Lor.ensō at 14:18, 20 March 2024

2024-03-20T14:18:25Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:18, 20 March 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{:Quilt INC./Method(ol(atry)ogy) is a way of surviving experience}}		{{:Quilt INC./Method(ol(atry)ogy) is a way of surviving experience}}

	~~== STANDARDIZATION ==~~		{{:Quilt_INC/STANDARDIZATION}}

	~~- bit of a fictional intro~~

	~~Bzzzt bzzt error of approval. This bug does not have followed standardized procedure.~~

	~~- what is the keyword? our definition~~

	From what I read / think / assume, standardization means to bring things, stuff, objects into one standard. And that to me is quite troublesome because when a norm or standard is made, there always will be conflicts with the things that are not standard. But then again, adaptation, nuance and contextualization are in place.



	~~- annotation of text/(the reference of the source)~~

	~~Four questions before introducing:~~

	~~# how can objects inhabit multiple contexts at once, and have both local and shared meaning?~~
	~~# how can people living in one community, and drawing their meanings from other people and objects situated there, communicate in another~~
	~~# what is the relationship between the two?~~
	~~# what range of solutions to the preceding three questions are possible, and what consequences attend each of them —cui bono?~~

	~~<blockquote>~~
	~~Standardization has been one of the common solutions to this class of problems~~: ~~3 if the~~

	~~interfaces and formats are standard across contexts, then at least the first three questions~~

	~~become clear, and the fourth becomes moot. But we know from a long and gory~~

	~~history of attempts to standardize information systems that standards don’t remain~~

	~~standard for very long, and that one person’s standard is another’s confusion and mess~~

	~~( Gasser 1986 ; Star 1991 ).<~~/~~blockquote>~~

	''Noun. solutionism (uncountable) '''The belief that all difficulties have benign solutions, often of a technocratic nature'''. quotations ▼ The providing of a solution or solutions to a customer or client (sometimes before a problem has been identified).''

	~~important question:~~

	~~''how to preserve the integrity of information without a''~~

	~~''priori standardization and its attendant violence''~~


	~~Naturalization in response to standardization:~~

	~~<blockquote>~~
	~~I mean stripping away the contingencies of an object’s creation and its situated~~

	~~nature. A naturalized object has lost its aura of anthropological strangeness, and is~~

	~~in a sense “de-situated” in that members have forgotten the local nature of the object’s~~

	~~meaning. 4 We no longer think much about the miracle of plugging a light into a socket~~

	4

	~~and obtaining illumination, and must make an effort of anthropological imagination~~

	~~to remind ourselves of contexts in which it is still unnaturalized.~~

	..

	~~Objects exist, with respect to a community of practice, along a trajectory of naturalization,~~

	~~which has elements of both ambiguity and duration. It is not predetermined~~

	~~whether an object will ever become naturalized or how long it will remain so—rather,~~

	~~practice/activity is required to make it so and keep it so.~~

	~~...~~

	~~Anomalies or interruptions, the cause of contingency,~~

	~~come when some person or object interrupts the flow of expectations. One~~

	~~reason that “glass box technology” or pure transparency is impossible is that anomalies~~

	~~always arise when multiple communities of practice come together, and useful technologies~~

	~~cannot be designed in all communities at once. Monsters arise when the legitimacy~~

	~~of that multiplicity is denied.~~

	~~Transparency is in theory the endpoint of the trajectory of naturalization, as complete~~

	~~legitimacy or centrality is the end point of the trajectory of membership in a~~

	~~community of practice. However, due to the multiplicity of membership of all people,~~

	~~and the persistence of newcomers and strangers, a well as the multiplicity of naturalization~~

	~~of objects, this is inherently nonexistent in the real world. For those brief historical~~

	~~moments where it seems to be the case, it is unstable.~~

	~~But what are the things that make objects and statuses seem given, durable, real?~~

	~~Several things coalesce.</blockquote>Generalization is also named in relation.as well as denaturalization~~

Lor.ensō: Created page with "{{:Quilt INC./Method(ol(atry)ogy) is a way of surviving experience}} == STANDARDIZATION == - bit of a fictional intro Bzzzt bzzt error of approval. This bug does not have followed standardized procedure. - what is the keyword? our definition From what I read / think / assume, standardization means to bring things, stuff, objects into one standard. And that to me is quite troublesome because when a norm or standard is made, there always will be conflicts with..."

2024-03-20T13:49:19Z

Created page with "{{:Quilt INC./Method(ol(atry)ogy) is a way of surviving experience}} == STANDARDIZATION == - bit of a fictional intro Bzzzt bzzt error of approval. This bug does not have followed standardized procedure. - what is the keyword? our definition From what I read / think / assume, standardization means to bring things, stuff, objects into one standard. And that to me is quite troublesome because when a norm or standard is made, there always will be conflicts with..."

New page

{{:Quilt INC./Method(ol(atry)ogy) is a way of surviving experience}}

== STANDARDIZATION ==

- bit of a fictional intro

Bzzzt bzzt error of approval. This bug does not have followed standardized procedure.

- what is the keyword? our definition

From what I read / think / assume, standardization means to bring things, stuff, objects into one standard. And that to me is quite troublesome because when a norm or standard is made, there always will be conflicts with the things that are not standard. But then again, adaptation, nuance and contextualization are in place.

