KM at the crossroads
Nikolay Kryachkov
happens". (Richard Vines)
I doubt, because if so, KM will be a kind of religion or church in
which people will believe (perhaps and without any irony). Many people
really believe God manages their actions, including some scientists. Of
course this is personal right to believe or not.
But:
Having a description of emergence and the meanings of the words used,
it's possible to count the variants of understanding - knowledge of
possible variants of the emergences. Though to do this it's necessary
to translate (or restructure) the description from the plain language
into wordings of actions and see what we know or don't know to
consider and reduce the quantity of variants of understanding. To a
certain extent it's possible to manage the future (or knowledge) by
normalizing content that is being passed through the network. Context
is unnecessary in that case. In other words a network isn't a static
structure of who knows whom. Its development can be managed and
unfortunately not only for good.
Nikolay
Nikolay Kryachkov
Founder, owner and author of
KnowledgePerson.com
http://www.knowledgeperson.com
Richard Vines
This is a good point Nikolay. You are right to pick up on the nuance of the meaning in the phrase "... you cannot really name emergence before it happens". (Richard Vines).
You said: Having a description of emergence and the meanings of the words used, it's possible to count the variants of understanding - knowledge of possible variants of the emergences.
I think this is right. I would diverge slightly and argue that XML schemas (industry standards) provide a type of alphabet for this in the online world. What will increasingly matter in this is the ontology of interoperability betweeen the huge no of XML schemas being generated (and one of the key issues I think that needs clarification in this space is the relationship between event based ontologies and lingusitic declarative ontologies). And, I would further argue that XML schemas live in Poppers World 3 as abstractions and that events derive from world 2. So emergence is an expression arising from world 2 and thus emergence may or may not result in the emergence becoming manifest in world 3 (not sure about the English here??).
I do not agree that context becomes redundant. Because, even when I click a mouse on my laptop, this is an action (even if my action has flow on effects down many different levels of abstraction). And all human actions are grounded in a context, even clicking a mouse.
I still maintain the KM world lacks a integrated cooherence about all these complex issues. And for me, Popper does offer an interesting foundation from which to build. However, his epistomology is definitely not the foundation for a KM truth! But Popper himself would probably suggest that we keep churches out of the dialogue. But, I am with Stuart Robbins on this – I think we need to find a way of integrating all these things, without creating a evangelistic platform!
RV
Richard Vines
Nikolay,
I have thought about yoru email a bit more and cannot resist adding a bit more. I am quite disturbed by the idea that by “normalising context and pasing it through a network results in context being un-necessary. To me, this is at the heart of the challenge for humanising the future of the internet. We must all understand the enormity (and dare I say it, the blessing) of being given choice in actions that give rise to events. If we do not build our future on this simple and complex point, then we really are heading for trouble. And trouble not just because of an underlying intentionality for good and bad. Rather the result of silence when we need to ensure the principle of voice (in this case expressed as actions) is fundamental.
To a certain extent it's possible to manage the future (or knowledge) by normalizing content that is being passed through the network. Context is unnecessary in that case. In other words a network isn't a static structure of who knows whom. Its development can be managed and
unfortunately not only for good.
Nikolay Kryachkov
I think many XML schemas has emerged because of the concept of
"ontology", that (as I was said by some XML professionals) can't
be general - only specific. This, from my viewpoint, results in
separation of worlds and in lack of integrity, as you truly said.
An example can be "context" as a condition for action. And what if
description of action includes these conditions?
I think you understand me when say:
"I am quite disturbed by the idea that by "normalising context and
pasing it through a network results in context being un-necessary. To
me,
this is at the heart of the challenge for humanising the future of the
internet. We must all understand the enormity (and dare I say it, the
blessing) of being given choice in actions that give rise to events
...".
But here is another problem:
Our language structure (Russian, English ...) - sentences - is not
corresponding to, say, complete structure of action - wording of
action. I thought about some XML schema to distribute normalized
content about actions (or content "ready" to normalize) in RSS way,
but this may require to learn thinking in such a structured way. So I
don't know how to enter this issue from customer's side, because
even RSS people understand slowly.
