Good morning all, thanks for the messages.

Just briefly, in general -- it's probably true that discussing these things at a theoretical level in email is likely to remain confusing. What we need is a practical working application to explore, something actual and concrete to talk about in specific terms. So -- I will do what I can to get that working.

Without something specific to look at, we're not going to be sure of the meaning of terms like "agreement" or "disagreement" -- or "rigid" or "hierarchy" -- though, RhonnaLeigh -- there is quite a bit of explanation on collaborative tagging here: http://networknation.net/fp/tagging.cfm Check out the difference between "taxonomy" and "folksonomy". Think about resonance and "meaning in-between the cracks" -- which can emerge as a statistical property of tagging systems -- as can "center-point" or "agreement".

And RhonnaLeigh, just to note, as an example: the internet itself only works at all because it IS a 100% "rigid, top-down linear hierarchy convened by agreement among authorities". The DNS system (Domain Name System) is an agreement that is updated every day that every domain name that has been registered has ONE location (an IP address) on the internet someplace. And your computer itself is a "rigid top-down hierarchy" that controls your file locations. And every pixel on your computer is contained within that hierarchy. What all that means is -- in fact, there is ONE actual top-down (and "rigid") hierarchy that maps directly in a linear way to every single pixel on every single computer connected to the internet. Now THAT is big-time linear -- and it's why the internet works and has this amazing integrity -- that is actually held together by conscious intentional agreement among collaborating human beings all over the world....

The question of "word meanings" is one of the biggest and most divisive/confusing problems in the world. Battles are fought everywhere over the meaning of words. Collaborative tagging is a way to build a world of mutual understanding in a context of semantic diversity, where no one word (e.g., "rigid") can cause the train to go off the tracks.

Starr*, do you have an article that shows how your search results are affected by previous searches -- or other things you may have clicked (on Facebook, or wherever)? I have not seen anything that says this -- though I can see how it could be true. I almost always use Google -- and they do know a lot about me -- I use the Chrome browser -- which signs me into Google anywhere I go. But I live with that -- and I am not aware that they are limiting search results. If I am simply naive, let me know.

I think the next step for this approach to collaboration -- is simply to build an initial test model, and see if people will use it. I'd say that to make this work, the idea would be to promote a vision of why this approach solves the problems people have been raising -- and I think it does. But that's got to be clear, and there's a lot of new content here, that takes some time to assimilate. I put a lot into this vision here: http://focalpoint.us

On Nirmalan's concern with "agreement" -- yes, maybe a better word would be "affinity". Agreement does imply a certain rigidity in word meanings -- which simply does not exist in the real world, not without lawyers. What we need to be doing is -- trying to understand one another, even though each of us has a "private dictionary" that tends to derail understanding when we are crossing cultural borders. That's a problem we have to solve -- and collaborative tagging can get us past that rigidity and misunderstanding.

And RhonnaLeigh -- on "overarching" and other such top-down implications -- take a look at Helene Finidori's recent message to the Great Transition Initiative. I don't necessarily agree with every point she makes, but she's brilliant and it's a very strong statement by someone working closely with this movement.

http://networknation.net/fp/vision.cfm#helene

--- On Mon, Oct 13, 2014, Starr* Saffa wrote ---

Greetings

Replying to RhonnaLeigh's post, I wanted to say that the World Wide Net now has programs that put all of us in "Bubbles" of interest. For instance, if I search for a particular kind of thing - when I do another search the RESULTS are limited to the kind of interests I have previously searched for and leaves off all the variations that could come up under that heading.

As such my web experience is narrowed compared to those who have more variations in their Bubble based on their previous searches.

So if we all searched a particular topic we'd all get different RESULTS based on our previous searches, while maybe two or three results may match.

I find the Bubble to be VERY NARROW and LIMITING -When I know I have even written material that should come up in searches which is MUCH BROADER than the most recent BUBBLE results the Web has me in. I also know I AM so much more than what by BUBBLE THINKS I AM.

