    
|
|
9th September 2008 | Draft
Communication with Whom, about What, Where and Why?Reframing the potential of dialogue- / -Introduction Communication issues Reframing the challenge of communication -- Integrative insight | Reality of "apartness" | Case for "everyday wisdom" through philosophy? -- Alienation | Censorship, spin and paranoia | Remedial capacity indicators | Motivation | Attention span -- Insight capture | Importance vs Exportance | Implanation and Outformation -- From echoes of communication to ecologies of communication | Being right | Critical thinking Nature of communication space -- Questions | Identity | Others | Disagreement | Persuasion | Cognitive catastrophes | Closure and convergence -- Dynamics | Developmental direction | Configuration | Endless explication | Self-reflexivity and mirroring -- Aesthetics and engagement | Strange attractor | Time | Wisdom keepers | Ignorance -- Higher quality of knowing Clues for future understanding of communication space -- Integrative initiatives | Cognitive geometry | Visualization of complexity -- Engaging with abundance | Surface of expression | Self-reflexivity | Formalized epistemology Conclusion IntroductionA variety of recent communication issues, seemingly unrelated, brought into focus a whole pattern of communication questions that they evoked. This is therefore an exercise in relating these questions in the light of those instances to highlight the challenges for future dialogue. To what end is another matter -- to which reference is made in conclusion. Communication issuesE-mail lists: Like many I am on a number of e-mail lists. How I got on to them I do not necessarily recall -- although I am free to unsubscribe. I am happy to scan the subject lines and may occasionally open some. I salute the energy of those who make such information available. I no longer use such lists to inform people of new papers on my site. The papers are too varied in focus to make the assumption that people even need to consider whether they are of possible interest. There are of course web facilities to ensure information on updates to a home page -- where my new papers are systematically listed. Solicitation for funds: I have also been solicited for funding support for several such lists, as well as for related web initiatives. It is clear that those involved are operating under tight budgetary constraints. The amounts requested are not large. The causes are indeed worthy. But whilst my own funds are limited compared to many, I would rather pay the amount requested not to have to navigate the fund transfer processes -- which never seem to work as advertised. On the other hand over the past months I have myself solicited for funds to upgrade a visualization software package. I have been reasonably successful by indicating my own contribution of funds to the enterprise -- just as the developer contributed time in excess of funding received. Solicitation for link exchange: I have also been solicited to engage in link exchange between my website and others. Typically this is from sites with only the remotest relevance in my eyes. I ignore them. My website is complicated enough without including a pattern of links of that kind. Similarly I do not seek such mention on other sites. Solicitation for social networking linkage: Several such systems (such as LinkedIn), in which friends and colleagues are involved, automatically solicit my participation -- despite my specific protests to the central office (which typically does not receive communications of that kind). Why would I want my network of contacts to be transparent -- possibly without their full approval? Why would I want to observe the pattern of contacts of others? Is this an instance of competitive linking -- even of a form of voyeurism? Is there no sensitivity to cultural preferences? The Dutch are renowned for considering closed curtains to be unsociable. Is social networking built on Dutch cultural assumptions? Where does the assumption come from that such communication is beneficial for all? Is the pattern, as with any small community, that such communication is taken to define normality? Is there no place for those who do not particularly desire such communication -- perhaps a LinkedOut social networking system? Solicitation for chatting: Some of my contacts would prefer to chat or phone. This can be embarrassing when they have little interest in what I might have communicated in other modes. What might be evoked in such exchanges? Invitation to visit a website: Many e-mails suggest the merit of visiting a website, or accessing a document. I do the same. What is it that determines whether one has the time or inclination to explore, to delay doing so, or to avoid doing so -- even when encouraged to do so through a valued recommendation? Who can afford the time to pursue such links systematically? Who is simply put off by the quantity of such possibilities and the daunting prospect of the reading that it may represent? Is there a notion of "a link too far" like the book and film (A Bridge Too Far)? Increasingly the vast array of websites endeavouring to attract interest is coming to resemble (from a systemic perspective) a field of wildflowers competing by every means to attract insects as pollinators. What strategy do I adopt in response to this opportunity? Why would I endeavour to promote access to my own website? Participative conferencing lists: There are some lists on which I am free, like others, to submit comment. Such a facility has now existed for decades. I have experimented with various ways of communicating through them. My sense is that one can contribute one's best thoughts and find them quickly lost in the process. There are of course various well-known irritants -- of which one may oneself be a source. Recently on one list, many participants found the communications