legibility: (noun) the quality of being clear enough to read
how you might feel when everyone wants you to write.. and to write their way..
how you might feel when everyone wants a pitch in their language/jargon (this is what got us to collection of intros ness)..
amharic l
korean e
greek g
catalan i
hebrew b
nepali l
hawaiian e
how they might feel when you use letters w/in an image.. so not translatable (direct on slidedeck)..
adding page/deck.. but won’t be able to make legible the huge resonance/insight this thinking is having in my head/heart/soul.. seems very root ish.. anyway.. adding in very idio/messy way (per usual) started long ago with idio jargon ness.. and feelings of having to spend the day clarifying a story.. for a person/group.. then re clarifying it.. for another.. and another.. and another.. et al.. thinking: is that the best way to spend our day..? and more so: is it not killing us.. making us not us..? then (with tons inbetween) the recent intermingling/coalescing of .. David Manheim (via ultimape) and Richard Feynman and Maha Bali
1\ David: from his corp or go home post: https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2016/03/17/go-corporate-or-go-home/
*Legibility is related to ease of communication: if something is legible, you can see where to go and what to do. i ask him..*is it..? thinking: beyond words ness.. beyond x-d ness ness.. reply from david:
I’m unsure if there are ways to communicate without legibility, but I’m sure most illegible systems *make communication much harder *make it harder..? or simply help us realize.. communication is never finished..? which.. if we really grokked that.. might make it much easier.. certainly much more humane.. ie: embrace self-talk/idio-jargon as data
then i asked him how he’d define legibility and he ref’d me to his other post: https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2010/07/26/a-big-little-idea-called-legibility/.. so adding/digging thru that: The picture is not an exception, and the word “legibility” is not a metaphor; the actual visual/textual sense of the word (as in “readability”) is what is meant. the reason i asked his defn is because i’m thinking what’s getting us is.. readability as determined by who..? thinking: we need to get rid of the pre-req of prep/training in order to communicate. . The deep failure in thinking lies is the mistaken assumption that thriving, successful and functional realities must necessarily be legible. Or at least more legible to the all-seeing statist eye in the sky (many of the pictures in the book are literally aerial views) than to the local, embedded, eye on the ground. I suspect that what tempts us into this failure is that legibility quells the anxieties evoked by apparent chaos.
this is huge.. are we insisting on legibility because we fear uncertainty.. when.. it’s the uncertainty that makes us free/resilient/all-the-things.. If my conjecture is correct, then the High Modernist failure-through-legibility-seeking formula is a large scale effect of the rationalization of the fear of (apparent) chaos. yes that..
The Napoleanic era saw the spread of the metric system; again an idea that is highly rational from a centralized bird’s eye view, *but often stupid with respect to the subtle local adaptions of the systems it displaced. Again this displaced a good deal of local power and value, and created many injustices and local irrationalities, but the shift brought with it the benefits of **improved communication and wide-area commerce. *yes **did it..? The reason the formula is generally dangerous, and a formula for failure, is that it does not operate by a thoughtful consideration of local/global tradeoffs, but through the imposition of a singular view as “best for all” in a pseudo-scientific sense. there you go.. not even global vs local.. but the idea of algo ness for humanity .. for communication.. et al the process is driven by a naive “best for everybody” paternalism, that genuinely intends to improve the lives of the people it affects. The high-modernist reformer is driven by a naive-scientific Utopian vision that does not tolerate dissent, because it believes it is dealing in scientific truths.
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
more intermingling..this from Jim Groom: http://bavatuesdays.com/i-dont-need-permission-to-be-open/
to define it in order to start controlling it.. reconsolidates power for those who define it
back to David’s corp or go home post: the less legible the organization is, the *harder it is to be resilient. *is it..? thinking: how we gain from dis order..(not to mention.. again.. that ie’s are based on assumptions of ie: business; office; salesman; firing; hiring;…)
We’d love to have flexibility, but the cost is scale, integration, and *profitability. perhaps the compromise is thinking *profits.. rather than people.. thinking: holmgren indigenous law
The math of complexity isn’t changing, and *humans have cognitive limits. That means we need to accept that growth of companies post-startup phase will not be exponential, nor even linear, but logarithmic — scaling along with the legibility of a tree. *esp when we assume they exist in ie: schools, companies, … we’re missing (back to peter pan) human potential.. big time
2\ Richard: Richard Feynman was asked why/how magnets repel: http://www.physics-astronomy.com/2015/08/richard-feynman-is-asked-how-magnets.html#.WNhjmqIrKb_ how does a person answer why something happens.. when you explain a why.. you have to be in some framework that you allowed something to be true.. otherwise.. you’re perpetually asking why.. 2 min – you begin to get a very interesting understanding of the world and all its complications.. if try to follow anything up.. you go deeper/deeper in various directions.. 3 min – ie: you ok with.. because you slip on ice.. or go deeper as to why.. is ice slippery.. to why does water expand when it freezes and other substances don’t expand.. et al..
