[Sigia-l] Findability

[Derek R]

Chris/bub wrote:	 
>| I'm immediately suspicious of those
>| who would make claims upon my "duty."
>| My duty is to myself and my family first, 
>| and, in the context of my work, to my 
>| employer second.


I think this is where a fundamental difference of 'how we view the
world' occurs between us -- Your order of importance places as #1- your
immediate family and #2- your immediate employer. Where does that leave
the rest of us? 

It would seem your the type of person who would sell arsenic-sprayed
materials to our children's schools or market cigarettes to our
pre-teens a long as the pay ($$$) is good.

You see Chris (or bub, if you prefer), the people, for instance, who
built the Transcontinental Railroad (1869) took immense pride in their
work. They *knew* they were transforming the landscape. To them it was a
*historical event in transportation* -- which meant, Chris/bub, that
their efforts served a greater-good than just that of their immediate
family or employer.

In the same way, the WWW is a *historical event in communications* --
which means its creation serves a greater-good than just that of one's
immediate family or employer.

I can say with confidence, that IF you hold *no* ethical boundary and
would place *nothing* above the almighty dollar and what it can afford
yourself *personally* (i.e. you and your immediate family) you are not
good a candidate for our future -- for, as you have indicated, you will
*sell us out* as quickly as you can sign the papers.


>| this is life chum -- money makes the
>| world go 'round

Again, Chris/chum, (you're not my chum), you lack any ethical sense with
which to appreciate what Information Architecture aims to do -- namely,
to build things for *use.* 'For use' here, Chris/bub, means *for
everybody* -- not just your immediate family and not just for a wage
($$$). We're all in this world together Chris/bub, and you need to start
pulling your weight.

Building the WWW/Internet is responsible work and IAs need to act
*responsibly* -- or else turn the whole operation over to the marketers
and exploiters (i.e. you Chris/bub) who only care for a 'tyranny of
profitmaking' and to hell with the actual 'architecture' we all must
use.


>| you make me laugh out loud. Thanks.

You make me sick.


>| I'm not impressed...
>| show me a single example of a category-less
>| 'something' that provided for greater 'utility, 
>| relevance and pleasure' than a similar 
>| category-ed 'something' in the context of 
>| IA work

I have already provided this example -->
http://www.info-arch.org/lists/sigia-l/0202/0035.html
but I will provide it again:

<quote on 'Napster'>

[Napster's] most salient characteristics were multiplicity and
uncertainty -- yet tending nevertheless to unity. Napster's information
architecture was *recalcitrant* to proper description, ambiguous, highly
wrought, apparently disjointed, and even vacant (which is to say,
seemingly 'about' nothing at all -- meaningless). And to use it was
identifiably a *passionate* and extremely concentrated act of attention.
Yes, I said attention. Yes, I said passion. It was a *bona-fide*
experience.

</quote>


Any peer-to-peer application can serve as an example of an information
architecture which contains an absence of any 'principle of rejection'
(no categories).

The lack of any 'principle of rejection' is the key delimiter here,
Chris/bub. You see -- what the peer-to-peer architecture does best is to
*restore the category of the person.*


>| your pronouncements lack subtlety
>| --  i.e. any hint of the "it depends"

Let me say that again -- peer-to-peer applications **restore the
category of the person.** Do you understand that Chris/bub? IA is all
about 'it depends' (thank God!) and not about whatever
category-of-existence you may be trying to sell us into at the moment. 

Peer-to-peer does not force users into categories-of-use. It does not
operate on elaboration or complication (like 'findability').
Peer-to-peer deals with *particulars* exclusively, and allows for
'normative considerations' -->
http://www.info-arch.org/lists/sigia-l/0301/0028.html

I don't know how you are going to be able to *sell us out* under the
peer-to-peer model Chris/bub, because you're going to have to deal with
us (society) on our own terms. We're not going to have to *succumb* to
you and your slave-categories to get what we need. You can keep that
poison all for yourself, bub.