Updates from openworld Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • openworld 1:07 pm on October 17, 2012 Permalink | Reply | Resolved
    • Someone marked this resolved
      1:55 pm on September 29, 2014
    • Someone marked this unresolved
      1:42 pm on September 29, 2014
    • Someone marked this normal
      5:07 pm on September 27, 2014
    • Someone marked this resolved
      5:03 pm on September 27, 2014
    • Someone marked this unresolved
      7:31 pm on September 23, 2014
    • Someone marked this normal
      7:29 pm on September 23, 2014
    • Someone marked this resolved
      7:08 pm on September 23, 2014
    • Someone marked this unresolved
      12:50 pm on August 4, 2014
    • Someone marked this normal
      12:44 pm on August 4, 2014
    • Someone marked this resolved
      5:59 pm on August 2, 2014
    • Someone marked this unresolved
      5:57 pm on August 2, 2014
    • Someone marked this normal
      10:35 pm on August 1, 2014
    • Someone marked this resolved
      10:26 pm on July 5, 2014
    • Someone marked this unresolved
      1:54 am on July 2, 2014
    • Someone marked this normal
      4:53 pm on June 12, 2014
    • Someone marked this resolved
      4:49 pm on June 12, 2014
    • Someone marked this unresolved
      11:01 pm on June 4, 2014
    • Someone marked this normal
      11:18 am on June 3, 2014
    • Someone marked this resolved
      11:14 am on June 3, 2014
    • Someone marked this unresolved
      12:31 pm on March 25, 2014
    • Someone marked this normal
      12:23 pm on March 25, 2014
    • Someone marked this resolved
      1:59 am on March 23, 2014
    • Someone marked this unresolved
      1:31 am on March 23, 2014
    • Someone marked this normal
      1:21 am on March 23, 2014
    • Someone marked this resolved
      8:18 am on March 17, 2014
    • Someone marked this unresolved
      11:48 am on March 16, 2014
    • Someone marked this normal
      11:01 am on March 16, 2014
    • Someone marked this resolved
      9:51 am on January 16, 2014
    • Someone marked this unresolved
      9:46 am on January 16, 2014
    • Someone marked this normal
      2:41 am on October 10, 2013
    • Someone marked this resolved
      9:44 am on September 2, 2013
    • Someone marked this unresolved
      9:32 am on September 2, 2013
    • Someone marked this normal
      2:50 am on August 29, 2013
    • Someone marked this resolved
      2:01 pm on August 25, 2013
    • Someone marked this unresolved
      4:22 pm on August 22, 2013
    • Someone marked this normal
      6:54 am on May 5, 2013
    • Someone marked this resolved
      3:51 pm on April 19, 2013
    • Someone marked this unresolved
      3:39 pm on April 19, 2013
    • Someone removed resolution
      3:37 pm on April 19, 2013
    • Someone marked this resolved
      12:54 pm on November 30, 2012
    • Someone marked this unresolved
      12:42 pm on November 30, 2012
    • j.swan removed resolution
      5:41 pm on November 1, 2012
    • Someone marked this resolved
      1:49 am on October 31, 2012
    • Someone marked this unresolved
      1:47 am on October 31, 2012
    • Someone removed resolution
      9:28 am on October 19, 2012
    • Someone marked this resolved
      8:19 am on October 19, 2012
    • Someone marked this unresolved
      8:12 am on October 19, 2012
    • j.swan removed resolution
      6:15 pm on October 17, 2012
    • j.swan marked this resolved
      6:15 pm on October 17, 2012
    • j.swan marked this unresolved
      6:15 pm on October 17, 2012
    • j.swan removed resolution
      6:15 pm on October 17, 2012
    • Someone marked this resolved
      5:35 pm on October 17, 2012
    • Someone marked this unresolved
      5:11 pm on October 17, 2012
     

    I just found a remarkable post by Bret Victor, which may help Visual Y emerge as a widely used language.

    One of many highlights –

    >>This essay presents a set of design principles for an environment and language suitable for learning.

    >>The environment should allow the learner to:

    read the vocabulary — what do these words mean?
    follow the flow — what happens when?
    see the state — what is the computer thinking?
    create by reacting — start somewhere, then sculpt
    create by abstracting — start concrete, then generalize

    >>The language should provide:

    identity and metaphor — how can I relate the computer’s world to my own?
    decomposition — how do I break down my thoughts into mind-sized pieces?
    recomposition — how do I glue pieces together?
    readability — what do these words mean?

