LEARN1 - Me, helpfully influential? Or me, change the world?

I reviewed it a few times trying it out with a different mindset in hopes of quelling any disagreeable assumptions that were triggered. Followed the links to the sources, and went a little further gathering perspectives of the people themselves. Cross referenced this a little bit with evidence presented by other agents, though not necessarily because of LEARN1.

Having difficulty channeling my questions for bringing out methods of change from a rather large number of the tips, while seeking new inspiration for something I wouldn't have thought of with just the previous knowledge (especially my assumptions) I had. For the most part, this means skipping the tips I immediately agree with because they are obviously connecting with my prior knowledge. Something new, something I haven't considered yet, maybe even something I haven't been open to try, that's what I wish to explore.

As the tips I disagree with become most of what remains, I end up making serious efforts to reconsider them and temporarily set aside my current beliefs. I seek out a statement I crafted the other day for inspiration during a predawn walk, hoping it'll let me relax my insistence:

Tab to the left for the mission objective, tab to the right to the tips. Left, right, left, right. The window suddenly becomes spotted with raindrops as I gaze out in hopes of a dry afternoon for my delayed nap, as if to nudge me back to my task, intolerantly it seems. Water. It really gets around: ocean, air, windowpane.

I can't seem to ignore how the tips contradict each other so much, even when I aptly allow for different circ**stances needing different approaches. There's even one that contradicts itself, twice! Consider Paul Polak's (PP) rule:

There must be some other message hidden beneath the contrary clues that are seemingly leading to the same world, not a changed world. Yet, they also point to the commonly acceptable end results, therefore they are helpfully influential according to our everyday life. Yes, our life for theirs would change their world. But change it into the same as what we've got? We have always had trouble with this way and are currently struggling right now.

That's my block. My distraction. I keep bumping into the same unacceptable (by me) economic wall. I don't wish to label people with a status of "poverty" and declare them as inferior, for that would only apply if they were living here in our system. Such status labels give ourselves reasons to think of each other as undeserving, so why toss such self-destructive paradigms into their lives, their culture? Is there no other way?

But is that the only reason? There's something else... What other contradictions do I keep feeling? Oh. That might be it. Some of the tips are absently proposing incorporating economics as part of the solution, of any solution. That is, some tips insist approaching the situation without preconceived notions, and yet other tips equally insist assuming the people will need to be empowered beyond their assumed poverty. But isn't part of how they became disempowered because of our own thoughts, our labeling them with poverty in the first place? What if that isn't the problem? What if...

What if this is the classic case of seeking a problem for an assumed solution, this desire to create markets and businesses? And what if that's getting in the way of other simpler approaches, such as suggested with Amy Smith's (AS) rules of design:

Where's the hard work in assuming we already have the solution, that of starting a new business? How is creating a new market simple? How can such an approach be assumed when it counters listening to the people involved as declared in AS #1 & 2, PP #2 & 3 (of 12), and Ethan Zuckerman's (EZ) #2 & 5.

It's as if each of them are pleading with these rules of listening to the people and going to the source, but with the ultimate intent to figure out how to shoehorn more markets into their culture regardless. I can imagine Sherlock Holmes's skeletal remains clawing and crawling its way to Africa to scoff at those who would make such effort to fit their presumed theory (of markets) to the facts regardless of what the people may say otherwise.

I think it's that certainty of a specific solution that's setting off alarm bells. They tell us, almost demand us to not make presumptions (EZ #1 & 5, AS #1 & 2, PP #1-3), yet at the same time rest assured the end result will definitely involve "market mechanisms", as if there will definitely be a need to mass produce something. It's also interesting how there's no accountability suggested for what might get mass produced, no suggestion of ensuring the end-of-life of these guaranteed-to-be-needed products (whatever the problem) be reabsorbed into the community, à la cradle-to-cradle.

I most certainly have failed. I've learned nothing new because I am stuck with my old wariness of money-solves-any-problems approach, based on my observation that it hasn't solved our problems and it's our continuous lack of funds that gets us deeper into our problems. I don't expect money to be excluded, but I don't believe we can honestly advise people to increase there dependance (especially the same way we've approached it) on a system that has gotten worse for us and anybody else who has made use of it.

I have found reassurance within some of the tips and rules. In fact, EZ #1 thru 7 are great, except the presupposing #3 about embracing market mechanisms. Though, from Ethan Zuckerman's source, he does say this was from a new presentation that he is still playing with to work out the details, and that he isn't absolutely certain about them. Frankly, I think he's spot on with 1 thru 7 (minus 3), though a couple seem sort of redundant, but helpfully so.

Amy Smith's suggestions are great, too. Recently, I've been living on $8/day max, and had to reduce that to $7 for this month, and that only covers food so everything else I have to figure out. A year ago, I didn't have anything really and had to rely on food at a shelter and in the parks. However, no matter how little money one has, it still isn't going to be the same experience for everyone. Yet, it's definitely a great eye-opener when you are seriously considering what you have to go without because you have no choice.

If there's anything contrary in her rules, I'd say it's AS's #5 "make it inexpensive." I'd suggest "availability" trumps "affordability" because if something costs money, then it's foremostly not available without money. Only with money does affordability come into play. Not every solution will have a monetary cost or need never-ending mass production.

For example, some ideas may be routines that are taught and shared, others may require personally assembling materials they may have on hand, or perhaps even grown. Other ideas may incorporate self-obsolescence in the solution so it will gradually phase out the need for the solution. As implied by AS #2, 4 & 7, such an approach of availability begins locally and steers ideas towards sustainability, while focusing on #5's inexpensive concern insinuates continuous costs from repeated purchases, hence counter-cultural (also EZ's #2).

While Paul Polak's hints/tips/rules do have some of the same ideas as EZ and AS, it's rather clear from most of them that there is an obvious agenda of creating markets no matter what. The people are thought of as customers and workers, their community and culture eagerly investigated for assimilation into markets, without question. The original source article makes it clear this is his mindset, this is what he has most experience with and his main interest, and can do it well. For me, it's applied too unquestionably, with too much certainty. If it turned out such a solution was desirable, then he'd be the one to get it done, and then his tips would become very relevant.

Reading through Exhibit A and gleaning only what I agree with (that being questioning the people at the source), while critiquing the parts I feel are too assertive isn't what I think LEARN1 was suppose to be about. I believe I was supposed to take note of inspiration for affecting change in the world. There are many on the list, particularly those which state being involved in the community is the only way to be sure of getting real information.

This itself reminds me of Vasudevi Reddy's "How Infants Know MInds" where she concludes that studies about communicating with infants can't be accurately done without personally participating any more so than a culture can ever be accurately studied from afar. That is something I hope to do more of, especially since I believe it's also very important when sharing knowledge through dialogue so experiences can be shared firsthand and details can be queried from individuals, unlike books and reports.

I really want to get more out of that listing. I'm going to have to give this a rest and come back to it later. It's just too incredible for me to equate economic sustainability with economic growth. That's like saying there's not such thing as an adult stage for businesses that levels out or perhaps starts back over again, as if ongoing gigantism isn't a debilitating and life-threatening disease. There may be something I'm overlooking because of my reactions, so I'll definitely review it once again later. Maybe I can then come up with a more relevant response. There's something in the back of my mind...