Inquiry

Brian had the idea that people could tag their posts with something graphical to indicate something about their perspective. 

I think that's a cool idea, although I wonder if people would bother to do so, especially if it is just an after-thought, like adding keywords, which people don't always bother to do after they've written their reply.

But as an experiment, perhaps there could be a new kind of discussion format -- Google for example, created the Wave which does all sorts of new things that you can't do with ordinary threads. 

The new format I'm playing with is one where the diagram forms most of the GUI and you click on the diagram first, to add a post. It can link replies together (by timestamp) so you still have a thread of sorts, but the main visual is the distribution of perspectives. 

There's perhaps something odd about posting material through something like this, and people might not like it. 

So it could be available as different mode of discussion which some people might choose to use when they start a topic. If people want to reply and join in, then they're basically agreeing to use the tool and work the way it works. To reflect that it is quite a controlling format, I've called it the AQAL Panopticon (that's a shadowy reference to prisons and control, but also to the design ideal of being able to observe all locations simultaneously).

I'd imagine such an interface could be doable using modern web standards.

I'm curious what we're talking about by "ideal behaviour". In a cafeteria for example, there's systems in place for certain behaviours: trays because there's no table service, no reservations, and no waiters; large signs for the menu because you have a minute to choose whist waiting in the queue; a simple queue, as people are served on a first come basis; a cash register at the end because you will pay before you eat and after you've chosen everything. That's the simple technical systems in place; the "physicality" if you will.

The physicality of these web forums is stuff like:

• anybody can speak, and be heard by anybody
• conversations follow a number of threads, and there's no limit on time spent reading or writing
• the time between posts and replies is anywhere from minutes to days, so the rhythm tends to be disjointed
• you can skip any content, but that adds to the disjointed rhythm
• comments can be one liners or go on for pages

So I'm wondering, what kind of place does this physicality correspond to?

It is rather like a room with a large circle of chairs, and everyone gets the floor for as long as they want, but people can come and go from their seats as they wish. Occasionally a few people hit it off (or want to hit each other) and it gets more intense, but largely it can be a loose collection of stories, anecdotes, perspectives.... people have name tags, but that's about all. What altitude does this serve? What altitude does it foster?

From a Spiral Wizard sort of view, when would you choose to use such a setup?

What kind of physical space would you rather be in to experience the sort of "We" experiences that you'd like to have?

If the online open forum system is a sort of virtual equivalent of a mixture of people sitting in a circle of chairs with sporadic open discussions -- a sort of green principle -- then that fits with some of the typical problems which the format is known to have, for discussions:

• can go way off topic
• can take a long time to get to know where other people are coming from
• content can be very long, wordy, multiple points and counter points
• can be very very time consuming
• reactions turn to conflicts, and people leave without conflicts being resolved
• can achieve little

This kinda reminds me of the time I was participating in a group that was there to learn about therapy, and one person said something that most people disagreed vehemently with, and basically the issue was never resolved, even though the group was run on green standards. Similar investment of time and effort, similar lack of growth.

cartoon by xkcd

That's actually the reverse of Ken Wilber's first principle helpful for an integral approach!

1. nonexclusion – everybody is right
2. unfoldment – the phenomena disclosed by the paradigm – AQAL indexing / holonic conferencing – preceding waves are not useless
3. enactment – phenomena are not there for everybody

The green open forum format doesn't know how to handle, "You Sir, are wrong!"

I know also because I keep falling into it myself online.

Physically, the circle of chairs works for certain social altitudes and interactions. Therapy for example, seems suited to it. But when I think about the recent feminism thread on IL, I think there was a real problem in that some participants simply aren't in agreement with the broad AQAL model, and it happens that I become tempted to say, "You Sir, are wrong!" -- and that's disturbing to me, because it technically implies that I don't agree with the AQAL model either..... ick!

But if I want to learn AQAL, then the system here on IL website could perhaps setup the space so that more of Ken's three principles helpful to an integrative approach can be supported.

The physical model I'm starting to wonder about is a place where both variety and hierarchy can be included, where both specialists and laypeople can participate, where both depth and surface can coexist. Hierarchy is particularly important because remember that's what green can't handle. But at the same time, some spaces do work better without hierarchy. 

