Archive for the ‘conversations’ Category

Diversity, Quality of Science, and Cartalk

Friday, March 21st, 2014

Bottom Line: We can’t let you secede. You’d be a plague upon this continent. War mongering, healthful devastating the environment, information pills and we couldn’t stand by and watch you violate basic human rights. You might as well stay here and keep doing all that.

Bottom Line: We can’t let you secede. You’d be a plague upon this continent. War mongering, healthful devastating the environment, information pills and we couldn’t stand by and watch you violate basic human rights. You might as well stay here and keep doing all that.

I found this image on facebook, order though there was no attribution to the artist. Apologies for that…

true face of televison

In any case here’s my reaction to this image of the “True Face of Television”:

And yet, for sale this is only the case for those who take a passive and consumerist role wrt to media. One can be selective and disciplined in one’s choices and find some great content. The most offensive aspect of most media (imo) happen to be the (so called) news (esp. what is excluded from coverage) and the paid advertisements. Find better sources of news. Find means of avoiding the adverts. Be aware of who sponsors what you consume, and what they are promoting (and why).

Bottom Line: We can’t let you secede. You’d be a plague upon this continent. War mongering, healthful devastating the environment, information pills and we couldn’t stand by and watch you violate basic human rights. You might as well stay here and keep doing all that.

I found this image on facebook, order though there was no attribution to the artist. Apologies for that…

true face of televison

In any case here’s my reaction to this image of the “True Face of Television”:

And yet, for sale this is only the case for those who take a passive and consumerist role wrt to media. One can be selective and disciplined in one’s choices and find some great content. The most offensive aspect of most media (imo) happen to be the (so called) news (esp. what is excluded from coverage) and the paid advertisements. Find better sources of news. Find means of avoiding the adverts. Be aware of who sponsors what you consume, and what they are promoting (and why).

I found this image on facebook, information pills though there was no attribution to the artist. Apologies for that…

true face of televison

In any case here’s my reaction to this image of the “True Face of Television”:
And yet, this is only the case for those who take a passive and consumerist role wrt to media. One can be selective and disciplined in one’s choices and find some great content. The most offensive aspect of most media (imo) happen to be the (so called) news (esp. what is excluded from coverage) and the paid advertisements. Find better sources of news. Find means of avoiding the adverts. Be aware of who sponsors what you consume, and what they are promoting (and why).
Bottom Line: We can’t let you secede. You’d be a plague upon this continent. War mongering, healthful devastating the environment, information pills and we couldn’t stand by and watch you violate basic human rights. You might as well stay here and keep doing all that.

I found this image on facebook, order though there was no attribution to the artist. Apologies for that…

true face of televison

In any case here’s my reaction to this image of the “True Face of Television”:

And yet, for sale this is only the case for those who take a passive and consumerist role wrt to media. One can be selective and disciplined in one’s choices and find some great content. The most offensive aspect of most media (imo) happen to be the (so called) news (esp. what is excluded from coverage) and the paid advertisements. Find better sources of news. Find means of avoiding the adverts. Be aware of who sponsors what you consume, and what they are promoting (and why).

I found this image on facebook, information pills though there was no attribution to the artist. Apologies for that…

true face of televison

In any case here’s my reaction to this image of the “True Face of Television”:
And yet, this is only the case for those who take a passive and consumerist role wrt to media. One can be selective and disciplined in one’s choices and find some great content. The most offensive aspect of most media (imo) happen to be the (so called) news (esp. what is excluded from coverage) and the paid advertisements. Find better sources of news. Find means of avoiding the adverts. Be aware of who sponsors what you consume, and what they are promoting (and why).
I found this image on facebook, bronchitis though there was no attribution to the artist. Apologies for that…

true face of televison

In any case here’s my reaction to this image of the “True Face of Television”:
And yet, page this is only the case for those who take a passive and consumerist role wrt to media. One can be selective and disciplined in one’s choices and find some great content. The most offensive aspect of most media (imo) happen to be the (so called) news (esp. what is excluded from coverage) and the paid advertisements. Find better sources of news. Find means of avoiding the adverts. Be aware of who sponsors what you consume, and what they are promoting (and why).
Bottom Line: We can’t let you secede. You’d be a plague upon this continent. War mongering, healthful devastating the environment, information pills and we couldn’t stand by and watch you violate basic human rights. You might as well stay here and keep doing all that.

I found this image on facebook, order though there was no attribution to the artist. Apologies for that…

true face of televison

In any case here’s my reaction to this image of the “True Face of Television”:

And yet, for sale this is only the case for those who take a passive and consumerist role wrt to media. One can be selective and disciplined in one’s choices and find some great content. The most offensive aspect of most media (imo) happen to be the (so called) news (esp. what is excluded from coverage) and the paid advertisements. Find better sources of news. Find means of avoiding the adverts. Be aware of who sponsors what you consume, and what they are promoting (and why).

I found this image on facebook, information pills though there was no attribution to the artist. Apologies for that…

true face of televison

In any case here’s my reaction to this image of the “True Face of Television”:
And yet, this is only the case for those who take a passive and consumerist role wrt to media. One can be selective and disciplined in one’s choices and find some great content. The most offensive aspect of most media (imo) happen to be the (so called) news (esp. what is excluded from coverage) and the paid advertisements. Find better sources of news. Find means of avoiding the adverts. Be aware of who sponsors what you consume, and what they are promoting (and why).
I found this image on facebook, bronchitis though there was no attribution to the artist. Apologies for that…

true face of televison

In any case here’s my reaction to this image of the “True Face of Television”:
And yet, page this is only the case for those who take a passive and consumerist role wrt to media. One can be selective and disciplined in one’s choices and find some great content. The most offensive aspect of most media (imo) happen to be the (so called) news (esp. what is excluded from coverage) and the paid advertisements. Find better sources of news. Find means of avoiding the adverts. Be aware of who sponsors what you consume, and what they are promoting (and why).
I found this image on facebook, pill though there was no attribution to the artist. Apologies for that…

true face of televison

In any case here’s my reaction to this image of the “True Face of Television”:

And yet, adiposity this is only the case for those who take a passive and consumerist role wrt to media. One can be selective and disciplined in one’s choices and find some great content. The most offensive aspect of most media (imo) happen to be the (so called) news (esp. what is excluded from coverage) and the paid advertisements. Find better sources of news. Find means of avoiding the adverts. Be aware of who sponsors what you consume, and what they are promoting (and why).

Bottom Line: We can’t let you secede. You’d be a plague upon this continent. War mongering, healthful devastating the environment, information pills and we couldn’t stand by and watch you violate basic human rights. You might as well stay here and keep doing all that.

I found this image on facebook, order though there was no attribution to the artist. Apologies for that…

true face of televison

In any case here’s my reaction to this image of the “True Face of Television”:

And yet, for sale this is only the case for those who take a passive and consumerist role wrt to media. One can be selective and disciplined in one’s choices and find some great content. The most offensive aspect of most media (imo) happen to be the (so called) news (esp. what is excluded from coverage) and the paid advertisements. Find better sources of news. Find means of avoiding the adverts. Be aware of who sponsors what you consume, and what they are promoting (and why).

I found this image on facebook, information pills though there was no attribution to the artist. Apologies for that…

true face of televison

In any case here’s my reaction to this image of the “True Face of Television”:
And yet, this is only the case for those who take a passive and consumerist role wrt to media. One can be selective and disciplined in one’s choices and find some great content. The most offensive aspect of most media (imo) happen to be the (so called) news (esp. what is excluded from coverage) and the paid advertisements. Find better sources of news. Find means of avoiding the adverts. Be aware of who sponsors what you consume, and what they are promoting (and why).
I found this image on facebook, bronchitis though there was no attribution to the artist. Apologies for that…

true face of televison

In any case here’s my reaction to this image of the “True Face of Television”:
And yet, page this is only the case for those who take a passive and consumerist role wrt to media. One can be selective and disciplined in one’s choices and find some great content. The most offensive aspect of most media (imo) happen to be the (so called) news (esp. what is excluded from coverage) and the paid advertisements. Find better sources of news. Find means of avoiding the adverts. Be aware of who sponsors what you consume, and what they are promoting (and why).
I found this image on facebook, pill though there was no attribution to the artist. Apologies for that…

true face of televison

In any case here’s my reaction to this image of the “True Face of Television”:

And yet, adiposity this is only the case for those who take a passive and consumerist role wrt to media. One can be selective and disciplined in one’s choices and find some great content. The most offensive aspect of most media (imo) happen to be the (so called) news (esp. what is excluded from coverage) and the paid advertisements. Find better sources of news. Find means of avoiding the adverts. Be aware of who sponsors what you consume, and what they are promoting (and why).

I found this image on facebook, sale though there was no attribution to the artist. Apologies for that…

true face of televison

In any case here’s my reaction to this image of the “True Face of Television”:

And yet, dosage this is only the case for those who take a passive and consumerist role wrt to media. One can be selective and disciplined in one’s choices and find some great content. The most offensive aspect of most media (imo) happen to be the (so called) news (esp. what is excluded from coverage) and the paid advertisements. Find better sources of news. Find means of avoiding the adverts. Be aware of who sponsors what you consume, and what they are promoting (and why).

This morning (March 21, information pills physician 2014) NPR’s Morning Edition broadcast a rather smh story on ethnic diversity of authorship of scientific papers and the quality of science as (supposedly) evidenced by the weak proxy of quantity of citations. As I was shaking my head (smh) and considering a paper in response as they concluded the piece, malady I was rescued from that task by a promotion for the weekly favorite: “Cartalk” where one of the click and clack brothers serendipitously offered the perfect rhetorical refutation of the preceding segment. I quote: “Do two people who don’t know what they are talking about know more or less than one person who doesn’t know what he is talking about?” In any case, commenters at the embedded link cover basic challenges to the segment and it’s premise.

Holding up Half the Conversation

Monday, November 5th, 2012

Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, sickness
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, here
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, sickness
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, here
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, sickness
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, here
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
What are we doing when we theorize social change? What do we resort to and make use of when doing so? What are our motivations?

I would suggest that in the mix of motivations is/are concerns of the investigator that he or she be legitimate, generic
useful to something, someone, some idea or principle, and that their means and logic are credible in that regard.

A somewhat contrary, or contradictory (or at least seemingly so) tendency is the objective stance independent of utility or practicality, the vulgar view of Theory as Lofty Aesthetic (Ascetic) Practice with only a rarefied meaning, or a cultural product and projection.

Yet these both have significance as obstacles to rupture from common sense, in Bourdieu’s sense, as obstacles to science as Reflexive Practice.

So whether we play with abstract ideas (state, class, etc.) and perhaps impose this frame on reality, or we take up legitimated categories as real and natural rather than as problematic, we are stuck with a question of our utility. Will we allow ourselves to be mere tools, or will we relegate ourselves to uselessness?

These two images of possible Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice are related to each other. I say Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice rather than between them because I wish to emphasize social-object/agent’s relation to these spheres as opposed to the relationship between abstract spheres, or between an abstract sphere and a practical sphere.

Both images can be pressed into the service, or use of control.

Both segment the Lifeworld as a means of control.

Both have a tone of ‘naturality’ … paternal permanence and continuity which do not take particular relations and possession of knowledge as significant, which amounts to a lack of concern for the maturity of persons… (not to say that there is a practical empirical measure of this).
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, sickness
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, here
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, sickness
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, here
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
What are we doing when we theorize social change? What do we resort to and make use of when doing so? What are our motivations?

I would suggest that in the mix of motivations is/are concerns of the investigator that he or she be legitimate, generic
useful to something, someone, some idea or principle, and that their means and logic are credible in that regard.

A somewhat contrary, or contradictory (or at least seemingly so) tendency is the objective stance independent of utility or practicality, the vulgar view of Theory as Lofty Aesthetic (Ascetic) Practice with only a rarefied meaning, or a cultural product and projection.

Yet these both have significance as obstacles to rupture from common sense, in Bourdieu’s sense, as obstacles to science as Reflexive Practice.

So whether we play with abstract ideas (state, class, etc.) and perhaps impose this frame on reality, or we take up legitimated categories as real and natural rather than as problematic, we are stuck with a question of our utility. Will we allow ourselves to be mere tools, or will we relegate ourselves to uselessness?

These two images of possible Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice are related to each other. I say Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice rather than between them because I wish to emphasize social-object/agent’s relation to these spheres as opposed to the relationship between abstract spheres, or between an abstract sphere and a practical sphere.

Both images can be pressed into the service, or use of control.

Both segment the Lifeworld as a means of control.

Both have a tone of ‘naturality’ … paternal permanence and continuity which do not take particular relations and possession of knowledge as significant, which amounts to a lack of concern for the maturity of persons… (not to say that there is a practical empirical measure of this).
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, sickness
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, here
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
What are we doing when we theorize social change? What do we resort to and make use of when doing so? What are our motivations?

I would suggest that in the mix of motivations is/are concerns of the investigator that he or she be legitimate, generic
useful to something, someone, some idea or principle, and that their means and logic are credible in that regard.

A somewhat contrary, or contradictory (or at least seemingly so) tendency is the objective stance independent of utility or practicality, the vulgar view of Theory as Lofty Aesthetic (Ascetic) Practice with only a rarefied meaning, or a cultural product and projection.

Yet these both have significance as obstacles to rupture from common sense, in Bourdieu’s sense, as obstacles to science as Reflexive Practice.

So whether we play with abstract ideas (state, class, etc.) and perhaps impose this frame on reality, or we take up legitimated categories as real and natural rather than as problematic, we are stuck with a question of our utility. Will we allow ourselves to be mere tools, or will we relegate ourselves to uselessness?

These two images of possible Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice are related to each other. I say Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice rather than between them because I wish to emphasize social-object/agent’s relation to these spheres as opposed to the relationship between abstract spheres, or between an abstract sphere and a practical sphere.

Both images can be pressed into the service, or use of control.

Both segment the Lifeworld as a means of control.

Both have a tone of ‘naturality’ … paternal permanence and continuity which do not take particular relations and possession of knowledge as significant, which amounts to a lack of concern for the maturity of persons… (not to say that there is a practical empirical measure of this).
What are we doing when we theorize social change? What do we resort to and make use of when doing so? What are our motivations?

I would suggest that in the mix of motivations is/are concerns of the investigator that he or she be legitimate, ampoule
useful to something, someone, some idea or principle, and that their means and logic are credible in that regard.

A somewhat contrary, or contradictory (or at least seemingly so) tendency is the objective stance independent of utility or practicality, the vulgar view of Theory as Lofty Aesthetic (Ascetic) Practice with only a rarefied meaning, or a cultural product and projection.

Yet these both have significance as obstacles to rupture from common sense, in Bourdieu’s sense, as obstacles to science as Reflexive Practice.

So whether we play with abstract ideas (state, class, etc.) and perhaps impose this frame on reality, or we take up legitimated categories as real and natural rather than as problematic, we are stuck with a question of our utility. Will we allow ourselves to be mere tools, or will we relegate ourselves to uselessness?

These two images of possible Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice are related to each other. I say Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice rather than between them because I wish to emphasize social-object/agent’s relation to these spheres as opposed to the relationship between abstract spheres, or between an abstract sphere and a practical sphere.

Both images can be pressed into the service, or use of control.

Both segment the Lifeworld as a means of control.

Both have a tone of ‘naturality’ … paternal permanence and continuity which do not take particular relations and possession of knowledge as significant, which amounts to a lack of concern for the maturity of persons… (not to say that there is a practical empirical measure of this).
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, sickness
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, here
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, sickness
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, here
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
What are we doing when we theorize social change? What do we resort to and make use of when doing so? What are our motivations?

I would suggest that in the mix of motivations is/are concerns of the investigator that he or she be legitimate, generic
useful to something, someone, some idea or principle, and that their means and logic are credible in that regard.

A somewhat contrary, or contradictory (or at least seemingly so) tendency is the objective stance independent of utility or practicality, the vulgar view of Theory as Lofty Aesthetic (Ascetic) Practice with only a rarefied meaning, or a cultural product and projection.

Yet these both have significance as obstacles to rupture from common sense, in Bourdieu’s sense, as obstacles to science as Reflexive Practice.

So whether we play with abstract ideas (state, class, etc.) and perhaps impose this frame on reality, or we take up legitimated categories as real and natural rather than as problematic, we are stuck with a question of our utility. Will we allow ourselves to be mere tools, or will we relegate ourselves to uselessness?

These two images of possible Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice are related to each other. I say Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice rather than between them because I wish to emphasize social-object/agent’s relation to these spheres as opposed to the relationship between abstract spheres, or between an abstract sphere and a practical sphere.

Both images can be pressed into the service, or use of control.

Both segment the Lifeworld as a means of control.

Both have a tone of ‘naturality’ … paternal permanence and continuity which do not take particular relations and possession of knowledge as significant, which amounts to a lack of concern for the maturity of persons… (not to say that there is a practical empirical measure of this).
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, sickness
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, here
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
What are we doing when we theorize social change? What do we resort to and make use of when doing so? What are our motivations?

I would suggest that in the mix of motivations is/are concerns of the investigator that he or she be legitimate, generic
useful to something, someone, some idea or principle, and that their means and logic are credible in that regard.

A somewhat contrary, or contradictory (or at least seemingly so) tendency is the objective stance independent of utility or practicality, the vulgar view of Theory as Lofty Aesthetic (Ascetic) Practice with only a rarefied meaning, or a cultural product and projection.

Yet these both have significance as obstacles to rupture from common sense, in Bourdieu’s sense, as obstacles to science as Reflexive Practice.

So whether we play with abstract ideas (state, class, etc.) and perhaps impose this frame on reality, or we take up legitimated categories as real and natural rather than as problematic, we are stuck with a question of our utility. Will we allow ourselves to be mere tools, or will we relegate ourselves to uselessness?

These two images of possible Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice are related to each other. I say Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice rather than between them because I wish to emphasize social-object/agent’s relation to these spheres as opposed to the relationship between abstract spheres, or between an abstract sphere and a practical sphere.

Both images can be pressed into the service, or use of control.

Both segment the Lifeworld as a means of control.

Both have a tone of ‘naturality’ … paternal permanence and continuity which do not take particular relations and possession of knowledge as significant, which amounts to a lack of concern for the maturity of persons… (not to say that there is a practical empirical measure of this).
What are we doing when we theorize social change? What do we resort to and make use of when doing so? What are our motivations?

I would suggest that in the mix of motivations is/are concerns of the investigator that he or she be legitimate, ampoule
useful to something, someone, some idea or principle, and that their means and logic are credible in that regard.

A somewhat contrary, or contradictory (or at least seemingly so) tendency is the objective stance independent of utility or practicality, the vulgar view of Theory as Lofty Aesthetic (Ascetic) Practice with only a rarefied meaning, or a cultural product and projection.

Yet these both have significance as obstacles to rupture from common sense, in Bourdieu’s sense, as obstacles to science as Reflexive Practice.

So whether we play with abstract ideas (state, class, etc.) and perhaps impose this frame on reality, or we take up legitimated categories as real and natural rather than as problematic, we are stuck with a question of our utility. Will we allow ourselves to be mere tools, or will we relegate ourselves to uselessness?

These two images of possible Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice are related to each other. I say Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice rather than between them because I wish to emphasize social-object/agent’s relation to these spheres as opposed to the relationship between abstract spheres, or between an abstract sphere and a practical sphere.

Both images can be pressed into the service, or use of control.

Both segment the Lifeworld as a means of control.

Both have a tone of ‘naturality’ … paternal permanence and continuity which do not take particular relations and possession of knowledge as significant, which amounts to a lack of concern for the maturity of persons… (not to say that there is a practical empirical measure of this).
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, sickness
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, here
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
What are we doing when we theorize social change? What do we resort to and make use of when doing so? What are our motivations?

I would suggest that in the mix of motivations is/are concerns of the investigator that he or she be legitimate, generic
useful to something, someone, some idea or principle, and that their means and logic are credible in that regard.

A somewhat contrary, or contradictory (or at least seemingly so) tendency is the objective stance independent of utility or practicality, the vulgar view of Theory as Lofty Aesthetic (Ascetic) Practice with only a rarefied meaning, or a cultural product and projection.

Yet these both have significance as obstacles to rupture from common sense, in Bourdieu’s sense, as obstacles to science as Reflexive Practice.

So whether we play with abstract ideas (state, class, etc.) and perhaps impose this frame on reality, or we take up legitimated categories as real and natural rather than as problematic, we are stuck with a question of our utility. Will we allow ourselves to be mere tools, or will we relegate ourselves to uselessness?

These two images of possible Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice are related to each other. I say Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice rather than between them because I wish to emphasize social-object/agent’s relation to these spheres as opposed to the relationship between abstract spheres, or between an abstract sphere and a practical sphere.

Both images can be pressed into the service, or use of control.

Both segment the Lifeworld as a means of control.

Both have a tone of ‘naturality’ … paternal permanence and continuity which do not take particular relations and possession of knowledge as significant, which amounts to a lack of concern for the maturity of persons… (not to say that there is a practical empirical measure of this).
What are we doing when we theorize social change? What do we resort to and make use of when doing so? What are our motivations?

I would suggest that in the mix of motivations is/are concerns of the investigator that he or she be legitimate, ampoule
useful to something, someone, some idea or principle, and that their means and logic are credible in that regard.

A somewhat contrary, or contradictory (or at least seemingly so) tendency is the objective stance independent of utility or practicality, the vulgar view of Theory as Lofty Aesthetic (Ascetic) Practice with only a rarefied meaning, or a cultural product and projection.

Yet these both have significance as obstacles to rupture from common sense, in Bourdieu’s sense, as obstacles to science as Reflexive Practice.

So whether we play with abstract ideas (state, class, etc.) and perhaps impose this frame on reality, or we take up legitimated categories as real and natural rather than as problematic, we are stuck with a question of our utility. Will we allow ourselves to be mere tools, or will we relegate ourselves to uselessness?

These two images of possible Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice are related to each other. I say Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice rather than between them because I wish to emphasize social-object/agent’s relation to these spheres as opposed to the relationship between abstract spheres, or between an abstract sphere and a practical sphere.

Both images can be pressed into the service, or use of control.

Both segment the Lifeworld as a means of control.

Both have a tone of ‘naturality’ … paternal permanence and continuity which do not take particular relations and possession of knowledge as significant, which amounts to a lack of concern for the maturity of persons… (not to say that there is a practical empirical measure of this).
When you look back on something — consider whether it was just the first iteration. It may yet work.

Maybe not enough people understood what you were doing — maybe not enough appreciated what was at stake.

Maybe you can communicate your vision more clearly now.

Maybe you have refined your vision or your methods.

Keep pushing, somnology
and keep reflecting on your aims, your method, your motivations.
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, sickness
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, here
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, sickness
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, here
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
What are we doing when we theorize social change? What do we resort to and make use of when doing so? What are our motivations?

I would suggest that in the mix of motivations is/are concerns of the investigator that he or she be legitimate, generic
useful to something, someone, some idea or principle, and that their means and logic are credible in that regard.

A somewhat contrary, or contradictory (or at least seemingly so) tendency is the objective stance independent of utility or practicality, the vulgar view of Theory as Lofty Aesthetic (Ascetic) Practice with only a rarefied meaning, or a cultural product and projection.

Yet these both have significance as obstacles to rupture from common sense, in Bourdieu’s sense, as obstacles to science as Reflexive Practice.

So whether we play with abstract ideas (state, class, etc.) and perhaps impose this frame on reality, or we take up legitimated categories as real and natural rather than as problematic, we are stuck with a question of our utility. Will we allow ourselves to be mere tools, or will we relegate ourselves to uselessness?

These two images of possible Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice are related to each other. I say Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice rather than between them because I wish to emphasize social-object/agent’s relation to these spheres as opposed to the relationship between abstract spheres, or between an abstract sphere and a practical sphere.

Both images can be pressed into the service, or use of control.

Both segment the Lifeworld as a means of control.

Both have a tone of ‘naturality’ … paternal permanence and continuity which do not take particular relations and possession of knowledge as significant, which amounts to a lack of concern for the maturity of persons… (not to say that there is a practical empirical measure of this).
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, sickness
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, here
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
What are we doing when we theorize social change? What do we resort to and make use of when doing so? What are our motivations?

I would suggest that in the mix of motivations is/are concerns of the investigator that he or she be legitimate, generic
useful to something, someone, some idea or principle, and that their means and logic are credible in that regard.

A somewhat contrary, or contradictory (or at least seemingly so) tendency is the objective stance independent of utility or practicality, the vulgar view of Theory as Lofty Aesthetic (Ascetic) Practice with only a rarefied meaning, or a cultural product and projection.

Yet these both have significance as obstacles to rupture from common sense, in Bourdieu’s sense, as obstacles to science as Reflexive Practice.

So whether we play with abstract ideas (state, class, etc.) and perhaps impose this frame on reality, or we take up legitimated categories as real and natural rather than as problematic, we are stuck with a question of our utility. Will we allow ourselves to be mere tools, or will we relegate ourselves to uselessness?

These two images of possible Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice are related to each other. I say Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice rather than between them because I wish to emphasize social-object/agent’s relation to these spheres as opposed to the relationship between abstract spheres, or between an abstract sphere and a practical sphere.

Both images can be pressed into the service, or use of control.

Both segment the Lifeworld as a means of control.

Both have a tone of ‘naturality’ … paternal permanence and continuity which do not take particular relations and possession of knowledge as significant, which amounts to a lack of concern for the maturity of persons… (not to say that there is a practical empirical measure of this).
What are we doing when we theorize social change? What do we resort to and make use of when doing so? What are our motivations?

I would suggest that in the mix of motivations is/are concerns of the investigator that he or she be legitimate, ampoule
useful to something, someone, some idea or principle, and that their means and logic are credible in that regard.

A somewhat contrary, or contradictory (or at least seemingly so) tendency is the objective stance independent of utility or practicality, the vulgar view of Theory as Lofty Aesthetic (Ascetic) Practice with only a rarefied meaning, or a cultural product and projection.

Yet these both have significance as obstacles to rupture from common sense, in Bourdieu’s sense, as obstacles to science as Reflexive Practice.

So whether we play with abstract ideas (state, class, etc.) and perhaps impose this frame on reality, or we take up legitimated categories as real and natural rather than as problematic, we are stuck with a question of our utility. Will we allow ourselves to be mere tools, or will we relegate ourselves to uselessness?

These two images of possible Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice are related to each other. I say Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice rather than between them because I wish to emphasize social-object/agent’s relation to these spheres as opposed to the relationship between abstract spheres, or between an abstract sphere and a practical sphere.

Both images can be pressed into the service, or use of control.

Both segment the Lifeworld as a means of control.

Both have a tone of ‘naturality’ … paternal permanence and continuity which do not take particular relations and possession of knowledge as significant, which amounts to a lack of concern for the maturity of persons… (not to say that there is a practical empirical measure of this).
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, sickness
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, here
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
What are we doing when we theorize social change? What do we resort to and make use of when doing so? What are our motivations?

I would suggest that in the mix of motivations is/are concerns of the investigator that he or she be legitimate, generic
useful to something, someone, some idea or principle, and that their means and logic are credible in that regard.

A somewhat contrary, or contradictory (or at least seemingly so) tendency is the objective stance independent of utility or practicality, the vulgar view of Theory as Lofty Aesthetic (Ascetic) Practice with only a rarefied meaning, or a cultural product and projection.

Yet these both have significance as obstacles to rupture from common sense, in Bourdieu’s sense, as obstacles to science as Reflexive Practice.

So whether we play with abstract ideas (state, class, etc.) and perhaps impose this frame on reality, or we take up legitimated categories as real and natural rather than as problematic, we are stuck with a question of our utility. Will we allow ourselves to be mere tools, or will we relegate ourselves to uselessness?

These two images of possible Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice are related to each other. I say Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice rather than between them because I wish to emphasize social-object/agent’s relation to these spheres as opposed to the relationship between abstract spheres, or between an abstract sphere and a practical sphere.

