Comments on: social and connected individuals http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2005/09/15/social_and_conn.html making connections where none previously existed Mon, 06 Feb 2012 07:10:26 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Mel http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2005/09/15/social_and_conn.html/comment-page-1#comment-11682 Mel Thu, 22 Sep 2005 09:38:58 +0000 http://ubuntu.my/wp30/archives/2005/09/15/social_and_conn.html#comment-11682 hear hear. I second you Mir on the favourite commentors (you and Barb). We're clearly orbiting around the same points of inspiration! :-) hear hear. I second you Mir on the favourite commentors (you and Barb). We’re clearly orbiting around the same points of inspiration! :-)

]]> By: mir http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2005/09/15/social_and_conn.html/comment-page-1#comment-11681 mir Sun, 18 Sep 2005 17:50:10 +0000 http://ubuntu.my/wp30/archives/2005/09/15/social_and_conn.html#comment-11681 hey two of my favorite commentors.... hey one of my favorite blogs hey I want in on the conversation.. I immediately sent this article to a friend who is doing her Phd in coms and specifically looking at issues of public access and what that means. She told me, and I sure hope it wasn't in confidence, that in taking a gander at login files for a wifi community network, she realized that the 6 most mobile users were also key members of the organizational infrastructure. which as she said; "begs the question who builds these networks, and for who..." Or to be less academic, why are the big wigs still doing installs? (ha ha) hey two of my favorite commentors….

hey one of my favorite blogs

hey I want in on the conversation..

I immediately sent this article to a friend who is doing her Phd in coms and specifically looking at issues of public access and what that means.

She told me, and I sure hope it wasn’t in confidence, that in taking a gander at login files for a wifi community network, she realized that the 6 most mobile users were also key members of the organizational infrastructure.

which as she said; “begs the question who builds these networks, and for who…”

Or to be less academic, why are the big wigs still doing installs? (ha ha)

]]> By: Mel http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2005/09/15/social_and_conn.html/comment-page-1#comment-11680 Mel Fri, 16 Sep 2005 21:31:50 +0000 http://ubuntu.my/wp30/archives/2005/09/15/social_and_conn.html#comment-11680 Nice distinction. And I appreciate Ms Galloway drawing attention to the fetish of individualism/subjectivity. Drawing attention to this might illuminate how the more problematic notions of social are reinforcing of materialist/consumer ideology - not connection/connectivity/collectivity between people. Nice distinction. And I appreciate Ms Galloway drawing attention to the fetish of individualism/subjectivity. Drawing attention to this might illuminate how the more problematic notions of social are reinforcing of materialist/consumer ideology – not connection/connectivity/collectivity between people.

]]> By: barb dybwad http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2005/09/15/social_and_conn.html/comment-page-1#comment-11679 barb dybwad Fri, 16 Sep 2005 02:34:49 +0000 http://ubuntu.my/wp30/archives/2005/09/15/social_and_conn.html#comment-11679 Wow, this is fantastic. So many levels and dimensions here... so maybe individual control, seeking absolute control of one's personal sphere, is to some degree reflective of a fear of the synergy that comes out of true collaboration. When true collaboration happens, the individual contributions are obscured or even obliterated (wikipedia, e.g.) -- and our egos fear this. So we build our tools very carefully to preserve, contain and interlink circumscribed individuals -- instead of providing the means for true intermeshing, true remixing, true collaboration to occur. We want to maintain discreteness and order because we fear the dissolution of ego that occurs when we truly give ourselves to the greater good. And our "social" software tools reflect this. Wow, this is fantastic. So many levels and dimensions here… so maybe individual control, seeking absolute control of one’s personal sphere, is to some degree reflective of a fear of the synergy that comes out of true collaboration. When true collaboration happens, the individual contributions are obscured or even obliterated (wikipedia, e.g.) — and our egos fear this. So we build our tools very carefully to preserve, contain and interlink circumscribed individuals — instead of providing the means for true intermeshing, true remixing, true collaboration to occur. We want to maintain discreteness and order because we fear the dissolution of ego that occurs when we truly give ourselves to the greater good. And our “social” software tools reflect this.

]]>