Community Guy – Jake McKee

Now that's a scary thought, Lee. :)

Interesting. What is it about this that makes me think that Phil and Gerry are the same person? Either that, or Gerry is a loyal disciple of Phil. Or, maybe all of the above.


I, for one, think we need more "Jakes of the world."

If you had checked the timestamps on GiftHub, you would have noticed that he posted three quick articles and a short comment before 6AM and wasn't back all day. Some people do have day jobs, and can't spend all day everyday checking their blogs.


I think you can see that Phil is both very generous with his time, and very kind to beginning students. I still haven't seen anything worth engaging in, but here I am anyway. Phil is too kind to give you an assessment, and at this point it is clear that you have some prerequisites to complete before you are prepared for the core material. As I suggested above, you can learn a lot of this at Wealth Bondage (http://wealthbondage.com) the archives are a wealth of dialogs from very well read conversants, only a few of which have any sort of credential at all.

OK, now this it just getting frustrating. Gerry, I was using an analogy.


And as far as not completing the "assignment"... well, despite the fact that I didn't have interest in getting "assignments" I had interest in having discussions, I absolutely completed the assignment. Phil asked me to read an ancient story/poem and I did. (Well, I read a more modern 1916 prose version, but I still got the point) I went on to post at length (scroll up) about my thinking on the subject.



Where is Phil?



The "teacher" has decided, apparently, that his student is not worth the time and has disappeared, leaving me to wonder if "education" was actually his interest in the first place or if he was instead only wanting to lecture.



But whatever. Phil's not here, I've yet to see any level of engagement on this subject. Back to regularly scheduled programming.

By the way, I've never been a grad student in philosophy or any other discipline.


The "F" is based on not completing the assignment. As far your protestations of not having enrolled in a classroom exercise, I say it is you who have invited this. Others would just let an uninvited assessment go, you seem to care, so who is setting up the student/teacher dynamic? Who is responding to it and keeping it going?

Dear lord, Gerry, how much more would you like me to dive into this, how much more discussion do I need to layout before you accept it?


As I mentioned on Phil's blog, I didn't sign up for a course, nor did I want an "instructor" who refused to diverge from the lesson plan he'd already created.



Please explain what a grade of "F" is based on! Don't tell me I didn't take it seriously, and that I should drop the "course". That's a ridiculous way to expect anyone to actually learn anything. Imagine if that's what teachers told their students if they failed the first lesson. That's not education, that's teaching/preaching to the educated/converted.



Clearly I stumbled into the digital equivalent of philosophy grad students at a coffee house on a mid-week afternoon. I wouldn't be welcomed there, nor am I welcomed here. Fine by me, time to move on.

Hey, I'm one of the first to bristle at the bonds of authority, and I have disagreed with Phil plenty. It's not that you disagree, but how you disagree. I find your rejection glib, and without depth, and so my assessment is that you didn't really take the assignment on seriously. You get an "F", and unless you want to try again, I'd suggest dropping the course. On the other hand, if you are serious about wanting an education as you say, I would make another attempt to engage in dialog. I get the feeling that you already have all the answers, so don't let me stand in your way.

Ah, so you're a friend of Phil's. Got it.


I don't think it's fair to say that I've rejected his lesson because I didn't agree with it. How can you support his argument that we need to break out of our bonds, yet you're not cool with me pushing back on Phil's "teaching"? That seems a bit hypocritical, no?



Look, I get the point - that we're so consumed with our consumption that we can't see the greater truth, the great problem because we're so blinded by the mass consumerism.



There's two problems with that line of thinking: a) It removes any discussion of free will, saying that what this thinking disagrees with is completely, undebatable and wrong, and b) that there are only certain enlightened people who can see the "truth" and that the rest of us are just unsavable drones.



Just because I don't agree with doesn't mean I don't understand it or have rejected the discussion....

I've read the conversation you have had here and there, and I don't see any dialog developing. I see a request to be schooled, and a rejection of the lesson. In all probability, Phil doesn't even hold that against you, but has just been too busy with other things to respond here as well as at GiftHub.org.