Both images can be pressed into the service, or use of control.

Both segment the Lifeworld as a means of control.

Both have a tone of ‘naturality’ … paternal permanence and continuity which do not take particular relations and possession of knowledge as significant, which amounts to a lack of concern for the maturity of persons… (not to say that there is a practical empirical measure of this).
What are we doing when we theorize social change? What do we resort to and make use of when doing so? What are our motivations?

I would suggest that in the mix of motivations is/are concerns of the investigator that he or she be legitimate, ampoule
useful to something, someone, some idea or principle, and that their means and logic are credible in that regard.

A somewhat contrary, or contradictory (or at least seemingly so) tendency is the objective stance independent of utility or practicality, the vulgar view of Theory as Lofty Aesthetic (Ascetic) Practice with only a rarefied meaning, or a cultural product and projection.

Yet these both have significance as obstacles to rupture from common sense, in Bourdieu’s sense, as obstacles to science as Reflexive Practice.

So whether we play with abstract ideas (state, class, etc.) and perhaps impose this frame on reality, or we take up legitimated categories as real and natural rather than as problematic, we are stuck with a question of our utility. Will we allow ourselves to be mere tools, or will we relegate ourselves to uselessness?

These two images of possible Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice are related to each other. I say Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice rather than between them because I wish to emphasize social-object/agent’s relation to these spheres as opposed to the relationship between abstract spheres, or between an abstract sphere and a practical sphere.

Both images can be pressed into the service, or use of control.

Both segment the Lifeworld as a means of control.

Both have a tone of ‘naturality’ … paternal permanence and continuity which do not take particular relations and possession of knowledge as significant, which amounts to a lack of concern for the maturity of persons… (not to say that there is a practical empirical measure of this).
When you look back on something — consider whether it was just the first iteration. It may yet work.

Maybe not enough people understood what you were doing — maybe not enough appreciated what was at stake.

Maybe you can communicate your vision more clearly now.

Maybe you have refined your vision or your methods.

Keep pushing, somnology
and keep reflecting on your aims, your method, your motivations.
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, sickness
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, here
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
What are we doing when we theorize social change? What do we resort to and make use of when doing so? What are our motivations?

I would suggest that in the mix of motivations is/are concerns of the investigator that he or she be legitimate, generic
useful to something, someone, some idea or principle, and that their means and logic are credible in that regard.

A somewhat contrary, or contradictory (or at least seemingly so) tendency is the objective stance independent of utility or practicality, the vulgar view of Theory as Lofty Aesthetic (Ascetic) Practice with only a rarefied meaning, or a cultural product and projection.

Yet these both have significance as obstacles to rupture from common sense, in Bourdieu’s sense, as obstacles to science as Reflexive Practice.

So whether we play with abstract ideas (state, class, etc.) and perhaps impose this frame on reality, or we take up legitimated categories as real and natural rather than as problematic, we are stuck with a question of our utility. Will we allow ourselves to be mere tools, or will we relegate ourselves to uselessness?

These two images of possible Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice are related to each other. I say Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice rather than between them because I wish to emphasize social-object/agent’s relation to these spheres as opposed to the relationship between abstract spheres, or between an abstract sphere and a practical sphere.

Both images can be pressed into the service, or use of control.

Both segment the Lifeworld as a means of control.

Both have a tone of ‘naturality’ … paternal permanence and continuity which do not take particular relations and possession of knowledge as significant, which amounts to a lack of concern for the maturity of persons… (not to say that there is a practical empirical measure of this).
What are we doing when we theorize social change? What do we resort to and make use of when doing so? What are our motivations?

I would suggest that in the mix of motivations is/are concerns of the investigator that he or she be legitimate, ampoule
useful to something, someone, some idea or principle, and that their means and logic are credible in that regard.

A somewhat contrary, or contradictory (or at least seemingly so) tendency is the objective stance independent of utility or practicality, the vulgar view of Theory as Lofty Aesthetic (Ascetic) Practice with only a rarefied meaning, or a cultural product and projection.

Yet these both have significance as obstacles to rupture from common sense, in Bourdieu’s sense, as obstacles to science as Reflexive Practice.

So whether we play with abstract ideas (state, class, etc.) and perhaps impose this frame on reality, or we take up legitimated categories as real and natural rather than as problematic, we are stuck with a question of our utility. Will we allow ourselves to be mere tools, or will we relegate ourselves to uselessness?

These two images of possible Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice are related to each other. I say Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice rather than between them because I wish to emphasize social-object/agent’s relation to these spheres as opposed to the relationship between abstract spheres, or between an abstract sphere and a practical sphere.

Both images can be pressed into the service, or use of control.

Both segment the Lifeworld as a means of control.

Both have a tone of ‘naturality’ … paternal permanence and continuity which do not take particular relations and possession of knowledge as significant, which amounts to a lack of concern for the maturity of persons… (not to say that there is a practical empirical measure of this).
When you look back on something — consider whether it was just the first iteration. It may yet work.

Maybe not enough people understood what you were doing — maybe not enough appreciated what was at stake.

Maybe you can communicate your vision more clearly now.

Maybe you have refined your vision or your methods.

Keep pushing, somnology
and keep reflecting on your aims, your method, your motivations.
When you look back on something — consider whether it was just the first iteration. It may yet work.

Maybe not enough people understood what you were doing — maybe not enough appreciated what was at stake.

Maybe you can communicate your vision more clearly now.

Maybe you have refined your vision or your methods.

Keep pushing, order
and keep reflecting on your aims, your method, your motivations.
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, sickness
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, here
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, sickness
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, here
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
What are we doing when we theorize social change? What do we resort to and make use of when doing so? What are our motivations?

I would suggest that in the mix of motivations is/are concerns of the investigator that he or she be legitimate, generic
useful to something, someone, some idea or principle, and that their means and logic are credible in that regard.

A somewhat contrary, or contradictory (or at least seemingly so) tendency is the objective stance independent of utility or practicality, the vulgar view of Theory as Lofty Aesthetic (Ascetic) Practice with only a rarefied meaning, or a cultural product and projection.

Yet these both have significance as obstacles to rupture from common sense, in Bourdieu’s sense, as obstacles to science as Reflexive Practice.

So whether we play with abstract ideas (state, class, etc.) and perhaps impose this frame on reality, or we take up legitimated categories as real and natural rather than as problematic, we are stuck with a question of our utility. Will we allow ourselves to be mere tools, or will we relegate ourselves to uselessness?

These two images of possible Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice are related to each other. I say Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice rather than between them because I wish to emphasize social-object/agent’s relation to these spheres as opposed to the relationship between abstract spheres, or between an abstract sphere and a practical sphere.

Both images can be pressed into the service, or use of control.

Both segment the Lifeworld as a means of control.

Both have a tone of ‘naturality’ … paternal permanence and continuity which do not take particular relations and possession of knowledge as significant, which amounts to a lack of concern for the maturity of persons… (not to say that there is a practical empirical measure of this).
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, sickness
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, here
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
What are we doing when we theorize social change? What do we resort to and make use of when doing so? What are our motivations?

I would suggest that in the mix of motivations is/are concerns of the investigator that he or she be legitimate, generic
useful to something, someone, some idea or principle, and that their means and logic are credible in that regard.

A somewhat contrary, or contradictory (or at least seemingly so) tendency is the objective stance independent of utility or practicality, the vulgar view of Theory as Lofty Aesthetic (Ascetic) Practice with only a rarefied meaning, or a cultural product and projection.

Yet these both have significance as obstacles to rupture from common sense, in Bourdieu’s sense, as obstacles to science as Reflexive Practice.

So whether we play with abstract ideas (state, class, etc.) and perhaps impose this frame on reality, or we take up legitimated categories as real and natural rather than as problematic, we are stuck with a question of our utility. Will we allow ourselves to be mere tools, or will we relegate ourselves to uselessness?

These two images of possible Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice are related to each other. I say Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice rather than between them because I wish to emphasize social-object/agent’s relation to these spheres as opposed to the relationship between abstract spheres, or between an abstract sphere and a practical sphere.

Both images can be pressed into the service, or use of control.

Both segment the Lifeworld as a means of control.

Both have a tone of ‘naturality’ … paternal permanence and continuity which do not take particular relations and possession of knowledge as significant, which amounts to a lack of concern for the maturity of persons… (not to say that there is a practical empirical measure of this).
What are we doing when we theorize social change? What do we resort to and make use of when doing so? What are our motivations?

I would suggest that in the mix of motivations is/are concerns of the investigator that he or she be legitimate, ampoule
useful to something, someone, some idea or principle, and that their means and logic are credible in that regard.

A somewhat contrary, or contradictory (or at least seemingly so) tendency is the objective stance independent of utility or practicality, the vulgar view of Theory as Lofty Aesthetic (Ascetic) Practice with only a rarefied meaning, or a cultural product and projection.

Yet these both have significance as obstacles to rupture from common sense, in Bourdieu’s sense, as obstacles to science as Reflexive Practice.

So whether we play with abstract ideas (state, class, etc.) and perhaps impose this frame on reality, or we take up legitimated categories as real and natural rather than as problematic, we are stuck with a question of our utility. Will we allow ourselves to be mere tools, or will we relegate ourselves to uselessness?

These two images of possible Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice are related to each other. I say Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice rather than between them because I wish to emphasize social-object/agent’s relation to these spheres as opposed to the relationship between abstract spheres, or between an abstract sphere and a practical sphere.

Both images can be pressed into the service, or use of control.

Both segment the Lifeworld as a means of control.

Both have a tone of ‘naturality’ … paternal permanence and continuity which do not take particular relations and possession of knowledge as significant, which amounts to a lack of concern for the maturity of persons… (not to say that there is a practical empirical measure of this).
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, sickness
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, here
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
What are we doing when we theorize social change? What do we resort to and make use of when doing so? What are our motivations?

I would suggest that in the mix of motivations is/are concerns of the investigator that he or she be legitimate, generic
useful to something, someone, some idea or principle, and that their means and logic are credible in that regard.

A somewhat contrary, or contradictory (or at least seemingly so) tendency is the objective stance independent of utility or practicality, the vulgar view of Theory as Lofty Aesthetic (Ascetic) Practice with only a rarefied meaning, or a cultural product and projection.

Yet these both have significance as obstacles to rupture from common sense, in Bourdieu’s sense, as obstacles to science as Reflexive Practice.

So whether we play with abstract ideas (state, class, etc.) and perhaps impose this frame on reality, or we take up legitimated categories as real and natural rather than as problematic, we are stuck with a question of our utility. Will we allow ourselves to be mere tools, or will we relegate ourselves to uselessness?

These two images of possible Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice are related to each other. I say Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice rather than between them because I wish to emphasize social-object/agent’s relation to these spheres as opposed to the relationship between abstract spheres, or between an abstract sphere and a practical sphere.

Both images can be pressed into the service, or use of control.

Both segment the Lifeworld as a means of control.

Both have a tone of ‘naturality’ … paternal permanence and continuity which do not take particular relations and possession of knowledge as significant, which amounts to a lack of concern for the maturity of persons… (not to say that there is a practical empirical measure of this).
What are we doing when we theorize social change? What do we resort to and make use of when doing so? What are our motivations?

I would suggest that in the mix of motivations is/are concerns of the investigator that he or she be legitimate, ampoule
useful to something, someone, some idea or principle, and that their means and logic are credible in that regard.

A somewhat contrary, or contradictory (or at least seemingly so) tendency is the objective stance independent of utility or practicality, the vulgar view of Theory as Lofty Aesthetic (Ascetic) Practice with only a rarefied meaning, or a cultural product and projection.

Yet these both have significance as obstacles to rupture from common sense, in Bourdieu’s sense, as obstacles to science as Reflexive Practice.

So whether we play with abstract ideas (state, class, etc.) and perhaps impose this frame on reality, or we take up legitimated categories as real and natural rather than as problematic, we are stuck with a question of our utility. Will we allow ourselves to be mere tools, or will we relegate ourselves to uselessness?

These two images of possible Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice are related to each other. I say Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice rather than between them because I wish to emphasize social-object/agent’s relation to these spheres as opposed to the relationship between abstract spheres, or between an abstract sphere and a practical sphere.

Both images can be pressed into the service, or use of control.

Both segment the Lifeworld as a means of control.

Both have a tone of ‘naturality’ … paternal permanence and continuity which do not take particular relations and possession of knowledge as significant, which amounts to a lack of concern for the maturity of persons… (not to say that there is a practical empirical measure of this).
When you look back on something — consider whether it was just the first iteration. It may yet work.

Maybe not enough people understood what you were doing — maybe not enough appreciated what was at stake.

Maybe you can communicate your vision more clearly now.

Maybe you have refined your vision or your methods.

Keep pushing, somnology
and keep reflecting on your aims, your method, your motivations.
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, sickness
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, here
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
What are we doing when we theorize social change? What do we resort to and make use of when doing so? What are our motivations?

I would suggest that in the mix of motivations is/are concerns of the investigator that he or she be legitimate, generic
useful to something, someone, some idea or principle, and that their means and logic are credible in that regard.

A somewhat contrary, or contradictory (or at least seemingly so) tendency is the objective stance independent of utility or practicality, the vulgar view of Theory as Lofty Aesthetic (Ascetic) Practice with only a rarefied meaning, or a cultural product and projection.

Yet these both have significance as obstacles to rupture from common sense, in Bourdieu’s sense, as obstacles to science as Reflexive Practice.

So whether we play with abstract ideas (state, class, etc.) and perhaps impose this frame on reality, or we take up legitimated categories as real and natural rather than as problematic, we are stuck with a question of our utility. Will we allow ourselves to be mere tools, or will we relegate ourselves to uselessness?

These two images of possible Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice are related to each other. I say Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice rather than between them because I wish to emphasize social-object/agent’s relation to these spheres as opposed to the relationship between abstract spheres, or between an abstract sphere and a practical sphere.

Both images can be pressed into the service, or use of control.

Both segment the Lifeworld as a means of control.

Both have a tone of ‘naturality’ … paternal permanence and continuity which do not take particular relations and possession of knowledge as significant, which amounts to a lack of concern for the maturity of persons… (not to say that there is a practical empirical measure of this).
What are we doing when we theorize social change? What do we resort to and make use of when doing so? What are our motivations?

I would suggest that in the mix of motivations is/are concerns of the investigator that he or she be legitimate, ampoule
useful to something, someone, some idea or principle, and that their means and logic are credible in that regard.

A somewhat contrary, or contradictory (or at least seemingly so) tendency is the objective stance independent of utility or practicality, the vulgar view of Theory as Lofty Aesthetic (Ascetic) Practice with only a rarefied meaning, or a cultural product and projection.

Yet these both have significance as obstacles to rupture from common sense, in Bourdieu’s sense, as obstacles to science as Reflexive Practice.

So whether we play with abstract ideas (state, class, etc.) and perhaps impose this frame on reality, or we take up legitimated categories as real and natural rather than as problematic, we are stuck with a question of our utility. Will we allow ourselves to be mere tools, or will we relegate ourselves to uselessness?

These two images of possible Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice are related to each other. I say Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice rather than between them because I wish to emphasize social-object/agent’s relation to these spheres as opposed to the relationship between abstract spheres, or between an abstract sphere and a practical sphere.

Both images can be pressed into the service, or use of control.

Both segment the Lifeworld as a means of control.

Both have a tone of ‘naturality’ … paternal permanence and continuity which do not take particular relations and possession of knowledge as significant, which amounts to a lack of concern for the maturity of persons… (not to say that there is a practical empirical measure of this).
When you look back on something — consider whether it was just the first iteration. It may yet work.

Maybe not enough people understood what you were doing — maybe not enough appreciated what was at stake.

Maybe you can communicate your vision more clearly now.

Maybe you have refined your vision or your methods.

Keep pushing, somnology
and keep reflecting on your aims, your method, your motivations.
When you look back on something — consider whether it was just the first iteration. It may yet work.

Maybe not enough people understood what you were doing — maybe not enough appreciated what was at stake.

Maybe you can communicate your vision more clearly now.

Maybe you have refined your vision or your methods.

Keep pushing, order
and keep reflecting on your aims, your method, your motivations.
At just about any cafe or restaurant one can get tea or coffee. Beverage of your choice! We don’t need a Tea Party separate from a Coffee Party. Of course we usually sit down with others for respite and discourse when there is already an established affinity, store or when we are hoping to establish a relationship of some sort. The irony is that we’re finding ourselves so much at odds with those we already share tremendous affinities – friendships and families, glaucoma and all the more easy to engage with aggressive hostility or disengage with dismissive condescension those we don’t have that direct connection. Yet even with those whom we seem to share little in common -only because our starting frames set us in opposition – we share that same tremendous potential of affinity. Let’s find that; sip our tea, coffee, water; take in and offer words direct and civil, and start this conversation again. Neither side can carry the country forward with “half a conversation”.

It didn’t work.

Tuesday, February 22nd, 2011

Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, sickness
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, here
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, sickness
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, here
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, sickness
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, here
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
What are we doing when we theorize social change? What do we resort to and make use of when doing so? What are our motivations?

I would suggest that in the mix of motivations is/are concerns of the investigator that he or she be legitimate, generic
useful to something, someone, some idea or principle, and that their means and logic are credible in that regard.

A somewhat contrary, or contradictory (or at least seemingly so) tendency is the objective stance independent of utility or practicality, the vulgar view of Theory as Lofty Aesthetic (Ascetic) Practice with only a rarefied meaning, or a cultural product and projection.

Yet these both have significance as obstacles to rupture from common sense, in Bourdieu’s sense, as obstacles to science as Reflexive Practice.

So whether we play with abstract ideas (state, class, etc.) and perhaps impose this frame on reality, or we take up legitimated categories as real and natural rather than as problematic, we are stuck with a question of our utility. Will we allow ourselves to be mere tools, or will we relegate ourselves to uselessness?

These two images of possible Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice are related to each other. I say Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice rather than between them because I wish to emphasize social-object/agent’s relation to these spheres as opposed to the relationship between abstract spheres, or between an abstract sphere and a practical sphere.

Both images can be pressed into the service, or use of control.

Both segment the Lifeworld as a means of control.

Both have a tone of ‘naturality’ … paternal permanence and continuity which do not take particular relations and possession of knowledge as significant, which amounts to a lack of concern for the maturity of persons… (not to say that there is a practical empirical measure of this).
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, sickness
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, here
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, sickness
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, here
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
What are we doing when we theorize social change? What do we resort to and make use of when doing so? What are our motivations?

I would suggest that in the mix of motivations is/are concerns of the investigator that he or she be legitimate, generic
useful to something, someone, some idea or principle, and that their means and logic are credible in that regard.

A somewhat contrary, or contradictory (or at least seemingly so) tendency is the objective stance independent of utility or practicality, the vulgar view of Theory as Lofty Aesthetic (Ascetic) Practice with only a rarefied meaning, or a cultural product and projection.

Yet these both have significance as obstacles to rupture from common sense, in Bourdieu’s sense, as obstacles to science as Reflexive Practice.

So whether we play with abstract ideas (state, class, etc.) and perhaps impose this frame on reality, or we take up legitimated categories as real and natural rather than as problematic, we are stuck with a question of our utility. Will we allow ourselves to be mere tools, or will we relegate ourselves to uselessness?

These two images of possible Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice are related to each other. I say Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice rather than between them because I wish to emphasize social-object/agent’s relation to these spheres as opposed to the relationship between abstract spheres, or between an abstract sphere and a practical sphere.

Both images can be pressed into the service, or use of control.

Both segment the Lifeworld as a means of control.

Both have a tone of ‘naturality’ … paternal permanence and continuity which do not take particular relations and possession of knowledge as significant, which amounts to a lack of concern for the maturity of persons… (not to say that there is a practical empirical measure of this).
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, sickness
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, here
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
What are we doing when we theorize social change? What do we resort to and make use of when doing so? What are our motivations?

I would suggest that in the mix of motivations is/are concerns of the investigator that he or she be legitimate, generic
useful to something, someone, some idea or principle, and that their means and logic are credible in that regard.

A somewhat contrary, or contradictory (or at least seemingly so) tendency is the objective stance independent of utility or practicality, the vulgar view of Theory as Lofty Aesthetic (Ascetic) Practice with only a rarefied meaning, or a cultural product and projection.

Yet these both have significance as obstacles to rupture from common sense, in Bourdieu’s sense, as obstacles to science as Reflexive Practice.

So whether we play with abstract ideas (state, class, etc.) and perhaps impose this frame on reality, or we take up legitimated categories as real and natural rather than as problematic, we are stuck with a question of our utility. Will we allow ourselves to be mere tools, or will we relegate ourselves to uselessness?

These two images of possible Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice are related to each other. I say Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice rather than between them because I wish to emphasize social-object/agent’s relation to these spheres as opposed to the relationship between abstract spheres, or between an abstract sphere and a practical sphere.

Both images can be pressed into the service, or use of control.

Both segment the Lifeworld as a means of control.

Both have a tone of ‘naturality’ … paternal permanence and continuity which do not take particular relations and possession of knowledge as significant, which amounts to a lack of concern for the maturity of persons… (not to say that there is a practical empirical measure of this).
What are we doing when we theorize social change? What do we resort to and make use of when doing so? What are our motivations?

I would suggest that in the mix of motivations is/are concerns of the investigator that he or she be legitimate, ampoule
useful to something, someone, some idea or principle, and that their means and logic are credible in that regard.

A somewhat contrary, or contradictory (or at least seemingly so) tendency is the objective stance independent of utility or practicality, the vulgar view of Theory as Lofty Aesthetic (Ascetic) Practice with only a rarefied meaning, or a cultural product and projection.

Yet these both have significance as obstacles to rupture from common sense, in Bourdieu’s sense, as obstacles to science as Reflexive Practice.

So whether we play with abstract ideas (state, class, etc.) and perhaps impose this frame on reality, or we take up legitimated categories as real and natural rather than as problematic, we are stuck with a question of our utility. Will we allow ourselves to be mere tools, or will we relegate ourselves to uselessness?

These two images of possible Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice are related to each other. I say Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice rather than between them because I wish to emphasize social-object/agent’s relation to these spheres as opposed to the relationship between abstract spheres, or between an abstract sphere and a practical sphere.

Both images can be pressed into the service, or use of control.

Both segment the Lifeworld as a means of control.

Both have a tone of ‘naturality’ … paternal permanence and continuity which do not take particular relations and possession of knowledge as significant, which amounts to a lack of concern for the maturity of persons… (not to say that there is a practical empirical measure of this).
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, sickness
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, here
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, sickness
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, here
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
What are we doing when we theorize social change? What do we resort to and make use of when doing so? What are our motivations?

I would suggest that in the mix of motivations is/are concerns of the investigator that he or she be legitimate, generic
useful to something, someone, some idea or principle, and that their means and logic are credible in that regard.

A somewhat contrary, or contradictory (or at least seemingly so) tendency is the objective stance independent of utility or practicality, the vulgar view of Theory as Lofty Aesthetic (Ascetic) Practice with only a rarefied meaning, or a cultural product and projection.

Yet these both have significance as obstacles to rupture from common sense, in Bourdieu’s sense, as obstacles to science as Reflexive Practice.

So whether we play with abstract ideas (state, class, etc.) and perhaps impose this frame on reality, or we take up legitimated categories as real and natural rather than as problematic, we are stuck with a question of our utility. Will we allow ourselves to be mere tools, or will we relegate ourselves to uselessness?

These two images of possible Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice are related to each other. I say Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice rather than between them because I wish to emphasize social-object/agent’s relation to these spheres as opposed to the relationship between abstract spheres, or between an abstract sphere and a practical sphere.

Both images can be pressed into the service, or use of control.

Both segment the Lifeworld as a means of control.

Both have a tone of ‘naturality’ … paternal permanence and continuity which do not take particular relations and possession of knowledge as significant, which amounts to a lack of concern for the maturity of persons… (not to say that there is a practical empirical measure of this).
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, sickness
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, here
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
What are we doing when we theorize social change? What do we resort to and make use of when doing so? What are our motivations?

I would suggest that in the mix of motivations is/are concerns of the investigator that he or she be legitimate, generic
useful to something, someone, some idea or principle, and that their means and logic are credible in that regard.

A somewhat contrary, or contradictory (or at least seemingly so) tendency is the objective stance independent of utility or practicality, the vulgar view of Theory as Lofty Aesthetic (Ascetic) Practice with only a rarefied meaning, or a cultural product and projection.

Yet these both have significance as obstacles to rupture from common sense, in Bourdieu’s sense, as obstacles to science as Reflexive Practice.

So whether we play with abstract ideas (state, class, etc.) and perhaps impose this frame on reality, or we take up legitimated categories as real and natural rather than as problematic, we are stuck with a question of our utility. Will we allow ourselves to be mere tools, or will we relegate ourselves to uselessness?

These two images of possible Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice are related to each other. I say Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice rather than between them because I wish to emphasize social-object/agent’s relation to these spheres as opposed to the relationship between abstract spheres, or between an abstract sphere and a practical sphere.

Both images can be pressed into the service, or use of control.

Both segment the Lifeworld as a means of control.

Both have a tone of ‘naturality’ … paternal permanence and continuity which do not take particular relations and possession of knowledge as significant, which amounts to a lack of concern for the maturity of persons… (not to say that there is a practical empirical measure of this).
What are we doing when we theorize social change? What do we resort to and make use of when doing so? What are our motivations?

I would suggest that in the mix of motivations is/are concerns of the investigator that he or she be legitimate, ampoule
useful to something, someone, some idea or principle, and that their means and logic are credible in that regard.

A somewhat contrary, or contradictory (or at least seemingly so) tendency is the objective stance independent of utility or practicality, the vulgar view of Theory as Lofty Aesthetic (Ascetic) Practice with only a rarefied meaning, or a cultural product and projection.

Yet these both have significance as obstacles to rupture from common sense, in Bourdieu’s sense, as obstacles to science as Reflexive Practice.

So whether we play with abstract ideas (state, class, etc.) and perhaps impose this frame on reality, or we take up legitimated categories as real and natural rather than as problematic, we are stuck with a question of our utility. Will we allow ourselves to be mere tools, or will we relegate ourselves to uselessness?

These two images of possible Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice are related to each other. I say Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice rather than between them because I wish to emphasize social-object/agent’s relation to these spheres as opposed to the relationship between abstract spheres, or between an abstract sphere and a practical sphere.

Both images can be pressed into the service, or use of control.

Both segment the Lifeworld as a means of control.

Both have a tone of ‘naturality’ … paternal permanence and continuity which do not take particular relations and possession of knowledge as significant, which amounts to a lack of concern for the maturity of persons… (not to say that there is a practical empirical measure of this).
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, sickness
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, here
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
What are we doing when we theorize social change? What do we resort to and make use of when doing so? What are our motivations?

I would suggest that in the mix of motivations is/are concerns of the investigator that he or she be legitimate, generic
useful to something, someone, some idea or principle, and that their means and logic are credible in that regard.

A somewhat contrary, or contradictory (or at least seemingly so) tendency is the objective stance independent of utility or practicality, the vulgar view of Theory as Lofty Aesthetic (Ascetic) Practice with only a rarefied meaning, or a cultural product and projection.

Yet these both have significance as obstacles to rupture from common sense, in Bourdieu’s sense, as obstacles to science as Reflexive Practice.

So whether we play with abstract ideas (state, class, etc.) and perhaps impose this frame on reality, or we take up legitimated categories as real and natural rather than as problematic, we are stuck with a question of our utility. Will we allow ourselves to be mere tools, or will we relegate ourselves to uselessness?

These two images of possible Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice are related to each other. I say Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice rather than between them because I wish to emphasize social-object/agent’s relation to these spheres as opposed to the relationship between abstract spheres, or between an abstract sphere and a practical sphere.

Both images can be pressed into the service, or use of control.

Both segment the Lifeworld as a means of control.