Richard Vines
Thanks Nikolay
So, we are in fact saying the same thing. Your last para is right on:
Our language structure (Russian, English ...) - sentences - is not
corresponding to, say, complete structure of action - wording of
action. I thought about some XML schema to distribute normalized
content about actions (or content "ready" to normalize) in RSS way,
but this may require to learn thinking in such a structured way. So I
don't know how to enter this issue from customer's side, because
even RSS people understand slowly.
In my spare time in the past three years I have tried to compare two ontologies developed as a basis of interoperability (and one with an objective of copyright management). Your two key points questions are I think absolutely spot on:
(a) how should actions be represented and what are the implications of embedding actions into ontology systems
(b) what will be the impact bit by bit of people first being encouraged to and then over time actually thinking in structured information ways.
I believe this latter point will be one of the most interesting sociological questions of the next 10-15 years. The danger is that we will gloss over and just accept ontological abstractions and as you say become further and further displaced from the notion of choice / actions (and resulting meaning attributions arising from storytelling about actions / events) in context. But I wonder how this important message might become more embedded in the governance of emerging systems across the globe?? I wonder if governance is the place for conveying these messages? I do not know how it will unfold. But, through this group, I found out about the OASIS XDI initiative and this might be an important sign of things to come? I hope so anyway. Thanks for this interchange.
----~----~------~--~---
Nikolay Kryachkov
It would be useful to consider OASIS XDI, especially:
- the shared dictionaries that might (if my understanding is correct)
be used for managing "XDI link contracts" and interactions for
personal and group data access, but these dictionaries must be
identically structured and re-edited constantly;
- connection of: XDI link contracts - copyright management (because
of "content" and "contract") - money ( consider:
http://knowledgeperson.blogspot.com/2006/10/knowledge-money-will-be-yours.html
) = new dispersed ecommerce;
- new hacking and security approaches, because if to have a dictionary
and a contract structure it will probably possible to figure out the
variants of the content behind "valves" of the Dataweb pipes (XDI
link contracts) without necessity of penetrating there;
- how currently centralized companies might be represented, traded and
work in the Dataweb;
- whole interoperability - not only within the Dataweb, but inside
computer memory, software languages;
-etc.
What you and others think?
Nikolay
Richard Vines
Nikolay
Yours is such an interesting email. I have changed the heading a bit to try and frame the conversation within the world of networks. I think we are actually talking about a new type of banking system, and one that reflects the very confusing and emerging world of mixed analogue and e-transactions underpinned by what….? You say intangibles exchanges (however money will be conceived in the future) will subsume tangible exchanges (money). Not sure how even to frame the language in this space.
I am speaking from an analyst's perspective and not a technical perspective. So, I (seriously) qualify my response to your brilliant questions from the outset. I think you have raised some of the most considerations concerning the future of the web. And, if I take off my cautious hat for a moment and respond freely (which is what we are allowed to do in these sharing spaces) here are a few thoughts in relation to your question. These comments are entirely framed from the perspective that I came to this place from and thus limited.
1. There is a need for a “home” for the questions you raise. I at first thought that the International DOI (Digital Object Identifier) Foundation (www.doi.org) might evolve into such a home. I am not so sure now.
2. A very quick assessment is that the XDI infrastructure lacks current capacity to deal with the scale of the challenge and thus if it were to evolve into such a place, it would require collective and broad agreements (including commitments) from industry players for it to do so. This might not be straight forward to achieve, and would depend entirely upon how much grass roots support for the questions you raise (and I would presume that security issues would be at the heart of the reason why grass roots support might emerge). I had a very short email interchange about this matter and was to some extent impressed that the XDI and XRI(I think this is what it is called) approach could well blossom like so many other things have bloomed in quite un-expected ways.
3. My rather limited perspective would be that the shift from XRI to XDI (and the data web – as you describe it) would fall flat before even starting without a vision for interoperability. It appears not to have this vision at the moment (although I have found evidence on the website that people are thinking about it – but my sense that this work is a bit flaky – I suppose because like most new things, there is not enough commerce involved to make it sustainable).
