|
|
Post by varmintreaper on Jul 4, 2012 0:05:39 GMT -5
I think I'm about ready to go forward with the lexicon, so I thought I'd share the battle plan.
We lack the necessary language to communicate ideas that haven't yet been tried. We have by some miracle an ability to glimpse solutions in shades, shapes, rhythms, a way of poking around in the dark. The process is maddeningly slow and you can hang on an idea for months with no progress until somebody triggers a notion in passing. Not to mention that even if we have a glimpse of a solution, we get a lot of contextual noise, personal experiences, pet peeves, half thought activist rhetoric clouding the process.
So a mathematics of planning? with colors? possible? Well. YES!
The earliest concept that 30 of us tried to express last year was this:
If you are stuck it's because:
1. you are fixated on one aspect of a problem
2. your work on the other aspects is lacking or unbalanced compared to your fixation
3. your lack of balance makes it difficult to research the other aspects
4. you've developed mental habits that tend to highlight that aspect with complicated solutions rather than using the other aspects in much simpler ways
So before we even talk about the forces arrayed against us, we already have fixations which get in the way.
In the last week I've come up with the following goals:
Talk about fixations and ways to kickstart addressing other aspects of a problem or solution.
Create a thesaurus in addition to the AntiShock dictionary for both specific and general concepts.
Avoid the "hunt and peck" approach to developing actions and "calculate an action" from the theory.
And finally, use the theory to figure out mass actions that have the same effect as a law being passed or a verdict in the people's favor being delivered.
That third one is the hack. And here's how it works:
Any system or policy has four aspects.
Each aspect can be broken down into four finer tuned aspects.
Aspects overlap and can be arranged to point to missing aspects.
Aspects from one context echo structures that may be harder to see in other contexts, and not only can you imitate a solution in a completely different topic, but it becomes possible to work almost entirely in the abstract and not trip over personal and philosophical hang ups.
You all may be familiar with different symbols and I don't intend to suggest you use a completely foreign set of symbols, but all I'd like to do is offer a kind of Rosetta Stone for different solutions. Most problems have the same elements. Solutions can be sketched in an almost entirely neutral way. Only after the math is done do you need to translate the symbols back into the original form.
Thoughts? Rants?
|
|
|
|
Post by varmintreaper on Jul 4, 2012 12:37:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by elisa on Jul 4, 2012 14:06:19 GMT -5
This is fascinating, but I am not sure I understand. You are creating a structure for a glossary of "alien concepts" sort of like when one language doesn't have an equivalent term in another language & you have to explain it. These would be alien because people wouldn't have tried them before, so you can't really give examples. You explain them in terms of four aspects (or contexts?). You would like for people to fill in the lexicon (not the Thesaurus). Would you use a process sort of like proz? www.proz.com/search What I mean by "like proz" is that you would have multiple people give meanings for the same concepts & there might be a discussion. In the case of proz, you don't get a dictionary definition, you get one based on usage in context. Okay, so basically it's like a linguistic wiki for translators. If these are new concepts, maybe people need to agree on what they mean. So are you making a linguistic wiki for the purposes of the GA? |
|
|
|
Post by varmintreaper on Jul 4, 2012 19:39:00 GMT -5
Pretty much that's it with one added leap. This is also used for action development. When we're completely confused/stuck/lost we will use the other already available entries as a way to sketch likely options we can't quite explain. There's some theory as well. Also proz looks cool. This is where it started: antishock.tumblr.com/post/11953512062/project-antishock |
|
|
|
Post by varmintreaper on Jul 6, 2012 2:26:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by elisa on Jul 6, 2012 14:26:00 GMT -5
Thank you for introducing me to the theory. I had just been reading about a kind of linguistic data analysis that uses Spradley's universal semantic relationships. And now I’m trying to fit Naomi Klein into the schema. Is that originally hers? Okay, I know this appears to have nothing to do with the forum... it actually kind of does, though.. and Naomi Klein. What would you do with a concept like Intrinsically Motivated Trendsetters? This would be one of four types of learners. They are self-motivated and self-directed in their learning. They learn in small (international) groups based on networking. Learning does not necessarily take place in the classroom. See p. 7 (or 365) for a better explanation. www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED467908.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by varmintreaper on Jul 6, 2012 18:03:42 GMT -5
It started with a clumsy memory crutch I used to compensate for trouble with memorization (jargon, lists, names, laws of numbers/physics).
30 Anons chewed on it while we were trying to work out ways to do long term activities. At the end I just polished what everybody else did.
I needed a name. AntiShock fit. Later, I remembered Naomi Klein's book. So it is kind of a coincidence, but it works. I'm also a Babylon 5 nut so it could have been a reference to the Anla'shok.
The theory however is a combination of cross context observations and some Eastern philosophy stuff I read years ago that kinda stuck with me. But I can't really take credit. Much of my progress with it has been from feedback from others with challenges and debates and so on.
