adding page after convo/exchange? w nathan after reading everything for everyone
‘a bit on the abstract side for me’
you can’t hear me is the point of what i’m/we’re experimenting with..
and to me.. talking ..teaching.. writing is the abstract..
we’ve prototyped most if not all these supposed abstractions
but you can’t hear that (f to f.. email.. twitter)
and that (not being heard..for so many yrs) is how we got to focus on a mech/means.. to listen to all the voices.. everyday.. as it could be..
people don’t want to hear about it till its a done deal (and i get that.. costello screen service law et al)
but by then there’s too much agenda baked in
and can’t have agenda if ie: everything is for everyone
on this guy in book from this passage:
on rainy night in paris, i was in the middle of articulating some long winded question about ‘the commons’ trying to ascertain where duran stood in some theoretical debate or other, when he interrupted me. ‘i don’t want to build commons for people who talk about the commons.. i want to build commons for commoners..’
i don’t need to be heard by people who want to write books or do research ..i need to be heard by someone(s) who want to bet on a chance for everyone to be heard everyday..
actual everybody actual everyday
also thinking.. if we did have a convo.. i’m guessing one of first questions would be.. who’s the we.. and/or.. how many are the we.. well – tried to address that here (how many) .. but main point is.. has to be all of us.. never just me ness.. it’s like me asking .. who or how many is everyone..
reminding me of the tweet i just put on read page:
Carolyn Buckner Fulk (@cbfulk) tweeted at 3:18 PM – 16 Sep 2018 :
Today my HS son said “how do you expect me to enjoy any book assigned at school? We have to tear it apart until it means nothing.” (http://twitter.com/cbfulk/status/1041436066543222790?s=17)
back to book
that stuck w me. it humbled me for one thing. and it was also a lesson and warning about cooperativism in general: none of it is worth much of anything unless it is of use..t
ie: mech simple enough to be accessible/usable for 7bn.. today
LSE Impact Blog (@LSEImpactBlog) tweeted at 6:00 AM – 13 Oct 2018 :
How to read and understand a scientific paper: a guide for non-scientists https://t.co/OhkuIDaMyA (http://twitter.com/LSEImpactBlog/status/1051080245846118401?s=17)
1. Begin by reading the introduction, not the abstract.
The abstract is that dense first paragraph at the very beginning of a paper. In fact, that’s often the only part of a paper that many non-scientists read when they’re trying to build a scientific argument. (This is a terrible practice—don’t do it.). When I’m choosing papers to read, I decide what’s relevant to my interests based on a combination of the title and abstract. But when I’ve got a collection of papers assembled for deep reading, I always read the abstract last. I do this because abstracts contain a succinct summary of the entire paper, and I’m concerned about inadvertently becoming biased by the authors’ interpretation of the results.