|
RE: NPR Commentary
|
David Weinberger
|
Dec 20, 2000 08:48 PST
|
I've embedded some comments, but first: Thanks, Tim. And, should anyone
really care, here's a link to the RealAudio of the commentary:
http://www.npr.org/ramfiles/atc/20001218.atc.16.rmm
| | -----Original Message-----
From: T. Cunningham [mailto:twc-@earthlink.net]
Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2000 12:56 PM
To: cluet-@topica.com
Subject: RE: [cluetrain] NPR Commentary
I heard David Weinberger on All Things Considered last night, and have a
few comments that might be of more general interest to the cluetrain
list.
If I am paraphrasing correctly, David commented on the contrast between
notions of hierarchical management in organizational structure and the
self-organizing nature of the web. This is a brilliant observation, but
one that may well be observed in the breach more often than not. IMO,
self-organization is a marvelous feature of our world, and one that is
generally misunderstood. Generally, I see more conceit than power in the
desire and intention to "control" every jot and tiddle of other people's
lives, whether in commerce, or in government. To my way of thinking, the
constraints established around behaviors are like Goldilocks porridge.
When the constraints are absent, self-organization is chaotic and too
random. But when there are too many constraints, the self-organization
is too confined and not dynamic enough.
|
Good paraphrase. Here's mine: The world's largest, most complex and robust
network was built without any overall management thus breaking the back of
the old assumption that the larger the project, the more
management/control/permission you need.
| | The recent JOHO included various lamentations about the results of the
recent U.S. election. Again, if I can paraphrase, David seemed to be
saying that Bush was a.) stupid, b.) ignorant c.) selfish and generally
unenlightened. Yet these may well be among the best characteristics for
a leader--provided that leader is guided by a half-way decent vision.
Now I'm not saying that Bush will be a great leader. I don't really have
any idea about that. Yet, I do think that we could use less government,
less top-down thinking, less "planning" less of an Al Haig "I'm in
charge now" mentality. This, I think, will allow more people to
self-organize rather than try to control them from the top (Compare,
e.g. Gore's targeted tax plan to Bush's across the board cuts)
In short, I, for one, am glad we are going to have less Al Gore. I'll
admit I have a Libertarian bent, overall. But, all in all, I'm not upset
about Bush, and the potential for allowing more self-organization to
take place is one important reason why.
|
From my highly biased point of view, Bush: a) Lacks vision. b) Is
libertarian at the corporate level but is quite controlling when it comes to
privacy -- standard Republican line of "Get the gov't off your backs except
in the bedroom." I guess I don't see this as a "more gov't" or "less gov't"
issue so much as a question of whose interests will the gov't pursue most
vigorously. E.g., is setting aside wilderness areas a case of more gov't or
less gov't? I'm not sure and I don't think I care. Does the fact that Gore
was primarily responsible for the largest *decrease* in the number of gov't
employees since who-knows-when mean that we now have less gov't? I'm not
sure and I don't think I care.
Anyway, Tim's paraphrase of my feelings about Bush is dead accurate. And the
more important issue Tim raises has nothing to do with Bush: If we believe
in self-organization as preferable to top-down organization, what does that
mean for government? As a knee-jerk, big-spending, soak-the-rich Liberal,
I'd hate to think it means we can't spend big bucks on public works and
support of the poor, hungry and needy.
-- David W.
|
|
 |
|
