WikiHallo Stefan, you ask for discussion. Some remarks supplied by me.
(1) s.mn: I think the purpose of a social system is the most important thing at all. It is important to maintain its visibility and repeating the purpose of a social system can probably not be done often enough. If the purpose becomes unclear there is the danger of alienation.
- hgg: I think the purpose is "under construction" all the time and if a social system does not spend efforts in this construction process it will decline later or sooner.
- From the referred page: "The purpose of a social system may also change over time". Isn't this what you call "under construction"? But I don't think that may in my sentence should be a must. I think whether it should depends largely on the concrete social system. -- StefanMerten 2006-05-31 05:51:47
- My point is not MAY or MUST but that "purpose" is not a thing, but a relation between the players of the system that requires permanent reproduction. -- hgg 2006-07-10
- I still can't see the contradiction. -- StefanMerten 2006-07-12 07:33:10
- My point is not MAY or MUST but that "purpose" is not a thing, but a relation between the players of the system that requires permanent reproduction. -- hgg 2006-07-10
- From the referred page: "The purpose of a social system may also change over time". Isn't this what you call "under construction"? But I don't think that may in my sentence should be a must. I think whether it should depends largely on the concrete social system. -- StefanMerten 2006-05-31 05:51:47
(2) s.mn: Though borders are an inalienable feature of social systems there are people who have a general problem with borders. They think that borders generally should not exist and that the absence of borders entails freedom. IMHO nothing could be more wrong. In the contrary borders are an important part of the structure of a social system and as such they are helpful.
- hgg: Borders do not only separate inner and outer worlds but are FUNCTIONAL in the sense that they organize a special kind of communication between them.
- From the referred page: "In the contrary boundaries are an important part of the structure of a social system and as such they are helpful." If they are helpful they are functional - arent't they. -- StefanMerten 2006-05-31 05:51:47
- No. SINCE they are functional, they are helpful. Not A implies B but B implies A. But my point was to focus on FUNCTIONALITY of boundaries. Since, for me "boundaries are helpful" contains no analytical message. -- hgg 2006-07-10
- Agreed. The text was not thought as being deeply analytical, however. It is more a descritption. -- StefanMerten 2006-07-12 07:33:10
- No. SINCE they are functional, they are helpful. Not A implies B but B implies A. But my point was to focus on FUNCTIONALITY of boundaries. Since, for me "boundaries are helpful" contains no analytical message. -- hgg 2006-07-10
- From the referred page: "In the contrary boundaries are an important part of the structure of a social system and as such they are helpful." If they are helpful they are functional - arent't they. -- StefanMerten 2006-05-31 05:51:47
(3) s.mn: Of course borders also mean restrictions - that's their very purpose in the end. Restrictions may be useful and harmful - it depends. A stable social system, however, IMHO can remove borders which became harmful for the social system while it keeps borders which are useful.
- hgg: As part of the construction process (1).
- Sure. Since the boundaries (which is probably the correct English term here) exist to realize the purpose they may change with it. -- StefanMerten 2006-05-31 05:51:47
- That's a difficult question, since the functionality of a boundary is the result of an agreement between the inner and the outer world and not in the aim of construction of the inner world alone. -- hgg 2006-07-10
- I don't think the outer world does or should have much of a say here so to me it's hardly an agreement. -- StefanMerten 2006-07-12 07:33:10
- That's a difficult question, since the functionality of a boundary is the result of an agreement between the inner and the outer world and not in the aim of construction of the inner world alone. -- hgg 2006-07-10
- Sure. Since the boundaries (which is probably the correct English term here) exist to realize the purpose they may change with it. -- StefanMerten 2006-05-31 05:51:47
Real names
"People who are really interested in the social systems have no reason to hide their identity - unless it is a criminal social system. On the other hand people who use an arbitrary alias or just their first names have something to hide."
- "Just their first names?" Oops, did you mean me? -- ChristianSi 2006-06-10 12:40:52
- I didn't mean anyone particular. -- StefanMerten 2006-07-12 07:33:10
Generally, there are various good reasons why people use pseudonyms or shortenend names. For example, I learned that in Wikipedia many editors using pseudonyms do so because they don't want their employer to find out that they are editing Wikipedia during working hours! So they do have something to hide, but not from the social systems. Also, some people nowadays are concerned (and for good reasons) about the Google effect: if you apply for a job, you will (more likely than not) be googled and not everybody will want to explain and justify every social system they took part in to potential employers, especially not for "socially critical" systems such as Oekonux. So there are reasons for not using your real name and you should not bias people against that. -- ChristianSi 2006-06-10 12:40:52
- I think the connection to the real world is important and thus I still think using real names is useful. IMHO it introduces a sort of accountability and responsibility. -- StefanMerten 2006-07-12 07:33:10
- This does not address any of the concerns I voiced. They won't go away by being ignored. -- ChristianSi 2006-07-15 08:43:38