of others to be invasive and asked to be dropped from the list. Others pleaded for a "moderated list" -- raising interesting questions about the nature of any "moderated democracy" -- as it might emerge for the same reasons. There are also interesting questions about whether communications solicited in this way are in fact distributed -- or rather are simply suppressed. And who would know? Feedback solicitation: Many institutionalized authorities, including public broadcasting facilities, explicitly invite feedback and claim to be soliciting it for due consideration. Efforts to engage with such systems quickly reveal that they are subject to unspecified filtration processes. Interesting examples in my own case have been recent efforts to offer suggestions regarding reframing the challenge of the Irish "No" vote -- suppressed for reasons analogous to those criticized by those campaigning against EU inability to "listen". A similar pattern was evident in the case of efforts to communicate with the Mayor of London regarding options in the face of its major housing crisis and the necessity to rezone portions of the "green belt". Despite assurances by such authorities, notably the EU, it would seem that their main objective is to be able to demonstrate instances of feedback (even if prefabricated, as in the case of the BBC phone-in scandals of 2007), but to avoid any systematic intelligent processing of feedback as a means of eliciting unforeseen suggestions. Solicitation for contributions to Wiki-style projects: Beyond invitations to visit a website and feedback solicitation, there are now an increasing number of initiatives seeking to engage people in the process of building up the content of online Wiki-style directories -- typically on constrained budgets. Although such initiatives are admirable, their very number, and the degree of overlap and competition between them, raise questions as to why one would devote energy and time to one rather than the other. More problematic is when any such intiative is promoted by particular institutions as a mean of laying claim to democratic engagement and as a means of framing the content to reflect particular agendas -- and deliberately destabilizing other less biased initiatives. Solicitation for participation in events: There are indeed some challenging themes that merit collective communication. Many of those solicited for such events -- in the light of their experience -- have participated in numerous analogous events over past years (if not decades). It would seem, in the light of a recent instance, that either it is assumed that nothing is to be learnt from past inadequacies or else -- as affirmed in the instance in question -- it is explicitly assumed that the participants have all learnt all that it is needed to enable a more fruitful gathering. Such argument is reinforced by the intention to make use of a facilitator of "considerable experience" and insight into processes to ensure convergence. Faced with any problematic consequences -- as in this instance -- a common pattern is to repeat assertions that fruitful developments cannot be expected from a single event, learning about each other was fruitful, the next event will be better, etc. All concerned tend then to exhibit a degree of commitment to claiming the event had been a success -- especially given the financial and psychic resources they have allocated to their participation. Solicited contributions to an event: My preferred pattern is to articulate a written contribution (as extensively as seems fruitful), with a view to making it accessible later via my website. Hardcopies can be handed out to those who may be interested at the event (or left on a display stand). But any (necessarily brief) verbal contribution is best supported by a slide presentation -- or a movie. This avoids "reading" a paper and leaves everyone free to explore further as they will. Web dissemination ensures that the effort of preparing the contribution is then not wasted. Curiously, and often in contrast to the expressed desires of the organizers, the collective efforts for the event are not disseminated in any coherent form, if at all. How effective is the collective communication, at such events, and of the outcome? Should one expect more? Who might expect more? Solicited contributions to a journal: Journal publishing, whether hardcopy or electronic, is much challenged by web facilities. Many journals are only available in hardcopy. Many electronically abstracted articles are only available under subscription. Is this an effective mode of communication except for those ensconced within those gated conceptual communities? On the other hand, despite willingness on all sides, it is my (recent) experience that a contribution to a peer reviewed journal can mean a 6-9 month publishing cycle -- from when an "unpublished" version is circulated to colleagues via the web. Is this a useful lag time in a rapidly evolving communication world? Finally there is the vexed question of copyright associated with such journals, where typically authors are expected to sign over copyright to the publishers. My pattern is to challenge this in order to ensure a coherent collection of my papers on one site. A renowned author in the social sciences, who recently died, has almost nothing accessible on the web -- all published under copyright. Is that a creative contribution to a developing knowledge society? Trustworthiness and truth: Past weeks have seen the vigorous claims and counter-claims made from a Georgian and from a Russian perspective -- with the case for each party being vigorously supported through the media by separate public relations consultants based in Brussels. Various "truths" have been advanced and denied in the UN Security Council -- itself tortured by its uncritical acceptance of the untruthful testimony of US Secretary of State Colin Powell on 5th February 2003. Comparisons with Kosovo have been made and questioned as entirely irrelevant and inappropriate. The undeclared agendas of the USA through NATO have been posited and denied. Every perspective is defended by some appropriate authority as reasonable and truthful -- in contrast with the news management said to be characterized by other perspectives. What expectation is there for what used to be considered the merits of truth in a context dominated by half truths? Triumph of "feel good" governance: In a remarkable comment, Madeleine Bunting (Why we cannot expect any response in government to rational argument, The Guardian, 25 August 2008) argues (citing the case of the UK Tory party "zombie politics"):
