nemorathwald (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
nemorathwald) wrote2004-09-27 11:21 am
nemorathwald) wrote2004-09-27 11:21 am
Entry tags:
Conflict In Niche Groups
In my wanderings around the web I've noticed that certain kinds of conflict happen to very certain kinds of projects. Take for instance Orion's Arm, a collaborative worldbuilding project creating a science-fiction universe which is supposed to be "hard SF," meaning they can't just make up fake science, they are constrained to not contradict what science currently knows in 2004. On their e-mail list there are frequent flame wars that usually involve personality politics rather than disagreements over science! I was reminded of that when artificially-designed religions have fallouts, such as Universism or Church of Virus. Artificially-constructed languages also come to mind. And yet all these are the very same people who have the greatest need to band together to succeed, because they serve a niche within a niche.
Ask yourself why the Klingon language is the most widespread artificial language ever (far more so than Esperanto), and no one who speaks Klingon could care less if it is "flawed." "Flawed" is a concept which doesn't seem to apply to it-- "flawed" according to what? Guess what happens to highly talented and valuable (in my opinion) constructed languages which are intended to be "ideal" for real use? They split into countless squabbling factions over seemingly irrelevant grammar mechanisms. These factions often consist of one person, who hopefully can converse with himself in his unique "perfect language." Also coming to mind is the schism between Extropians and the World Transhumanist Association, two organizations I love, both transhumanist groups, who have immeasurably more in common with each other than they do with the rest of the world.
No one questions or even notices the hideous inadequacies of the English language. Why? Because as a naturally evolved language you don't have a chance to "get in on the ground floor." It's not up for dispute-- you take it or leave it, and you can't leave it. Like Microsoft, or revealed religion, the usefulness of English as a common cultural hegemony makes it a standard unto itself. Similarly, in Klingon, a Hollywood scriptwriter invents it off-the-cuff without one-one-thousandth the blood sweat and tears put in over decades by the Lojban Committee, because that guy doesn't have to fear having to speak it. He puts his language into a movie that links it to Star Trek and presto. This man becomes the only standard by which it needs to be judged. If you want to know the subjective state of one author's mind about his fantasy world, you just ask him and that settles it, like Jesus.
In an artificially constructed religion, or a serious constructed language, or hard science fiction, the only standard against which to measure success in its creation is reality itself, in which much less can ever be dogmatically settled. So the participants, starting from a blank slate, feel like they have a chance to create Perfection. So then they will settle for nothing less than Perfection, and a church split ensues. Ironically, the reason monolithic traditions endure is that they're set in stone and the opinion of the participants doesn't matter.
Net communities never survive unless they cultivate a certain kind of indifference as a virtue. I mean patience and grace to people hurting our feelings. "Lower your expectations" is my mantra. Being within that niche within a niche is more than enough to ask. May niche groups have laser-like focus on what they have in common, and indifference to peripheral issues, and the wisdom to tell the difference.
Ask yourself why the Klingon language is the most widespread artificial language ever (far more so than Esperanto), and no one who speaks Klingon could care less if it is "flawed." "Flawed" is a concept which doesn't seem to apply to it-- "flawed" according to what? Guess what happens to highly talented and valuable (in my opinion) constructed languages which are intended to be "ideal" for real use? They split into countless squabbling factions over seemingly irrelevant grammar mechanisms. These factions often consist of one person, who hopefully can converse with himself in his unique "perfect language." Also coming to mind is the schism between Extropians and the World Transhumanist Association, two organizations I love, both transhumanist groups, who have immeasurably more in common with each other than they do with the rest of the world.
No one questions or even notices the hideous inadequacies of the English language. Why? Because as a naturally evolved language you don't have a chance to "get in on the ground floor." It's not up for dispute-- you take it or leave it, and you can't leave it. Like Microsoft, or revealed religion, the usefulness of English as a common cultural hegemony makes it a standard unto itself. Similarly, in Klingon, a Hollywood scriptwriter invents it off-the-cuff without one-one-thousandth the blood sweat and tears put in over decades by the Lojban Committee, because that guy doesn't have to fear having to speak it. He puts his language into a movie that links it to Star Trek and presto. This man becomes the only standard by which it needs to be judged. If you want to know the subjective state of one author's mind about his fantasy world, you just ask him and that settles it, like Jesus.
In an artificially constructed religion, or a serious constructed language, or hard science fiction, the only standard against which to measure success in its creation is reality itself, in which much less can ever be dogmatically settled. So the participants, starting from a blank slate, feel like they have a chance to create Perfection. So then they will settle for nothing less than Perfection, and a church split ensues. Ironically, the reason monolithic traditions endure is that they're set in stone and the opinion of the participants doesn't matter.
Net communities never survive unless they cultivate a certain kind of indifference as a virtue. I mean patience and grace to people hurting our feelings. "Lower your expectations" is my mantra. Being within that niche within a niche is more than enough to ask. May niche groups have laser-like focus on what they have in common, and indifference to peripheral issues, and the wisdom to tell the difference.
Re: Niche Warfare
If I say something as simple as "Hi" to you and all my body language says that I'm in a great mood -- I'm smiling, looking very open and accepting, etc., you are going to be more inclined to respond in kind, even if your body language shows you to be in a despondent or angry mood.
And if I say the same thing, but in a sharp tone, and with angry body language, how will you resond then?
And besides the visual and verbal cues, you also get pheremones, and energy interactions.
So how do you express the range of emotions in pure text for communication unambiguously? You can carefully choose your words, you can annotate with smilelys and other emoticons, you can clearly say that "I am happy" or "I am slightly depressed due to the stress I endured via my commute home", etc.
So, when you say something, it's never pure information. You always have an agenda behind it. Even something as innocuous as "When I left for work this morning, the temperature was 58 degrees fahrenheit" allows one to construct a whole set of arguments around it to determine the underlying motivations for what I said (which quickly runs off into the realms of literary criticism that I choose to avoid. Go find a copy of "The Pooh Perplex" if you want to have fun with that subject...), as well as any associations that you might have with morning temperatures at 58F, and leaving for work, regardless of what *my* associations happened to be.
Communication is subject to the Heisenberg Uncertainty theorem -- you can't examine something without adulterating it. (I know that's not exactly what the theorem states, but that is my interperatation when applying it to language.) So, I think it's impossible to state an idea with putting some interperation on it. And any attempt to do so only makes the delivery insipid at best.
I attended a seminar on Imago therapy a while back (it's used in couples counseling), and while it can be a very painful thing to watch, it really forces people to listen to and interpret what another person is saying with immediate feedback. One person will make a statement, say "x", and the other person will say "I hear you say x, and my understanding of that is x'", and if x' doesn't agree with what the first person was trying to say, then they will correct that, or they will go on to the next statement. It makes for a very slow conversation, but the error checking factor is *very* high.