How RELEVANT is Context?
That depends! Relevance is: pertinent, applicable, important, germane, appropriate, and significant. Context is: background, circumstance, environment, perspective, or framework. Already you may notice the difference and again you may ask: so what?
These two co-dependent attributes bear heavily on our past, and our current, and our future life and lifestyles. Depending on what has already happened, we may have to adjust our framework or perspective to be more applicable or appropriate. Depending on what is happening, it may be significant or just a passing circumstance. Depending on what happens next, we may be empowered or severely impacted.
And now even most of the items we interact with and the environments that we interact within are sensing and sensitive to whatever we are doing, giving us and others real-time factual (data) and visual (video) feedback.
Whatever we do and whoever we do it with can become known by anyone else in less than one second. Our reality is now being echoed in the virtual dimensions of the web.
Our existence is being captured and cataloged, represented and researched, interpreted and evaluated in real time by a universe of collecting devices and assessment processes – and by ‘those’ people. We are ‘those people’ – both evaluating and being evaluated.
In this new virtual world, we are no longer just passive recipients of online information. We are now the active expositors and engaged participants, forced into a new type ‘global conversation’ and virtual interaction that demands a new approach.
It requires that we find a new common framework in which to collect our diverse perspectives and through which to derive an equitable consensus – each within the local context of our somewhat unique needs – while collectively maintaining the relevance of a global perspective.
Relevance has changed little – what was important to us still is. What has changed more is context. As we get together virtually, no one has established the framework for our new form of conversation – or the rules within that new interaction process. Memberships and attendance and locations and parliamentary procedures no longer dictate the house rules of our orderly conduct. Borders and nationality and treaties no longer establish preference or privilege across this expanded network. We are all one and the same virtual community in this new ‘flat earth society’ where transparency is the value behind its information currency – in an online (and off-line) relationship economy.
Your value to me and mine to you – now depends on how well we interact and support our mutual benefits… one-to-one-to-many. Diversity of opinion is expected, necessary, and must be equitably considered by all. And the system itself must require and then enforce this approach.
• Only a self-governance approach can now represent everyone.
• Only a self-correcting approach can adjust to the constant change.
• Only a self-policing system can prevent decisions that could deny us these intended results.
A simple way to ensure this is by formalizing a familiar way of thinking; and adopting it as our consistent way of collaborating – around the world. Rather than amend to exhaustive rules, we can engage a sequence of ubiquitous questions that dynamically:
• 1) capture our issues and
• 2) dissect our challenges and
• 3) extract our options – objectively.
Only transparency OF the participants can ensure that this system remains accountable TO them. To-date, not even the United Nations has a methodology to accomplish that. Tyranny is the unfortunate alternative.
Any anarchy that is identified becomes the immediate challenge to be resolved by all within this new framework. By merely agreeing to use this self-managing approach at each of our interactions, we can all then enjoy its shared benefits.
We all have needs and we all want solutions. We all need to be heard and we all want to be appreciated. That’s the reason that people join groups like MySpace, and post their presence on Facebook, and pontificate on their own blogs. By syndicating its structured approach across these diverse platforms, this uniform framework can convert unraveled ‘threaded’ discourse into ‘collaboration on purpose’ and change meaningless chat into meaningful conversations. No issue can occur that cannot be equitably addressed by the ASK4 process and resolved by our self-managed cooperation across its U-Netted Nations.
That suggests that it can be beneficial in personal relationships, business decisions, or international détente. These are the arenas in which we all participate.
• That is the universal CONTEXT in which this can become RELEVANT
– to each of us.
• It is perhaps also the way we can become RELEVANT to each other
– within this new CONTEXT.
Want real cooperation, progress, CHANGE ? – Dare to ASK4™ it…?
What’s about YOU? – care to comment?
– dare to COOPERATE?
ASK4™ CAN BE…
(THE QUESTIONS THAT FIND…)
THE ANSWERS you need
Written by gsbigger
December 15, 2008 at 11:26 pm
Tagged with Add new tag, Advertising, ambient knowledge, Barrack, Business 2.0, business networking, Clinton, collaboration, Communities, crowd sourcing, cuil, Facebook, gold, gold medal, Google, Hillary, Marketing, Media 2.0, nano, nanotechnology, Obama, Office 2.0, olympic, Olympics, press, relationship economy, relevance, search, semantic, semantic web, Seth Goodin, SNA, social media, social networking, social networks, Social Software, social web, socialution, truth, WEB 2.0, web 3.0, Web Strategy, Web Usage, WEB3.0, Wikinomics
Subscribe to comments with RSS.