h a l f b a k e r yAmbivalent? Are you sure?
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
This social network (which we shall call "ZenLink") will allow you to go through a sign-up process but will then tell you that the sign-up failed as you are already a member. Close inspection of the FAQ page will explain that ZenLink is based on the premise that the distictions between individuals and
between individuals and the universe are illusory. It will further explain that for this reason ZenLink is written to only allow one member. Posting of photos, status updates, etc. are, of course, not allowed as there's no point posting these things for yourself. However, by joining, or not joining, ZenLink you are connected to everyone and everything else in the universe.
The Sokal affair
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair
[hippo, Jan 11 2012]
Wired: moot on identity
http://www.wired.co...e-imagine-identity/
[calum, Jan 11 2012]
generic praise
http://denisegriffi...am-is-pretty-yummy/
[beanangel, Feb 04 2012]
relevant theories
http://www.wearepla...xious/#.U3-1QIRwapU
[calum, May 23 2014]
for [mouseposture]
http://en.wikipedia...ssing_Shade_of_Blue
I meant this bit of David Hume [pertinax, Feb 22 2015]
Binky
http://www.binky.rocks
[hippo, Jun 23 2017]
Single-character social networking
Single-character_20social_20networking
Way ahead of you [hippo]. [nineteenthly, Sep 27 2017]
[link]
|
| |
I'm already a member of this - so how can it be a new idea? |
|
| |
Because you have just discovered that you're a
member, [pocmloc]. |
|
| |
The login page soundtrack should be The Sound Of One Hand
Clapping. |
|
| |
...Lonely, I'm so lonely...+ |
|
| |
Perhaps I shall spend my immortality insulting every person on this network. <grits teeth>In strict alphabetical order...</gt> (adjusts mirror; picks up HHTTG to pass some more time) |
|
| |
I'm not lonely. I am the collective output of billions of neurons, keeping eachother company, and somehow collectively deciding on spending lots of time here. Somehow this gives me pause when considering the sustainability of democracy... |
|
| |
Hate to say I told me so, but I told me so. |
|
| |
//your set of 100 online friends is just you in
different moods and clothing// |
|
| |
*Are* there that many distinct moods? Heck, I'm
not sure I could muster 100 distinct suits of clothing. |
|
| |
|YOUR APPS
|
|* Congratulations! A perfect score. |
|
| |
[Mouseposture], at a minimum of ten pairs of
trousers and ten tops, you could do it. Five shirts,
bottoms and overgarments would also enable you to
manage it. Then there are socks, hats, shoes... |
|
| |
You're counting tokens, but I'm counting types. |
|
| |
Can I double the number of outfits by swapping right
and left socks? |
|
| |
(Anyway, the more interesting question is "are there
100 distinct moods?") |
|
| |
bigsleep shoots and scores on his last anno. Not just moods and clothing but social roles, statuses, specializations, and every other alienated aspect of self divided into an equal number of accounts. Alienation is truth and the social media development is pure illusion. The internet is seperation at the very minimum by the requisite technolgical medium. It can only upload, download, send, recieve the message of alienation. This idea puts the user into society with his or her own alienated social forms, it's the least absurd social media idea yet conceived
because it maintains the logic and meaning of the absurdity it is reducing into. |
|
| |
//"are there 100 distinct moods?"// |
|
| |
Sounds interesting, but it went over my head. A
little less terse, SVP. |
|
| |
This idea addresses the alienated individual. Someone without "friends" to include on their profile. There is that level of alienation. But also consider the alienating nature of the contemporary modern world and its technology. The simulacra world of the internet has dominated social life to the extent that a social person must be online all the time. To be social is to be online. It's an emergent functionalism, and as a result to be socially dysfunctional is to be offline in both its literal and social metaphorical sense. But there is also alienation of person into content. Alienation of self into countless social others. Physical alienation of the computer user while interfacing. This is application fo critical theory but it's not to condemn, only to raise consciousness. "The medium is the message;user is content" was one such attempt. Communications technology as with all technology is an alienting medium, media by its nature seperates. It's so equivalent it's circular. TO be media it must seperate, it must alienate. And that is also the essence of its message. That's what resounds from its loudspeakers, and flashes across its screens: alienated content from people seperated from you. |
|
| |
That was almost Vernonian in its obfuscatoriness. |
|
| |
Perhaps a more interesting competitor might be a "zero-user social network". |
|
| |
How can I tell the diff between ZenLink & SolipBook? |
|
| |
//to be social is to be online// |
|
| |
There's something very scarily double-think about that. |
|
| |
rcarty is right, I think. |
|
| |
Really? Here's all the same points, using the same language, just turned on their head: |
|
| |
