From bala@... Fri Jun 14 16:21:45 2002
Return-Path:
Received: (qmail 99079 invoked from network); 14 Jun 2002 23:21:45 -0000
Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m13.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 14 Jun 2002 23:21:45 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO n25.grp.scd.yahoo.com) (66.218.66.81) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 14 Jun 2002 23:21:45 -0000
X-eGroups-Return: bala@...
Received: from [66.218.67.148] by n25.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 14 Jun 2002 23:21:45 -0000
X-eGroups-Approved-By: jaybee555 via web; 14 Jun 2002 23:21:44 -0000
X-Sender: bala@...
X-Apparently-To: agathiyar@egroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-8 0 3 2); 14 Jun 2002 21:56:30 -0000
Received: (qmail 62698 invoked from network); 14 Jun 2002 21:56:30 -0000
Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m11.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 14 Jun 2002 21:56:30 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO sydney.net) (203.22.101.2) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 14 Jun 2002 21:56:29 -0000
Received: from bala (nas1ppp49.sydneywerks.com.au [203.22.103.241]) by sydney.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian 8.9.3-21) with SMTP id IAA10526; Sat, 15 Jun 2002 08:02:20 +1000
X-Authentication-Warning: churchill.sydneywerks.com.au: Host nas1ppp49.sydneywerks.com.au [203.22.103.241] claimed to be bala
Message-ID: <00c101c21413$d56511a0$d8bafea9@bala>
To:
Cc: , ,
Subject: Fw: Creating The Future
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 07:54:43 +0530
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="x-user-defined"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
From: "Bala Pillai"
X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=1292804
X-Yahoo-Profile: bala2pillai
X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 18633


----- Original Message -----
From: Bala Pillai (Sydney)
To: ;
Cc: ; ;
;
Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2002 7:39 AM
Subject: Re: Creating The Future


> Dear Howard & Friends,
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> >From: Mason, Howard G.
>
> >As picturesque as concentric ripples may be as a metaphor for levels of
> >cause-effect, we are still using linear >thinking for what may be
non-linear
> >reality.
>
> I agree that concentric ripples are not good enough a metaphor, for the
> omnidimensional time-space-mindscape cause-effect chain that we contend
> with.
>
> What is a better naturally occuring metaphor?
>
> Why a naturally occuring metaphor? Because we are living in times where we
> *even* have to convince folks that water is better than Coca-Cola. Where
> rhetoric rules.
>
> We are living in times where communication to television-plastered
audiences
> is a high priority. Where countering the rhetoric-drowned audiences with
> self-evident reasoning is the priority.
>
> And what is more self-evident, less distortable than natural occurences?
>
> >I would be interested in discussing how non-linear, complexity
models--such
> >as networks and living systems--might >better serve us as models and
> >metaphors. For instance, does the social capital model of connecting more
> >and more >diverse members offer promise in our work?
>
> Yes, I would love to see this to. But I must emphasis the need to have a
> metaphorical synonym to "living systems". The closest, and I'm not
satisfied
> with it, is "ecosystem" or "ecovariety".
>
> >The big mindset block an emerging number of us in Asia are trying to
unravel
> >is the acute dualism and its massive flow-on effects, that was caused by
the
> >influx of pseudo-Semitic (not the Gnostics or Sufis for example)
traditions
> >into root Asian yin-yang mindsets.
>
> What do I mean? Some examples.
>
> Light is more complementary to darkness than it is opposite to darkness.
> What use is Edison's invention, the lightbulb, if not for darkness?
>
> A plug is more complementary to a socket than it is the opposite.
>
> A female is more complementary to a male than she is the opposite.
>
> Mountains are more complementary to valleys than they are the opposite.
>
> A frog is *not* ugly. Did anyone ask the frog before the "frog turns into
> princess" propaganda?
>
> "Good" and "Bad", "God" and "Devil" are surface labels that distort
> perception of the complementariness, the
> clicking-together-like-a-jig-saw-puzzle-of-unlike-pieces ecovariety
> components in Nature.
>
> "Good" and "Bad" are two sides of the same coin.
>
> >And why not say that nature has some very small number of very basic, but
> >not so obvious, first principles that can >account for almost
> >everything--but not with the precision that some of us have grown
accustomed
> >to in linear, >scientific models.
>
> That's a good start. But you would be absolutely surprised how
> microscopically minute levels of detail and precision Nature goes into.
And
> how our dualistic perception blinds us from seeing much of them.
>
> It is just that we do not accord common sense (as continuosly affirmed by
> being with Nature) and the synthesis to counter the tunnel-vision of
> university education, the priority it deserves.
>
> We do not give enough attention to Mark Twain's "do not let schooling get
in
> the way of your education" maxim.
>
> cheers../bala
> bala@...
> The Asia Pacific Internet Company, Sydney
> http://www.apic.net
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/erumbugal
> http://www.tamil.net/newtamil
>
>
> >My apologies if the list finds this inappropriate.
> >Best wishes. Howard
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bala Pillai (Sydney) [mailto:bala@...]
> Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2002 11:27 PM
> To: abcd@...; Chester Bowling
> Subject: Creating The Future (Was: Re: From McKnight.....)
>
>
> Dear Chester,
>
> > Chester J. Bowling, Ph.D.
> > Assistant Professor and Extension Specialist
> > Community Leadership and Management
> > Ohio State University Extension
> > 700 Ackerman Rd. Suite 235
> > Columbus, Ohio 43202-1578
> > Tel. 614-292-6348
> > Fax 614-292-7341
> >
> > Creating the future rather than waiting for it
>
>
> I like this quote. Reminds me of my Kahlil Gibran favourite. How about us
> forming a virtual group of us who are congruently onto advancing toward
what
> will be?