Both have a tone of ‘naturality’ … paternal permanence and continuity which do not take particular relations and possession of knowledge as significant, which amounts to a lack of concern for the maturity of persons… (not to say that there is a practical empirical measure of this).
What are we doing when we theorize social change? What do we resort to and make use of when doing so? What are our motivations?

I would suggest that in the mix of motivations is/are concerns of the investigator that he or she be legitimate, ampoule
useful to something, someone, some idea or principle, and that their means and logic are credible in that regard.

A somewhat contrary, or contradictory (or at least seemingly so) tendency is the objective stance independent of utility or practicality, the vulgar view of Theory as Lofty Aesthetic (Ascetic) Practice with only a rarefied meaning, or a cultural product and projection.

Yet these both have significance as obstacles to rupture from common sense, in Bourdieu’s sense, as obstacles to science as Reflexive Practice.

So whether we play with abstract ideas (state, class, etc.) and perhaps impose this frame on reality, or we take up legitimated categories as real and natural rather than as problematic, we are stuck with a question of our utility. Will we allow ourselves to be mere tools, or will we relegate ourselves to uselessness?

These two images of possible Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice are related to each other. I say Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice rather than between them because I wish to emphasize social-object/agent’s relation to these spheres as opposed to the relationship between abstract spheres, or between an abstract sphere and a practical sphere.

Both images can be pressed into the service, or use of control.

Both segment the Lifeworld as a means of control.

Both have a tone of ‘naturality’ … paternal permanence and continuity which do not take particular relations and possession of knowledge as significant, which amounts to a lack of concern for the maturity of persons… (not to say that there is a practical empirical measure of this).
When you look back on something — consider whether it was just the first iteration. It may yet work.

Maybe not enough people understood what you were doing — maybe not enough appreciated what was at stake.

Maybe you can communicate your vision more clearly now.

Maybe you have refined your vision or your methods.

Keep pushing, somnology
and keep reflecting on your aims, your method, your motivations.

Cablegate Confusion and Distraction

Friday, December 3rd, 2010

We recorded this quickly this morning – MovementCamp kicks of


We recorded this quickly this morning – MovementCamp kicks of


We recorded this quickly this morning – MovementCamp kicks off Sunday Oct 10, doctor information pills
10 AM Eastern Time.


We recorded this quickly this morning – MovementCamp kicks of


We recorded this quickly this morning – MovementCamp kicks off Sunday Oct 10, doctor information pills
10 AM Eastern Time.


We recorded this quickly this morning – MovementCamp kicks off Sunday Oct 10, link 10 AM Eastern Time. Join the conversation, don’t wait!


We recorded this quickly this morning – MovementCamp kicks of


We recorded this quickly this morning – MovementCamp kicks off Sunday Oct 10, doctor information pills
10 AM Eastern Time.


We recorded this quickly this morning – MovementCamp kicks off Sunday Oct 10, link 10 AM Eastern Time. Join the conversation, don’t wait!


We recorded this quickly this morning – MovementCamp kicks off Sunday Oct 10, cialis 40mg 10 AM Eastern Time. Join the conversation, don’t wait!


We recorded this quickly this morning – MovementCamp kicks of


We recorded this quickly this morning – MovementCamp kicks off Sunday Oct 10, doctor information pills
10 AM Eastern Time.


We recorded this quickly this morning – MovementCamp kicks off Sunday Oct 10, link 10 AM Eastern Time. Join the conversation, don’t wait!


We recorded this quickly this morning – MovementCamp kicks off Sunday Oct 10, cialis 40mg 10 AM Eastern Time. Join the conversation, don’t wait!


We recorded this quickly this morning – MovementCamp kicks off Sunday Oct 10, geriatrician 10 AM Eastern Time. Join the conversation, medications don’t wait!


Pamela McLean & I share a context in Digital Inclusion, meningitis eczema ICT4D, advice Sustainability and Appropriate Technology. We’ recorded this the day before the Coalition MovementCamp.org 10-10-10 Global Work Party. The work goes on so join us, and let’s accelerate innovation through video and discourse! This is our 13 minute kickoff dialogue, sans video. First of many, I hope.

Pamela McLean & I share a context in Digital Inclusion, meningitis eczema ICT4D, advice Sustainability and Appropriate Technology. We’ recorded this the day before the Coalition MovementCamp.org 10-10-10 Global Work Party. The work goes on so join us, and let’s accelerate innovation through video and discourse! This is our 13 minute kickoff dialogue, sans video. First of many, I hope.

Pamela McLean & I share a context in Digital Inclusion, viagra ICT4D, viagra approved Sustainability and Appropriate Technology. We’ recorded this the day before the Coalition MovementCamp.org 10-10-10 Global Work Party. The work goes on so join us, and let’s accelerate innovation through video and discourse! This is our 13 minute kickoff dialogue, sans video. First of many, I hope.

Pamela McLean & I share a context in Digital Inclusion, meningitis eczema ICT4D, advice Sustainability and Appropriate Technology. We’ recorded this the day before the Coalition MovementCamp.org 10-10-10 Global Work Party. The work goes on so join us, and let’s accelerate innovation through video and discourse! This is our 13 minute kickoff dialogue, sans video. First of many, I hope.

Pamela McLean & I share a context in Digital Inclusion, viagra ICT4D, viagra approved Sustainability and Appropriate Technology. We’ recorded this the day before the Coalition MovementCamp.org 10-10-10 Global Work Party. The work goes on so join us, and let’s accelerate innovation through video and discourse! This is our 13 minute kickoff dialogue, sans video. First of many, I hope.

Pamela McLean & I share a context in Digital Inclusion, try ICT4D, Sustainability and Appropriate Technology. We’ recorded this the day before the Coalition MovementCamp.org 10-10-10 Global Work Party. The work goes on so join us, and let’s accelerate innovation through video and discourse! This is our 13 minute kickoff dialogue, sans video. First of many, I hope.

Pamela McLean & I share a context in Digital Inclusion, meningitis eczema ICT4D, advice Sustainability and Appropriate Technology. We’ recorded this the day before the Coalition MovementCamp.org 10-10-10 Global Work Party. The work goes on so join us, and let’s accelerate innovation through video and discourse! This is our 13 minute kickoff dialogue, sans video. First of many, I hope.

Pamela McLean & I share a context in Digital Inclusion, viagra ICT4D, viagra approved Sustainability and Appropriate Technology. We’ recorded this the day before the Coalition MovementCamp.org 10-10-10 Global Work Party. The work goes on so join us, and let’s accelerate innovation through video and discourse! This is our 13 minute kickoff dialogue, sans video. First of many, I hope.

Pamela McLean & I share a context in Digital Inclusion, try ICT4D, Sustainability and Appropriate Technology. We’ recorded this the day before the Coalition MovementCamp.org 10-10-10 Global Work Party. The work goes on so join us, and let’s accelerate innovation through video and discourse! This is our 13 minute kickoff dialogue, sans video. First of many, I hope.
On Friday, cardiologist October 29 we open the next chapter in the Community Technology, price Networking and Community Empowerment Movement at the Digital Excellence Conference in Chicago at DePaul University: http://dexcon2010.eventbrite.com/

  • Invitation — attend the most important event in the Community Technology/Digital Empowerment Sector in a decade – we’re rebuilding a movement – and we need your commitment and enthusiasm.
  • Invitation — spread the word – Let us know who is up and coming but who may have never connected to the national/global movement and Invite them! Help fund their travel! No one is late to the party!
  • Invitation — help us (re)build the movement in any way you can! If you are coming from out of town – let us know!

Three tracks:

  • Broadband: Expansion & Inclusion
  • Tools and Platforms
  • Collaboration Models and Community Building

Special Honorees: Carl Davidson, Julia Stasch and Rep. Constance Howard
Keynote Speaker: Dr. Nicol Turner-Lee

Registration: http://dexcon2010.eventbrite.com/

As a recognition of our common heritage, past members of the network are eligible for the early bird rate.

For more information or to donate/volunteer contact Pierre Clark. (312) 473-0373 or registernow@digitalexcellence.net

Pamela McLean & I share a context in Digital Inclusion, meningitis eczema ICT4D, advice Sustainability and Appropriate Technology. We’ recorded this the day before the Coalition MovementCamp.org 10-10-10 Global Work Party. The work goes on so join us, and let’s accelerate innovation through video and discourse! This is our 13 minute kickoff dialogue, sans video. First of many, I hope.

Pamela McLean & I share a context in Digital Inclusion, viagra ICT4D, viagra approved Sustainability and Appropriate Technology. We’ recorded this the day before the Coalition MovementCamp.org 10-10-10 Global Work Party. The work goes on so join us, and let’s accelerate innovation through video and discourse! This is our 13 minute kickoff dialogue, sans video. First of many, I hope.

Pamela McLean & I share a context in Digital Inclusion, try ICT4D, Sustainability and Appropriate Technology. We’ recorded this the day before the Coalition MovementCamp.org 10-10-10 Global Work Party. The work goes on so join us, and let’s accelerate innovation through video and discourse! This is our 13 minute kickoff dialogue, sans video. First of many, I hope.
On Friday, cardiologist October 29 we open the next chapter in the Community Technology, price Networking and Community Empowerment Movement at the Digital Excellence Conference in Chicago at DePaul University: http://dexcon2010.eventbrite.com/

  • Invitation — attend the most important event in the Community Technology/Digital Empowerment Sector in a decade – we’re rebuilding a movement – and we need your commitment and enthusiasm.
  • Invitation — spread the word – Let us know who is up and coming but who may have never connected to the national/global movement and Invite them! Help fund their travel! No one is late to the party!
  • Invitation — help us (re)build the movement in any way you can! If you are coming from out of town – let us know!

Three tracks:

  • Broadband: Expansion & Inclusion
  • Tools and Platforms
  • Collaboration Models and Community Building

Special Honorees: Carl Davidson, Julia Stasch and Rep. Constance Howard
Keynote Speaker: Dr. Nicol Turner-Lee

Registration: http://dexcon2010.eventbrite.com/

As a recognition of our common heritage, past members of the network are eligible for the early bird rate.

For more information or to donate/volunteer contact Pierre Clark. (312) 473-0373 or registernow@digitalexcellence.net

On Friday, case October 29 we open the next chapter in the Community Technology, stuff Networking and Community Empowerment Movement at the Digital Excellence Conference in Chicago at DePaul University: http://dexcon2010.eventbrite.com/

  • Invitation — attend the most important event in the Community Technology/Digital Empowerment Sector in a decade – we’re rebuilding a movement – and we need your commitment and enthusiasm.
  • Invitation — spread the word – Let us know who is up and coming but who may have never connected to the national/global movement and Invite them! Help fund their travel! No one is late to the party!
  • Invitation — help us (re)build the movement in any way you can! If you are coming from out of town – let us know!

Three tracks:

  • Broadband: Expansion & Inclusion
  • Tools and Platforms
  • Collaboration Models and Community Building

Special Honorees: Carl Davidson, Julia Stasch and Rep. Constance Howard
Keynote Speaker: Dr. Nicol Turner-Lee

Registration: http://dexcon2010.eventbrite.com/

As a recognition of our common heritage, past members of the network are eligible for the early bird rate.

For more information or to donate/volunteer contact Pierre Clark. (312) 473-0373 or registernow@digitalexcellence.net

Pamela McLean & I share a context in Digital Inclusion, meningitis eczema ICT4D, advice Sustainability and Appropriate Technology. We’ recorded this the day before the Coalition MovementCamp.org 10-10-10 Global Work Party. The work goes on so join us, and let’s accelerate innovation through video and discourse! This is our 13 minute kickoff dialogue, sans video. First of many, I hope.

Pamela McLean & I share a context in Digital Inclusion, viagra ICT4D, viagra approved Sustainability and Appropriate Technology. We’ recorded this the day before the Coalition MovementCamp.org 10-10-10 Global Work Party. The work goes on so join us, and let’s accelerate innovation through video and discourse! This is our 13 minute kickoff dialogue, sans video. First of many, I hope.

Pamela McLean & I share a context in Digital Inclusion, try ICT4D, Sustainability and Appropriate Technology. We’ recorded this the day before the Coalition MovementCamp.org 10-10-10 Global Work Party. The work goes on so join us, and let’s accelerate innovation through video and discourse! This is our 13 minute kickoff dialogue, sans video. First of many, I hope.
On Friday, cardiologist October 29 we open the next chapter in the Community Technology, price Networking and Community Empowerment Movement at the Digital Excellence Conference in Chicago at DePaul University: http://dexcon2010.eventbrite.com/

  • Invitation — attend the most important event in the Community Technology/Digital Empowerment Sector in a decade – we’re rebuilding a movement – and we need your commitment and enthusiasm.
  • Invitation — spread the word – Let us know who is up and coming but who may have never connected to the national/global movement and Invite them! Help fund their travel! No one is late to the party!
  • Invitation — help us (re)build the movement in any way you can! If you are coming from out of town – let us know!

Three tracks:

  • Broadband: Expansion & Inclusion
  • Tools and Platforms
  • Collaboration Models and Community Building

Special Honorees: Carl Davidson, Julia Stasch and Rep. Constance Howard
Keynote Speaker: Dr. Nicol Turner-Lee

Registration: http://dexcon2010.eventbrite.com/

As a recognition of our common heritage, past members of the network are eligible for the early bird rate.

For more information or to donate/volunteer contact Pierre Clark. (312) 473-0373 or registernow@digitalexcellence.net

On Friday, case October 29 we open the next chapter in the Community Technology, stuff Networking and Community Empowerment Movement at the Digital Excellence Conference in Chicago at DePaul University: http://dexcon2010.eventbrite.com/

  • Invitation — attend the most important event in the Community Technology/Digital Empowerment Sector in a decade – we’re rebuilding a movement – and we need your commitment and enthusiasm.
  • Invitation — spread the word – Let us know who is up and coming but who may have never connected to the national/global movement and Invite them! Help fund their travel! No one is late to the party!
  • Invitation — help us (re)build the movement in any way you can! If you are coming from out of town – let us know!

Three tracks:

  • Broadband: Expansion & Inclusion
  • Tools and Platforms
  • Collaboration Models and Community Building

Special Honorees: Carl Davidson, Julia Stasch and Rep. Constance Howard
Keynote Speaker: Dr. Nicol Turner-Lee

Registration: http://dexcon2010.eventbrite.com/

As a recognition of our common heritage, past members of the network are eligible for the early bird rate.

For more information or to donate/volunteer contact Pierre Clark. (312) 473-0373 or registernow@digitalexcellence.net

On Friday, recipe October 29 we open the next chapter in the Community Technology, Networking and Community Empowerment Movement at the Digital Excellence Conference in Chicago at DePaul University: http://dexcon2010.eventbrite.com/

  • Invitation — attend the most important event in the Community Technology/Digital Empowerment Sector in a decade – we’re rebuilding a movement – and we need your commitment and enthusiasm.
  • Invitation — spread the word – Let us know who is up and coming but who may have never connected to the national/global movement and Invite them! Help fund their travel! No one is late to the party!
  • Invitation — help us (re)build the movement in any way you can! If you are coming from out of town – let us know!

Three tracks:

  • Broadband: Expansion & Inclusion
  • Tools and Platforms
  • Collaboration Models and Community Building

Special Honorees: Carl Davidson, Julia Stasch and Rep. Constance Howard
Keynote Speaker: Dr. Nicol Turner-Lee

Registration: http://dexcon2010.eventbrite.com/

As a recognition of our common heritage, past members of the network are eligible for the early bird rate.

For more information or to donate/volunteer contact Pierre Clark. (312) 473-0373 or registernow@digitalexcellence.net

Pamela McLean & I share a context in Digital Inclusion, meningitis eczema ICT4D, advice Sustainability and Appropriate Technology. We’ recorded this the day before the Coalition MovementCamp.org 10-10-10 Global Work Party. The work goes on so join us, and let’s accelerate innovation through video and discourse! This is our 13 minute kickoff dialogue, sans video. First of many, I hope.

Pamela McLean & I share a context in Digital Inclusion, viagra ICT4D, viagra approved Sustainability and Appropriate Technology. We’ recorded this the day before the Coalition MovementCamp.org 10-10-10 Global Work Party. The work goes on so join us, and let’s accelerate innovation through video and discourse! This is our 13 minute kickoff dialogue, sans video. First of many, I hope.

Pamela McLean & I share a context in Digital Inclusion, try ICT4D, Sustainability and Appropriate Technology. We’ recorded this the day before the Coalition MovementCamp.org 10-10-10 Global Work Party. The work goes on so join us, and let’s accelerate innovation through video and discourse! This is our 13 minute kickoff dialogue, sans video. First of many, I hope.
On Friday, cardiologist October 29 we open the next chapter in the Community Technology, price Networking and Community Empowerment Movement at the Digital Excellence Conference in Chicago at DePaul University: http://dexcon2010.eventbrite.com/

  • Invitation — attend the most important event in the Community Technology/Digital Empowerment Sector in a decade – we’re rebuilding a movement – and we need your commitment and enthusiasm.
  • Invitation — spread the word – Let us know who is up and coming but who may have never connected to the national/global movement and Invite them! Help fund their travel! No one is late to the party!
  • Invitation — help us (re)build the movement in any way you can! If you are coming from out of town – let us know!

Three tracks:

  • Broadband: Expansion & Inclusion
  • Tools and Platforms
  • Collaboration Models and Community Building

Special Honorees: Carl Davidson, Julia Stasch and Rep. Constance Howard
Keynote Speaker: Dr. Nicol Turner-Lee

Registration: http://dexcon2010.eventbrite.com/

As a recognition of our common heritage, past members of the network are eligible for the early bird rate.

For more information or to donate/volunteer contact Pierre Clark. (312) 473-0373 or registernow@digitalexcellence.net

On Friday, case October 29 we open the next chapter in the Community Technology, stuff Networking and Community Empowerment Movement at the Digital Excellence Conference in Chicago at DePaul University: http://dexcon2010.eventbrite.com/

  • Invitation — attend the most important event in the Community Technology/Digital Empowerment Sector in a decade – we’re rebuilding a movement – and we need your commitment and enthusiasm.
  • Invitation — spread the word – Let us know who is up and coming but who may have never connected to the national/global movement and Invite them! Help fund their travel! No one is late to the party!
  • Invitation — help us (re)build the movement in any way you can! If you are coming from out of town – let us know!

Three tracks:

  • Broadband: Expansion & Inclusion
  • Tools and Platforms
  • Collaboration Models and Community Building

Special Honorees: Carl Davidson, Julia Stasch and Rep. Constance Howard
Keynote Speaker: Dr. Nicol Turner-Lee

Registration: http://dexcon2010.eventbrite.com/

As a recognition of our common heritage, past members of the network are eligible for the early bird rate.

For more information or to donate/volunteer contact Pierre Clark. (312) 473-0373 or registernow@digitalexcellence.net

On Friday, recipe October 29 we open the next chapter in the Community Technology, Networking and Community Empowerment Movement at the Digital Excellence Conference in Chicago at DePaul University: http://dexcon2010.eventbrite.com/

  • Invitation — attend the most important event in the Community Technology/Digital Empowerment Sector in a decade – we’re rebuilding a movement – and we need your commitment and enthusiasm.
  • Invitation — spread the word – Let us know who is up and coming but who may have never connected to the national/global movement and Invite them! Help fund their travel! No one is late to the party!
  • Invitation — help us (re)build the movement in any way you can! If you are coming from out of town – let us know!

Three tracks:

  • Broadband: Expansion & Inclusion
  • Tools and Platforms
  • Collaboration Models and Community Building

Special Honorees: Carl Davidson, Julia Stasch and Rep. Constance Howard
Keynote Speaker: Dr. Nicol Turner-Lee

Registration: http://dexcon2010.eventbrite.com/

As a recognition of our common heritage, past members of the network are eligible for the early bird rate.

For more information or to donate/volunteer contact Pierre Clark. (312) 473-0373 or registernow@digitalexcellence.net

Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, price I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, obesity whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

CMC II: Connecting the Dots (Nov 14)

Monday, November 8th, 2010

test
test
The Google-Verizon recognition of the Open Internet opened the door to fundamental policy clarity at the FCC.

Defenders of the Open Internet, remedy pilule
Network Neutrality and even Common Carriage can stand firm together in support of a principle of Network Clarity: the Open Internet is not a Service. It is a general purpose open communications framework independent of the various technologies and infrastructure that compose it. As a communications framework and must remain open as speech must remain free.

The regime of service-oriented policy now ends.

test
The Google-Verizon recognition of the Open Internet opened the door to fundamental policy clarity at the FCC.

Defenders of the Open Internet, remedy pilule
Network Neutrality and even Common Carriage can stand firm together in support of a principle of Network Clarity: the Open Internet is not a Service. It is a general purpose open communications framework independent of the various technologies and infrastructure that compose it. As a communications framework and must remain open as speech must remain free.

The regime of service-oriented policy now ends.

Seth Johnson has heroically led the charge for a policy of Network Clarity at the FCC, this pulling together a number of Internet Luminaries (and myself) to sign on to the Joint Reply Comments of Various Advocates for the Open Internet. Read the document. Spread the word, and shed some light on the distinction between the Open Internet and Specialized Services.

The Google-Verizon recognition of the Open Internet opened the door to fundamental policy clarity at the FCC.

Defenders of the Open Internet, Network Neutrality and even Common Carriage can stand firm together in support of a principle of Network Clarity: the Open Internet is not a Service. It is a general purpose open communications framework independent of the various technologies and infrastructure that compose it. As a communications framework and must remain open as speech must remain free.

The regime of service-oriented policy now ends.

For a more nuanced exegesis of the significance of the policy ramifications, see Dr. David Reed’s post.

test
The Google-Verizon recognition of the Open Internet opened the door to fundamental policy clarity at the FCC.

Defenders of the Open Internet, remedy pilule
Network Neutrality and even Common Carriage can stand firm together in support of a principle of Network Clarity: the Open Internet is not a Service. It is a general purpose open communications framework independent of the various technologies and infrastructure that compose it. As a communications framework and must remain open as speech must remain free.

The regime of service-oriented policy now ends.

Seth Johnson has heroically led the charge for a policy of Network Clarity at the FCC, this pulling together a number of Internet Luminaries (and myself) to sign on to the Joint Reply Comments of Various Advocates for the Open Internet. Read the document. Spread the word, and shed some light on the distinction between the Open Internet and Specialized Services.

The Google-Verizon recognition of the Open Internet opened the door to fundamental policy clarity at the FCC.

Defenders of the Open Internet, Network Neutrality and even Common Carriage can stand firm together in support of a principle of Network Clarity: the Open Internet is not a Service. It is a general purpose open communications framework independent of the various technologies and infrastructure that compose it. As a communications framework and must remain open as speech must remain free.

The regime of service-oriented policy now ends.

For a more nuanced exegesis of the significance of the policy ramifications, see Dr. David Reed’s post.

Coalition Movement Camp II: Connecting the Dots
November 14, order 2010, 2.00pm to 6pm EST: http://movementcamp.org

The Coalition Movement Camp series brings new players and possibilities into view and allows us to connect the dots between them. Our goal is to consolidate our collective powers and prepare for a collaborative web development project unlike anything the world has seen.

The inaugural Coalition Movement Camp took place on October 10, 2010. Participants included representatives of Appropedia, OpenKollab, Metacurrency, 350, Dadamac, CoopAgora, JAK Bank, GreenTribe, and Gaia10. For eight hours, we brainstormed ideas towards a new generation of internet platforms and collaborative strategies for the climate crisis. Details of the 10/10/10 Coalition Movement Camp can be found on the Coalition blog (http://cotw.me/invite101010, http://cotw.me/camp101010).

On November 14, 2010, the conversation continues.

Why are we doing this?

• The world is warming. Satellite records show that in the past two decades, the process of warming has sped up. 2010 is on track to be the warmest year on record.
• Without drastic action, we risk temperature rises of 6°C or more by the end of this century. This would be a catastrophe.
• Yet the current international community is ill-prepared, if not unwilling, to reign in carbon emissions to prevent this outcome.

We have no choice but to try a new approach.

We propose using new internet tools and a renewed commitment to interoperability and collaboration to creatively impact this situation and turn it around.

The internet is rapidly evolving from a place for sharing information to a place for collaboration and co-creation. How easy it should be, given the money, talent, and need in the world, to build an online network that enables the best people from about the world to collaborate on climate action solutions.

This is our vision. It is neither radical nor extreme. It is necessary, plain and simple.

Join us on November 14, 2010, as we continue this world-changing adventure. The venue is an open collaboration staging area: http://movementcamp.org. There will be sessions devoted to BetterMeans/Open Enterprise Manifesto, the Global Innovation Commons, and more. You’ll be able to upload image and video files and contribute to real time chat. There will be live interviews and webcasts, with an audio stream component for participants in low-bandwidth zones. Our facilitators will work to summarize developments and keep you up to speed.

Coalition Movement Camp II: Connecting the Dots will run from 2.00pm to 6pm EST. International start times: 7.00pm London, 11.00am Los Angeles, 2.00pm NYC, 6.00am Sydney (Nov 15). Enlist here: http://cotw.me/enlist (Local Start Times: http://cotw.me/cmc2starttime)

If you’d like to send a video shout out or presentation to Coalition Movement Camp participants, we welcome pre-recorded content. Please submit links to Vimeo or Youtube content by Friday November 12, 5.00pm Los Angeles time, and we’ll include suitable material on the Coalition Movement Camp blog. Submit these to: tropology at gmail dot com. Submitted content should include a summary paragraph, with links to more information.

If you are ready to roll up your sleeves and join in this work, see the Coalition Portal for an orientation: http://cotw.cc/

Coalition Movement Camp II: Connecting the Dots

Digital Inclusion and Green Wikis

Monday, October 11th, 2010

Chicago COUNTs - Sept 12, <a href=link
site 2010 Event Flyer” />
Chicago COUNTs - Sept 12, <a href=link
site 2010 Event Flyer” />
Chicago COUNTs - Sept 12, <a href=link
site 2010 Event Flyer” />
mind
2010 Event Flyer” />
Join us this Sunday for Chicago COUNTs – a NetSquared Camp! Great for non-profit and social benefit sector and for socially-minded technologists and media mavens.

In the afternoon I’ll be co-facilitating an Open Stewardship Session.

Chicago COUNTs - Sept 12, <a href=sildenafil cost 2010 Event Flyer” />
Join us this Sunday for Chicago COUNTs – a NetSquared Camp! Great for non-profit and social benefit sector and for socially-minded technologists and media mavens.

In the afternoon I’ll be co-facilitating an Open Stewardship Session.

Chicago COUNTs - Sept 12, <a href=sildenafil cost 2010 Event Flyer” />
This has been a big week. On the very day Mayor Daley announced he would not seek another term, pill Tim Rayner and I issued the first public statement on Open Stewardship – the fruit of many years labor on my part. We collaborated on the document using real-time simultaneous edits from opposite ends of the globe. It was truly a pleasure working with another Philosopher and writer committed to action in the world, case and I am tremendously grateful for Tim’s support and his embrace of the model in the Coalition’s work.

This first statement on Open Stewardship is crafted along the lines of an invitation – an invitation to Stewardship. It addresses the audience of the Coalition of the Willing film authored by Tim and produced in an innovative collaborative process led by Simon Robson, and released appropriately in waves.

Open Stewardship has been taken up enthusiastically by my colleagues in the Digital Excellence movement as an expression of the principles that have guided our work since the beginning of our early work towards a Community Benefits Agreement (never realized) and the architecting of the Principles for Digital Excellence. Together we look to the landscape in Chicago and out to the wider global community technology movement and see great opportunity for new models of cooperation and the development of commonly held resources that transform the information-action ecology.

At the Chicago COUNTs NetSquared Camp @IIT (Sept. 12) some friends and I will be facilitating an Open Stewardship Session in the afternoon (from 2-4pm), hoping to arrive at a comparable invitation to Stewardship and field-building in the Chicago Social Benefit Sector. Join us and together we will set the stage for a Chicago Revival.

