Pandora Project (working title)

[wise fool]

[...]There is only a seeing from a perspective, only a "knowing" from a perspective, and the more emotions we express over a thing, the more eyes, different eyes, we train on the same thing, the more complete will be our "idea" of that thing, our "objectivity."[...]
Nietzsche, Genealogy of Morals, III-12
________

What I want to eventually do is build an online transcendental perspectivist* community, with an inbuilt, revisable, mechanism to exploit consensus and dissension in order to make the dialectical process as explicit, dynamic, and fruitful, as possible; a place that'll encourage people to express and develop their self-derived sense of purpose, whatever that may be, and to cooperate and compete with others' sense of purpose, for the greater good of the individual, community, and beyond.

What I want to do now is assemble a team that is interesting in thinking about the best ways to build such a community, where team members cooperate and compete with each other's vision of the best way to go about that. This team would organize itself according to rules it sets for itself, and one of its main objectives is to refine those set of rules, and once adequately refined, those rules will become the inbuilt mechanism of our website... ideally, at least, or something like this... I guess if we are able to believe in the plan we have a decent chance of making it a reality.

Anyone interested? have any questions or comments?

*Transcendental Perspectivism challenges Nietzsche's claim that there are no absolute truths while fully accepting his observation that all truth can only be known in the context of one's own perception. This is accomplished through an appreciation of the emotional relationship between two perceptions (the "perceiver" and the "other").
-wikipedia: transcendental perspectivism

[wise fool]

How I imagine this might go:
There is a lower limit required for people willing to "commit" to the "team", and if that's met, it's a go, let's say 5.
There is an upper limit set for team members; 10
If more people want in then there are spaces: good, because it means more competition.
Discussion group is created, only team members can contribute, but it'll be for public viewing.

That's what I want to offer for now. I'm open to other ways to go about it.

I've a lot more ideas as to how it should operate, but I don't want to dominate the direction of this thing.


EDIT:

I like the idea of putting an upper limit on team members because it makes it easier, more manageable, to form a working consensus.

[wise fool]

I'm going to be making some nominations, feel free to do so yourself; here are my first three:

@Ptah : even though you claim to be an objectivist! you da man and I'd so very much value your contribution to this project.

@Resonance : I perceive you as a good transcendental perspectivist, one of the best here. I think we both have a very similar outlook, both of us seem to identify ourselves as INTP and INFJ, and I sometimes feel myself to be in a competition with you as a result, and I'd like to exploit that.

@gps : Much like Resonance, and Ptah for that matter, I feel very similar to you in some regards, in particular your "grasp" of metaphysics.

I picked you three because I think you'd be compatible with the objective set out in this project, and because I get the sense you all know computers and how to program/code way better than me, so I'm especially looking for input on that side of things

[Ptah]

Why not, and thanks for the nomination.

Let me know if/how I can facilitate forum-wise, and/or contribute otherwise.

edit: FYI, there is a "Project Groups" thing here, but there are also some heretofore undisclosed forum features which may help facilitate such a project, just waiting to be tested out, heh.

[wise fool]

Why not, and thanks for the nomination.

thanks for the forum!

Let me know if/how I can facilitate forum-wise, and/or contribute otherwise.

edit: FYI, there is a "Project Groups" thing here, but there are also some heretofore undisclosed forum features which may help facilitate such a project, just waiting to be tested out, heh.

Yeah, thanks for that too, I was totally excited to see the "Project Groups" function, it's perfect for this it seems, looking forward to testing it out...

[Ptah]

Cool. Let me know of any constructive criticism, suggestions for improvement, etc, concerning project-oriented features here. It is all just stubbed out, awaiting development through use... grow, don't build style.

Things you may wish to use to facilitate this project here:

• Project Groups, as aforementioned.
• Make a Chat Room
• This thread (tweaked/tricked-out per: http://forums.intpcomplex.com/showth...8516#post18516)

[wise fool]

awesome, will do.

EDIT:

Okay, @Ptah, I thought of something: it'd be great if there could be "project groups" within "project groups".