Ultimately I figure if a completely memory handicapped guy like me can make this work, anybody who is more focused than I am can too. So it goes under the Anonymous flag, because I really think the average person can contribute to it once they get it.
|
|
|
|
Post by cymadd0x on Jul 9, 2012 15:24:16 GMT -5
This AntiShock stuff is a great tool IMHO. But it's not clear to me why everything is based on groups of 4 concepts, rather than 3 or 8 or whatever. Can you elaborate on that aspect?
|
|
|
|
Post by elisa on Jul 9, 2012 17:08:19 GMT -5
Okay, this is what it looks like to me. Antishock takes a word & surrounds it with like terms (not synonyms) so as to immerse the reader. The purpose is to somehow internalize concepts which would work great for interpreting/translating and is in fact a good way to prepare.
So, in the case of a broken elbow, one could associate growth plate, ligament, fracture, & lateral condyle?
Commute - parking ramp, driver, highway, car?
Am I close?
|
|
|
|
Post by varmintreaper on Jul 9, 2012 19:26:59 GMT -5
This AntiShock stuff is a great tool IMHO. But it's not clear to me why everything is based on groups of 4 concepts, rather than 3 or 8 or whatever. Can you elaborate on that aspect? 3 reasons: 1. the more concepts the more they overlap so things get all mixed up past 4 2. you can break up these 4 into 4 more concepts biased in one aspect (ad infinitum) 3. it's like this one is like betting everything on one solution two is like US vs THEM concept three is like two but someone is always moving the middle four is like three but forces the middle to have some standard Four is the minimum to avoid ego (1), conflict (2), manipulation (3). |
|
|
|
Post by varmintreaper on Jul 9, 2012 19:52:07 GMT -5
Okay, this is what it looks like to me. Antishock takes a word & surrounds it with like terms (not synonyms) so as to immerse the reader. The purpose is to somehow internalize concepts which would work great for interpreting/translating and is in fact a good way to prepare. So, in the case of a broken elbow, one could associate growth plate, ligament, fracture, & lateral condyle? Commute - parking ramp, driver, highway, car? Am I close? Close enough. the 3rd and 4th aspect can be mindbending at times. they really don't teach us how to manage this in school. For the fracture, i would say those are good. Not sure of the exact order, but yeah. What you have to avoid is "map fixation". Point A to Point B is how we were taught, but they are context free and don't reveal much. Each aspect should be a somewhat independent dimension. That's when memetic resonances happen and the method pays back much more than you expected. Here's an example: raincoastermedia.com/2012/03/27/fight-twitter-spam-kill-the-head-the-body-will-fall/Now I believe twitter adapted to it to some extent, but the first couple of days it was Anonymous using AntiShock which average people were able to apply and we ended the invasion quite quickly. |
|
|
|
Post by elisa on Jul 10, 2012 14:52:36 GMT -5
You're right! I was very map/commute fixated when I wrote that. I wanna move back to the inner city, waaaaah!  I think I may have completely missed the point, though. What exactly is the objective? Basically, I understand the idea of bringing ideas into action. Would it be used as a starting point to organize action? The broken elbow sequence was just applied linguistics. The objective was preparation for interpreting, but it could be used just as easily for starting a translation or lesson planning for teachers. Also, I don't understand the relationship between the aspects (history, actor, action, & method) and examples (battery, current, bulb, wire). Of course, it doesn't help that I keep looking at them like questions on the Miller Analogies Test. |
|
|
|
Post by varmintreaper on Jul 10, 2012 17:57:23 GMT -5
You're right! I was very map/commute fixated when I wrote that. I wanna move back to the inner city, waaaaah! I think I may have completely missed the point, though. What exactly is the objective? Basically, I understand the idea of bringing ideas into action. Would it be used as a starting point to organize action? The idea is that all processes, policies, systems, groups, events have these aspects. When you're stuck: 1. stop working on just one aspect 2. borrow aspects from a form you understand well 3. find the analogy that fits 4. continue with the design. Battery is where electrons which generate light via heat come from. Current is moving electrons. Lighting the bulb is what those electrons need to do. Wire is how they go in and out of the bulb. History is where information which generates action comes from. Actor is the one who applies the information. Action is the result of the information. Method is how the action gets done. The best example to use is: what who why how. Think of the what as a source, a desire, a motivator. Think of the why as an expression of the what being achieved. Think of the who as the bridge between what and why. Think of the how as the expression of the who. I like cake (what), so I need to bake (why), so that means I want to mix ingredients (who), in the proper proportions and procedure (how). We are taught to think in associations (US vs THEM) or of merely ourselves (ego). Then professional intellectuals mince words for us (manipulate). The only way out of this is to have a common standard (AntiShock). |
|
|
|
Post by elisa on Jul 10, 2012 21:17:10 GMT -5
Ok. Now it all makes sense.. except I would think philosophy instead of history since philosophy is the way we think about things & method is applied philosophy.. the way to put it into action. I like the idea of internalizing some kind of structure. I may... lack in that area. As for what is taught, I think it's pretty obvious how I feel about that.  |
|
|
|
Post by varmintreaper on Jul 10, 2012 21:33:15 GMT -5
Ok. Now it all makes sense.. except I would think philosophy instead of history since philosophy is the way we think about things & method is applied philosophy.. the way to put it into action. Information is general enough to include philosophy, perhaps. It started as a crutch. Never thought it would get this far. And what they promise will come of it. |
|
