One of the key things that interests me about Arcosanti, including the work that is ongoing there today, is its potential to be a great player in the realm of industry. Great, to me, does mean large, and largeness's attendant connotation, powerful. These are, to my mind, at least things to think about. Great also means useful, and then, particularly in the context of Arcosanti's ethical heritage, great means insightful and carefully purposeful. Industry means, at one level, getting things done, and, at another, more prosaic level, things like factories and the production of goods, real estate, or the creation of what Paolo called habitat, also literature and events, opportunities for people to engage in thought together, at least as examples, plus, the great bugaboo, finance. These are all things that industry means, to my way of thinking.
This thing that interests me about Arcosanti is its quality of being a collective of thinkers, and actors, of being a home to them, and a forum for them. As such it seems to me Arcosanti has access to resources - human resources, as recently noted, and also the resource that Paolo's work represents, that body of ideas, manifested in art, and memory, that Arcosanti is so intimately engaged with - that, really, I would say, will be applied towards the problem of industry. This is a key reason I remain, as a kind of spectator, quite interested in Arcosanti.
These ideas are, in a sense, and I say this because I think I can claim to know the place fairly well, foreign to Arcosanti. I think they are important concepts, sources of progress in the world, essential components of human progress, important resources for human progress. Perhaps my goal is to encourage a kind of detente between Arcosanti and these aspects of human affairs.
Oh my goodness, this is so patently wrong! I am not, actually, concerned with Arcosanti's goals, but with my own! Those do mirror Arcosanti's goals, to some extent, even significantly, but they are my own goals. I am on an industrial mission - also, incidentally, an urbanistic mission, but that is in fact somewhat incidental - and I am trying to figure out how to connect with resources. My longstanding bad habit has been to think about Arcosanti, when I think about that. Arcosanti is a resource, or has that quality to it, and it is a place I'm connected with - that's part of my story - but the reality is, I am not really connected to Arcosanti As A Resource. I don't deserve to be. It's not one of my so called rights. And so, I have approached Arcosanti - rather again and again - offering them a kind of deal, my ideas, in exchange for some of their resources. What a laugh. What do they want with more ideas? What am I bringing to them that is actually useful or helpful? They have let me know, sometimes with gestures, sometimes explicitly, in words, that that is how they feel. That may not be extremely smart, on their part, but it is, in a way, reasonable. They, after all, have their own missions (Arcosanti is a group of people), their own mission, and I am probably only interfering. And my approach is, has been, in fact, in a real way, not reasonable. It's an immature approach.
I am going to pursue my mission, my goals. That has nothing to do with Arcosanti, in the present, and may well not, in any future present, though my connection with Arcosanti, my experience there, my familiarity with Paolo's work and thought, will always be an influence, and a resource, for me. I am not writing this - this is simple self observation - for Arcosanti (except in my secret hopes). I am writing it to make a statement. I do feel I have a right to claim my experience at Arcosanti, my thinking about Arcology, as a part of who I am. It is galling to me not to state that claim, when I state to the world who I am, or that I am here. I am making that claim public, and asking the world to have a moment's patience with me, as I do that.
Thursday, July 31, 2014
a new tack
Professor,
I am, as I noted, really encouraged about corresponding with you. Having thought it over, I think I can be more forthcoming, or lucid, about my goals, and that just sending you some more thoughts proactively (hopefully without abusing the privilege) might be a good idea.
I have been labeling some of my notes to self "web theory". Approaching it from a very broad perspective might be useful. I see in the Web the possibility for so much more usefulness. There's an absurd quality to that idea, because the Web is already so improbably useful, but what if its current improbable usefulness actually foretells even more improbable usefulness in the future?
I do dream of running a giant company. I seek your guidance in navigating and just mapping the small steps - hopefully building one upon the other - that seem to be the way towards large accomplishments. My hope is you will engage me in a discussion around my thoughts.
In the broadest sense, what is the nature of the Web's usefulness? It is obviously useful to individuals, as a way to communicate with each other, as a way to navigate certain practical tasks, such as shopping, as a way to browse what we now call "content". How can the Web's usefulness be even larger than that? What is the larger arena in which the Web can be useful - to individuals, and to society? Perhaps we could say it is essentially political. What is the Web for, in the largest sense? I'm thinking it is for, we could say, negotiating, with society, and really with reality, for what we need, for general prosperity.
