ASH-10 Notebook

Latest Updates: serendipity RSS

• 

  Pete Ashton 12:41 pm on July 19, 2009 | 0 Permalink
  Tags: causality, quotes, robertantonwilson, serendipity

  

  The use of atomic weapons was widely blamed on a primate named Albert Einstein. Even Einstein himself had agreed with this opinion. He was a pacifist and had suffered abominable pangs of conscience over what had been done with his scientific discoveries….

  Actually the discovery of atomic energy was the result of the work of every scientist, craftsman, engineer, technician, philosopher, and gadgeteer who had ever lived on Terra. The use of atomic energy as a weapon was the result of all the political decisions ever made, from the time the vertebrates first started competing for territory.

  Most Terran primates did not understand the multiplex nature of causality. They tended to think everything had a single cause. This simple philosophic error was so widespread on that planet that the primates were all in the habit of giving themselves, and other primates, more credit than was deserved when things went well. This made them all inordinately conceited.

  They also gave themselves, and one another, more blame than was deserved when things went badly. This gave them all jumbo-sized guilt complexes.

  It is usually that way on primitive planets, before quantum causality is understood.

  Robert Anton Wilson, Schrodinger’s Cat Trilogy, p7

   

  Reply Click here to cancel reply.

  Name (required)

  Email (required)

  Web Site

   
• 

  Pete Ashton 9:43 am on July 17, 2009 | 0 Permalink
  Tags: serendipity

  Poptimist #23 – Chartopia

  Tom Ewing writes about serendipity using the pop charts as his framework and produces one of the best things I’ve read in a long while. Here are snippets which caught my attention, reproduced for no other reason. Think of it as highlighting for future thinkings.

  For serendipity to happen you have to be able to give people what they don’t want– or don’t think they want– as well as what they do.

  If you’re part of a crowd, all voting on one another’s suggestions, and your suggestions consistently don’t get anywhere, why stick around? In a world where the barriers to leaving a crowd are low, groups that stick together aren’t crowds, they’re communities, and communities tend to be terrific at recommendations but not so great at serendipity, because they’re geared to marginalize the conflict that it requires.

  Contested public spaces are as likely to generate enmity as empathy but some of the point of participation is to stay aware of other strands of opinion, the other publics who use them. Contrast this to social networks, where the point of participation is to filter fellow participants into the worthwhile and the undesirable, creating a network of overlapping private spaces under the guise of a big public one.

  How do we resolve the paradox of planning for serendipity?

  The direction of progress online tends to be towards personalization and customization, whereas chasing serendipity requires a willingness to surrender control and drift through links and into new experiences.

  the point of asking wasn’t to get at an answer but to enjoy the fireworks on the way

   
• 

  Pete Ashton 9:37 am on July 17, 2009 | 0 Permalink
  Tags: serendipity, twitter (6)

  I threw this out there yesterday:

  Think I need to define serendipity. Keep using the term but what actually makes for a serendipitous environment?

  Which promoted a whole load of thoughts from others. Here’s a dump of them.

  tomewing: Oddly I just turned in a column on this for Pitchfork! I wd say broadly that you can’t have serendipity without risk.

  Me: I’m thinking more fundamentally it’s about increasing connections and network complexity. Which does = risk.

  tomewing: Yeah, agreed – in the piece I think I talked about it happening when communities (defined however you like) overlap.

  MentalArtsBrum: A serendipitious environment ie: one that allows fortuitous happenings by accident, needs structure/formal processes plus an ethos that encourages new ideas, sponanteity & democracy, fosters meaningful connections and is responsive & non-judgemental.

  theaardvark: A serendipitous environment needs to be chaotic. If something happens in non-chaos it’s not serendiptous but “well organised”.

  ffolliet: Chance favours the prepared mind. Louis Pasteur

  midge_uk: Surely a Serndip’ env’ is one with a ratio of chaos to opportunity 60/40, 70/30, 20/80, etc ??…

  Me: I’m uncomfortable with chaos. Sounds too close to random which I’ve rejected. Might need better def of chaos too!

  midge_uk: Then i suggest you read this or some books on Fractals http://tinyurl.com/mohtv6 (ie. Chaos needn’t be Chaotic)

  Me: Indeed. But the common use of “chaos” is unstructured, unorganised, no rules, random, which is what I was rejecting as boring.

  midge_uk: Lol, the pickles you get into when you try to redfine perfectly serviceable words :)

  Ed_Hart: A serendipitous environment is anytime, anyplace, anywhere, as long as you are paying attention.

  Me: Yeah, maybe I’m trying to hold water in a net here. Maybe it’s one of @stef’s accelerated serendipitous environments?

  Jo_Ind: I don’t know what serendipity is. I get the feeling @peteashton etc are using the word differently from the way normally used.

  stef: I agree Ed, but the keyword for me is _accelerated_

  theaardvark: But serendipity is what arises from chance, random meetings. As soon as you restrict the random you lose the serendipitous.

  MentalArtsBrum: Thinking about ’serendipitous environment’ whilst hoovering. Surely if one plans for serendipity, it is no longer serendipity?

  Me: That’s exactly what I’m trying to figure out. If it’s not serendipitous then what is it? (semi rhetorical question ;)

  podnosh: Unh? Serendipity requires accident and randomness. Otherwise it is contrived or managed or controlled or…

  LSpurdle: Serendipitous environment? Open, unblinkered, mobile/unanchored, flexible, fluid, welcoming? or a place where you take ideas and ideas take you!

  Thanks to everyone for their thoughts and input.