    The full post: http://worrydream.com/LearnableProgramming/

    In the full post, Bret shows how a range of existing visual programming languages have met or fallen short when tested on the above criteria.

    Hope all interested in Visual Y evolution and rollout will take time for a close read.

     
    • AAY 3:05 pm on October 17, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Thanks Mark. Glisten has also found Bret. We think he is profoundly interlinked with where our thinking is and where we are heading. We have tried to reach him directly and hope to have a conversation with him soon. alan

      • poietic 1:41 am on October 18, 2012 Permalink | Reply

        yeah this is a fantastic post – also have read through it. Mark, good highlights. i’m aligned with this aspect of the approach.

  • openworld 12:02 am on October 17, 2012 Permalink | Reply | Resolved
    • Someone marked this resolved
      12:22 am on November 3, 2014
    • Someone marked this unresolved
      4:59 pm on October 9, 2014
    • Someone marked this normal
      12:29 am on September 30, 2014
    • Someone marked this resolved
      7:53 pm on September 29, 2014
    • Someone marked this unresolved
      1:49 pm on September 29, 2014
    • Someone marked this normal
      1:42 pm on September 29, 2014
    • Someone marked this resolved
      5:07 pm on September 27, 2014
    • Someone marked this unresolved
      5:03 pm on September 27, 2014
    • Someone marked this normal
      7:23 pm on September 23, 2014
    • Someone marked this resolved
      7:10 pm on September 23, 2014
    • Someone marked this unresolved
      8:18 am on September 4, 2014
    • Someone marked this normal
      9:16 am on September 3, 2014
    • Someone marked this resolved
      10:40 pm on August 11, 2014
    • Someone marked this unresolved
      12:49 pm on August 4, 2014
    • Someone marked this normal
      12:47 pm on August 4, 2014
    • Someone marked this resolved
      5:56 pm on August 2, 2014
    • Someone marked this unresolved
      2:20 pm on August 2, 2014
    • Someone marked this normal
      2:15 pm on August 2, 2014
    • Someone marked this resolved
      2:37 am on July 4, 2014
    • Someone marked this unresolved
      4:53 pm on June 12, 2014
    • Someone marked this normal
      4:49 pm on June 12, 2014
    • Someone marked this resolved
      4:04 am on June 6, 2014
    • Someone marked this unresolved
      11:17 am on June 3, 2014
    • Someone marked this normal
      2:07 am on June 3, 2014
    • Someone marked this resolved
      12:31 pm on March 25, 2014
    • Someone marked this unresolved
      12:25 pm on March 25, 2014
    • Someone marked this normal
      1:51 am on March 23, 2014
    • Someone marked this resolved
      1:31 am on March 23, 2014
    • Someone marked this unresolved
      1:23 am on March 23, 2014
    • Someone marked this normal
      4:06 am on March 17, 2014
    • Someone marked this resolved
      1:14 pm on March 16, 2014
    • Someone marked this unresolved
      1:04 pm on March 16, 2014
    • Someone marked this normal
      1:43 am on March 16, 2014
    • Someone marked this resolved
      1:37 am on March 16, 2014
    • Someone marked this unresolved
      9:49 am on January 16, 2014
    • Someone marked this normal
      9:32 am on January 16, 2014
    • Someone marked this resolved
      2:41 am on October 10, 2013
    • Someone marked this unresolved
      9:44 am on September 2, 2013
    • Someone marked this normal
      9:33 am on September 2, 2013
    • Someone marked this resolved
      3:55 am on August 27, 2013
    • Someone marked this unresolved
      2:02 pm on August 25, 2013
    • Someone marked this normal
      4:25 pm on August 22, 2013
    • Someone marked this resolved
      5:10 pm on June 15, 2013
    • Someone marked this unresolved
      6:37 am on May 5, 2013
    • Someone removed resolution
      3:50 pm on April 19, 2013
    • Someone marked this resolved
      12:55 pm on November 30, 2012
    • Someone marked this unresolved
      12:43 pm on November 30, 2012
    • Someone removed resolution
      1:49 am on October 31, 2012
    • Someone marked this resolved
      1:46 am on October 31, 2012
    • Someone marked this unresolved
      5:47 pm on October 22, 2012
    • Someone removed resolution
      9:22 am on October 19, 2012
    • Someone marked this resolved
      8:19 am on October 19, 2012
    • Someone marked this unresolved
      8:13 am on October 19, 2012
    • j.swan removed resolution
      6:15 pm on October 17, 2012
    • j.swan marked this resolved
      6:15 pm on October 17, 2012
    • Someone marked this unresolved
      7:24 am on October 17, 2012

    Tags: cocreation, holons, member profiles, social tetrahedrons,   

    I would love to see an intuitive way for YWorld members and allies map their values and work more easily together on projects.

