Infographics in the service of philosophy

How do you express something complicated? Literal language has a very limited reach, so you’ll soon have to make use of similes, even invent new ones for your specific purpose. Alternatively, you could use the language of mathematics, but then again there are some topics, like most in philosophy, that are hard to get a quantifiable handle on. Relying heavily on logical form has the same weakness, but more disguised. Much of analytical philosophy could be deflated by eliminating every case where understanding of logical form is mistaken for understanding of the intended topic. Unless of course this topic is merely logic itself.

Both metaphorical and mathematical language has strengths and weaknesses, and both should be employed, although hopefully with the realization in mind that neither of these methods are the royal road to metaphysical reality (or whatever destination you’d like to approach). But there is another dimension to this: In sentential form, both metaphorical and mathematical language are limited, in accessibility, clarity, persuasiveness — in power. Diagrams and images can make formulas more intuitive, compact, memorable, even more communicable. Unless of course other motives are involved, as they were in the Middle Ages with mystical branch of alchemy. They were obscurantist on purpose, partly to “muddy the water so as to seem deep”, and partly because they themselves became enchanted by this spell — they intoxicated themselves on a mixture of insight and confusion (the confusion part is important for it to last longer, to never be able to complete the thought).

Alchemy of the old kind is long gone, but I imagine that a family tree can be drawn from it up to this day, where its distant heir is infographics.

Combined with presentation formats like slideshow presentations and animations, infographics is incredibly powerful. The most powerful will probably be infogames, but history hasn’t gotten to that yet. Besides, I imagine it’s really difficult to make. Which brings me to my point: I want to learn how to make infographics. I think visually, so it feels obvious that I have to learn this. Why haven’t I before? Because I’m studying philosophy, not film or journalism. Infographics and animations are a different department. I’m supposed to write clear and dry prose. Diagrams are allowed, but not a lot of them, and preferably only as supplementary to the text, which is what really counts. In most other disciplines, graphs and diagrams have a prominent place. Why not in philosophy? Certainly, infographics is something else than graphs and diagrams in that it is closer to the metaphorical end of the spectrum introduced above, but seeing as we’re already using language heavy-laden with non-mathematical similes, one of two things must be considered wrong:

  1. Either we should eliminate metaphorical language from philosophy,
  2. Or we should take the next step and paint pictures with Adobe Creative Suite rather than just with words.

And finally, here’s a couple of examples of what kind of infographics I have in mind. First off, an explanation of the credit crisis:

And, even though I don’t like the music, I have to include this music video to Røyksopp’s “Remind me” (just mute it and enjoy the infographics):

I’d love to be able to make something like this, only with topics like fictionalist metaphysics. Maybe then, I’d finally be able to communicate it to somebody.

Update: I forgot to recommend the two blogs I subscribe to on the subject: FlowingData and information aesthetics. Both great.


Reorganization note

I’ve changed my mind again: I don’t need to filter what I write in two separate blogs. I don’t write enough solemn and serious stuff, and don’t have nearly enough readers.

So, everything I wrote on the other blog has been imported to this address. And from now on, I’ll post whatever I feel like here, ignoring the inevitable spoken or unspoken complaints about speculative or otherwise offensive writing, especially the unspoken ones. Corrections of spelling mistakes are exempt and excused, if not exactly invited. Speculative comments, on the other hand, are more than welcome, unless grammatically more clumsy than I am.

These changes calls for a new title: Unpublisables. The primary function of it is to remind me to be unrestrained. The secondary is to remind you that I’m trying to be.


A Platonic design for a musocratic soul: a soul governed by inspiration

I think Plato’s idea of a tripartite soul (the three parts being reason, spirit and appetite), should be supplemented with inspiration as a fourth part. 

