preliminary topic discussions

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE
INTRODUCTION
-What is ‘Society 2.0’?
- Components of ‘Society 2.0’
- Information Systems are Biological and Artificial
-Pedagogy, Information Systems, and Societal Change

Part I: Biological Models for how Information Works
1.1: 'Biological Information Systems'
1.2: Biological Networks Exchange Information for the Survival of the Species
1.3: 'Biological Social-Software' as a deep history of cooperation and symbiosis
1.4: 'Cellular Information-flows': 'Vibrio Fischeri Communication' for Synchronous Action
1.5: 'Biological Social-Technology' of Networked Information Systems: Synchronous Collective- Movements of Fish
1.6: Chimpanzee Interpersonal Communication and Social Organization
1.7: The Homo-Sapien as an 'entity' using advanced physiological information technologies

Part II: The bionics of information flow and societal innovation
2.1: Current IT Media Lack 'Important Research Content'
2.2: Bionic methods of using IT for 'social-innovation'
2.3: All Organisms Use Bionic Methods within their Unique Contexts
2.4: Basic Similarities among the information flows of all organisms
2.5: Basic Differences between the information flows of all organisms
2.6 'Biologically Inspired Computing' as social collaboration and Part

Part III: The Evolution of Physiological and Artificial Human Information Technologies
3.1: Using Basic Human Physiological Information Technologies
3.2: Human Information Technologies Evolve
3.3: Human Societies Use Information to Innovate
3.4: Information-Knowledge-Innovation-Social Action
3.5: Examples of Mass-Human Collaboration Movements

Part IV: The Creation of the Digital Identity
4.1: The Creation of the Digital Self
4.2: Personhood Issues of Digital Identities
4.3: Digital Identities are Context and Purpose Specific
4.4: ‘Identity 2.0’ as a More Mature Understanding of Digital Identity

Part V: Fully Utilizing Social Media and Collective Consciousness to Better Inform Society
5.1: Collaborative Applications Facilitate ‘Social Media’
5.2: Web 2.0 as the ‘Social Software’ Context of Appropriately Informing Society
5.3: The Online Community and using Social-Presence To Create ‘Social-Capital’
5.4: Collective Consciousness is Providing Identity Empowerment
5.5: A Brief Case Study: Example of the Current “Green” Physical Technologies Movement




Part VI: Interpretation & Findings
6.1: Organisms Have Used Information Technologies Appropriately
6.2: Collaboration and Open Information As a Key to Survival
6.3: Human Usage of Bio-Info-Tech Can only Innovate to an Extent
6.4: Social Acceptance of Innovative Information Technologies
6.5: Investment Trends of Physical and Social Technologies
6.6: The Human Capacity to Innovate Social-Capital, Social-Software, and Social-Technology
6.7: Informed, Action-Oriented Entities and Societies
Part VII: An ASU Based ‘Research Social-Network’
7.1: A Research Social-Network using Web 2.0 Applications and Guidence
7.2: A Utility for Professors, Students, and Intellectuals
7.3: Mapping Previous Research Paths / Sources /
7.4: Interdisciplinary, Holistic Avenues for Collaboration and Further Research
7.5: Authentic Critiques of Intellectual Research
7.6: Democratic Rating Systems & Ratings of Innovativeness
7.7: Multifaceted, Integrative Problem Solving
Part VIII: Conclusions
8.1: ‘Society 2.0’ Defined in Context
8.2: The Human Understanding of Information Needs to Change
8.3: Can ‘Informed’ Beings Act in ‘Informed’ Ways?
8.3: ‘Society 2.0’ is Individual and Collective Action (IT CAN HAPPEN NOW)(supercede systemic issues
8.4: ‘Society 2.0’ Can Happen or Can Not Happen

Keywords: Social-Technology, Social-Software, Communities of Practice, Bionics, Digital Identity, Collective-Consciousness, Identity 2.0, Web 2.0, Social Media, Temporary Autonomous Zone

