Texas Tech University
Box 43092
Lubbock, TX 79409 3092
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 15:53:49 -0700
Mr. Rod Welch
The Welch Company
440 Davis Court #1602
San Francisco, CA 94111 2496
..
Subject:
Semiotics, Example Implemented by Technology
Rod:
[Responding to your letter
today -- attached below]
Thanks, that helps about SDS. I see now that SDS is what I have already
been using in working from the references in the earlier
message. Even though I don't know how it works as a program -- I am
interested in finding out, though -- I can tell you that I think you are
really on to something with this. I've been able to figure out where
you are coming from so much better by using the links -- which I
realized myself had to be kept under control or else I would simply get
lost in them -- than I could have done in any other way in such a short
time that I am already a convert to the method to that extent, at
least.
..
As I see it, what your system of record keeping does is make it
possible for someone else to understand you by understanding the other
understandings with which your own has been in interaction. In other
words, SDS provides your thought in its environment, not just by
itself. Had I nothing more to go on than, say, your own statements of
what POIMS is, etc., I would be able to figure out a lot about it in due
time, no doubt, but what would be seriously lacking would be its
interactional environment, and that can make a very big difference in
understanding somebody.
.. One major problem you are going to encounter with this as part of a
theory of management is the problem of secrecy. For a management policy
that follows such a practice as this to work, secrecy has to be kept to
a minimum, and that is where you are going to find stiff resistance. I
am sure that you are aware of how problematic this can turn out to be.
One way this will come up, of course, is in connection with the tendency
for people to hide what they do in order to avoid having to take the
blame for making a mistake, and I now understand why that theme --
unwillingness to acknowledge error -- comes up in your work as often as
it does.
.. Another reason, though, is that secrecy and authoritarian rule go very
tightly together, and all of our major institutions harbor authoritarian
management in one form or another. I have been much concerned with this
connection myself because of the role of authoritarianism in academic
life, which is largely based on secrecy practices. (The academic
euphemism for "secrecy" is "confidentiality".) In fact, I've been
working on this on the conceptual level especially in connection with
publication practices, the idea being to explain why it is that the
network revolution has hardly penetrated into academia in general at
all, and also to explain something about the battle that is currently
shaping up between those in favor of open publication practices and
those opposed to it, the latter being the academic establishment
generally. What I am trying to bring out is that the conflict is
between scientific ideals, which are egalitarian and do not recognize
authority, and academic ideals, which are hierarchical and
authoritarian. (Academia was a product of late medieval society and has
hardly changed at all since then in many respects.) I've been in some
very interesting discussion groups involving some of the heavyweights in
these matters -- the policy setters -- and have learned some interesting
things about what the universities are trying to do to stave off the
leveling tendencies of computer networking, which they simply cannot
handle as academia is presently structured.
.. So you are going to be going up against a lot of latent antagonism to
your idea based on these two factors -- unwillingness to take
responsibility for mistakes and unwillingness to relinquish the power
that secrecy protects and sustains -- and it will probably be a good
idea to look for signs of hostility coming especially from both of these
sources in order to try to work around them as much as possible rather
than to confront them. People who are hostile to your ideas for these
kinds of reason will not give you valuable critical feedback and it is a
waste of time to treat them as if their opposition is a principled one.
When people act from what they perceive as threatening they forget
principles. They will tend instead to try to demolish you or what you
are doing by resorting to some form of discreditation, and it is all but
impossible to protect yourself effectively against discreditation. So
you will want to be alert for signs of that, so that you can avoid being
caught up in disputation that gets you nowhere. Needless to say, I
hope, I do not mean to be advising you to close yourself to honest
criticism, which is indispensable.
.. Best regards,
Joe,
.. I am working through your letter last night. Thanks very much for focused
attention.
Concerning your letter
this morning about the meaning of SDS...
SDS = Schedule Diary System.
.. It is a software program I began developing about 1983 and continues to the
present day, for using technology to aid or leverage human thinking. In 1990
experience using SDS seemed to yield insights about technology and cognitive
science, so I jotted it down and adopted the description "Personal and
Organizational Integrated Memory and Management System" to explain a new
technology that SDS implements, which is summarized by
POIMS, to convey that the human mind is a harmonizing, synthesizing,
and integrating technology.
.. In about 1995, continued use of SDS indicated a new management science
could be implemented by SDS to strengthen communication, as traditionally
taught in universities and professional training. So, I came up with
Communication Metrics, which is explained in the New World Order... paper
(listed below POIMS). You might enjoy how this paper sets out a nexus between
religion, law and technology.
A caution about following links.
.. The SDS environment emulates in some respects human thought, in that
connections are essentially endless. This is part of what people call the
Knowledge Management dilemma. In any event, only follow a link one or two
levels before returning to the primary level of interest. It reflects the fact
that information has a variety of "meanings" depending upon context.
I keep running into the same problem again and again in working through
your material on the problematics of KM, namely, that I can't figure out
what SDS is an acronym for. Is it the name of a theory? Is it promoted
by some particular individual? Etc.
Just give me a sort of basic reference on that which is accessible
on-line and I'll get on top of it from that.
.. Thanks,