Taking stock / The way forward
Had a long lunch with BL of Singapore Entrepreneurs and Heavenly Sword. The meeting (for both of them, our first meetings) was timely for me. Here I am, the madness of dissertation work behind me; but also looking forward to a full teaching schedule in just over a month. It is time to take stock, or as I said in the previous post, to think seriously about how I want the blog to continue, and what form it should take. Or whether it should continue at all. Several ideas were raised during lunch (thank you BL and HS) and I am giving very serious thought to them, enough to begin some negiotiations to see if some of these ideas have any future at all.
* * * * *
In the meantime, let me recall a conversation I once had with (serendipitously) BL a.k.a. Prodigal, HS and a few others on some related issues almost a year ago (an eternity in blogospheric time). I was lamenting on the fact that several unfinished projects were still collecting dust and said this:
Heavenly Sword: I couldn't agree more....It actually takes time to write a proper article...and time is something that we're very short of right now...I think I may have to take a long break from blogging, due to the mega-project I have on hand...
Prodigal: Perhaps, it's better to lie low to write a good blog entry than to waste your time trying to churn out blogs without any quality control. Somehow, by looking through most blogs, it is reminiscent of the modern academia, where we are subjected to the "publish or perish" situation.
Hope that all are well.
Huichieh: "Publish or perish"? Note that the "or" is an inclusive "or"...
A lot really depends on what the blog entry is meant to do--even granting the ambition of a blog to be "serious". News links, for example, are really easy to do. Why bother? Well, sometimes, you are surfing and come across something interesting and would like to point your readers in that direction. The more extended commentary type entries are, of course, much more involved. But either way, it is not always easy to predict the subsequent discussion--which may open up new vistas previously not considered. Heavenly Sword will remember a long exchange we had over yoghurt. The original post was only a brief news link!
I think blogs need not be taken as "publications" in the full sense of the word--fully thought out pieces, edited, etc. They could. But I tend to see much of what I do more in the spirit of throwing out discussion possibilities, tentative arguments, an inviting to the reader to think about something in a certain way, you know, 抛砖引玉--all subject to revision, correction, even complete refutation. This applies especially to the longer argumentative entries here.
Anthony: The medium of blogging lends itself better to certain discussion methods than others. A publication where someone writes a full article, then someone writes a full article refuting that article etc works, just not as well as short snappy articles and plenty of comments.
In short, I'm with you insofar as the "throwing up of ideas in the spirit of discussion".
Prodigal: Well, I refer to an exclusive "or".
There are a few views that you can use a blog for:
(a)The blog as an idea tosser: You throw an idea and invite discussion from your peers. If the subject is thought provoking like whether we should allow cloning, then it will be great.
(b)The blog as a personal rant space: Yes, we see tonnes of that. My conjecture is that 80% of the blog is like that.
(c)The blog as an introduction to scholarly works: Something like what u did to the papers by Dominic Soon, Sze Meng and Lee Harris. It will fulfil both (a) and at the same time examine some of the issues in a piece of scholarly work. Well, a physicist Lubos Motl uses it to explain difficult theoretical physics in his blog. I actually like that kind of technicality.
(d)The blog as a bait: using to snare reporters and book publishers. It has happened for the Sarong Party Girl blog if I am not wrong.
I believe that there are many purposes for using a blog. It's a good and quick zeroth order way to throw ideas or thoughts into a place. However, like the early days of internet or in the forums, it's like the wild wild west. People can throw in any kind of comments they like without responsibility. It bewilders me that people are always complaining about freedom of speech, and I ask them, "Sure, that's one side of the equation. If u are given freedom of speech, what about the responsibility to that freedom of speech?"
Have a good day.
Huichieh: Quick one: the reason why I said "inclusive" is because I know of people who published (lots) but still perished... I think the better formulation is: "don't publish, then perish" (but even if you do, you may still perish), which does work out in propositional logic to be "publish inclusive-or perish". More later...
Ok, I'm not interested in (b) and (d), and I try my best to do (a) and (c). The heartening thing is that, in my own experience here, the discussions have generally been very civil and very substantial. Some of the comments are veritable posts of their own!
In any case, I'm not too concerned about the variety of stuff out there--people should be perfectly free to blog or rant whatever they want. After all, if I'm not interested, I don't read their stuff. And if they find my stuff boring, they don't have to read. Won't be tested in exams lah!
