| |
| 4. NETWORK INSTRUMENT |
 |
The participants were
shown an item, taken from the possessions of someone, who was
believed to have had some form of contact with each of the
participants at least once. The particular item was chosen,
because it seemed most likely not to evoke associations other
than its acquired operational characteristics. It was therefore
considered to be better suited as an aid for the participants
to delineate their personal networks without having to take
into account any circumstances or events that had, at any point,
led to or had contributed to the establishment or modification
of the network or any of its constituents part(s). |
|
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
(2):
of the chosen kind of property, a particular
instance had to
be selected, an instance, which we could observe on its flow
process, follow it as it develops its own copies and mutations
(and mutate itself) to the point where it either ceases to
exist or has mutated to such extent that it cannot be recognized
in its original form. Network progression deriving from entities
themselves (and their possible conflicts) was of no interest.
The property's ability to exploit its environment dynamically
in a way that would influence and develop it to the property's
own economic advantage was taken into account, but had to be
ignored, if the observation was to remain objective and in
line with its own intention. We then eliminated all systematic
rules of the observation from the method in order to produce
a simulation of all occurrences that would paint a picture
of what had happened as if no interference had taken place. |
|
|
Based on a well
known support inventory, the members of the individual personal
networks (as delineated) were then temporarily categorized
into seven domains: socialization, material assistance, constructive
feedback, intimate interaction, economic collaboration (which
usually existed in the bond between 'running partners'), information
exchange and relationships with clients. The resulting construct
of overlapping networks was subsequently stripped off its categorizations
and, while excluding quantitative aspects as well as substantive
qualities in respect of the consisting units and the network
as a whole, the attention was turned to the properties flowing
between the units. It was believed the observation of properties
and their flow processes would allow for the mechanisms, which
enable these processes, to be identified without inferring
anything about the entities on which they rest. |
|
Furthermore,
it was hoped that by preventing the emergence of properties,
whose purpose went beyond the pure facilitation of flow processes
as such, a framework could be established, which would entice
the production of entities (and the modification of all existing
entities towards the same end) whose actions would enable
the establishment and provision of circumstances that would
only allow activities concerned with the economic survival
of the network, its constituents and their flow processes.
[Assuming the existence of such conditions would entail the
perfect scenario for any inter-entity communication, since
the purpose of the entity's communication could then be equated
with the purpose of the entity itself.] It was therefore
concluded that the observation could only produce the desired
results if its framework was designed in a way that would
require the properties to act and react within a clearly
defined boundary of preconditions, which would be adverse
to any inconclusive outcome. Our particular method of observation
was therefore based on the following two preconditions: |
|
(1): the kind of property chosen for the observation had to have the theoretical
capactity to:
visit any given node of the network more than once, therefore
travel around the network indefinetly, produce multiple copies
of the same instance (of the property), and spread these
copies in simultaneous transmission.
|
|
|
|
| text from R
review magazine, volume 9, January 2005, page 3, paragraph 4, Network
Instrument |
|
| posted:
21:41:14; 16-07-2008 |
|
|
