[overhead shot of a table in an expensive modern-european restaurant. It's not a capital, but it's one of those cities on the thinktank/summit-circuit that treaties get named after. Two people are talking. A man in his fifties and a woman in her mid thirties. Both are understated in appearance, but obviously expensively dressed. Both of their smartphones are turned screen-down on the table. It's unclear to us who is the most important. And it's unclear which one is saying the following]
Governments and corporates know me as 'Switchboard', which is how I like to keep it.
I have an aptitude.
Well, a few aptitudes.
But, mainly - I'm very good at people.
Especially those who can't really be described as people anymore. I know what they're good for, what they want and - how to get hold of them.
I've never saved the world, but I've probably had lunch with someone who has.
I'm who you call if you have, y'know - a *really* big problem.
[ringtone]
Everyone in the world knows of my fascination with pneumatic tubes. Here's one from the US Postal Museum.
I like Vox. But I like my own domains better. So that's where I've gone.
- girlwonder, my personal site since 1997 (and in other forms since 1995)
- active social plastic, my blog about architecture, design, urbanism, music, literature and other more intellectual pursuits
Please visit me there!
While not having read that much Iain M. Banks, I find myself thinking in Culture Ship names an awful lot. Blip.fm seems to encourage it. I try and think up a culture ship name that sums up the song I'm going to blip. No idea why. I enjoy it greatly however.
The tragedy of the commons is a myth.
There is a vast conspiracy enacted by those who would steal the common off the goose.
A giant distributed clan of supervillainy: the free-riders.
They are sent across the globe and beyond - into our fictions and our factions to ensure that the tragedy plays out as prophesised.
They cannot be reasoned with, they cannot be bought (as they are freeriders) - the only way they can be stopped is by applying a sharp pinch to their left elbow and when they turn around on their hard heels, giving them an extremely disapproving, disappointed look.
Start now.
After some research, determined that this is the best adaptation of the Holmes-Rahe stress scale that I could find on the Internet.
20, 25, 15, 7, 11. Total of 78, about what I always get. So, while I'm moving forward in weeks, the last few reps are falling short to make up for the more difficult reps at the end.
17, 19, 15, 12, 14. Total of 9 short of the goal. And this is just Day 1 of the week. I'm curious how far other people have gotten in the challenge before hitting a crazy wall. Has anyone gotten to the end?
I have always believed that art and alcohol go well together. Glad we're getting some credit for the idea in Seattle now.
There's a difference between saying:
- I don't have much in common with the Olympics
- I don't like the Olympics
- The Olympics are bad
Just like there's a difference to these statements:
- I don't have much in common with the Christians/Muslims
- I don't like the Christians/Muslims
- Christians/Muslims are bad
The first statement talks about what you identify with. What's within the sphere of your world. We operate almost entirely within the sphere of our own world, and within that sphere there's a whole other spectrum of taste, preference, and morality, but outside of the sphere of personal identity I think that the application of preferences and morality become very potentially ungrounded.
Because, it's not very easy to judge something that you don't identify with. Most likely, you also don't fully understand it, and are rarely as giving of the benefit of the doubt as you are when an object resides within your sphere of identity. Think of your friend circle. Most likely there's at least one person that you wouldn't necessarily like if you weren't so close to them. If there's not a friend like that, there's probably a family member. But because they're part of your circle, you're more likely to say, "but that's just who they are" and be sympathetic to them. But that same person may be totally misunderstood by someone who is not in their friend or family circle and be harshly judged.
I guess the question is, which judgment is more fair?
And, how static is the circle of identity? Can we (and should we) try to stretch it out to include more and more of the world? Like in a world war. We stretch our sphere of identity to include all nationalities on our side, or on the side we identify with. It's software in our head that is played with through creating sides, creating a sense of unity across extremely different people. Will globalization create a wider sphere of identity or will it fracture it? Will we all be able to feel like brothers because we all drive cars, drink Coke, and listen to U2? Probably not.
Meditation and personal will can probably stretch this out, but there are bound to be people who think that the sphere of identity is as big as it is for a reason. It's a sphere of trust. And you can't trust everyone. But then again, if that were the case, there are probably already people in the sphere that should not be there. And people outside of the sphere that should be there.
I'm just trying to be careful when I say "this is bad" and it also happens to be something that I can't identify with or that just isn't "me". 50% of the time I could be saying it just because I don't understand it. And rather than disliking it, trying to understand it might be a better strategy. There's a chance I may find something new of interest, and that's always good.