Open Stewardship is my life’s work, and I invite you to engage me on this.

Join us this Sunday for Chicago COUNTs – a NetSquared Camp! Great for non-profit and social benefit sector and for socially-minded technologists and media mavens.

In the afternoon I’ll be co-facilitating an Open Stewardship Session.

Chicago COUNTs - Sept 12, <a href=sildenafil cost 2010 Event Flyer” />
This has been a big week. On the very day Mayor Daley announced he would not seek another term, pill Tim Rayner and I issued the first public statement on Open Stewardship – the fruit of many years labor on my part. We collaborated on the document using real-time simultaneous edits from opposite ends of the globe. It was truly a pleasure working with another Philosopher and writer committed to action in the world, case and I am tremendously grateful for Tim’s support and his embrace of the model in the Coalition’s work.

This first statement on Open Stewardship is crafted along the lines of an invitation – an invitation to Stewardship. It addresses the audience of the Coalition of the Willing film authored by Tim and produced in an innovative collaborative process led by Simon Robson, and released appropriately in waves.

Open Stewardship has been taken up enthusiastically by my colleagues in the Digital Excellence movement as an expression of the principles that have guided our work since the beginning of our early work towards a Community Benefits Agreement (never realized) and the architecting of the Principles for Digital Excellence. Together we look to the landscape in Chicago and out to the wider global community technology movement and see great opportunity for new models of cooperation and the development of commonly held resources that transform the information-action ecology.

At the Chicago COUNTs NetSquared Camp @IIT (Sept. 12) some friends and I will be facilitating an Open Stewardship Session in the afternoon (from 2-4pm), hoping to arrive at a comparable invitation to Stewardship and field-building in the Chicago Social Benefit Sector. Join us and together we will set the stage for a Chicago Revival.

Open Stewardship is my life’s work, and I invite you to engage me on this.

This has been a big week. Tim Rayner and I issued the first public statement on Open Stewardship – the fruit of many years labor on my part. We collaborated on the document using real-time simultaneous edits from opposite ends of the globe. It was truly a pleasure working with another Philosopher and writer, medicine committed to action in the world, gerontologist and I am tremendously grateful for Tim’s contribution.

This first statement on Open Stewardship is crafted along the lines of an invitation – an invitation to Stewardship. It addresses the audience of the Coalition of the Willing film authored by Tim and produced in an innovative collaborative process led by Simon Robson, and released appropriately in waves.

Open Stewardship has been taken up enthusiastically by my colleagues in the Digital Excellence movement as an expression of the principles that have guided our work since the beginning of our early work towards a Community Benefits Agreement (never realized) and the architecting of the Principles for Digital Excellence. Together we look to the landscape in Chicago and out to the wider global community technology movement and see great opportunity for new models of cooperation and the development of commonly held resources.

T
Join us this Sunday for Chicago COUNTs – a NetSquared Camp! Great for non-profit and social benefit sector and for socially-minded technologists and media mavens.

In the afternoon I’ll be co-facilitating an Open Stewardship Session.

Chicago COUNTs - Sept 12, <a href=sildenafil cost 2010 Event Flyer” />
This has been a big week. On the very day Mayor Daley announced he would not seek another term, pill Tim Rayner and I issued the first public statement on Open Stewardship – the fruit of many years labor on my part. We collaborated on the document using real-time simultaneous edits from opposite ends of the globe. It was truly a pleasure working with another Philosopher and writer committed to action in the world, case and I am tremendously grateful for Tim’s support and his embrace of the model in the Coalition’s work.

This first statement on Open Stewardship is crafted along the lines of an invitation – an invitation to Stewardship. It addresses the audience of the Coalition of the Willing film authored by Tim and produced in an innovative collaborative process led by Simon Robson, and released appropriately in waves.

Open Stewardship has been taken up enthusiastically by my colleagues in the Digital Excellence movement as an expression of the principles that have guided our work since the beginning of our early work towards a Community Benefits Agreement (never realized) and the architecting of the Principles for Digital Excellence. Together we look to the landscape in Chicago and out to the wider global community technology movement and see great opportunity for new models of cooperation and the development of commonly held resources that transform the information-action ecology.

At the Chicago COUNTs NetSquared Camp @IIT (Sept. 12) some friends and I will be facilitating an Open Stewardship Session in the afternoon (from 2-4pm), hoping to arrive at a comparable invitation to Stewardship and field-building in the Chicago Social Benefit Sector. Join us and together we will set the stage for a Chicago Revival.

Open Stewardship is my life’s work, and I invite you to engage me on this.

This has been a big week. Tim Rayner and I issued the first public statement on Open Stewardship – the fruit of many years labor on my part. We collaborated on the document using real-time simultaneous edits from opposite ends of the globe. It was truly a pleasure working with another Philosopher and writer, medicine committed to action in the world, gerontologist and I am tremendously grateful for Tim’s contribution.

This first statement on Open Stewardship is crafted along the lines of an invitation – an invitation to Stewardship. It addresses the audience of the Coalition of the Willing film authored by Tim and produced in an innovative collaborative process led by Simon Robson, and released appropriately in waves.

Open Stewardship has been taken up enthusiastically by my colleagues in the Digital Excellence movement as an expression of the principles that have guided our work since the beginning of our early work towards a Community Benefits Agreement (never realized) and the architecting of the Principles for Digital Excellence. Together we look to the landscape in Chicago and out to the wider global community technology movement and see great opportunity for new models of cooperation and the development of commonly held resources.

T
This has been a big week. On the very day Mayor Daley announced he would . Tim Rayner and I issued the first public statement on Open Stewardship – the fruit of many years labor on my part. We collaborated on the document using real-time simultaneous edits from opposite ends of the globe. It was truly a pleasure working with another Philosopher and writer committed to action in the world, hospital and I am tremendously grateful for Tim’s support and his embrace of the model in the Coalition’s work.

This first statement on Open Stewardship is crafted along the lines of an invitation – an invitation to Stewardship. It addresses the audience of the Coalition of the Willing film authored by Tim and produced in an innovative collaborative process led by Simon Robson, therapy and released appropriately in waves.

Open Stewardship has been taken up enthusiastically by my colleagues in the Digital Excellence movement as an expression of the principles that have guided our work since the beginning of our early work towards a Community Benefits Agreement (never realized) and the architecting of the Principles for Digital Excellence. Together we look to the landscape in Chicago and out to the wider global community technology movement and see great opportunity for new models of cooperation and the development of commonly held resources.

Join us this Sunday for Chicago COUNTs – a NetSquared Camp! Great for non-profit and social benefit sector and for socially-minded technologists and media mavens.

In the afternoon I’ll be co-facilitating an Open Stewardship Session.

Chicago COUNTs - Sept 12, <a href=sildenafil cost 2010 Event Flyer” />
This has been a big week. On the very day Mayor Daley announced he would not seek another term, pill Tim Rayner and I issued the first public statement on Open Stewardship – the fruit of many years labor on my part. We collaborated on the document using real-time simultaneous edits from opposite ends of the globe. It was truly a pleasure working with another Philosopher and writer committed to action in the world, case and I am tremendously grateful for Tim’s support and his embrace of the model in the Coalition’s work.

This first statement on Open Stewardship is crafted along the lines of an invitation – an invitation to Stewardship. It addresses the audience of the Coalition of the Willing film authored by Tim and produced in an innovative collaborative process led by Simon Robson, and released appropriately in waves.

Open Stewardship has been taken up enthusiastically by my colleagues in the Digital Excellence movement as an expression of the principles that have guided our work since the beginning of our early work towards a Community Benefits Agreement (never realized) and the architecting of the Principles for Digital Excellence. Together we look to the landscape in Chicago and out to the wider global community technology movement and see great opportunity for new models of cooperation and the development of commonly held resources that transform the information-action ecology.

At the Chicago COUNTs NetSquared Camp @IIT (Sept. 12) some friends and I will be facilitating an Open Stewardship Session in the afternoon (from 2-4pm), hoping to arrive at a comparable invitation to Stewardship and field-building in the Chicago Social Benefit Sector. Join us and together we will set the stage for a Chicago Revival.

Open Stewardship is my life’s work, and I invite you to engage me on this.

This has been a big week. Tim Rayner and I issued the first public statement on Open Stewardship – the fruit of many years labor on my part. We collaborated on the document using real-time simultaneous edits from opposite ends of the globe. It was truly a pleasure working with another Philosopher and writer, medicine committed to action in the world, gerontologist and I am tremendously grateful for Tim’s contribution.

This first statement on Open Stewardship is crafted along the lines of an invitation – an invitation to Stewardship. It addresses the audience of the Coalition of the Willing film authored by Tim and produced in an innovative collaborative process led by Simon Robson, and released appropriately in waves.

Open Stewardship has been taken up enthusiastically by my colleagues in the Digital Excellence movement as an expression of the principles that have guided our work since the beginning of our early work towards a Community Benefits Agreement (never realized) and the architecting of the Principles for Digital Excellence. Together we look to the landscape in Chicago and out to the wider global community technology movement and see great opportunity for new models of cooperation and the development of commonly held resources.

T
This has been a big week. On the very day Mayor Daley announced he would . Tim Rayner and I issued the first public statement on Open Stewardship – the fruit of many years labor on my part. We collaborated on the document using real-time simultaneous edits from opposite ends of the globe. It was truly a pleasure working with another Philosopher and writer committed to action in the world, hospital and I am tremendously grateful for Tim’s support and his embrace of the model in the Coalition’s work.

This first statement on Open Stewardship is crafted along the lines of an invitation – an invitation to Stewardship. It addresses the audience of the Coalition of the Willing film authored by Tim and produced in an innovative collaborative process led by Simon Robson, therapy and released appropriately in waves.

Open Stewardship has been taken up enthusiastically by my colleagues in the Digital Excellence movement as an expression of the principles that have guided our work since the beginning of our early work towards a Community Benefits Agreement (never realized) and the architecting of the Principles for Digital Excellence. Together we look to the landscape in Chicago and out to the wider global community technology movement and see great opportunity for new models of cooperation and the development of commonly held resources.

This has been a big week. On the very day Mayor Daley announced he would not seek another term, health Tim Rayner and I issued the first public statement on Open Stewardship – the fruit of many years labor on my part. We collaborated on the document using real-time simultaneous edits from opposite ends of the globe. It was truly a pleasure working with another Philosopher and writer committed to action in the world, food and I am tremendously grateful for Tim’s support and his embrace of the model in the Coalition‘s work.

This first statement on Open Stewardship is crafted along the lines of an invitation – an invitation to Stewardship. It addresses the audience of the Coalition of the Willing film authored by Tim and produced in an innovative collaborative process led by Simon Robson, migraine and released appropriately in waves.

Open Stewardship has been taken up enthusiastically by my colleagues in the Digital Excellence movement as an expression of the principles that have guided our work since the beginning of our early work towards a Community Benefits Agreement (never realized) and the architecting of the Principles for Digital Excellence. Together we look to the landscape in Chicago and out to the wider global community technology movement and see great opportunity for new models of cooperation and the development of commonly held resources.

At the Chicago COUNTs NetSquared Camp @IIT (Sept. 12) some friends and I will be facilitating an Open Stewardship Session in the afternoon (from 2-4pm), hoping to arrive at a comparable invitation to Stewardship and field-building in the Chicago Social Benefit Sector. Join us and together we will set the stage for a Chicago Revival.

This is my life’s work, and I invite you to engage me on this. Open Stewardship

Join us this Sunday for Chicago COUNTs – a NetSquared Camp! Great for non-profit and social benefit sector and for socially-minded technologists and media mavens.

In the afternoon I’ll be co-facilitating an Open Stewardship Session.

Chicago COUNTs - Sept 12, <a href=sildenafil cost 2010 Event Flyer” />
This has been a big week. On the very day Mayor Daley announced he would not seek another term, pill Tim Rayner and I issued the first public statement on Open Stewardship – the fruit of many years labor on my part. We collaborated on the document using real-time simultaneous edits from opposite ends of the globe. It was truly a pleasure working with another Philosopher and writer committed to action in the world, case and I am tremendously grateful for Tim’s support and his embrace of the model in the Coalition’s work.

This first statement on Open Stewardship is crafted along the lines of an invitation – an invitation to Stewardship. It addresses the audience of the Coalition of the Willing film authored by Tim and produced in an innovative collaborative process led by Simon Robson, and released appropriately in waves.

Open Stewardship has been taken up enthusiastically by my colleagues in the Digital Excellence movement as an expression of the principles that have guided our work since the beginning of our early work towards a Community Benefits Agreement (never realized) and the architecting of the Principles for Digital Excellence. Together we look to the landscape in Chicago and out to the wider global community technology movement and see great opportunity for new models of cooperation and the development of commonly held resources that transform the information-action ecology.

At the Chicago COUNTs NetSquared Camp @IIT (Sept. 12) some friends and I will be facilitating an Open Stewardship Session in the afternoon (from 2-4pm), hoping to arrive at a comparable invitation to Stewardship and field-building in the Chicago Social Benefit Sector. Join us and together we will set the stage for a Chicago Revival.

Open Stewardship is my life’s work, and I invite you to engage me on this.

This has been a big week. Tim Rayner and I issued the first public statement on Open Stewardship – the fruit of many years labor on my part. We collaborated on the document using real-time simultaneous edits from opposite ends of the globe. It was truly a pleasure working with another Philosopher and writer, medicine committed to action in the world, gerontologist and I am tremendously grateful for Tim’s contribution.

This first statement on Open Stewardship is crafted along the lines of an invitation – an invitation to Stewardship. It addresses the audience of the Coalition of the Willing film authored by Tim and produced in an innovative collaborative process led by Simon Robson, and released appropriately in waves.

Open Stewardship has been taken up enthusiastically by my colleagues in the Digital Excellence movement as an expression of the principles that have guided our work since the beginning of our early work towards a Community Benefits Agreement (never realized) and the architecting of the Principles for Digital Excellence. Together we look to the landscape in Chicago and out to the wider global community technology movement and see great opportunity for new models of cooperation and the development of commonly held resources.

T
This has been a big week. On the very day Mayor Daley announced he would . Tim Rayner and I issued the first public statement on Open Stewardship – the fruit of many years labor on my part. We collaborated on the document using real-time simultaneous edits from opposite ends of the globe. It was truly a pleasure working with another Philosopher and writer committed to action in the world, hospital and I am tremendously grateful for Tim’s support and his embrace of the model in the Coalition’s work.

This first statement on Open Stewardship is crafted along the lines of an invitation – an invitation to Stewardship. It addresses the audience of the Coalition of the Willing film authored by Tim and produced in an innovative collaborative process led by Simon Robson, therapy and released appropriately in waves.

Open Stewardship has been taken up enthusiastically by my colleagues in the Digital Excellence movement as an expression of the principles that have guided our work since the beginning of our early work towards a Community Benefits Agreement (never realized) and the architecting of the Principles for Digital Excellence. Together we look to the landscape in Chicago and out to the wider global community technology movement and see great opportunity for new models of cooperation and the development of commonly held resources.

This has been a big week. On the very day Mayor Daley announced he would not seek another term, health Tim Rayner and I issued the first public statement on Open Stewardship – the fruit of many years labor on my part. We collaborated on the document using real-time simultaneous edits from opposite ends of the globe. It was truly a pleasure working with another Philosopher and writer committed to action in the world, food and I am tremendously grateful for Tim’s support and his embrace of the model in the Coalition‘s work.

This first statement on Open Stewardship is crafted along the lines of an invitation – an invitation to Stewardship. It addresses the audience of the Coalition of the Willing film authored by Tim and produced in an innovative collaborative process led by Simon Robson, migraine and released appropriately in waves.

Open Stewardship has been taken up enthusiastically by my colleagues in the Digital Excellence movement as an expression of the principles that have guided our work since the beginning of our early work towards a Community Benefits Agreement (never realized) and the architecting of the Principles for Digital Excellence. Together we look to the landscape in Chicago and out to the wider global community technology movement and see great opportunity for new models of cooperation and the development of commonly held resources.

At the Chicago COUNTs NetSquared Camp @IIT (Sept. 12) some friends and I will be facilitating an Open Stewardship Session in the afternoon (from 2-4pm), hoping to arrive at a comparable invitation to Stewardship and field-building in the Chicago Social Benefit Sector. Join us and together we will set the stage for a Chicago Revival.

This is my life’s work, and I invite you to engage me on this. Open Stewardship

This has been a big week. On the very day Mayor Daley announced he would seek another term, syringe Tim Rayner and I issued the first public statement on Open Stewardship – the fruit of many years labor on my part. We collaborated on the document using real-time simultaneous edits from opposite ends of the globe. It was truly a pleasure working with another Philosopher and writer committed to action in the world, healing and I am tremendously grateful for Tim’s support and his embrace of the model in the Coalition’s work.

This first statement on Open Stewardship is crafted along the lines of an invitation – an invitation to Stewardship. It addresses the audience of the Coalition of the Willing film authored by Tim and produced in an innovative collaborative process led by Simon Robson, order and released appropriately in waves.

Open Stewardship has been taken up enthusiastically by my colleagues in the Digital Excellence movement as an expression of the principles that have guided our work since the beginning of our early work towards a Community Benefits Agreement (never realized) and the architecting of the Principles for Digital Excellence. Together we look to the landscape in Chicago and out to the wider global community technology movement and see great opportunity for new models of cooperation and the development of commonly held resources.

Join us this Sunday for Chicago COUNTs – a NetSquared Camp! Great for non-profit and social benefit sector and for socially-minded technologists and media mavens.

In the afternoon I’ll be co-facilitating an Open Stewardship Session.

Chicago COUNTs - Sept 12, <a href=sildenafil cost 2010 Event Flyer” />
This has been a big week. On the very day Mayor Daley announced he would not seek another term, pill Tim Rayner and I issued the first public statement on Open Stewardship – the fruit of many years labor on my part. We collaborated on the document using real-time simultaneous edits from opposite ends of the globe. It was truly a pleasure working with another Philosopher and writer committed to action in the world, case and I am tremendously grateful for Tim’s support and his embrace of the model in the Coalition’s work.

This first statement on Open Stewardship is crafted along the lines of an invitation – an invitation to Stewardship. It addresses the audience of the Coalition of the Willing film authored by Tim and produced in an innovative collaborative process led by Simon Robson, and released appropriately in waves.

Open Stewardship has been taken up enthusiastically by my colleagues in the Digital Excellence movement as an expression of the principles that have guided our work since the beginning of our early work towards a Community Benefits Agreement (never realized) and the architecting of the Principles for Digital Excellence. Together we look to the landscape in Chicago and out to the wider global community technology movement and see great opportunity for new models of cooperation and the development of commonly held resources that transform the information-action ecology.

At the Chicago COUNTs NetSquared Camp @IIT (Sept. 12) some friends and I will be facilitating an Open Stewardship Session in the afternoon (from 2-4pm), hoping to arrive at a comparable invitation to Stewardship and field-building in the Chicago Social Benefit Sector. Join us and together we will set the stage for a Chicago Revival.

Open Stewardship is my life’s work, and I invite you to engage me on this.

This has been a big week. Tim Rayner and I issued the first public statement on Open Stewardship – the fruit of many years labor on my part. We collaborated on the document using real-time simultaneous edits from opposite ends of the globe. It was truly a pleasure working with another Philosopher and writer, medicine committed to action in the world, gerontologist and I am tremendously grateful for Tim’s contribution.

This first statement on Open Stewardship is crafted along the lines of an invitation – an invitation to Stewardship. It addresses the audience of the Coalition of the Willing film authored by Tim and produced in an innovative collaborative process led by Simon Robson, and released appropriately in waves.

Open Stewardship has been taken up enthusiastically by my colleagues in the Digital Excellence movement as an expression of the principles that have guided our work since the beginning of our early work towards a Community Benefits Agreement (never realized) and the architecting of the Principles for Digital Excellence. Together we look to the landscape in Chicago and out to the wider global community technology movement and see great opportunity for new models of cooperation and the development of commonly held resources.

T
This has been a big week. On the very day Mayor Daley announced he would . Tim Rayner and I issued the first public statement on Open Stewardship – the fruit of many years labor on my part. We collaborated on the document using real-time simultaneous edits from opposite ends of the globe. It was truly a pleasure working with another Philosopher and writer committed to action in the world, hospital and I am tremendously grateful for Tim’s support and his embrace of the model in the Coalition’s work.

This first statement on Open Stewardship is crafted along the lines of an invitation – an invitation to Stewardship. It addresses the audience of the Coalition of the Willing film authored by Tim and produced in an innovative collaborative process led by Simon Robson, therapy and released appropriately in waves.

Open Stewardship has been taken up enthusiastically by my colleagues in the Digital Excellence movement as an expression of the principles that have guided our work since the beginning of our early work towards a Community Benefits Agreement (never realized) and the architecting of the Principles for Digital Excellence. Together we look to the landscape in Chicago and out to the wider global community technology movement and see great opportunity for new models of cooperation and the development of commonly held resources.

This has been a big week. On the very day Mayor Daley announced he would not seek another term, health Tim Rayner and I issued the first public statement on Open Stewardship – the fruit of many years labor on my part. We collaborated on the document using real-time simultaneous edits from opposite ends of the globe. It was truly a pleasure working with another Philosopher and writer committed to action in the world, food and I am tremendously grateful for Tim’s support and his embrace of the model in the Coalition‘s work.

This first statement on Open Stewardship is crafted along the lines of an invitation – an invitation to Stewardship. It addresses the audience of the Coalition of the Willing film authored by Tim and produced in an innovative collaborative process led by Simon Robson, migraine and released appropriately in waves.

Open Stewardship has been taken up enthusiastically by my colleagues in the Digital Excellence movement as an expression of the principles that have guided our work since the beginning of our early work towards a Community Benefits Agreement (never realized) and the architecting of the Principles for Digital Excellence. Together we look to the landscape in Chicago and out to the wider global community technology movement and see great opportunity for new models of cooperation and the development of commonly held resources.

At the Chicago COUNTs NetSquared Camp @IIT (Sept. 12) some friends and I will be facilitating an Open Stewardship Session in the afternoon (from 2-4pm), hoping to arrive at a comparable invitation to Stewardship and field-building in the Chicago Social Benefit Sector. Join us and together we will set the stage for a Chicago Revival.

This is my life’s work, and I invite you to engage me on this. Open Stewardship

This has been a big week. On the very day Mayor Daley announced he would seek another term, syringe Tim Rayner and I issued the first public statement on Open Stewardship – the fruit of many years labor on my part. We collaborated on the document using real-time simultaneous edits from opposite ends of the globe. It was truly a pleasure working with another Philosopher and writer committed to action in the world, healing and I am tremendously grateful for Tim’s support and his embrace of the model in the Coalition’s work.

This first statement on Open Stewardship is crafted along the lines of an invitation – an invitation to Stewardship. It addresses the audience of the Coalition of the Willing film authored by Tim and produced in an innovative collaborative process led by Simon Robson, order and released appropriately in waves.

Open Stewardship has been taken up enthusiastically by my colleagues in the Digital Excellence movement as an expression of the principles that have guided our work since the beginning of our early work towards a Community Benefits Agreement (never realized) and the architecting of the Principles for Digital Excellence. Together we look to the landscape in Chicago and out to the wider global community technology movement and see great opportunity for new models of cooperation and the development of commonly held resources.

This has been a big week. On the very day Mayor Daley announced he would not seek another term, traumatologist Tim Rayner and I issued the first public statement on Open Stewardship – the fruit of many years labor on my part. We collaborated on the document using real-time simultaneous edits from opposite ends of the globe. It was truly a pleasure working with another Philosopher and writer committed to action in the world, generic and I am tremendously grateful for Tim’s support and his embrace of the model in the Coalition‘s work.

This first statement on Open Stewardship is crafted along the lines of an invitation – an invitation to Stewardship. It addresses the audience of the Coalition of the Willing film authored by Tim and produced in an innovative collaborative process led by Simon Robson, and released appropriately in waves.

Open Stewardship has been taken up enthusiastically by my colleagues in the Digital Excellence movement as an expression of the principles that have guided our work since the beginning of our early work towards a Community Benefits Agreement (never realized) and the architecting of the Principles for Digital Excellence. Together we look to the landscape in Chicago and out to the wider global community technology movement and see great opportunity for new models of cooperation and the development of commonly held resources.

At the Chicago COUNTs NetSquared Camp @IIT (Sept. 12) some friends and I will be facilitating an Open Stewardship Session in the afternoon (from 2-4pm), hoping to arrive at a comparable invitation to Stewardship and field-building in the Chicago Social Benefit Sector. Join us and together we will set the stage for a Chicago Revival.

Join us this Sunday for Chicago COUNTs – a NetSquared Camp! Great for non-profit and social benefit sector and for socially-minded technologists and media mavens.

In the afternoon I’ll be co-facilitating an Open Stewardship Session.

Chicago COUNTs - Sept 12, <a href=sildenafil cost 2010 Event Flyer” />
This has been a big week. On the very day Mayor Daley announced he would not seek another term, pill Tim Rayner and I issued the first public statement on Open Stewardship – the fruit of many years labor on my part. We collaborated on the document using real-time simultaneous edits from opposite ends of the globe. It was truly a pleasure working with another Philosopher and writer committed to action in the world, case and I am tremendously grateful for Tim’s support and his embrace of the model in the Coalition’s work.

This first statement on Open Stewardship is crafted along the lines of an invitation – an invitation to Stewardship. It addresses the audience of the Coalition of the Willing film authored by Tim and produced in an innovative collaborative process led by Simon Robson, and released appropriately in waves.

Open Stewardship has been taken up enthusiastically by my colleagues in the Digital Excellence movement as an expression of the principles that have guided our work since the beginning of our early work towards a Community Benefits Agreement (never realized) and the architecting of the Principles for Digital Excellence. Together we look to the landscape in Chicago and out to the wider global community technology movement and see great opportunity for new models of cooperation and the development of commonly held resources that transform the information-action ecology.

At the Chicago COUNTs NetSquared Camp @IIT (Sept. 12) some friends and I will be facilitating an Open Stewardship Session in the afternoon (from 2-4pm), hoping to arrive at a comparable invitation to Stewardship and field-building in the Chicago Social Benefit Sector. Join us and together we will set the stage for a Chicago Revival.

Open Stewardship is my life’s work, and I invite you to engage me on this.

This has been a big week. Tim Rayner and I issued the first public statement on Open Stewardship – the fruit of many years labor on my part. We collaborated on the document using real-time simultaneous edits from opposite ends of the globe. It was truly a pleasure working with another Philosopher and writer, medicine committed to action in the world, gerontologist and I am tremendously grateful for Tim’s contribution.

This first statement on Open Stewardship is crafted along the lines of an invitation – an invitation to Stewardship. It addresses the audience of the Coalition of the Willing film authored by Tim and produced in an innovative collaborative process led by Simon Robson, and released appropriately in waves.

Open Stewardship has been taken up enthusiastically by my colleagues in the Digital Excellence movement as an expression of the principles that have guided our work since the beginning of our early work towards a Community Benefits Agreement (never realized) and the architecting of the Principles for Digital Excellence. Together we look to the landscape in Chicago and out to the wider global community technology movement and see great opportunity for new models of cooperation and the development of commonly held resources.

T
This has been a big week. On the very day Mayor Daley announced he would . Tim Rayner and I issued the first public statement on Open Stewardship – the fruit of many years labor on my part. We collaborated on the document using real-time simultaneous edits from opposite ends of the globe. It was truly a pleasure working with another Philosopher and writer committed to action in the world, hospital and I am tremendously grateful for Tim’s support and his embrace of the model in the Coalition’s work.

This first statement on Open Stewardship is crafted along the lines of an invitation – an invitation to Stewardship. It addresses the audience of the Coalition of the Willing film authored by Tim and produced in an innovative collaborative process led by Simon Robson, therapy and released appropriately in waves.

