[-empyre-] seeing yourself a prototype - the limits of open source

[davin heckman]

 I ran
> into the case of the disposable diaper and the result it has had in
> increasing by an average of several years now how long it takes for children to be potty
> trained. On the surface it is valuable to eliminate children's discomfort by
> optimizing the diaper.
> In fact current diapers increase general comfort by expanding in a
> soothing way and becoming warm. Likewise diaper changers appreciate all
> the gadgets to facilitate the change.
> The problem here is that the same object (the result of dozens of years of
> prototyping and field testing) is ergonomic at one time scale and not at a larger one
> in time or at the scale of an entire society.

What a brilliant example!  These sorts of discussions circulate in
natural parenting groups.  And, in fact, various conceptions of
comfort circulate around discussions of cloth diapers.  On the one
hand, there is an argument that children wearing cloth diapers get
uncomfortable faster, learning to associate the feeling of having to
pee with immediate discomfort, which alters the parent/child dynamic
in such a way that you change your child's diapers more quickly and
frequently, your child might hold it for longer periods of time, and
will also potty train sooner.  Beyond this, there are folks who
advocate different kinds of cloth diapers, as well as no diapers (this
method requires extremely close living, learning to recognize signs,
and develop awareness at an early stage).

But at its fundamental level, you (and Cynthia, too, in reaching
towards an open exchange of knowledge in your fine arts program) are
gesturing here towards developing singular relationships based in
trial and error, adaptation and refinement.  I suppose the utopian
aspect of this type of emergent consciousness is that it is utterly
directed at improving the communication between two very different
people.  It cannot restrict itself to a single quality (comfort) and,
in fact, resists any effort to reduce relationships to a simple
measure of "effectiveness."  In each case, it involves seeking out the
other's needs, seeking the other's desires, recognizing the other's
limitations.....  bringing these uneven and changing considerations
closer to one's own needs, desires, limitations (all of which, I would
argue, might be just as surprising as those of the other, when put
into conversation with the other)....  and forging a relationship that
is itself just as rich as any of its constituent parts.  Of course
these things to do not always come up roses, but I'd like to think
that the terrain of community/communication itself is just as
rewarding as the ends which we seek.

As usual, I've gone on too long.  But, I should also recommend an
article by Irving Goh (which was recommended to me by a bright light
name Nick Knouf) on Structural Rejects:
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/theory_and_event/v012/12.1.goh.html  It
works very well with the discussions we are having here.

Davin