Comments on: [harvard] Victor Pérez-Diaz http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/2006/05/30/harvard-victor-prez-diaz/ Let's just see what happens Sun, 16 Jun 2013 09:24:11 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1 By: poker regeln blind http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/2006/05/30/harvard-victor-prez-diaz/comment-page-1/#comment-32561 poker regeln blind Mon, 02 Jun 2008 14:00:49 +0000 http://www.leahweinberger.com/johotheblog_wp/?p=3409#comment-32561 best poker game…

Besonders video poker online gratis texas holdem odds jeux gratuites strip poker online gratuites roulette strategy…

]]> By: Yule Heibel http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/2006/05/30/harvard-victor-prez-diaz/comment-page-1/#comment-12636 Yule Heibel Thu, 01 Jun 2006 05:13:39 +0000 http://www.leahweinberger.com/johotheblog_wp/?p=3409#comment-12636 David, thanks for the report on this. I wonder if a “Jane Jacobsian”-type of interpretation of markets & conversations came up at all? In _The Nature of Economies_ (Toronto: Random House, 2000), Jacobs writes that “Development depends on co-developments.” (p.19) She added, “I mean that development can’t usefully be thought of as a ‘line,’ or even a collection of open-ended lines. It operates as a web of interdependent co-developments. No co-development web, no development.” There isn’t an immutable directive extraneous to the process itself, in other words. This is very important to her overall thesis, which is that economies can’t be separated out from ecologies. At the end of the book, Jacobs’s platonic characters muse about what economies are good for. The sceptical antagonist gets the final word: “Like language, economic life permits us to develop cultures and multitudes of purposes, and in my opinion, that’s its function which is most meaningful for us.” (p.147)

What Jacobs (and I, too, am paraphrasing — in sound bites, at that) was on about had to do with growth (in ecologies: biomass expansion, say; in economies: development). It doesn’t seem implausible to think of “conversation” as part of the process that facilitates expansion and growth. In that sense, “conversations” are not something that can be reified (and then in turn marketed and sold). They are part of what, in Jacobs’s words, happens within the conduit.

The conduit (and what happens in it) is what’s of importance — it receives energy (via imports) and discharges them (via exports), but it’s not the imports and exports themselves that matter most, it’s how what happens to those energies within the conduit that makes for what I guess one could call “quality.”

I guess I have to read Perez-Diaz’s paper to see whether he treats the conversation as _thing_ (reified) or as part of the process, part of how energies are converted, re-converted, re-purposed, and sent on their way…

]]>