She highlights the manner in which the key to communication success is the capacity to express concern, however bereft of concrete policy considerations. This highlights the questionable value at this time of rational articulation as was supposedly considered relevant to effective governance. The argument is conformed by an analysis of the campaign positions of Barack Obama and John McCain, as made by George Lakoff (Don't Think of a Maverick! 2008) who offers valuable insights into the disadvantage in relating to the electorate through focusing on policy "issues" rather than of engendering "frames". This perspective is confirmed by Sharon Begley (Heard Any Good Stories Lately? Newsweek, 13 September 2008):
Indicators, warnings and concerns: Increasingly a multitude of indications are disseminated regarding current and emergent issues. Such is the number it is unclear who is expected to respond, how and with what degree of urgency. It has been termed a "crisis of crises". More problematic still is the manner in which issues may be promoted primarily as a means of attracting support and resources for the agendas of the promoter -- without any credible means of distinguishing between genuine crises and those cultivated in this way. This may be as true of "terrorism" as it is of "global warming" (Promoting a Singular Global Threat -- Terrorism: strategy of choice for world governance, 2002). Typically there is little concern for the manner in which such issues are interrelated, as documented elsewhere (Encyclopedia of World Problems and Human Potential). Challenge to produce confirmatory data: In contrast to the previous point, the recent period has been witness to every kind of claim regarding climate change, the quality of evidence in support of it and the dubious dynamics amongst those comitted to various positions. Arguably it is not any rational evidence that is proving meaningful but rather the sight of flooded towns in developed countries (as opposed to the irrelevance of flooding or drought in other countries). Technical "geoengineering" solutions to climate change are however seriously advanced without any capacity to produce proof that they will not have highly regrettable side effects. Non-destructive experiments are however rejected because of the lack of capacity to demonstrate their value. I have however just received the announcement of an OECD-sponsored High-Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness (Accra, 2008) in further quest for an "aid-free" world (Ramesh Jaura, Towards an 'Aid-Free' World?). This reminds me of the experience of the representative of a development group active (without external aid) in thousands of villages. She made the point that at an analogous event donors were not interested in her experience because she was not a "recipient", and recipients did not want to talk to her because they wanted funds from "donors". At the same time it is authoritatively claimed that "no stone is being left unturned" in the quest for "new thinking". What is to be learnt from such communication experience? Optimism and positivism (whatever the circumstances): Despite the curious challenges of the times, I have been exposed over the past period to the case made for being "positive" as opposed to being "negative" -- necessarily made without any problematic self-criticism, as might otherwise be considered appropriate (Being Positive Avoiding Negativity: management challenge of positive vs negative, 2005). I am now interestingly challenged by the invitation of a friend to attend his keynote speech to a society devoted to optimism. Clearly, should I even consider attending, it would be appropriate to avoid questioning the argument made -- since questioning itself becomes evidence of inappropriate pessimism and negativity. Is it the case that such contexts are designed, consciously or unconsciously, to avoid any exposure to doubt? Whilst there is validity to the concern of optimists with "doom-mongering", little is said of the dangers of "hope-mongering" -- notably enhanced by public relations hype. Could it be said that the subprime financial disaster was a consequence of hope-mongering through mis-selling by agents of the financial system -- exploiting the hopes of those seeking homes without adequate resources? Given the embodiment of collective confidence in the banking system, might such a fundamental abuse of confidence symptomatic of abuses of hope in other areas -- perhaps religion in a period in which faith is promoted as vital to governance? As someone with years of experience promoting and implementing projects, any accusation of "negativity" typically means a perceived failure to agree with the accusing party -- agreement is perceived as being "positive". A final accolade, just received, concerned "a very stimulating analytical piece" by myself regarding an intentional community -- framing me as "the last person on earth who could be accused of easy enthusiasms". Of course on a larger scale any disagreement is readily framed as being problematically "anti" the view so questioned -- with little