I have very little idea of what kinds of things are possible through this or any other software. But if project groups within project groups were possible, that would be really, really great. It would mean that many of the things that I'd like to see made possible in this "ideal-purpose-driven" social-network would be possible right here; it'd mean we'd be able to imitate our (or at least my) "ideal conception" that much better.

[Resonance]

w-what...

Senpai noticed me??

Ummm I'm not sure I quite understand what this is about, so I'm just going to start talking!

The main challenges that come to mind when thinking in TP terms is that people will either:
1) omit to fully consider why another might believe things the way they do, and just dismiss them as trolls or idiots instead of trying to reconcile them
2) come up with absurd views that they don't actually believe in order to spite / Reductio ad absurdum the Transcendental Perspectivist's attempts at unity-in-difference. ie. actually trolling.

So any system that we develop will have to have some mechanism to address that somehow.

This project seems a little similar to one I had been thinking about, which was something like Reddit/Urbandictionary, but applied to debate: so, you would have a debate topic, like, 'legalize abortion?' and people would post positions (ban all abortions, legalize in cases where rape/incest/etc. is involved, legalize any before third trimester, legalize any up until the fetus is likely to be viable outside the womb, or no regulation at all), then post individual arguments and evidence and people would 'upvote' the best-worded ones that support various positions. Ideally, this would result in hashing out a page where someone can go, 'abortion debate...what is it all about?' and see, at a glance, what the arguments are... then draw their own conclusions.

But really, I think it would just become a mess of inbreeding and back-patting like every other debate forum on the internet. I don't know that it would - it might be amazing - but I don't really have the time/energy/money to invest in such an experiment yet.

[wise fool]

I don't know why you guys aren't all chomping at the bit to get in on the ground floor of this thing!? HAH!

Two more nominees:
@Deckard & @Osito Polar: after reading a couple threads just now ["Proposed sub-forum - INTPx Projects" and "(forum culture) Look at the stars..."], I was reminded how congruent our wants seem to be.

____

I created a "project group" - "Pandora project". and for now left it open to the public, so get in while you can! lol - just testing out the system for now, perhaps I'll get some discussion topics going in there soon, feel free to add your own.


____

I was saying how having the ability to have groups within a group, within a group, would be a big step towards being better able to imitate my "ideal conception". I'd like to explain what I mean by that, and how I'd put it to use:

First I'll start with how I'd put it to use:

• Have an overarching Pandora Project "project group", which would open to everyone to view and become a member of
  
  • Have a "project group" that's specifically concerned with devising a method of determining consensus and/or hierarchy, within the Pandora Project group.
    
    • THere might be two (or more) separate camps/parties that are at odds with each other as to which way is the best method to adopt, each could form their own group to consolidate and organize their political will, within the "determining the method of consensus/hierarchy" group
    
    
  
  

Ideally, there'd be an inbuilt mechanism to show where one's values lay; something like: everybody gets to divide up 1 vote to the different areas they choose to take a vested interest in, and then the system spits out infographics!

For example, say we've completed our ideal social network thingy into something that works in the real world. I'd become a member, I suppose one of the first members, and if we've done a good job, there'd be a decent amount options ("objectives/groups") pre-thought out for me to take a "vested interest" in, or if I felt there was something I wanted to take a vested interest in and it wasn't being represented by any of the options, I could champion my own group, and ideally I'd have a fair amount of choice as to how to manage/moderate that group. Anyways, I could devote my "vested interest" evenly among all options, or I could concentrate it entirely into one, or anything in-between - totally up to me.

I could devote my vested interest as follows: 25%-group A, 25%-group B, 50%-group C.
Now say you devote 100% of your interest group C.
You would have twice the influence as me in group C, which could be used to influence the groups within that group.
Comprende?

We'd somehow judge which perspectives are most pertinent and worthy of acting on as a group, due to this magical mechanism! which'd take account of a hierarchy of perspective, within groups and among them.

[Resonance]

Can I just say I think a different name is necessary since there is already a pandora project that is well-known on the internet :< (radio)

Also: with computers and software, it's better to think in terms of what you (or the users) are trying to accomplish with the system, and let the design follow from that. Just assume any kind of data processing is possible, and design accordingly. Then when you run into problems with feasibility, you can compromise and find workarounds that still accomplish the same thing in effect.