“Love is an abstract noun, something nebulous. And yet love turns out to be the only part of us that is solid, as the world turns upside down and the screen goes black. We can’t tell if it will survive us. But we can be sure that it’s the last thing to go.”—Martin Amis, The Second Plane: 14 Responses to September 11 (via rebeccataylorla)
Charm for Nurture, Individually hand-painted peppercorns, found mussel shell (Wheaton Island, Maine), 2010.
Excerpt from an essay by Yochai Benkler (via notational):
Almost two generations of human beings have been educated and socialized to think in terms of universal selfishness. “We need to get the incentives right” has been the watchword for anyone engaged in designing any kind of interaction, organization, or law. “What’s in it for him/her/us?” is the question we have trained ourselves to ask first. Once we get in the habit of thinking of ourselves in a particular way, we tend to interpret all the evidence we encounter to fit our preconceptions and assumptions. When we see acts of generosity or cooperation, for example, we tend to interpret them through the lens of self-interest. The first generation of economic scholarship on open source software analyzed the voluntary contributions of participants as an attempt to improve their reputations and long-term employment prospects—interpretations that were refuted by the decade of empirical research that followed. Through sheer force of habit, our erroneous beliefs and ways of thinking about human nature are interpreted as evidence and become entrenched. New insights need to overcome substantial barriers before they are accepted. In today’s world, adaptability, creativity, and innovativeness appear to be preconditions for organizations and individuals to thrive. These qualities don’t fit well with the industrial business model; they aren’t amenable to monitoring and pricing. We need people who aren’t focused only on payoffs but do the best they can to learn, adapt, improve, and deliver results for the organization. Being internally motivated to bring these qualities to bear in a world where insight, creativity, and innovation can come from anyone, anywhere, at any time is more important than being able to calculate the costs, benefits, risks, and rewards of well-understood actions in well-specified contexts. Alongside creativity, drive, flexibility, and diversity, we must include social conscience and authentic humanity when trying to design cooperative systems.
Yes. That. That right there.
The above image is of a small talisman that I made for a muse back in November 2010. While there is an inherent selfishness even to the notion of the muse, and this one was short-lived, it served a valuable function here. That function was to remind me that when I am consciously giving freely of myself to and for others, I am thereby free. Especially the longer the care, and labor that is invested (those peppercorns take forever to paint). I’ve had some uncomfortable reminders recently of how the opposite flow functions.
Anyhoo, a good reminder for a Sunday. Will be adding “giving more [back]” to the list today.
I was on a journey up a mountain (Andean-like). In the beginning I bumped into a bush that shot thousands of tiny painful thorns in my thighs and ass. I was with someone I knew. We went to the shaman doctor who looked at me for a minute, then disappeared. We waited for a long time, me alternating between sitting and standing in excruciating pain. The shaman didn’t return. Finally I started pulling the thorns out myself. My legs were welted with red and black spots but happy to be thornless, and I knew they would heal. We started to leave but the person I was with said it was too late to continue up (it was 6pm). They didn’t want to go. I went up the mountain alone.
#deletethetweets, recap and unanswered questions about @foxnewspolitics
a few days ago i went on a twitter rant* to get twitter or fox news to delete a series of tweets from the hacked @foxnewspolitics account that falsely stated that obama had been assassinated. what bothered me was not the hack, or even the content posted, but rather the amount of TIME that the hacked tweets stayed online IN COMBINATION with the content of the tweets. It was over 10 hours, during which time LOTS of people were retweeting the foxnewspolitics tweets. what i want to know, is, quite simply, what took so long? i’d love to believe that it was a holiday (july 4th), so maybe people were more chilled out. loving on america. but fox news had a statement posted in the morning** about the hack. yet the tweets stayed active for hours and hours after that. why? the only explanation i can think of is to gather information from the metadata. though can’t this information be scraped quickly? does it take 10 HOURS to do that? the more cynical side of me wonders if fox news LEFT them online for as long as they could.
but to back up a bit. i started the hashtag #deletethetweets at 11:13 eastern time, july 4, with the goal of getting the tweets deleted. NOT because i hate freedom of speech, but because it was a hacked account that was spreading essentially cultural malware. spam akin to yelling fire in a crowded theatre. a few people claimed i was stepping on freedom of speech. however i disagree with that assessment, and the analogy i gave to one user related it to credit card fraud: “Should a credit card company have the right to reverse fraudulent purchases? To me, same thing.”
ok, so #deletethetweets was rolling, and a small handful of people were talking about it. not a ton, but enough to convince me i wasn’t talking to the mirror. and certainly more than i expected on a holiday. then at around 11:54 am the hacked tweets on the foxnewspolitics account were removed.
who knows if the hashtag had ANYTHING to do with them coming down. i was glad to see them gone, but the one question that i haven’t gotten an answer to from anybody, is what took so long. later that day i wondered if the hacked account had said that sarah palin was dead, would the tweets have stayed there as long. that night i got a brief response from @brianstetler (who co-wrote the times article) saying that neither fox nor twitter had explained what took so long. i believe WE, the public, deserve to know.
lastly, it’s gets a little weirder. i’ve now received three of the same tweets from three different people. the first one makes sense, but the other two are just…weird. it’s like they’re ghosts. though i am writing this at 3:30am on 4 hours sleep so who knows…
in any event, i’m not sure what to make of all this. but if you’re feeling inspired, send @twitter or @foxnews a message. see if you can get an answer.
now back to our regularly scheduled program…
xo, cheers, man
*note: for some reason twitter is not indexing all of the tweets tagged #deletethetweets. that is beginning to frustrate me. there were a lot more. i might have to pony up for a twapper keeper account after all…
**note: the message on the fox news site (here) was updated AFTER the tweets were deleted. the tech crunch article was published before then.