Fwd: Re: Invitation to Conversation/Discussion/Debate

[Ann Racuya-Robbins-2]

--
Ann Racuya-Robbins
Founder and CEO World Knowledge Bank  www.wkbank.com

----- Forwarded message from [hidden email] -----
    Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 11:47:29 -0600
    From: Ann Racuya-Robbins <[hidden email]>
Reply-To: Ann Racuya-Robbins <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Invitation to Conversation/Discussion/Debate
      To: Steve Smith <[hidden email]>


Thank you so much for all your thoughts. I enjoyed reading it 
all. We do have many differences and I too want to respond in more 
detail to you. As I mentioned www.wkbank.com/govern the Constitution 
and Founding Principles is a good place to start. Again let me know if 
you have any trouble with the site and I will get it corrected. Don?t 
worry about writing too much on my account I think it is wonderful to 
hear all your comments.

   BW

   ARR

   --
Ann Racuya-Robbins
Founder and CEO World Knowledge Bank  www.wkbank.comQuoting Steve 
Smith <[hidden email]>:

>        Ann -
>
> I started to write one of my arbitrarily long and excruciatingly
> detailed responses to this and to your Seminar invitation.  In fact, I
> did write it and then decided to try to write a concise summary
> instead.  We'll see how that turns out (the first missive, just
> deleted, was about 5 screens worth, just for comparison).
>
> You have most of us at a disadvantage.  While no two of us on this
> list are likely to agree on the details of much of anything, I think
> we all have differing levels of understanding and agreement on what we
> mean by /Complex Systems/ (capitalization is mine).  Despite these
> differences, most of us are roughly talking about the same concept,
> albeit in widely varying domains and with varying preferred formalisms
> and tools for simulating, generating, and studying them.  I'm not sure
> we know what your ideas on the topic are, or if we are talking about
> the same thing.
>
> I think you may mean something different than I do when you say
> "complex system".  It is evidenced both in your specific phrasing of
> "systems (complex)" and in the way I've heard you use the term.   In
> particular, I don't think the phrase "creating a Complex System" is
> even a sensible phrase.  In my use of the term, a /Complex System /is
> a system whose qualitative complexity arises or emerges, often out of
> a relatively simple (quantitatively not-complex) system.   Created
> systems may be quantitatively simple or complex (by many measures) but
> the very definition of a /Complex System /in the sense that I use the
> term is that its /qualitative/ complexity could not be designed,
> created, or even predicted in any detail.
>
> So /I/ would never say that science nor art  creates a /Complex
> System/  though I would have to agree that many systems used by
> science (not created by /science/ per se, but rather created by
> /scientists/ in pursuit of understanding) are quantitatively complex,
> and that many types of artistic endeavors as I know them may create or
> generate quite quantitatively complex systems.   I suppose, one could
> view what I call /Complex Systems/ as having artistic value or
> interest, but I would have a hard time saying that the artist
> /created/ these systems, and more to the point, certainly not saying
> that the artist created the exhibited /Complexity/ in them.
>
> In the spirit of our /former/, former President, perhaps this depends
> on what /create/ means.  From some of the discussions I have observed
> you having during sfX presentations,  I think you may mean something
> different by /create/, than I do.   If I were to be pressed on the
> topic, I suppose I would often use the term /discover/ when you would
> use /create/.  This is germane to the question you pose about "how
> people should be rewarded for what they know".
>
>   Since I don't think knowledge can be /created/, only /discovered/,
> it is hard for me to think of there being any absolute or intrinsic