If this soul where to be “writ large” by being remapped to a fictional city state, inspiration wouldn’t be mortal citizens like the other parts of the soul, they’d be more like gods or muses that only come to visit the city from time to time. The rest of the citizenry are unable to predict when they come or understand why exactly, but — at least in a city governed by inspiration, a “musocracy” — they’re always prepared to be summoned to celestial speeches or be drafted to holy wars or work projects. A city of this kind would have to have two modes, depending on whether the angelic muses are present or absent. When present, all forces volunteer to work together in the service of inspiration. This mode is easy, because true inspiration is a powerful motivator, and things tend work themselves out without the need of a formal constitution. But when they leave, disorder has to be kept at bay by some means or others, and considering the situation, religious practices seem like the obvious solution. This, then, is the lifeblood of the second mode. The rational class function as priests, reminding the populace of the absent rulers, holding back the forces of disorder by reflecting the inspiration from the muses, like the moon holds back the darkness of night by reflecting the light of the sun. At first, a constitution such as this — founded not on inspiration itself, but on preparation for and anticipation of it — is certainly unstable. But trust build up step by step every time the promises of the priests are confirmed by the muses actually revisiting. And so over time, the priests are able to subdue the appetitive majority, by referring them to the higher and superior pleasures to be found in inspiration (in particular on the side of production, but also on that of consumption).

The main concern for the city besides maintaining order, is to make sure the muses are attracted to visit more often, and stay for longer at a time. All kinds of ritualized habits and mythical frameworks can be tried out to find out what works by way of experiment, but some basics are practically guaranteed to be a necessary part of every city’s life: Crops must be harvested, streets must be cleaned, buildings maintained and so on, because heavenly visitors are of course reluctant to descend into a city that is filthy or crumbling, or whose citizens are sluggish or unhealthy. Also, hard priestly work is required: Scribes should be ready at all times to write down what the muses say and do in case of a suprise visit, so that nothing important is forgotten. Their claims, artifacts and gestures should be memorized, studied and interpreted, to get the most out of every drop of inspiration. Priests should lead the populace in daily practices of meditation and reflection, to make the city fertile ground for seeds of inspiration.

The heart and central tenet of the popular religion is its concept of the city’s purpose, and that is, in short, “doing the good work”, i.e. the command of the muses. This is what’s meaningful. And living meaningfully, in turn, makes the life of all in the city better: more pleasurable for the appetitive class, more honorable for the spirited class and truly good for the priests. Merely consuming the tasteful or inspirational is good as well, but not intrinsically meaningful. At best, it amplifies meaning from other sources; it is not itself an original source. It is like having clever friends, which, unless you have common interests, is meaningless, in the sense of being only superficially and transiently pleasant. The only activity that is intrinsically meaningful is inspired production. And it doesn’t have to be anything grandiose or important, it just has to originate from the muses. The city that follows their plans and builds according to their designs is a city in the light of heaven. Even in the face of ridicule or discredit from neighboring cities. The approval of mortals means litte compared to that of gods and muses.


Gaming experience suggests an answer to the question of the origin of ancestor gods

I was introduced to Xbox some time ago. At first, I just watched when my brother played. Now that I’ve had some hands-on experience myself, it’s become apparent how easy it is to project unreasonable powers to the one with the controls, especially if you’re not yourself familiar with the game. The one with the controls is co-credited for the impressiveness of the game itself.

I’d like to draw an analogy from this to how children project powers to their parents. Elders are co-credited for the impressiveness of the world. From this, the leap to divine status is not a very difficult one.


Eastern meditation technique in a Western theoretical framework

The technique of mindfulness meditation is all right, but not the esoteric conceptual cargo that so often comes with it. Luckily, there are a couple of quite good alternatives to be found in the western philosophical heritage, which, to me at least, are more palatable. 

Pyrrhonism is the earliest school or tradition of Skepticism. It’s named after Pyrrho, who probably wasn’t a very rigorous Skeptic by our standards, but then again theoretical skepticism wasn’t his main goal. His goal was to attain a good life through a mental practice of suspending judgment. This already sounds Eastern, and in fact it is, as Wikipedia informs me: “Pyrrho, along with Anaxarchus, travelled with Alexander the Great on his exploration of the East, and studied under the Gymnosophists in India and the Magi in Persia. This exposure to Eastern philosophy seems to have inspired him to adopt a life of solitude”.

