I'm thinking one level above, the matrix of relationships among institutions, so the public would be (for eg) what occupies the space between legal system, market, firms etc.
-
-
Replying to @vgr
I'd say that the non-publicness is inherited there. This follows from the ontology of relations and the definition of "public" [...]
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @arlynculwick @vgr
- public means the people as a whole - it's a collective noun, so a general/universal, which are relations - the fundament* of the relation "public" is the concept "people", and its terminus** is each individual person
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @arlynculwick @vgr
- an institution is rules/processes/operations between people, not people themselves, so its fundament is the shared idea of how people are coordinated, and its terminus is people.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @arlynculwick @vgr
- so institutions are identified with the relating process/rule/operation, while the public is identified with the terminus of a relation, even though both "institution" and "public" terminate at people. - hence, institutions aren't public
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @arlynculwick @vgr
- and so there's no basis for inter-institutional relations to be public.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @arlynculwick
Here's one litmus test question for a simpler case. Coasean economics posits a 3-element ontology: firm, market, and law. The market is roughly the "public" for the economy. Does it exist outside of specific trade-enabling institutions like stock exchanges?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @vgr
Nice question. Yes it does: the market also exists in decentralized exchanges with no mediating entity. C.f. Block DX.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @arlynculwick
But decentralization does not imply de-institutionalization. The blockchain or whatever construct is replicated across the network, lending it identity and internal intelligibility, renders it an institution. But yeah, that's definitely as close to an edge case as possible.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @vgr
Decentralization of power/control does. A self-sovereign design, for example, can't be an institution. I think you've hit on a major societal ill: the the public has been emptied of function and meaning, and overshadowed - nearly totalised - by institutions. Time to reverse that
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I don't think I agree that it's an ill. I think it's fine to head towards a new regime where the intra-institutional reality is all there is. An "indoor" civilizational condition.
-
-
Replying to @vgr
Hmm... this is a broad area, so I won't die on this hill, but it seems to me good engineering practice is to make social processes work regardless of people's intentions (and then to leave personal virtue to be pursued personally), rather than to depend on people's virtue.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @arlynculwick @vgr
You have to depend on people's virtue for society to function well unless you decentralize, and if you decentralize, you empower the public at the expense of institutions.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.