18 Matching Annotations
  1. Nov 2022
    1. All research… All significant research is, in some respects, bottom-up. There is no alternative. And so, the only research that you can do top-down entirely is research for which you already have the solution.

      Research, by design, is a bottom-up process.

  2. Oct 2022
    1. Underlining Keyterms and Index Bloat .t3_y1akec._2FCtq-QzlfuN-SwVMUZMM3 { --postTitle-VisitedLinkColor: #9b9b9b; --postTitleLink-VisitedLinkColor: #9b9b9b; --postBodyLink-VisitedLinkColor: #989898; }

      Hello u/sscheper,

      Let me start by thanking you for introducing me to Zettelkasten. I have been writing notes for a week now and it's great that I'm able to retain more info and relate pieces of knowledge better through this method.

      I recently came to notice that there is redundancy in my index entries.

      I have two entries for Number Line. I have two branches in my Math category that deals with arithmetic, and so far I have "Addition" and "Subtraction". In those two branches I talk about visualizing ways of doing that, and both of those make use of and underline the term Number Line. So now the two entries in my index are "Number Line (Under Addition)" and "Number Line (Under Subtraction)". In those notes I elaborate how exactly each operation is done on a number line and the insights that can be derived from it. If this continues, I will have Number Line entries for "Multiplication" and "Division". I will also have to point to these entries if I want to link a main note for "Number Line".

      Is this alright? Am I underlining appropriately? When do I not underline keyterms? I know that I do these to increase my chances of relating to those notes when I get to reach the concept of Number Lines as I go through the index but I feel like I'm overdoing it, and it's probably bloating it.

      I get "Communication (under Info. Theory): '4212/1'" in the beginning because that is one aspect of Communication itself. But for something like the number line, it's very closely associated with arithmetic operations, and maybe I need to rethink how I populate my index.

      Presuming, since you're here, that you're creating a more Luhmann-esque inspired zettelkasten as opposed to the commonplace book (and usually more heavily indexed) inspired version, here are some things to think about:<br /> - Aren't your various versions of number line card behind each other or at least very near each other within your system to begin with? (And if not, why not?) If they are, then you can get away with indexing only one and know that the others will automatically be nearby in the tree. <br /> - Rather than indexing each, why not cross-index the cards themselves (if they happen to be far away from each other) so that the link to Number Line (Subtraction) appears on Number Line (Addition) and vice-versa? As long as you can find one, you'll be able to find them all, if necessary.

      If you look at Luhmann's online example index, you'll see that each index term only has one or two cross references, in part because future/new ideas close to the first one will naturally be installed close to the first instance. You won't find thousands of index entries in his system for things like "sociology" or "systems theory" because there would be so many that the index term would be useless. Instead, over time, he built huge blocks of cards on these topics and was thus able to focus more on the narrow/niche topics, which is usually where you're going to be doing most of your direct (and interesting) work.

      Your case sounds, and I see it with many, is that your thinking process is going from the bottom up, but that you're attempting to wedge it into a top down process and create an artificial hierarchy based on it. Resist this urge. Approaching things after-the-fact, we might place information theory as a sub-category of mathematics with overlaps in physics, engineering, computer science, and even the humanities in areas like sociology, psychology, and anthropology, but where you put your work on it may depend on your approach. If you're a physicist, you'll center it within your physics work and then branch out from there. You'd then have some of the psychology related parts of information theory and communications branching off of your physics work, but who cares if it's there and not in a dramatically separate section with the top level labeled humanities? It's all interdisciplinary anyway, so don't worry and place things closest in your system to where you think they fit for you and your work. If you had five different people studying information theory who were respectively a physicist, a mathematician, a computer scientist, an engineer, and an anthropologist, they could ostensibly have all the same material on their cards, but the branching structures and locations of them all would be dramatically different and unique, if nothing else based on the time ordered way in which they came across all the distinct pieces. This is fine. You're building this for yourself, not for a mass public that will be using the Dewey Decimal System to track it all down—researchers and librarians can do that on behalf of your estate. (Of course, if you're a musician, it bears noting that you'd be totally fine building your information theory section within the area of "bands" as a subsection on "The Bandwagon". 😁)

      If you overthink things and attempt to keep them too separate in their own prefigured categorical bins, you might, for example, have "chocolate" filed historically under the Olmec and might have "peanut butter" filed with Marcellus Gilmore Edson under chemistry or pharmacy. If you're a professional pastry chef this could be devastating as it will be much harder for the true "foodie" in your zettelkasten to creatively and more serendipitously link the two together to make peanut butter cups, something which may have otherwise fallen out much more quickly and easily if you'd taken a multi-disciplinary (bottom up) and certainly more natural approach to begin with. (Apologies for the length and potential overreach on your context here, but my two line response expanded because of other lines of thought I've been working on, and it was just easier for me to continue on writing while I had the "muse". Rather than edit it back down, I'll leave it as it may be of potential use to others coming with no context at all. In other words, consider most of this response a selfish one for me and my own slip box than as responsive to the OP.)