    Toward this end, here are some thoughts on how tetrahedral forms could help in visually creating user profiles and promoting interactions.

    1. Mind-Body-Spirit (Conscious-Corporeal-Subconscious) aspects of Co-op member profiles

    The Mind-Body-Spirit faces of a user profile, when viewed from top down, could provide an intuitive way for members to visualize values:

    • On the Mind face of a pyramid in top view, there can be links to the key idea replicators that a person holds and wants to spread (via memes).
    • On the Body face, there can be pointers to the physical forms that a person manifests and helps seed (via genes).
    • On the Spirit face, there can be highlights of replicable patterns of emotional response (belief systems) that a person cherishes and wants to propagate (via lumenes).

    Rather than represent a 2D form, the user profile can be shown as a 3D tetrahedron.

    Soul can be charted as an axial line of consilience rising from the center of the Mind-Body-Spirit base of the pyramid.

    Soul as I see it is line of balance, defined by the centerline beliefs and actions that we uphold in balance the reproductive call of our valued memes, genes and lumenes. It consists of our unique valuing system that we use when deciding how to spread ideas, forms, and qualities of spirit through time.

    This seat-of-the-soul valuing system offers an opening to apply NETS principles to the world of action, enabling us to evolve beyond the SLANT of our inherited genetic and cognitive/spiritual programming.

    2. Personal-Civic-Business aspects of Co-op member profiles

    Another triangle can be used to represent three fundamental arenas for action (Personal, Business, and Civic).

    • Our Personal frame of reference is defined by what we do for intrinsic value.
    • Our Business frame is defined by what we do for exchange value.
    • Our Civic frame shows what we value as the Commons – ‘fields of emergence’ for present sentient life forms and future holons.

    A golden thread of consilience, showing who/what what we simultaneously value in terms of all of the above frames of reference, can rise from the vertical centerline. This axis of ideality – inhabited by potential actions promising dividends in all three frames at once – is arguably the strange attractor pulling us in non-random ways into our future.

    3. Visual ways of depicting “Social Tetrahedrons”

    I’m intrigued by the prospect of ultimately mapping individual values in a joined tetrahedral forms – star tetrahedrons or merkabas.

    This combined form could enable Co-op members to chart their values – as well as their ventures, projects, and even specific “asks” and “offers” – with reference to Mind-Body-Spirit and Personal-Civic-Business coordinates.

    They could do so by drag-and-dropping icons of valued projects, groups, and projects into this 3D object.

    The positioning of the icons could show how they map to specific kinds of value (items in the center would indicate the maximum of synergistic value creation).

    To see how one might visually display a person’s values in this 3D form, let’s focus on a tetrahedron whose base is formed by the Personal-Business-Civic triad.

    From a topview perspective, looking down at the tetrahedral form, all three of these frames can be viewed at a glance. (The profile creator should have a right to set trust thresholds that allow another viewer to partially or fully rotate the 3D object to see one or more of the given frames).

    A color reflecting the current Maslow state – showing survival, comfort, and generative levels – applicable to each frame of reference in this Social Tetrahedron (Soctet) can let the profile creator convey useful information to others in the Co-op at a glance .

    The Soctet user profile can also show people and initiatives that one includes as part of an extended, empathic self. This could be done by dragging and dropping other profiles into one’s tetrahedron, much as Twitter allows one to follow admired people.

    To add a person or cause to one’s empathic self, the profile creator could rotate the tetrahedron to populate a personal frame of reference (filling it with family and friends), a professional or business frame (with valued colleagues in a monetary-exchange based venture), and a civic frame of reference (e.g. with admired individuals and organizations working for the commons),

    Individuals and initiatives included in one’s “extended self” also could be made visible to others, when access rights are set, by double-clicking on a given face of one’s user profile.

    The outer faces of one’s Soctet can show publicly-visible opportunities for token exchange – “asks” and “offers” by which anyone can help fill out projects valued by the Soctet creator.

    Other ask/offer exchange opportunities may be extended only to people and projects within the Co-op. These could be viewed by those who receive access rights to double-click on the Soctet surface and open the Personal, Business, and/or Civic facets of the social tetrahedron.

