30-10-2010, 07:39 AM
Thank you, Mssrs. Fetzer and Drago.
Communication continues among a few; where it will go remains to be seen. As everyone here can probably imagine, or have experienced in this or other topical arenas, it is sometimes difficult to sense who people are from a distance, especially when new to one another and in a world where there is only "virtual" communication, and not face-to-face (thus allowing for the all-important right brain-oriented soft inputs). There is a lot of uncertainty, possible mistrust, and sometimes a less-than-helpful withholding, as well as the omnipresent factor of ego. But many are focused on transparency, and science, and critical thinking. Therein lies, in the holistic brain approach in which the corpus callosum is constantly checking back and forth, the path to progress.
It is not my job or nor my right to report out to you the dialogue now underway about the 9/11 versus CIT controversy, nor even to document who is involved.
I have, however, tonight further explained several thoughts for future mechanisms. As their author, I feel I am allowed to share them here:
Originally, I said to my primary contact:
a) In the past -- in small discussion board context -- I have argued for a systematic use of available technologies to "map" and chart the vagaries of theory and evidence in re: 9/11.. Google up some sources for "concept mapping", some of which is downloadable for team use for free.
b) I was taught .. a long, long time ago, in a conference center not far from here -- the use of a three-dimensional labeling and tagging visualization technique to assess the power and salience of organizations and people in policy issues. It comes from the world of health planning and simply utilizes a numerical scoring technique of five degrees ( -2 to +2) for two categories: the ability to move (or obstruct), and the degree of importance of the matter to the person or organization.
c) Some thought should be given to short-term and long-term threats and opportunities relative to future action, activism and policy. Specifically, I speak at the moment of three potentially pending changes in the socio-political environment:
1) cyber-war and cyber-crackdown, either from a censorship perspective, or a wholesale restriction, or as an act of interference;
2) expanded war and its effects (in particular with regard to Iran >> global war);
3) severe economic distress or collapse.
When asked for explanations, I offered up the following:
The fastest way to understand this is to Google for concept maps; there is already a great deal of information on what it's about, how to do it and why, and where you can get the software. [It's actually not terribly far removed from what has been and is being accomplished here in re: JFK & Dealey Plaza, the photos, the Plaza map, the videos, the threads, the debates...]
Who should do it? An organized, self-selected but open group of existing people who are knowledgeable, credible, and willing to sustain debate. It does require some financial support but it is essentially something that requires a server, a coordinator or three, some team direction and management (hey, the content we're talking about is mammoth, right?), and some mechanism to cover the expenses. It can be done "virtually" and asynchronously. But I am a huge fan of meeting face-to-face on occasion because of the "soft" issues in communications, authenticity, veracity, etc. Anonymity in this venture is destructive. So the process before the process requires some facilitation.
Keep in mind that much of what we are talking about here in terms of text, software, films, photos, and the like IS ALREADY IN PLACE at a number of web sites. At this point, negotiating openness, rights, etc. may be more of a challenge than conceiving the idea. There has to be a "we're in this for free and posterity" attitude, not a "but I paid for this" or "I control the rights to this footage" approach.
I see it as a HQ/HD version of a people's commission. Who should select who will be involved? That's the $64 dollar question. But there are a lot of people already 9/11 signatories who have sound scientific, peer review, evidence-assessing, "legal minds" skills... and they can write some rules or establish a committee or a process by which judgment can ensue. I once challenged an online debunker to this... to assemble the 9/11 problem like a legal case with evidentiary rules (when I knew, but he had forgotten that I knew, that he worked for a state bar association), and he folded like a house of cards.
I would take a page out of what Ben Franklin once wrote about fundraising.. .yes, we needs the $$ but we need the commitment and the involvement first -- and that is to go back to the beginning (once we have a "package" or a proposal) and go to key insiders who were instrumental in getting this thing off the ground at the very beginning... strategic thinkers, people who know how to get things done.
Item B is about perception, and argument/discussion relative to strategy or movement inside a social field.
This is going to sound a little touchy-feely-NewAge for a moment, but bear with me.
Close your eyes. Clear your thoughts. Take a deep breath or two.
This part is about visualization. Envision that you are sitting in a three-dimensional room with no windows or doors The room is 8 feet high, 8 feet long, 8 feet wide. The walls are painted an off-white. At the four foot mark on the horizontal (side to side) axis is a 2" wide black line demarcating the "0" point on the room/scale. Similar 1" grey lines are painted at the two-foot and six-foot heights to depict +1 and -1 scores on the scale. The horizontal axis depicts power.
At the four-foot marks on the vertical (up/down) scale (demarcating halfway or "0" values), there is a 2" red line. Similar 1" dull red lines are painted at the two-foot and six-foot heights to depict +1 and -1 scores on the scale. The horizontal axis depicts salience.
Make a list of all relevant organizations, publications, agencies, perhaps even key people, in the 9/11 field. Survey the field widely to set this list. Eliminate the truly fringe. A simple e-mail or letter process will suffice, even an online survey which will allow widespread input.
Now execution of the concept. Construct a spreadsheet with all the names. Create two fields for power and salience and allow scores in each field ranging from -2 (on the floor or in the lefthand corners of the room) to +2 (on the ceiling or the right hand corners). Someone with great math/spatial intelligence can work this better.
Conceptually, or in visualization, construct a simple small 1"x1" card with an organizational or personal avatar or icon or identifier and both scores in tiny print and, using nearly-invisible fishing line, hang the cards for each organization at the right height and location given the scores. The scores, of course, would be a consensus or everyone's scores (perhaps after a conference call debate or a online discussion). Who should participate? Anyone who wants to. Ideally, the leadership of all organizations noted on the first draft.
Someone with a computer and some date entry skills or mechanisms, and ideally someone with a computer software program that could translate the consensus scores into a 3-D map through which someone could walk or scroll, would be ideal.
Having the end-product, now all organizations can simply see "the field" for what it is as seen by everyone in the field.
I might give high positive scores in both categories to History Commons, David Ray Griffin, etc. I would give a high power score and a high salience score to Cass Sunstein.
Salience is the state or condition of being prominent. The Oxford English Dictionary defines salience as "most noticeable or important." The concept is discussed in communication, semiotics, linguistics, sociology, psychology, and political science. ...
Power is seen as the personal or organizational ability to "move" or "block" actions and discussion about 9/11.
A third score (perhaps a simple color code like chess pieces) might be rendered in terms of openness to the issues...
[size=12]
But I am not important here... My scores have little if any weight.
The process, then, allows people to see clearly what tactics and strategies in terms of alliances and activism might be useful.
But the theory of the idea is that you, or I, or anyone can examine this "map" with greater clarity in terms of how he/we might approach this individual/organization to do what and in what order. It becomes a three-dimensional chess match. Taking the idea a step further, obviously pilots have salience in one area of expertise, engineers and architects in another, etc. The idea here is not to joust for position and ranking as "king" or "queen" of the 9/11 movement, but to see the field... To know when one key 9/11 Truther is being attacked by one key 9/11 Truth antagonist, and how to counter that with movement of another 9/11 Truth organization or an "attack" against a weaker or supporting 9/11 antagonist.
It may also help us all from bloodying our knuckles banging on doors that won't open to us, or in terms of building momentum and log-rolling.
An individual can construct one of these in his or her own geographic or mediated area of influence.
It can be used by someone to decide which folks should receive that particularly juicy e-mail.
It can be used by media personalities to decide who to invite for an interview, discussion, etc.
It can be used by organizers to determine whom to approach in terms of placement of a news item, or whom to approach with misprision of treason material packets, or it can be used in a variety of ways I haven't thought of.
It is a mechanism by which someone can "take the temperature" of a social group or climate. [/SIZE]
Communication continues among a few; where it will go remains to be seen. As everyone here can probably imagine, or have experienced in this or other topical arenas, it is sometimes difficult to sense who people are from a distance, especially when new to one another and in a world where there is only "virtual" communication, and not face-to-face (thus allowing for the all-important right brain-oriented soft inputs). There is a lot of uncertainty, possible mistrust, and sometimes a less-than-helpful withholding, as well as the omnipresent factor of ego. But many are focused on transparency, and science, and critical thinking. Therein lies, in the holistic brain approach in which the corpus callosum is constantly checking back and forth, the path to progress.
It is not my job or nor my right to report out to you the dialogue now underway about the 9/11 versus CIT controversy, nor even to document who is involved.
I have, however, tonight further explained several thoughts for future mechanisms. As their author, I feel I am allowed to share them here:
Originally, I said to my primary contact:
a) In the past -- in small discussion board context -- I have argued for a systematic use of available technologies to "map" and chart the vagaries of theory and evidence in re: 9/11.. Google up some sources for "concept mapping", some of which is downloadable for team use for free.
b) I was taught .. a long, long time ago, in a conference center not far from here -- the use of a three-dimensional labeling and tagging visualization technique to assess the power and salience of organizations and people in policy issues. It comes from the world of health planning and simply utilizes a numerical scoring technique of five degrees ( -2 to +2) for two categories: the ability to move (or obstruct), and the degree of importance of the matter to the person or organization.
c) Some thought should be given to short-term and long-term threats and opportunities relative to future action, activism and policy. Specifically, I speak at the moment of three potentially pending changes in the socio-political environment:
1) cyber-war and cyber-crackdown, either from a censorship perspective, or a wholesale restriction, or as an act of interference;
2) expanded war and its effects (in particular with regard to Iran >> global war);
3) severe economic distress or collapse.
When asked for explanations, I offered up the following:
The fastest way to understand this is to Google for concept maps; there is already a great deal of information on what it's about, how to do it and why, and where you can get the software. [It's actually not terribly far removed from what has been and is being accomplished here in re: JFK & Dealey Plaza, the photos, the Plaza map, the videos, the threads, the debates...]
Who should do it? An organized, self-selected but open group of existing people who are knowledgeable, credible, and willing to sustain debate. It does require some financial support but it is essentially something that requires a server, a coordinator or three, some team direction and management (hey, the content we're talking about is mammoth, right?), and some mechanism to cover the expenses. It can be done "virtually" and asynchronously. But I am a huge fan of meeting face-to-face on occasion because of the "soft" issues in communications, authenticity, veracity, etc. Anonymity in this venture is destructive. So the process before the process requires some facilitation.
Keep in mind that much of what we are talking about here in terms of text, software, films, photos, and the like IS ALREADY IN PLACE at a number of web sites. At this point, negotiating openness, rights, etc. may be more of a challenge than conceiving the idea. There has to be a "we're in this for free and posterity" attitude, not a "but I paid for this" or "I control the rights to this footage" approach.
I see it as a HQ/HD version of a people's commission. Who should select who will be involved? That's the $64 dollar question. But there are a lot of people already 9/11 signatories who have sound scientific, peer review, evidence-assessing, "legal minds" skills... and they can write some rules or establish a committee or a process by which judgment can ensue. I once challenged an online debunker to this... to assemble the 9/11 problem like a legal case with evidentiary rules (when I knew, but he had forgotten that I knew, that he worked for a state bar association), and he folded like a house of cards.
I would take a page out of what Ben Franklin once wrote about fundraising.. .yes, we needs the $$ but we need the commitment and the involvement first -- and that is to go back to the beginning (once we have a "package" or a proposal) and go to key insiders who were instrumental in getting this thing off the ground at the very beginning... strategic thinkers, people who know how to get things done.
Item B is about perception, and argument/discussion relative to strategy or movement inside a social field.
This is going to sound a little touchy-feely-NewAge for a moment, but bear with me.
Close your eyes. Clear your thoughts. Take a deep breath or two.
This part is about visualization. Envision that you are sitting in a three-dimensional room with no windows or doors The room is 8 feet high, 8 feet long, 8 feet wide. The walls are painted an off-white. At the four foot mark on the horizontal (side to side) axis is a 2" wide black line demarcating the "0" point on the room/scale. Similar 1" grey lines are painted at the two-foot and six-foot heights to depict +1 and -1 scores on the scale. The horizontal axis depicts power.
At the four-foot marks on the vertical (up/down) scale (demarcating halfway or "0" values), there is a 2" red line. Similar 1" dull red lines are painted at the two-foot and six-foot heights to depict +1 and -1 scores on the scale. The horizontal axis depicts salience.
Make a list of all relevant organizations, publications, agencies, perhaps even key people, in the 9/11 field. Survey the field widely to set this list. Eliminate the truly fringe. A simple e-mail or letter process will suffice, even an online survey which will allow widespread input.
Now execution of the concept. Construct a spreadsheet with all the names. Create two fields for power and salience and allow scores in each field ranging from -2 (on the floor or in the lefthand corners of the room) to +2 (on the ceiling or the right hand corners). Someone with great math/spatial intelligence can work this better.
Conceptually, or in visualization, construct a simple small 1"x1" card with an organizational or personal avatar or icon or identifier and both scores in tiny print and, using nearly-invisible fishing line, hang the cards for each organization at the right height and location given the scores. The scores, of course, would be a consensus or everyone's scores (perhaps after a conference call debate or a online discussion). Who should participate? Anyone who wants to. Ideally, the leadership of all organizations noted on the first draft.
Someone with a computer and some date entry skills or mechanisms, and ideally someone with a computer software program that could translate the consensus scores into a 3-D map through which someone could walk or scroll, would be ideal.
Having the end-product, now all organizations can simply see "the field" for what it is as seen by everyone in the field.
I might give high positive scores in both categories to History Commons, David Ray Griffin, etc. I would give a high power score and a high salience score to Cass Sunstein.
Salience is the state or condition of being prominent. The Oxford English Dictionary defines salience as "most noticeable or important." The concept is discussed in communication, semiotics, linguistics, sociology, psychology, and political science. ...
Power is seen as the personal or organizational ability to "move" or "block" actions and discussion about 9/11.
A third score (perhaps a simple color code like chess pieces) might be rendered in terms of openness to the issues...
[size=12]
But I am not important here... My scores have little if any weight.
The process, then, allows people to see clearly what tactics and strategies in terms of alliances and activism might be useful.
But the theory of the idea is that you, or I, or anyone can examine this "map" with greater clarity in terms of how he/we might approach this individual/organization to do what and in what order. It becomes a three-dimensional chess match. Taking the idea a step further, obviously pilots have salience in one area of expertise, engineers and architects in another, etc. The idea here is not to joust for position and ranking as "king" or "queen" of the 9/11 movement, but to see the field... To know when one key 9/11 Truther is being attacked by one key 9/11 Truth antagonist, and how to counter that with movement of another 9/11 Truth organization or an "attack" against a weaker or supporting 9/11 antagonist.
It may also help us all from bloodying our knuckles banging on doors that won't open to us, or in terms of building momentum and log-rolling.
An individual can construct one of these in his or her own geographic or mediated area of influence.
It can be used by someone to decide which folks should receive that particularly juicy e-mail.
It can be used by media personalities to decide who to invite for an interview, discussion, etc.
It can be used by organizers to determine whom to approach in terms of placement of a news item, or whom to approach with misprision of treason material packets, or it can be used in a variety of ways I haven't thought of.
It is a mechanism by which someone can "take the temperature" of a social group or climate. [/SIZE]
"Where is the intersection between the world's deep hunger and your deep gladness?"