>
> Below's what I mean. It is an essay that needs some reflection -- best to
> print and read it.
> Ecosystems Thinking For The Minds Ecosystem
> By Bala Pillai
> June 9 2002, Sydney
>
> "Progress lies not in enhancing what is, but in advancing toward what
> will be."
> -Kahlil Gibran, "A Handful of Sand on the Shore"
>
>
> Each of us can see only up to a certain big picture cause-effect level. To
> see cause-effect beyond that big picture level, one has to think and
reflect
> deeply or be attentive and be able to ask questions of one who does. As
> well, one has to interact with unlike minds, for the very existence of
> greater pictures to be sparked.
>
> Ecosystems thinking has us to look at some of the biggest pictures
possible.
> The small picture-big picture continuum is best imagined by its
> representation, concentric spheres.
>
> Concentric spheres in turn are best recalled by their two-dimensional
> equivalents, concentric circles -- yes, those reverberating circles you
see
> when you throw a stone into a pond. You may see 20 concentric circles.
>
> Average man only sees with his eyes and he tends to believe
> that his eyes cannot belie him. He is wrong. What you see is *not* the
> truth, though it may be. For example, if you understood a tree by what you
> see, you will understand wrongly, because you cannot see the
photosynthesis
> process. Neither can you see the crown roots. The most important parts of
> the tree, are hidden to the naked eye.
>
> If you trust your eyes fully, you are seeing the smallest concentric
sphere.
> It will not occur to you that much of what happens in this concentric
> sphere, is caused by a sphere one size larger. And much of what happens in
> the one size larger sphere was caused by a sphere yet another size larger.
> This goes on and on.
>
> Why is ecosystems thinking crucial today?
>
> Let us take the Internet. It is really an emerging ecosystem of human
minds
> that combines those on the Net and those off (with wired human bridges).
>
> It is working best where minds share a similar ethos -- where minds have
> common references to build trust and relationships off.
>
> When the ecosystem is more complete, it will thrive lots more than it is
> thriving today. Some questions you may ask are:-
>
> (a) Why is the ecosystem of minds on the Internet not working perfectly?
>
> (b) What components are missing?
>
> (c) What processes are missing?
>
> (d) What components or processes are already there, but are not understood
> well or not accorded the priority they deserve?
>
> The answers to these are best found in paralleling Nature's ecosystem to
> that of what the ecosystem of minds should have viz (a) to (d) when it is
> much
> closer to the completeness of Nature's ecosystem, than it is now.
>
> For example, let us for argument sake, say that there are (i) 300
components
> and (ii) 200 processes in Nature's ecosystem. We know that one of the
> topmost processes in Nature is photosynthesis. Yet another topmost one is
> symbiosis.
>
> Question: What are the equivalents of photosynthesis and symbiosis in the
> minds ecosystem? What are the hurdles to them forming? What returns are
> there if these hurdles are removed? What ingredients are needed to remove
> these hurdles and to forge these processes?
>
> Why is photosynthesis important? It is at the bottom of the food chain. It
> is the process by which trees and plants obtain resources to start the
whole
> food chain.
>
> Now ask, what is the equivalent of photosynthesis in the ecosystem of
minds
> on the Internet? What is the most significant source of resources for
> significant new Internet ventures? In the West, it is passionbits
including
> Open Source and venture capital. How about your ethos' space?
>
> What are the parallels to the other 300 components and 198 processes in
> Nature's ecosystem, in your minds ecosystem?
>
> Would trust between participants be one? Would more intensive networking
> between minds be another? Would networking between complementary folks, as
> in Nature, make it more worthwhile? How can complementariness be revealed
> easier? Would a database of profiles that is shared by participants be a
> way?
>
> Would a rating on each of the 6Rs be one?
>
> [6Rs = resourcefulness, responsibility, responsiveness, reliability,
> rapport-building, risk-taking]
>
> How do we rate the 6Rs? Can we experiment with some of the models
currently
> used in psychological testing, while we find better ways?
>
> Is interaction a precusor to trust building? How do we increase
interaction?
> What are the key ingredients of interaction, that make it a precursor to
> trust building? Would the sense of "presence" when we see each other
> face-to-face, be one? How do we recreate this in the minds ecosystem? Can
we
> go some way through the sense of presence in Instant Messaging and
Webcams?
>
> Of these which is of a higher priority than another? Why?
>
> The solving of all these needs are income opportunities for minds in your
> ethos space.
>
> The unearthing of other whitespace, unfilled space in your minds
ecosystem,
> will show up all the other opportunities.
>
> And that comes from ecosystems thinking. That is why ecosystems thinking
is
> important.
>
>
> (This message is released for use, redistribution, or modification under
> the OpenContent License . In plain
> English, the license relieves the author of any liability or implication
of
> warranty, grants others permission to use the Content in whole or in part,
> and ensures that the original author will be properly credited when the
> Content is used. It also grants others permission to modify and
> redistribute the Content if they clearly mark what changes have been made,
> when they were made, and who made them. Finally, the license ensures that
> if someone else bases a work on OpenContent, the resultant work will be
> made available as OpenContent as well. Please send comments,
> suggestions or edits to the author, Bala Pillai at bala@... Thanks)
>
>
> cheers../bala
> bala@...
> Founder, The Asia Pacific Internet Company
> http://www.apic.net/news.phtml
> Networking Minds in Halls Without Walls Since 1995
> Sydney, Australia
>