    The Soctet framework provides a means of viewing valued holons. Individuals may choose to nest their Soctets within the social tetrahedrons of larger communities, enabling participants to see their identification with a larger connective/collective.

    Similarly, as noted above, the creator of a Soctet may choose to show the social tetrahedrons of others (individuals and communities) that he or she feels reside within the boundary of their extended/empathic self.

    Over time, mutual “trust tokens” might signify which of these others held delegated rights in the Co-op or the extended YWorlds community to act on the profile creator’s behalf.

    Two-way or multi-way delegation of trust in such cases would help in highlighting the contours of an incipient larger holon, with its own Personal-Business-Civic frames of reference.

    3. Implications

    A user profile system based on the above tetrahedral forms would provide both near-term and long-term advantages.

    At the outset, it can help individuals find within the Co-op resources and research projects most aligned and resonant with their deepest values and their most admired influencers.

    Longer term, a system of this kind can help YWorlds in rebuilding institutions and creating online and actual resilient communities, as and when ossified central institutions give way.

    A time of institutional breakdown will likely lead to polarization and fragmentation. Having a universal system for mapping NETS-aligned values – one that helps a diverse base of YWorlds members more readily locate and act upon areas of agreement – may help in finding and acting upon common ground.

    I’ll welcome a chance to discuss further and explore how this can help YWorlds expand the scope for members to generate value for each others’ projects in the months to come.

     
    • gd 12:12 am on October 17, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      I just love this Mark, I can already see in my mind’s eye the kind of environment and interactivity a system like this could generate!

    • AAY 12:33 am on October 17, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Thanks Mark and Glisten. We plan to engage some of our Working Group Alpha people to work with you to create a profiling and valuing framework to experiment with. Stay tuned.

    • ddrrnt 2:07 am on October 17, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      @openworld I’m seeing the users keeping their tetrahedronal profiles inside their avatars, which they can compare with other players in the ‘second lifelike’ virtual space. I suppose we could latch onto the ‘merkaba’ meme and allow player avatars to expand the tetrahedron into a spaceship of sorts.

      Maybe sometime we should have a conversation about the privacy controls of these profiles. Some users may not want to upload their face and remain anonymous.

      I’m also thinking there could be some useful distinctions for Civic, Business, Personal facets. For me, they blend all together in more ways than I can keep track of, so I don’t know if we’ll all think in that way. Some constraints are useful, some can be downright irritating for players who prefer to customize along their own lines. It may be that they can present a any number of facets of themselves, like collections in Pinterest. As you know, we have more than one identity and methinks the appeal of games like WOW, is the variety of ways the player can represent their selves.

      One thing I love about @seh‘s Netention is how users can describe their current life situation (“is”), and potential future situations (“will be”) – as linked data objects. Methinks the best facets of personal values would be articulated within NETS, alongside the potential to turn intentions to manifestations. It’s my feeling that values are only meaningful if enacted.

      What I’m suggesting is that players have their own notions of Nurture, which they could define in terms of their present situation. It may be that my project needs Nurture, so I can share the values I’m looking for in others who might be willing to Nurture my project. I would then articulate the expected benefit I see from the nurturing engagement (to be). In my Equality section I’d describe other values, issues, and potential solutions that I’m attracted to. The same would go for Truth, in that I’d have my sense of truth as it presently stands, and I would have my preferred truth, or rather, the evidence I’m seeking to clarify if my truth is valid. The Systems aspect/facet of the profile would encourage the player to define the systems of interest in which they’d like to play a part, based both on past experience or intent to learn.

      Mark, so I’m seeing the potential of a NETS-centric profile for values as well as project intentions. Each user could potentially have their own map of prospects with thread them together as potential allies. Additionally, we’ll need to discuss the role of reputation and how to reduce the risks associated with egocentrism. I’m assuming that if players are speaking a meta-language designed around constructive cooperation in contexts that are mutually attractive, then we may eliminate the need for lengthy discussion surrounding agreements.

      Placing too much cognitive demand on the player to define themselves in any one particular way could be a turn off. But rather, giving them the chance to define themselves through game-play and earning certain rewards may be an approach. I’m thinking Urgent Evoke provides a good example of this:
      http://www.urgentevoke.com/profile/2we8fwg9ormkk (example of profiles)
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_48Fd5IJQh8 (nice video)

      • openworld 1:57 pm on October 17, 2012 Permalink | Reply

        Dan, great comments!

