communism of writing

"One must think and write, in particular as regards
friendship, against great numbers. Against the most
numerous who make language and lay down the law of its
usage. Against hegemonic language in what is called
public space. If there were a community, even a
communism, of writing, it would above all be on condition
that war be waged on those, the greatest in number, the
strongest and the weakest at the same time, who forge and
appropriate for themselves the dominant usages of
language[.]" -- Jacques Derrida, "Politics of Friendship"
(p. 71 Verso edn)

looking for rest in all the wrong places

Maybe what happens is that I look for *rest* in my email
inbox, and what I should just do is go take a nap!

philosophical background...

1. So my idea for a research problem is: building a
"weather map" of learning. I'm actually interested in
"weather maps" of all sorts, but learning is a nice place
to start.

What do I mean by a "weather map for learning"? First of
all I'm thinking it could be either personalized, showing
what *I* am learning, or what *you* are learning,
relative, somehow, to the grand scheme of things -- if and
when there is a "grand scheme" (there is, in mathematics,
for instance). But the map could also be larger scale,
i.e., at the level of a community or even a society.
E.g. what are the students in the different cities in the
Bay Area learning? Do students in Oakland and Berkeley
spend their time on very different things? Or what about
students in the USA, Japan, and UK?

A lot of the large-scale data streams are presumably
available from ongoing research. But the small-scale data
streams may not be so detailed; maybe we just know an
individual's test scores, for example, but we have no
record of specific learning modules. Well, if computers
are used more and more intelligently, I think more
fine-grained data about user interactions will be
available. We could start with some simple things like
looking for trends in web browsing history.

2. BUT, OK, just what good would this sort of "map" do
anyone? Why do we like "data" so much? Or, more
specifically, even if we have mountains of data, how do we
make sense of it or do anything useful with it at all?

This is where the "foundations of knowledge" stuff starts
to come in real handy. Some issues here are as follows:

A. Is a "learning map" actually useful to the student? I
personally think it would be -- but do I have any
convincing reasons for thinking this? Why would it be
better to have a picture of how much "coverage" something
like the quadratic formula gets me, as opposed to just
knowing that I'd completed the quadratic formula chapter
in my Algebra text book (for example)?

B. I personally think it has to do with motivation and
power. Or, another way to put this, it is really
distasteful to me to see learning separated from both
emotional and social contexts. When I was a kid, I liked
completing another math course just because it gave me a
sense of progress and mastery. But I'm imagining how much
more accurate my sense of what was going on in these
regards would have been if each problem was justified --
if I was getting an accurate read-out of my real
empowerment (e.g. you're 70% of the way towards mastering
the basics of civil engineering, or what have you). A
student who has a map of the educational process doesn't
need to be led (like a lamb to the slaughter, as it were)
but can instead lead themself (onwards to glory!). How I
would have liked to be able to say: "I know what I'm
doing, and I have the skills profile to prove it." As it
was, I think I've always been a bit clueless about what my
real skills are...

C. So I think that a learning environment that includes a
detailed map of the learning process is going to boost a
student's self-confidence and sense of useful social
connection as well. ("I've just got to do another 30% of
this course and I can get a job as a civil engineer.")
Part of the problem here is where does that extra "30% of
the course" come from? It's nice to imagine a learning
environment with all these brilliant features -- but in
fact, we're in a very different reality at present.

D. If we're going to take up the challenge of creating an
educational world like the one I'm envisioning, I think
that at present the real challenge has to do with putting
together many different statements (e.g. from government
or philanthropic non-profits, from educators, from
students, from employers, etc...) -- e.g. "we don't have
enough graduates with proficiency in Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Mathematics" -- and actual functioning
operations that address the various issues that these
folks are bringing up.

E. These "functioning operations" bring us into a
relatively broader sphere of "knowledge" and "practice" --
we're no longer just talking about mapping some *stuff*
called "Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics", but both mapping and engineering a broad
range of social practices that relate, whether closely or
not so closely, to these subjects.

F. From this point of view we could say that the relevant
"knowledge" isn't embodied in textbooks and course notes
or even things like experiment and publication practices,
but in a huge multidimensional social/cultural engine/loom
that weaves HISTORY.

G. I would claim that the more usefully or intelligently a
given learning activity connects to THAT, the better.
Learning should just be a matter of "something I read in a
book one time", but almost a matter of
learning/experiencing/becoming who one *is* -- enjoying
and expanding one's view on society, for example.

3. The thing is, life goes on (or has so far) without big
or expensive projects to centralize and coordinate all of
this cultural knowledge in support of learning. Indeed
arguably "culture" works much better in a decentralized
way -- so maybe learning does too?

And yet -- isn't it also the case that, though they be
dispersed and flexible, things like LANGUAGES already
provide some sort of "integration" for the way people work
together? Integration need not be a matter of lock-step,
but can instead be a "loose-enough interoperability".

In short, decentralization is good, but interconnection is
also good, and we can have both. One of the most
interesting features of a system with interconnected bits
is that each interconnection can be a place to gather
"data" (on how information flows between the components).
Data is something people are often interested in...

4. But as I was saying above, "even if we have mountains
of data, how do we make sense of it or do anything useful
with it at all?"

The *specific* "foundations of knowledge" thing that I'm
thinking about is that people like it when things "make
sense" -- but what's that? I'm guessing that it has to do
with employing a handful of activity patterns --

simplifying, interconnecting, establishing control,
establishing practices, discerning motivations, and
doing experiments

At present these are just some ideas I sort of cooked up:
I'm eager to "put them to the test" -- specifically, I
want to make a nice survey of "the way things are" and
then see if I can use those 6 patterns to get to "the way
things could be". That sort of design work is what's "on"
presently.

5. As for why or how "philosophy stuff" relates -- I don't
think I would have thought of half of the things I've
talked about here had I not read Deleuze's "Logic of
Sense". Really that book is about *how events happen*,
given that otherwise we just have a bunch of *stuff*
sitting around. In a way it almost seems like magic --
looking at the various patterns and trends and seeing how
ultimately they spring to life at some points!

At the same time, I'm also seeing more clearly (thanks
partly to a book on Nietzsche that I'm reading) that this
is absolutely just a point of view... MAYBE a point of
view that I can use to enhance my own personal power, or
to help enhance the power of organizations I'm working
with/for.

Even just the idea of "assembling things" is actually a
sort of complicated idea from a philosophy point of view:
this would be something having to do with Hume, for
example, as opposed to Plato (who would probably instead
look for the essential nature of things to reveal
themselves with time).

Finally, I've been trying to get more into Foucault, who
as both a sort of "archivist" and "cartographer" is in
many ways close to what I have in mind as a way of
working. If there is an "philosophical update" from me,
it is to think in terms of dynamic maps and not static
ones. (This relates also to a mathematical idea I've been
thinking a little bit about -- having to do with
semi-self-similar structures; maybe 'practals' or
something like that...)

Obviously I'm not just here to "play with ideas" and so
forth -- but a little bit can't hurt if I'm also able to
"produce". It may in fact turn out that one of the things
the people here would *most* like me to produce is some
"theory" to go along with the practical stuff the grant is
working on.

But at the moment as I said, I'm more concerned with
designing "practical implementation projects that will
produce measurable changes"... and I'm perfectly happy
with that. THIS essay just describes what's going on in
the background.