  3. Aug 2022
    1. Since the original Pascal was implemented with a one-pass compiler, the language believes strongly in declaration before use.  In particular, procedures and functions must be declared (body and all) before they are used.  The result is that a typical Pascal program reads from the bottom up - all the procedures and functions are displayed before any of the code that calls them, at all levels.  This is essentially opposite to the order in which the functions are designed and used.

      Worth noting that almost every C program is impaired by a similar limitation in the C language (despite the disclaimer that follows this passage about the use of the preproccessor), and many programmers' thought processes suffer because of it—no consideration for the presentability of code (even when not in languages that are affected by this limitation!)

  4. Jun 2022
    1. (a) What are the key levers and leverage points in social systems that might drive transformative change towards sustainability? (b) How are these derived from and perceived within and across academic literatures and in practice? (c) How might the levers and leverage points work together?

      Key questions are asked and the nexus approach of looking at the entire gestalt, consisting of many moving parts and their feedbacks is critical for avoiding and mitigating unintended consequences, also known as progress traps.

      Bringing this to a global public space to create engagement is critical to create a groundswell. The public must understand that leverage points offer us our greatest hope. Once they understand them, everyone can help to identify and participate in leverage points.

      Collectively mapping them and their many feedbacks in a global, open source map - an open knowledge commons (OKC) or open wisdom commons (OWC) for system change will drive global participation.

    1. multilateral cooperation is key to accelerate such action that new and additional voices need to be heard and engaged with especially 00:10:11 those of youth women indigenous groups and local communities the need to centre action on the principles of reaching out to the furthest first and leaving no one behind something like gandhian talisman

      There is a need to integrate top down, middle and bottom up actors into a grand synthesis to achieve the greatest efficacy in a Marshall plan.

      The community is the building block of society. Community action is still an idling capacity, an untapped resource. There is a natural synergy between communities and youth, and the bridge is schools.

  5. May 2022
    1. An Introduction to PLAN E Grand Strategy for the Twenty-First-Century Era of Entangled Security and Hyperthreats

      Planetary Boundary / Doughnut Economic Main Category: SOCIO-ECONOMIC: Culture, Education

      Although culture and education are chosen as the main categories, Plan E applies to all planetary boundaries and all socio-economic categories as it is dealing with whole system change.

      Visit Stop Reset Go on Indyweb for detailed context graph and to begin or engage in discussion on this topic. (Coming soon)

    2. “low-hanging fruit”

      IPCC AR6 WGIII Chapter 5: demand, services and social aspects of mitigation identifies that up to 45% of mitigation can result from a demand-side socialization strategy and collective action mobilization. This gives us tremendous power of impact to mobilize people. The low hanging fruit can be identified by comprehensive, ongoing, deep, global conversations with the greatest diversity of actors with a common vision collectively searching for the social tipping points, leverage points and idling resources and scaling massively thru the Indyweb as a cosmolocal network (what's light we share, what's heavy we produce locally).

      Climate scientist and realist Professor Kevin Anderson has argued for many years that demand side changes are the only solutions that can be implemented rapidly enough to peak emissions and drop emissions rapidly in the short term (next few years), buying time for reneewable energy solutions to scale globally.

    3. The hyper-response takes the viewpoint that, in the context of the enormous amount of work that needs to be done in a short period of time, Earth’s large human population is an asset if it can be effectively leveraged as part of the hyper-response

      The billions of ordinary people whose potential as appropriate level change actors has remained untapped. It is a significant reservoir of collective agency, an enormous repository of idling resource. It just needs a compelling enough narrative to lower the threshold to participatory collective action.

    4. An analysis of “friendly forces” via a “tribal discourse” activity found that although many of humanity’s smaller and less powerful tribes are engaged in minor operations against the hyperthreat, its most powerful tribes often abet the hyperthreat (figure 2). If humanity’s tribes could be united against the hyperthreat, the current balance of probabilities, which currently lie with a hyperthreat victory and a Hothouse Earth outcome, could be recast.

      This is the key idea behind mobilizing an effective global, multi-stakeholder, bottom-up response. Minor operations implies an aggregate approach that has little impact, otherwise known colloquially as "tinkering at the edge". IPCC AR6, WGIII Chapter 5 articulates this same message and for the first time, outlines that demand side system changes can play a significant role in mitigation effectiveness against the hyperthreat. It must be collectively organized individual change that scales to community scales around the globe in order to have impact, leveraging what the IPCC call "middle actors".

