Brent:

Yes, I know.  As a result, you will fail.  Pick a different name . . . <g>

"Crowd Sourcing" is a fad that people increasingly recognize is *not*  
the source to "wisdom."  It certainly has its purposes -- like if  
you're trying to build "consensus" -- but "understanding" isn't one of  
them.

Most people have no clue what is going on -- for good reason.  You  
*really* only need to understand something because you are  
"responsible" for the outcome.  That means yourself, your family, your  
job -- that's it.  Enough.  No more.

The notion that a group of people without that direct engagement with  
the subject-at-hand should have something "intelligent" to say is  
idiotic.  They never will and, indeed, they really shouldn't.

President of the US?  Negotiations with North Korea?  None of my  
business.  Opinions?  Don't have one.  Stick your opinion survey where  
the sun doesn't shine (as more-and-more people are, in fact, telling  
the pollster)  . . . !!

"Democracy" -- particularly of the *direct* sort -- is a hoax.  I know  
some of the people who spread this idea, including those who did it to  
the "shop floor" and they were quite idealistic about it.  They also  
thought we should all live our lives like the Aboriginals.  Huddled  
around the fire, starring at the flickering images on the tent wall.   
Without literacy.  Rousseau would have liked it, I suspect.

https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Fred-5FEmery&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=19-AJ6b2uPtOcvH5PZ8v3aoWOBbQtP-h_fMqr6Mdg9k&s=Str2nuv8x8KlwqngwxVOqJvsjde8rsPQ0zWS5JbgpEA&e=

You don't get to redefine "canon."  The Church owns the word.  The  
environment can do that -- documenting which, btw, is the whole point  
of the Oxford English Dictionary -- but you can't.

So don't even try (unless you want to learn a lesson that you have  
already been taught) . . . <g>

Mark

Quoting Brent Allsop <[log in to unmask]>:

> Hi Mark,
>
>
>
> We at canonizer.com are using and defining canonize in a new way, or giving
> it a new, or additional definition.
>
>
>
> Where as the traditional meaning is based on a hierarchy or “ecclesiastical
> definition” our meaning is simply crowd sourced or built by consensus.
> Instead of top down, it is bottom up.  Instead of dictated from above, it
> is self-organized, bottom up.
>
>
>
> Where the traditional usage is based on tradition, our usage is dynamic,
> and always changing.  It is a measure of the state of the art of a standard
> scientific consensus, theory, and belief.
>
>
>
> It is simply what the participants build consensus around what they want,
> and the current state of the art of the best terminology we chose to use.
>
>
>
> At canonizer.com, to “canonize” something, is to find out, concisely and
> quantitatively, what everyone truly wants or believes.  Then once that is
> known, to get it all, for everyone.
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 9:13 AM Mark Stahlman <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
>> John/Gregg:
>>
>> This is *classic* . . . !!
>>
>> John is PRINT and Gregg is ELECTRIC.  Two different "sensibilities."
>> How could they possibly "agree" on anything . . . ??
>>
>> The irony, of course, is that this is only happening because they are
>> *both* now obsolete.  Both distantly in the "rear-view mirror."  Both
>> looking backwards.
>>
>>  From an ELECTRIC standpoint, we all have different "language
>> systems."  From a PRINT standpoint, we can actually try to sort all
>> this out -- "scientifically."
>>
>> In both cases, the underlying "biases" are masked.  Neither
>> standpoints recognizes that fundamentally different
>> psycho-technological environments are at work.  And neither will those
>> who participate in the "Canonizer" game.
>>
>> Crucially, neither wants to admit that DIGITAL brings a completely
>> different sensibility to the "debate."
>>
>> Yes, this is classic . . . <g>
>>
>> Mark
>>
>> P.S. The irony is that a "Canon" isn't either PRINT or ELECTRIC.  And
>> it cannot be decided by a "vote."  It is SCRIBAL -- as in "Canon Law."
>>   What a world of surprises awaits us all.
>>
>>
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Canon-5Flaw&d=DwIBaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=liZu1PIudVuCGmjsE9GbqAYr0y2OqjrUURySMh9-XlQ&s=6LaimFVFrpAJE-fcNiRoxup3P4z-C3rLwB9vJpzG8jg&e=
>>
>> ############################
>>
>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
>> write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
>> or click the following link:
>> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>>
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
> write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
> or click the following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1

############################

To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
or click the following link:
http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1