If you really want an education, then start at http://www.wealthbondage.com/</br>

Gerry, I've engaged Phil to have the dialog. He's not participating. (See my comments above yours, as well as the lack of response from Phil) And yes, it's possible he's saying a lot of things, but his references to obscure 16th century texts to help explain his point leaves me lacking for understanding of his point.


But can you honestly not understand why I would resent being called a modern day slave trader? There's a lot of other ways to make a point without making associations like that. It's the same thing as comparing any leader who does something we don't like to Hitler.



"What I don't see much of on this site is an acknowledgement of the gifts contributed from the community."



Then keep reading. A central theme my writing is "everybody goes home happy"... the idea that everyone, company AND community has to be satisfied with the exchange.



"Get mine comes before growing ours."



Huh? Are you saying that's a theme of this blog?



If so, again, keep reading. The entire concept of "everybody goes home happy" is that the way you "get mine" is to focus on "growing ours".

"Well, my understanding is that he's trying to say that we're all "enslaved" by what we don't know. It's the Matrix story with more confusing support materials."


Isn't it possible that Phil isn't trying to say anything of the sort, but attempting to engage in a dialog that goes beyond the usual surface stuff. I find it interesting that you resent the association rather than trying to get inside it and then move away from it.



What I don't see much of on this site is an acknowledgement of the gifts contributed from the community. Get mine comes before growing ours.

So, how much to they get paid to run their blog, or even contribute to it? If they blog for free, does that make them a part of the problem? I don't really see how they can say that one form of online community is more noble than the rest. If I choose to blog about my obsession with Disney, for example, does that make me less of a person than those who blog about Socrates? I guess I don't quite understand their dilemma. Maybe I'm not smart enough.

Well said, Damon. Thanks.

That should be "is"


"web technologies it totally against"

Hi Jake,


I personally look at the rant as being just a tad bit ridiculous;-)



"My understanding is that he's saying we're all "enslaved" by our desires and that we simply don't know what we don't know."



Aren't we all?



I still don't understand why he decided to attack you on a personal level.



"OH, and that apparently I'm a modern day slave trader for trying to woo people into this soul sucking process."



Nah, I think we need more customer-centric folks around the web to make an actual difference. Even if we disagree on some items, I do feel that you have a genuine love for making "customers" feel like more part of a particular company. That's important...



Comparing you to a slave trader is totally out of bounds. Slaves didn't exactly have a choice, something that the newer web technologies it totally against (consumer/personal choice).

Well, my understanding is that he's trying to say that we're all "enslaved" by what we don't know. It's the Matrix story with more confusing support materials. My understanding is that he's saying we're all "enslaved" by our desires and that we simply don't know what we don't know. Sure, we are asking (and sometimes receiving) more control as consumers, but that the system is inherently set up to keep us locked into our daily immoral lives.


OH, and that apparently I'm a modern day slave trader for trying to woo people into this soul sucking process.

" After all, you work for a financial services firm, for crying out loud."


Now that's interesting:) Wouldn't it be easy to say most of us are enslaved to the companies that provide financial services?



I don't get what the point is that he is trying to make. The whole thing about the issue is giving the customers what they want. There's a strong argument about customers giving suggestions/feature requests because it makes their lives easier, something that I think is being missed in his philospohical rant.

And last point...


"It is about time that people who know the difference between a market and a polis gave the Jakes of the world some remedial education in the public square"



and



"Community at its best is a polis, where we as citizens meet, not in an owned or enchanted space, but as human beings."



Interestingly, you seem to overlook a significant part of the polis definition. According to Wikipedia:



"Polis was frequently divided into 3 types of inhabitants. The first, and highest, 'group' of inhabitants are citizens with political rights. Then are the citizens without political rights. Lastly are the non-citizen."



Are you saying you believe that community is best when it's divided into levels of acceptance??



Please, I'd like to hear from you (not ancient philosophers) what the difference between market and polis is, in your interpretation.