That's all rather metaphorical. What are the specific capabilities the Web provides us with, that apply towards negotiating with reality for what we need? It already provides some of those capabilities in great measure: the ability to browse an infinity of content, the ability to share content very freely, i.e., messaging, blogging. But when I say "very freely", there's actually a limit that I think is rather narrow.
There's an expression for this, data overload. The almost universal perception seems to be that an individual person can only usefully handle a rather small amount of data, and that the limit on that is a limit imposed by the human mind, but I don't think that is so at all. I think the limit on the amount of data, or content, we can usefully handle is imposed, essentially, by software. The human mind, the perceptual being, is clearly able to absorb, remember, revisit, and work with astonishing amount of data that we encounter in the course of our days. Our contemporary experience on the web does not even begin to compare. What kind of web design could bring the data density of our Web experience closer to that of our life experience?
Today we certainly can, in the abstract, "look at" a great deal of content, and, in a more practical sense, we can look at a fair amount of content. Helping people look at even more content is one of my goals. Making our interaction with the Web, with content on the Web, more fluid, is, I think, possible. I think my demo websites illustrate some useful strategies, in this regard. But there is something else that I think is fundamental to the problem, and I feel like it is almost not recognized at all, and that is the ability the Web could provide us with, to not only look at content but also to keep what we look at. Yes, the web provides us with that capability to some extent, but it seems to be treated as rather a side issue, or perhaps as mostly the province of "professionals". Web designers seem to think it is not really that important for the average or lay user to keep a lot of content. I think that's completely wrong. I think keeping content is extremely important to the average user, and providing all users with that capability, in the fullest possible measure, would greatly enhance the usefulness of the Web.
There is, beyond that, another problem: keeping a lot of content will only be useful if we are fully empowered to manage that content. What does this mean, managing content? It means, first of all, being able to freely revisit the content we have kept. That's another function that would benefit from tools that make content flow, more freely, through the perceptual space that is our experience of the Web. So we could define the whole problem as something like "keeping and flowing". But let's also note another dynamic, which I'll describe as "juxtaposition". The more we can control the way items of content in our collections of content are juxtaposed within the perceptual Web space, the better the Web will be at allowing us to fully benefit from this access to content that is the foundation of the Web's power. So the theme of what I want to develop seems to be "flowing, keeping, and juxtaposing". Late note: flowing and juxtaposition could also be called navigation.
Thank you for your attention, thank you again for your earlier reply. I do hope to hear from you again.
Tom
I have been labeling some of my notes to self "web theory". Approaching it from a very broad perspective might be useful. I see in the Web the possibility for so much more usefulness. There's an absurd quality to that idea, because the Web is already so improbably useful, but what if its current improbable usefulness actually foretells even more improbable usefulness in the future?
I do dream of running a giant company. I seek your guidance in navigating and just mapping the small steps - hopefully building one upon the other - that seem to be the way towards large accomplishments. My hope is you will engage me in a discussion around my thoughts.
In the broadest sense, what is the nature of the Web's usefulness? It is obviously useful to individuals, as a way to communicate with each other, as a way to navigate certain practical tasks, such as shopping, as a way to browse what we now call "content". How can the Web's usefulness be even larger than that? What is the larger arena in which the Web can be useful - to individuals, and to society? Perhaps we could say it is essentially political. What is the Web for, in the largest sense? I'm thinking it is for, we could say, negotiating, with society, and really with reality, for what we need, for general prosperity.
That's all rather metaphorical. What are the specific capabilities the Web provides us with, that apply towards negotiating with reality for what we need? It already provides some of those capabilities in great measure: the ability to browse an infinity of content, the ability to share content very freely, i.e., messaging, blogging. But when I say "very freely", there's actually a limit that I think is rather narrow.
There's an expression for this, data overload. The almost universal perception seems to be that an individual person can only usefully handle a rather small amount of data, and that the limit on that is a limit imposed by the human mind, but I don't think that is so at all. I think the limit on the amount of data, or content, we can usefully handle is imposed, essentially, by software. The human mind, the perceptual being, is clearly able to absorb, remember, revisit, and work with astonishing amount of data that we encounter in the course of our days. Our contemporary experience on the web does not even begin to compare. What kind of web design could bring the data density of our Web experience closer to that of our life experience?