Open Stewardship has been taken up enthusiastically by my colleagues in the Digital Excellence movement as an expression of the principles that have guided our work since the beginning of our early work towards a Community Benefits Agreement (never realized) and the architecting of the Principles for Digital Excellence. Together we look to the landscape in Chicago and out to the wider global community technology movement and see great opportunity for new models of cooperation and the development of commonly held resources.

This has been a big week. On the very day Mayor Daley announced he would not seek another term, health Tim Rayner and I issued the first public statement on Open Stewardship – the fruit of many years labor on my part. We collaborated on the document using real-time simultaneous edits from opposite ends of the globe. It was truly a pleasure working with another Philosopher and writer committed to action in the world, food and I am tremendously grateful for Tim’s support and his embrace of the model in the Coalition‘s work.

This first statement on Open Stewardship is crafted along the lines of an invitation – an invitation to Stewardship. It addresses the audience of the Coalition of the Willing film authored by Tim and produced in an innovative collaborative process led by Simon Robson, migraine and released appropriately in waves.

Open Stewardship has been taken up enthusiastically by my colleagues in the Digital Excellence movement as an expression of the principles that have guided our work since the beginning of our early work towards a Community Benefits Agreement (never realized) and the architecting of the Principles for Digital Excellence. Together we look to the landscape in Chicago and out to the wider global community technology movement and see great opportunity for new models of cooperation and the development of commonly held resources.

At the Chicago COUNTs NetSquared Camp @IIT (Sept. 12) some friends and I will be facilitating an Open Stewardship Session in the afternoon (from 2-4pm), hoping to arrive at a comparable invitation to Stewardship and field-building in the Chicago Social Benefit Sector. Join us and together we will set the stage for a Chicago Revival.

This is my life’s work, and I invite you to engage me on this. Open Stewardship

This has been a big week. On the very day Mayor Daley announced he would seek another term, syringe Tim Rayner and I issued the first public statement on Open Stewardship – the fruit of many years labor on my part. We collaborated on the document using real-time simultaneous edits from opposite ends of the globe. It was truly a pleasure working with another Philosopher and writer committed to action in the world, healing and I am tremendously grateful for Tim’s support and his embrace of the model in the Coalition’s work.

This first statement on Open Stewardship is crafted along the lines of an invitation – an invitation to Stewardship. It addresses the audience of the Coalition of the Willing film authored by Tim and produced in an innovative collaborative process led by Simon Robson, order and released appropriately in waves.

Open Stewardship has been taken up enthusiastically by my colleagues in the Digital Excellence movement as an expression of the principles that have guided our work since the beginning of our early work towards a Community Benefits Agreement (never realized) and the architecting of the Principles for Digital Excellence. Together we look to the landscape in Chicago and out to the wider global community technology movement and see great opportunity for new models of cooperation and the development of commonly held resources.

This has been a big week. On the very day Mayor Daley announced he would not seek another term, traumatologist Tim Rayner and I issued the first public statement on Open Stewardship – the fruit of many years labor on my part. We collaborated on the document using real-time simultaneous edits from opposite ends of the globe. It was truly a pleasure working with another Philosopher and writer committed to action in the world, generic and I am tremendously grateful for Tim’s support and his embrace of the model in the Coalition‘s work.

This first statement on Open Stewardship is crafted along the lines of an invitation – an invitation to Stewardship. It addresses the audience of the Coalition of the Willing film authored by Tim and produced in an innovative collaborative process led by Simon Robson, and released appropriately in waves.

Open Stewardship has been taken up enthusiastically by my colleagues in the Digital Excellence movement as an expression of the principles that have guided our work since the beginning of our early work towards a Community Benefits Agreement (never realized) and the architecting of the Principles for Digital Excellence. Together we look to the landscape in Chicago and out to the wider global community technology movement and see great opportunity for new models of cooperation and the development of commonly held resources.

At the Chicago COUNTs NetSquared Camp @IIT (Sept. 12) some friends and I will be facilitating an Open Stewardship Session in the afternoon (from 2-4pm), hoping to arrive at a comparable invitation to Stewardship and field-building in the Chicago Social Benefit Sector. Join us and together we will set the stage for a Chicago Revival.

This has been a big week. On the very day Mayor Daley announced he would not seek another term, buy information pills Tim Rayner and I issued the first public statement on Open Stewardship – the fruit of many years labor on my part. We collaborated on the document using real-time simultaneous edits from opposite ends of the globe. It was truly a pleasure working with another Philosopher and writer committed to action in the world, pilule and I am tremendously grateful for Tim’s support and his embrace of the model in the Coalition‘s work.

This first statement on Open Stewardship is crafted along the lines of an invitation – an invitation to Stewardship. It addresses the audience of the Coalition of the Willing film authored by Tim and produced in an innovative collaborative process led by Simon Robson, and released appropriately in waves.

Open Stewardship has been taken up enthusiastically by my colleagues in the Digital Excellence movement as an expression of the principles that have guided our work since the beginning of our early work towards a Community Benefits Agreement (never realized) and the architecting of the Principles for Digital Excellence. Together we look to the landscape in Chicago and out to the wider global community technology movement and see great opportunity for new models of cooperation and the development of commonly held resources.

At the Chicago COUNTs NetSquared Camp @IIT (Sept. 12) some friends and I will be facilitating an Open Stewardship Session in the afternoon (from 2-4pm), hoping to arrive at a comparable invitation to Stewardship and field-building in the Chicago Social Benefit Sector. Join us and together we will set the stage for a Chicago Revival.

Open Stewardship is my life’s work, and I invite you to engage me on this.

This has been a big week. On the very day Mayor Daley announced he would not seek another term, salve this site Tim Rayner and I issued the first public statement on Open Stewardship – the fruit of many years labor on my part. We collaborated on the document using real-time simultaneous edits from opposite ends of the globe. It was truly a pleasure working with another Philosopher and writer committed to action in the world, resuscitation and I am tremendously grateful for Tim’s support and his embrace of the model in the Coalition’s work.

This first statement on Open Stewardship is crafted along the lines of an invitation – an invitation to Stewardship. It addresses the audience of the Coalition of the Willing film authored by Tim and produced in an innovative collaborative process led by Simon Robson, migraine and released appropriately in waves.

Open Stewardship has been taken up enthusiastically by my colleagues in the Digital Excellence movement as an expression of the principles that have guided our work since the beginning of our early work towards a Community Benefits Agreement (never realized) and the architecting of the Principles for Digital Excellence. Together we look to the landscape in Chicago and out to the wider global community technology movement and see great opportunity for new models of cooperation and the development of commonly held resources.

At the Chicago COUNTs NetSquared Camp @IIT (Sept. 12) some friends and I will be facilitating an Open Stewardship Session in the afternoon (from 2-4pm), hoping to arrive at a comparable invitation to Stewardship and field-building in the Chicago Social Benefit Sector. Join us and together we will set the stage for a Chicago Revival.

Open Stewardship is my life’s work, and I invite you to engage me on this.

This has been a big week. On the very day Mayor Daley announced he would not seek another term, salve this site Tim Rayner and I issued the first public statement on Open Stewardship – the fruit of many years labor on my part. We collaborated on the document using real-time simultaneous edits from opposite ends of the globe. It was truly a pleasure working with another Philosopher and writer committed to action in the world, resuscitation and I am tremendously grateful for Tim’s support and his embrace of the model in the Coalition’s work.

This first statement on Open Stewardship is crafted along the lines of an invitation – an invitation to Stewardship. It addresses the audience of the Coalition of the Willing film authored by Tim and produced in an innovative collaborative process led by Simon Robson, migraine and released appropriately in waves.

Open Stewardship has been taken up enthusiastically by my colleagues in the Digital Excellence movement as an expression of the principles that have guided our work since the beginning of our early work towards a Community Benefits Agreement (never realized) and the architecting of the Principles for Digital Excellence. Together we look to the landscape in Chicago and out to the wider global community technology movement and see great opportunity for new models of cooperation and the development of commonly held resources.

At the Chicago COUNTs NetSquared Camp @IIT (Sept. 12) some friends and I will be facilitating an Open Stewardship Session in the afternoon (from 2-4pm), hoping to arrive at a comparable invitation to Stewardship and field-building in the Chicago Social Benefit Sector. Join us and together we will set the stage for a Chicago Revival.

Open Stewardship is my life’s work, and I invite you to engage me on this.

What’s wry about these things, viagra order my writings? Don’t wrythe or groan. Write back.


wrythings is written by Michael Maranda
Facebook me!
This has been a big week. On the very day Mayor Daley announced he would not seek another term, salve this site Tim Rayner and I issued the first public statement on Open Stewardship – the fruit of many years labor on my part. We collaborated on the document using real-time simultaneous edits from opposite ends of the globe. It was truly a pleasure working with another Philosopher and writer committed to action in the world, resuscitation and I am tremendously grateful for Tim’s support and his embrace of the model in the Coalition’s work.

This first statement on Open Stewardship is crafted along the lines of an invitation – an invitation to Stewardship. It addresses the audience of the Coalition of the Willing film authored by Tim and produced in an innovative collaborative process led by Simon Robson, migraine and released appropriately in waves.

Open Stewardship has been taken up enthusiastically by my colleagues in the Digital Excellence movement as an expression of the principles that have guided our work since the beginning of our early work towards a Community Benefits Agreement (never realized) and the architecting of the Principles for Digital Excellence. Together we look to the landscape in Chicago and out to the wider global community technology movement and see great opportunity for new models of cooperation and the development of commonly held resources.

At the Chicago COUNTs NetSquared Camp @IIT (Sept. 12) some friends and I will be facilitating an Open Stewardship Session in the afternoon (from 2-4pm), hoping to arrive at a comparable invitation to Stewardship and field-building in the Chicago Social Benefit Sector. Join us and together we will set the stage for a Chicago Revival.

Open Stewardship is my life’s work, and I invite you to engage me on this.

What’s wry about these things, viagra order my writings? Don’t wrythe or groan. Write back.


wrythings is written by Michael Maranda
Facebook me!
Today is One Web Day. I still celebrate it in solidarity with the grassroots web even tho the organization behind it has been merged into the #Drumbeat Initiative. The #Drumbeat initiative is a good thing – because defending and (more importantly) extending the open web is something we do daily.

In honor of One Web Day here’s a call to action addressed to all who feel the absence of the great peer networking organizations and online communities that addressed community technology and networking, find and to those who joined the field since their zenith.

It is time to Rebuild and Reboot the Network!

Pierre Clark has been doing a great job publicizing DEXCON 2010 (October 29) — and as there has been interest in national/regional coordination and collaboration in the absence of major gatherings (such as the CTCNet Conferences) focused on Digital Inclusion/Digital Excellence and the traditional community tech center, otolaryngologist community media and community network concerns, diabetes and pregnancy we’ve put together a quick survey to determine feasibility of a Saturday Session for the Chicago DEXCON event.

We’ve already got several affirmative replies, so it looks like it will very likely happen! (Very exciting and much appreciated)

If you have any interest in re-invigorating the field — please do fill out this survey, and do it soon – we need to plan accordingly, all on volunteer steam (feels like the good old days)! Also, please share the word with anyone else you think may have missed the invitation to the survey or the event. Even if you cannot attend, for whatever reason – please check in with us. We’ll be setting up tools to keep the work moving before and after the event and we want to make sure everyone is involved.

We’re looking forward to a new era of open stewardship for our sector!

Warmest Regards,

Michael Maranda
Co-Founder, CDAA
This has been a big week. On the very day Mayor Daley announced he would not seek another term, salve this site Tim Rayner and I issued the first public statement on Open Stewardship – the fruit of many years labor on my part. We collaborated on the document using real-time simultaneous edits from opposite ends of the globe. It was truly a pleasure working with another Philosopher and writer committed to action in the world, resuscitation and I am tremendously grateful for Tim’s support and his embrace of the model in the Coalition’s work.

This first statement on Open Stewardship is crafted along the lines of an invitation – an invitation to Stewardship. It addresses the audience of the Coalition of the Willing film authored by Tim and produced in an innovative collaborative process led by Simon Robson, migraine and released appropriately in waves.

Open Stewardship has been taken up enthusiastically by my colleagues in the Digital Excellence movement as an expression of the principles that have guided our work since the beginning of our early work towards a Community Benefits Agreement (never realized) and the architecting of the Principles for Digital Excellence. Together we look to the landscape in Chicago and out to the wider global community technology movement and see great opportunity for new models of cooperation and the development of commonly held resources.

At the Chicago COUNTs NetSquared Camp @IIT (Sept. 12) some friends and I will be facilitating an Open Stewardship Session in the afternoon (from 2-4pm), hoping to arrive at a comparable invitation to Stewardship and field-building in the Chicago Social Benefit Sector. Join us and together we will set the stage for a Chicago Revival.

Open Stewardship is my life’s work, and I invite you to engage me on this.

What’s wry about these things, viagra order my writings? Don’t wrythe or groan. Write back.


wrythings is written by Michael Maranda
Facebook me!
Today is One Web Day. I still celebrate it in solidarity with the grassroots web even tho the organization behind it has been merged into the #Drumbeat Initiative. The #Drumbeat initiative is a good thing – because defending and (more importantly) extending the open web is something we do daily.

In honor of One Web Day here’s a call to action addressed to all who feel the absence of the great peer networking organizations and online communities that addressed community technology and networking, find and to those who joined the field since their zenith.

It is time to Rebuild and Reboot the Network!

Pierre Clark has been doing a great job publicizing DEXCON 2010 (October 29) — and as there has been interest in national/regional coordination and collaboration in the absence of major gatherings (such as the CTCNet Conferences) focused on Digital Inclusion/Digital Excellence and the traditional community tech center, otolaryngologist community media and community network concerns, diabetes and pregnancy we’ve put together a quick survey to determine feasibility of a Saturday Session for the Chicago DEXCON event.

We’ve already got several affirmative replies, so it looks like it will very likely happen! (Very exciting and much appreciated)

If you have any interest in re-invigorating the field — please do fill out this survey, and do it soon – we need to plan accordingly, all on volunteer steam (feels like the good old days)! Also, please share the word with anyone else you think may have missed the invitation to the survey or the event. Even if you cannot attend, for whatever reason – please check in with us. We’ll be setting up tools to keep the work moving before and after the event and we want to make sure everyone is involved.

We’re looking forward to a new era of open stewardship for our sector!

Warmest Regards,

Michael Maranda
Co-Founder, CDAA
Today is One Web Day. I still celebrate it in solidarity with the grassroots web even tho the organization behind it has been merged into the #Drumbeat Initiative. The #Drumbeat initiative is a good thing – because defending and (more importantly) extending the open web is something we do daily.

In honor of One Web Day here’s a call to action addressed to all who feel the absence of the great peer networking organizations and online communities that addressed community technology and networking, discount and to those who joined the field since their zenith.

It is time to Rebuild and Reboot the Network!

Pierre Clark has been doing a great job publicizing DEXCON 2010 (October 29) — and as there has been interest in national/regional coordination and collaboration in the absence of major gatherings (such as the CTCNet Conferences) focused on Digital Inclusion/Digital Excellence and the traditional community tech center, community media and community network concerns, we’ve put together a quick survey to determine feasibility of a Saturday Session for the Chicago DEXCON event.

We’ve already got several affirmative replies, so it looks like it will very likely happen! (Very exciting and much appreciated)

If you have any interest in re-invigorating the field — please do fill out this survey, and do it soon – we need to plan accordingly, all on volunteer steam (feels like the good old days)!

Also, please share this call to action with anyone else you think may have missed the invitation to the survey or the event announcement. Even if you cannot attend, for whatever reason – please check in with us. We’ll be setting up tools to keep the work moving before and after the event and we want to make sure everyone is involved.

We’re looking forward to a new era of open stewardship for our sector!

Warmest Regards,

Michael Maranda
Co-Founder, CDAA
This has been a big week. On the very day Mayor Daley announced he would not seek another term, salve this site Tim Rayner and I issued the first public statement on Open Stewardship – the fruit of many years labor on my part. We collaborated on the document using real-time simultaneous edits from opposite ends of the globe. It was truly a pleasure working with another Philosopher and writer committed to action in the world, resuscitation and I am tremendously grateful for Tim’s support and his embrace of the model in the Coalition’s work.

This first statement on Open Stewardship is crafted along the lines of an invitation – an invitation to Stewardship. It addresses the audience of the Coalition of the Willing film authored by Tim and produced in an innovative collaborative process led by Simon Robson, migraine and released appropriately in waves.

Open Stewardship has been taken up enthusiastically by my colleagues in the Digital Excellence movement as an expression of the principles that have guided our work since the beginning of our early work towards a Community Benefits Agreement (never realized) and the architecting of the Principles for Digital Excellence. Together we look to the landscape in Chicago and out to the wider global community technology movement and see great opportunity for new models of cooperation and the development of commonly held resources.

At the Chicago COUNTs NetSquared Camp @IIT (Sept. 12) some friends and I will be facilitating an Open Stewardship Session in the afternoon (from 2-4pm), hoping to arrive at a comparable invitation to Stewardship and field-building in the Chicago Social Benefit Sector. Join us and together we will set the stage for a Chicago Revival.

Open Stewardship is my life’s work, and I invite you to engage me on this.

What’s wry about these things, viagra order my writings? Don’t wrythe or groan. Write back.


wrythings is written by Michael Maranda
Facebook me!
Today is One Web Day. I still celebrate it in solidarity with the grassroots web even tho the organization behind it has been merged into the #Drumbeat Initiative. The #Drumbeat initiative is a good thing – because defending and (more importantly) extending the open web is something we do daily.

In honor of One Web Day here’s a call to action addressed to all who feel the absence of the great peer networking organizations and online communities that addressed community technology and networking, find and to those who joined the field since their zenith.

It is time to Rebuild and Reboot the Network!

Pierre Clark has been doing a great job publicizing DEXCON 2010 (October 29) — and as there has been interest in national/regional coordination and collaboration in the absence of major gatherings (such as the CTCNet Conferences) focused on Digital Inclusion/Digital Excellence and the traditional community tech center, otolaryngologist community media and community network concerns, diabetes and pregnancy we’ve put together a quick survey to determine feasibility of a Saturday Session for the Chicago DEXCON event.

We’ve already got several affirmative replies, so it looks like it will very likely happen! (Very exciting and much appreciated)

If you have any interest in re-invigorating the field — please do fill out this survey, and do it soon – we need to plan accordingly, all on volunteer steam (feels like the good old days)! Also, please share the word with anyone else you think may have missed the invitation to the survey or the event. Even if you cannot attend, for whatever reason – please check in with us. We’ll be setting up tools to keep the work moving before and after the event and we want to make sure everyone is involved.

We’re looking forward to a new era of open stewardship for our sector!

Warmest Regards,

Michael Maranda
Co-Founder, CDAA
Today is One Web Day. I still celebrate it in solidarity with the grassroots web even tho the organization behind it has been merged into the #Drumbeat Initiative. The #Drumbeat initiative is a good thing – because defending and (more importantly) extending the open web is something we do daily.

In honor of One Web Day here’s a call to action addressed to all who feel the absence of the great peer networking organizations and online communities that addressed community technology and networking, discount and to those who joined the field since their zenith.

It is time to Rebuild and Reboot the Network!

Pierre Clark has been doing a great job publicizing DEXCON 2010 (October 29) — and as there has been interest in national/regional coordination and collaboration in the absence of major gatherings (such as the CTCNet Conferences) focused on Digital Inclusion/Digital Excellence and the traditional community tech center, community media and community network concerns, we’ve put together a quick survey to determine feasibility of a Saturday Session for the Chicago DEXCON event.

We’ve already got several affirmative replies, so it looks like it will very likely happen! (Very exciting and much appreciated)

If you have any interest in re-invigorating the field — please do fill out this survey, and do it soon – we need to plan accordingly, all on volunteer steam (feels like the good old days)!

Also, please share this call to action with anyone else you think may have missed the invitation to the survey or the event announcement. Even if you cannot attend, for whatever reason – please check in with us. We’ll be setting up tools to keep the work moving before and after the event and we want to make sure everyone is involved.

We’re looking forward to a new era of open stewardship for our sector!

Warmest Regards,

Michael Maranda
Co-Founder, CDAA
Today is One Web Day. I still celebrate it in solidarity with the grassroots web even tho the organization behind it has been merged into the #Drumbeat Initiative. The #Drumbeat initiative is a good thing – because defending and (more importantly) extending the open web is something we do daily.

In honor of One Web Day here’s a call to action addressed to all who feel the absence of the great peer networking organizations and online communities that addressed community technology and networking, remedy and to those who joined the field since their zenith.

It is time to Rebuild and Reboot the Network!

Pierre Clark has been doing a great job publicizing DEXCON 2010 (October 29) — and as there has been interest in national/regional coordination and collaboration in the absence of major gatherings (such as the CTCNet Conferences) focused on Digital Inclusion/Digital Excellence and the traditional community tech center, community media and community network concerns, we’ve put together a quick survey to determine feasibility of a Saturday Session for the Chicago DEXCON event.

We’ve already got several affirmative replies, so it looks like it will very likely happen! (Very exciting and much appreciated)

If you have any interest in re-invigorating the field — please do fill out this survey, and do it soon – we need to plan accordingly, all on volunteer steam (feels like the good old days)! Also, please share the word with anyone else you think may have missed the invitation to the survey or the event. Even if you cannot attend, for whatever reason – please check in with us. We’ll be setting up tools to keep the work moving before and after the event and we want to make sure everyone is involved.

We’re looking forward to a new era of open stewardship for our sector!

Warmest Regards,

Michael Maranda
Co-Founder, CDAA
Today is One Web Day. I still celebrate it in solidarity with the grassroots web even tho the organization behind it has been merged into the #Drumbeat Initiative. The #Drumbeat initiative is a good thing – because defending and (more importantly) extending the open web is something we do daily.

In honor of One Web Day here’s a call to action addressed to all who feel the absence of the great peer networking organizations and online communities that addressed community technology and networking, site case and to those who joined the field since their zenith.

It is time to Rebuild and Reboot the Network!

Pierre Clark has been doing a great job publicizing DEXCON 2010 (October 29) — and as there has been interest in national/regional coordination and collaboration in the absence of major gatherings (such as the CTCNet Conferences) focused on Digital Inclusion/Digital Excellence and the traditional community tech center, purchase community media and community network concerns, order we’ve put together a quick survey to determine feasibility of a Saturday Session for the Chicago DEXCON event.

We’ve already got several affirmative replies, so it looks like it will very likely happen! (Very exciting and much appreciated)

If you have any interest in re-invigorating the field — please do fill out this survey, and do it soon – we need to plan accordingly, all on volunteer steam (feels like the good old days)! Also, please share the word with anyone else you think may have missed the invitation to the survey or the event. Even if you cannot attend, for whatever reason – please check in with us. We’ll be setting up tools to keep the work moving before and after the event and we want to make sure everyone is involved.

We’re looking forward to a new era of open stewardship for our sector!

Warmest Regards,

Michael Maranda
Co-Founder, CDAA
Today is One Web Day. I still celebrate it in solidarity with the grassroots web even tho the organization behind it has been merged into the #Drumbeat Initiative. The #Drumbeat initiative is a good thing – because defending and (more importantly) extending the open web is something we do daily.

In honor of One Web Day here’s a call to action addressed to all who feel the absence of the great peer networking organizations and online communities that addressed community technology and networking, site case and to those who joined the field since their zenith.

It is time to Rebuild and Reboot the Network!

Pierre Clark has been doing a great job publicizing DEXCON 2010 (October 29) — and as there has been interest in national/regional coordination and collaboration in the absence of major gatherings (such as the CTCNet Conferences) focused on Digital Inclusion/Digital Excellence and the traditional community tech center, purchase community media and community network concerns, order we’ve put together a quick survey to determine feasibility of a Saturday Session for the Chicago DEXCON event.

We’ve already got several affirmative replies, so it looks like it will very likely happen! (Very exciting and much appreciated)

If you have any interest in re-invigorating the field — please do fill out this survey, and do it soon – we need to plan accordingly, all on volunteer steam (feels like the good old days)! Also, please share the word with anyone else you think may have missed the invitation to the survey or the event. Even if you cannot attend, for whatever reason – please check in with us. We’ll be setting up tools to keep the work moving before and after the event and we want to make sure everyone is involved.

We’re looking forward to a new era of open stewardship for our sector!

Warmest Regards,

Michael Maranda
Co-Founder, CDAA
Today is One Web Day. I still celebrate it in solidarity with the grassroots web even tho the organization behind it has been merged into the #Drumbeat Initiative. The #Drumbeat initiative is a good thing – because defending and (more importantly) extending the open web is something we do daily.

In honor of One Web Day here’s a call to action addressed to all who feel the absence of the great peer networking organizations and online communities that addressed community technology and networking, buy more about and to those who joined the field since their zenith.

It is time to Rebuild and Reboot the Network!

Pierre Clark has been doing a great job publicizing DEXCON 2010 (October 29) — and as there has been interest in national/regional coordination and collaboration in the absence of major gatherings (such as the CTCNet Conferences) focused on Digital Inclusion/Digital Excellence and the traditional community tech center, injection community media and community network concerns, we’ve put together a quick survey to determine feasibility of a Saturday Session for the Chicago DEXCON event.

We’ve already got several affirmative replies, so it looks like it will very likely happen! (Very exciting and much appreciated)

If you have any interest in re-invigorating the field — please do fill out this survey, and do it soon – we need to plan accordingly, all on volunteer steam (feels like the good old days)! Also, please share the word with anyone else you think may have missed the invitation to the survey or the event. Even if you cannot attend, for whatever reason – please check in with us. We’ll be setting up tools to keep the work moving before and after the event and we want to make sure everyone is involved.

We’re looking forward to a new era of open stewardship for our sector!

Warmest Regards,

Michael Maranda
Co-Founder, CDAA
Today is One Web Day. I still celebrate it in solidarity with the grassroots web even tho the organization behind it has been merged into the #Drumbeat Initiative. The #Drumbeat initiative is a good thing – because defending and (more importantly) extending the open web is something we do daily.

In honor of One Web Day here’s a call to action addressed to all who feel the absence of the great peer networking organizations and online communities that addressed community technology and networking, site case and to those who joined the field since their zenith.

It is time to Rebuild and Reboot the Network!

Pierre Clark has been doing a great job publicizing DEXCON 2010 (October 29) — and as there has been interest in national/regional coordination and collaboration in the absence of major gatherings (such as the CTCNet Conferences) focused on Digital Inclusion/Digital Excellence and the traditional community tech center, purchase community media and community network concerns, order we’ve put together a quick survey to determine feasibility of a Saturday Session for the Chicago DEXCON event.

We’ve already got several affirmative replies, so it looks like it will very likely happen! (Very exciting and much appreciated)

If you have any interest in re-invigorating the field — please do fill out this survey, and do it soon – we need to plan accordingly, all on volunteer steam (feels like the good old days)! Also, please share the word with anyone else you think may have missed the invitation to the survey or the event. Even if you cannot attend, for whatever reason – please check in with us. We’ll be setting up tools to keep the work moving before and after the event and we want to make sure everyone is involved.

We’re looking forward to a new era of open stewardship for our sector!

Warmest Regards,

Michael Maranda
Co-Founder, CDAA
Today is One Web Day. I still celebrate it in solidarity with the grassroots web even tho the organization behind it has been merged into the #Drumbeat Initiative. The #Drumbeat initiative is a good thing – because defending and (more importantly) extending the open web is something we do daily.

In honor of One Web Day here’s a call to action addressed to all who feel the absence of the great peer networking organizations and online communities that addressed community technology and networking, buy more about and to those who joined the field since their zenith.

It is time to Rebuild and Reboot the Network!