4. Equally, I have an intuitive sense that the semantic web vision is seriously and fundamentally flawed. If this intuition is correct, this same flaw might even be flowing into the SOA space. This could make the scale of the impediments for common conversations too onerous.
5. I started to think about this challenge in a very limited way – having spent 3 years drafting a paper for publication. A few months ago I realised this could not be progressed, because the logic of the incredibly complicated issues involved did not stack up. I am still trying to work out whether this idea can proceed, because the objective of the paper is humble at one level – to highlight the importance of two fundamentally different ontologies – but to do this in a way that highlights much broader issues of ontology and interoperability and backgrounded in the discourse of international economy. A starting point for this approach was initially conceived from the perspective of how interoperability (and copyright) was being conceived under the umbrella of the DOI foundation.
6. Your blog is backgrounded in an intuitive sense of where things might be heading, and I think (am not entirely sure) I agree. But I see some serious obstacles ahead, especially whether the infrastructure of the international monetary system can evolve quickly enough to deal with this huge wave of change. This is why it might be so important to find a serious home for your questions.
7. It is remarkable that more futures work (cross domain work I mean) is not done in this space (it might be being done, but I see no evidence of it in the home of intellectual world such as Oxford Uni etc). But then again, there are very few reasons why people might get led into this space – and I mean the space of multi-perspective analysis.
8. I think there is an important need to background this whole discourse with a linguistics frame (but this is a qualified statement, because linguistics is such a torturedly fragmented domain).
Anyway, this is my very in-coherent response to you brilliant questions. I would be fascinated to know if others bite into this conversation.
RV
-----Original Message-----
From: Value-N...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:Value-N...@googlegroups.com]
On Behalf Of Nikolay Kryachkov
Sent: Monday, 30 October 2006 10:38 PM
To: Value Networks
Nikolay Kryachkov
outlook in order to figure out the possible directions for practical
development.
I can't say which tech initiative will result in a new web as a
combination of structured content, copyright management and network
banks. Even some of the current Web 2.0 possibilities (or experience)
can be used for that for a start: http://www.allthingsweb2.com (I
think so).
Converting any text in a structure of wording of actions and see what
to normalize is possible and might be a basis for a new profession for
Content Business Services:
http://groups.google.com/group/KnowledgePersons/msg/2fac4a604d9bfae8
http://groups.google.com/group/KnowledgePersons/msg/407fab2a8675a5ac
This might be used to start small, if there is additional (to my work)
practical need. What can I do else?
Nikolay
n_k at au.ru
Richard Vines wrote:
> Nikolay
>
> Yours is such an interesting email. I have changed the heading a bit to try
> and frame the conversation within the world of networks. I think we are
> actually talking about a new type of banking system, and one that reflects
> the very confusing and emerging world of mixed analogue and e-transactions
> underpinned by what..? You say intangibles exchanges (however money will be
> conceived in the future) will subsume tangible exchanges (money). Not sure
> how even to frame the language in this space.
>
> I am speaking from an analyst's perspective and not a technical perspective.
> So, I (seriously) qualify my response to your brilliant questions from the
> outset. I think you have raised some of the most considerations concerning
> the future of the web. And, if I take off my cautious hat for a moment and
> respond freely (which is what we are allowed to do in these sharing spaces)
> here are a few thoughts in relation to your question. These comments are
> entirely framed from the perspective that I came to this place from and thus
> limited.
>
> 1. There is a need for a "home" for the questions you raise. I at first
> thought that the International DOI (Digital Object Identifier) Foundation
> (www.doi.org <http://www.doi.org/> ) might evolve into such a home. I am not
> so sure now.
> 2. A very quick assessment is that the XDI infrastructure lacks current
> capacity to deal with the scale of the challenge and thus if it were to
> evolve into such a place, it would require collective and broad agreements
> (including commitments) from industry players for it to do so. This might
> not be straight forward to achieve, and would depend entirely upon how much
> grass roots support for the questions you raise (and I would presume that
> security issues would be at the heart of the reason why grass roots support
> might emerge). I had a very short email interchange about this matter and
> was to some extent impressed that the XDI and XRI(I think this is what it is
> called) approach could well blossom like so many other things have bloomed
> in quite un-expected ways.
