Talk:Draft The Market of Ideas

From Critical Practice Chelsea
Jump to: navigation, search

Thinking about reflection and information ... In order for the reflection to make sense to others - and not be completely inward-looking - I feel we should first describe what the Market was and did. I find this text a little dissatisfying as a representation of the Market. Any suggestions? Should the reflection be separate or integrated with the information?--Cinzia 09:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Convening a non-competitive Market of Ideas could constitute an opportunities for a rich critique, allowing the focus of exchange to be shifted from scarcity and accumulation toward an ethos of abundance.

I struggle with 'non-competitive'. Ideas compete for attention I thought - which plays to Bernard Stiegler's lecture - be careful what you pay attention to because you are nurturing it, adding to the legitimacy of 'the thing'. The logic of the market was used as a means of subjecting modes of value to consumer choice.

I realise that ideas are/were synthesised at the event, adding to the 'wealth' in play, but find this hard to write in.

The relation between competition and scarcity/plurality could be worth looking at. and how that connects to the ethos of CP and FLOSS! quite involved though ;-) --Trevor 12:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Does it mean that abundance necessarily creates competition for attention?

Tricky. I feel I can 'look' for things or things can call to me - be receptive to varying degrees.

What balances out this 'force', as it is certainly only one of the forces at play? Perhaps this is a strategy to think non-competitive-ness (oops!): what did we do in our market to counter the competition on attention?

Chance plays a part. A browser may not be able to get to the idea that speaks to them and. To maximise return on investment of attendance, engage with an idea or person beyond their immediate interest.

Did we do anything? How about: we offered, we didn't request attention!

Perhaps something to do with the the dynamic of supply and demand - we stimulated/created a 'demand' for attention but also a limitation of time in the duration of the market.

What other dynamics do open-structured events put in motion that can be said to counterbalance competition on attention?

Crucial (I feel) to the concept in fact are the resources, which were intended to counteract the limited 'supply' of time and attention. Although, beyond the market, the idea-resources compete with other demands for attention.

Are we assuming that all comers will be interested in all stalls equally???

The market offered the opportunity to reflect on the nature of choice (fundamental to the market ethos). Is there value in reflecting on the openness of our model?

Subsequent to the picnic I enjoy a biological reading of the knowledge market as much as a sociological one - those who do not wish to invest in making a judgement may be happy to choose based on evidence(?!) of popularity, a kind of 'natural selection'. For whatever reason an idea may be popular it may not be the most appropriate to needs of the person. The market distorts choice.

???? Trevor, could you expand on this last sentence? I have no idea of what you might mean. --Cinzia 15:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)