Thanks Gary, you are awesome! I have been thrown a bit off-track lately, but will come back full throtle soon. The question that threw me off-balance was isMessage 1 of 5 , Jun 2, 2004View SourceThanks Gary,
you are awesome! I have been thrown a bit off-track lately, but will
come back full throtle soon. The question that threw me off-balance
was 'is it possible to reconceptulize groupware using a Habermasian
lens of rationality and norms?' This may be a bit different from my
original statement of intent, but i feel there must be a link and we
might be able to 'scale down' Habermas's analysis to the
organizational level to improve and inform the design of GDSS's.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Gary E. Davis" <coherings@y...>
> You say that you are "totally confused" about
> e-democracy and the Internet.
> The Internet itself is a confusing "Thing", so I guess
> you're well in touch with reality.
> You've probably seen one of those diagrams of the
> structure of the Internet: It looks like a fuzz ball.
> Actually, the rhizomal trunk (or central pipe rhizome)
> is relatively discrete (and corporate, sigh), so the
> political economics of the structure is fairly
> discernable (in principle, at least, as a research
> I've been a member of a major "virtual community"
> (300,000+ members), so I would focus on the Internet
> as containing many public spheres (and potential
> public spheres) rather than seeing the entire Internet
> as a public sphere----just like a territorial society
> is the common ground for lots of spheres of the
> Abstract senses of geography are necessary. The
> Internet is a topology of electronic topographies---an
> n-dimensional rhizomality. An Amazonal forest of
> innumerable species (Web sites) and genuses (directory
> areas) in kingdoms of languages.
> Yes, "the issue of digital divide is here to stay,"
> but the divide is fluid. The fast-decreasing cost of
> technology and the fast-increasing size of the
> infrastructure---both as fiber-optic land lines (under
> the oceans, as well) and encompassing communication
> satellite lace-labyrinth---is quickly affecting the
> movement of the divide (as well as transforming the
> territoriality of the planet, as the satellite lace
> becomes a permanent feature of the planet).
> It's said that the party of the current Prime Minister
> of India just lost the national elections because the
> mass of the population on the other side of India's
> techno-renaissance want into the action. In other
> words, democracy on the literal ground can force
> administrations to deal with the divide in virtual
> But I don't mean to underestimate the severity of the
> digital divide problem. What are we to make of the
> fact that most of the Internet happens in English?
> There's also a fast-growing Chinese version of the
> Internet, and more and more of the Internet is
> available in other languages (especially Spanish and
> Portugese, as well of course as French and German). So
> traditional language barriers are as important as
> technological barriers among linguistic domains. (Will
> there be a Google in Cantonese?)
> The virtual community I mentioned above was not
> primitive at all. But that made it expensive, and it
> went bankrupt. It was led by Howard Rheingold, one of
> the original "The Well" folks (and author of _Virtual
> Communities_), called "Electric Minds". In its heyday,
> 1999 or so, it was awesome. Motet conferencing
> software works similarly, but not as well as the EM
> platform did (allowing an intra-community hyperlink
> technology that allowed one to link to postings across
> conferences (with each of tens of conferences
> containing tens of topics).
> The blogosphere is wonderful and has to be a keynote
> in conceptualizing the future of the Internet as
> expressive commons.
> The legal framework of the Internet is a specialty of
> Lawrence Lessig, I guess you know.
> Are you aware of Michael Froomkin, University of Miami
> School of Law:
> Habermas@D...: Toward a Critical Theory of
> Cyberspace, 116 Harv. L. Rev. 749 (2003),
> available online
> He has a large number of publications available:
> So, this is a beginning.
> best regards,
> Do you Yahoo!?
> SBC Yahoo! - Internet access at a great low price.
... inquiry ... Z Is it possible to reconceptulize groupware using a Habermasian lens of rationality and norms? .... we might be able to scale downMessage 1 of 5 , Jun 2, 2004View Source
> Re: Zaheer, "Internet, e-democracy, and discursiveinquiry"
> --- zasif <zasif@...> wrote:Z> Is it possible to reconceptulize groupware using a
Habermasian lens of rationality and norms?' .... we
might be able to 'scale down' Habermas's analysis to
the organizational level to improve and inform the
design of GDSS's.
G: I don't know anything about groupware, but I'm
experienced with thinking about the organizational
relevance of Habermas' work. The journal _Philosophy
of Management_ might also be relevant (though I'm not
familiar with what they've been doing; I know that the
editor of the journal is interested in Habermas).
I bought Steven Weber's _The Success of Open Source_
(Harvard 2004) a couple of months ago, but I haven't
given any time to it yet.
It seems to me that the interface between human
organization (human networking) and technological
networking generally is very relevant to Habermas's
work, and interfaces between projects and groupware
would be part of that. The former interface is
strongly pertinent to Habermas's sense of systems
analysis in _Theory of Communicative Action_, and his
concern for the relationship of system and lifeworld
would correlate with standard issues within
organizations about worklife.
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
It occurs to me that Habermas s longrunning critical relationship to Nicholas Luhmann s systems thinking would be relevant to giving group decision supportMessage 1 of 5 , Jun 2, 2004View SourceIt occurs to me that Habermas's longrunning critical
relationship to Nicholas Luhmann's systems thinking
would be relevant to giving group decision support
systems a more humanized relationship to genuine
communicative evolution of organizations.
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.