Short Studies 5. Diamond Web2.0

How social is social networking?

Full Study
http://www.thinkartlab.com/pkl/media/Diamond_Web2.0/Diamond_Web2.0.html
http://www.thinkartlab.com/pkl/media/Diamond_Web2.0/Diamond_Web2.0.pdf


"He said, 'For instance, what a student in Guangzhou prefers may be exactly opposite to that of a student in Beijing, and in CityIN we try our best to cater for different preferences'."
CityIn: A Lifestyle Social Networks
Written by Tangosaon March 5, 2008

Questions

– What does it mean for social networking to search for sameness?

– How is such sameness dealing with its opposites?

– Which kinds of opposites do we know, and know to use?

– How global is social networking if it is limited to one and only one world-model?

– What does it mean that Web2.0 is mobile if it is restricted to information exchange with all its features of text, sound, video, and more?

– Will social networking not dry out soon and becoming boring if it is not able to support inter-actional creativity?

– Is it necessary to reduce the Web2.0 possibilities to global Web Services?

The following study is risking a very first approach to such questions by applying the Diamond Strategies.

Towards a Diamond Web2.0?

The Web2.0 understanding of societal activities is based on a non-societal model of hierarchical, mono-centered and solipsistic orientation.

Sociologically, it is based on the dichotomic distinction of the singular private and the plural public. 


A first step to diamondize Web2.0 approaches has not to go into the basics of transforming Web2.0 into the dynamic semantic Web3.0, it would be a reasonable transitional step, first to diamondize the existing technologies and user interfaces of Web2.0.

This could happen along the main metaphors of the Web2.0: social, global, mobile in connection to interactional and reflectional.


The sketched ideas for a diamondization of Web2.0 technologies is taking the slightly futuristic position to propose Diamond Web2.0 from the position of the insights into the emerging Web3.0 and contrasting it from the more traditionalist concepts and technologies of the Web1.0.

In this sense, Diamond Web2.0 could be understood as a transitional concept to a social Web3.0, hence as a Web2.5.



With Chang, I try to avoid the interesting discussion about the technological legitimacy of such a thing as Web2.0. There are enough arguments pro and contra, especially from the standpoint of Web1.0, to deny the technological relevancy of the term Web2.0.

But also from the position of an emerging semantic Web, i.e. Web3.0, Web2.0 is lacking significant conceptual changes to challenge the well known concepts and technologies of Web1.0.

On the other hand, it seems, that enough new features emerged, at least in the general use of the Web, i.e. Web services, to put it together as Web2.0.



A little typology of the development of the Web is sketched. The idea behind this typology is to reflect on the degree of the involvement of the user (subject, reflexivity) into its usage.

It is also proposed that in contrast to the main stream opinion, the difference of surface- and deep-structure of the Internet and its form of usage, is of great relevancy.

Obviously, the pragmatic terminology of use, usage and user is applied, and for Web4.0, deconstructed, against its singularity.

It is obvious that this little typology is not proposing a predictional or futurological typology or design in the sense of Spivak and Kurzweil, but nothing more than a conceptual offer for possible orientations in what is and what might emerge in the future of the Web. 



It seems that such a change in optics, towards conceptual and paradigmatic analysis, is a necessary step to wake up from an enthusiastic but unrealistic dream.

Little typology

1. the information tools using user, Web1.0,
2. the media participant user, Web2.0, 

3. the knowledge producing and sharing user, Web3.0,

4. the paradigm co-creating (interacting and intervening) user, Web4.0.

Content of the Study:

1. Diamond Strategies

2. Interactional diamondization

3. Web2.0 as "social”:: Social networking

4. .................."global":: World-models

5. ..................."mobile”:: Metamorphosis

6. ...................“Interactional and reflectional"

Full Study (in progress!):

http://www.thinkartlab.com/pkl/media/Diamond_Web2.0/Diamond_Web2.0.html
http://www.thinkartlab.com/pkl/media/Diamond_Web2.0/Diamond_Web2.0.pdf

Short Studies 4. Which Equality?

How equal are equal human beings?

Full Study:
http://www.thinkartlab.com/pkl/media/Equality/Equality.html
http://www.thinkartlab.com/pkl/media/Equality/Equality.pdf


Abstract

"All human beings are equal”. What does “equal” mean? What are the many definitions of “equal” and “equality"? From a Diamond perspective, concepts of sameness, from equality, similarity, bisimilarity to hetero-morphism and more are sketched in respect to their usage in ethical discourses, e.g Human Rights, of mono-, multi- and trans-cultural formations. What happens in such scenarios to the Golden Rule of ethics? The family of mankind? The brotherhood?

The following Short Study "Which Equality?", might be wrong in time. Things are still sub-human. The human rights not realized at all. On the other hand, what do we understand by equality if this term is defined only in a negative way, i.e. by exclusion of non-equality?

Despite the wrong timing, a conceptual effort to achieve a positive and constructive understanding of equality, anticipating futures to come, appears to be a reasonable entertainment.

Content

1. Interdependency of context and composition

Life under the regulation of equality has stopped to be funny. To do the same, which can have strictly different meanings and significance, can end up in prison, deportation or execution if judged by identity-trained forces and institutions of our free society.

2. Laws in mono-, poly- and transcultural formations

2.1 Mono-cultural formation
2.2 Poly-cultural formation
2.3 Trans-cultural formation

3. Facets of togetherness

3.1 Modi of togetherness
3.2 Equality
3.3 Similarity
3.4 Bisimilarity
3.5 Dissimilarity
3.6 Groups of Diamonds
3.7 The paradox of simplicity

4. The Queer World of the Golden Rule

4.1 Dissimination of GR
4.2 Paradoxes of an Ethics for Others


Full Study:
http://www.thinkartlab.com/pkl/media/Equality/Equality.html
http://www.thinkartlab.com/pkl/media/Equality/Equality.pdf