Transformative conversation in a multiverse

Transforming the Art of Conversation (Part #6)

[Parts: First | Prev | Next | Last | All] [Visuals] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]

The more recent arguments of astrophysics for a "multiverse" -- significantly absent from the above list -- then call for consideration in the light of current recognition of the unconventional nature of a "universe" understood to be necessarily of far greater complexity. As explored by cosmologists (and discussed below), such a "multiverse" would be characterized by a fundamental dynamic which merits exploration in the quest for transformation of "conversation". Appropriately the "multiverse" frame is already in imaginative use in conversations instigated by bloggers (The expanding multiverse of the scientific community: new media for communication, September 2012; Inside the Process Multiverse, 31 October 2011; Multiverse Social Learning, June 2009).

Despite such imaginative engagement with future possibility -- inspired by rapid web development and the enthusiastically anticipated implications of the emerging semantic web -- a fundamental question is how this is to be understood as "transformative conversation", especially in the light of the communication constraints mentioned above. The sobering question is the nature of the "transformation" associated with development of telecommunication technology, computer-enabled networking, and the many more recent communication-enabling applications, so enthusiastically adopted. Might these be inherently unimaginative in terms of what would appear to be required? (cf. Thomas Homer-Dixon, The Ingenuity Gap: how can we solve the problems of the future?, 2000).

A point is being reached at which everyone can communicate with anyone -- if only either both parties had the time and the inclination. There is no doubt, as many have remarked, that a degree of transformation has been enabled by such conversation -- most notably the subject of commentary with respect to the Occupy movement and the Arab Spring uprisings (cf. Noam Chomsky, Making the Future: occupations, interventions, empire and resistance, 2012). This "transformation" has however been variously challenged and appreciated:

• Evgeny Morozov: The Net Delusion: the dark side of internet freedom (2012);
• William Powers: Hamlet's BlackBerry: building a good life in the Digital Age (2011)
• Nicholas Carr: The Shallows: what the Internet is doing to our brains (2011)
• Eli Pariser: The Filter Bubble: what the Internet is hiding from you (2011)
• Rebecca MacKinnon: Consent of the Networked: the worldwide struggle for Internet freedom (2012)
• David Weinberger: Too Big to Know: rethinking knowledge now that the facts aren't the facts, experts are everywhere, and the smartest person in the room is the room (2012)
• Clay A. Johnson: The Information Diet: a case for conscious consumption (2012)
• Sherry Turkle: Alone Together: why we expect more from technology and less from each other (2011)
• Nancy Baym: Personal Connections in the Digital (2010)
• Clay Shirky: Here Comes Everybody: the power of organizing without organizations (2009)

The question is whether the emerging conversational possibilities, as currently envisaged, are "transformative" in a manner commensurate with the challenge of the times. In cybernetic terms, is the transformation of "requisite complexity" to enable the emergence of the new style of organization required, as separately discussed (Consciously Self-reflexive Global Initiatives: Renaissance zones, complex adaptive systems, and third order organizations, 2007).

Given the acknowledged degree of information overload -- and constraints on attention resources -- will current development engender a form of "memetic singularity", as separately argued (Emerging Memetic Singularity in the Global Knowledge Society, 2009)? The condition may be understood in terms of erosion of collective memory -- for which senility may offer metaphors (cf. Societal Learning and the Erosion of Collective Memory, 1980). In a web context it is indicated by the increasing implications of "link rot" -- extending to to social networking ("friends", "followers"). The challenge has been expressed otherwise by Manuel Lima (Visual Complexity: Mapping Patterns of Information, 2011)

As I reviewed projects to feature in the book, I was astounded by how many dead links and error messages I encountered. Some of these projects became completely untraceable, possibly gone forever. This disappearance is certainly not unique to network visualization -- it is a widespread quandary of modern technology. Commonly referred to as the Digital Dark Age, the possibility of many present-day digital artifacts vanishing within a few decades is a considerably worrying prospect.

The point might be made otherwise by considering the extent to which the arguments developed in the above studies are rendered more accessible by being systematically processed together into concept maps, conceptual graphs, mind maps, or argument maps of any kind -- in an effort towards global sensemaking. This would offer a more integrative framework exemplifying the challenge of contested discourse (cf. List of concept mapping software; Complementary Knowledge Analysis / Mapping Process, 2006; Clara Mancini and Simon Buckingham Shum, Modelling Discourse in Contested Domains: a semiotic and cognitive framework, 2006; Jeff Conklin, Dialogue Mapping: creating shared understanding of wicked problems, 2006). Few would currently have access to such mappings -- if they exist. Few would apparently desire access to such mappings, or have any use for them -- or else their existence would have already been ensured. There is no semantic dimension to Google -- comparable to the zooming facilities of Google Earth.

Would such mappings enable transformative conversation -- or is the transformation currently desired from "conversation" to be understood otherwise, as currently preferred use of the web would suggest? Indifference in this respect suggests that the very process of "argument", which it is so readily assumed is fundamental to "conversation", has been reframed by other considerations and pressures, undermining its transformative potential (John Woods, The Death of Argument: fallacies in agent-based reasoning, 2004). Is there any sense that credible arguments are emerging to enable more transformative conversations?

[Parts: First | Prev | Next | Last | All] [Visuals] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]