> value to what I (or anyone else) might know at a given time.   In a
> relative, context, I might /know/ something that you do not, that you
> find useful and we might agree to exchange some other form of value
> for that knowledge, but I would not begrudge you the possibility of
> arriving at that /knowing/ some other way (like discovering it
> yourself or having someone else share their own discovery with you).
> I might hold all kinds of knowledge which I might never be rewarded
> for.  I might choose to share as freely as possible all knowledge I
> hold.  So the notion that knowledge itself could have intrinsic value
> and the holder of the knowledge can have any specific expectation of
> reward is a little foreign to me.   I know that in the pragmatic
> world, that secrets can be valuable, and their value can be realized
> both by holding them close and by sharing them selectively or broadly.
>
> I think before most of us would want to have a public
> discussion/debate/conversation (on air, in a very short time interval)
> on a topic, we would like to have some idea of the opposing viewpoint
> we are discussing/debating/conversing-about.
>
> You and I have had a number of very pleasant discussions online and
> in-person, and I've browsed through your World Knowledge Bank, but I
> do not yet have a sense of what your position (or what you refer to as
> a "differing opinion") is.
>
> Perhaps you have written some kind of position paper that would
> introduce us to your ideas and how they contrast with those which you
> believe you have fundamental philosophical differences with?   I went
> to World Knowledge Bank tonight to see what you might have there on
> the topic, but alas, it seemed to be having technical difficulties.
> If there is such a description there (or elsewhere) please point me to
> it.
>
> I think something of the same nature (a concise description of the
> position you hold and how it contrasts with the positions you differ
> with) would help prepare folks considering your seminar series to
> decide if it is of interest to us, and to help us come up to speed on
> your ideas more easily.
>
> Anyone who has read this far in my "concise summary" is clearly a
> patient reader, and would likely find the same patience with reading
> any new way of thinking about complex systems and how we value
> knowledge and reward those who hold it, that you might offer.
>
> - Steve
>
>    I have come to the conclusion a number of thoughtful people at
> Friam, the Santa Fe Institute and the Complex and I may well have a
> fundamental, important, genuine and sincere philosophical difference
> of opinion about the future of the information/knowledge culture that
> is emerging in the world today. This difference includes how and when
> people should be rewarded for what they know? What is the most
> equitable way for people to share what they know? What does it mean
> for something to be ?free?? These are some of the areas of difference.
> I have spent decades thinking about these things but no one knows
> everything and I am sure I have more to learn.
>
>    These are important and timely issues. I think we should engage
> this conversation. I would like to invite anyone of you or someone you
> might know to have a conversation/discussion/debate about these
> issues. I have asked Mary Charlotte of KSFR?s Radio Café if she would
> be interested in hosting this conversation/discussion/debate on the
> Radio Café and she said she would.
>
>    I have confidence that this interaction between us will likely
> enlighten both of us and the listeners as well.
>
>    I am ready to proceed at any time.
>
>    I look forward to your response.
>
>    Best Wishes,
>
>    Ann Racuya-Robbins
>
>    Founder and CEO World Knowledge Bank  www.wkbank.com
>
> -------------------------
> ============================================================ FRIAM
> Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at
> St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at
> <a href="http://www.friam.org[1/" target="_blank">http://www.friam.org[1]
>