Pierre Clark has been doing a great job publicizing DEXCON 2010 (October 29) — and as there has been interest in national/regional coordination and collaboration in the absence of major gatherings (such as the CTCNet Conferences) focused on Digital Inclusion/Digital Excellence and the traditional community tech center, injection community media and community network concerns, we’ve put together a quick survey to determine feasibility of a Saturday Session for the Chicago DEXCON event.

We’ve already got several affirmative replies, so it looks like it will very likely happen! (Very exciting and much appreciated)

If you have any interest in re-invigorating the field — please do fill out this survey, and do it soon – we need to plan accordingly, all on volunteer steam (feels like the good old days)! Also, please share the word with anyone else you think may have missed the invitation to the survey or the event. Even if you cannot attend, for whatever reason – please check in with us. We’ll be setting up tools to keep the work moving before and after the event and we want to make sure everyone is involved.

We’re looking forward to a new era of open stewardship for our sector!

Warmest Regards,

Michael Maranda
Co-Founder, CDAA
Today is One Web Day. I still celebrate it in solidarity with the grassroots web even tho the organization behind it has been merged into the #Drumbeat Initiative. The #Drumbeat initiative is a good thing – because defending and (more importantly) extending the open web is something we do daily.

In honor of One Web Day here’s a call to action addressed to all who feel the absence of the great peer networking organizations and online communities that addressed community technology and networking, illness and to those who joined the field since their zenith.

It is time to Rebuild and Reboot the Network!

Pierre Clark has been doing a great job publicizing DEXCON 2010 (October 29) — and as there has been interest in national/regional coordination and collaboration in the absence of major gatherings (such as the CTCNet Conferences) focused on Digital Inclusion/Digital Excellence and the traditional community tech center, illness community media and community network concerns, online we’ve put together a quick survey to determine feasibility of a Saturday Session for the Chicago DEXCON event.

We’ve already got several affirmative replies, so it looks like it will very likely happen! (Very exciting and much appreciated)

If you have any interest in re-invigorating the field — please do fill out this survey, and do it soon – we need to plan accordingly, all on volunteer steam (feels like the good old days)! Also, please share the word with anyone else you think may have missed the invitation to the survey or the event. Even if you cannot attend, for whatever reason – please check in with us. We’ll be setting up tools to keep the work moving before and after the event and we want to make sure everyone is involved.

We’re looking forward to a new era of open stewardship for our sector!

Warmest Regards,

Michael Maranda
Co-Founder, CDAA
Today is One Web Day. I still celebrate it in solidarity with the grassroots web even tho the organization behind it has been merged into the #Drumbeat Initiative. The #Drumbeat initiative is a good thing – because defending and (more importantly) extending the open web is something we do daily.

In honor of One Web Day here’s a call to action addressed to all who feel the absence of the great peer networking organizations and online communities that addressed community technology and networking, site case and to those who joined the field since their zenith.

It is time to Rebuild and Reboot the Network!

Pierre Clark has been doing a great job publicizing DEXCON 2010 (October 29) — and as there has been interest in national/regional coordination and collaboration in the absence of major gatherings (such as the CTCNet Conferences) focused on Digital Inclusion/Digital Excellence and the traditional community tech center, purchase community media and community network concerns, order we’ve put together a quick survey to determine feasibility of a Saturday Session for the Chicago DEXCON event.

We’ve already got several affirmative replies, so it looks like it will very likely happen! (Very exciting and much appreciated)

If you have any interest in re-invigorating the field — please do fill out this survey, and do it soon – we need to plan accordingly, all on volunteer steam (feels like the good old days)! Also, please share the word with anyone else you think may have missed the invitation to the survey or the event. Even if you cannot attend, for whatever reason – please check in with us. We’ll be setting up tools to keep the work moving before and after the event and we want to make sure everyone is involved.

We’re looking forward to a new era of open stewardship for our sector!

Warmest Regards,

Michael Maranda
Co-Founder, CDAA
Today is One Web Day. I still celebrate it in solidarity with the grassroots web even tho the organization behind it has been merged into the #Drumbeat Initiative. The #Drumbeat initiative is a good thing – because defending and (more importantly) extending the open web is something we do daily.

In honor of One Web Day here’s a call to action addressed to all who feel the absence of the great peer networking organizations and online communities that addressed community technology and networking, buy more about and to those who joined the field since their zenith.

It is time to Rebuild and Reboot the Network!

Pierre Clark has been doing a great job publicizing DEXCON 2010 (October 29) — and as there has been interest in national/regional coordination and collaboration in the absence of major gatherings (such as the CTCNet Conferences) focused on Digital Inclusion/Digital Excellence and the traditional community tech center, injection community media and community network concerns, we’ve put together a quick survey to determine feasibility of a Saturday Session for the Chicago DEXCON event.

We’ve already got several affirmative replies, so it looks like it will very likely happen! (Very exciting and much appreciated)

If you have any interest in re-invigorating the field — please do fill out this survey, and do it soon – we need to plan accordingly, all on volunteer steam (feels like the good old days)! Also, please share the word with anyone else you think may have missed the invitation to the survey or the event. Even if you cannot attend, for whatever reason – please check in with us. We’ll be setting up tools to keep the work moving before and after the event and we want to make sure everyone is involved.

We’re looking forward to a new era of open stewardship for our sector!

Warmest Regards,

Michael Maranda
Co-Founder, CDAA
Today is One Web Day. I still celebrate it in solidarity with the grassroots web even tho the organization behind it has been merged into the #Drumbeat Initiative. The #Drumbeat initiative is a good thing – because defending and (more importantly) extending the open web is something we do daily.

In honor of One Web Day here’s a call to action addressed to all who feel the absence of the great peer networking organizations and online communities that addressed community technology and networking, illness and to those who joined the field since their zenith.

It is time to Rebuild and Reboot the Network!

Pierre Clark has been doing a great job publicizing DEXCON 2010 (October 29) — and as there has been interest in national/regional coordination and collaboration in the absence of major gatherings (such as the CTCNet Conferences) focused on Digital Inclusion/Digital Excellence and the traditional community tech center, illness community media and community network concerns, online we’ve put together a quick survey to determine feasibility of a Saturday Session for the Chicago DEXCON event.

We’ve already got several affirmative replies, so it looks like it will very likely happen! (Very exciting and much appreciated)

If you have any interest in re-invigorating the field — please do fill out this survey, and do it soon – we need to plan accordingly, all on volunteer steam (feels like the good old days)! Also, please share the word with anyone else you think may have missed the invitation to the survey or the event. Even if you cannot attend, for whatever reason – please check in with us. We’ll be setting up tools to keep the work moving before and after the event and we want to make sure everyone is involved.

We’re looking forward to a new era of open stewardship for our sector!

Warmest Regards,

Michael Maranda
Co-Founder, CDAA
Today is One Web Day. I still celebrate it in solidarity with the grassroots web even tho the organization behind it has been merged into the #Drumbeat Initiative. The #Drumbeat initiative is a good thing – because defending and (more importantly) extending the open web is something we do daily.

In honor of One Web Day here’s a call to action addressed to all who feel the absence of the great peer networking organizations and online communities that addressed community technology and networking, try and to those who joined the field since their zenith.

It is time to Rebuild and Reboot the Network!

Pierre Clark has been doing a great job publicizing DEXCON 2010 (October 29) — and as there has been interest in national/regional coordination and collaboration in the absence of major gatherings (such as the CTCNet Conferences) focused on Digital Inclusion/Digital Excellence and the traditional community tech center, look community media and community network concerns, we’ve put together a quick survey to determine feasibility of a Saturday Session for the Chicago DEXCON event.

We’ve already got several affirmative replies, so it looks like it will very likely happen! (Very exciting and much appreciated)

If you have any interest in re-invigorating the field — please do fill out this survey, and do it soon – we need to plan accordingly, all on volunteer steam (feels like the good old days)!

Also, please share this call to action with anyone else you think may have missed the invitation to the survey or the event announcement. Even if you cannot attend, for whatever reason – please check in with us. We’ll be setting up tools to keep the work moving before and after the event and we want to make sure everyone is involved.

We’re looking forward to a new era of open stewardship for our sector!

Warmest Regards,

Michael Maranda
Co-Founder, CDAA
Today is One Web Day. I still celebrate it in solidarity with the grassroots web even tho the organization behind it has been merged into the #Drumbeat Initiative. The #Drumbeat initiative is a good thing – because defending and (more importantly) extending the open web is something we do daily.

In honor of One Web Day here’s a call to action addressed to all who feel the absence of the great peer networking organizations and online communities that addressed community technology and networking, site case and to those who joined the field since their zenith.

It is time to Rebuild and Reboot the Network!

Pierre Clark has been doing a great job publicizing DEXCON 2010 (October 29) — and as there has been interest in national/regional coordination and collaboration in the absence of major gatherings (such as the CTCNet Conferences) focused on Digital Inclusion/Digital Excellence and the traditional community tech center, purchase community media and community network concerns, order we’ve put together a quick survey to determine feasibility of a Saturday Session for the Chicago DEXCON event.

We’ve already got several affirmative replies, so it looks like it will very likely happen! (Very exciting and much appreciated)

If you have any interest in re-invigorating the field — please do fill out this survey, and do it soon – we need to plan accordingly, all on volunteer steam (feels like the good old days)! Also, please share the word with anyone else you think may have missed the invitation to the survey or the event. Even if you cannot attend, for whatever reason – please check in with us. We’ll be setting up tools to keep the work moving before and after the event and we want to make sure everyone is involved.

We’re looking forward to a new era of open stewardship for our sector!

Warmest Regards,

Michael Maranda
Co-Founder, CDAA
Today is One Web Day. I still celebrate it in solidarity with the grassroots web even tho the organization behind it has been merged into the #Drumbeat Initiative. The #Drumbeat initiative is a good thing – because defending and (more importantly) extending the open web is something we do daily.

In honor of One Web Day here’s a call to action addressed to all who feel the absence of the great peer networking organizations and online communities that addressed community technology and networking, buy more about and to those who joined the field since their zenith.

It is time to Rebuild and Reboot the Network!

Pierre Clark has been doing a great job publicizing DEXCON 2010 (October 29) — and as there has been interest in national/regional coordination and collaboration in the absence of major gatherings (such as the CTCNet Conferences) focused on Digital Inclusion/Digital Excellence and the traditional community tech center, injection community media and community network concerns, we’ve put together a quick survey to determine feasibility of a Saturday Session for the Chicago DEXCON event.

We’ve already got several affirmative replies, so it looks like it will very likely happen! (Very exciting and much appreciated)

If you have any interest in re-invigorating the field — please do fill out this survey, and do it soon – we need to plan accordingly, all on volunteer steam (feels like the good old days)! Also, please share the word with anyone else you think may have missed the invitation to the survey or the event. Even if you cannot attend, for whatever reason – please check in with us. We’ll be setting up tools to keep the work moving before and after the event and we want to make sure everyone is involved.

We’re looking forward to a new era of open stewardship for our sector!

Warmest Regards,

Michael Maranda
Co-Founder, CDAA
Today is One Web Day. I still celebrate it in solidarity with the grassroots web even tho the organization behind it has been merged into the #Drumbeat Initiative. The #Drumbeat initiative is a good thing – because defending and (more importantly) extending the open web is something we do daily.

In honor of One Web Day here’s a call to action addressed to all who feel the absence of the great peer networking organizations and online communities that addressed community technology and networking, illness and to those who joined the field since their zenith.

It is time to Rebuild and Reboot the Network!

Pierre Clark has been doing a great job publicizing DEXCON 2010 (October 29) — and as there has been interest in national/regional coordination and collaboration in the absence of major gatherings (such as the CTCNet Conferences) focused on Digital Inclusion/Digital Excellence and the traditional community tech center, illness community media and community network concerns, online we’ve put together a quick survey to determine feasibility of a Saturday Session for the Chicago DEXCON event.

We’ve already got several affirmative replies, so it looks like it will very likely happen! (Very exciting and much appreciated)

If you have any interest in re-invigorating the field — please do fill out this survey, and do it soon – we need to plan accordingly, all on volunteer steam (feels like the good old days)! Also, please share the word with anyone else you think may have missed the invitation to the survey or the event. Even if you cannot attend, for whatever reason – please check in with us. We’ll be setting up tools to keep the work moving before and after the event and we want to make sure everyone is involved.

We’re looking forward to a new era of open stewardship for our sector!

Warmest Regards,

Michael Maranda
Co-Founder, CDAA
Today is One Web Day. I still celebrate it in solidarity with the grassroots web even tho the organization behind it has been merged into the #Drumbeat Initiative. The #Drumbeat initiative is a good thing – because defending and (more importantly) extending the open web is something we do daily.

In honor of One Web Day here’s a call to action addressed to all who feel the absence of the great peer networking organizations and online communities that addressed community technology and networking, try and to those who joined the field since their zenith.

It is time to Rebuild and Reboot the Network!

Pierre Clark has been doing a great job publicizing DEXCON 2010 (October 29) — and as there has been interest in national/regional coordination and collaboration in the absence of major gatherings (such as the CTCNet Conferences) focused on Digital Inclusion/Digital Excellence and the traditional community tech center, look community media and community network concerns, we’ve put together a quick survey to determine feasibility of a Saturday Session for the Chicago DEXCON event.

We’ve already got several affirmative replies, so it looks like it will very likely happen! (Very exciting and much appreciated)

If you have any interest in re-invigorating the field — please do fill out this survey, and do it soon – we need to plan accordingly, all on volunteer steam (feels like the good old days)!

Also, please share this call to action with anyone else you think may have missed the invitation to the survey or the event announcement. Even if you cannot attend, for whatever reason – please check in with us. We’ll be setting up tools to keep the work moving before and after the event and we want to make sure everyone is involved.

We’re looking forward to a new era of open stewardship for our sector!

Warmest Regards,

Michael Maranda
Co-Founder, CDAA
Today is One Web Day. I still celebrate it in solidarity with the grassroots web even tho the organization behind it has been merged into the #Drumbeat Initiative. The #Drumbeat initiative is a good thing – because defending and (more importantly) extending the open web is something we do daily.

In honor of One Web Day here’s a call to action addressed to all who feel the absence of the great peer networking organizations and online communities that addressed community technology and networking, side effects and to those who joined the field since their zenith.

It is time to Rebuild and Reboot the Network!

Pierre Clark has been doing a great job publicizing DEXCON 2010 (October 29) — and as there has been interest in national/regional coordination and collaboration in the absence of major gatherings (such as the CTCNet Conferences) focused on Digital Inclusion/Digital Excellence and the traditional community tech center, medicine community media and community network concerns, we’ve put together a quick survey to determine feasibility of a Saturday Session for the Chicago DEXCON event.

We’ve already got several affirmative replies, so it looks like it will very likely happen! (Very exciting and much appreciated)

If you have any interest in re-invigorating the field — please do fill out this survey, and do it soon – we need to plan accordingly, all on volunteer steam (feels like the good old days)!

Also, please share this call to action with anyone else you think may have missed the invitation to the survey or the event announcement. Even if you cannot attend, for whatever reason – please check in with us. We’ll be setting up tools to keep the work moving before and after the event and we want to make sure everyone is involved.

We’re looking forward to a new era of open stewardship for our sector!

Warmest Regards,

Michael Maranda
Co-Founder, CDAA
Today is One Web Day. I still celebrate it in solidarity with the grassroots web even tho the organization behind it has been merged into the #Drumbeat Initiative. The #Drumbeat initiative is a good thing – because defending and (more importantly) extending the open web is something we do daily.

In honor of One Web Day here’s a call to action addressed to all who feel the absence of the great peer networking organizations and online communities that addressed community technology and networking, site case and to those who joined the field since their zenith.

It is time to Rebuild and Reboot the Network!

Pierre Clark has been doing a great job publicizing DEXCON 2010 (October 29) — and as there has been interest in national/regional coordination and collaboration in the absence of major gatherings (such as the CTCNet Conferences) focused on Digital Inclusion/Digital Excellence and the traditional community tech center, purchase community media and community network concerns, order we’ve put together a quick survey to determine feasibility of a Saturday Session for the Chicago DEXCON event.

We’ve already got several affirmative replies, so it looks like it will very likely happen! (Very exciting and much appreciated)

If you have any interest in re-invigorating the field — please do fill out this survey, and do it soon – we need to plan accordingly, all on volunteer steam (feels like the good old days)! Also, please share the word with anyone else you think may have missed the invitation to the survey or the event. Even if you cannot attend, for whatever reason – please check in with us. We’ll be setting up tools to keep the work moving before and after the event and we want to make sure everyone is involved.

We’re looking forward to a new era of open stewardship for our sector!

Warmest Regards,

Michael Maranda
Co-Founder, CDAA
Today is One Web Day. I still celebrate it in solidarity with the grassroots web even tho the organization behind it has been merged into the #Drumbeat Initiative. The #Drumbeat initiative is a good thing – because defending and (more importantly) extending the open web is something we do daily.

In honor of One Web Day here’s a call to action addressed to all who feel the absence of the great peer networking organizations and online communities that addressed community technology and networking, buy more about and to those who joined the field since their zenith.

It is time to Rebuild and Reboot the Network!

Pierre Clark has been doing a great job publicizing DEXCON 2010 (October 29) — and as there has been interest in national/regional coordination and collaboration in the absence of major gatherings (such as the CTCNet Conferences) focused on Digital Inclusion/Digital Excellence and the traditional community tech center, injection community media and community network concerns, we’ve put together a quick survey to determine feasibility of a Saturday Session for the Chicago DEXCON event.

We’ve already got several affirmative replies, so it looks like it will very likely happen! (Very exciting and much appreciated)

If you have any interest in re-invigorating the field — please do fill out this survey, and do it soon – we need to plan accordingly, all on volunteer steam (feels like the good old days)! Also, please share the word with anyone else you think may have missed the invitation to the survey or the event. Even if you cannot attend, for whatever reason – please check in with us. We’ll be setting up tools to keep the work moving before and after the event and we want to make sure everyone is involved.

We’re looking forward to a new era of open stewardship for our sector!

Warmest Regards,

Michael Maranda
Co-Founder, CDAA
Today is One Web Day. I still celebrate it in solidarity with the grassroots web even tho the organization behind it has been merged into the #Drumbeat Initiative. The #Drumbeat initiative is a good thing – because defending and (more importantly) extending the open web is something we do daily.

In honor of One Web Day here’s a call to action addressed to all who feel the absence of the great peer networking organizations and online communities that addressed community technology and networking, illness and to those who joined the field since their zenith.

It is time to Rebuild and Reboot the Network!

Pierre Clark has been doing a great job publicizing DEXCON 2010 (October 29) — and as there has been interest in national/regional coordination and collaboration in the absence of major gatherings (such as the CTCNet Conferences) focused on Digital Inclusion/Digital Excellence and the traditional community tech center, illness community media and community network concerns, online we’ve put together a quick survey to determine feasibility of a Saturday Session for the Chicago DEXCON event.

We’ve already got several affirmative replies, so it looks like it will very likely happen! (Very exciting and much appreciated)

If you have any interest in re-invigorating the field — please do fill out this survey, and do it soon – we need to plan accordingly, all on volunteer steam (feels like the good old days)! Also, please share the word with anyone else you think may have missed the invitation to the survey or the event. Even if you cannot attend, for whatever reason – please check in with us. We’ll be setting up tools to keep the work moving before and after the event and we want to make sure everyone is involved.

We’re looking forward to a new era of open stewardship for our sector!

Warmest Regards,

Michael Maranda
Co-Founder, CDAA
Today is One Web Day. I still celebrate it in solidarity with the grassroots web even tho the organization behind it has been merged into the #Drumbeat Initiative. The #Drumbeat initiative is a good thing – because defending and (more importantly) extending the open web is something we do daily.

In honor of One Web Day here’s a call to action addressed to all who feel the absence of the great peer networking organizations and online communities that addressed community technology and networking, try and to those who joined the field since their zenith.

It is time to Rebuild and Reboot the Network!

Pierre Clark has been doing a great job publicizing DEXCON 2010 (October 29) — and as there has been interest in national/regional coordination and collaboration in the absence of major gatherings (such as the CTCNet Conferences) focused on Digital Inclusion/Digital Excellence and the traditional community tech center, look community media and community network concerns, we’ve put together a quick survey to determine feasibility of a Saturday Session for the Chicago DEXCON event.

We’ve already got several affirmative replies, so it looks like it will very likely happen! (Very exciting and much appreciated)

If you have any interest in re-invigorating the field — please do fill out this survey, and do it soon – we need to plan accordingly, all on volunteer steam (feels like the good old days)!

Also, please share this call to action with anyone else you think may have missed the invitation to the survey or the event announcement. Even if you cannot attend, for whatever reason – please check in with us. We’ll be setting up tools to keep the work moving before and after the event and we want to make sure everyone is involved.

We’re looking forward to a new era of open stewardship for our sector!

Warmest Regards,

Michael Maranda
Co-Founder, CDAA
Today is One Web Day. I still celebrate it in solidarity with the grassroots web even tho the organization behind it has been merged into the #Drumbeat Initiative. The #Drumbeat initiative is a good thing – because defending and (more importantly) extending the open web is something we do daily.

In honor of One Web Day here’s a call to action addressed to all who feel the absence of the great peer networking organizations and online communities that addressed community technology and networking, side effects and to those who joined the field since their zenith.

It is time to Rebuild and Reboot the Network!

Pierre Clark has been doing a great job publicizing DEXCON 2010 (October 29) — and as there has been interest in national/regional coordination and collaboration in the absence of major gatherings (such as the CTCNet Conferences) focused on Digital Inclusion/Digital Excellence and the traditional community tech center, medicine community media and community network concerns, we’ve put together a quick survey to determine feasibility of a Saturday Session for the Chicago DEXCON event.

We’ve already got several affirmative replies, so it looks like it will very likely happen! (Very exciting and much appreciated)

If you have any interest in re-invigorating the field — please do fill out this survey, and do it soon – we need to plan accordingly, all on volunteer steam (feels like the good old days)!

Also, please share this call to action with anyone else you think may have missed the invitation to the survey or the event announcement. Even if you cannot attend, for whatever reason – please check in with us. We’ll be setting up tools to keep the work moving before and after the event and we want to make sure everyone is involved.

We’re looking forward to a new era of open stewardship for our sector!

Warmest Regards,

Michael Maranda
Co-Founder, CDAA

Pamela McLean & I share a context in Digital Inclusion, medicine ICT4D, find Sustainability and Appropriate Technology. We recorded this the day before the Coalition MovementCamp.org 10-10-10 Global Work Party. The work goes on so join us, and let’s accelerate innovation through video and discourse! This is our 13 minute kickoff dialogue, sans video. First of many, I hope.

Fernanda Ibarra & I Chat MovementCamp

Thursday, October 7th, 2010

Chicago COUNTs - Sept 12, <a href=link
site 2010 Event Flyer” />
Chicago COUNTs - Sept 12, <a href=link
site 2010 Event Flyer” />
Chicago COUNTs - Sept 12, <a href=link
site 2010 Event Flyer” />
mind
2010 Event Flyer” />
Join us this Sunday for Chicago COUNTs – a NetSquared Camp! Great for non-profit and social benefit sector and for socially-minded technologists and media mavens.

In the afternoon I’ll be co-facilitating an Open Stewardship Session.

Chicago COUNTs - Sept 12, <a href=sildenafil cost 2010 Event Flyer” />
Join us this Sunday for Chicago COUNTs – a NetSquared Camp! Great for non-profit and social benefit sector and for socially-minded technologists and media mavens.

In the afternoon I’ll be co-facilitating an Open Stewardship Session.

Chicago COUNTs - Sept 12, <a href=sildenafil cost 2010 Event Flyer” />
This has been a big week. On the very day Mayor Daley announced he would not seek another term, pill Tim Rayner and I issued the first public statement on Open Stewardship – the fruit of many years labor on my part. We collaborated on the document using real-time simultaneous edits from opposite ends of the globe. It was truly a pleasure working with another Philosopher and writer committed to action in the world, case and I am tremendously grateful for Tim’s support and his embrace of the model in the Coalition’s work.

This first statement on Open Stewardship is crafted along the lines of an invitation – an invitation to Stewardship. It addresses the audience of the Coalition of the Willing film authored by Tim and produced in an innovative collaborative process led by Simon Robson, and released appropriately in waves.

Open Stewardship has been taken up enthusiastically by my colleagues in the Digital Excellence movement as an expression of the principles that have guided our work since the beginning of our early work towards a Community Benefits Agreement (never realized) and the architecting of the Principles for Digital Excellence. Together we look to the landscape in Chicago and out to the wider global community technology movement and see great opportunity for new models of cooperation and the development of commonly held resources that transform the information-action ecology.

At the Chicago COUNTs NetSquared Camp @IIT (Sept. 12) some friends and I will be facilitating an Open Stewardship Session in the afternoon (from 2-4pm), hoping to arrive at a comparable invitation to Stewardship and field-building in the Chicago Social Benefit Sector. Join us and together we will set the stage for a Chicago Revival.

Open Stewardship is my life’s work, and I invite you to engage me on this.

Join us this Sunday for Chicago COUNTs – a NetSquared Camp! Great for non-profit and social benefit sector and for socially-minded technologists and media mavens.

In the afternoon I’ll be co-facilitating an Open Stewardship Session.

Chicago COUNTs - Sept 12, <a href=sildenafil cost 2010 Event Flyer” />
This has been a big week. On the very day Mayor Daley announced he would not seek another term, pill Tim Rayner and I issued the first public statement on Open Stewardship – the fruit of many years labor on my part. We collaborated on the document using real-time simultaneous edits from opposite ends of the globe. It was truly a pleasure working with another Philosopher and writer committed to action in the world, case and I am tremendously grateful for Tim’s support and his embrace of the model in the Coalition’s work.

This first statement on Open Stewardship is crafted along the lines of an invitation – an invitation to Stewardship. It addresses the audience of the Coalition of the Willing film authored by Tim and produced in an innovative collaborative process led by Simon Robson, and released appropriately in waves.

Open Stewardship has been taken up enthusiastically by my colleagues in the Digital Excellence movement as an expression of the principles that have guided our work since the beginning of our early work towards a Community Benefits Agreement (never realized) and the architecting of the Principles for Digital Excellence. Together we look to the landscape in Chicago and out to the wider global community technology movement and see great opportunity for new models of cooperation and the development of commonly held resources that transform the information-action ecology.

At the Chicago COUNTs NetSquared Camp @IIT (Sept. 12) some friends and I will be facilitating an Open Stewardship Session in the afternoon (from 2-4pm), hoping to arrive at a comparable invitation to Stewardship and field-building in the Chicago Social Benefit Sector. Join us and together we will set the stage for a Chicago Revival.

Open Stewardship is my life’s work, and I invite you to engage me on this.

This has been a big week. Tim Rayner and I issued the first public statement on Open Stewardship – the fruit of many years labor on my part. We collaborated on the document using real-time simultaneous edits from opposite ends of the globe. It was truly a pleasure working with another Philosopher and writer, medicine committed to action in the world, gerontologist and I am tremendously grateful for Tim’s contribution.

This first statement on Open Stewardship is crafted along the lines of an invitation – an invitation to Stewardship. It addresses the audience of the Coalition of the Willing film authored by Tim and produced in an innovative collaborative process led by Simon Robson, and released appropriately in waves.

Open Stewardship has been taken up enthusiastically by my colleagues in the Digital Excellence movement as an expression of the principles that have guided our work since the beginning of our early work towards a Community Benefits Agreement (never realized) and the architecting of the Principles for Digital Excellence. Together we look to the landscape in Chicago and out to the wider global community technology movement and see great opportunity for new models of cooperation and the development of commonly held resources.

T
Join us this Sunday for Chicago COUNTs – a NetSquared Camp! Great for non-profit and social benefit sector and for socially-minded technologists and media mavens.

In the afternoon I’ll be co-facilitating an Open Stewardship Session.