This idea addresses the cosmic whole. Someone who's individuality is expressed in terms of their social actions. There is that level of community. But also consider the social nature of the contemporary modern world and its technology. The simulacra world of the internet has dominated social life to the extent that an online person can be social all the time. To be online is to be social. It's an emergent functionalism, and as a result to be technologically dysfunctional is to be offline in both its literal and social metaphorical sense. But there is also community in content. A community of self among countless social others. Physical communtiy for the computer user while interfacing. This is application of critical theory but it's not to condemn, only to raise consciousness. "The medium is the message;user is content" was one such attempt. Communications technology as with all technology is a socialising medium, media by its nature connects. It's so equivalent it's circular. TO be media it must connect, it must communicate. And that is also the essence of its message. That's what resounds from its loudspeakers, and flashes across its screens: connected content from people no longer seperated from you. |
|
| |
//...Lonely, I'm so lonely...// |
|
| |
{offers [blissmiss] a hug} |
|
| |
(It's all right, [jutta], it's not a happy cuddle; it's an experiment in applied metaphysics). |
|
| |
Well of course zentom is right, his position is in fact the
original thesis. Communications technology connects, OK.
Thats the function the technology performs. But is it
alienating? Yes, OK, in what ways? This is a simple
dialectical process. Capitalism is supposed to be a rational
technology based system to make people rich. OK. But
does it also make people poor? Oh I guess it does. |
|
| |
//Capitalism is supposed to be a rational technology based system// |
|
| |
I'm not saying that's a straw man, but I'm sure I heard it singing "I would dance and be merry, life would be a-ding-a-derry..." |
|
| |
[rcarty] as it happens, I'm not sure what my actual position might be - I was more critiquing the method of adopting critical analysis and academic language to make *any* kind of coherent argument, as it can usually be made to say the opposite (or nearly anything you like) with only minor twiddling of key words. This is put into sharp relief whenever any notion of zen is floated (the key point being that for wider non-mathematical arguments, it's difficult to establish a sensible opinion of any kind, since any such opinion will be impossible to defend - which is kind of how Socrates made his living) |
|
| |
What confuses me these days is that this (the whole rhetoric = nonsense thing) has been known in the West since at least the 1970s, and yet we continue to adopt its use in serious culture - Or to put it another way, "Critical Theory" continues to exist, how? |
|
| |
If communications = the joining of two or more distinct (alien if you prefer) things then yes, it needs for there to exist (and to perpetuate) a state of "otherness" between which communication can occur. In that sense, does communication accentuate the otherness, or does it mitigate against it? The answers; Yes, no, some, none and very definitely both are all equally valid. |
|
| |
Same goes for richness - which as a method of relatively stratifying a given population, *requires* there to be some difference in the population to be stratified. Thus richness creates poorness - and vice versa. Therefore (says the didactic rhetorisist) this whole problem of the rich getting richer is entirely the fault of the poor - for without them, there would be no rich people to complain about! Etc etc, ad absurdum, ad nauseam etc. |
|
| |
Or to put it another way, how exactly does any of this help? Is there a way of making any kind of non-mathematical argument that actually holds any kind of meaning? Can that even be possible? But that may have been your point in the first place - I'm fairly sure I'm rambling now, carry on. |
|
| |
There really should be a Google Translate function to do the transformation from what [rcarty] wrote to what [zentom] wrote. |
|
| |
The standard response to zen-tom's question is that since the 1970's the post-modern worldview has been the "incredulity at grand narratives" and all sorts of rational type systems, one would hope includes maths. It seems from a sociological perspective, that people once rationalized become more predictable in their behaviour. One particularly interesting nonmathematical argument belongs to Veblen, suggesting that "people are not lightning fast calculators". This challenges mathematical models for human behaviour asking if humans are not really any good at math, what indeed makes you think its an important factor for governing their behaviour? So, as a nonrational person I opt to take a stance against the rational system of capitalism or to not use social media. Why would someone do such a thing, especially when so many benefits could be conferred for assimilation? It's the liberating effects of the aforementioned stupidity that Veblen addresses. People are too stupid to fit into any sort of rational models, and if freedom is to be achieved and maintained (emancipation), we ought to keep making stupid decisions (enlightenment). |
|
| |
//one would hope includes maths// I do hope not
- you see, there is no 'narrative' in mathematics -
only meaning, you can't have racist maths, or
sexist maths, or nationalistic maths, anti-semetic
maths, ideological maths, religious maths or any
other form of biased, politically skewed, pre, post
or post-post-modern maths. It's just truth, no
messing about - and has been for more than 8,000
years - Human culture began with it, has grown
alongside it, and continues to grapple with its
intricacies. Not so Zoroastrianism, not so Marxism,
Freudianism, Socialism, Communism, Nationalsim,
not the Roman Empire, or Christianity or anything.
