The capitalization process is broken.

What does this mean and what might we, the BCNGroup, do about this.

The current social discourse, immediately after the elections, shows how dependant on the place in history a social discourse is. There are points in history where the social discourse is deeply altered due to new information becoming available. Not all information serves this purpose. But certainly the certain and specific knowledge, of the results of the 2004 US presidential elections, is information of this type. There is a reaction, an evolution, an adoption and a new environment in which the social discourse is now expressible.

The people of voted for Kerry are adjusting to the fact that John Kerry was not elected, and the people who voted for President Bush are making adjustments also. One can see the deeper agendas, but one can also see that a new boldness has developed that allows a shift of attention from bothersome, and often mean and unfair, rhetoric designed to solidify the Republican party’s base, to specific discussions and plans that are in fact creating the process in which the legitimatization of the People’s choice might be recorded as a matter of historical insight.

Many Kerry voters are not displeased with this shift. The shift allows for contributions from the Kerry voter, and opens up the practical definition of who is a responsible person.

Adjustments of this type cannot really be predicted, at least not in the specificity that actually exists in the moments after the information is available to everyone. The reason why the near future becomes non-anticipatory is due to the natures of the social and physical universe. Our work on general systems theory as applied to modeling complex systems such as social systems and psychological systems may mature over the next twenty years and help our society understand as a matter of public education this type of issues.

Again, we refer to the educational needs of the Nation in the context of the planning process leading to a National Manhattan type project to create the knowledge sciences.

So can Readware, as it is currently configured provide a conceptual model of the changes in social discourse?

The answer to this single question is, “well not quite and not exactly”.

Tom Adi and Paul Prueitt have worked over the past few months on the description of the internal mechanisms of Readware structured ontology, and just yesterday a substantial revision was made to Part I. Part II is in progress, and we, the BCNGroup founding committee, post the current version for readers of the bead games to review.

How might the BCNGroup obtain a social recognition about the facts related to capitalization of new corporations using a public issue of stock?

The answer to this question is related to the first question about the provision of a conceptual model of the changes in the social discourse. If this conceptual model is developed automatically from the harvesting of web logs and text placed into an digital archive from the minutes of meetings broadcast by CNN, for example, then the BCNGroup founders would be able to place into this model certain transition threads to leads the reader to the

issue of monopoly control over the capitalization process.

Novelty develops, in the social expression, based on mechanisms that are not deterministic. Tipping points, such as the election of 2004, create a create deal of variation in the potentials that one might map as ecological-social affordance, as discussed in length in the bead games. Use the Readware indexer to look up “affordance”.

Relationship to the theory of categoricalAbstraction (cA)

As Richard Ballard and others have discussed within the games, the process of abstraction produces a means to reflect and communicate about some aspects of the experience of reality. Processes of abstraction leads to social theories, such as those shared in common by the voters who voted for Kerry. A different set of abstractions are created within the communication processes that help define the points of view expressed by the voters who voted for President Bush.

The work that Peter Stephenson and I are doing has focused on the process of “folding” occurrences of abstractions into higher-level abstractions. The application of this “generative methodology” is towards a complex two-sided model of cyber attack mechanisms, one that realizes that the computer data encoding and compilation process creates data regularity in context, and that this regularity in context leads, or will lead to when we have the technology deployed, to a global understanding of the cyber event space.

My plan is to develop an extensive commentary on Adi’s Part I – Part III when it is completed. This commentary will bring in a mature but unpublished theory of modeling over complex objects of investigation, as suggested in the unpublished book, “Knowledge Foundations”.

The information derived from Prueitt and Stephenson’s work on categoricalAbstraction and eventChemistry is information that is anticipatory because the information is shared globally and not merely locally (see Pribram’s folder) [1]. Information that is available globally in a system of particle has been seen as paradoxical in the context of Western science, as discussed by David Bohm and Karl Pribram, among others. The same issue arises in the discussed between Tom Adi and Paul Prueitt in the context of what Prueitt is comfortable calling “informational constraints” in the production of speech and written language, and what Tom Adi is comfortable calling precedence operators.

This type of information is precisely what Richard Ballard’s Mark 3 knowledge process is designed to acquire and make available to the public. Richard’s theory of information is extensive and requires some patience to tease out of what he has written and made available. Part of the situation with the Mark 3 is that it is still conceived to be a proprietary systems designed to take some ownership over a great deal of the useful knowledge that is sharable within the public communities. The details as to how this might be rolled out are still as yet not determined. Clearly Congressional funding of a national project within a year or two would make a difference in how the Mark 3 knowledge processor was completed and deployed. (Richard may make some communication into the bead games specifically on this, and when he does we will link the bead here.)

Sandy Klausner’s work on a set of terms within an iconic language, called Cubicon, also precisely is targeting the production of information of this type. With this type of anticipatory infrastructure, information science suddenly changes. We set aside a great deal of the academic debate and skepticism that has held our culture back form positive truth seeking for some several decades.

See related:

dataRenewal Business Model

[1] Pribram’s work is also interpreted in light of Prueitt’s work in several of the Chapters of the unpublished book, in particular in the Preface and Chapter 4.