Today we certainly can, in the abstract, "look at" a great deal of content, and, in a more practical sense, we can look at a fair amount of content. Helping people look at even more content is one of my goals. Making our interaction with the Web, with content on the Web, more fluid, is, I think, possible. I think my demo websites illustrate some useful strategies, in this regard. But there is something else that I think is fundamental to the problem, and I feel like it is almost not recognized at all, and that is the ability the Web could provide us with, to not only look at content but also to keep what we look at. Yes, the web provides us with that capability to some extent, but it seems to be treated as rather a side issue, or perhaps as mostly the province of "professionals". Web designers seem to think it is not really that important for the average or lay user to keep a lot of content. I think that's completely wrong. I think keeping content is extremely important to the average user, and providing all users with that capability, in the fullest possible measure, would greatly enhance the usefulness of the Web.
There is, beyond that, another problem: keeping a lot of content will only be useful if we are fully empowered to manage that content. What does this mean, managing content? It means, first of all, being able to freely revisit the content we have kept. That's another function that would benefit from tools that make content flow, more freely, through the perceptual space that is our experience of the Web. So we could define the whole problem as something like "keeping and flowing". But let's also note another dynamic, which I'll describe as "juxtaposition". The more we can control the way items of content in our collections of content are juxtaposed within the perceptual Web space, the better the Web will be at allowing us to fully benefit from this access to content that is the foundation of the Web's power. So the theme of what I want to develop seems to be "flowing, keeping, and juxtaposing". Late note: flowing and juxtaposition could also be called navigation.
Thank you for your attention, thank you again for your earlier reply. I do hope to hear from you again.
Tom
Wednesday, July 30, 2014
Principles of Finance
The nature of finance is generally not well understood.
The three types of financial entities I want to discuss are publicly traded companies, privately held companies, otherwise known as partnerships, and non profits.
Each of these kinds of financial entities could be called a storehouse for wealth. They each could be called a kind of bank. Investors deposit funds into these banks in the expectation of a return on their investment. This return is of two types. First, investors expect the entity to apply the funds deposited towards what is called "the means of production", and they expect the result to be what is called production, or products, or industry. (The word industry has two connotations. One is factories and the like, and a stream of goods and services. The other, which is more old fashioned, is simply productive work.)
The second expectation that investors have is a financial return on their investment. This expectation is often mistaken for greed. It is true that the desire for wealth is an important motivator in human affairs, and perhaps that is greed, but perhaps a distinction can be made between the desire for wealth and greed. It is true that investors can be greedy, and charlatans, or fools, can cater to that impulse with ill constructed schemes, but that tends to lead to trouble. Fools get punished. But there is a deeper meaning to return on investment. When people work, they can acquire wealth, and one thing they can do with that wealth is store it for the future. Public companies and partnerships, and also, banks, create opportunities for storing wealth, and, simultaneously, for putting that wealth to productive use, which can be, on the one hand, a benefit to society, and, at the same time, offers investors the opportunity to increase their wealth, through the simple act of investing, which is, at its root, saving.
The three types of financial entities I want to discuss are publicly traded companies, privately held companies, otherwise known as partnerships, and non profits.
Each of these kinds of financial entities could be called a storehouse for wealth. They each could be called a kind of bank. Investors deposit funds into these banks in the expectation of a return on their investment. This return is of two types. First, investors expect the entity to apply the funds deposited towards what is called "the means of production", and they expect the result to be what is called production, or products, or industry. (The word industry has two connotations. One is factories and the like, and a stream of goods and services. The other, which is more old fashioned, is simply productive work.)