Freedom of speech and responsibility? In one sense, they already come together. In being free to think and speak as I please--with the understanding that everyone else has that same freedom--I must expect that other people might get offended by what I say, and they would be perfectly free to blast me (in speech) for it. That's their perogative. But to see this is already to see that I--and no one else--am responsible for what I say.
The other sense of "responsiblity" does not follow, however. That is, if everyone is free to think and say as they please--consistent with everyone else having the same freedom, it doesn't follow that everyone would be "responsible speakers"--in the sense that they speak civilly, decently, logically, in good taste, etc. It would be nice if everyone were responsible speakers--but that's actually not something that we can guarantee without compromising their freedom to speak whatever they want: we may have to compel them to say only the good and true things, thus curtailing their freedom of speech.
Prodigal: Hui Chieh,
Here's my question to you: Suppose an individual say something that incite people to vandalize others property, in your opinion, what are the rest of the people doing about it?
I agree with your definition that everyone is free to think and speak as they please. However, once you start bringing the rest of the world into the picture, the individual's views will interact with the rest of the world. I suppose that there is no objective criterion to decide what is a "responsible speaker". I will prefer to believe that is conditioned by the view of what society views as responsible.
Huichieh: Probably he should be charged--if causality can be proven anyway. My point was only that freedom of speech--qua freedom--does not contain within itself a criterion of "responsible speaking". But rights can be trumped by other rights, and particular rights may have to be abridged so as to secure other rights.
That is to say: we can't expect (as a matter of fact) that just because a bunch of people are committed to and engages in free speech, that they will all be responsible. Obviously, it would be a good thing that they are, that they are individually restrained by, e.g., a desire not to harm, etc. So if freedom of speech is such a paramount commitment, then we had better be ready for a lot of nonsense. But obviously, it can't be--we have other commitments as well...
* * * * *
Personally, I believe that the best things on this blog, the thing I enjoined most, are the exchanges in the comments, which are often of uncommon quality and civility. If I should continue blogging, it will certainly be for the prospect and hope of such leisurely and reasoned exchanges more than anything else--and a modest contribution to the spirit and practice of civil discussions between citizens--more than anything else. Whether or not I get my wish, is something else.
* * * * *
In the meantime, let me recall a conversation I once had with (serendipitously) BL a.k.a. Prodigal, HS and a few others on some related issues almost a year ago (an eternity in blogospheric time). I was lamenting on the fact that several unfinished projects were still collecting dust and said this:
A blog is, for the most part, occasional in nature. But the nature of some of my interests and the discussions generated often cry out for much more sustained reflection and exchange over a longer period of time...Which was picked up by HS and others:
Heavenly Sword: I couldn't agree more....It actually takes time to write a proper article...and time is something that we're very short of right now...I think I may have to take a long break from blogging, due to the mega-project I have on hand...
Prodigal: Perhaps, it's better to lie low to write a good blog entry than to waste your time trying to churn out blogs without any quality control. Somehow, by looking through most blogs, it is reminiscent of the modern academia, where we are subjected to the "publish or perish" situation.
Hope that all are well.
Huichieh: "Publish or perish"? Note that the "or" is an inclusive "or"...
A lot really depends on what the blog entry is meant to do--even granting the ambition of a blog to be "serious". News links, for example, are really easy to do. Why bother? Well, sometimes, you are surfing and come across something interesting and would like to point your readers in that direction. The more extended commentary type entries are, of course, much more involved. But either way, it is not always easy to predict the subsequent discussion--which may open up new vistas previously not considered. Heavenly Sword will remember a long exchange we had over yoghurt. The original post was only a brief news link!
I think blogs need not be taken as "publications" in the full sense of the word--fully thought out pieces, edited, etc. They could. But I tend to see much of what I do more in the spirit of throwing out discussion possibilities, tentative arguments, an inviting to the reader to think about something in a certain way, you know, 抛砖引玉--all subject to revision, correction, even complete refutation. This applies especially to the longer argumentative entries here.
Anthony: The medium of blogging lends itself better to certain discussion methods than others. A publication where someone writes a full article, then someone writes a full article refuting that article etc works, just not as well as short snappy articles and plenty of comments.