        I like all of the enhancements you’ve described.

        I’ve been much attracted to @seh‘s Netention project, especially given its resonance with the Heart-Head-Hands pattern that defines narrative fractals ( http://is.gd/nfractals):

        Heart (feel attraction and tension associated with a condition in focus)

        Head (imagine state jump to resolve tension & the steps to get from here to there)

        Hands (do test of strategy & followup action)

        My hunch is the “as is->to be” format for describing valued state jumps also can be formally expressed in the “case:rule:result” pattern that Peirce uses in logical reasoning.

        If the Visual Y language offers data mining tools for such case:rule:result patterns, one might infer from the positioning of Heart-Head-Hands formatted projects in a user’s social tetrahedron the extent to which a given”to be” state jump is to advance the reproductive success of valued replicators – memes, lumenes, etc – defined at the base of the person’s Mind-Body-Spirit-Soul tetrahedron.

        In the Personal-Civic-Business tetrahedron, the item’s positioning also can suggest the degree to which a given “to be” state jump is valued for intrinsic reasons (in the Personal frame), for exchange value (in the Business frame), or for safeguarding the Commons (the Civic frame).

        Items positioned in the center of either (or both) tetrahedrons could be interpreted as having synergies with all of the frames of reference.

        Such a system could enable members of the Co-op to post standing ‘asks’ and ‘offers’ for cocreation that would enable valued projects to more rapidly advance. A YWorlds currency and prize system – perhaps along the lines of http://is.gd/attentionwagers – could then enable creators in a network to build reputation capital by engaging in ways appreciated by their peers.

        What do you think?

        • gd 9:48 pm on October 17, 2012 Permalink | Reply

          A tetrahedron has four faces…

          • AAY 2:46 am on October 18, 2012 Permalink | Reply

            Dan, really appreciate the deep thinking and connections you are making. We will convene shortly to take these ideas on and begin to move to the realization of the ideas. Need to solidify the high level view and also play around with piloting ideas. alan

        • ddrrnt 6:37 am on October 18, 2012 Permalink | Reply

          @openworld I like the idea of the collective tetrahedron, and imagine it encompassed within a fluid sphere, which may reveal colorful ripples of activity as ‘asks’ and ‘offers’ are exchanged toward a common aim.

          I appreciate your thinking about the positioning ‘profile tokens’ at various points within personal tetrahedrons to reveal synergies with the frames of reference.

          Presently I’m thinking there may be a visual difference between self-selected profile tokens and ‘earned tokens’ or ‘badges’ which signify accomplishments in the YWorld’s game. These tokens may also be utilized as ‘asks’ and ‘offers’. A large part of the player’s identity may be composed of these clusters of tokens within their tetrahedron, which may be entered and explored as a representation of past activity (or not) in their YWorld.

          Methinks it’s worth noting that the YWorld’s logo appears as a shape that could act as a container, not so different than a tetrahedron.

    • openworld 10:07 pm on October 17, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Glistening, yes – and one opportunity is to give rights for trusted users to rotate one’s tetrahedrons to access the fourth (base) face.

      This could provide a transparent view of the positioning of valued internal items (not-yet-public projects, etc) inaccessible via a public or semi-public topview.

      Do you see this as a good UI convention?

      • gd 10:46 pm on October 17, 2012 Permalink | Reply

        Yes, that makes sense in the context of the schema you have described, it’s funny describing this whilst co-imagining it and how we can create it so as we can experience it. A system such as this could become quite exstensible given the possibilities of geometry especially if you use Curtis Faith’s isofractal system as a creative imaginary.

        In the way I have been imagining the tetrahedron, the fourth face is the deeper self, the aspect of self that only the individual has direct access to. This area will need to be treated sensitively, and it would not necessarily contain any information directly relevant to the “world”, as the heart;head;hands modes are, and it may well not benefit an individual to be approached directly via this facet of their expression, even with permission. I think there is room for a deeper conversation around this, and I would like to discuss it when we meet in person.

        • gd 10:09 pm on October 18, 2012 Permalink | Reply

          I had a deeper realisation in meditation. The fourth face, the ‘base’ is only visible from INSIDE the terahedron, most clearly and completely from the opposite ‘point’.

c
Compose new post
j
Next post/Next comment
k
Previous post/Previous comment
r
Reply
e
Edit
o
Show/Hide comments
t
Go to top
l
Go to login
h
Show/Hide help
shift + esc
Cancel