small is {ginormous} beautiful

too small graphic

from below:

infinitesimal structures approaching the limit of structureless\ness and/or vice versa .. aka: ginorm/small ness


Arnie suggested a read:  small is beautiful – economics as if people mattered.

Stephen taught small scaled science – because then we had all we needed.

Calculus teaches that the smaller we get, the closer we get to the most.

Howard got us thinking in terms of multiple small ness.. es..

Ellen says that prejudice decreases as we get – too small to label – (discrimination to infinity.)

David encourages that in a world too big to know, our assumed/engrained hierarchical structure dismantles/disappears, allowing us to jump in anywhere, and follow our whimsy – (our little heart’s desire.)

Clay is penning MOOCs as – just in time mini-courses. Perhaps if that becomes our focus.. we’ll start seeing small as {ginormous} beautiful.  As if people mattered, and we have all we need, as we’re getting closer to our greatest potential – our greatest human potential. Seven billion art-ists.

John says about Clay’s penning:

John Hagel (@jhagel)
2/22/13 7:55 AM
Sorry, Clay, we’re thinking much too narrowly abt MOOCs as disruptive force – is it really just-in-time mini-courses?
 via Clay in post:
But over time, an approach where users exchange information from each other similar to Facebook or telecommunications (a “facilitated network model”) will come to dominate online learning. This evolution is especially likely to happen if the traditional degree becomes irrelevant and, as many predict, learning becomes a continuous, on-the-job learning process. Then the need for customization will drive us toward just-in-time mini-courses.
What if.. Clay and John are both spot on here. What if this seemingly narrow is extremely wide. Disclaimer: this isn’t a pitch for moocs or not moocs – it’s about getting to betterness. Perhaps moocs are a node on the network of learning. Perhaps learning is a node on the network of it.
What if the bigger we get, as in too big to know, the more potential for small  people being/becoming ginormous beautiful.

bot ist art ist entire cleanerest

Perhaps, we could start seeing things, (moocs included), as – the smaller, the more differentiated/unpackaged, the more flexible, the better for humanity, the more interconnected/integrated we become (or realize that we always were). Because the more we cater to each thumbprint, the more ginormous the possibilities, ie: x-d glasses /hearts needed.
on feeling small – Godin

EricIwanJaco, et al…

small is ginormous

everything is misc.. begs we let go

bartlett expo law


shared by Rob here:

james quote


some talk Taleb gives is on small scale not being antifragile..

i don’t think this is that

i think this ginorm small ness is our only means for equitable antifragility

just saying


networked individuaism graphic

more on Taleb’s small scale not being antifragile.. (and why i’m not seeing small is ginormous beautiful w ‘small scale’ ness)

gillis on small scale ness:

no scale at which it does not apply..


from david graeber‘s at long last.. david on turner’s fire of jag:


****For Victor Turner, this was a moment of “antistructure.” For Terry Turner, in contrast, it is “metastructure

****infinitesimal structures approaching the limit of structureless\ness and/or or vice versa .. aka: ginorm/small ness