> 3. My rather limited perspective would be that the shift from XRI to XDI
> (and the data web - as you describe it) would fall flat before even starting
> without a vision for interoperability. It appears not to have this vision at
> the moment (although I have found evidence on the website that people are
> thinking about it - but my sense that this work is a bit flaky - I suppose
> because like most new things, there is not enough commerce involved to make
> it sustainable).
> 4. Equally, I have an intuitive sense that the semantic web vision is
> seriously and fundamentally flawed. If this intuition is correct, this same
> flaw might even be flowing into the SOA space. This could make the scale of
> the impediments for common conversations too onerous.
> 5. I started to think about this challenge in a very limited way - having
> spent 3 years drafting a paper for publication. A few months ago I realised
> this could not be progressed, because the logic of the incredibly
> complicated issues involved did not stack up. I am still trying to work out
> whether this idea can proceed, because the objective of the paper is humble
> at one level - to highlight the importance of two fundamentally different
> ontologies - but to do this in a way that highlights much broader issues of
> ontology and interoperability and backgrounded in the discourse of
> international economy. A starting point for this approach was initially
> conceived from the perspective of how interoperability (and copyright) was
> being conceived under the umbrella of the DOI foundation.
> 6. Your blog is backgrounded in an intuitive sense of where things might
> be heading, and I think (am not entirely sure) I agree. But I see some
> serious obstacles ahead, especially whether the infrastructure of the
> international monetary system can evolve quickly enough to deal with this
> huge wave of change. This is why it might be so important to find a serious
> home for your questions.
> 7. It is remarkable that more futures work (cross domain work I mean) is
> not done in this space (it might be being done, but I see no evidence of it
> in the home of intellectual world such as Oxford Uni etc). But then again,
> there are very few reasons why people might get led into this space - and I
Richard Vines
Once again, I have found your comments insightful and to the point. As you
point out there are challenges in adopting a wide approach - namely it is
easy to get lost and stray too far away from practical action. I agree!! At
the same time, we have to think about the wide approach because otherwise I
have really no idea about what world is being created and naturally, as an
adventurer I want to be in on a small ride (mostly of fun)!
Starting small makes sense to me. Possibly a scatter gun approach - then
following what pathway emerges. That is what I am doing and pathways seem to
open in very unexpected ways (emergence is an issue for individuals as well
as enterprises). WE need new skills to handle emergence at individual
levels!! I find myself embracing a KM paradigm now in the world of child and
family welfare (and related issues to do with domestic violence). This is
definitely not what I would have expected to emerge with my background!!
Your point about "content management" is spot on again. In Australia we have
an action agenda framework for many different industries. The Digital
content industries are as far I can see focused on entertainment, games and
gimmicks. Publishing, digital imaging and knowledge don't get on the screen.
And as far as I can see as well - this flows all the way into prevailing
views about media industries as well. Would a telco ever invest in grid
computing infrastructure to support knowledge industries in this
environment? Certainly not here. The agenda is to get into casinos first (I
am being cynical). And slowly, we fry as we gamble. Strange world really.
All I can see is hang on and enjoy the ride!
Thanks again.
Nikolay Kryachkov
I would put aside KM paradigm until the time when a serious demand for
KM terminology will emerge, but I doubt. Since such an activity is
being funded by governments and big business it will remain a source of
welfare for affiliated people and institutions. I'm not affiliated
with gov. and big business and work for private persons and for myself
- so KM isn't for me (no illusions and regrets).
