Alex
12-12-2009, 06:30 PM
Stuff makes demands on your attention. Is there privacy? What does privacy do for the quality of your attention and attention in general? I attribute the quoted portion of the thread title to Lorin Roche, but it may come from the "Radiance Sutras" or commentary on them. What happens when "Attention in its essences" meets: "To those who have more will be given."
The second statement is like a statement of gravitation or accretion. Its pretty basic, attentionally its like saying spectacles invite attention. It might also be like saying that you'll get knocked off the tit by the larger kitten. But even sharks have a feeding sequence and it turns out its not necessarily based on the largest getting to eat first or the largest even being guaranteed to eat.
In a power sharing society how much are we willing infantile interuptions from non infants? Should someone be given positive attention just because they are fat? It seems that power sharing is the way we increase the power in aggregate and provide richer lives for everyone. What are the limits? Do we get to bring someone to full consciousness in the middle of major surgery because we feel like it? Do we get to interrupt something like marriage (one people actually want) because we feel like it. To say 'all the market will bear' is like saying: we demand society exist at the minimum state of cleanliness that will support health and that others bear all the risk and cost for doing so because our profit is what matters.
The song of a rich corporation is something like the following: I got fat- I should be deemed good at making fat- fat is what matters- I should be given more decisional power over resources on this basis and you should bear all of the risk and encroachment. To me this is usually out of balance, its usually not 7 surgeons working to save a life, its 7 guys beating up one guy. Its not cooperation, its not competition its collusion. What does collusion or sponsorship do to your privacy, the quality of your attention and the quality of your life- of everyone’s life?
A healthy market, even for attention, is very likely not based on collusion. Markets themselves are infrastructure. Is there anyway to try to design the collusion out of them without ruining them? My thought was generic, redundant, subscription based (includes ISP fee) general content exchanges where all content is completely commodified and end users are completely shielded from all pricing machinery with the common flat rate total bundle price- they simple get total access for one low price. In that environment they choose based on what really deserves their attention and all search begins and ends with them and their word of mouth. Its very much like the highway system, we all pay one low price for it and we drive to what ever deserves our attention. We may need to keep the billboards our of such a system and remove them from the actual highway system.
So much of this comes down to how we are going to define success. Fatness can only seem to be a virtue in the face of starvation, so do we seek out situations where a gross fatness index (GDP/GNP) seems meaningful or do we use something like the Gross Happiness Index (new measure that relates eccological efficiency to contentedness?) There is a tiny country that over short span of time recently went from a kingdom to a democracy and is now using the GHP, it reminds me of the potential driving things like Onlive.
The second statement is like a statement of gravitation or accretion. Its pretty basic, attentionally its like saying spectacles invite attention. It might also be like saying that you'll get knocked off the tit by the larger kitten. But even sharks have a feeding sequence and it turns out its not necessarily based on the largest getting to eat first or the largest even being guaranteed to eat.
In a power sharing society how much are we willing infantile interuptions from non infants? Should someone be given positive attention just because they are fat? It seems that power sharing is the way we increase the power in aggregate and provide richer lives for everyone. What are the limits? Do we get to bring someone to full consciousness in the middle of major surgery because we feel like it? Do we get to interrupt something like marriage (one people actually want) because we feel like it. To say 'all the market will bear' is like saying: we demand society exist at the minimum state of cleanliness that will support health and that others bear all the risk and cost for doing so because our profit is what matters.
The song of a rich corporation is something like the following: I got fat- I should be deemed good at making fat- fat is what matters- I should be given more decisional power over resources on this basis and you should bear all of the risk and encroachment. To me this is usually out of balance, its usually not 7 surgeons working to save a life, its 7 guys beating up one guy. Its not cooperation, its not competition its collusion. What does collusion or sponsorship do to your privacy, the quality of your attention and the quality of your life- of everyone’s life?
A healthy market, even for attention, is very likely not based on collusion. Markets themselves are infrastructure. Is there anyway to try to design the collusion out of them without ruining them? My thought was generic, redundant, subscription based (includes ISP fee) general content exchanges where all content is completely commodified and end users are completely shielded from all pricing machinery with the common flat rate total bundle price- they simple get total access for one low price. In that environment they choose based on what really deserves their attention and all search begins and ends with them and their word of mouth. Its very much like the highway system, we all pay one low price for it and we drive to what ever deserves our attention. We may need to keep the billboards our of such a system and remove them from the actual highway system.
So much of this comes down to how we are going to define success. Fatness can only seem to be a virtue in the face of starvation, so do we seek out situations where a gross fatness index (GDP/GNP) seems meaningful or do we use something like the Gross Happiness Index (new measure that relates eccological efficiency to contentedness?) There is a tiny country that over short span of time recently went from a kingdom to a democracy and is now using the GHP, it reminds me of the potential driving things like Onlive.