In short, I'm with you insofar as the "throwing up of ideas in the spirit of discussion".
Prodigal: Well, I refer to an exclusive "or".
There are a few views that you can use a blog for:
(a)The blog as an idea tosser: You throw an idea and invite discussion from your peers. If the subject is thought provoking like whether we should allow cloning, then it will be great.
(b)The blog as a personal rant space: Yes, we see tonnes of that. My conjecture is that 80% of the blog is like that.
(c)The blog as an introduction to scholarly works: Something like what u did to the papers by Dominic Soon, Sze Meng and Lee Harris. It will fulfil both (a) and at the same time examine some of the issues in a piece of scholarly work. Well, a physicist Lubos Motl uses it to explain difficult theoretical physics in his blog. I actually like that kind of technicality.
(d)The blog as a bait: using to snare reporters and book publishers. It has happened for the Sarong Party Girl blog if I am not wrong.
I believe that there are many purposes for using a blog. It's a good and quick zeroth order way to throw ideas or thoughts into a place. However, like the early days of internet or in the forums, it's like the wild wild west. People can throw in any kind of comments they like without responsibility. It bewilders me that people are always complaining about freedom of speech, and I ask them, "Sure, that's one side of the equation. If u are given freedom of speech, what about the responsibility to that freedom of speech?"
Have a good day.
Huichieh: Quick one: the reason why I said "inclusive" is because I know of people who published (lots) but still perished... I think the better formulation is: "don't publish, then perish" (but even if you do, you may still perish), which does work out in propositional logic to be "publish inclusive-or perish". More later...
Ok, I'm not interested in (b) and (d), and I try my best to do (a) and (c). The heartening thing is that, in my own experience here, the discussions have generally been very civil and very substantial. Some of the comments are veritable posts of their own!
In any case, I'm not too concerned about the variety of stuff out there--people should be perfectly free to blog or rant whatever they want. After all, if I'm not interested, I don't read their stuff. And if they find my stuff boring, they don't have to read. Won't be tested in exams lah!
Freedom of speech and responsibility? In one sense, they already come together. In being free to think and speak as I please--with the understanding that everyone else has that same freedom--I must expect that other people might get offended by what I say, and they would be perfectly free to blast me (in speech) for it. That's their perogative. But to see this is already to see that I--and no one else--am responsible for what I say.
The other sense of "responsiblity" does not follow, however. That is, if everyone is free to think and say as they please--consistent with everyone else having the same freedom, it doesn't follow that everyone would be "responsible speakers"--in the sense that they speak civilly, decently, logically, in good taste, etc. It would be nice if everyone were responsible speakers--but that's actually not something that we can guarantee without compromising their freedom to speak whatever they want: we may have to compel them to say only the good and true things, thus curtailing their freedom of speech.
Prodigal: Hui Chieh,
Here's my question to you: Suppose an individual say something that incite people to vandalize others property, in your opinion, what are the rest of the people doing about it?
I agree with your definition that everyone is free to think and speak as they please. However, once you start bringing the rest of the world into the picture, the individual's views will interact with the rest of the world. I suppose that there is no objective criterion to decide what is a "responsible speaker". I will prefer to believe that is conditioned by the view of what society views as responsible.
Huichieh: Probably he should be charged--if causality can be proven anyway. My point was only that freedom of speech--qua freedom--does not contain within itself a criterion of "responsible speaking". But rights can be trumped by other rights, and particular rights may have to be abridged so as to secure other rights.
That is to say: we can't expect (as a matter of fact) that just because a bunch of people are committed to and engages in free speech, that they will all be responsible. Obviously, it would be a good thing that they are, that they are individually restrained by, e.g., a desire not to harm, etc. So if freedom of speech is such a paramount commitment, then we had better be ready for a lot of nonsense. But obviously, it can't be--we have other commitments as well...
* * * * *
Personally, I believe that the best things on this blog, the thing I enjoined most, are the exchanges in the comments, which are often of uncommon quality and civility. If I should continue blogging, it will certainly be for the prospect and hope of such leisurely and reasoned exchanges more than anything else--and a modest contribution to the spirit and practice of civil discussions between citizens--more than anything else. Whether or not I get my wish, is something else.
Permalink |
|
| 
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home