QuickTopic free message boards logo
Skip to Messages

TOPIC:

Comments on REVIEW of SERIOUS PLAY & WEEDS (all items)
Document uploaded 12-25-2001 03:57 PM ET (US)

Who (sort)
When (sorted)
Regarding item # (sort)
^     All comments            2-17 of 17  1-1 >>
17
Larry VictorPerson was signed in when posted
11-03-2005
12:20 AM ET (US)
Regarding item 16
These comments are by Larry Victor.
16
Larry Victor
02-13-2002
12:16 PM ET (US)
Regarding item 11
A new article by Schrage in Technological Review documents how Wal*Mart's large investment in hitech systems for facilitating innovation have more influence on IT than Microsoft! Wal*Mart's productivity leads all others and this drives others to invest in the same systems and software that Wal*Mart gets the IT firms to produce for it. Wal*Mart sets the standard for much of the business computer apps in the USA.

http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/schrage0302.asp
15
Larry Victor
02-12-2002
06:04 PM ET (US)
General comment
MICHAEL GENTRY: "Your essay is good, but hard for me to hold on to (more an observation about my state of mind, than of your essay). I can only muster a little energy for a theory. I want to see the manifestation. Sorta like you want see your work organized, (possibly edited) snd published (even electronically). I have a theory - that a community of people can live consciously. That's my quest."


LARRY VICTOR: I don't expect my essay on SeriousPlay to go anywhere - but I do hope to use QuickTopic later as an initial media for collaboration. I think on point of Schrage re models, simulations and prototypes is that they are MANIFESTATION. Theories are a form of manifestation. Indeed, in a way they ARE what is "most real", and the so-called experienced manifestations of them are illusionary reality. What we learn about manifestation is via reports which are composed in the context of models. We tend to extend the immediate reality we have in doing something with our hands and eyes manually to processes that extend into time and space and involves others.

These "unobservable" processes are as real at your vehicle needing fixing. According to Schrage, what corporations are doing is treating models as real and experimenting with ways to manipulate them. It may be like figure/ground switching, but Reality-One (the physical-biological sequence of states) and Reality-Two (the cyberworld of all data, text, reports, communications) complement each other. We think we act upon Reality-One, but most of the time we act upon Reality-Two.

Corporations and Governments behave according to Reality-Two (although they are usually not conscious of it, and use language as if they are in Reality-One). Those who attempt to oppose, resist, reform or just survive the turbulence created by corporations and governments both believe they are acting in Reality-One and their behavior is weak to nonexistent in Reality-Two. Thus, the future is forfeited to the corporation and governments, and the elites throughout history.
14
Larry VictorPerson was signed in when posted
02-07-2002
01:37 PM ET (US)
Regarding item 13
To Glenn /m9

I believe relevant "change" must be co-emergent, that the dance between individual and setting must go together. We need not change the "whole external world" before we begin to create a nu local external world that reinforces and supports those changes within.

Also, what we believe to be outside, is also inside - indeed that of the outside that effects us is that which is processed within us, and is part of our individuality.

It is possible for one person to change to a state/process most acceptable to that person when that person is totally isolated from others. This is a possibility, and one that I do not judge. But, there are other alternatives, where people change within a mileiu of others changing. Since we most often encounter resistance from others to our personal changes, we conclude that we must change first before others can change. Yet, there is a possibility for others to mutually change in harmony/synergy, where the direction of change of each is different from how they would change by themselves, but that need not be negative.

That I call for more explicit focus on semiotic structures and semiotic realities is not the same as saying "all is semantics". It is not that play with words can confuse and divert, but that ALL PLAY involves language (even if the activity transcends language). Language is more than what is heard and said, it is a fundamental framework upon which ALL experience is referenced.

There are many "great ideas" that I am pleased about, consider important, but don't expect to share with others -- primarily because I don't have time and have priorities. In this sense the idea id ENOUGH. But, the sharing of ideas is more than "sending them out" or "marketing", it is to get others involved in collaborating expanding upon, editing, co-creating the initial (seed) idea.
13
Larry VictorPerson was signed in when posted
02-07-2002
01:21 PM ET (US)
General comment
To ALL

I have received some comments by email, which I took my being notified that they were composed here in QuickTopic, but I do not find them listed in these comments. A reply to an email from QuickTopic does not enter that reply in QuickTopic.

