Gregory Bateson in Steps to the Ecology of the Mind has an article on the levels of Meta-learning http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steps_to_an_Ecology_of_Mind
http://www.quora.com/What-are-the-best-resources-for-non-machine-meta-learning
My answer is yes. I proposed a variant under What variants of Hermann Hesse’s “The Glass Bead Game” are in existence? which we might refine. And I suggest the questions under NonObvious that I have asked for starters.
http://www.quora.com/Can-we-play-the-Glass-Bead-Game-on-Quora
On the Quora Variant of the Glass Bead Game: QGBG
Question: Can we play the Glass Bead Game on Quora?
Glass Bead Game: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Glass_Bead_Game
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_Hesse
Herman Hesse was not very specific about how the Glass Bead game was played. Thus as noted in the other answer to this question there are many variants where various folks have suggested answers to the question of what is the nature of the game, and how can we play it. I suggest that we play some version of the game in order to rise above the mediocrity of the questions and answers that now exist on Quora, and to escape the nihilistic plenum of questions that appears here.
I suggest that we invent a variant for Quora.
I am going to get the ball going by producing a suggested Variant.
Here are the rules: Remember — The rules are no game according to Wilden.
A player asks a question and puts it in a topic which is QGBG. The player identifies himself in a comment to the question as the author of the question. Because it is possible to upvote and downvote comments, that comment where the Author identifies himself will mark his points for the question. The question can be about anything but the point of the question should be to call for a synthesis of knowledge of some kind.
Those who answer the question are attempting to provide the requisite synthesis and there upvotes or down votes will determine their score.
Scores only count for questions and answers in the QGBG topic.
A player can count both their upvotes for Questions and their upvotes for answers as their score.
Questions that are voted down consistently in the comment where the author identifies himself will be removed from the QGBG topic.
Questions are expected to be subtle, arcane, esoteric, contentious, and take as much erudition to ask as they take to answer.
Answers are expected to synthesize knowledge from at least to disciplines, but extra points are given for those who synthesize knowledge from more than two disciplines. Extra point are given in the comments to a question, by anyone who is playing the game. Players of a question must register in the comment section of the question. Just answering a question does not quaify as playing the game, but one must place a comment after the author’s self-identification comment in order to play. That comment where the person self-identifies as a player is where up-votes give extra points by the other players or even kibitzers.
Kibitzers can ask questions or give answers but they are not part of the play unless they self-identify in the comments of the question.
There is no restriction on topics for questions as long as their answer calls for a synthesis of knowledge from more than one discipline. In this we follow Bateson in Mind and Nature when he says that information from at least two subjects studied simultaneously is better than that from one discipline studied at a time.
But preference is for questions about the past or future rather than the present, as most questions about the present are factual in nature. Questions about the future are hypothetical and Questions about the past are seek meaning in historical events. Questions that take the Past into the Future are preferred. Questions about the present are allowed as long as they draw on a broad understanding of the current situation that has ramifications in the future and roots in the past. Extra points are given for including mythic time.
Theme: I would like to suggest a beginning theme for questions which concerns the structure of the Western Worldview, its roots in the past, the mythology that underpins it, the facticity of its present situation and its effect on us, and speculations concerning its future within a global context. This is to give a broad context to the game, but any other theme is possible as long as the theme is provided. Extra-points are given for connecting the Western Worldviews to other worldviews within the global economy of civilizations.
Questions should ideally identify their own assumptions and their problematic as well as the motivations for asking those questions. Questions to not exist alone, but for chains and networks, so questions should refer to their antecedent and subsequent questions. Anyone can connect a question to the network via a comment on the question. Good connections will be up-voted and poor questions will be down-voted in the comment so that the straight of the connection between the questions can be ascertained. A chain of questions is called a Dialectic. A network of questions is called a meta-dialectic. The network is expected to be a rhizome. Extra points are given for demonstrating Trialectics, Quadralectics and Quintalectics (See http://about.me/emergentdesign)
The game does not end. It continues as long as the players are willing to ask questions and contribute answers. The ultimate goal is to synthesize all culture and history within the world. Questions, Dialectics, and Meta-dialectics become pieces within the overall puzzle of global synthesis. Extra points are given for coming up with new ways to synthesize knowledge, or new insights into either past situations, or future possibilities that give a different perspective on the present situation or mythic origins. When all knowledge has been synthesized then the game will naturally stop if that is possible. One receives downvotes for analysis that does not result in a bigger or better synthesis of ideas. The focus is on the history of ideas, and their relation to history itself, as we find its traces in the present, and that presage the future of our planet. Extra points for innovations that will help save us from global destruction due to the Western worldview being out of control.
We are open to suggestions that would improve these views, and believe that other variants be described and played so that there is an evolution in glass bead game potentials and through that in human potential, and understanding, knowledge, wisdom, insight, and realization.
http://www.quora.com/What-variants-of-Hermann-Hesses-The-Glass-Bead-Game-are-in-existence
I did say that a question was stupid just a few days ago. It asked who wrote Moby Dick. I considered that a Troll type activity since the group that the question was in mentioned the author as a topic. But the Reviewers and Admins stomped on my attempting to make the stupidity of the question obvious. I found another question where someone asked who wrote War and Peace as well, but most of the Who Wrote X questions were reasonable, about things that one could wonder who wrote them. The Quora people said that they wanted questions with simple obvious answers to stand on Quora. But to me this symbolized just how bad the questions tend to be on Quora. I agree with Chadborne Whiting’s categorization of the small set that “most of the questions” on Quora fall into. I have been complaining about the questions on Quora for a long time, as well as the fact that the folks who create Quora really do not understand Questions, which is unfortunate since their entire product revolves around them.