- annotation of text/(the reference of the source)

Four questions before introducing:

# how can objects inhabit multiple contexts at once, and have both local and shared meaning?
# how can people living in one community, and drawing their meanings from other people and objects situated there, communicate in another
# what is the relationship between the two?
# what range of solutions to the preceding three questions are possible, and what consequences attend each of them —cui bono?

<blockquote>
Standardization has been one of the common solutions to this class of problems: 3 if the

interfaces and formats are standard across contexts, then at least the first three questions

become clear, and the fourth becomes moot. But we know from a long and gory

history of attempts to standardize information systems that standards don’t remain

standard for very long, and that one person’s standard is another’s confusion and mess

( Gasser 1986 ; Star 1991 ).</blockquote>

''Noun. solutionism (uncountable) '''The belief that all difficulties have benign solutions, often of a technocratic nature'''. quotations ▼ The providing of a solution or solutions to a customer or client (sometimes before a problem has been identified).''

important question:

''how to preserve the integrity of information without a''

''priori standardization and its attendant violence''

Naturalization in response to standardization:

<blockquote>
I mean stripping away the contingencies of an object’s creation and its situated

nature. A naturalized object has lost its aura of anthropological strangeness, and is

in a sense “de-situated” in that members have forgotten the local nature of the object’s

meaning. 4 We no longer think much about the miracle of plugging a light into a socket

4

and obtaining illumination, and must make an effort of anthropological imagination

to remind ourselves of contexts in which it is still unnaturalized.

..

Objects exist, with respect to a community of practice, along a trajectory of naturalization,

which has elements of both ambiguity and duration. It is not predetermined

whether an object will ever become naturalized or how long it will remain so—rather,

practice/activity is required to make it so and keep it so.

...

Anomalies or interruptions, the cause of contingency,

come when some person or object interrupts the flow of expectations. One

reason that “glass box technology” or pure transparency is impossible is that anomalies

always arise when multiple communities of practice come together, and useful technologies

cannot be designed in all communities at once. Monsters arise when the legitimacy

of that multiplicity is denied.

Transparency is in theory the endpoint of the trajectory of naturalization, as complete

legitimacy or centrality is the end point of the trajectory of membership in a

community of practice. However, due to the multiplicity of membership of all people,

and the persistence of newcomers and strangers, a well as the multiplicity of naturalization

of objects, this is inherently nonexistent in the real world. For those brief historical

moments where it seems to be the case, it is unstable.

But what are the things that make objects and statuses seem given, durable, real?

Several things coalesce.</blockquote>Generalization is also named in relation.as well as denaturalization

== Validity ==

- bit of a fictional intro

Validity comes in multiple badges. It has the sacred I P R V code imprinted in its labels. These four labels stand for the four regions of the tanssgressiv validitrain. it is something to be found in the real world but could it be that Validity is also based on the journey

Ironia / Paralogia / Rhizomia / Voluptia are all areas waiting to be explored.

- what is the keyword? our definition TL;DR

noun: validity; plural noun: validities

- the quality of being logically or factually sound; soundness or cogency.
- the state of being legally or officially binding or acceptable

- annotation of text/(the reference of the source) <blockquote>

"Patti Lather, a brilliant feminist methodologist, has written about this under the
rubric ''transgressive validity'' ( Lather 1993 ). Her map of attributes of a feminist method,
which I read after I wrote the passage above, has some remarkable resonances. She asks
the question, where, after poststructuralism, can we find validity? Her answer has four
points that together equal a validity which rests reflexively on the contemporary crisis"

"Her answer has four points that together equal a validity which rests reflexively on the contemporary crisis of representation: Ironic validity (which problematizes the single voice, realist representation
of nature); paralogical validity (which emphasizes paradox and heterogeneity);
rhizomatic validity (which undermines the taken-for-granted and keeps opening up
new ways of situated seeing); and voluptuous validity (which precisely goes too far , and
joins ethics and epistemology)" </blockquote>

==== VALIDITY DEFINITIONS, CITED AND ASKING QUESTIONS ====

"Transgressive validity" -> "here, after poststructuralism, can we find validity?" is validity the same as validation? searching for distinction I find that one is a verb an the other is a noun, but both seem to be tags? https://stats.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1659/what-is-the-difference-between-tags-validity-and-validation

"Ironic validity" > "which problematizes the single voice, realist represen- tation of nature)" ... "would demand that the representation of pregnancy as an illness be challenged in the encoding, and include multiple views of what in fact constitutes a pregnancy. "

"Paralogical validity" > "(which emphasizes paradox and heterogeneity); .. "might at the same time acknowledge that for some women an aborted fetus never constituted a pregnancy at all, while for others it did, and there is no resolving that question in any simple fashion."

"Rhizomatic validity" > "(which undermines the taken-for-granted and keeps opening up new ways of situated seeing. " ... "would seek out the range of what we take for granted about pregnancy, childbirth, and sexuality, and keep challenging us to break boundaries of what we think we know about these processes—perhaps cross-culturally, but also in phenomenological explorations of daily routines connected with them, denying the taken-for-granted “every woman feels X”: and being sure to listen for com- plex differences and similarities."

"Voluptuous validity" > "which precisely goes too far, and joins ethics and epistemology" .. "in this sense might bring entirely other conceptions of birth and pregnancy, such as the kind of spiritual birth found in some religious cultures, or dreams and visions. From this base, feminism has some important things to say about technology, and especially information technology, in its capacity creatively and ethically to mingle people, things, and experience."

Quilt INC lorenzo - Revision history

Lor.ensō at 14:18, 20 March 2024