Pyrrho aimed for ataraxia, which means freedom from worry or a pleasure that comes when the mind is at rest. He didn’t write anything himself, so most of what we know about his teachings comes from Sextus Empiricus’ “Outlines of Pyrrhonism”. I guess that’s where this explanation comes from (found here, unsourced): “By suspending judgment, by confining oneself to phenomena or objects as they appear, and by asserting nothing definite as to how they really are, one can escape the perplexities of life and attain an imperturbable peace of mind.”

I have great respect for ancient Skepticism, but wouldn’t have if there was no theoretically rigorous side to it. I’m not completely sure, but I think that side of Skepticism was the main focus of the sister tradition of Pyrrhonism, “Academic Skepticism”. The most prominent character in this tradition was Carneades. His focus was less meditative. He combined severe criticism of every kind of dogmatism with allowing for a probabilist basis for our judgments and our lives. He proposed the strictest possible philosophical rigour, so strict that the resulting agnosticism is all-encompassing. He even found reason to doubt logic. He held that nothing is certain, and even included this claim itself. This position is maximally careful and, if you will, maximally humble. But contrary to Pyrrhonism, the Skepticism of Carneades is not impractical and ascetic, because of the probabilistic account of knowledge. I think Carneades might be my philosophical grandfather, just like Nietzsche’s was Heraclitus. (In case you’re wondering, Nietzsche’s philosophical father was Schopenhauer, and mine is Nietzsche.)

Epicureanism is another really interesting tradition. It is less rigorous than Skepticism, but more charming. The Epicureans was interested in natural philosophy as well as the good life. Like the Pyrrhonians, they used the word ataraxia to denote the sought-for state of mind. To them, it signified “the detached and balanced state of mind that shows that a person has transcended the material world and is now harvesting all the comforts of philosophy” (source).

I don’t know very much about Epicureanism, but Nietzsche was very fond of it, so I guess I should look into it some time. From reading the Wikipedia entry on the subject, what strikes me the most is that Epicurus “conceived the gods as blissful and immortal yet material beings made of atoms inhabiting the metakosmia”, which was understood to be “the relatively empty spaces in the infinite void where worlds had not been formed by the joining together of the atoms through their endless motion”. I love ideas like this, ones that make me associate to the modern conception of virtual space. (I should start collecting.)

The last tradition I’ll mention is Stoicism. Instead of ataraxia, they called the good state of mind apatheia or apathy (absence of passion). I don’t have much to say about this, because I’m not very familiar with it. But I’ve ordered Seneca’s Epistles, so I might come back to it later. I’ve read a couple of his letters already, and he’s very likable, but I don’t think that goes for the Stoic philosophy in general, as it is quite similar to Christianity in several respects.


FriendFeed first impressions and suggestions for improvement

Issue 1: I can’t read everything I subscribe to, and that’ll take some getting used to
Trying to read the Home filter is like trying to drink a river. “Best of day” is nice, and of course I can single out the subscriptions I’m most interested in, but I’d prefer a system where entries were sorted in levels of prominence from the trivial or unimportant to the percentile of your feed production you’d like to see broadcast the furthest. Perhaps three in total. 

This sorting would have to be done at the poster side, although the only workable way I have is having several blogs, using several bookmarking services etc, channeling these feeds to specific FF levels of prominence. In my case, I’d channel this blog to the least level of prominence, and gorm.wordpress.com to the second of three. Tagging something as most prominent would be too seldom an event to have a separate blog for that function, so I’d just do that via the FF interface. Likewise with other kinds of feeds that I don’t use so often, like posting videos to youtube.

On the reader side, I’d like to be able to filter all tabs according to prominence requirement by clicking a colored dot. If it’s green, it’s most lenient, and shows everything. Yellow, only 1st and 2nd tier. Red, the censure is strict. 