It's the most human subject, dealing with the
concerns of people, in the most direct way
imaginable - How much, how many. It's about
intention, forethought, care. Because while How
Much? seems to us a purely materialistic thought
today - you have to look at it in terms of its initial
meaning - "How much do I need to feed my
family?" "How many oxen can plough this field?. It's
probably the most long-lasting, most fundamental
- and most human of all the humanities - because
it's not possible to pervert it to any particular
ideological cause. (Let's leave out statistics for
now - while they may often be used to back up all
kinds of dubious narratives - in themselves,
statistics are gloriously unaware and stoically
neutral) |
|
| |
//Veblen, suggesting that "people are not
lightning fast calculators".// Maths has little to do
with calculators, and doesn't cherrypick
supporting quotations from supportive
publications. Hanklestiltzenstein suggests so
quite vociferously you know, or at least so I've
heard. But maybe you mean that people don't
follow neat little internal programs - but if that's
the case, then Veblen has evidently missed the
point - You see, that's not what's being suggested. |
|
| |
//what indeed makes you think its an important
factor for governing their behaviour? // I don't
think I suggested that in this conversation - but
since you ask, it's the same thing that makes
empirical study a reasonable method to predict
weather patterns, cosmic movements, crystal
formation, population growth, the behaviour of
The Lorenz Attractor (and associated dynamic
models) pretty much everything that exists in the
Universe - predictable and chaotic alike - the only
way to view any of these things, at least to have
the glimmer of a possibility of deeply
understanding them, is through a careful and
empirical study of them - and to create
imaginative representations that presuppose
some form of underlying beauty, form and
structure - or in some cases, randomness. |
|
| |
Plus, measurement, imagination and lack of bias
make it a much better tool than any particular set
of socio-politically narrative-driven, rhetoric-
based immediately refutable arguments. |
|
| |
If we live in a post-modern world where it is
widely accepted that narrative is meaningless -
why do we continue to search for a narrative as
the basis of our arguments about the world? How
can that possibly achieve anything other than us
bandying about ever decreasingly semantic
obtuseties ? It's a serious concern, honestly. |
|
| |
We have debating chambers in all our modern
parliaments where ideologically biased viewpoints
are shouted at from one side of the floor to the
other - our offices are full of people arguing one
set of unverifiable opinions against another - it's
all been shown to be rubbish, so why do we
continue to do it? |
|
| |
Really, now that narrative has been thoroughly
debunked (and let's all hope that it has - there
was more than enough narrative in the first half of
the 20th Century, and look where that got us) but
having wised up to the fact that a narrative =
"someone else's lies" - Without a simple sense of
being able to genuinely communicate anything of
meaning - what's left? |
|
| |
I don't know the answer to that - but I do worry
about it sometimes. |
|
| |
//I opt to take a stance against the rational
system of capitalism// |
|
| |
Finally, I don't see capitalism as being "rational" in
any sense - and the same goes for facebook, so I'm
not sure I get that part of your argument. We
haven't adopted capitalism (or facebook) because
it's rational - it's the hodge-podge melange of a
dynamic mix of forces (both real and virtual) that
we're currently experiencing today - I don't think
anyone actually thought any of it through - it's
just been kind of happening that way - and what
we're left with is more through a series of
historical accidents than anything rational or
deliberate. And thank goodness for that! |
|
| |
([zen] - c.f. Sokal's call for an "emancipatory mathematics" in his spoof paper "Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity" - see link) |
|
| |
Geroi Nashevo Vremeni, that Sokal. |
|
| |
//"How many oxen can plough this field?. //...//it's not possible to pervert it to any particular ideological cause//
It's very easy to get hung up on political idealogies and ignore social ones. I was much struck, when I went to Japan, by the Japanese attitude to looking after people. Many of their gardens and parks are maintained by numbers of elderly workers who could easily be replaced by, for example, a bloke on a motorised lawnmower. However, they choose not to, not because of maths or economics or political idealogy but because of their culture.