The second expectation that investors have is a financial return on their investment. This expectation is often mistaken for greed. It is true that the desire for wealth is an important motivator in human affairs, and perhaps that is greed, but perhaps a distinction can be made between the desire for wealth and greed. It is true that investors can be greedy, and charlatans, or fools, can cater to that impulse with ill constructed schemes, but that tends to lead to trouble. Fools get punished. But there is a deeper meaning to return on investment. When people work, they can acquire wealth, and one thing they can do with that wealth is store it for the future. Public companies and partnerships, and also, banks, create opportunities for storing wealth, and, simultaneously, for putting that wealth to productive use, which can be, on the one hand, a benefit to society, and, at the same time, offers investors the opportunity to increase their wealth, through the simple act of investing, which is, at its root, saving.
partnering
Dear Professor,
Upon reflection, what I linked you to before is obscure. I'm proud of it, and it's representative of some of my larger goals, but that requires explaining, and explaining isn't easy, especially for the listener. Part of my theory of life, and business, is, if you want to make progress, it's best to find some way proceed that's easy. I figure when I achieve that, I'll make progress.
I'm a serial inventor, but I haven't been able to execute, as the expression goes, on anything. Partly, that's because of my disorganized mind, but I have my doubts that's going to change. Anyway, I've been trying to get things to happen by writing people. Currently, I'm sort of focusing on writing to you - that's not all I'm doing, but I'm giving this some time, and I kind of want to see what happens if I work at it some more.
Well, although my first letter was, I think, not terrible, and my reply to your reply was only somewhat terrible, there remains the fact that what I've written to you this far about my work is obscure, or would require explanation. As a result of being aware of that, I've been feeling a measure of despair. Sure, you might invite me to explain ... but what it comes down to is, developing a social media platform, which is my plan, will surely be a challenge.
Actually, I get the feeling many people who succeed in bringing a product to market do it by pretty much getting the job done themselves. Yes, there's always a partnership element, but people are able to form partnerships because they are able to get a lot done themselves. I suspect that's a kind of universal truth. True, it also seems to help when a person is good company, which I'm not, especially. I'm also not particularly good at getting things done. In the way of an aside, one entrepreneur commented that job applicants who have coded something themselves make a good impression, and that was my motivation for really working at the JavaScript for a while.
I'm completely at my limit as far as coding social media goes, and, as I say, I sort of doubt I've move the project along enough to be useful as a partner. Anyone can see it's just going to be too much trouble.
Well, mulling all of this over, and feeling quite at the end of my rope, I remembered the standard question, what can I propose to a potential partner that would be both useful and in any sense easy? And I hit on something. Yikes, forgot what it was for a second. OK, well, one of my longstanding fantasies has been to patent a technology and license it. Of course, I also want to do on line tools, and, from time to time, I think up a feature that seems like it could be unique, obvious, i.e., could possibly be turned into intellectual property.
Part of what I'm trying to do in my designs for the web is make "turning the page" easier. Strangely, I find "next" and "previous" buttons rather difficult to use. Swiping is a lot easier, nicer, but it still requires you to do something every time you want to change the page. Same could be said of reading a book, but I think there's a reason that is actually not the same thing. For, I think, a similar reason, clicking links in text or among groups of images has a more fluid quality, but next and previous links are important. Actually, the pages I linked you to are demonstrations of systems that turn the pages for the reader. You can just sit there and watch the pages go by. If you want to study something, you can pause the action. Having experimented with this, I really do feel it's a nice way to view content.
Hmm, a thought. An actual question I can ask you. This idea of content emerging from the depths of space in the way I demonstrate in that page of photos is pretty much an invention, at least as applied to creating web sites. What do you think about the idea of trying to patent that, as a step towards developing a product? (And then, what kind of help can I get with that ... to whom should I turn - of course, I'm already turning to you - and what should I ask of them?)
Just to wrap up, the idea I had yesterday is an alternative to next/previous links on standard web pages, such as slide shows. In a word, the speed and direction of play would be controlled by the location of the mouse pointer.
Hope this is useful. Still hope to hear from you again.
Tom
Upon reflection, what I linked you to before is obscure. I'm proud of it, and it's representative of some of my larger goals, but that requires explaining, and explaining isn't easy, especially for the listener. Part of my theory of life, and business, is, if you want to make progress, it's best to find some way proceed that's easy. I figure when I achieve that, I'll make progress.
I'm a serial inventor, but I haven't been able to execute, as the expression goes, on anything. Partly, that's because of my disorganized mind, but I have my doubts that's going to change. Anyway, I've been trying to get things to happen by writing people. Currently, I'm sort of focusing on writing to you - that's not all I'm doing, but I'm giving this some time, and I kind of want to see what happens if I work at it some more.