Some of the email concepts requested that I give a f2f presentation on the topic; which I agree to do. However, the topic itself points to the need to generate more permanent records of dialog and discourse, which QuickTopic is designed to augment and facilitate - to some degree.

It is not necessary that you comment on each aspect of this document; but as an experiment I was hoping that an area or two that was of special interest could catalyze a response that might lead to a brief dialog on that issue.

I may have to wait for a different topic, and to begin the experiment with a shorter document.

To receive notification of a comment, you can ask for it in the Comment Forum window.
12
Larry VictorPerson was signed in when posted
02-07-2002
01:12 PM ET (US)
General comment
To Michael /m8

As always, I appreciate your insights, Michael.

I wasn't proposing that a new community could be based soley on better methods of innovation; but that it must be an important aspect of any new community.

A rememberance just popped to mind about Viable Organization, from a book and meeting I had with the author, who considered the important role of feedback in contributing to the viablility of organizations. I used this in one of my papers on education, where he pointed out that contemporary educational institutions get feedback for those aspects not relevant to student learning, and are designed to get no feedback to assist in the improvement of student learning. This relates to how educational innovation be blocked by systems of information flow.

I also agree that it is difficult to start anu without first shedding many aspects of our past - yet, how much to shed and how much to keep, and the order of shedding remains an empirical issue, probably different for each person. What is also critical in emergence from chaos (I am prefering the use of "preorder" to chaos) are the initial conditions -- which are, in some way, a carryover from the prior states. I propose some NU principles to begin with, which must be readily available at the beginning (as least to refer to later, as semiotic structure)if the emergence is to move towards a positive field of alternatives.
11
Larry VictorPerson was signed in when posted
02-07-2002
12:54 PM ET (US)
General comment
To Glenn /m10

Thanks Glen, for the interesting quote. It appears that the term "physicist" covers a very wide spectrum of fundamental beliefs. Darling is typical of one type of physicist. He believes that experiences are chimeras, but that the physical universe postulated by physicists is objectively real - even though there is no direct evidence for it that is not filtered through those chimeral minds.

What I propose, and what I find partly supported by Serious Play, is a process of living that leaves the issue of an ultimate reality moot. Believing in one type of reality usually excludes consideration of possible practical applications of acting under other types of reality. Complementarity is a meta perspective that enables one to work with multiple realities - although often not simultaneously.

What may be new in my proposal, is making very explicit the role of [text, language, communication, semiotics] as the context for human action. Humans act as to what they believe to be real, not what "is" real. The more we comprehend about how people come to believe in specific types of reality, we may be better prepared for life.

A secondary, but very practical issue (in my view) -- and I can't remember whether it is mentioned in the doc -- is that organizations currently in power DO employ process that make use of their semiotic reality; whereas those organizations that attempt to resist or reform them make very little use of their semiotic reality. Serious Play gives a set of examples as how corporations are improving their use of semiotic realities - the models, prototypes and simulations with which they play and innovate. Where are the equivalents among those who propose alternatives to our Era of Corporations?
Edited 02-07-2002 12:58 PM
10
glenn
01-30-2002
04:57 PM ET (US)
Regarding item 81
I like this quote from David Darling, physicist, concerning what we perceive ...what meaning we give to things:

"All objects... are fictitious; chimeras of the mind. It is our left
[brain] hemispheres... that trick us into seeing sheep, trees, human beings,
and all the rest of our neatly compartmentalized world. WE seek out
stability with our reasoning, consciousness, and ignore flux... Through
this classifying and simplifying approach we make selections through the
stream of change, and we call these sections 'things.' And yet a sheep is
not a sheep. It is a temporary aggregation of subatomic particles in
constant motion - particles which were once scattered across an interstellar
cloud, and each of which remains within the process that is the sheep for
only a brief period of time. That is the actual, irrefutable case...