Although we like to think, as a general principle, that science is striving for 'truth', the reality is that the paths we choose to study or not study, and the way in which we interpret and apply the results, are heavily influenced by culture. Pure rationalism is an illusion, and that's why we continue to shout at each other across the debating floor. |
|
| |
There are a few things here that are jumping out at me, and they have triggered some scattered thoughts (apologies if these have already been covered - I have read the thread but it veers quite a bit): |
|
| |
First is the fact that the single user social network is probably the only social network where you are able to be yourself entirely. As soon as you are required to engage with another person (either on a social network or otherwise), you will not be presenting to them the wholeness of your being, just whatever facet is relevant/appropriate to the interaction. On a social network, your identity is further constrained by the structure of the network, and how *it* seeks to define the individual. For the most part, Facebook's conception of your identity is based upon two things: (1) what you like and (2) omg dun a poo lol it smells like monster munch lololol. This is the (my) problem with Facebook - you cannot be yourself on it. See linked wired article on moot (of 4chan fame) and his concept of online identity. |
|
| |
My second thought: this relates to the first, and was triggered by [rcarty]'s comment //People are too stupid to fit into any sort of rational models//. Reading this set off a clangorous din in my brainbox, which is still binglybonging on, a day later. It's a simple statement which feels true and is apt to describe human interaction with complex systems which have been created by humans (though only rarely created by a single human - this is arguably more possible now than in antiquity (the 1980s), though, as software that creates a system that affects a whacking great percentage of the world could conceivably be brought into being by a single individual. But I digress). It's an immensely resonant statement as it describes the necessary failure of any system to work for humans as a whole - the failure also of humans to operate a rational system to their best advantage. At the same time, though, the statement feels false: the failure of the interaction between humans and rational systems is as much explicable by the irreducible complexity of a given human (cf. failure of social networks to capture/represent a "whole" identity) as it is by the fact that people are idiots. I fear that I haven't added anything with this point, but I wanted to mark it out - to thank [rcarty] - for saying something so resonant. |
|
| |
Thirdly, [zen_tom]'s statement that mathematics is //the most human subject// causes a similar racket in my brain. It's an elegant wee statement, but needs revision to be correct. The application of mathematics is very human, but mathematics itself is as far from human as you can get, precisely because it is truth, no messing about. The interesting thing about maths in the context of my thoughts on this thread is that it is another example of the failure of humans to interact properly with a system (if it is always correct, why do we disregard it? Though I agree that insofar as maths happens to humans, as something that is visited upon us, rather than something we think about, we are perfectly subject to its laws). The difference here is that the system is not man-made (which accounts for our perfect behaviour within it, and, perhaps, for our imperfect behaviour with regard to it). |
|
| |
And DrBob posts while I am typing away, with another aspect to consider - there is a lot to chew over in this thread. |
|
| |
EDIT: Finally finally finally, I think part of the reason that the halfbakery suits me well is that I can, as near as possible, be myself here. I am not constrained by telling everyone what things I like (though I can do that), or indeed by what you think of me. On the halfbakery, there is comfort in the relative anonymity, with the diligent adherence to purpose. In this way, the halfbakery is like the internet's secret, clumsily partitioned, sex shop back room, except that through the glory holes are thrust ideas to suck, rather than cocks. |
|
| |
//First is the fact that the single user social network is probably the only social network where you are able to be yourself entirely// - I wonder if this is true - that is, why wouldn't it be possible for someone to entirely "be themselves" on Facebook, and what would this look like? I also suspect the
single-user social network would not necessarily make people "be themselves" and act without artifice, without presenting themselves in a positive light, etc., because of the amount of
self-denial and self-deception we all practice.
Perhaps the closest thing to the
single-user social network is the Catholic confessional in which (excuse my hazy knowledge of Catholicism) you could be said to be confessing (or providing status updates) to God.