Well, although my first letter was, I think, not terrible, and my reply to your reply was only somewhat terrible, there remains the fact that what I've written to you this far about my work is obscure, or would require explanation. As a result of being aware of that, I've been feeling a measure of despair. Sure, you might invite me to explain ... but what it comes down to is, developing a social media platform, which is my plan, will surely be a challenge.
Actually, I get the feeling many people who succeed in bringing a product to market do it by pretty much getting the job done themselves. Yes, there's always a partnership element, but people are able to form partnerships because they are able to get a lot done themselves. I suspect that's a kind of universal truth. True, it also seems to help when a person is good company, which I'm not, especially. I'm also not particularly good at getting things done. In the way of an aside, one entrepreneur commented that job applicants who have coded something themselves make a good impression, and that was my motivation for really working at the JavaScript for a while.
I'm completely at my limit as far as coding social media goes, and, as I say, I sort of doubt I've move the project along enough to be useful as a partner. Anyone can see it's just going to be too much trouble.
Well, mulling all of this over, and feeling quite at the end of my rope, I remembered the standard question, what can I propose to a potential partner that would be both useful and in any sense easy? And I hit on something. Yikes, forgot what it was for a second. OK, well, one of my longstanding fantasies has been to patent a technology and license it. Of course, I also want to do on line tools, and, from time to time, I think up a feature that seems like it could be unique, obvious, i.e., could possibly be turned into intellectual property.
Part of what I'm trying to do in my designs for the web is make "turning the page" easier. Strangely, I find "next" and "previous" buttons rather difficult to use. Swiping is a lot easier, nicer, but it still requires you to do something every time you want to change the page. Same could be said of reading a book, but I think there's a reason that is actually not the same thing. For, I think, a similar reason, clicking links in text or among groups of images has a more fluid quality, but next and previous links are important. Actually, the pages I linked you to are demonstrations of systems that turn the pages for the reader. You can just sit there and watch the pages go by. If you want to study something, you can pause the action. Having experimented with this, I really do feel it's a nice way to view content.
Hmm, a thought. An actual question I can ask you. This idea of content emerging from the depths of space in the way I demonstrate in that page of photos is pretty much an invention, at least as applied to creating web sites. What do you think about the idea of trying to patent that, as a step towards developing a product? (And then, what kind of help can I get with that ... to whom should I turn - of course, I'm already turning to you - and what should I ask of them?)
Just to wrap up, the idea I had yesterday is an alternative to next/previous links on standard web pages, such as slide shows. In a word, the speed and direction of play would be controlled by the location of the mouse pointer.
Hope this is useful. Still hope to hear from you again.
Tom
de-ephemeralization
What if our experience on the web - more generally, our experience with computing - were automatically turned into a kind of movie, stored on our own media (hard drive), that we can review again and again?
Monday, July 28, 2014
getting together
We really do need to work on things like getting people to drive a lot less, and fly a lot less (flying is kind of driving, I guess), and use less air conditioning, and lighting, and pavement, and also, throw less stuff away, and also, helping people be more generally prosperous, and also, less reliant on an insane health "system" - less reliant on an insane industrial system, actually, of which the health system is a part.
OK, if you just accepted that at face value, you weren't fully paying attention. Anyone who uses the word "need", at least, in something like that, is trying to sell you a line.
I want to work on these things, I think other people do to, and people sometimes get things done by working together, and even just by getting together. Getting people to get together and work on that list of goals is the purpose of this post.
OK, if you just accepted that at face value, you weren't fully paying attention. Anyone who uses the word "need", at least, in something like that, is trying to sell you a line.
I want to work on these things, I think other people do to, and people sometimes get things done by working together, and even just by getting together. Getting people to get together and work on that list of goals is the purpose of this post.
ideaist
I guess I've pretty much had it with Arcosanti and the Cosanti Foundation. I mean, go guys, all the best, but I don't see them doing anything particularly interesting or promising, or innovative or imaginative. Still a nice place to visit, a great work opportunity, if you fit in. Me, I can't even bring myself to go to events. They hate me up there. Why? Um, I'm awkward, and I care. Nice of them to be so nice!