Issue 2: Blog entries are reduced to a title with a link
FF has a smalltalk focus. Blogs posts disappear in the crowd. And I don’t understand why! It should be really easy to include a 255 char snippet or excerpt of the entry, and that would pretty much resolve this issue.

The same solution would be nice for reader shared entries as well, but there’s not the same urgency there. 

Issue 3: Aspects of my FF friends I don’t care about
This might be either an alternative to or a supplement to my suggestion for how to resolve issue 1: Give posters the possibility of defining “aspect feeds”. Some are interested in just my philosophy-related postings, others would like to see just the non-philosophy-related postings. Others again would like to see everything. I’d love to be able to define aspects like this, and to see other people doing it as well, so that I’m spared all the trivial stuff I don’t care about. It’s a big waste of time reading things just to ignore them. Intelligent search and filtering isn’t good enough. We need a new FF order. If it complicates things for new users, hide the function, so they discover it only after a while. And make some “FF in Plain English”-videos to explain the features.


Reorganizing my weblife yet again

Ideally, I’d like to have all my feeds (my blogs, my reader shared, my twitter feed etc.) aggregated into one page, where my readers can pick and choose what they’d like to subscribe to. I’d like to be able to pre-define sets of feeds with titles like “High Quality”, “Philosophy” and “Everything”. Lately, I’ve been wondering how I should reorganize my weblife to get closer to this ideal, and the perceived lack of services to help me with that has really frustrated me. But then, yesterday, I got a great tip that I think helps closing this gap: FriendFeed

FriendFeed is a feed aggregator that also features its own microblogging, the ability to comment on any entry whatsoever, social bookmarking and the ability to subscribe to other people’s aggregated feeds. In other words, it nails the first part of my conception of an ideal service. It won’t be perfect until there is a feature to define “aspects” of one self like the mentioned examples, to prevent people from, a) flooding their subscribers with things they’re not interested in, or b) holding themselves to a standard so high that their activity is suffocated. But for now, it’s the best we have, at least as far as I know of.

Here’s my FriendFeed-page. I recommend the service for almost everybody. Here’s a short introduction video. But it’s best if you just try it, the learning curve is not very steep, and it has some features that might impress you (I don’t want to make a list, go see for yourself). Make sure to check out the beta for a new interface. It’s cleaner than the current one.

There are other services like it, but I think FriendFeed stands out from the crowd. TechCrunch had an article yesterday titled FriendFeed Is In Danger Of Becoming The Coolest App No One Uses, in which the author points to the competition from Twitter in particular, but what he fails to mention is that FriendFeed has a feature that makes it work like a Twitter application. When you write a comment in response to a tweet, you have the option to “also send this comment as an @reply twitter”. So you can both receive and compose tweets from inside of FriendFeed. This makes it seem to me like they’re not competitors, but that FriendFeed uses Twitter like a feature of its own service! How can this fail to be a winning strategy!?


Counter-confession: I’m a metaphysical monist :D

This isn’t easy. One the one hand, I’m a dualist. I believe there are two ontological realms. On the other hand, I have no problem entertaining two kinds of monism.

Solipsistic monism: The cicle titled “Reality” in the diagram in my previous post is strictly speaking just a postulation. It’s minimally speculative, but speculative nonetheless. All we strictly speaking have access to is experience, which, in the diagram, can be equated with the ontological realm titled “Virtuality”.

Speculative monism: It’s entirely reasonable to take the small step from solipsism to an acknowledgement of a true reality beyond our experience. We can hardly do without this minimal level of speculativity. But why not go further? I believe in the speculative postulate that all is one, that the dualist conception of two separate ontological domains is itself nothing but a useful fiction, and that in the most ultimate reality, virtuality and what I’m calling “reality” somehow shares the same ontological domain. After all, science gives a very compelling case for our minds being produced by our brains. How, then, is mind supposed to be ontologically separate from whatever reality is? In terms of the diagram, this super-reality can be represented by drawing a circle around both virtuality and reality. I don’t know what to call it. Super-reality sounds strange.

