language as control/enclosure
been thinking about legibility/words as control for some time.. adding page this day as am seeing language (spoken or written) as enclosure to communication in the commons/commoning (to me.. an undisturbed ecosystem ‘in undisturbed ecosystems ..the average individual, species, or population, left to its own devices, behaves in ways that serve and stabilize the whole..’ –Dana Meadows): the commoner newsletter on why we need language for the commons – from free fair and alive: https://mailchi.mp/d6a51f9ae692/free-fair-and-alive-and-radical-grassroots-organizing-3639541?e=[UNIQID]
Language is powerful
language also an enclosure/control.. to/of communication.. to who’s together in a space.. it creates a barrier between people.. one more step a person must take/train in order to belong.. yet.. belonging only truly occurs if you’re truly yourself.. (brown belonging law)
so to me.. new/old language for commoning.. idio-jargon.. it keeps us from assuming communication is finished.. it keeps us asking.. what do you mean by that.. and/or getting to know the person/experience .. instead of the words.. lanier: what people sense in common instead of relying on words/symbols (kafka – all language is but a poor translation et al).. getting us back/to the not yet scrambled ness of a 5 yr old et al..
from legible page:
The reason the formula is generally dangerous, and a formula for failure, is that it does not operate by a thoughtful consideration of local/global tradeoffs, but through the imposition of a singular view as “best for all” in a pseudo-scientific sense.
there you go.. not even global vs local.. but the idea of algo ness for humanity .. for communication.. et al
the process is driven by a naive “best for everybody” paternalism, that genuinely intends to improve the lives of the people it affects. The high-modernist reformer is driven by a naive-scientific Utopian vision that does not tolerate dissent, because it believes it is dealing in scientific truths.
c o n t r o l
more intermingling …this from Jim Groom here: http://bavatuesdays.com/i-dont-need-permission-to-be-open/
to define it in order to start controlling it..reconsolidates power for those who define it
lots more on legible page about control
makes me think of the internet of haecitties and deep address ness and Chris – like could we get to that underlying element.. at least for global convos.. without it being all about tech translating for us. and not giving up local culture/language. et al..
and makes me wonder if the morphing could/will go to infinity to create unlimited idiosyncratic jargons.. if we want..
does a document everything.. and nothing.. ness get us there..? here:
from nic askew newsletter – by chris mcleod [http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?m=1101043267358&ca=c8f2b255-1c81-45d5-a0e0-e55269b3d16e]:
most meaningful experiences have something in common. words are not enough. something is always lost when we attempt to explain… the language we use somehow confines what we feel. i’m somehow aware that the language i am so sued to using always has an undercurrent of finality…
language as control/enclosure.. shaw communication law.. et al
by being still. by allowing myself to be seen. by surprising myself about what i notice about others when i lose the stories that i’ve told myself.. by allowing myself to know that here in this moment i am enough.. i can be here.. i am here
as simple as ‘being here’ sounds, it means that i am not thinking about ‘there’.. being here means .. this is enough.. ‘this is enough’ means i can trust the feeling that i can’t explain. trust it and not need to explain it..
and that is the most liberating feeling i may have ever experienced..
literacy and numeracy both elements of colonialism..
we need to calculate differently and stop measuring things
enclosure – reality as commons