Class Libraries for the Design Service Society

While looking through an old PIM file I came across the title -- it was dated 10/98. It was actually entitled "Frontier For Telecommuters: Class Libraries for the Design Service Society" which indicates that I was then in thrall to Dave Winer, and was thinking that a scripted framework for designing and implementing object oriented agents was a necessary and as-yet unrealized core component of the Design Service Society. it still is.
Yesterday I was pondering the same (or similar notion) as I tried to imagine UML for the masses. A universal markup for day-to-day interaction with the broader processing sphere. i wonder what it would look like.

Demassifying remassification

I'm trying not to make this blog an expression on overt, immediate political views, but I do think the meta-narrative of the current US Presidential campaign bears some examination. (And yes the campaign has a meta-narrative; I don't know if they always had one, but they sure do now!) I was thinking about Hillary Clinton's campaign, and its efforts to debase Barack Obama's candidacy by having its minions spill scurrilous material about Obama (Hussein, madrasa, cocaine, etc.) into the mainstream press. Of course the press dutifully laps up this narrative, at the same time criticizing the naked attempt to smear Obama, but nonetheless repating the allegations (facts really, they're simply repeating established facts in a context of innuendo, with press operating in a context of impartial critic which must, nonetheless, cluck its collective tongue at such below-the-belt behavior. The point is that this kabuki is so well scripted and practiced by Clinton and her media-savvy crew -- the know what they want to portray and they st4ructure the process so that it appears to land in their favor.
Observing this process, I can see that the Clinton campaign is horribly, naively out of step with the underlying processes in the (still) emerging on-line universe. Clinton employs a mass media strategy. the background assumption is that messages can be controlled and massaged through predictable spin cycles, with appertaining playbooks for attack and defense. Press one for smarmy innuendo, press two for an explanation why what you though you heard isn't ncessarily what you thought she said, etc., etc. Again, the underlying assumption is mass audience. Yet these obviously savvy and plugged in people must know that the growth of on-line culture over the past 20 years has shifted the mass audience assumption. I'm sure some of them read Toffler, and others read Chris Anderson and are well aware of the impact of demassification as a phenomenon. It is transcendent. Yet they have opted for a remassification strategy because , well, that's what they know and understand best. And they have some evidence that this strategy works, at least to the extent that they can test means and ends. But here's where they're flying into unintended consequences generated from an unanticipated meta-dimension -- it's impossible to effectively navigate a truly demassified society using a mass approach. it's the reason they're flailing and failing. The winning strategy is not necessarily an internet phenomenon strategy, it's one where small clusters of like-minded people congeal around an idea and are fed through their own chosen filters. The winning strategy is impacted by myriad tactics and approaches. It's the Ron Paul phenomenon among the republicans. And on the democrat side, I think Obama and Edwards are much more savvy about reaching out to people to convey passion, commitment and authenticity in context. Clinton and her crew can't and won't bring that to the table. So they try to stuff Pandora back into her box (to mix a mind-bending number of metaphors) and look polished and in control in the mass media -- a media whose impact and authenticity dwindles daily.

Global games

A few years back I told a group of people I worked with that I was accountable for Earth. One dear person gave me salt and pepper shakers which consisted of a anthropomorhized globe sitting in a star-covered easy chair. It captured the sense I sometimes have of my relationship with the world -- it's all in my hands.
I don't know why this is. Years ago another colleague mentioned that her daughter has been assessed as having this kind of global perspective. She naturally saw things from a global perspective -- not on terms of this world really -- I think it's a more universal perspective. Seeing from the whole -- as a natural capacity -- is not common -- at least not yet.
So I am dwelling on this capacity to think globally -- from a natural, global perspective. Not in terms of man0defined overlays, in terms of the relations arbitrarily-defined nation-states. What does it take to think this way -- what are the processes? Is it natural to some, while in others in a learned or acquired ability. And my open, rhetorical question is this: is this capacity something that can be rapidly transmitted to the large mass of mankind -- and quickly? I think this is the defining question of the next 25 years.

Attention

A number of years back the notion of the "attention economy" came on the scene -- popularized by the great Tom Davenport. It's an important notion from the perspective that, in terms of the current paradigm of scarcity economics, that human attention -- the capacity to fix cognitive processing and integrative resources -- is truly the rarest of commodities. And it is. In some ways, I think the attention paid to the attention economy actually underestimates the criticality of this notion. In our post-modern social and economic organization activities, we've truly discounted the importance and vitality of humans as localized integrationg units. We operate with little or no conception that any individual has not merely the capacity but the power to determine the structure and function of the entire universe going forward. Kind of a "butterfly effect" writ large.
But it's really more than that. While from one systems perspective you could say that an individual can make a large, leveraged difference depending on initial conditions, it's more true that each individual serves an integrating purpose that is unique and universal. I'm aware that this could be seen as channeling Ken Wilber which I may be, but I'm not so much influenced by him as I am by Bucky Fuller, who was saying the same things from a different angle back in the 70's. The point is that from any perspective, I think you can say that none f o our modern Systems incorporate a respect for the amazing integrative capacity of each and every individual human being. And even broaching this subject requires adopting a mindset that certainly doesn't come naturally; it requires engagement in a process that is quite challenging.
And finally, if we bring this notion to design, where does that put us? It's one thing to speak of or think of human0centered design, but it's another to consider the full capabilities of humans and how to design to optimize those capabilities. Time and again I've observed that design is driven to maximize some external notion of utility. If the human is considered, it's in the context of optimizing one narrow dimnsion -- the notion that ergonomics and comfort lead to productivity, for example. But if we dwell on the deeper notion of humans as in-universe local integrating units, then we open whole new possibilities for the design. And that's a conversation I want to lead.

Revival

It hit me today (as it's hit me many other times) that I do have the power to take some area of destiny in my hands and to begin to create something. As opposed to trying to fit into pre-defined models and formats. I've been trying to get a job -- I'm looking for income and it hasn't been forthcoming. I can either get a job, fitting into a pre-defined structure or format within an organization, or I can go out and generate my own value proposition, on my own.

I have a very sketch version of what I want to do. As always, it involves a site or manifestation of my brain -- the integrative devices and processes that I embody and what I allow to transpire in that process 9sounds like I've been reading Bucky Fuller again.) At any rate, I have a vision of a real place; someplace where there is a repository for multi-dimensional artifacts. Something that is both a place and a process -- a place to go that is programmed to make things happen -- to spur insights or connections.

All the pieces of this have slowly been coming together -- from Blogger and its ilk through the other "web 2.0" social networking and capture tools. I can see the first iteration being a planar amalgamation of all those things -- whether it be a dynamic blogroll or twitter or Yelp! or any of a dozen other facets. Eventually those facets can develop into manifestations with added or enhanced dimensions, including spatial and temporal relationships. THAT'S when we start to get some really interesting stuff.