Re: Cultural v. Technical Solutions [was Re: [ba-unrev-talk] Re: Just the facts.]
Reminds me of Thomas - "The Medusa and the Snail" on humans reaching a
consensus. Somehow we persist and eventually there is just enough good
will fueled creativity to muddle through. Does not sound that great when
I'm describing but actual examples move me to tears. I am not always
proud to be a US citizen, or for that matter a member on any particular
organization. But as a human being, I AM THRILLED !. For all that
we are and even for our shortcomings my admiration and my faith abides. (01)
GER qeds (02)
Mei Lin Fung wrote:
> Think about two people trying to get to the West Coast in the early 19th
> century (Lewis & Clark for example).
>
> Lewis has some ideas about how to get across.
> So does Clark.
>
> They are not all the same ideas. Neither of them knows enough about what
> they are up against to know that their plan is the right one, with any
> certainty.
>
> It doesn't work for Lewis to say: I'm the leader so do what I say.
> He doesn't know enough. It is helpful to have an evolving plan for how
> to get across, informed by more than 1 intelligent and resourceful
> human.
>
> They plot a path, maybe its informed more by one persons ideas when
> going across Wyoming. Maybe its informed more by the other, to get
> across Idaho.
>
> By perserverance, luck, and all kinds of other miracles. They make it.
>
> So, that's how I see Doug's view:
>
> There are the experts on the Tool Systems.
>
> There are the experts on the Human Systems.
>
> They both know how to do some sorts of things.
>
> Neither knows how to create the Capability Infrastructure for
> improvement for masses of illogical humans to deploy gobs of technology.
>
> So they try a few steps. Pause. Evaluate where they've got to.
> Plot the next step. Pause. Evaluate where they've got to. Iterate.
>
> It's ok that its not all a technology solution.
> Its ok that its not all a human solution.
> In fact, its better that neither dominate absolutely.
> Because neither would get us as far as we could go, if we co-evolve the
> two.
>
> Its frightening, because there is a leap of faith involved whenever
> someone leaves their domain of expertise. So working out how to reduce
> the risk of taking steps into the unknown is an important expertise to
> acquire along the way. But that comes later.....
>
> One of the critical first steps is to have a language and vocabulary to
> "plot the next steps" with.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org
> [mailto:owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org] On Behalf Of Peter Jones
> Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 4:06 PM
> To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org
> Subject: Re: Cultural v. Technical Solutions [was Re: [ba-unrev-talk]
> Re: Just the facts.]
>
>
>
>>Shall I infer that your point would be:
>>Doug Engelbart's vision of coupling masses of illogical humans to gobs
>
> of
>
>>technology doesn't have a prayer of achieving anything sufficiently
>
> useful
>
>>to be able to judge the effort worthwhile? (being somewhat akin to
>>Gerald's earlier comments).
>
>
> [pj] No, that's absolutely not what I'm saying. I'm saying the tech
> needs to be
> bent to fit more. I believe that's in line with Doug's thinking (??).
>
> <massive snippage>
>
>
>
>
>
> (03)