[calum] Best Halfbakery simile ever! |
|
| |
//why wouldn't it be possible for someone to entirely "be themselves" on Facebook//
Because, aside from the problems of self-deception identified, to fully represent yourself on Facebook would be require (a) a change to the way that the information about you was presented and (b) a Robert Shields level of diligence, directed at peeling back and displaying the layers of self, rather than documenting actions. |
|
| |
True, self-deception would be a stumbling block to true self-being, but that is the case in relation to all attempts at such. The advantage of the single-user social network is that you are not presenting yourself to anyone, other than yourself. Maybe that is the next step to take - a single user social network where the information you provide is truly visible to no-one, is swallowed and forgotten by the technology behind the network. |
|
| |
//the single-user social network is the Catholic confessional//
I don't know that I can get on board with this because, even setting aside the muddying factor of the priestly intermediary, you are still communicating something to another party, though that other party may be imaginary. Hmmm. Then again, if you were to go to a confessional with the approach of a thoroughgoing Catholic but the beliefs of yer man Dawkins, perhaps you are - if you can somehow eliminate the ecclesiastical element - taking part in a single-user social network. |
|
| |
My take on the Catholic confession ritual is not that you are confessing to God (who already knows everything), or even to the priest, but that, by confessing out loud, you are confessing to yourself. Shedding the cloak of self-delusion, and self-justification which we all carry with us to one extent or another, and consciously recognising your own short-comings (as defined by The Church, that is). |
|
| |
//communicating something// That doesn't go
without saying. Maybe it's a speech act. You repent
by confessing. That gets around the problem of
"Why am I telling You this when You are omniscient?" |
|
| |
Of course people have been information sharing with that most holy of bureaucracies for millenia. It would be an interesting comparison study to see how people have been convinced to share their most intimate personal details with largely impersonal boxes, with little concern for how that information is being used, throughout history. The confessional box and the personal computer not being far off in that regard. Both depend on alienation as the major mechanism. Feuerbach explained that " man—this is the mystery of religion—objectifies his being and then again makes himself an object to the objectivized image of himself thus converted into a subject", thus the confessional becomes a technology that mediates between these alienated aspects of self, but at the same time connects and shares information with a robust nework of those in the alienation business. Technology has advanced through this process for quite some time since confessionals were popular, but notable developments between them and the internet have been the panopticon prison, public education, television etc. so basically now we're at such a point of alienation that objectified images, and the entire materialist process is too cool to complain about. People openly share their intimate life details with an impersonal box, while others observe the information unseen in the darkness. The only thing that has changed is that everybody can use the alienated content for wanking now not just priests. The content is still alienated using a similar process, and it feeds the same system with knowledge power, facebook and google make money etc. Meh. |
|
| |
//everybody can use the alienated content for
wanking now not just priests// Ha! There you go, -
democratisation of wanking through technology! |
|
| |
Yay!
After some thought, I'd like to edit my earlier anno somewhat. Please delete the words "Pure rationalism is an illusion..." and replace with "Rationalism is just a model, not a description of reality...". |
|
| |
True: How much of the "real you" will you ever tell
another human? I mean, do you even tell your soul
mate how much time you waste circle-jerking on the
internet? |
|
| |
ah, but see [calum]'s point that the Halfbakery is the
only place in which he can "be himself". Also did you
mean to write "soul mate" in your annotation? -
"employer", surely? |
|
| |
[calum] brilliant as always has hit upon my main complaint about social networking. It is ALL single user. I have yet to have a conversation on facebook. It's a place for onlies to broadcast their news, express opinions and never ever read mine, "Broadcast mode" is how it is described to me, every social net user is a single user. |
|
| |
I also like the point that the confessional is a perfect single social network, as would be the psychiatrists couch, but who wants to pay for perfect social networking. Baah, lets all do it for free and be what you want me to be. |
|
| |
I should add there are a few halfbakers on fb who are not like this, I am thankful for their friending. |
|
| |
Confessional, or perhaps a diary. |
|
| |
I still like [calum]'s 11/Jan/2012 annotation |
|
| |
'Binky' (see link) is nearly the social media platform I was
after, especially the behaviour where no one will ever see
anything you post - "...You can also re-bink your binks,
whatever that means. Do whatever the hell you want in
Binky -- no one will ever see it." |
|
| |
// no one will ever see it // |
|
| |
Baked. The labour party manifesto. |
|
| |
// the halfbakery is like the internet's secret, clumsily partitioned, sex shop back room, except that through the glory holes are thrust ideas to suck, rather than cocks. // |
|
| |
I feel this needs to be reformulated into a tagline. |
|
| |
In response to Twitter increasing its character count
for Tweets to 280 characters today, the Single-User
Social Network will reduce updates to a single
character. |
|
| |