Knowledge is another thing because people sometimes (when tired out
gambling so called "free market" within someone's hidden rules)
would like to unseal content to understand and handle it. Or would like
an opposite need - a creation a feasible content from the beginning
to make a difference. So they would like to know and be independent
from psychology and fictive values (average values, etc.), which from
my view serve gambling. If so I have the area of expertise (the form of
content - paper, digital - doesn't matter) and if you would like
to be in - you're welcomed. This works, if people with demand trust
you (people you know). You may wonder, but there is no need to trust me
because I don't need any confidentional data - just content without
it to unseal and they might share my knowledge on how I did it. Also
there is neutral physical territory for that. Having this a new
profession may emerge and I would invest in copyright/content managing
new media with a network bank inside or outside, if you don't mind.
So let people go casino and media business as usual to crowd there, if
they want. There is another direction and a few tickets for this
journey.
Nikolay
Richard Vines
I used the terminology KM paradigm flippantly and clearly created the
ascribed meaning that KM has in most people's minds after the debate of 1st,
2nd and 3rd Gen KM. This actually is not what I meant - I am with you that
it is knowledge that what matters. However, I would go so far as to say, we
can "manage knowledge" and within the context of building industry capacity
(and knowledge flows) that is part of why (for me) I am interested in this
new world of family and child welfare. If the knowledge world does not have
answers to these very organic challenges, then it really should put its hand
up and say that it has no answers at all. Ask me in 6 months (and if you or
anyone is interested, I can provide three PDF chapters of a book to
highlight one perspective of knowledge in an industry capacity development
context, including in an international development context).
Not sure what you mean by "independent from psychology and fictive values
(average values, etc.)". I don't think it is possible to be free of these
sorts of things (although, I remain optomistic that we can transform
ourselves to address addictive behaviours that lead to gambling etc). I
think we are bounded by ontology and paradigmatic frames, even if we cannot
observe them or name them. The challenge, as I think you are point to, in
content, is to strip down the structure of content to understand the deep
rooted nature of all content's abstractions*. That goes back to where we
started our conversation and the world of XML schemas and the
intereoperability issues between them. I can only assume this is what you
mean.
SO, the wild ride continues. May we both enjoy!
RV
* I still believe until shown otherwise that there is an important
relationship between Popper's world 2 and world 3 here. Content abstractions
live in world 3, but they are only real, because it is only when a knowing
mind (World 2) perceives them that they infact are real (David Snowden
recently highlighted to me that this is about using perspective and not
about working from codifications - although he does not buy Popper!!). You
will find an interesting paper about this in this lecture (1978 - which was
towards the end of Popper's thinking life
http://www.tannerlectures.utah.edu/lectures/popper80.pdf ). I only say this,
because I don't understand the point you were making.
-----Original Message-----
From: Value-N...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:Value-N...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Nikolay Kryachkov
Sent: Thursday, 2 November 2006 10:27 PM
To: Value Networks
Nikolay Kryachkov
after reading K. Popper's "Three Worlds"
I disagree, for example:
- With world 2 as a psychological world, as if psychology is eternal
and given (by whom?) entity. All these "... feelings of pain and of
pleasure, of our thoughts, of our decisions, of our perceptions and our
observations ..."(K. Popper) are the descriptions/interpretations of
some real actions. Real, because people act, even when they think or
listen to others.
- That there is one world - the world of physical objects. It
"proves" that human products (so called "abstract objects")
come from nowhere and it's an example where science and religion
"support" each other, I think. And this works to a certain extent
in some limited part of world.
I can't understand Popper's static "objects" or "instruments
of change". Where is movement (change) and where is its source? But
maybe from the beginning "objects" are improper descriptors for
world?
Action "includes" objects (if to use this term) and I think that
world is one and is action/activity. This means interoperability from
the beginning when we consider what was, is, will going on at any level
of generalization or working out in detail with the use of language as
a historical source for making descriptions (content) to manage (or
not) the activity.
Having the same (invariant) structure (represented in XML, for
instance) for any action (name it ontology or in another manner) we can
know and manage action/activity by criticism, including changing
direction of the movement.
"... plans and programmes of action must always be grasped or
understood by a mind before they lead to human actions, and to changes
in our physical environment, such as the building of airports or of
aeroplanes" (K. Popper).
Invariant (general) language is needed to use.