perspective on the resulting process of non-dialogue (Guidelines for Critical Dialogue between Worldviews, 2006). Quest for alternative modes: Such challenging contexts -- where rational argument, trustworthiness, proof and truth are all increasingly questionable as a threat to feel-good coherence -- raise the question of what other modes of communication might fruitfully be explored? I have experimented with satirical provocation including the use of a prose poetic form (Celebrating the Value of Deadly Problems Worldwide: planetary salvation in an era of inept global governance?, 2008; Nos Morituri Te Salutamus Salute of Iraqi Citizens to the Coalition of the Willing, 2003) as well as extolling the merits of humour and playfullness (Humour and Play-Fullness: essential integrative processes in governance, religion and transdisciplinarity, 2005). I have also long been a promoter of visualization as a means of providing coherent understanding of complexity, especially that sustained by the dynamics of polarization (Computer-aided Visualization of Psycho-social Structures: peace as an evolving balance of conceptual and organizational relationships, 1971). In such a context, some of my own current experiments in visualization (at my own expense) are frustrated by the lack of access to a minimum of guidance in use of scalable vector graphics to highlight relationships between the fundamental symbols driving faith-based conflict (Dynamic Exploration of Value Configurations: interrelating traditional cultural symbols through animation, 2008). But why bemoan the fact? In an effort to demonstrate the value of related visualization techniques, I reframed in a movie the programme themes and keynote speakers of a conference of the International Peace Research Association (Leuven, 2008). Ironically, through some administrative confusion, I did not get to participate in the event (despite going to the registration desk) -- but the movie can be downloaded (Polyhedral Conference Representation as a Catalyst for Innovation: polyhedral animation of IPRA 2008). Modes and communication preferences: Implicit in many of the above issues, but seldom explicitly discussed, is the fact that people have different communication preferences and tolerances. There are those who prefer (or tolerate):
Other preferences and issues add to these:
Comprehension and insight communication: Implicit in the above would appear to be issues of how whatever is understood as "insight" and "knowledge" gets communicated and how such communication and "insight" is distinct from how bonds get formed between those engaged in the process. These issues can be reduced to questions of how succinctly insight can be expressed. Here again there are preferences:
In the absence of adequate mapping or sonification, My bias is text of any length -- provided I can skip from sub-heading to sub-heading (as given in this document). I also favour providing links to other resources on my own site, or others, as a means of assisting those intrigued by the argument at that point. Others are frustrated by these approaches, especially if they feel some obligation to read all the text sequentially (and, heaven forbid, follow all links) -- if they read it at all. A major point made in the communication process -- and the search for the succinct -- is "lack of time". However, as the following debate indicates, highlighted by the Financial Times, the length is but one of the arguments put forward for the ineffective communicability of any text.
Repackaging lengthy content: One option is to repackage lengthy content into multiple 1-2 page mini-texts. This was done with a significant number of my papers in the commentaries included in the Encyclopedia of World Problems and Human Potential. This content is currently being further reduced in length by Nadia McLaren on behalf of the Global Problem Solving initiative -- in order to maximize clarity with a minimum of text. Taking advantage of the development of content management systems (such as Drupal), a further approach is to segment a greater range of texts into separately accessible linked documents within Drupal (Transforming Static Websites into Mobile "Wizdomes": enabling change through intertwining dynamic and configurative metaphors, 2007). Persuasion and exhortation : There is a curious assumption that communication is intimately associated with a commitment to persuading an other of a new insight -- indeed of convincing them of the superior merits of that insight, however presumptuous that sense of superiority may be considered to be. This is the very essence of marketing communications, especially in a competitive environment. The fact that this issue applies to this document itself provides a basis for the following argument. Many communications have a sense of exhortation, whether to believe in something (possibly through conversion to a cause), to support a cause through signing a petition or demonstrating appropriately ("standing up to be counted"), or to change behaviour in some way (as with respect to environmental challenges). Listening: Many communications require no response other than the willingness to listen to the person who is communicating. It is enagement in the process of listening that is required -- and may be demanding of attention in "quality time" -- as a special form of acknowledgement of the identity of the other. Protection of identity: The invasive nature of electronic communication, and the enthusiasm of those who endeavour to engage in unsolicited communication, results in constant exposure to the threat of use of one's mail address by others for purposes of spamming. For many with relatively common names (eg John Smith) there is a major issue of how to distinguish oneself electronically from others of that name. Acquisition of a new e-mail address may make it easy for anyone