      An effective strategy must be very time sensitive to the short time window to peak emissions so must identify all leverage points, idling resources and social tipping points available to a global bottom-up mobilization.

  6. Jan 2022
  7. Dec 2021
    1. Extinction Rebellion has been at the forefront of a fundamentally new message which is if a government doesn't change, it's your right and as we've identified, your duty, if you're not going to be complicit, 00:34:43 to go into a rebellion a nonviolent civil disobedience against the government in order to fundamentally reduce carbon emissions. It's not actually that complicated, Is it? If you ask the average person who controls the economy, right? They know it's the banks, the big banks, right? And we had the banks, I think they did it pretty deliberately ten years ago. 00:35:12 They pulled our chain and we had the most massive transfer of wealth that the world has ever seen the bank bailout, right? Trillions and trillions of dollars. We're seeing the same thing now with covid and the banks have got to be behind it, right? If the banks wanted and decided that emissions have to decline from today 00:35:36 fast in a matter of years, the banks can do it, right? Because the banks hold the strings. All governments now are in a massive amount of national debt . we have an axis of evil if you want, we have the big banking corporations. We have the big fossil fuel corporations and we have the compliant government.

      The big three institutions making up the climate axis of evil: banks, governments and dirty energy.

      While XR does this, it is also possible to apply pressure on another front, a bottom-up, rapid, citizen-led transformation effort.

  8. Nov 2021
    1. Social convention, which has for so long worked against us, can if flipped become our greatest source of power, normalising what now seems radical and weird. If we can simultaneously trigger a cascading regime shift in both technology and politics, we might stand a chance. It sounds like a wild hope. But we have no choice. Our survival depends on raising the scale of civil disobedience until we build the greatest mass movement in history, mobilising the 25% who can flip the system.

      This is the core philosophy behind Stop Reset Go, but NOT NECESSARILY just in the direction of civil disobedience. To invest only in that is to put all our eggs in one basket that top down actors will be pressured beyond a certain threshold. It may happen, it may not, or it may just take too long. We must diversify and also invest in systematized bottom-up efforts.

  9. Oct 2021
  10. bafybeiery76ov25qa7hpadaiziuwhebaefhpxzzx6t6rchn7b37krzgroi.ipfs.dweb.link bafybeiery76ov25qa7hpadaiziuwhebaefhpxzzx6t6rchn7b37krzgroi.ipfs.dweb.link
    1. A final cluster gathers lenses that explore phenomena that are arguably more elastic and withthe potential to both indirectly maintain and explicitly reject and reshape existing norms. Many ofthe topics addressed here can be appropriately characterized as bottom-up, with strong and highlydiverse cultural foundations.

      The bottom-up nature of this cluster makes it the focus area for civil society movements, inner transformation approaches and cultural methodologies. Changing the mindset or paradigm from which the system arises is the most powerful place to intervene in a system as Donella Meadows pointed out decades ago in her research on system leverage points: https://donellameadows.org/archives/leverage-points-places-to-intervene-in-a-system/

      The Stop Reset Go initiative is focused on this thematic lens, bottom-up, rapid whole system change, with Deep Humanity as the open-source praxis to address the needed shift in worldview. One of the Deep Humanity programs is based on addressing the psychological deficits of the wealthy, and transforming them into heroes for the transition, by redirecting their WEALTH-to-WELLth.

  11. Apr 2021
    1. But decentralized learning goes farther than that: in a decentralized, Collaborative Learning environment, each team member participates in the learning process. They can identify their learning needs, request courses, give feedback on existing courses, and create courses themselves. We call this a bottom-up approach
      • push vs pull for learning - create an environment that enables learning to happen, and let the people doing the work surface what they need to learn, and then help facilitate and amplify that process
  12. Nov 2020
    1. I also like that the folksonomic approach (as in, there are no “pre-established groups”) allows for a great deal of expression, of negotiation (I imagine that #barcamp will be a common tag between events, but that’s fine, since if there is a collision, say between two separate BarCamps on the same day, they’ll just have to socially engineer a solution and probably pick a new tag, like #barcampblock) and of decay (that is, over time, as tags are used less frequently, other people can reuse them — no domain squatting!).

      The folksonomic approach (user-generated tagging) is beneficial because it allows complexity to emerge bottom-up.

  13. Mar 2020
    1. The truth is that building an innovative organization from top-down is a dynamic process.  It often involves people at all levels of the company. But, the fundamental narrative across the board with innovative organizations is the culture. The company culture has to include employees who feel connected to the organization and want to contribute value.
  14. Jan 2019
    1. bottom-up character

      Does this mean that the environment/available materials is a force that shapes rhetoric and communication, instead of the traditional idea that rhetoric is imposed upon a certain group or space? ("entangling" of the people with the environment?)