But speaking further in details is about speaking How-To, that, as I
have said earlier, is more or less seen when practicing content
structuring (to be Knowledge Person, in my terminology).
I'll try answering your questions.
Nikolay
Richard Vines
For me - A thought provoking response Nikolay. I never mind disagreement (nobody else seems interested in this stuff, but I will respond again).
Just to highlight, we are talking about all these things because these are framework understandings (or early bits of the jog saw puzzle) as to how we understand the ways in which network banks (if we can call them this) might be perceived in the years ahead. The language is not there for us to really engage in this space yet, so we are dabbling round the edges of the main topic.
I am also not sure whether we are thinking from within an agreed paradigmatic framework between the two of us or whether we are not. Congratulations on keeping on with English, because I CANNOT understand a word of Russian!
A brief response to three points you raise (Remember, I quoted Popper, not because I am a Popperian Angel. I don’t think there is enough coherence in current thinking about the relationships between personal and objective knowledge and the journey of the “things and flows” between the two. I still think Popper has something to say here and am still of this view until someone can cast new light to think about these things in other ways).
· Where is movement (change) and where is its source?
It is NOT that a strong demarcation exists between Popper’s worlds 1, 2 and 3 (ie. For me, my understanding is that there should not be strict codification of these different worlds, but more of the perspectives of these worlds). Reality arises from the INTERACTION between the “tri-poles”. This interaction of three worlds is a medium of change when turbulence in the external environment arises.
From an epistemological point of view, the source of the movement is “turbulence” in the external environment. Bill Hall (I referenced some of his work recently) has written about this in detail in several papers by building on the works of Maturana and Varela who spent a large amount of time trying to work out set of criteria that could be used to diagnose whether a system was living or not. So, “movement” is fundamental to this whole view on the basis we are talking about living things (and systems). Objective knowledge is not codified “out of this world”, but an integral part of the evolutionary realities within this world.
This does not directly impact on how we understand and create ontologies for interoperability. But, it does have some bearing on how people interact with digital systems. Stuart Robbins talks about “everything moving to the presentation layer”. This part of the conversation is about how people interact with the presentation layer.
· Action "includes" objects (if to use this term) and I think that world is one and is action/activity.
I am not sure what you mean here. BUT, whether we can make an action a digital object within an abstracted living system (computerised ontological model) is a big question for me. Of course computer people have no problem with this. But, I believe the ontological frame might suit them, but it probably won’t work in the world. This is the very subject that I have spent nearly 3 years trying to understand and I still don’t understand it.
· With world 2 as a psychological world, as if psychology is eternal and given (by whom?) entity. … are the descriptions/interpretations of some real actions.
If I understand you here, this is what I believe to be fundamentally important. I agree that our psychological world is made up of the descriptions and embedded interoperations (stories or narratives) of real actions that happen in our lives. In other words, we construct our realities in narrative, but this does not make them real. When a person’s narrative becomes a digital object (email, word document etc etc) they only become real for another person when “a knowing mind” ascribes meaning to these digital objects (emails, or digital recordings (or printed materials) of stories and narratives. And they only move beyond being real for more than two persons when more and more people reach agreement that the narrative, (or in Popper’s language - the conjecture) actually provides some sort of “best (until proven otherwise) explanation of what happens in the world.
Cheers for now.
RV
-----Original Message-----
From: Value-N...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:Value-N...@googlegroups.com]
On Behalf Of Nikolay Kryachkov
Sent: Saturday, 4 November 2006 12:25 AM
To: Value Networks
Subject: Re: Content and knowledge industries
Richard,
Nikolay Kryachkov
I think, Richard, they read and probably think what this Russian guy
will say further and how far from practice he is.
>I CANNOT understand a word of Russian!
It's temporary "problem" - why not study Russian? It would be
easily for me to speak in Russian. But I would say the same.
I think a place for network bank is somewhere between copyright models
like (1) OpenSource, GPL, CreativeCommons, etc. AND (2) closed patented
content.
For (1) no network banks required. For (2) there are many banks as
usual because patents are traded as if they are physical entities -
property (though intellectual). Industrial legacy.