Introduction
What is ‘Society 2.0’?
‘Society 2.0’ is the idea that as the tools and processes which guide the use of information technologies continues to orient towards integrative methods of collaboration and information dissemination, a social orientation to becoming ‘informed’ should be more apparent at an individual level. This reorientation at an individual level should create the incentive for communities and society-at-large to therefore use such tools to manage, share, and discover innovative knowledge formations. If individuals are focused on finding the knowledge and information which will allow them to make more ‘informed’ decisions, than the collective actions and developments of society can create alternatives to the societal outcomes we see today. Through various methods of incorporating accessible and searchable interdisciplinary research through online media; ‘Society 2.0’ would use information technology to research, disseminate, collaborate, and coordinate what individuals should do to advance society. Although not considering 'natural' knowledge systems in the statement; in 1964 Oliver W. Holmes wrote “Knowledge exists in two forms: (1) "active knowledge," meaning that to be found in the brains of living human individuals and therefore available to them at any given moment as bases for actions, and (2) "passive (or potential) knowledge," which exists in the great reservoir of documents in which have been recorded the experiences, observations, thoughts, and discoveries of other men, chiefly those of the past”(Holmes 1.) Putting both our active and passive knowledge to action, fully representing our physical selves as the informed beings we are (or will be), and producing outcomes and externalities in the physical world that demonstrate the social understanding of our knowledge is the epistemological crux of “Society 2.0.”

Pt I: The Creation of the Digital Self, Digitized Epistemologies, and Online Collective Consciousness via Social Media

1.1 - Human Information Technologies Evolve

Throughout human existence, the information technologies we utilize have increased in scope, scale, and societal influence; evolving our means to advance society in cognition, responsibility, autonomy, and livelihood (ect). As single entities walking the earth, humans have very little communicative potential to conduct knowledgeable discourse with those individuals who are ‘informed.’ Humankind has progressed through levels of archiving the information we encounter throughout our existence. As far back as the oral traditions of pre-literate humans, we have developed modes of ‘social software’; procedures of society which enables the storing and sharing of information. An example of ‘social software’ from oral traditions would be the use of memory and creating rhymes “or other formulae for linking material together.” (Vansina 2006) For humans, memorization mechanisms which were inherited through the generations did not hold enough ontological weight to be the exclusive ‘social software’ used, so mechanisms for saving the data and metadata of societies were invented. “It was writing that first preserved records through time and permitted the beginning of a reservoir of passive knowledge. Until then a man had only his own observations and experiences to guide him or at most traditions going back a few generations and limited in place to a small neighborhood.” (Holmes 1964) The creation of physical artifice to store memories and information required that skilled people whom were knowledgeable of the praxis of constructing and interpreting recorded information be the individuals whom controlled socially important information. The information technology of writing innovated society because although this activity were exclusive to certain educated people, each generation of humans after this invention passed on important aspects of knowledge for the next generation to draw from. (Holmes 1964) This information technology transformation shifted the preoccupation of individuals from preserving information and ideas, to appraising what information is valuable in what context. Writing; as an information technology, expanding the scope and impact of human activity, and increased the volume of shared human memories. The creation of artifice to manage knowledge also eventually caused “repeatable verisimilitude in the printed word and images through mechanical means.” (Katz 2008 p.176) Although mechanisms for evaluating ‘truth’ and logic have been greatly explored in university systems and in the efforts of intellectuals for centuries, the question of what uses of information technologies will incite further innovation is of importance to our research. Obviously, more technologically advanced methods of categorization and archiving have been developed since the advances of writing-systems, and even since applications of ‘social software’ currently set in place to validate ‘truths’ in intellectual writings. There must be an understanding of how individuals exist over the Internet within communities in order to conceptualize the possible ways humans can utilize information technologies to its fullest potential.

With the invention of the Internet, our individual identities have since become digitized within a global platform of information. As we recognize ourselves in the world as ‘persons’, having ‘identity’; than the representation of ourselves over digital-space would be our ‘digital personhood’ or “digital identity.” A person's 'identity' is the essential and unique characteristics of an entity, like the unchanging physical traits of an individual, that person's preferences, other people’s perceptions of their unique personality, or even the skills that a person possesses. ( A “digital identity” can be defined as a digital representation of a set of claims made by one person about themselves. An individual develops a digital ‘persona’ whereby the person’s identity characteristics attribute to an online role within a community, network, or space. Information which points other users to one’s digital identity, is that which is an ‘identifier’ of that person. Maintaining a 'close relationship' with the actual self to the identifiers which signify a person online is extremely important to not only maintain accurate information on the Internet about yourself, but so that you actively represent yourself as the person you claim to be on the Internet. Mary Rundel has discussed how this close connection to our digital identity could have negative impacts. She says, “the danger is that what is relevant is no longer personhood – the recognition of a person as having status as a person – but rather a profile – the recognition of a pattern of past behaviour.” (Rundel 2007) However, most scholars believe that the Internet will continue to evolve and incorporate methods of thinking about online activity and participating in ways which benefit both the digital representation of an individual and the knowledge base of the person themselves.