i’m not answering your question but i’m telling you how difficult a why question is.. you have to know what it is that you’re permitted to understand and allowed to be understood and known.. and what it is you’re not.. the more i ask why.. it gets interesting.. that’s my idea that the deeper it is the more interesting it is 4 min – when you ask why do magnets repel.. there are many diff levels.. it depends on whether you’re a student or an ordinary person that doesn’t know anything about it.. if you’re somebody that doesn’t know anything at all.. all i can say is that there’s a magnetic force that makes it repel .. and that you’re feeling that force
5 min – it turns out the magnetic and electric force with which i wish to explain these things.. is what ultimately is the deeper thing.. that we have to.. that we can start with to explain many other things that looked like they were.. everybody would just accept them.. you know you can’t put your hand thru the chair.. that’s taken for granted.. but when you can’t put hand thru chair.. you look more closely.. why.. that involves the same repulsive forces that appear in magnets.. the situation you then have to explain is why in magnets.. goes over a bigger distance than an ordinary (chair) … it’s a force that is present all the time.. very common.. a basic force.. almost.. i mean i could go a little further back.. more technical..
6 min – but in the early level i am just gonna have to tell you.. that’s going to be one of the things you’ll just have to take as an element in the world.. magnetic repulsion or electrical/magnetic attraction..
i can’t explain that attraction in anything else that’s familiar to you.. ie: if i would say magnets attracting as if by rubber bands.. i would be cheating you.. because they’re not connected by rubber bands.. and i’d soon be in trouble.. you’d soon ask me about the nature of the bands.. and secondly .. if you were curious enough you’d ask me why rubber bands tend to pull back together again and i would end up explaining that in terms of electrical forces.. which are the very things i’m trying to use the rubber bands to explain.. so i have cheated very badly you see..
so i’m not going to be able to give you an answer.. to why magnets attract each other.. except to tell you they do.. and to tell you that’s one of the elements in the world and diff kinds of forces in the world.. electrical/magnetic/gravitational forces.. and others.. and those are some of the parts.. 7 min – if you were a student i could go further.. that magnetic forces are related to electrical forces very intimately.. that relations between the gravitational forces and electrical forces remains unknown.. and so on..
but i really can’t do a good job.. any job.. of explaining magnetic force in terms of something else that you’re more familiar with.. because i don’t understand it in terms of anything else that you’re more familiar with thinking: idio jargon ness keeps us closer to truth..deeper/more-interesting.. ..further from cheating.. if we weren’t dealing with diversity and too much to know ness.. then maybe we could do legible as pre-req.. but we are.. we're swimming in them.. we’re swimming in uncertainty. thank goodness..we now have a means to facil that chaos/deepness.. eagle and condor time
3\ Maha: from her oer17 keynote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKOVbcmgEy4
any process can privilege some people over others.. public consensus always oppresses someone begs we find a nother way (which is why today is diff than any other time..we have tech capabilities for facilitating this chaos).. to live.. that doesn’t assume/expect/require training/prep/legible-ness.. in order to be/communicate et al.. 43 min – in which languages can we find material online
since your language/theories are inadequate in expressing our experiences we only succeed of communicate our experience of exclusion.. we cannot talk to you in our language because you don’t understand it.. – lugones & spellman 1983 begs idio jargon ness.. ie: Sharon‘s translating all the voices
needs to say things that are understandable.. not really expressing what you wanted to say in the first place beyond words.. it’s not that people are voiceless.. great/extreme ie: Owen Suskind et al.. we just need to listen deeper 45 min – who gets to tell the story.. and who gets to decide when the story starts
46 min – how do you develop algo’s … that don’t reproduce dominant content..that can surface under-represented voices and knowledge hosting-life-bits via self-talk as data 50 min – inclusion is a construction project.. must be engineered – sherri spelic on including people.. but in our own space.. where we have the structure/power.. design with not for.. rev of everyday life.. a nother way
again.. as wrote on Maha’s bit:
begs we find a nother way (which is why today is diff than any other time.. we have tech capabilities for facilitating this chaos).. to live.. that doesn’t assume/expect training/prep/legible-ness.. in order to be/communicate et al.. people are working on it technically ..two recent ie’s: Sharon Goldwater on translating w/o transcribing via neural networks et al.. Giorgia Lupi on visual reps that unleash access/messy/whimsy et al
it's doable.. has been.. we just keep missing it because we can't seem to let go of control enough to trust 100% ness this can't be partial.. this ginorm/small change begs systemic ness
let’s
from assuming expecting pre-req-ing
l
i
s
t
ness
e
n
d
e
e
p
e
r