to seemingly appropriate one's name and/or address through some slight modification. In this sense many communications of dubious content or intent may apparently be initiated in one's name without one's knowledge. Communication with the past: In addition to communicating with my own past, through an effort to bring order to an array of papers from which some larger meaning is presumably to be derived, I have recently discovered an extensive account of my father's past that had never been published -- now adapted for the web. My father spent many years of his professional life in the Western Desert as part of the air force presence prior to and during WWII -- extensively recognized on the web without my knowledge. Both cases raise issues of how to represent the past, however direct one's association with it. A phenomenon that will rapidly achieve increasing prominence in an electronic environment is how those with published texts will ensure their preservation. What happens to a personal website once the person dies or becomes incompetent? Who might be motivated to maintain them, given the limited mandate and motivation of institutional environments constantly threatened by budget cuts? Will such as Google or Amazon develop an "electronic cemetery" where such commemoration will be facilitated? Will they offer "electronic embalmment" services, in anticipation of the possibility of mind uploading into a Second Life? Will the distant future excavate Silicon Valley and its electronic burial sites (such as the Wayback Machine) as a Valley of the Kings of the 21st century? How does one engage with macrohistory in the present (Engaging Macrohistory through the Present Moment, 2004) Communication with other entities: It is easily forgotten our readily people engage in communication processes with a whole spectrum of other entities. This is most evident in communication with pets and domesticated animals. This may extend to forms of communication with animals in the wild. Some talk to plants in their gardens or to trees. This corresponds to a traditional relationship with totemic species. Communication may be extended to disembodied entities whether through processes framed as prayer or channelling. Some may feel a sense of communication with nature as a whole ("Human Intercourse" "Intercourse with Nature" and "Intercourse with the Other", 2007). The possibility of communicating with extraterrestrials also offers a powerful metaphor of the challenge of communicating with "aliens" in human society (Communicating with Aliens: the Psychological Dimension of Dialogue, 2000). Of course, encountering someone walking alone in apparent conversation, those poorly informed of the wonders of modern technology would be unable to determine whther they were communicating with spirits, talking to themselves, or employing a portable phone. Reframing the challenge of communicationIntegrative insight: Most intriguing is the variety of theoretical models claimed as key to integrative insight in response to the otherwise fragmented condition of global knowledge and communication, as described elsewhere (Integrative Knowledge and Transdisciplinarity Project Overview). Despite the potentially vital importance of such interrelationship to coherent policy-making, it is however striking how little has been achieved over many years in fruitfully interrelating these perspectives. Much so-called interdisciplinarity is now usefully to be caricatured by the German term Buchbindersynthese -- in which the main integrating factor is the binding of the publication in which the various contributions are to be found. This suggests that the challenge needs to be framed in an entirely different way to take account of incommensurability (Using Disagreements for Superordinate Frame Configuration, 1992). Robert Rosen (Limitations of scientific knowledge, 1996) points out that science arbitrarily restricts itself to the mathematics of convergent series, whereas emergence and life in general appear to display divergent processes, that scientific convention disallows being studied. The challenge is well illustrated by the credibility of correspondences between disparate domains (Theories of Correspondences -- and potential equivalences between them in correlative thinking, 2007). Reality of "apartness" and mutual indifference: Typically the above-mentioned integrative insights are offered and promoted by alpha males who, for that reason, are quite averse to any significant dialogue with each other that might question the integrity and the superiority of their particular system. Characteristically they refuse to be present on the same panel, even if they attend the same meeting. This dynamic, and its highly problematic consequences, is necessarily rarely discussed and never studied (Epistemological Challenge of Cognitive Body Odour: exploring the underside of dialogue, 2006; Varieties of the "unsaid" in sustaining psycho-social community, 2003). A related factor is the extent to which those interested in one theme or approach may well be indifferent to many others -- which they see as irrelevant or even nonsensical. This may be the case with regard to academic disciplines, political priorities or cultural preferences. Any integrative perspectives in an emerging global knowledge society are therefore increasingly associated with what are effectively "gated communities" (Dynamically Gated Conceptual Communities: emergent patterns of isolation within knowledge society, 2004; Sustaining the Coherence of Dialogue through Apartness: patterns of systematic configuration of entities through hypertext, 1997). These may soon take the form of closed virtual worlds -- cognitive members-only analogues to Second Life. In the absence of doubt, what capacity is there for dialogue? In the absence of dialogue, what capacity is there for learning and