Time: Sun Sep 07 11:11:53 1997 by usr05.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA09035; Sun, 7 Sep 1997 11:05:46 -0700 (MST) Date: Sun, 07 Sep 1997 11:05:39 -0700 To: tomlunde@cmw.ca From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: SLS: Policy, the Net, and Corruption (fwd) The man sets a high standard of excellent examples here. My hearty compliments. Listen and learn! /s/ Paul Mitchell http://supremelaw.com copy: Supreme Law School >Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 10:08:49 -0500 >From: "Thomas Lunde" <tomlunde@cmw.ca> >To: Designing for POST-INDUSTRIAL REALITIES <futurework@csf.colorado.edu> >Subject: Policy, the Net, and Corruption > >I have been challenged by the questions posed by Mr. Mueller. I am fairly >new at lists and don't belong to many but I have noticed that there are a >number of "types" who participate. For some, the list serves as a chat >line of sorts where conversations take place, friendly insults exchanged >and a form of polite one upmanship prevails. A second type holds a >particular viewpoint most strongly, i.e. conservative, left wing, etc. and >chooses to view every solution from that viewpoint and attacks all other >participants with their singular solution. Others seem to be information >sharers, who constantly try to enlarge the knowledge and background of >every subject discussed by bringing resources, book reviews, articles, >comments and other links. And then there are those who have a solution - >shorter work week, land reform, etc. and who tenaciously stay focused on >their particular solution. And finally, as Mr. Mueller has pointed out, >there is the majority who come and visit, read a little and move on with >nary a trace of their personality, viewpoint or interest left behind. > >Our current historical position is analogous to that period of history when >Gutenburg invented the printing press and the world of knowledge moved from >those who copied and studied and memorized manuscripts to those who began >to read the many books that were becoming available. That led to coffee >houses, a new theory for University curriculums, the public school system, >authors and readers, the penny dreadnought, the great thinkers such as >Descartes and John Locke and Adam Smith who for the first time could write >in volume over several hundred pages on a topic. While those changes >happened over several hundred years, out current situation is vastly >swifter. And we have not yet invented the forms to take advantage of the >technolgy's we have discovered. The computer, the word processor, the >modem, the Internet, Web Pages and Lists are all new inventions that have >happened within a generation for most of us. > >I would suggest that many people who are readers, have not yet learned how >to be writers. That our culture in literacy has been heavily weighted >towards developing the skill of reading or watching or listening as in TV >and radio and quite frankly, the art of expression has been lost. This is >even true of conversation and debate. Inside the heads of most people is >more knowledge than ever before and yet the desire and ability to express >that knowledge, for most, has atrophied. > >These new technologies and the ones on the horizon that will turn our >humble computer into a video telephone or a voice to type dictation machine >or a combination of writing and graphic iconic description, are going to >require an education in taking what is inside our heads from our vast >absorption of knowledge through reading, watching and listening to >developing methodologies in which we all become as conversant at outputting >information as we have become absorbing information. This will be a >revolution similar to the one started by Gutenburg in the 15th century. > >Not only do we as individuals have to change - usually a generational >thing, but we have to invent new forms to organize and display and store >all this new output. We few, fortunate enough to have a computer, an >Internet server, technical skills enough to master our word processor, our >browser and our mail program, our private data bases are on the forefront >of this wave. Lists such as FutureWork are pioneer efforts and from the >solving of the problems that Mr. Mueller is bringing into focus, we can and >will start to find answers. > >At the moment we are at a very rudimentary stage. Membership is by >individual choice - maybe good - maybe bad, still to be decided. On FW, we >have attempted to solve that by two lists, one more private and >conversational, one more public and not limited by length or topic. The >development of the concept of "threads" where individual themes can exist >within the larger body works to some small degree but often peters out >through lack of participation and long term focus. The history of the list >is contained in "archives" which have no organization except linear >cataloging and which are cumbersome to read if one wants to research what >might have went on before. There are no summaries of issues that have been >discussed and conclusions arrived at, though there has been a small attempt >at position papers. > >Then there is the concept of outcomes - what do we as participants want to >do? Are we frustrated publishers looking for readership? Evangelists >looking for converts? Social activists looking for a cause and like minded >participants? Inventors posting our new ideas? Educators looking for >students to teach? > >These are questions not addressed or formalized. Partly because the medium >lacks commitment. There is no financial incentive as there is in a >business venture and though many smart people have tried to find ways to >make Lists commercial, no one has found that magic formula that I am aware >off. There is no fame to be garnered that you can add to your CV for all >the effort of writing out your thoughts or interacting in this way with >others. There is no authority such as project leaders, saying Thomas, "do >this as your part of the assignment." There is no outside authority >evaluating and marking our efforts to give personal or academic value to >our efforts. To date, the most we can hope for is a little peer group >recognition by those who choose to comment on our individual efforts. > >We hold no official position within a hierarchy such as government, >business or university. We have not yet found a way to be effective in the >real world were legislation is discussed and passed or where products are >developed or sold or where institutions come forth and offer us speaking or >writing or workshop opportunities. We have a printing press, but we have >not developed a readership to support our output. Or is the new tool of >cyberspace ultimately uncommercial and that what we will see over time is >new values established that are not of a monetary nature? These, to me, >are some of the many unanswered questions. When the answers are finally >found, we will look back from the position of hindsight and wonder why it >was so difficult to see the way cyberspace can be used effectively, but >from our present vantage point the answer is not so apparent. > >This is a very germane list to engage these questions on because this may >very well be the Future Work of millions of people. Participating through >cyberspace on the solving of problems, enlarging our personal knowledge, >developing skills to work in multi-disciplinary environments with people >that you have no common shared experiences with, who may come from >different culture, political viewpoints, education training and who may >join and leave at their discretion rather than being coerced by money or >contract, may require a social and economic revolution before it can be >incorporated into the mainstream of human society. > >This thread should remain open and we should move from asking questions to >theorizing on answers to eventually attempting through experiment, some >real world activity to explore and learn. Failure is a successful learning >strategy. Not trying is not a successful learning strategy. > > > ======================================================================== Paul Andrew Mitchell : Counselor at Law, federal witness B.A., Political Science, UCLA; M.S., Public Administration, U.C. Irvine tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night email: [address in tool bar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU website: http://www.supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal. ======================================================================== [This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail