Wednesday, July 19, 2006
DEVELOPMENT OR CONNECTIVITY?
Tom and Steve were debating changing Enterra's conceptual brand from "Development-in-a-Box" to "Connectivity-in-a-Box". After some online angst by Dr. Barnett, it seems DiB won out but Tom is looking to retrofit connectivity in the proper place.
The difference between the two concepts comes down to ends and means.
While it is true that "development" is a actually a process, " Development in a Box" is a phrase that screams " Outcome !". In contrast, " connectivity" has a range of possile understandings that can indicate only the potential for future exchanges or mass migration or ongoing flows of economic and military might. Therefore, what "Connectivity" yells is "Change !".
Connectivity is inherently crucial to development - Dr. Barnett mentioned the economic impact of mobile phones in Gap states and as mobile phones effectively transition to mobile computers with wireless broadband, that effect will multiply by orders of magnitude. If anything was ever "outside the box", it's the evolutionary, revolutionary, power of connectivity.
Tom should keep connectivity in his mantra and link it categorically and irrevocably with Steve's DiB.
Just don't put in a box :O) ¶ 7:48 PM
Tom and Steve were debating changing Enterra's conceptual brand from "Development-in-a-Box" to "Connectivity-in-a-Box". After some online angst by Dr. Barnett, it seems DiB won out but Tom is looking to retrofit connectivity in the proper place.
The difference between the two concepts comes down to ends and means.
While it is true that "development" is a actually a process, " Development in a Box" is a phrase that screams " Outcome !". In contrast, " connectivity" has a range of possile understandings that can indicate only the potential for future exchanges or mass migration or ongoing flows of economic and military might. Therefore, what "Connectivity" yells is "Change !".
Connectivity is inherently crucial to development - Dr. Barnett mentioned the economic impact of mobile phones in Gap states and as mobile phones effectively transition to mobile computers with wireless broadband, that effect will multiply by orders of magnitude. If anything was ever "outside the box", it's the evolutionary, revolutionary, power of connectivity.
Tom should keep connectivity in his mantra and link it categorically and irrevocably with Steve's DiB.
Just don't put in a box :O) ¶ 7:48 PM
Comments:
<< Home
“While it is true that "development" is a actually a process, " Development in a Box" is a phrase that screams " Outcome !".” (Zenpundit)
Although I don’t know what sells, and this seems to be the question between Tom and Steve, I do know that development is complex and reeks of friction. Friction is the relationship that is needed to enable evolution. Relationships can end in two ways, either they evolve together or are torn apart by revolution. So until you develop the skills needed to evolve together, you need friction in the equation. Development seems to be an evolutionary process.
“In contrast, " connectivity" has a range of possi[b]le understandings that can indicate only the potential for future exchanges or mass migration or ongoing flows of economic and military might. Therefore, what "Connectivity" yells is "Change !".” (Zenpundit)
Networks connect by a cohesive force as you well stated. Force across a gap might be a better way to visualize this. But once the force has crossed that gap, there is only revolution between forces (one moves the other), until the force crossing the gap is able to slip by the opposing force and be related among them. Therefore connectivity is good, but once connected, a development has to take place and a relationship has to be formed. Development in a box (DIB).
Of course all we are talking about by saying Development-in-a-box, is development inside a mass. The box Steve is talking about doesn’t hold the tools of development; Steve is trying to develop the box or that body of mass of a failed society. To do that he needs to get inside the society, create friction between potentials, and develop rules to control the friction (DIB). Of course that sounds simple enough, but I can see many layers of friction.
Although I don’t know what sells, and this seems to be the question between Tom and Steve, I do know that development is complex and reeks of friction. Friction is the relationship that is needed to enable evolution. Relationships can end in two ways, either they evolve together or are torn apart by revolution. So until you develop the skills needed to evolve together, you need friction in the equation. Development seems to be an evolutionary process.
“In contrast, " connectivity" has a range of possi[b]le understandings that can indicate only the potential for future exchanges or mass migration or ongoing flows of economic and military might. Therefore, what "Connectivity" yells is "Change !".” (Zenpundit)
Networks connect by a cohesive force as you well stated. Force across a gap might be a better way to visualize this. But once the force has crossed that gap, there is only revolution between forces (one moves the other), until the force crossing the gap is able to slip by the opposing force and be related among them. Therefore connectivity is good, but once connected, a development has to take place and a relationship has to be formed. Development in a box (DIB).
Of course all we are talking about by saying Development-in-a-box, is development inside a mass. The box Steve is talking about doesn’t hold the tools of development; Steve is trying to develop the box or that body of mass of a failed society. To do that he needs to get inside the society, create friction between potentials, and develop rules to control the friction (DIB). Of course that sounds simple enough, but I can see many layers of friction.
# posted by 
: Thursday, 20 July, 2006
: Thursday, 20 July, 2006
"I do know that development is complex and reeks of friction"
Gee, Larry...are you talking about Connectivity & Development or Tom and Steve ? ;o)
On a serious note, I agree with you that creating those rules to control the friction so that the resultant energy becomes translated into productive work rather than simple political heat is on target
Gee, Larry...are you talking about Connectivity & Development or Tom and Steve ? ;o)
On a serious note, I agree with you that creating those rules to control the friction so that the resultant energy becomes translated into productive work rather than simple political heat is on target
Depends on how long that trip from Nevada that Tom just took, really was.
I guess I could have written it better, ha! But, then again, I bet that development is complex also.
Also on a serious note, your comment, “so that the resultant energy becomes translated into productive work rather than simple political heat is on target” Is right on (it is the resultant energy), but doesn’t give the exact relationship between the two forces.
Friction is the relationship between productive work (kinetic energy) and political heat (potential energy). You need both. It is only a problem when the political heat becomes great enough that the relationship takes a quantum leap. When that happens we lose friction, the resultant force no longer supports the relationship.
Like wise, when the productive work gets ahead of the political pressure, there is nothing (no resultant forces) holding the society together. You can build infrastructure, but if there is no political will to hold it together, it is of little use. In that case friction is also gone, along with the relationship.
Time is really the only common factor in the relationships. Both energies are trying to capture the same Time. They can’t do it because their forces are the same, but their flows are different. It is the irresistible force moving against the immovable object. Friction allows them to occupy the same Time.
Post a Comment
I guess I could have written it better, ha! But, then again, I bet that development is complex also.
Also on a serious note, your comment, “so that the resultant energy becomes translated into productive work rather than simple political heat is on target” Is right on (it is the resultant energy), but doesn’t give the exact relationship between the two forces.
Friction is the relationship between productive work (kinetic energy) and political heat (potential energy). You need both. It is only a problem when the political heat becomes great enough that the relationship takes a quantum leap. When that happens we lose friction, the resultant force no longer supports the relationship.
Like wise, when the productive work gets ahead of the political pressure, there is nothing (no resultant forces) holding the society together. You can build infrastructure, but if there is no political will to hold it together, it is of little use. In that case friction is also gone, along with the relationship.
Time is really the only common factor in the relationships. Both energies are trying to capture the same Time. They can’t do it because their forces are the same, but their flows are different. It is the irresistible force moving against the immovable object. Friction allows them to occupy the same Time.
# posted by : Friday, 21 July, 2006
: Friday, 21 July, 2006<< Home