So, it sounds like instead of expanding Knowledge we are boxing it up - which dumbs potential down.

In my opinion and personal gnoisis, I would suggest, without the *Inner Intelligence /Divine Mind* of a person being freed from programs, beliefs, and egotic control, there is little chance of that individual being able to contribute to the Whole in a meaningful way that reflects the needs of a progressing Collective Consciousness.

Thanks, S'ace for your kind remembrances.

Connecting the Light and Love within All, Starr*

--- On Sun, Oct 12, 2014, RhonnaLeigh MacKnight wrote ---

Hi all~

What I get from a synonym discussion my dictionary offers below it's definitions of "rigid":

Synonym discussion: rigid, rigorous, strict, stringent mean extremely severe or
stern.

rigid implies uncompromising inflexibility [rigid rules of conduct].
rigorous implies the imposition of hardship and difficulty [the rigorous training of
recruits]. strict emphasizes undeviating conformity to rules, standards, or
requirements [strict enforcement of the law]. stringent suggests severe, tight
restriction or limitation [stringent standards of admission].

What I get from my dictionary on "hierarchy" (root of "hierarchical"):

: a group that controls an organization and is divided into different levels
: a system in which people or things are placed in a series of levels with different
importance or status

What I get from it on "taxonomy":

: the process or system of describing the way in which different living things are related by
putting them in groups
: orderly classification of plants and animals according to their presumed natural
relationships

Bruce, are you proposing by your call for help establishing a *rigid hierarchical
taxonomy* that we design a questionnaire able to catalog activists applying for
membership to a wannabe overarching database, which classifies everyone according
to values, interests, and commitment to honoring both as shown by applicants'
communications skills?

What is it about the internet folks use today, that doesn't look like enough support for like-
minded sorts to meet, who're wanting to collaborate to advance solutions and/or their
development?

RhonnaLeigh

P.S. Do you know why our text isn't wrapping to fit this message-composing box? My text
was spilling all outside it like yours still is, 'til I inserted page breaks at the right-hand
margins of the composition field. Is this a glitch I could compensate for some easier
way?

--- On Sun, Oct 12, 2014, Nirmalan Dhas wrote ---

A network based on disagreement will be much stronger than one based on agreement...

N --- On Sat, Oct 11, 2014, Bruce Schuman wrote ---

I think where this is going -- is towards a very simple universal activist interface, designed to support collaboration among all kinds of groups and activists working for a better world.

Basic design to make it work:

• keep it absolutely simple
• weed out all possible controversy and points of disagreement
• make it applicable for every sector and every issue

So, let's say this is a big-picture holistic image of problems/issues in the world -- all interconnected, all critical, all demanding collaborative solutions:

We need a way to get 100,000,000 citizens, or a billion, and thousands of NGOs (non-governmental organizations, activist groups of every kind who see something like this vision, or care passionately about some part of it), all interconnected through a very basic network, in a form that can create a million alliances on every possible interconnected point of concern.

In this holistic/global context, it's about every issue at the same time, at all levels of social organization. Every issue is connected to every other issue, in an interdependent mutually-influencing way. We need to see this, model and map it, and convene a local-point adjudication and balancing of those dimensions at that local point.

Levels of categorization of this process might look like this:

• 12 basic sectors of the "wheel of co-creation", top-down hierarchical taxonomy defined by intergroup consensus
• 15 defined issues of critical international importance
• 12 general areas of concern for any community
• strict hierarchical/scientific taxonomy, rigid categories with bottomless capacity for detail
• organizational/interpersonal correlation, similarities/affinities, points of alliance
• model of neural structure in the human brain

All of this can be extremely fluent, combining the stability of a top-down ("hierarchy") rigid taxonomy with the absolute fluency of bottom-up ("circle") tagging.

This is the essential design for a "universal alliance engine" that can interconnect constructive motivation wherever it arises.

Put simply, this is what we are doing:

------

------

------

------