development? Is it then up to the ordinary individual to use more modest means to interrelate the threads and shards of fragmented knowledge uphed by specialists? More intriguing, given the exponential increase in the quantity of information, and the very different knowledge bases from which people develop the integrative perspectives they find adequate and appropriate, is the sense in which "communication" comes to be better characterized by that between distinct species. The need and nature of their relationship then becomes questionable and open to the creativity of each. This gives validity, for some, to the cognitive embodiment of the disparate features of the knowledge universe -- creative exercises in enactivating and "re-membering" the "pattern that connects" (Walking Elven Pathways: enactivating the pattern that connects, 2006; Being the Universe : a Metaphoric Frontier, 1999; Conditions of Objective, Subjective and Embodied Cognition: mnemonic systems for memetic coding of complexity, 2007). Case for "everyday wisdom" through philosophy?: An argument by Julian Baggini (Everyday Wisdom, The Guardian, 2 September 2008) explores whether a new series of practical philosophy books on serious intellectual theory can provide the key to happiness, personal fulfilment and the art of living for everyone. The question is whether philosophy should rediscover its historic mission to help people to live better and more contented lives. Curiously this echoes the emphases (above) on "feel good" politics, the question of trustworthiness, and the degree of "truth" considered appropriate. Given the eternal strife between philosophical systems as explored by Nicholas Rescher (The Strife of Systems: an essay on the grounds and implications of philosophical diversity, 1985 ), it may be wondered how any integrative perspective is to emerge (a challenge noted above) -- if such is in any way a requirement other than for conceptually gated communities Alienation: A chance exposure on BBC World to a recent presentation by David Wright-Neville (Global Terrorism Research Centre, at Monash University, Australia) of a model of the emergence of terrorism as a consequence of alienation, makes a startling point about communication (Social and Cultural Violence in the Twenty First Century: Globalisation’s New Challenge, 2008). His argument necessarily focuses on the experienced failures of communication increasing a sense of isolation to the point where those so isolated tend to associate preferentially amongst themselves -- framing their reality in an "us and them" scenario, as in "gated communities". It is a natural step for "us" to recognize the manner in which "them" constitute a threat -- and therefore to justify violence in self-defence. The "us and them" logic was however precisely that used to justify the Coalition of the Willing in its "war on terrorism". The challenge of Wright-Neville's model is that the challenges to communication of many specialized interests -- the extent to which they are "not heard" by larger society (especially in any democracy) -- gives them a sense of alienation also. In fact it could be argued that any interest group, whether faith-based or not, is drawn down this path. Some may indeed then feel that sanctions against non-believers or apostates are appropriate, as is notably the case with some sects. The distinction might be made between physical violence and other forms of violence -- considered "less harmful". However, as argued by Johan Galtung:
Galtung has gone on to articulate the concept of cultural violence. Wright-Neville uses both terms. The question is then what forms of alienation, and what forms of response to it, should be seen as associated with "terrorism" (Varieties of Terrorism -- extended to the experience of the terrorized, 2004). Given the conflation of dissension, extremism and terrorism, how extremist can one be without now being subject to anti-terrorist sanctions? How then should any form of "extremism" be framed as problematic in a rapidly evolving knowledge society (Norms in the Global Struggle against Extremism: "rooting for" normalization vs. "rooting out" extremism? 2005). Others point to "spiritual violence" as potentially of even subtler form -- in a class similar to "spiritual pollution". The argument that physical violence is less harmful leads to a potentially dangerous misunderstanding. In some cultures saving one's identity may be far more important than saving one's own skin. This is why concern with "respect" is of primordial importance in gang cultures. Arguably the "incomprehensible" willingness of insurgents to sacrifice their own lives -- irrespective of any harm to others -- could be more fruitfully understood in this light. Remedial capacity indicators: In contrast to the conventional indicators regarding crises, as mentioned above, there is a case for focusing on "remedial capacity" indicators. These would complement the emphasis on warnings and clarify the capacity, if any, to act usefully and constructively in response to such warnings, as discussed elsewhere (Remedial Capacity Indicators Versus Performance Indicators, 1981). Of related interest is the manner in which remedial strategies are constrained by proprietary products or metaphors (Future Coping Strategies: beyond the constraints of proprietary metaphors, 1992). Censorship, spin and paranoia: The politicization of the internet, the manner in which it is used and abused, the "remedial" measures legally required of service providers, the incidence of electronic surveillance, together with the filtering packages necessary to exclude unwanted communications or content, repeatedly raise issues about what communications get through under what conditions -- and why. Under the circumstances there is clearly no clarity on these challenges or the degree of concern that is | ||||||