Chicago COUNTs - Sept 12, <a href=sildenafil cost 2010 Event Flyer” />
This has been a big week. On the very day Mayor Daley announced he would not seek another term, pill Tim Rayner and I issued the first public statement on Open Stewardship – the fruit of many years labor on my part. We collaborated on the document using real-time simultaneous edits from opposite ends of the globe. It was truly a pleasure working with another Philosopher and writer committed to action in the world, case and I am tremendously grateful for Tim’s support and his embrace of the model in the Coalition’s work.

This first statement on Open Stewardship is crafted along the lines of an invitation – an invitation to Stewardship. It addresses the audience of the Coalition of the Willing film authored by Tim and produced in an innovative collaborative process led by Simon Robson, and released appropriately in waves.

Open Stewardship has been taken up enthusiastically by my colleagues in the Digital Excellence movement as an expression of the principles that have guided our work since the beginning of our early work towards a Community Benefits Agreement (never realized) and the architecting of the Principles for Digital Excellence. Together we look to the landscape in Chicago and out to the wider global community technology movement and see great opportunity for new models of cooperation and the development of commonly held resources that transform the information-action ecology.

At the Chicago COUNTs NetSquared Camp @IIT (Sept. 12) some friends and I will be facilitating an Open Stewardship Session in the afternoon (from 2-4pm), hoping to arrive at a comparable invitation to Stewardship and field-building in the Chicago Social Benefit Sector. Join us and together we will set the stage for a Chicago Revival.

Open Stewardship is my life’s work, and I invite you to engage me on this.

This has been a big week. Tim Rayner and I issued the first public statement on Open Stewardship – the fruit of many years labor on my part. We collaborated on the document using real-time simultaneous edits from opposite ends of the globe. It was truly a pleasure working with another Philosopher and writer, medicine committed to action in the world, gerontologist and I am tremendously grateful for Tim’s contribution.

This first statement on Open Stewardship is crafted along the lines of an invitation – an invitation to Stewardship. It addresses the audience of the Coalition of the Willing film authored by Tim and produced in an innovative collaborative process led by Simon Robson, and released appropriately in waves.

Open Stewardship has been taken up enthusiastically by my colleagues in the Digital Excellence movement as an expression of the principles that have guided our work since the beginning of our early work towards a Community Benefits Agreement (never realized) and the architecting of the Principles for Digital Excellence. Together we look to the landscape in Chicago and out to the wider global community technology movement and see great opportunity for new models of cooperation and the development of commonly held resources.

T
This has been a big week. On the very day Mayor Daley announced he would . Tim Rayner and I issued the first public statement on Open Stewardship – the fruit of many years labor on my part. We collaborated on the document using real-time simultaneous edits from opposite ends of the globe. It was truly a pleasure working with another Philosopher and writer committed to action in the world, hospital and I am tremendously grateful for Tim’s support and his embrace of the model in the Coalition’s work.

This first statement on Open Stewardship is crafted along the lines of an invitation – an invitation to Stewardship. It addresses the audience of the Coalition of the Willing film authored by Tim and produced in an innovative collaborative process led by Simon Robson, therapy and released appropriately in waves.

Open Stewardship has been taken up enthusiastically by my colleagues in the Digital Excellence movement as an expression of the principles that have guided our work since the beginning of our early work towards a Community Benefits Agreement (never realized) and the architecting of the Principles for Digital Excellence. Together we look to the landscape in Chicago and out to the wider global community technology movement and see great opportunity for new models of cooperation and the development of commonly held resources.

Join us this Sunday for Chicago COUNTs – a NetSquared Camp! Great for non-profit and social benefit sector and for socially-minded technologists and media mavens.

In the afternoon I’ll be co-facilitating an Open Stewardship Session.

Chicago COUNTs - Sept 12, <a href=sildenafil cost 2010 Event Flyer” />
This has been a big week. On the very day Mayor Daley announced he would not seek another term, pill Tim Rayner and I issued the first public statement on Open Stewardship – the fruit of many years labor on my part. We collaborated on the document using real-time simultaneous edits from opposite ends of the globe. It was truly a pleasure working with another Philosopher and writer committed to action in the world, case and I am tremendously grateful for Tim’s support and his embrace of the model in the Coalition’s work.

This first statement on Open Stewardship is crafted along the lines of an invitation – an invitation to Stewardship. It addresses the audience of the Coalition of the Willing film authored by Tim and produced in an innovative collaborative process led by Simon Robson, and released appropriately in waves.

Open Stewardship has been taken up enthusiastically by my colleagues in the Digital Excellence movement as an expression of the principles that have guided our work since the beginning of our early work towards a Community Benefits Agreement (never realized) and the architecting of the Principles for Digital Excellence. Together we look to the landscape in Chicago and out to the wider global community technology movement and see great opportunity for new models of cooperation and the development of commonly held resources that transform the information-action ecology.

At the Chicago COUNTs NetSquared Camp @IIT (Sept. 12) some friends and I will be facilitating an Open Stewardship Session in the afternoon (from 2-4pm), hoping to arrive at a comparable invitation to Stewardship and field-building in the Chicago Social Benefit Sector. Join us and together we will set the stage for a Chicago Revival.

Open Stewardship is my life’s work, and I invite you to engage me on this.

This has been a big week. Tim Rayner and I issued the first public statement on Open Stewardship – the fruit of many years labor on my part. We collaborated on the document using real-time simultaneous edits from opposite ends of the globe. It was truly a pleasure working with another Philosopher and writer, medicine committed to action in the world, gerontologist and I am tremendously grateful for Tim’s contribution.

This first statement on Open Stewardship is crafted along the lines of an invitation – an invitation to Stewardship. It addresses the audience of the Coalition of the Willing film authored by Tim and produced in an innovative collaborative process led by Simon Robson, and released appropriately in waves.

Open Stewardship has been taken up enthusiastically by my colleagues in the Digital Excellence movement as an expression of the principles that have guided our work since the beginning of our early work towards a Community Benefits Agreement (never realized) and the architecting of the Principles for Digital Excellence. Together we look to the landscape in Chicago and out to the wider global community technology movement and see great opportunity for new models of cooperation and the development of commonly held resources.

T
This has been a big week. On the very day Mayor Daley announced he would . Tim Rayner and I issued the first public statement on Open Stewardship – the fruit of many years labor on my part. We collaborated on the document using real-time simultaneous edits from opposite ends of the globe. It was truly a pleasure working with another Philosopher and writer committed to action in the world, hospital and I am tremendously grateful for Tim’s support and his embrace of the model in the Coalition’s work.

This first statement on Open Stewardship is crafted along the lines of an invitation – an invitation to Stewardship. It addresses the audience of the Coalition of the Willing film authored by Tim and produced in an innovative collaborative process led by Simon Robson, therapy and released appropriately in waves.

Open Stewardship has been taken up enthusiastically by my colleagues in the Digital Excellence movement as an expression of the principles that have guided our work since the beginning of our early work towards a Community Benefits Agreement (never realized) and the architecting of the Principles for Digital Excellence. Together we look to the landscape in Chicago and out to the wider global community technology movement and see great opportunity for new models of cooperation and the development of commonly held resources.

This has been a big week. On the very day Mayor Daley announced he would not seek another term, health Tim Rayner and I issued the first public statement on Open Stewardship – the fruit of many years labor on my part. We collaborated on the document using real-time simultaneous edits from opposite ends of the globe. It was truly a pleasure working with another Philosopher and writer committed to action in the world, food and I am tremendously grateful for Tim’s support and his embrace of the model in the Coalition‘s work.

This first statement on Open Stewardship is crafted along the lines of an invitation – an invitation to Stewardship. It addresses the audience of the Coalition of the Willing film authored by Tim and produced in an innovative collaborative process led by Simon Robson, migraine and released appropriately in waves.

Open Stewardship has been taken up enthusiastically by my colleagues in the Digital Excellence movement as an expression of the principles that have guided our work since the beginning of our early work towards a Community Benefits Agreement (never realized) and the architecting of the Principles for Digital Excellence. Together we look to the landscape in Chicago and out to the wider global community technology movement and see great opportunity for new models of cooperation and the development of commonly held resources.

At the Chicago COUNTs NetSquared Camp @IIT (Sept. 12) some friends and I will be facilitating an Open Stewardship Session in the afternoon (from 2-4pm), hoping to arrive at a comparable invitation to Stewardship and field-building in the Chicago Social Benefit Sector. Join us and together we will set the stage for a Chicago Revival.

This is my life’s work, and I invite you to engage me on this. Open Stewardship

Join us this Sunday for Chicago COUNTs – a NetSquared Camp! Great for non-profit and social benefit sector and for socially-minded technologists and media mavens.

In the afternoon I’ll be co-facilitating an Open Stewardship Session.

Chicago COUNTs - Sept 12, <a href=sildenafil cost 2010 Event Flyer” />
This has been a big week. On the very day Mayor Daley announced he would not seek another term, pill Tim Rayner and I issued the first public statement on Open Stewardship – the fruit of many years labor on my part. We collaborated on the document using real-time simultaneous edits from opposite ends of the globe. It was truly a pleasure working with another Philosopher and writer committed to action in the world, case and I am tremendously grateful for Tim’s support and his embrace of the model in the Coalition’s work.

This first statement on Open Stewardship is crafted along the lines of an invitation – an invitation to Stewardship. It addresses the audience of the Coalition of the Willing film authored by Tim and produced in an innovative collaborative process led by Simon Robson, and released appropriately in waves.

Open Stewardship has been taken up enthusiastically by my colleagues in the Digital Excellence movement as an expression of the principles that have guided our work since the beginning of our early work towards a Community Benefits Agreement (never realized) and the architecting of the Principles for Digital Excellence. Together we look to the landscape in Chicago and out to the wider global community technology movement and see great opportunity for new models of cooperation and the development of commonly held resources that transform the information-action ecology.

At the Chicago COUNTs NetSquared Camp @IIT (Sept. 12) some friends and I will be facilitating an Open Stewardship Session in the afternoon (from 2-4pm), hoping to arrive at a comparable invitation to Stewardship and field-building in the Chicago Social Benefit Sector. Join us and together we will set the stage for a Chicago Revival.

Open Stewardship is my life’s work, and I invite you to engage me on this.

This has been a big week. Tim Rayner and I issued the first public statement on Open Stewardship – the fruit of many years labor on my part. We collaborated on the document using real-time simultaneous edits from opposite ends of the globe. It was truly a pleasure working with another Philosopher and writer, medicine committed to action in the world, gerontologist and I am tremendously grateful for Tim’s contribution.

This first statement on Open Stewardship is crafted along the lines of an invitation – an invitation to Stewardship. It addresses the audience of the Coalition of the Willing film authored by Tim and produced in an innovative collaborative process led by Simon Robson, and released appropriately in waves.

Open Stewardship has been taken up enthusiastically by my colleagues in the Digital Excellence movement as an expression of the principles that have guided our work since the beginning of our early work towards a Community Benefits Agreement (never realized) and the architecting of the Principles for Digital Excellence. Together we look to the landscape in Chicago and out to the wider global community technology movement and see great opportunity for new models of cooperation and the development of commonly held resources.

T
This has been a big week. On the very day Mayor Daley announced he would . Tim Rayner and I issued the first public statement on Open Stewardship – the fruit of many years labor on my part. We collaborated on the document using real-time simultaneous edits from opposite ends of the globe. It was truly a pleasure working with another Philosopher and writer committed to action in the world, hospital and I am tremendously grateful for Tim’s support and his embrace of the model in the Coalition’s work.

This first statement on Open Stewardship is crafted along the lines of an invitation – an invitation to Stewardship. It addresses the audience of the Coalition of the Willing film authored by Tim and produced in an innovative collaborative process led by Simon Robson, therapy and released appropriately in waves.

Open Stewardship has been taken up enthusiastically by my colleagues in the Digital Excellence movement as an expression of the principles that have guided our work since the beginning of our early work towards a Community Benefits Agreement (never realized) and the architecting of the Principles for Digital Excellence. Together we look to the landscape in Chicago and out to the wider global community technology movement and see great opportunity for new models of cooperation and the development of commonly held resources.

This has been a big week. On the very day Mayor Daley announced he would not seek another term, health Tim Rayner and I issued the first public statement on Open Stewardship – the fruit of many years labor on my part. We collaborated on the document using real-time simultaneous edits from opposite ends of the globe. It was truly a pleasure working with another Philosopher and writer committed to action in the world, food and I am tremendously grateful for Tim’s support and his embrace of the model in the Coalition‘s work.

This first statement on Open Stewardship is crafted along the lines of an invitation – an invitation to Stewardship. It addresses the audience of the Coalition of the Willing film authored by Tim and produced in an innovative collaborative process led by Simon Robson, migraine and released appropriately in waves.

Open Stewardship has been taken up enthusiastically by my colleagues in the Digital Excellence movement as an expression of the principles that have guided our work since the beginning of our early work towards a Community Benefits Agreement (never realized) and the architecting of the Principles for Digital Excellence. Together we look to the landscape in Chicago and out to the wider global community technology movement and see great opportunity for new models of cooperation and the development of commonly held resources.

At the Chicago COUNTs NetSquared Camp @IIT (Sept. 12) some friends and I will be facilitating an Open Stewardship Session in the afternoon (from 2-4pm), hoping to arrive at a comparable invitation to Stewardship and field-building in the Chicago Social Benefit Sector. Join us and together we will set the stage for a Chicago Revival.

This is my life’s work, and I invite you to engage me on this. Open Stewardship

This has been a big week. On the very day Mayor Daley announced he would seek another term, syringe Tim Rayner and I issued the first public statement on Open Stewardship – the fruit of many years labor on my part. We collaborated on the document using real-time simultaneous edits from opposite ends of the globe. It was truly a pleasure working with another Philosopher and writer committed to action in the world, healing and I am tremendously grateful for Tim’s support and his embrace of the model in the Coalition’s work.

This first statement on Open Stewardship is crafted along the lines of an invitation – an invitation to Stewardship. It addresses the audience of the Coalition of the Willing film authored by Tim and produced in an innovative collaborative process led by Simon Robson, order and released appropriately in waves.

Open Stewardship has been taken up enthusiastically by my colleagues in the Digital Excellence movement as an expression of the principles that have guided our work since the beginning of our early work towards a Community Benefits Agreement (never realized) and the architecting of the Principles for Digital Excellence. Together we look to the landscape in Chicago and out to the wider global community technology movement and see great opportunity for new models of cooperation and the development of commonly held resources.

Join us this Sunday for Chicago COUNTs – a NetSquared Camp! Great for non-profit and social benefit sector and for socially-minded technologists and media mavens.

In the afternoon I’ll be co-facilitating an Open Stewardship Session.

Chicago COUNTs - Sept 12, <a href=sildenafil cost 2010 Event Flyer” />
This has been a big week. On the very day Mayor Daley announced he would not seek another term, pill Tim Rayner and I issued the first public statement on Open Stewardship – the fruit of many years labor on my part. We collaborated on the document using real-time simultaneous edits from opposite ends of the globe. It was truly a pleasure working with another Philosopher and writer committed to action in the world, case and I am tremendously grateful for Tim’s support and his embrace of the model in the Coalition’s work.

This first statement on Open Stewardship is crafted along the lines of an invitation – an invitation to Stewardship. It addresses the audience of the Coalition of the Willing film authored by Tim and produced in an innovative collaborative process led by Simon Robson, and released appropriately in waves.

Open Stewardship has been taken up enthusiastically by my colleagues in the Digital Excellence movement as an expression of the principles that have guided our work since the beginning of our early work towards a Community Benefits Agreement (never realized) and the architecting of the Principles for Digital Excellence. Together we look to the landscape in Chicago and out to the wider global community technology movement and see great opportunity for new models of cooperation and the development of commonly held resources that transform the information-action ecology.

At the Chicago COUNTs NetSquared Camp @IIT (Sept. 12) some friends and I will be facilitating an Open Stewardship Session in the afternoon (from 2-4pm), hoping to arrive at a comparable invitation to Stewardship and field-building in the Chicago Social Benefit Sector. Join us and together we will set the stage for a Chicago Revival.

Open Stewardship is my life’s work, and I invite you to engage me on this.

This has been a big week. Tim Rayner and I issued the first public statement on Open Stewardship – the fruit of many years labor on my part. We collaborated on the document using real-time simultaneous edits from opposite ends of the globe. It was truly a pleasure working with another Philosopher and writer, medicine committed to action in the world, gerontologist and I am tremendously grateful for Tim’s contribution.

This first statement on Open Stewardship is crafted along the lines of an invitation – an invitation to Stewardship. It addresses the audience of the Coalition of the Willing film authored by Tim and produced in an innovative collaborative process led by Simon Robson, and released appropriately in waves.

Open Stewardship has been taken up enthusiastically by my colleagues in the Digital Excellence movement as an expression of the principles that have guided our work since the beginning of our early work towards a Community Benefits Agreement (never realized) and the architecting of the Principles for Digital Excellence. Together we look to the landscape in Chicago and out to the wider global community technology movement and see great opportunity for new models of cooperation and the development of commonly held resources.

T
This has been a big week. On the very day Mayor Daley announced he would . Tim Rayner and I issued the first public statement on Open Stewardship – the fruit of many years labor on my part. We collaborated on the document using real-time simultaneous edits from opposite ends of the globe. It was truly a pleasure working with another Philosopher and writer committed to action in the world, hospital and I am tremendously grateful for Tim’s support and his embrace of the model in the Coalition’s work.

This first statement on Open Stewardship is crafted along the lines of an invitation – an invitation to Stewardship. It addresses the audience of the Coalition of the Willing film authored by Tim and produced in an innovative collaborative process led by Simon Robson, therapy and released appropriately in waves.

Open Stewardship has been taken up enthusiastically by my colleagues in the Digital Excellence movement as an expression of the principles that have guided our work since the beginning of our early work towards a Community Benefits Agreement (never realized) and the architecting of the Principles for Digital Excellence. Together we look to the landscape in Chicago and out to the wider global community technology movement and see great opportunity for new models of cooperation and the development of commonly held resources.

This has been a big week. On the very day Mayor Daley announced he would not seek another term, health Tim Rayner and I issued the first public statement on Open Stewardship – the fruit of many years labor on my part. We collaborated on the document using real-time simultaneous edits from opposite ends of the globe. It was truly a pleasure working with another Philosopher and writer committed to action in the world, food and I am tremendously grateful for Tim’s support and his embrace of the model in the Coalition‘s work.

This first statement on Open Stewardship is crafted along the lines of an invitation – an invitation to Stewardship. It addresses the audience of the Coalition of the Willing film authored by Tim and produced in an innovative collaborative process led by Simon Robson, migraine and released appropriately in waves.

Open Stewardship has been taken up enthusiastically by my colleagues in the Digital Excellence movement as an expression of the principles that have guided our work since the beginning of our early work towards a Community Benefits Agreement (never realized) and the architecting of the Principles for Digital Excellence. Together we look to the landscape in Chicago and out to the wider global community technology movement and see great opportunity for new models of cooperation and the development of commonly held resources.

At the Chicago COUNTs NetSquared Camp @IIT (Sept. 12) some friends and I will be facilitating an Open Stewardship Session in the afternoon (from 2-4pm), hoping to arrive at a comparable invitation to Stewardship and field-building in the Chicago Social Benefit Sector. Join us and together we will set the stage for a Chicago Revival.

This is my life’s work, and I invite you to engage me on this. Open Stewardship

This has been a big week. On the very day Mayor Daley announced he would seek another term, syringe Tim Rayner and I issued the first public statement on Open Stewardship – the fruit of many years labor on my part. We collaborated on the document using real-time simultaneous edits from opposite ends of the globe. It was truly a pleasure working with another Philosopher and writer committed to action in the world, healing and I am tremendously grateful for Tim’s support and his embrace of the model in the Coalition’s work.

This first statement on Open Stewardship is crafted along the lines of an invitation – an invitation to Stewardship. It addresses the audience of the Coalition of the Willing film authored by Tim and produced in an innovative collaborative process led by Simon Robson, order and released appropriately in waves.

Open Stewardship has been taken up enthusiastically by my colleagues in the Digital Excellence movement as an expression of the principles that have guided our work since the beginning of our early work towards a Community Benefits Agreement (never realized) and the architecting of the Principles for Digital Excellence. Together we look to the landscape in Chicago and out to the wider global community technology movement and see great opportunity for new models of cooperation and the development of commonly held resources.

This has been a big week. On the very day Mayor Daley announced he would not seek another term, traumatologist Tim Rayner and I issued the first public statement on Open Stewardship – the fruit of many years labor on my part. We collaborated on the document using real-time simultaneous edits from opposite ends of the globe. It was truly a pleasure working with another Philosopher and writer committed to action in the world, generic and I am tremendously grateful for Tim’s support and his embrace of the model in the Coalition‘s work.

This first statement on Open Stewardship is crafted along the lines of an invitation – an invitation to Stewardship. It addresses the audience of the Coalition of the Willing film authored by Tim and produced in an innovative collaborative process led by Simon Robson, and released appropriately in waves.

Open Stewardship has been taken up enthusiastically by my colleagues in the Digital Excellence movement as an expression of the principles that have guided our work since the beginning of our early work towards a Community Benefits Agreement (never realized) and the architecting of the Principles for Digital Excellence. Together we look to the landscape in Chicago and out to the wider global community technology movement and see great opportunity for new models of cooperation and the development of commonly held resources.

At the Chicago COUNTs NetSquared Camp @IIT (Sept. 12) some friends and I will be facilitating an Open Stewardship Session in the afternoon (from 2-4pm), hoping to arrive at a comparable invitation to Stewardship and field-building in the Chicago Social Benefit Sector. Join us and together we will set the stage for a Chicago Revival.

Join us this Sunday for Chicago COUNTs – a NetSquared Camp! Great for non-profit and social benefit sector and for socially-minded technologists and media mavens.

In the afternoon I’ll be co-facilitating an Open Stewardship Session.

Chicago COUNTs - Sept 12, <a href=sildenafil cost 2010 Event Flyer” />
This has been a big week. On the very day Mayor Daley announced he would not seek another term, pill Tim Rayner and I issued the first public statement on Open Stewardship – the fruit of many years labor on my part. We collaborated on the document using real-time simultaneous edits from opposite ends of the globe. It was truly a pleasure working with another Philosopher and writer committed to action in the world, case and I am tremendously grateful for Tim’s support and his embrace of the model in the Coalition’s work.

This first statement on Open Stewardship is crafted along the lines of an invitation – an invitation to Stewardship. It addresses the audience of the Coalition of the Willing film authored by Tim and produced in an innovative collaborative process led by Simon Robson, and released appropriately in waves.

Open Stewardship has been taken up enthusiastically by my colleagues in the Digital Excellence movement as an expression of the principles that have guided our work since the beginning of our early work towards a Community Benefits Agreement (never realized) and the architecting of the Principles for Digital Excellence. Together we look to the landscape in Chicago and out to the wider global community technology movement and see great opportunity for new models of cooperation and the development of commonly held resources that transform the information-action ecology.

At the Chicago COUNTs NetSquared Camp @IIT (Sept. 12) some friends and I will be facilitating an Open Stewardship Session in the afternoon (from 2-4pm), hoping to arrive at a comparable invitation to Stewardship and field-building in the Chicago Social Benefit Sector. Join us and together we will set the stage for a Chicago Revival.

Open Stewardship is my life’s work, and I invite you to engage me on this.

This has been a big week. Tim Rayner and I issued the first public statement on Open Stewardship – the fruit of many years labor on my part. We collaborated on the document using real-time simultaneous edits from opposite ends of the globe. It was truly a pleasure working with another Philosopher and writer, medicine committed to action in the world, gerontologist and I am tremendously grateful for Tim’s contribution.

This first statement on Open Stewardship is crafted along the lines of an invitation – an invitation to Stewardship. It addresses the audience of the Coalition of the Willing film authored by Tim and produced in an innovative collaborative process led by Simon Robson, and released appropriately in waves.

Open Stewardship has been taken up enthusiastically by my colleagues in the Digital Excellence movement as an expression of the principles that have guided our work since the beginning of our early work towards a Community Benefits Agreement (never realized) and the architecting of the Principles for Digital Excellence. Together we look to the landscape in Chicago and out to the wider global community technology movement and see great opportunity for new models of cooperation and the development of commonly held resources.

T
This has been a big week. On the very day Mayor Daley announced he would . Tim Rayner and I issued the first public statement on Open Stewardship – the fruit of many years labor on my part. We collaborated on the document using real-time simultaneous edits from opposite ends of the globe. It was truly a pleasure working with another Philosopher and writer committed to action in the world, hospital and I am tremendously grateful for Tim’s support and his embrace of the model in the Coalition’s work.

This first statement on Open Stewardship is crafted along the lines of an invitation – an invitation to Stewardship. It addresses the audience of the Coalition of the Willing film authored by Tim and produced in an innovative collaborative process led by Simon Robson, therapy and released appropriately in waves.

Open Stewardship has been taken up enthusiastically by my colleagues in the Digital Excellence movement as an expression of the principles that have guided our work since the beginning of our early work towards a Community Benefits Agreement (never realized) and the architecting of the Principles for Digital Excellence. Together we look to the landscape in Chicago and out to the wider global community technology movement and see great opportunity for new models of cooperation and the development of commonly held resources.

This has been a big week. On the very day Mayor Daley announced he would not seek another term, health Tim Rayner and I issued the first public statement on Open Stewardship – the fruit of many years labor on my part. We collaborated on the document using real-time simultaneous edits from opposite ends of the globe. It was truly a pleasure working with another Philosopher and writer committed to action in the world, food and I am tremendously grateful for Tim’s support and his embrace of the model in the Coalition‘s work.

This first statement on Open Stewardship is crafted along the lines of an invitation – an invitation to Stewardship. It addresses the audience of the Coalition of the Willing film authored by Tim and produced in an innovative collaborative process led by Simon Robson, migraine and released appropriately in waves.

Open Stewardship has been taken up enthusiastically by my colleagues in the Digital Excellence movement as an expression of the principles that have guided our work since the beginning of our early work towards a Community Benefits Agreement (never realized) and the architecting of the Principles for Digital Excellence. Together we look to the landscape in Chicago and out to the wider global community technology movement and see great opportunity for new models of cooperation and the development of commonly held resources.

At the Chicago COUNTs NetSquared Camp @IIT (Sept. 12) some friends and I will be facilitating an Open Stewardship Session in the afternoon (from 2-4pm), hoping to arrive at a comparable invitation to Stewardship and field-building in the Chicago Social Benefit Sector. Join us and together we will set the stage for a Chicago Revival.

This is my life’s work, and I invite you to engage me on this. Open Stewardship

This has been a big week. On the very day Mayor Daley announced he would seek another term, syringe Tim Rayner and I issued the first public statement on Open Stewardship – the fruit of many years labor on my part. We collaborated on the document using real-time simultaneous edits from opposite ends of the globe. It was truly a pleasure working with another Philosopher and writer committed to action in the world, healing and I am tremendously grateful for Tim’s support and his embrace of the model in the Coalition’s work.

This first statement on Open Stewardship is crafted along the lines of an invitation – an invitation to Stewardship. It addresses the audience of the Coalition of the Willing film authored by Tim and produced in an innovative collaborative process led by Simon Robson, order and released appropriately in waves.

Open Stewardship has been taken up enthusiastically by my colleagues in the Digital Excellence movement as an expression of the principles that have guided our work since the beginning of our early work towards a Community Benefits Agreement (never realized) and the architecting of the Principles for Digital Excellence. Together we look to the landscape in Chicago and out to the wider global community technology movement and see great opportunity for new models of cooperation and the development of commonly held resources.

This has been a big week. On the very day Mayor Daley announced he would not seek another term, traumatologist Tim Rayner and I issued the first public statement on Open Stewardship – the fruit of many years labor on my part. We collaborated on the document using real-time simultaneous edits from opposite ends of the globe. It was truly a pleasure working with another Philosopher and writer committed to action in the world, generic and I am tremendously grateful for Tim’s support and his embrace of the model in the Coalition‘s work.