In my twenties I got super passionate about arcology, went to Arcosanti, lived there for a while - great experience, or, well, really fun. Kept trying to be part of it for the next twenty years. Really formative for me ... though you could argue that doesn't entirely speak well for it. Well, we'll see. I may salvage something out of my life, even yet ... career-wise, I mean. (Married a girl I met there. She's awesome.)
Just the way I thought, think ... not my fault ... but I thought we could actually build arcologies. Still do, I guess, but that takes some 'splainin'. Anyway, my thought was, if we could make building arcologies really cheap (to put it the simplest possible way), by doing some clever engineering work, they would get built. I had some idea about creating layered structure for pillars that would make them strong, something like that. It was bullshit.
The question I was asking, though, was, how would we build these things? Maybe the answer is obvious to people who (I guess, unlike me) are smart, but I kind of needed to think about it. (I mentioned thinking about it to Soleri. Guess what: he dismissed my idea as dumb.)
Any ... way, after I thought about it for a couple of years, I suddenly had a pretty amazing insight. So, I kind of could care less about building arcologies, today. I really did think this over, and Paolo's designs for cities actually SUCK. I mean, they're beautiful, which I do find really interesting, but when you study them more deeply, they're horrible, like giant feet stomping on the landscape. In the end, he didn't get it right. Good effort, something to teach us - which I hope to write about - but in the end, he didn't figure it out, and then went completely off the rails. For example, Arcosanti is mostly really cool, although you can see the crap starting to creep into it here and there, but the plans for the future of Arcosanti, that you see here and there in their promotional material, are just weird office towers. There's not actually anything arcological about them.
If we actually work to understand what's beautiful about Paolo's drawings, it's something we can use, I think, to make really cool new cities - actually, as I see it, out of today's cities (which, by the way, are kind of cool, if you look at it the right way). I question whether anyone at Arcosanti actually gets that. Paolo didn't get it himself. He was actually just on autopilot, with interesting results, to be sure, but at some point someone needs to take the wheel, or we'll just fly off into oblivion. Oh, well, nothing wrong with oblivion. It's been a good ride.
Well, one thing Paolo didn't think about very much - he actually said as much, over and over, so I'm not just casting aspersions - was how to actually build arcologies. I felt like I was kind of out there, because I really did think about that. I already described one of those thoughts, which was, make building them super cheap. I do not mean cheesy, I mean efficient. You need a system, and what I dreamt up - it just popped into my mind - was just such a system. So, I don't see anyone using that kind of system in any kind of construction ... I feel like I've invented something. Now, here's the question: if you invent something, what should you do with it? Well, you should secure a patent, license the system, and build a very big industrial company. Right? If we are going to build something fantastic - see, I don't want to call it arcology any more. It's a nice word, it's actually kind of the right word, but it sounds silly, and it comes with some baggage I can't really deal with - build something fantastic, in the way of new city type stuff - it's probably going to be by doing business.
If any of my readers find the idea of developing an industrial product interesting - going for patents, licensing, marketing, going for huge profits - and have some useful insights for me, as far as how to proceed (I'm kind of lost), or some resources, connections, for example - and if you think it's possible I could have a legit idea, and if you can contemplate actually talking to me, and being my partner, or giving it consideration (and I'm not going to describe my idea unless I'm pretty comfortable with you as a partner), well, that is what I'm looking for. This thing I dreamed up has, I think, some pretty interesting implications for just building in general. It could make it possible to build stuff that, today, is pretty much just fantasy, an actual practical (meaning, in a way, easy) thing. I know it's kind of a laugh, but, any takers on someone with an idea?
In my twenties I got super passionate about arcology, went to Arcosanti, lived there for a while - great experience, or, well, really fun. Kept trying to be part of it for the next twenty years. Really formative for me ... though you could argue that doesn't entirely speak well for it. Well, we'll see. I may salvage something out of my life, even yet ... career-wise, I mean. (Married a girl I met there. She's awesome.)
Just the way I thought, think ... not my fault ... but I thought we could actually build arcologies. Still do, I guess, but that takes some 'splainin'. Anyway, my thought was, if we could make building arcologies really cheap (to put it the simplest possible way), by doing some clever engineering work, they would get built. I had some idea about creating layered structure for pillars that would make them strong, something like that. It was bullshit.