Links:
------
[1] http://www.friam.org/



----- End forwarded message -----

Wow thank you so much for all your thoughts. I enjoyed reading it all. We do have many differences and I too want to respond in more detail to you. As I mentioned www.wkbank.com/govern the Constitution and Founding Principles is a good place to start. Again let me know if you have any trouble with the site and I will get it corrected. Don?t worry about writing too much on my account I think it is wonderful to hear all your comments.

BW

ARR

--
Ann Racuya-Robbins
Founder and CEO World Knowledge Bank  www.wkbank.com

Quoting Steve Smith <[hidden email]>:

>       Ann -
>
> I started to write one of my arbitrarily long and excruciatingly
> detailed responses to this and to your Seminar invitation.  In fact, I
> did write it and then decided to try to write a concise summary
> instead.  We'll see how that turns out (the first missive, just
> deleted, was about 5 screens worth, just for comparison).
>
> You have most of us at a disadvantage.  While no two of us on this
> list are likely to agree on the details of much of anything, I think
> we all have differing levels of understanding and agreement on what we
> mean by /Complex Systems/ (capitalization is mine).  Despite these
> differences, most of us are roughly talking about the same concept,
> albeit in widely varying domains and with varying preferred formalisms
> and tools for simulating, generating, and studying them.  I'm not sure
> we know what your ideas on the topic are, or if we are talking about
> the same thing.
>
> I think you may mean something different than I do when you say
> "complex system".  It is evidenced both in your specific phrasing of
> "systems (complex)" and in the way I've heard you use the term.   In
> particular, I don't think the phrase "creating a Complex System" is
> even a sensible phrase.  In my use of the term, a /Complex System /is
> a system whose qualitative complexity arises or emerges, often out of
> a relatively simple (quantitatively not-complex) system.   Created
> systems may be quantitatively simple or complex (by many measures) but
> the very definition of a /Complex System /in the sense that I use the
> term is that its /qualitative/ complexity could not be designed,
> created, or even predicted in any detail.
>
> So /I/ would never say that science nor art  creates a /Complex
> System/  though I would have to agree that many systems used by
> science (not created by /science/ per se, but rather created by
> /scientists/ in pursuit of understanding) are quantitatively complex,
> and that many types of artistic endeavors as I know them may create or
> generate quite quantitatively complex systems.   I suppose, one could
> view what I call /Complex Systems/ as having artistic value or
> interest, but I would have a hard time saying that the artist
> /created/ these systems, and more to the point, certainly not saying
> that the artist created the exhibited /Complexity/ in them.
>
> In the spirit of our /former/, former President, perhaps this depends
> on what /create/ means.  From some of the discussions I have observed
> you having during sfX presentations,  I think you may mean something
> different by /create/, than I do.   If I were to be pressed on the
> topic, I suppose I would often use the term /discover/ when you would
> use /create/.  This is germane to the question you pose about "how
> people should be rewarded for what they know".
>
>  Since I don't think knowledge can be /created/, only /discovered/,
> it is hard for me to think of there being any absolute or intrinsic
> value to what I (or anyone else) might know at a given time.   In a
> relative, context, I might /know/ something that you do not, that you
> find useful and we might agree to exchange some other form of value
> for that knowledge, but I would not begrudge you the possibility of
> arriving at that /knowing/ some other way (like discovering it
> yourself or having someone else share their own discovery with you).
> I might hold all kinds of knowledge which I might never be rewarded
> for.  I might choose to share as freely as possible all knowledge I
> hold.  So the notion that knowledge itself could have intrinsic value
> and the holder of the knowledge can have any specific expectation of
> reward is a little foreign to me.   I know that in the pragmatic
> world, that secrets can be valuable, and their value can be realized
> both by holding them close and by sharing them selectively or broadly.
>
> I think before most of us would want to have a public
> discussion/debate/conversation (on air, in a very short time interval)
> on a topic, we would like to have some idea of the opposing viewpoint
> we are discussing/debating/conversing-about.
>
> You and I have had a number of very pleasant discussions online and
> in-person, and I've browsed through your World Knowledge Bank, but I
> do not yet have a sense of what your position (or what you refer to as
> a "differing opinion") is.
>
> Perhaps you have written some kind of position paper that would
> introduce us to your ideas and how they contrast with those which you
> believe you have fundamental philosophical differences with?   I went
> to World Knowledge Bank tonight to see what you might have there on
> the topic, but alas, it seemed to be having technical difficulties.
> If there is such a description there (or elsewhere) please point me to
> it.
>
> I think something of the same nature (a concise description of the
> position you hold and how it contrasts with the positions you differ
> with) would help prepare folks considering your seminar series to
> decide if it is of interest to us, and to help us come up to speed on
> your ideas more easily.
>
> Anyone who has read this far in my "concise summary" is clearly a
> patient reader, and would likely find the same patience with reading
> any new way of thinking about complex systems and how we value
> knowledge and reward those who hold it, that you might offer.
>
> - Steve
>
>   I have come to the conclusion a number of thoughtful people at
> Friam, the Santa Fe Institute and the Complex and I may well have a
> fundamental, important, genuine and sincere philosophical difference
> of opinion about the future of the information/knowledge culture that
> is emerging in the world today. This difference includes how and when
> people should be rewarded for what they know? What is the most
> equitable way for people to share what they know? What does it mean
> for something to be ?free?? These are some of the areas of difference.
> I have spent decades thinking about these things but no one knows
> everything and I am sure I have more to learn.
>
>   These are important and timely issues. I think we should engage
> this conversation. I would like to invite anyone of you or someone you
> might know to have a conversation/discussion/debate about these
> issues. I have asked Mary Charlotte of KSFR?s Radio Café if she would
> be interested in hosting this conversation/discussion/debate on the
> Radio Café and she said she would.
>
>   I have confidence that this interaction between us will likely
> enlighten both of us and the listeners as well.
>
>   I am ready to proceed at any time.
>
>   I look forward to your response.
>
>   Best Wishes,
>
>   Ann Racuya-Robbins
>
>   Founder and CEO World Knowledge Bank  www.wkbank.com
>
> -------------------------
> ============================================================ FRIAM
> Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at
> St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at
> http://www.friam.org
>

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org