This first statement on Open Stewardship is crafted along the lines of an invitation – an invitation to Stewardship. It addresses the audience of the Coalition of the Willing film authored by Tim and produced in an innovative collaborative process led by Simon Robson, and released appropriately in waves.

Open Stewardship has been taken up enthusiastically by my colleagues in the Digital Excellence movement as an expression of the principles that have guided our work since the beginning of our early work towards a Community Benefits Agreement (never realized) and the architecting of the Principles for Digital Excellence. Together we look to the landscape in Chicago and out to the wider global community technology movement and see great opportunity for new models of cooperation and the development of commonly held resources.

At the Chicago COUNTs NetSquared Camp @IIT (Sept. 12) some friends and I will be facilitating an Open Stewardship Session in the afternoon (from 2-4pm), hoping to arrive at a comparable invitation to Stewardship and field-building in the Chicago Social Benefit Sector. Join us and together we will set the stage for a Chicago Revival.

This has been a big week. On the very day Mayor Daley announced he would not seek another term, buy information pills Tim Rayner and I issued the first public statement on Open Stewardship – the fruit of many years labor on my part. We collaborated on the document using real-time simultaneous edits from opposite ends of the globe. It was truly a pleasure working with another Philosopher and writer committed to action in the world, pilule and I am tremendously grateful for Tim’s support and his embrace of the model in the Coalition‘s work.

This first statement on Open Stewardship is crafted along the lines of an invitation – an invitation to Stewardship. It addresses the audience of the Coalition of the Willing film authored by Tim and produced in an innovative collaborative process led by Simon Robson, and released appropriately in waves.

Open Stewardship has been taken up enthusiastically by my colleagues in the Digital Excellence movement as an expression of the principles that have guided our work since the beginning of our early work towards a Community Benefits Agreement (never realized) and the architecting of the Principles for Digital Excellence. Together we look to the landscape in Chicago and out to the wider global community technology movement and see great opportunity for new models of cooperation and the development of commonly held resources.

At the Chicago COUNTs NetSquared Camp @IIT (Sept. 12) some friends and I will be facilitating an Open Stewardship Session in the afternoon (from 2-4pm), hoping to arrive at a comparable invitation to Stewardship and field-building in the Chicago Social Benefit Sector. Join us and together we will set the stage for a Chicago Revival.

Open Stewardship is my life’s work, and I invite you to engage me on this.

This has been a big week. On the very day Mayor Daley announced he would not seek another term, salve this site Tim Rayner and I issued the first public statement on Open Stewardship – the fruit of many years labor on my part. We collaborated on the document using real-time simultaneous edits from opposite ends of the globe. It was truly a pleasure working with another Philosopher and writer committed to action in the world, resuscitation and I am tremendously grateful for Tim’s support and his embrace of the model in the Coalition’s work.

This first statement on Open Stewardship is crafted along the lines of an invitation – an invitation to Stewardship. It addresses the audience of the Coalition of the Willing film authored by Tim and produced in an innovative collaborative process led by Simon Robson, migraine and released appropriately in waves.

Open Stewardship has been taken up enthusiastically by my colleagues in the Digital Excellence movement as an expression of the principles that have guided our work since the beginning of our early work towards a Community Benefits Agreement (never realized) and the architecting of the Principles for Digital Excellence. Together we look to the landscape in Chicago and out to the wider global community technology movement and see great opportunity for new models of cooperation and the development of commonly held resources.

At the Chicago COUNTs NetSquared Camp @IIT (Sept. 12) some friends and I will be facilitating an Open Stewardship Session in the afternoon (from 2-4pm), hoping to arrive at a comparable invitation to Stewardship and field-building in the Chicago Social Benefit Sector. Join us and together we will set the stage for a Chicago Revival.

Open Stewardship is my life’s work, and I invite you to engage me on this.

This has been a big week. On the very day Mayor Daley announced he would not seek another term, salve this site Tim Rayner and I issued the first public statement on Open Stewardship – the fruit of many years labor on my part. We collaborated on the document using real-time simultaneous edits from opposite ends of the globe. It was truly a pleasure working with another Philosopher and writer committed to action in the world, resuscitation and I am tremendously grateful for Tim’s support and his embrace of the model in the Coalition’s work.

This first statement on Open Stewardship is crafted along the lines of an invitation – an invitation to Stewardship. It addresses the audience of the Coalition of the Willing film authored by Tim and produced in an innovative collaborative process led by Simon Robson, migraine and released appropriately in waves.

Open Stewardship has been taken up enthusiastically by my colleagues in the Digital Excellence movement as an expression of the principles that have guided our work since the beginning of our early work towards a Community Benefits Agreement (never realized) and the architecting of the Principles for Digital Excellence. Together we look to the landscape in Chicago and out to the wider global community technology movement and see great opportunity for new models of cooperation and the development of commonly held resources.

At the Chicago COUNTs NetSquared Camp @IIT (Sept. 12) some friends and I will be facilitating an Open Stewardship Session in the afternoon (from 2-4pm), hoping to arrive at a comparable invitation to Stewardship and field-building in the Chicago Social Benefit Sector. Join us and together we will set the stage for a Chicago Revival.

Open Stewardship is my life’s work, and I invite you to engage me on this.

What’s wry about these things, viagra order my writings? Don’t wrythe or groan. Write back.


wrythings is written by Michael Maranda
Facebook me!
This has been a big week. On the very day Mayor Daley announced he would not seek another term, salve this site Tim Rayner and I issued the first public statement on Open Stewardship – the fruit of many years labor on my part. We collaborated on the document using real-time simultaneous edits from opposite ends of the globe. It was truly a pleasure working with another Philosopher and writer committed to action in the world, resuscitation and I am tremendously grateful for Tim’s support and his embrace of the model in the Coalition’s work.

This first statement on Open Stewardship is crafted along the lines of an invitation – an invitation to Stewardship. It addresses the audience of the Coalition of the Willing film authored by Tim and produced in an innovative collaborative process led by Simon Robson, migraine and released appropriately in waves.

Open Stewardship has been taken up enthusiastically by my colleagues in the Digital Excellence movement as an expression of the principles that have guided our work since the beginning of our early work towards a Community Benefits Agreement (never realized) and the architecting of the Principles for Digital Excellence. Together we look to the landscape in Chicago and out to the wider global community technology movement and see great opportunity for new models of cooperation and the development of commonly held resources.

At the Chicago COUNTs NetSquared Camp @IIT (Sept. 12) some friends and I will be facilitating an Open Stewardship Session in the afternoon (from 2-4pm), hoping to arrive at a comparable invitation to Stewardship and field-building in the Chicago Social Benefit Sector. Join us and together we will set the stage for a Chicago Revival.

Open Stewardship is my life’s work, and I invite you to engage me on this.

What’s wry about these things, viagra order my writings? Don’t wrythe or groan. Write back.


wrythings is written by Michael Maranda
Facebook me!
Today is One Web Day. I still celebrate it in solidarity with the grassroots web even tho the organization behind it has been merged into the #Drumbeat Initiative. The #Drumbeat initiative is a good thing – because defending and (more importantly) extending the open web is something we do daily.

In honor of One Web Day here’s a call to action addressed to all who feel the absence of the great peer networking organizations and online communities that addressed community technology and networking, find and to those who joined the field since their zenith.

It is time to Rebuild and Reboot the Network!

Pierre Clark has been doing a great job publicizing DEXCON 2010 (October 29) — and as there has been interest in national/regional coordination and collaboration in the absence of major gatherings (such as the CTCNet Conferences) focused on Digital Inclusion/Digital Excellence and the traditional community tech center, otolaryngologist community media and community network concerns, diabetes and pregnancy we’ve put together a quick survey to determine feasibility of a Saturday Session for the Chicago DEXCON event.

We’ve already got several affirmative replies, so it looks like it will very likely happen! (Very exciting and much appreciated)

If you have any interest in re-invigorating the field — please do fill out this survey, and do it soon – we need to plan accordingly, all on volunteer steam (feels like the good old days)! Also, please share the word with anyone else you think may have missed the invitation to the survey or the event. Even if you cannot attend, for whatever reason – please check in with us. We’ll be setting up tools to keep the work moving before and after the event and we want to make sure everyone is involved.

We’re looking forward to a new era of open stewardship for our sector!

Warmest Regards,

Michael Maranda
Co-Founder, CDAA
This has been a big week. On the very day Mayor Daley announced he would not seek another term, salve this site Tim Rayner and I issued the first public statement on Open Stewardship – the fruit of many years labor on my part. We collaborated on the document using real-time simultaneous edits from opposite ends of the globe. It was truly a pleasure working with another Philosopher and writer committed to action in the world, resuscitation and I am tremendously grateful for Tim’s support and his embrace of the model in the Coalition’s work.

This first statement on Open Stewardship is crafted along the lines of an invitation – an invitation to Stewardship. It addresses the audience of the Coalition of the Willing film authored by Tim and produced in an innovative collaborative process led by Simon Robson, migraine and released appropriately in waves.

Open Stewardship has been taken up enthusiastically by my colleagues in the Digital Excellence movement as an expression of the principles that have guided our work since the beginning of our early work towards a Community Benefits Agreement (never realized) and the architecting of the Principles for Digital Excellence. Together we look to the landscape in Chicago and out to the wider global community technology movement and see great opportunity for new models of cooperation and the development of commonly held resources.

At the Chicago COUNTs NetSquared Camp @IIT (Sept. 12) some friends and I will be facilitating an Open Stewardship Session in the afternoon (from 2-4pm), hoping to arrive at a comparable invitation to Stewardship and field-building in the Chicago Social Benefit Sector. Join us and together we will set the stage for a Chicago Revival.

Open Stewardship is my life’s work, and I invite you to engage me on this.

What’s wry about these things, viagra order my writings? Don’t wrythe or groan. Write back.


wrythings is written by Michael Maranda
Facebook me!
Today is One Web Day. I still celebrate it in solidarity with the grassroots web even tho the organization behind it has been merged into the #Drumbeat Initiative. The #Drumbeat initiative is a good thing – because defending and (more importantly) extending the open web is something we do daily.

In honor of One Web Day here’s a call to action addressed to all who feel the absence of the great peer networking organizations and online communities that addressed community technology and networking, find and to those who joined the field since their zenith.

It is time to Rebuild and Reboot the Network!

Pierre Clark has been doing a great job publicizing DEXCON 2010 (October 29) — and as there has been interest in national/regional coordination and collaboration in the absence of major gatherings (such as the CTCNet Conferences) focused on Digital Inclusion/Digital Excellence and the traditional community tech center, otolaryngologist community media and community network concerns, diabetes and pregnancy we’ve put together a quick survey to determine feasibility of a Saturday Session for the Chicago DEXCON event.

We’ve already got several affirmative replies, so it looks like it will very likely happen! (Very exciting and much appreciated)

If you have any interest in re-invigorating the field — please do fill out this survey, and do it soon – we need to plan accordingly, all on volunteer steam (feels like the good old days)! Also, please share the word with anyone else you think may have missed the invitation to the survey or the event. Even if you cannot attend, for whatever reason – please check in with us. We’ll be setting up tools to keep the work moving before and after the event and we want to make sure everyone is involved.

We’re looking forward to a new era of open stewardship for our sector!

Warmest Regards,

Michael Maranda
Co-Founder, CDAA
Today is One Web Day. I still celebrate it in solidarity with the grassroots web even tho the organization behind it has been merged into the #Drumbeat Initiative. The #Drumbeat initiative is a good thing – because defending and (more importantly) extending the open web is something we do daily.

In honor of One Web Day here’s a call to action addressed to all who feel the absence of the great peer networking organizations and online communities that addressed community technology and networking, discount and to those who joined the field since their zenith.

It is time to Rebuild and Reboot the Network!

Pierre Clark has been doing a great job publicizing DEXCON 2010 (October 29) — and as there has been interest in national/regional coordination and collaboration in the absence of major gatherings (such as the CTCNet Conferences) focused on Digital Inclusion/Digital Excellence and the traditional community tech center, community media and community network concerns, we’ve put together a quick survey to determine feasibility of a Saturday Session for the Chicago DEXCON event.

We’ve already got several affirmative replies, so it looks like it will very likely happen! (Very exciting and much appreciated)

If you have any interest in re-invigorating the field — please do fill out this survey, and do it soon – we need to plan accordingly, all on volunteer steam (feels like the good old days)!

Also, please share this call to action with anyone else you think may have missed the invitation to the survey or the event announcement. Even if you cannot attend, for whatever reason – please check in with us. We’ll be setting up tools to keep the work moving before and after the event and we want to make sure everyone is involved.

We’re looking forward to a new era of open stewardship for our sector!

Warmest Regards,

Michael Maranda
Co-Founder, CDAA
This has been a big week. On the very day Mayor Daley announced he would not seek another term, salve this site Tim Rayner and I issued the first public statement on Open Stewardship – the fruit of many years labor on my part. We collaborated on the document using real-time simultaneous edits from opposite ends of the globe. It was truly a pleasure working with another Philosopher and writer committed to action in the world, resuscitation and I am tremendously grateful for Tim’s support and his embrace of the model in the Coalition’s work.

This first statement on Open Stewardship is crafted along the lines of an invitation – an invitation to Stewardship. It addresses the audience of the Coalition of the Willing film authored by Tim and produced in an innovative collaborative process led by Simon Robson, migraine and released appropriately in waves.

Open Stewardship has been taken up enthusiastically by my colleagues in the Digital Excellence movement as an expression of the principles that have guided our work since the beginning of our early work towards a Community Benefits Agreement (never realized) and the architecting of the Principles for Digital Excellence. Together we look to the landscape in Chicago and out to the wider global community technology movement and see great opportunity for new models of cooperation and the development of commonly held resources.

At the Chicago COUNTs NetSquared Camp @IIT (Sept. 12) some friends and I will be facilitating an Open Stewardship Session in the afternoon (from 2-4pm), hoping to arrive at a comparable invitation to Stewardship and field-building in the Chicago Social Benefit Sector. Join us and together we will set the stage for a Chicago Revival.

Open Stewardship is my life’s work, and I invite you to engage me on this.

What’s wry about these things, viagra order my writings? Don’t wrythe or groan. Write back.


wrythings is written by Michael Maranda
Facebook me!
Today is One Web Day. I still celebrate it in solidarity with the grassroots web even tho the organization behind it has been merged into the #Drumbeat Initiative. The #Drumbeat initiative is a good thing – because defending and (more importantly) extending the open web is something we do daily.

In honor of One Web Day here’s a call to action addressed to all who feel the absence of the great peer networking organizations and online communities that addressed community technology and networking, find and to those who joined the field since their zenith.

It is time to Rebuild and Reboot the Network!

Pierre Clark has been doing a great job publicizing DEXCON 2010 (October 29) — and as there has been interest in national/regional coordination and collaboration in the absence of major gatherings (such as the CTCNet Conferences) focused on Digital Inclusion/Digital Excellence and the traditional community tech center, otolaryngologist community media and community network concerns, diabetes and pregnancy we’ve put together a quick survey to determine feasibility of a Saturday Session for the Chicago DEXCON event.

We’ve already got several affirmative replies, so it looks like it will very likely happen! (Very exciting and much appreciated)

If you have any interest in re-invigorating the field — please do fill out this survey, and do it soon – we need to plan accordingly, all on volunteer steam (feels like the good old days)! Also, please share the word with anyone else you think may have missed the invitation to the survey or the event. Even if you cannot attend, for whatever reason – please check in with us. We’ll be setting up tools to keep the work moving before and after the event and we want to make sure everyone is involved.

We’re looking forward to a new era of open stewardship for our sector!

Warmest Regards,

Michael Maranda
Co-Founder, CDAA
Today is One Web Day. I still celebrate it in solidarity with the grassroots web even tho the organization behind it has been merged into the #Drumbeat Initiative. The #Drumbeat initiative is a good thing – because defending and (more importantly) extending the open web is something we do daily.

In honor of One Web Day here’s a call to action addressed to all who feel the absence of the great peer networking organizations and online communities that addressed community technology and networking, discount and to those who joined the field since their zenith.

It is time to Rebuild and Reboot the Network!

Pierre Clark has been doing a great job publicizing DEXCON 2010 (October 29) — and as there has been interest in national/regional coordination and collaboration in the absence of major gatherings (such as the CTCNet Conferences) focused on Digital Inclusion/Digital Excellence and the traditional community tech center, community media and community network concerns, we’ve put together a quick survey to determine feasibility of a Saturday Session for the Chicago DEXCON event.

We’ve already got several affirmative replies, so it looks like it will very likely happen! (Very exciting and much appreciated)

If you have any interest in re-invigorating the field — please do fill out this survey, and do it soon – we need to plan accordingly, all on volunteer steam (feels like the good old days)!

Also, please share this call to action with anyone else you think may have missed the invitation to the survey or the event announcement. Even if you cannot attend, for whatever reason – please check in with us. We’ll be setting up tools to keep the work moving before and after the event and we want to make sure everyone is involved.

We’re looking forward to a new era of open stewardship for our sector!

Warmest Regards,

Michael Maranda
Co-Founder, CDAA
Today is One Web Day. I still celebrate it in solidarity with the grassroots web even tho the organization behind it has been merged into the #Drumbeat Initiative. The #Drumbeat initiative is a good thing – because defending and (more importantly) extending the open web is something we do daily.

In honor of One Web Day here’s a call to action addressed to all who feel the absence of the great peer networking organizations and online communities that addressed community technology and networking, remedy and to those who joined the field since their zenith.

It is time to Rebuild and Reboot the Network!

Pierre Clark has been doing a great job publicizing DEXCON 2010 (October 29) — and as there has been interest in national/regional coordination and collaboration in the absence of major gatherings (such as the CTCNet Conferences) focused on Digital Inclusion/Digital Excellence and the traditional community tech center, community media and community network concerns, we’ve put together a quick survey to determine feasibility of a Saturday Session for the Chicago DEXCON event.

We’ve already got several affirmative replies, so it looks like it will very likely happen! (Very exciting and much appreciated)

If you have any interest in re-invigorating the field — please do fill out this survey, and do it soon – we need to plan accordingly, all on volunteer steam (feels like the good old days)! Also, please share the word with anyone else you think may have missed the invitation to the survey or the event. Even if you cannot attend, for whatever reason – please check in with us. We’ll be setting up tools to keep the work moving before and after the event and we want to make sure everyone is involved.

We’re looking forward to a new era of open stewardship for our sector!

Warmest Regards,

Michael Maranda
Co-Founder, CDAA
Today is One Web Day. I still celebrate it in solidarity with the grassroots web even tho the organization behind it has been merged into the #Drumbeat Initiative. The #Drumbeat initiative is a good thing – because defending and (more importantly) extending the open web is something we do daily.

In honor of One Web Day here’s a call to action addressed to all who feel the absence of the great peer networking organizations and online communities that addressed community technology and networking, site case and to those who joined the field since their zenith.

It is time to Rebuild and Reboot the Network!

Pierre Clark has been doing a great job publicizing DEXCON 2010 (October 29) — and as there has been interest in national/regional coordination and collaboration in the absence of major gatherings (such as the CTCNet Conferences) focused on Digital Inclusion/Digital Excellence and the traditional community tech center, purchase community media and community network concerns, order we’ve put together a quick survey to determine feasibility of a Saturday Session for the Chicago DEXCON event.

We’ve already got several affirmative replies, so it looks like it will very likely happen! (Very exciting and much appreciated)

If you have any interest in re-invigorating the field — please do fill out this survey, and do it soon – we need to plan accordingly, all on volunteer steam (feels like the good old days)! Also, please share the word with anyone else you think may have missed the invitation to the survey or the event. Even if you cannot attend, for whatever reason – please check in with us. We’ll be setting up tools to keep the work moving before and after the event and we want to make sure everyone is involved.

We’re looking forward to a new era of open stewardship for our sector!

Warmest Regards,

Michael Maranda
Co-Founder, CDAA
Today is One Web Day. I still celebrate it in solidarity with the grassroots web even tho the organization behind it has been merged into the #Drumbeat Initiative. The #Drumbeat initiative is a good thing – because defending and (more importantly) extending the open web is something we do daily.

In honor of One Web Day here’s a call to action addressed to all who feel the absence of the great peer networking organizations and online communities that addressed community technology and networking, site case and to those who joined the field since their zenith.

It is time to Rebuild and Reboot the Network!

Pierre Clark has been doing a great job publicizing DEXCON 2010 (October 29) — and as there has been interest in national/regional coordination and collaboration in the absence of major gatherings (such as the CTCNet Conferences) focused on Digital Inclusion/Digital Excellence and the traditional community tech center, purchase community media and community network concerns, order we’ve put together a quick survey to determine feasibility of a Saturday Session for the Chicago DEXCON event.

We’ve already got several affirmative replies, so it looks like it will very likely happen! (Very exciting and much appreciated)

If you have any interest in re-invigorating the field — please do fill out this survey, and do it soon – we need to plan accordingly, all on volunteer steam (feels like the good old days)! Also, please share the word with anyone else you think may have missed the invitation to the survey or the event. Even if you cannot attend, for whatever reason – please check in with us. We’ll be setting up tools to keep the work moving before and after the event and we want to make sure everyone is involved.

We’re looking forward to a new era of open stewardship for our sector!

Warmest Regards,

Michael Maranda
Co-Founder, CDAA
Today is One Web Day. I still celebrate it in solidarity with the grassroots web even tho the organization behind it has been merged into the #Drumbeat Initiative. The #Drumbeat initiative is a good thing – because defending and (more importantly) extending the open web is something we do daily.

In honor of One Web Day here’s a call to action addressed to all who feel the absence of the great peer networking organizations and online communities that addressed community technology and networking, buy more about and to those who joined the field since their zenith.

It is time to Rebuild and Reboot the Network!

Pierre Clark has been doing a great job publicizing DEXCON 2010 (October 29) — and as there has been interest in national/regional coordination and collaboration in the absence of major gatherings (such as the CTCNet Conferences) focused on Digital Inclusion/Digital Excellence and the traditional community tech center, injection community media and community network concerns, we’ve put together a quick survey to determine feasibility of a Saturday Session for the Chicago DEXCON event.

We’ve already got several affirmative replies, so it looks like it will very likely happen! (Very exciting and much appreciated)

If you have any interest in re-invigorating the field — please do fill out this survey, and do it soon – we need to plan accordingly, all on volunteer steam (feels like the good old days)! Also, please share the word with anyone else you think may have missed the invitation to the survey or the event. Even if you cannot attend, for whatever reason – please check in with us. We’ll be setting up tools to keep the work moving before and after the event and we want to make sure everyone is involved.

We’re looking forward to a new era of open stewardship for our sector!

Warmest Regards,

Michael Maranda
Co-Founder, CDAA
Today is One Web Day. I still celebrate it in solidarity with the grassroots web even tho the organization behind it has been merged into the #Drumbeat Initiative. The #Drumbeat initiative is a good thing – because defending and (more importantly) extending the open web is something we do daily.

In honor of One Web Day here’s a call to action addressed to all who feel the absence of the great peer networking organizations and online communities that addressed community technology and networking, site case and to those who joined the field since their zenith.

It is time to Rebuild and Reboot the Network!

Pierre Clark has been doing a great job publicizing DEXCON 2010 (October 29) — and as there has been interest in national/regional coordination and collaboration in the absence of major gatherings (such as the CTCNet Conferences) focused on Digital Inclusion/Digital Excellence and the traditional community tech center, purchase community media and community network concerns, order we’ve put together a quick survey to determine feasibility of a Saturday Session for the Chicago DEXCON event.

We’ve already got several affirmative replies, so it looks like it will very likely happen! (Very exciting and much appreciated)

If you have any interest in re-invigorating the field — please do fill out this survey, and do it soon – we need to plan accordingly, all on volunteer steam (feels like the good old days)! Also, please share the word with anyone else you think may have missed the invitation to the survey or the event. Even if you cannot attend, for whatever reason – please check in with us. We’ll be setting up tools to keep the work moving before and after the event and we want to make sure everyone is involved.

We’re looking forward to a new era of open stewardship for our sector!

Warmest Regards,

Michael Maranda
Co-Founder, CDAA
Today is One Web Day. I still celebrate it in solidarity with the grassroots web even tho the organization behind it has been merged into the #Drumbeat Initiative. The #Drumbeat initiative is a good thing – because defending and (more importantly) extending the open web is something we do daily.

In honor of One Web Day here’s a call to action addressed to all who feel the absence of the great peer networking organizations and online communities that addressed community technology and networking, buy more about and to those who joined the field since their zenith.

It is time to Rebuild and Reboot the Network!

Pierre Clark has been doing a great job publicizing DEXCON 2010 (October 29) — and as there has been interest in national/regional coordination and collaboration in the absence of major gatherings (such as the CTCNet Conferences) focused on Digital Inclusion/Digital Excellence and the traditional community tech center, injection community media and community network concerns, we’ve put together a quick survey to determine feasibility of a Saturday Session for the Chicago DEXCON event.

We’ve already got several affirmative replies, so it looks like it will very likely happen! (Very exciting and much appreciated)

If you have any interest in re-invigorating the field — please do fill out this survey, and do it soon – we need to plan accordingly, all on volunteer steam (feels like the good old days)! Also, please share the word with anyone else you think may have missed the invitation to the survey or the event. Even if you cannot attend, for whatever reason – please check in with us. We’ll be setting up tools to keep the work moving before and after the event and we want to make sure everyone is involved.

We’re looking forward to a new era of open stewardship for our sector!

Warmest Regards,

Michael Maranda
Co-Founder, CDAA
Today is One Web Day. I still celebrate it in solidarity with the grassroots web even tho the organization behind it has been merged into the #Drumbeat Initiative. The #Drumbeat initiative is a good thing – because defending and (more importantly) extending the open web is something we do daily.

In honor of One Web Day here’s a call to action addressed to all who feel the absence of the great peer networking organizations and online communities that addressed community technology and networking, illness and to those who joined the field since their zenith.

It is time to Rebuild and Reboot the Network!

Pierre Clark has been doing a great job publicizing DEXCON 2010 (October 29) — and as there has been interest in national/regional coordination and collaboration in the absence of major gatherings (such as the CTCNet Conferences) focused on Digital Inclusion/Digital Excellence and the traditional community tech center, illness community media and community network concerns, online we’ve put together a quick survey to determine feasibility of a Saturday Session for the Chicago DEXCON event.

We’ve already got several affirmative replies, so it looks like it will very likely happen! (Very exciting and much appreciated)

If you have any interest in re-invigorating the field — please do fill out this survey, and do it soon – we need to plan accordingly, all on volunteer steam (feels like the good old days)! Also, please share the word with anyone else you think may have missed the invitation to the survey or the event. Even if you cannot attend, for whatever reason – please check in with us. We’ll be setting up tools to keep the work moving before and after the event and we want to make sure everyone is involved.

We’re looking forward to a new era of open stewardship for our sector!

Warmest Regards,

Michael Maranda
Co-Founder, CDAA
Today is One Web Day. I still celebrate it in solidarity with the grassroots web even tho the organization behind it has been merged into the #Drumbeat Initiative. The #Drumbeat initiative is a good thing – because defending and (more importantly) extending the open web is something we do daily.

In honor of One Web Day here’s a call to action addressed to all who feel the absence of the great peer networking organizations and online communities that addressed community technology and networking, site case and to those who joined the field since their zenith.

It is time to Rebuild and Reboot the Network!

Pierre Clark has been doing a great job publicizing DEXCON 2010 (October 29) — and as there has been interest in national/regional coordination and collaboration in the absence of major gatherings (such as the CTCNet Conferences) focused on Digital Inclusion/Digital Excellence and the traditional community tech center, purchase community media and community network concerns, order we’ve put together a quick survey to determine feasibility of a Saturday Sessio