Imagine a global web 2.0 project for the mentioned copyright model with
a financial entity to serve its money flow.
Assuming that content is information part of goods and services the
value of understandable content may increase. It's because people
meet info first (then goods and services) and personal narrative will
be more and more difficult to understand and sell (for example, in
former industrial Soviet Union classical novels were in great demand,
now it's problematic business). But narrative has reserves in
corporate blogging. Understanding requires common/standardized content
structure that can be done over time to spread content and sell rights
to use it.
My usual example: a plain language message - "I have gone for a
walk" left by someone and there is a task to find that someone.
Imagine I can convert this message in a structure of wording of action
and measure its understanding - it is less 0.5%. Then I can say how
to compare structured content (described reality) with reality to
increase understanding. Its 100% means you not only know this someone,
you can find this someone.
Also, 2 tasks can be done: 1 - converting text in wordings of actions
to measure understanding and correct wordings or finding missed ones, 2
- converting structured and well-formed wordings into text, if
needed.
A method customization depends on the task.
How I can explain that some described world (call it a document) must
have everything inside to be feasible? I can try only if needed
practically.
So, going back to the main topic - I think copyright model, its service
network bank and structuring content features might flow together and
evolve. After that knowledge money may emerge, but it probably won't
Bretton Woods style emergence.
Richard, are we writing a futuristic book?
Nikolay
Richard Vines wrote:
> For me - A thought provoking response Nikolay. I never mind disagreement
> (nobody else seems interested in this stuff, but I will respond again).
>
> Just to highlight, we are talking about all these things because these are
> framework understandings (or early bits of the jog saw puzzle) as to how we
> understand the ways in which network banks (if we can call them this) might
> be perceived in the years ahead. The language is not there for us to really
> engage in this space yet, so we are dabbling round the edges of the main
> topic.
>
> I am also not sure whether we are thinking from within an agreed
> paradigmatic framework between the two of us or whether we are not.
> Congratulations on keeping on with English, because I CANNOT understand a
> word of Russian!
>
> A brief response to three points you raise (Remember, I quoted Popper, not
> because I am a Popperian Angel. I don't think there is enough coherence in
> current thinking about the relationships between personal and objective
> knowledge and the journey of the "things and flows" between the two. I still
> think Popper has something to say here and am still of this view until
> someone can cast new light to think about these things in other ways).
>
> * Where is movement (change) and where is its source?
>
> It is NOT that a strong demarcation exists between Popper's worlds 1, 2 and
> 3 (ie. For me, my understanding is that there should not be strict
> codification of these different worlds, but more of the perspectives of
> these worlds). Reality arises from the INTERACTION between the "tri-poles".
> This interaction of three worlds is a medium of change when turbulence in
> the external environment arises.
>
> From an epistemological point of view, the source of the movement is
> "turbulence" in the external environment. Bill Hall (I referenced some of
> his work recently) has written about this in detail in several papers by
> building on the works of Maturana and Varela who spent a large amount of
> time trying to work out set of criteria that could be used to diagnose
> whether a system was living or not. So, "movement" is fundamental to this
> whole view on the basis we are talking about living things (and systems).
> Objective knowledge is not codified "out of this world", but an integral
> part of the evolutionary realities within this world.
>
> This does not directly impact on how we understand and create ontologies for
> interoperability. But, it does have some bearing on how people interact with
> digital systems. Stuart Robbins talks about "everything moving to the
> presentation layer". This part of the conversation is about how people
> interact with the presentation layer.
>
> * Action "includes" objects (if to use this term) and I think that
> world is one and is action/activity.
>
> I am not sure what you mean here. BUT, whether we can make an action a
> digital object within an abstracted living system (computerised ontological
> model) is a big question for me. Of course computer people have no problem
> with this. But, I believe the ontological frame might suit them, but it
> probably won't work in the world. This is the very subject that I have spent
> nearly 3 years trying to understand and I still don't understand it.
>
> * With world 2 as a psychological world, as if psychology is eternal
> and given (by whom?) entity. . are the descriptions/interpretations of some