Hi,

My name is russell and just wanted to introduce myself, and extend a thank you to the individual who invite me to participate in what looks to be an intellectually robust, innovative project. I just have a few thoughts on the structure of forums in the contexts of sociopolitical discussions and their limitations as well as possibilities.
Forums provide for a discursive organization that is structured according to topics, which become ever more specified as threads develop, which focus in upon more specified contents related to the original composit of the topic. The discursive threads, of course, can introduce additional materials as they develop, and, subsequently, can enter into the same processes already described in the remarks depicting the spiriling of the topics into specified threads of discussion.
All of this leads to a flow of contents that are generated from processes that are - more than less - socially democratic, because the trajectories assumed by the forum are the result of a voluntary associationalism, where subjects are pursued only if members freely commit to them, due to whatever interests motivate the specific member to contribute to a path of discussion.
In many ways, forums are similarly structured to Wikis. However, there is one short comming that is unfortunate about forums as opposed to Wikis, which involves the inability to reintegrate the threads that form through creating hypertexts that can be used to related contents belonging to various threads. This, in my experience, can lead to fractures in the community of interlocutors that become more than simply an expression of diversity within the context of community, but leads to the formation of permenant schisms, in what can be called a process of tribalism.
Just a few thoughts concerning the meta-language of the discussions that are being created, which, I suppose, boils down to my own endorsement of Wikis over forums, but I am sure there advantages to forums that I have failed to consider.
Best,
R Cole

Hi,

My name is russell and just wanted to introduce myself, and extend a thank you to the individual who invite me to participate in what looks to be an intellectually robust, innovative project. I just have a few thoughts on the structure of forums in the contexts of sociopolitical discussions and their limitations as well as possibilities.
Forums provide for a discursive organization that is structured according to topics, which become ever more specified as threads develop, which focus in upon more specified contents related to the original composit of the topic. The discursive threads, of course, can introduce additional materials as they develop, and, subsequently, can enter into the same processes already described in the remarks depicting the spiriling of the topics into specified threads of discussion.
All of this leads to a flow of contents that are generated from processes that are - more than less - socially democratic, because the trajectories assumed by the forum are the result of a voluntary associationalism, where subjects are pursued only if members freely commit to them, due to whatever interests motivate the specific member to contribute to a path of discussion.
In many ways, forums are similarly structured to Wikis. However, there is one short comming that is unfortunate about forums as opposed to Wikis, which involves the inability to reintegrate the threads that form through creating hypertexts that can be used to related contents belonging to various threads. This, in my experience, can lead to fractures in the community of interlocutors that become more than simply an expression of diversity within the context of community, but leads to the formation of permenant schisms, in what can be called a process of tribalism.
Just a few thoughts concerning the meta-language of the discussions that are being created, which, I suppose, boils down to my own endorsement of Wikis over forums, but I am sure there advantages to forums that I have failed to consider.
Best,
R Cole

Hey Russell,

I was looking over your blog and this statement (fragment?) to me is HUGE, although I am occluded to all of its implications

Democratic Social Theory generated from the Processes it Describes

I mean, my mind is racing in all these cosmological directions with that, I don't even know where to start. Shit I feel like I'm back in college shooting the shit acting with a bunch of nerds all acting like we "understand" Philip K Dick or something.

So anyway I have a request, although it is impossible to make it without coming across as an asshole. Reading your stuff makes me feel like the time I walked in on a grad class in Marine Biology on the first day of Spring Semester. I was looking for Statistics 101. Trouble is the prof was so overbearing I couldn't find a way to get out for a good 25 minutes.

So, could you maybe slow down just a little bit? Some of your stuff just whizzed right by me I think.

Here's a topic for your, from Valis: the Empire never ended. Maybe in a meta-sense that's more true than we know. To me the confluence of parallels is mondo bizarre anyway.

which involves the inability to reintegrate the threads that form through creating hypertexts that can be used to related contents belonging to various threads.
Agreed. That is the challenge.

Or is it? I had thought so, but these last few days here have suggested to me that the need to better organize and cross-link and archive content may work great for a library, but not so well for a town meeting hall. Perhaps the perceived need for better organization and cross-referencing is a function of the political discussions being overly and needlessly complicated?

I have gotten amazing clarity from the discussion here the last few days - more so than in the previous 4 or 5 years of similar discussions. I don't just mean that the discussion here is more productive, but all of a sudden I am noticing an amazing improvement in the effectiveness of what I say in direct conversation.

That leads me to think that much of the confusion and tribulation is being introduced by people into discussions, and that in the absence of that intentional mucking up of the discussion, it all changes and doesn't seem so complicated anymore.

Any one else noticing that?

which involves the inability to reintegrate the threads that form through creating hypertexts that can be used to related contents belonging to various threads.
Agreed. That is the challenge.

Or is it? I had thought so, but these last few days here have suggested to me that the need to better organize and cross-link and archive content may work great for a library, but not so well for a town meeting hall. Perhaps the perceived need for better organization and cross-referencing is a function of the political discussions being overly and needlessly complicated?

I have gotten amazing clarity from the discussion here the last few days - more so than in the previous 4 or 5 years of similar discussions. I don't just mean that the discussion here is more productive, but all of a sudden I am noticing an amazing improvement in the effectiveness of what I say in direct conversation.

That leads me to think that much of the confusion and tribulation is being introduced by people into discussions, and that in the absence of that intentional mucking up of the discussion, it all changes and doesn't seem so complicated anymore.

Any one else noticing that?

Guy I know

Hand him a book or essay to read and discuss, first thing he does is read the back cover with all the endorsements, descriptions, and accolades. Then its on to the very first pages with all the copyright dates, list of publishers, maybe some reference sources. After which, the opening page with a sentence that typical reads like "For you, Mom" gets thoroughly over-analyzed.

"Just read the damn thing!"

And the thing you can never really tell is whether he's filibustering bc hes resistant to the material or he's just really that anal. But the thing is, either way you are going to spend excruciating hours before you're even through page one.

You are guaranteed to get some mundane, crass objection/observation after just about every sentence. Or some ineffable tangent based on the flimsiest of openings, that goes God knows where but is sure to revisit some territory hes treaded on a thousand times before.

Its not that he doesn't have some worthwhile thoughts or something to contribute to a discussion, its just that its so torturous getting there..

Probably the most demoralizing guy I know. You can go from talking about ancient Greek grammar to arguing whether anybody ever really 'dropped alot of acid' in like 5 seconds. But strangely you never get back around to the grammar.