The question I was asking, though, was, how would we build these things? Maybe the answer is obvious to people who (I guess, unlike me) are smart, but I kind of needed to think about it. (I mentioned thinking about it to Soleri. Guess what: he dismissed my idea as dumb.)
Any ... way, after I thought about it for a couple of years, I suddenly had a pretty amazing insight. So, I kind of could care less about building arcologies, today. I really did think this over, and Paolo's designs for cities actually SUCK. I mean, they're beautiful, which I do find really interesting, but when you study them more deeply, they're horrible, like giant feet stomping on the landscape. In the end, he didn't get it right. Good effort, something to teach us - which I hope to write about - but in the end, he didn't figure it out, and then went completely off the rails. For example, Arcosanti is mostly really cool, although you can see the crap starting to creep into it here and there, but the plans for the future of Arcosanti, that you see here and there in their promotional material, are just weird office towers. There's not actually anything arcological about them.
If we actually work to understand what's beautiful about Paolo's drawings, it's something we can use, I think, to make really cool new cities - actually, as I see it, out of today's cities (which, by the way, are kind of cool, if you look at it the right way). I question whether anyone at Arcosanti actually gets that. Paolo didn't get it himself. He was actually just on autopilot, with interesting results, to be sure, but at some point someone needs to take the wheel, or we'll just fly off into oblivion. Oh, well, nothing wrong with oblivion. It's been a good ride.
Well, one thing Paolo didn't think about very much - he actually said as much, over and over, so I'm not just casting aspersions - was how to actually build arcologies. I felt like I was kind of out there, because I really did think about that. I already described one of those thoughts, which was, make building them super cheap. I do not mean cheesy, I mean efficient. You need a system, and what I dreamt up - it just popped into my mind - was just such a system. So, I don't see anyone using that kind of system in any kind of construction ... I feel like I've invented something. Now, here's the question: if you invent something, what should you do with it? Well, you should secure a patent, license the system, and build a very big industrial company. Right? If we are going to build something fantastic - see, I don't want to call it arcology any more. It's a nice word, it's actually kind of the right word, but it sounds silly, and it comes with some baggage I can't really deal with - build something fantastic, in the way of new city type stuff - it's probably going to be by doing business.
If any of my readers find the idea of developing an industrial product interesting - going for patents, licensing, marketing, going for huge profits - and have some useful insights for me, as far as how to proceed (I'm kind of lost), or some resources, connections, for example - and if you think it's possible I could have a legit idea, and if you can contemplate actually talking to me, and being my partner, or giving it consideration (and I'm not going to describe my idea unless I'm pretty comfortable with you as a partner), well, that is what I'm looking for. This thing I dreamed up has, I think, some pretty interesting implications for just building in general. It could make it possible to build stuff that, today, is pretty much just fantasy, an actual practical (meaning, in a way, easy) thing. I know it's kind of a laugh, but, any takers on someone with an idea?
arcology
Well, my last post about Arcosanti landed with a thud. Nobody has to tell me that. I could hear it myself.
How can I digest my feelings about arcology into something cogent? Is it just fantastic nonsense, or is there, in it - this thing, arcology - something of real value? How can we answer, or even just explore, that question?
Well, arcology is an idea, and every idea has some value. The value in an idea maybe tends to be in the nature of a "kernel". To get at the value in the idea, you might have to sift through the "chaff". I have spent a lot of time "with" the idea of arcology, and my sense is, yes, there is a kernel of value, or maybe there are kernels of value, in it ... and a fair amount of chaff, too.
One way to define what arcology, the idea, is is to say it is the collected work of Paolo Soleri. We aren't supposed to criticize Soleri's work, and to say that, in it, there is a certain amount of "chaff" might be a form of criticism. On the other hand, I think a fair number of people - and, by "people" I mean something like "experts" - question whether there is, in it, much of real value.
I mean, Soleri was an artist, and I don't think too many experts would deny that we can learn something about artistic technique by studying his work. If learning artistic technique is something of value, then, according to this line of reasoning, there is that kind of value in his work.
Personally, I don't think that's a small thing. And there's also this question of Soleri's philosophy. I've heard that criticized - and I'm inclined to agree - for not, in fact, making much sense. But I'm not sure that's really to the point. After all, I've read a fair amount of philosophy, and not much of it makes sense. I've come to feel that the purpose of philosophy might be, in fact, to dislodge us from "sense". The purpose of philosophy seems not to be to "tell" us "the truth", but to provoke us into thinking. I think Soleri might not have missed that mark.