We should either be able to down vote questions, or they should not be anonymous. I want a topic called Stupid Questions that I can place all stupid questions in so that people will know what kind of questions are discouraged. There are stupid questions. And many of them are on Quora, with equal rights with all the other questions that are not stupid but perhaps just dumb, or uninteresting, or boring, or uninformed, or biased, etc. Very seldom to I run into a question that I think is really good. Mostly I try to take bad questions and make something out of them that is interesting by giving substantive answers.
To be meaningful questions have to have problematics, or at least state their assumptions and motivations. Questions should form chains that are dialectical. Thus what is missing is the context for questions that are asked, as well as some sense that the asker really wants an answer, and has even thought about their question. Asking good questions requires some knowledge, and judging from the questions asked on Quora, either the educational level, or the intelligence level, or the interest level, or some factor is sorely missing among those who as questions on Quora. I tried to solve that early on by going into some topics and asking reasonable questions, but I noticed that those questions rarely were answered.
And that said to me that people like bad questions which require no knowledge to have an opinion about. Thus we are really low on Plato’s Divided Line, we are in the lowest level where there is ungrounded opinion for the most part. Every once in a while we get an answer that is grounded by some sort of evidence or even reasoning. Seldom to we cross the midline in the divided line into representable intelligibles. And almost never does anyone mention non-representable inteligibles. Not much has changed since Plato’s time. We are still wallowing in ungrounded opinion which are exercised by really poor questions for the most part. We should be embarrassed but it takes some knowledge to even realize that one should be embarrassed by the questions one asks even if they are anonymous. It is wrong to say that there are no stupid questions. I might have thought that before confronting the overwhelming majority of questions on quora which if not stupid, or better dumb are mostly inane.
Ok, let me be clear about the nature of better questions. Questions that carry no information are Stupid or if not stupid then Dumb. Information is surprise. So if questions to not invoke some surprise they carry no information. So a question like who wrote Moby Dick, which anyone with any education in the US should know, but even if they do not know, they should search for the answer rather than asking the question on Quora.
There has to be some doubt about the authorship for the question to have any meaning. And most questions that have the form Who wrote X? are about situations where there might be some question of authorship. But who wrote Moby Dick or Who wrote War and Peace as questions only adds insult to injury. The insult is to consider other people as search engines, which are machines. The injury is that one is cluttering up Quora with questions that need to actively be ignored.
Good questions are asked by someone who knows enough about a topic to know what they do not know, and thus they ask about what they do not know, in order to know more about the subject.
How many questions like that are there on Quora? Not many I think. Thus we are looking at a nihilistic sea of non-questions on Quora. They are questions made up just for the purpose of asking a question rather than out of any desire to know more. They do not show any study or previous experience that could either motivate the question or give a problematic into which the question fits. People do not list their assumptions, and in fact much of the answering has to do with pointing out the bias built in to questions, much of which is done on purpose, because it is so obvious.
These nihilistic questions all equal all unconnected form a plenum of blandness and there is little that stands out in this sea of poor questions. However, all the bad questions do make the occasional good question stand out. But the level of most questions is so low that even other not so bad questions stand out.
But informed questions are few and far between, and meaningful or even insightful questions are fairly rare. Silence is better than a plethora of inane questions. Good questions can be better than answers. Good questions convey information themselves rather than just soliciting information. Good questions are a sign of intelligence in the one who asks.
Right now the lowest common denominator of the questions on Quora make us believe that the intelligence quotient is not that high, as one might expect. If we just take the category of voyeuristic questions like “What does is feel like to ask a stupid question on Quora?” we can believe that soap operas are what many writers of questions spend their time watching and their voyeuristic inclinations spill over into Quora. Both the questions and the answers are similarly unenlightening. Quora is reflecting who we are, and the picture as it stands is not that good. It would be preferred that our better lights would be reflected in this mirror.
The Glass Bead Game: Let us instead think about playing Herman Hesse’s Glass Bead Game on Quora. Points are given for the most erudite and subtle and insightful question to which those who answer must stretch to answer the challenge. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Glass_Bead_Game If some of us begin to play that game then perhaps some emergent knowledge will reveal itself to us differentiating our questions and answers from the nihilistic background of inane questions and flippant answers.
If this were possible then Quora would be more than just a database of answers to Wikipedia questions and opinions, but perhaps we might rise to the level of grounded opinions, or representable intelligibles, or even unrepresentable intelligibles, so that we might experience the whole of the divided line, and actually learn something together, by playing this the most sophisticated of all games.
http://www.quora.com/Is-it-a-good-idea-to-tell-people-on-Quora-Your-question-is-stupid
Definitely.
http://www.quora.com/Were-the-Egyptians-really-obsessed-with-death
Dealing with reality.
See Depressive realism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depressive_realism
Kitsch
See Amazon.com: Reflections of Nazism: An Essay on Kitsch and Death (Midland Book) (9780253208460): Saul Friedlander: Books
http://www.quora.com/What-are-the-defining-aesthetic-characteristics-of-fascist-propganda-design
Stephan Jay Gould was not just a popularizer, but a serious evolutionary biologist who dealt with the problem of integrating punctuated equilibrium ideas into evolutionary theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Jay_Gould
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Evolutionary_Theory
http://www.quora.com/What-do-biologists-think-of-Stephen-Jay-Gould
No asteroid had hit us from outer space yet.
http://www.quora.com/What-are-some-things-to-be-thankful-for