looking at the patterns, the net, we see different parts, different functions, deeper parts and more root functions.

We see that the brain has evolved from its former state, the reptilian brain. Yet the reptilian brain stem is not "Inferior" or "oppressed." It isn't over-looked or neglected. It is seen as a part of a larger, functioning whole- in which we don't have hierarchy but obvious layers of increasing complexity, and eventually, consciousness.

And imagine if the only thing we did, was to simply say: Too complex, too organic, too dynamic to understand. We would never have gotten this far in the first place. So I leave you with a thought; that critique, de-construction and dispelling of generalizations is a vital tool for understanding (And in a sense is a way of seeing deeper perspectives), but so too is seeing the forest through the trees. Thankyou.