"Today consumer-slaves work for free inside these surrogate communities because they are motivated by the Jakes of the world who fancy themselves social venture entreprenurs doing well by doing good."


Now this is just getting ridiculous. These "surrogate communities" you speak of are made up of volunteers who are helping out because they want to help out. They have no obligation to participate, nor are they forced to. I assume you call them "surrogate" because they are built by companies and not by the individuals? If people interact with each other, does it matter the location? Is a public park somehow inherently "better" than a Starbucks for a group to hang out?



What I find interesting is the "better than thou" attitude you have towards what I do. Your company makes money, right? I assume the do, since you're charged with giving some of it away. You focus on doing good AFTER the money is collected (from what I can tell), I focus on doing good WHILE collecting the money. Why do you think there is such a void in what we both do?

Next point:


"'The Market will prevail,' as they used to say in the Charleston slave marekt as they unloaded the ships of their precious human cargo."



Associating me with slave trading is an incredible insult and I don't appreciate it. "Web 2.0" type community activities are absolutely not like slave trading and I challenge you to either back up that point or apologize.



"Of course that was coerced."



Gee, you think?



Slave trading: A process where people were bashed over the head and forced against their will onto slave ships, benefiting only the commercial slave traders.



Web 2.0: The process of trying to bring people into development of commercial projects so those commercial projects are more interesting and sustainable to both company and consumer.



I completely disagree that there are any similarities between these two.

OK, now to specific points in your comment.


"The Community Guy wants a community he literally owns in which the slaves work happily for him for free creating intellectual property that will attract more slaves in a virtuous circle, until The Community Guy is filthy rich."



My long-time point has been "everybody goes home happy", meaning that it might not be for free. Revver is a great "Web 2.0" site as far as this goes - they share revenues with uploaders, and they also ensure that users are able to maintain their copyrights and ownership of the content. Don't like turning over your content to YouTube? Then try Revver.



Of course, as I understand your philosophy, you fundamentally believe that the YouTube audience is too dumb or uninterested or unaware of the issue of turning over content to a company to be able to make that decision themselves, right?



And certainly I want to make money, so do companies. So do you. After all, you work for a financial services firm, for crying out loud. But can we not advocate an approach that let's companies better connect to consumers and vice versa? Cultivating our humanity is what smart companies are doing when they connect to their consumers. Of course it sounds like you may have a fundamental disagreement with the idea of consumption in general, no?

I'm radically more interested in talking about your opinions, not what has influenced them. I don't care what a 16th story said, I want to know what YOU have to say.


That said, after multiple failed attempts to get through the poem you pointed me to, I found a prose re-write:



http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/eng/sfq/sfq38.htm



My understanding of what you're trying to get at is that you believe the participation in a UGC site is a hedonistic pursuit, where the base desires (pleasure and excess) take over above all else. Further, my assumption is that you believe there is a far greater good that comes from rejecting these base desires and trying to become somehow more "enlightened" because of it. As with you're mentor, Diogenes, I assume you believe that wisdom and happiness belong to the man who is independent of society, and that society includes any form of organized activity, certainly those organized by a corporation?



If I have your thinking right, that seems a bit egotistical. This thinking implies that you have it all figured out and that your version of morality, of how to address what's wrong in the world is somehow the only possible discourse.



More in next comment...



(Please just tell me yes or no, don't point me to some other ancient text. You have opinions... share them!)

Your education, Jake, starts with a close reading of Edmund Spenser's account of Circe and the Bower of Bliss.
http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/%7Erbear/queene2.html#Cant.%20XII



By what were the sailors enslaved? Why did Grylle not want to be returned to human form?



Moral: in Circe's enchanted garden, consumers can be as happy as pigs in shit, but to be so is to be enslaved to our base desires.



Community at its best is a polis, where we as citizens meet, not in an owned or enchanted space, but as human beings.



"Let us cultivate our humanity" - Seneca.



Onwards, Jake! First the Spenser, then we can talk about Seneca.