Conclusion from this: Virtualism easily contains a lot of other philosophical positions.


Confession: I’m a metaphysical dualist :’(

I have been in denial about this for quite some time, just like I was earlier about metaphysics in general. (I was convinced metaphysics was categorically despicable, having been misguided by some French charlatans.)

Damn it, I am a dualist! It feels like failure to admit it, but only because it raises the question of why I’ve waited this long. I guess the answer has to be conformist bias or something horribly shameful like that.

The version of dualism that I believe in is best explained in contrast to the Cartesian one of mind/body. Both sides of Cartesian dualism are included in one of the sides in my virtualist dualism, as shown in the diagram above. I’ll leave it at that for now, but this calls for careful elaboration some time in the future.


The Circle Diagram of Everything

My superficial study of the calendar and time-keeping in general (the result of which is posted here) made me fascinated by the circle diagram of time split in four quadrants. Then, I pointed to three possible applications: The year, the day and the time-zone corners of the Earth (all of these are elaborated below).

Only a couple of months ago did the obvious thought occur to me, that the circle can be related to the periods of life as well, from conception to death. And just now, I heard (at an otherwise unenthusing talk), that medieval medicine used to apply the same circle to the four temperaments, explicitly associating these with the seasons and the quadrants of the day. Even the four elements got into the mix. And I can understand why, or at least I feel the same inclination. I’d love to be in possession of a universal key with which I can interpret everything in a way that makes sense. If it wasn’t for modern science, I’d have easily become a full-blown mystic myself, holding the Circle Diagram of Everything in religiously high esteem. My point is: the peculiar conceptions of the ancients are not as alien as is typically thought.

The prehistoric Europeans had the sun cross as a core religious symbol. I wonder if they applied it to everything they could find as well, or just the year. I suspect they used it for as much as they could get away with.

Here’s how the applications mentioned works, in order of appearance (the 1st quadrant would be the one on the top right in the drawing above, and so on, clockwise):

  Point 1 1st quadrant Point 2 2nd quadrant Point 3 3rd quadrant Point 4 4th quadrant
The year Winter solstice Winter Vernal equinox Spring Summer solstice Summer Autumnal equinox Autumn
The day Midnight Night 06:00 Morning Noon Day 18:00 Evening
Corners of the Earth Int’l Date Line, ~Fiji Pacific ~Mississippi Atlantic ~England Occidental ~Bangladesh Oriental
Life Conception Gestation Birth Youth Maturation Adulthood 2nd maturation Old age
Temperaments (Cold) Phlegmatic (Wet) Sanguine (Hot) Choleric (Dry) Melancholic
Elements   Water   Air   Fire   Earth

Playing Soldat is anti-meditation

What is the meaning of Soldat? It doesn’t have one. It’s not that kind of a game. There is little emphasis on story, which is what a concept of meaning presupposes. Instead, it merely cultivates a certain ability or set of abilities. In this sense, it can be compared to meditation. There is no meaning to meditation, or if there is, it is simply that such and such ability or state of mind is good.

In meditation, you train control over attention. But what about Soldat? The state of mind cultivated by playing Soldat is one of highly alerted searching for certain visual cues. This is almost the opposite of mindfulness and sustaining attention. Attention is trained to be restlessly efficient in this enchanting Pavlovian experiment-world.   

I think this might conflict with the aims of meditation in particular and of my life in general. I should get out of the habit of playing this game.


Idé til nettjeneste for epost-basert fortellingsspill

Jeg vil ha et turbasert fortellingsspill hvor en bot sender en epost til den det er tur til, som man kan svare på for å gjøre seg ferdig med sin tur. Boten sender da mail til nestemann, med historien så langt. Hvis to døgn går uten at boten får svar, sender den automatisk mail til neste på listen.