How can I digest my feelings about arcology into something cogent? Is it just fantastic nonsense, or is there, in it - this thing, arcology - something of real value? How can we answer, or even just explore, that question?
Well, arcology is an idea, and every idea has some value. The value in an idea maybe tends to be in the nature of a "kernel". To get at the value in the idea, you might have to sift through the "chaff". I have spent a lot of time "with" the idea of arcology, and my sense is, yes, there is a kernel of value, or maybe there are kernels of value, in it ... and a fair amount of chaff, too.
One way to define what arcology, the idea, is is to say it is the collected work of Paolo Soleri. We aren't supposed to criticize Soleri's work, and to say that, in it, there is a certain amount of "chaff" might be a form of criticism. On the other hand, I think a fair number of people - and, by "people" I mean something like "experts" - question whether there is, in it, much of real value.
I mean, Soleri was an artist, and I don't think too many experts would deny that we can learn something about artistic technique by studying his work. If learning artistic technique is something of value, then, according to this line of reasoning, there is that kind of value in his work.
Personally, I don't think that's a small thing. And there's also this question of Soleri's philosophy. I've heard that criticized - and I'm inclined to agree - for not, in fact, making much sense. But I'm not sure that's really to the point. After all, I've read a fair amount of philosophy, and not much of it makes sense. I've come to feel that the purpose of philosophy might be, in fact, to dislodge us from "sense". The purpose of philosophy seems not to be to "tell" us "the truth", but to provoke us into thinking. I think Soleri might not have missed that mark.
yhoo example
Concept for better investing. I can't prove, in any way, this is reliable, but, buying big companies at low prices might allow you to outperform the more standard approach to conservative investing, index funds, by a considerable margin. By the way, Yahoo may be pretty anachronistic, but it actually is a big company.
How can you tell a company is big? One way is to look at its revenues. Yahoo recently had 4+ billion dollars in revenues. That's the 2013 number. I'd say it qualifies as big.
How can you tell a stock is trading at a low price? I mean, a price was low if, at a later date, the price is higher, but that doesn't help when we're considering an investment. The best I can do is to say, if a stock is "down", the price is, at any rate, "lower". A "lower" price is more likely to be "low", so, assuming other things are equal, a lower price is more likely to be low than a higher price. I'm kind of playing around. I'm kind of playing around with the problem of making decisions based on limited information. In 2007, Yahoo traded above 30. In 2008, it traded under 10. Under 10 was more likely to be low than under 30. Does this make sense?
What can you do with this "information", as, say, a conservative investor? (It's only in a limited way information. It's more like an idea.) Well, part of a conservative or safety oriented plan is diversification. Putting some of your money in an index fund, or the like kind of thing, that's widely approved of as being sort of as safe as it gets, and part into what I've proposed is, at least just at a semantic level, a form of diversification. Don't know if it qualifies as wise. As I say, it's just an idea. I could weigh it out in more detail, but I would risk being boring without actually being informative, so I'll leave it for another time.
For other examples, check the examples link below (in the labels section).
Sunday, July 27, 2014
sacred 108 pennies, with notes
20140725:.2/.35 *
20140729:.81/1.2 *
20140801 .34/.4 *
20140729:.44/.8
20140801 regard with caution *
20140729:..27/.45
20140729:1.01/2
20140729:.91/2.5
20140729:.64/1.2
20140729:.29/.45
20140729:.72/1.6
20140729:.2/.8
20140729:.45/1.5
20140729:.92/1.4
20140729:.6/1
20140729:.18/.35
20140729:.34/.75
20140729:.46/.6
20140729:.91/1.1
20140729:.55/.7
20140729:.41/.6
20140729:.65/.9
20140729:.99/1.2
20140729:.69/2.5
20140729:.3/.4
20140729:.82/1.2
20140729:.88/2
20140729:.78/1.1
20140729:.33/1
20140729:.42/.5
20140729:.94/1.6
20140729:.26/.35
20140729:.43/.48
20140729:.6/.7
20140729:.44/1.6
20140729:.93/9
20140729:.79/1
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)