A physical model of a place where variety is not only included (as with green) but actually protected (as with teal). A system of systems is the one where multiple systems are accessible and we can explore where they touch. OK, what I'm wondering about is the model of the Art Gallery. 

The Art Gallery is interesting because the experts decide what goes on show. The general public can come in and view simply out of curiosity, fun, and learning. They can do it together, but rowdy conversations are not held in the galleries, they are held in the cafeteria or bar afterwards. There's a separation of functions there. And most importantly, whilst the experts decide what goes on show, what goes on show could be from any altitude, and it is presented as a single and complete work in its own right. It is protected. 

The criteria for being a piece worthy of having its own space, is not that it be of a high altitude, but that it be of a high quality. So in a sense I'm talking about a mini-journal format. If contributors, say an orange science type, wants to come in and critique Integral and state their final word on why, "You Sir, are Wrong!", then let that submission be approved by an editor and give it space, visually on the page, for it to stand. That means, no comments. No forum threads to swamp it.

Meanwhile, forum threads can exist, but they need ownership -- someone would start the thread and is therefore moderator for the thread. If people get burned by joining in with that thread, then that small group fizzles out. Again, it doesn't matter too much what altitude the thread reaches, but the person who starts the thread, they're like your friend in the cafe, and you start a conversation. If you wander off topic, they get to call you on it. -- I've never seen this done online, so perhaps that just wouldn't work. But I feel that for open green bonding to work in an open forum, someone is going to need to be there to hold the group. 

So that's now two kinds of artefacts, the selected works that go on the wall (the mini journal) and the collection of little groups sat at tables in the cafeteria (the individual threaded groups). 

Blogging is interesting, as it seems to me to fit neither space functionally very well. I don't come meet you for coffee, just to sit and listen to your stream of consciousness for ten minutes. Well, I wouldn't, anyway.

But if I was having a wonder round the back of the Art Gallery, walking around the studios visiting the artists in residence, then I might wander into your studio and see what you're up to. Perhaps you're busy taking photos of your own backside for a collage on sustainability. Well, that's OK. It's your blog, your studio, your process. It doesn't have to make sense to me. Again, I'd contrast that with the Art Gallery where you sorta only want to view "finished" works, which is to say, stuff that's legible, clear, cogent, and properly edited. 

So maybe that's three different sorts of spaces, or three different online systems, each with their own specific features for content, access, administration, and indexing. 

Remembering that teal has, "so much to learn, so little time", so the online system could serve by selectively indexing certain key aspects of each format. Blogs could be indexed just by keywords, or a creatively chosen quotation by the author, whereas the mini-journal works would be viewable as mini abstracts. The individual forum groups could be indexed by their owner and topic heading. 

Visually the indexes can be represented in ways that clearly separate journals and blogs from discussions, however, you might also make it possible for people to assemble their own collage of items, which are then viewable in people's studio space. So if I haven't been here in a while, but I'm interested in whatever X has been looking at, and how they grouped it, I could go check out their "scrapbook".

Regardless of whether the model of the Art Gallery would work, I guess I'm just trying to look at the basic variables of online content and how tweaking those variables can alter the experience of how the community interacts.

Consider the difference in rhythm between Twitter and email discussion lists. Technically the differences are not that big: 

• how many words in a post
• how many people can be followed
• streams based on a keyword search, or threads based on reply sequence

Consider also a tool like Scrivener, with its Synopsis Cards to organise large units of text that will want reorganising and reshuffling as the story develops. This is what I was referring to when I wondered about individual users having a scrap book: they can choose to include on their scrapbook any synopsis cards from other people's blogs, discussions, or journals. The cards could be arranged in space, and maybe your canvas has an AQAL diagram as a backdrop. It might even be fun to watch and see where the same synopsis card ends up on different people's scrap books?

Thanks Chuck. I have just now adopted farming as my best new metaphor for emergence. You have been duly notified. Of course I'll give credit where credit is due.

Kevin

PS: I too have a degree in Mechanical Engineering and an interest in complexity <http://bit.ly/aU57C> and spirituality <http://bit.ly/cKMU0R>.