Når det har gått en runde, har boten litt statistikk å forholde seg til, og kan informere den den mailer om hvor mange ord man har skrev sist, hvor mange ord man gjennomsnittlig skriver, hvor mye dette er mer eller mindre enn det som er bestemt som mål per innlegg, og hvordan dette forholder seg til de andre skribentenes innlegg-lengde, gjerne visualisert med et lite kakediagram eller noe. Dette er viktig for at man skal vite omtrent hvor mye man bør skrive. Et system for å gi hverandre thumbs-up eller -down burde kanskje også være der, men slike oppmuntringer og nedmuntringer bør være noe unntaksvis, ikke noe man gir til hvert innlegg.

200 ord per innlegg kan være bra med tre spillere. Da får man 400 ord å lese hver gang, og det bør alle orke.

Boten ordner teksten på en nettside, som en designert ansvarlig kan gå inn og endre, først og fremst for å rette på småfeil og legge inn linjebrekk og titler på steder som passer med den samlede teksten.

Dette er bare den tekniske siden av saken. Det er selvfølgelig også interessant å se på hvordan man rent praktisk bør gå frem i et slikt fortellingsspill, hvilke regler man bør innsette osv. Jeg har en del tanker om det, men det er lite vits å komme med dem så lenge det ikke finnes noen gode nok spillmuligheter.


Idé til måte å kombinere ens nettskriblerier: Metablogg

Jeg har flere forskjellige blogger og bruker også andre tjenester hvor jeg publiserer ting på nett. Jeg kan ikke skrive alt på samme blogg, for kun de færreste vil være interesserte i alt jeg skriver, f.eks. det jeg skriver på denne bloggen. Jeg vil ha en offisiell blogg, hvor jeg prøver å være seriøs, og en annen hvor jeg kan skrive hva jeg vil (denne). Men å ha dem adskilt er også dårlig, for da må publikum gå og plukke feeder manuelt. Bedre ville det vært hvis alt var tilgjengelig på samme side. Ikke en blogg, men en slags samlet outlet, gjerne også kalt Outlet. Øverst på denne siden skal det stå en liten liste, som denne:

  1. Skikkelige ting (1 post i måneden)
  2. Uhøytidelige skriblerier (1 post per dag)
  3. Drømmejournal (1 post i uken)
  4. Anbefalinger (Reader Shared, 1 post per dag)
  5. Skikkelig mikroblogg (1 post i uken)
  6. Uhøytidelig mikroblogg (3 poster i uken)

Bak hver av dem skal det være en liten rute man kan hake av. Det som er haket av bestemmer hva som vises på Outlet-siden. Standard i dette tilfellet kan være 1, 4 og 5. Det er det jeg gjerne viser til alle, og som jeg håper alle er interessert i å abonnere på. Spesielt interesserte kan huke av de andre for å se mine halvferdige ressonementer, skrivefeil, kleinheter, uinteressante drømmer osv. Når man henter RSS-feeden fra Outlet-siden, inneholder den alt som på det tidspunktet er huket av.

Hvis jeg vil legge til eller trekke fra outletlisten, får alle som abonnerer en melding om hvordan jeg har forandret ting, i tilfelle de er interesserte i å forandre sitt abonnement. Dette får jeg advarsel om når jeg vil forandre, og jeg rådes til å forandre så sjelden som mulig.

I en slik liste kan også ting som Flickr, youtube osv. vises, og man kan bestemme hvordan, f.eks. kan man få kun thumbs til Flickr-bilder, bare ingress til bloggposter osv. Eller alt av alt.

Ellers fungerer det som en vanlig blogg.


Nettjeneste jeg vil ha: Seminargrupper online

De bør være små nok til at alle kan komme til orde, gjerne 2-12). Medlemskap bør ideelt sett bestemmes av sammenfallende interesser og likt nivå. Det beste hadde vært om man hadde verktøyer for å visuelt posisjonere seg i forhold til andre (slik de tenker innenfor et gitt tema), og et rankingsystem hvor folk på lave nivåer har svakere stemmerett enn de på høyere.

