Communications on a National Project
3/7/2004 4:01 PM
Yes, the original concept is to develop a curriculum so that
the cultural and well as science issues are defined.
The curriculum might include elements from the following:
http://www.bcngroup.org/python3/fortyeight.htm
One might follow the first funding usage (500K) as outlined
in that URL. This first 500K might
focus on conferences and virtual collaboration started at the conferences as
face to face working environments.
We may have process development mentoring exercises so that people can
be helped to collaborate at a higher level of openness and respect for other’s
work. Then the funding processes
have to be extremely enlightened so that those who could do a lot with a little
are not simply ignored because they are unshaven or have false teeth. The model is that prizes are to be
awarded based on proactive evaluation activities by the Advisory
Committee. So folks need to write
proposals.
We could actually use the best techniques supporting
collaborative work, while understanding that a great deal of handholding will,
in some cases, needed to bring the leading minds into a virtual
collaboration. Some will never do
this, and so this fact has to be accommodated. For example, Karl Pribram has made it clear to me that he
will not be involved in a virtual collaboration. However, he is willing develop a series of video
presentations on the primary elements of this holonomic theory.
The relationship to a professional knowledge management
organization and to the founder, Doug Weidner, is an essential part of the plan
- given that he has a methodology and technology for developing streaming video
based intervenes with the leading minds.
As the curriculum is developed, we should see many individual
proposals at the 500K - 2 M level where a group could use this funding to
enhance academic appointments, graduate student support etc.
The 60 M would be to "create the curriculum" while
recognizing that this is not a simple matter. In most cases, the curriculum needs to be developed within a
larger safe place, where individuals can say what they feel is really relevant
to understanding the nature of knowledge creation and knowledge sharing while
also being within a new community of peers who will call anyone down who is
just messing around. (For example,
Doug Lenat’s work – which is never subjected to real criticism in such a
fashion that would effect what is funded and what is not funded. )