Knowledge Federation – The Journal

My work centers on the Engelbart NIC/DKR ecosystem. The term dynamic knowledge repository, at the suggestion of Ted Kahn, was renamed “dynamic knowledge garden” for an invited talk I gave in Seoul in 2007, a few weeks after Dino and I co-created the knowledge federation concept in Leipzig. So, when I use the term “knowledge garden”, in spirit and in fact, I am talking about the NIC/DKR ecosystem. I build prototype web applications which are now settling on the Node.js ecosystem with a Java AI/TopicMap-based backside. Huge issues on which I work with my friends with are having the bandwidth to do all the software development, get it tested, and put it online. In very recent times, Alec Wenzowski has joined the effort that Mark Szpakowski and I have been on; Alec has mavenized all of my Java code and is now upgrading my node.js web platform. We should be online by March, 2017. A goal is to federate with all the other knowledge platforms now beginning to come online, specifically including Marc-Antoine’s platform. Our interest is in co-creating and evolving the web-based protocols and APIs for the global federation of knowledge work.

It’s too simplistic to say “s/he broke a promise so we’re done”. Or is it?

Is a simple break of a promise sufficient grounds to break off a relationship? What is I know that s/he is going through tremendous healing, learning the habits that s/he never learned growing up? What if that person didn’t have the parenting that was absent through the formative and crucial pre-teen, teen, and early adulthood years? What if that person was on their own because they’d been forced to cope with all of life’s challenges themselves from an early age?

What if one recognizes that person is struggling to learn these habits, but isn’t perfect? How many second chances is enough? Is it good to give more chances? Does this compromise my own integrity? Am I still helping if I recognize forward progress, even though it’s of the “2-steps forward, 1-step backward” variety? What does “I’m only human” really mean? Is it an excuse? Is it a valid recognition of imperfection? When does that trump a promise? What does “Sorry” really mean? …

Published to:

• KFJournal.org
• Collaborolog

I am here today as the “Wondering Futurist”, crowdsourcing foresight about the Future of Text. Based upon my own foresight studies, I see the beginning of the end of text, as we know it, already in the works.

I watch my grandchildren playing the latest online games with such speed and dexterity that I have never before witnessed. I see Google, Facebook, UTube, Slack, Skype, eBooks, League of Legends, World of Warcraft and countless more digital message streams as the new norm, now crowding out the world of dinosauric text. Yes, there will always be a place for classic text – whatever that might mean to you.

In terms of the real-world communications and messaging volume, the classic direct person-to-person transfer of messages is fast disappearing. Machine-intelligence now increasingly serves as intercessor to curate messages between persons in order to bridge their personal contextual mindsets.

We have already witnessed Apple, Google and Facebook rise to global status … becoming unstoppable developers of our collective future, as I shall elucidate further. Currently, here is where our fantastic future is being built. It’s a fact that within just 3 years, over half of the world’s adults already use a Smartphone.

The Smartphone’s embedded Artificial-Intelligence-driven software fuels humankind’s fastest evolutionary paradigm-shift in history. We have already reached the point of no return as human-intelligence and machine-intelligence have begun their irreversible symbiogenesis, creating a new hybrid extra-intelligent-species that I like to call the “Avatar”. I think of the Avatar, not as the person, but as the person’s interface with the external world.

As humankind completes its rapid transhuman-to-posthuman evolution, messaging will primarily travel from Person A to Avatar A then to Avatar B and finally to Person B. During that routine transfer of data and information, the message content becomes recomposed into a variety of representations by both Avatars supporting their human users’ needs.

Those recompositions, occurring at nearly the speed-of-light, will include adding new and existing content, human-avatar negotiated changes, and rapid transformation of the original message into one or more of many alternative forms as needed, such as introductions, abstracts, summaries, conclusions, facets, views, fractals, graphs, outlines, keyword summaries, etc. These components are necessary to successfully complete the message intake, its understanding, and then finally stored as knowledge within each recipient’s Personal Knowledge Ecosystem.

In this state-of-communications, the original text formats disappear, and frankly in my opinion, so does classic text, as we know it. As you will see here today, that while there are many different esoteric views of the “Future of Text”, there can only be ONE FUTURE!

Today, we largely speak of text … as an external entity to our minds. Within the decade we will witness the beginnings of nanobots-augmented-human-intelligence, coupled with direct mind-to-mind communications, replacing natural-humans as the new top-species.

In the following decade we will see machine intelligence begin to match human intelligence and in the decade following that one, machine intelligence will exceed both natural-human-intelligence and nanobots-augmented-human-intelligence, as it becomes the final top-species, capable of acting autonomously within many different shape-shifting forms, and when needed, merge to become a single-global-intelligence.

It’s up to you, to determine which viewpoint is most beneficial to your future planning … and actions. I’ve expressed my¬ future view, and I hope it helps inform your future view.

Stanley Gould (6:00 minute speech)
stanleygould@gmail.com

For collaboration to work well, we need to evolve in 2 fundamentally discontiguous domains:

• inter-personal principles and practices (teamwork)
• intra-personal principles and practices (integrity)

No amount of teamwork (extra-personal principles and practices) can fix situations that arise when the INTRA-personal integrity of collaborating team members is awry. To attempt this is to formalize rules of engagement to an Nth degree that flexibility, agility, responsiveness, creativity, tolerance, differences, are damaged by the restrictions and controls that must be put in place to account for this.

No one is expected to be perfect in any sense; proper practices need to accommodate honest mistakes – these will of course happen.

We Amigos each seek to model the following principles and practices

• I declare that we want to Do Good in the world.
• I will make explicit WHAT we want to do
• I will make explicit HOW we want to do the what
• I will periodically (frequently preferred) hold myself accountable with retrospectives
• Held with trusted peers – trusted enough to be direct and authentic (constructively) with their assessments of each others’ results (the reality that is manifest by living the WHAT according to the HOW
• Recorded as high-fidelity as possible (audio, written notes, action items, etc)
• Shared within the Circle of Trust
• With such feedback directly informing revisions in WHAT and HOW of each individual

When we have a community of such individuals who share these principles and practices, the Circle of Trust is the Community of Impact.

Each member of the COI can feel assured that to some degree, with accountability, each other member is Doing Good in good faith, with accountability to each other.