Eksempel: Hvis en utmerker seg i diskusjoner i en gruppe på lavt nivå, stemmer folk ham opp til et nytt nivå. Han kan fortsatt være i gruppen, om han ikke har et bedre tilbud på et høyere nivå. Hvis han stemmer på andres ferdighet, har han dobbel stemme, men bare innenfor det feltet han har fått levelup (f.eks. filosofi/metafysikk).

Hvis flere har levlet litt og har posisjonert seg i forhold til hverandre, kan man få opp forslag om å danne nye grupper med nye folk. F.eks. kan det være en Nietzscheaner som nettopp har levlet til level 3, hvor jeg også er. Jeg har posisjonert meg nært noen som har posisjonert seg nært ham, så en eller annen intelligent algoritme tenker at det kan være mulig vi har noe felles. Jeg får forslaget, og tar kontakt, med forslag til hvilke temaer vi kan diskutere.

Seminarer er helst ikke bare diskusjonsgrupper. Slik jeg tenker det kan diskusjon være bare forberedelsen til en tekst hvor man gjør rede for sine syn og sine begrunnelser, sine forskjeller fra de andre posisjonene som har kommet opp i diskusjonen osv. Noen seminarer kan være løsslupne, og tillate slike papers å sitere fra diskusjoner. Andre kan være strengere, og kreve at man siterer noe grundigere forberedt, evt. spør den det gjelder om en uttalelse.

Papers bør være på en overkommelig størrelse, men hva som er overkommelig øker vel med ferdighetsnivå (og ambisjonsnivå). 

Kryssfaglige grupper må være mulige å opprette, som en spesiell type seminar. 

Grupper med veiledere må også være mulig å opprette, med et alternativ hvor veilederen kan få betalt direkte fra deltakerne. Professorer og andre eksperter kan da bli invitert til å bli med, og papersene man produserer kan beregnes på å sendes inn til journaler eller universiteter. De kan gis karakter av veileder, om det er interessant, og kan, såfremt et universitet er interessert i å bruke dette som nettstudieløsning, gi uttelling i form av studiepoeng.

Det må være mulig å poste videoer til gruppen, så folk får et inntrykk av hvem man snakker med, og gjerne et mer uformelt innblikk i hva de er interessert i og hvordan de tenker. Dette kan oppmuntres til, eller til og med settes som obligatorisk.

Fagspesifikke moderatorer kan bestemme f.eks. at en person ikke trenger å gjøre seg fortjent til levelup på alle spesialiteter separat, men kan få level 3 i alle typer filosofi, og må gjøre seg fortjent til utmerkelser ut over det. Hvis man har en grad i et fag, er det et tungtveiende argument, og for høye ting bør vitnemål sendes inn til resepsjon, som kan bekrefte eller avkrefte vitnemålets gyldighet overfor moderatorene.

Publiserte professorer kan omtrent vurdere seg selv, opp til og med nivå 5 eller noe slikt. Diskusjoner på nivå 5 er PhD-student-nivå eller over.

  1. Lekmann
  2. Fersk student
  3. Sen Bachelor
  4. Master-nivå
  5. PhD-student-nivå

Tjenesten insisterer på at alle grupper skal være åpne for alle å lese, så så mange som mulig kan dra nytte av det. 

En litt annerledes tjeneste, som gjerne kan kobles opp til seminar-tjenesten, er en-veis forlesninger. Det kan da legges opp til video eller i det minste lysbildefremvisning med audio, med pensum lagt opp til hver forelesning. Forelesninger hvor alt pensum finnes på nett (på google books eller pdf osv.) kan få et eget ikon, eller være noe man kan søke spesielt etter. Dette er viktig fordi det gir maksimal tilgjengelighet, så folk overalt i verden som kan språket og som har nettilgang, kan følge slike fag gratis.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.