Looking for alternatives

They say “on the internet nobody knows you’re a dog“, I like this a lot. It tells me that communication is enhanced by renouncing at vanity. Unfortunately this seems to me the most important stumbling block in the path towards a better research communication system. Because researchers, statistically speaking, have been selected since at least 40 years by vanity criteria. That is why we see better communication among young researchers, not only because they are young, but because their vanity is still low, making them more available to receiving and giving new ideas.

No technical improvement, no OA schema other than the most idealistic ones, will enhance communication. You don’t believe me? Look then at what is available, does it work? Slowly but surely we shall pass to OA entirely, but so slow, it’s almost at historical scale. Recently it was officially discovered that gold OA is worse than green OA. Great discovery, but it was obvious from the beginning. I believe sooner than later, but don’t worry, not too soon, we shall renounce at the article format for communicating research.

Which brings me to the real subject of this post. I am not sure if this blog/open notebook is the right format for communication. I am looking for collaborations with the rare, but surely existing  creative people which, as me, are more curious than vain.  There is a great amount of lurking around this blog.  I can see there’s a lot of interest both in the graphic lambda calculus and in the chemical concrete machine. The lack of input I get from these lurkers worries me. This blog documents the evolution of some ideas from the initial vague start to some products, like the ones mentioned here. Don’t you understand that these are just byproducts of a very enjoyable exploration? Which byproducts could be much, much more funny if they are the result of a dialogue?

That is why I am looking for alternatives which might enhance this potential collaboration with other creative dogs around the world.

6 thoughts on “Looking for alternatives”

  1. Part of the problem is that a person resides in a particular state of mind at any given time, focused on a limited field of attention almost wholly occupied by the particular issues at hand. And even though one can dimly recall having been in other states of mind at other times, intensely interested in other issues that now only tug at the periphery of awareness, it takes time and effort, sometimes more than one can muster, to pull those memories off the back burners and remember what one was thinking at the time.

      1. Well, the generic experience is one with which you are no doubt familiar. It is something like, “Wow❢ This stuff is so beautiful and fascinating❢ I can’t believe the whole world — well, a respectable chunk of the intellectual world — isn’t just as fascinated with this stuff as I am❢”

        Still … one is faced with the inescapable fact that they aren’t — and so one has no alternative but to draw a circle around that circumstance and reflect on it as a phenomenon in itself.

      2. Thank you for the comment, I was on the point to update mine. I understand maybe better now: you say that local interest does not imply longer time involvement. But I arrived to this way of communication (of things which demand long time attention span to understand) naturally, for me. I was doing the same thing alone, just for me, since childhood. Then, as a profession, but I grew more and more discontent about the limitations of the article format, which demands only one idea, in small bites, so to be easy to understand, with low mixing of research subjects, otherwise there is no competent referee, preferably solving, closing problems than asking. I am not looking for audience, I am looking for dialogue. There has to be better ways for that, than a blog, or a static page. That is why I ask.

  2. Yes. One can’t help feeling that all this medioric newfanglnesse must provide a better way to develop and manage knowledge, in a more interactive “community of inquiry” sort of way.

    But we now have several decades of experience with what used to be the latest thing in communication and knowledge-opinion interchange, and I think there are lessons to be learned from that experience.

    From my observations over the last fifteen years, there is something in human psychology and human social organization, a kind of “fallback paradigm”, that keeps imposing the same old structures on each new medium, and we won’t have a chance of setting a truly novel course for the future until we come to grips with the nature of human inertia and the panoply of forces that act on it.

    1. Would you be interested to spare some time, with no hurry, on either Timaeus or Parmenide dialogues? From the beginning, like there is nobody else left on the world, trying to understand. Sparring time, a succession of posts, one at you, the next at me. A dialogue.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s