"We slip so easily into the habit of assuming that what we see and feel in
our minds is what is actual going on outside ourselves, beyond the portal of
the senses. After all, we are only inches away from the borders of this
seemingly familiar land. But there are no colors out there, no hot or cold,
no pleasure or pain. Although we experience the world as a series of
sensory objects, what actual comes to our senses is energy in the form of
vibrations of different frequencies; very low frequencies for hearing and
touch, higher frequencies for warmth, and higher still for vision... The
radiations we pick up trigger neural codes that are made by the brain into a
model of the external world. Then this model is given subjective value and,
by a trick of the brain projected outward to form the subjective world.
That inner experience is what we habitually equate with external
objectivity... But it is not objective... All of perceived reality is a
fiction." - Equations of Eternity: Speculations on Consciousness, meaning
and the Mathematical Rules that Orchestrate the Cosmos, by David Darling
Ph.D. (New York: Hyperion, 1993)
9
glenn
01-30-2002
04:37 PM ET (US)
Regarding item 13
A great idea IS enough. Of course it needs to be shared, not to be held as "mine". I know little of the market place. However I believe that what is primary is getting our own act together ...our personal realization/awakening comes before any true change in the "external" world. A truth seeking question is primary - most questions are ego and fear based.
8
michaelg
01-27-2002
05:17 AM ET (US)
General comment


I read your essay, and don't know where to begin. Most of it is over my head (which isn't hard). Here's my grasp of your vision: a community (virtual or real) that fosters innovation through collaboration, and further; that it is possible to develop (or use existing) tools to enhance information sharing. Fosters infers intent - maybe it just happens.

I don't think you can form a community around this belief. Introduce it to an existing community, possibly. If you were still teaching, perhaps you could interest students in participating. If you had lotsa of money, you could create the infrastructure and support systems, which many of the disenfranchised would find attractive. Perhaps a grant?

As I've shared numerous times, my belief systems says we must release our past before we can be of real service - which would include growing an innovative community. Otherwise, we're trying to put flesh on our projections.

My friend Siri Gian attended "The Forum" - which is a refined version of EST. It's a total of 9 days exploring belief systems, scripts and tools we use to socialize. Many of the tools we picked up very young, at school, at work and any time we're "relating". The workshop includes techniques for discarding tools that are inappropriate for our present life situation. Although it's a powerful experience, I don't think it can be integrated if one returns to his previous environment. Hence the need to disconnect.

What does this have to do with "Serious Play and Weeds"? Not much, certainly not a point by point response. It's simply my context for considering possibilities, like nu communities. It's all maya. Until we get our shit together. And stop carrying other peoples for them. FREEDOM - collaborate that!
7
Deleted by author 11-02-2005 11:56 PM
6
Larry VictorPerson was signed in when posted
01-21-2002
08:03 PM ET (US)
General comment
Reply to Albert /m5:

I also wanted to see some distinction between model, prototype and simulation. Yet, Schrage's objective was to demonstrate that collaboration on the genre has an effect on both collaborators and organizations. I believe that the genre will go beyond the three types he cited, and that to use only one would probably have created more dyservice that using three interchangably. My attraction to the book and ideas was that the genre are SEMIOTIC SYSTEMS.

I agree as to the swimming and blur, which is why I have resisted making this my first collaborative project. Sharing this topic and developing a collaborative process/project are to independent objectives.

The "simulation unproposed" was to collaborate on developing a process for using QT on topics - weaving an emergent participatory/interactive "document".

I agree - that we need an "intriguing toy" with which to PLAY!
5
Albert
01-21-2002
01:46 PM ET (US)
General comment
It occurs to me that using model, prototype and simulation interchangeably is a 'dysservice'. Perhaps a model might more closely be a virtual infrastructure, a prototype a material infrastructure, a simulation a world in which to seriously play. However that may be, in skimming the text for the past 20 minutes I am left with a sense of a swimming of ideas, a blur of objects, and a simulation unproposed. If this is indeed a call for endeavor, let's construct an intriguing toy.
4
Larry VictorPerson was signed in when posted
12-25-2001
05:19 PM ET (US)
Regarding item 110
The link to LQE, Learners for Quality Education won't connect. Please use:

http://ourworld.cs.com/larryvictor137/edu_web/paper.htm
3
Larry VictorPerson was signed in when posted
12-25-2001
05:17 PM ET (US)
Regarding item 8
The link to The Fundamental Reality of Text was relational for my homepage, so it can't be reached by clicking.

It can be reached at
http://ourworld.cs.com/larryvictor137/RelDocs/isss94af.htm
2
Larry VictorPerson was signed in when posted
12-25-2001
05:07 PM ET (US)
General comment
I invite you to play with this initial document as part of a prototype for a semiotic structure that may serve as a guide to our development and better comprehension of our creative activities ahead.

Use the general comment for meta dialog on this procedure until we establish a separate dialog area for it.
^     All comments            2-17 of 17  1-1 >>

Print | RSS Views: 151 (Unique: 94 ) / Subscribers: 1 | What's this?