Developed by Dick Hardt in 2005, the concept of “Identity 2.0” describes how individuals can more closely link their physical identity with that of their digital identity to eliminate such common fears about the ‘devolution’ of personhood. “Identity 2.0” emphasizes an open process of identity transactions similar to those in the physical world, such as individuals using a driver's license for identification. (Hinchcliffe 2006) Although the concepts and praxis of implementing a closer relationship between physical and digital identities are available, applications have not set the widespread use of “identity 2.0.” The Burton Group Report describes the current situation of digital identity management whereby individuals cannot transition their identities across web-platforms. Mike Neuenschwander said "today's identity systems—which represent a “1.0” architecture, feature strong support for domain management but exhibit scalability and flexibility limitations when faced with the broader identity requirements of Internet scenarios." (Neuenschwander 2006) With this new understanding of how humans can authentically represent themselves over the Internet, the ability to efficiently and effectively verify the credibility of information from other digital identities will more closely link the physical individual to the information one observes via their digital identity.

"Society 2.0: A Narative of the Technological Ripeness for Innovation"

Introduction
Organisms, networks, societies and communities exchange information using interactive modes of communication. These entities utilize methods of information flow through biological and 'artificial' information systems. Information technologies facilitate this process-regardless the medium of communication- enabling organisms, networks, societies and communities to fluidly-direct their actions, based on the information that is available to the network. This is more apparent in the context of how biological systems direct the actions of ‘networks’ based on the information these organisms can perceive. Examples of systems in nature using information in simple social networks to create long-term survival solutions for guiding how the actions of individual organisms should orient to 'socially-create' a reality of the 'betterment' of that organization are seen everywhere. Humans have developed biological information technologies; our senses, being the physiological methods of perceiving and exchanging information. We have also created artifice; physical technologies which amplify our communicative and informational potential. The development of artifice-based, global-‘information systems’ is something that other organisms have not accomplished on earth. This fact may seem like an obvious statement, but the simplicity and interoperability of 'our' unique example of biological information systems being appropriately utilized to innovate "'user-created' information systems of artifice" begs the question of just how technologically advanced methods of exchanging information could be oriented differently? Could informing society in a way which appropriately uses information technologies allow individuals to predicatively organize entire networks; similarly to how biological organisms typically do this for the survival of that 'network' or even species? If humans currently use mainstream media and social-madia information technologies in ways which only minimally inform-- only marginally inspiring social collaboration or participation in how society is guided-- then how can society use the technology currently available to facilitate more informed social actions? ‘Society 2.0’ is the idea that as the ‘social software’ which guides the use of information technologies continues to orient toward integrative methods of collaboration and information dissemination; a social orientation to becoming informed will become apparent at an individual level, providing the incentive for communities and society-at-large to therefore use the tools available to manage, share, and discover innovative knowledge formations; changing the actions and developments of society. Through various methods of incorporating accessible and searchable interdisciplinary research through online media; a ‘Society 2.0’ would use information technology to research, disseminate, collaborate, and coordinate what individuals should do to advance society. Although not considering 'natural' knowledge systems in the statement; in 1964 Oliver W. Holmes wrote “Knowledge exists in two forms: (1) "active knowledge," meaning that to be found in the brains of living human individuals and therefore available to them at any given moment as bases for actions, and (2) "passive (or potential) knowledge," which exists in the great reservoir of documents in which have been recorded the experiences, observations, thoughts, and discoveries of other men, chiefly those of the past.” (Holmes 1964) Putting both our active and passive knowledge to action; fully representing our physical selves as the informed beings we are (or will be); and producing outcomes and externalities in the physical world that demonstrate the social understanding of our knowledge is the epistemological crux of “Society 2.0.”


SO i'm incorporating the review of the literature and reviewing everything i write daily so i don't have a mad edit-dash at the very end. I only have about 13 very thorough pages, but i'm editing them to make them flow better now.