(Note: PinfoNet herein is a word for people writing and forwarding emails to people in their address books)

 

Information that I find important, is information that I may pass along at some degree of personal association.  When I find myself pouring over documents to produce a conclusion on a given topic, I find it easy enough to pass along that conclusion, and to realize the gains of their not having to do all of the work. 

 

Well, I think it was a good conclusion. Do you think it was?  I’ll write my conclusion to you, instead of you having to produce one, and you can measure it, or me, personally.  I suppose I could write to you, because I have information that you do not, and I suppose I could broadcast what I write, because I have information that a number of people do not, and in either case, that people would like to have. 

 

But how do you react to what I write?  Democrats and republicans stand in front of podiums, and receive high-speed affirmations from supporters, and streams of objections and communications hardships from non-supporters.  I’m sorry if I can’t fathom this topic in text, but I see email as being really big, such as where high-speed affirmations ride on the heels of an open or anticipating readership.  I think the only reason email comes out so terribly small (in organized global networking), is because of its thoroughness of decentralization, which to me only serves to obscure its true collective weight.  Anything can be measured, in part, by our participation in it, and there’s a great deal of email out there.

 

Something simply has to be said for the PinfoNet virtues, all of which are based upon trusted transmissions, or transmitted messages that are then read, after having gone through some degree of interpersonal interaction. 

 

From a completely separate angle (and less virtuous in its utility), I find another positive aspect of PinfoNet.  This is to pass around information, voluntarily, where there is some degree of “protection and freedom”, as opposed to “being public, or staying private”.  It gives people the ability to pass along information with stealth; as natured in trusted transmissions, or sources that will be read, and even forwarded, but which may protect involved parties from direct exposure to outside parties. 

 

Do you, when writing emails, ask yourself whether or not the people you are writing to would care to read them?  This is the internal politics of yourself and the people you have exchanges with.  When you get down to it, they will only give you a certain amount of their time.  Between involved parties, assessments of time management will evolve from being cast independently, to being cast collectively, soon enough. These are the natural, PinfoNet forces; they are the mechanics, in exchanges, between oneself and the members of ones first degree of association.

 

There are no statements about what is read at the time of writing.  The transmission has to improve in order for more reading, or propagation to occur.  There will be better and worse, and I think people tend to, and should, delete some messages and forward others along.  For whatever type of material it is, may it be shared in the comfort of ones own associations, and when good, propagated, with an agreeable degree of personal protection, and may good material find its way, onward to a larger domain.  Theoretically, when this happens in full, pinfo (protected info) becomes widespread, public information.

 

Relationship as Contextualization, and the Logic of Familiarity 

Another thing that happens when authoring for personal acquaintances, is the development of a history of exchanges, and a relationship between parties based, in part, upon those histories.  Relationships build familiarity.  I suppose an author should be good as an individual, because it’s a relationship, now, and people know.  People get to know one another, and to make the necessary adjustments.  Individuals learn about each other’s areas of interest, and levels of trust, in each other, and in their material.  While an author may produce material that is relevant to many, a reader may choose not to read it.  It doesn't run up the PinfoNet flagpole until it is received with some regard, and read.   

 

Advantages of Distribution 

Emails are fired off when they are created, but purveyed sources are navigated to.  People don't want unsolicited distributions that don't align with their interests.  How often does one public site represent the spread of a person's life's interests?   Not often, even when it's their own.  We are also collectively producing greater amounts of information than ever before, producing strong callings for navigating that information, and folding or reducing it into its own reference.  Knowledge of the members of one's first degree of association means knowledge of what they are looking for. 

 

Contemporary Politics

When broadcasting, an author shadow-boxes a variety of readers.  A wide open public may be too much to ask of an author, depending upon the type of material involved.  The extent to which the transmission is trusted depends on the degree of association between author and his or her readers, and readers may vary in some degree in their association to the author, but not to vary as much as to an open public.

 

One might also argue that an open public source of information is also an open public target for attack.  Friends don't judge friends publicly.  Where public information is a problem, PinfoNet branches off, as a separate channel of information, and with its own checks and balances. 

 

Emails contain the necessary links and references, which interpersonal communications do not so readily facilitate (without a laptop or a library), and this is all organized in messages that can be processed at the reader’s convenience.  PinfoNet is interpersonal communications where there are callings for text, links, or files.  I think links may be the most common after a while, since by way of them people are getting access to information, and forming their own opinions based upon the linked material, but also, where the linked information is properly contextualized.  One might hope the source would put the data in a good light, having theoretically taken the time to do so in the first place.  Why, other than with good understanding, would an individual choose to author?  This is one of the things we'll learn.  It will be about interpersonal informational exchange (and getting used to it). 

 

I believe that PinfoNet, like Blogs, rises in its importance in the present day, due to the compromise of public information sources.  They seem to be having difficulty keeping up with what I, personally, would call good news.  In fact, I think public information exists within a bubble, where beyond that bubble, people begin to question their ability, or societies' ability, to cope with it.  Perhaps these are the limitations of "pubfo", or information that is public, regardless of any pinfo.  Indeed, where "PubfoNet" is the well that PinfoNet authors drink from, these PinfoNet authors may span the globe and organize it very differently, considering the span of it all.  Those who do not read it all, would not be on top of it themselves.  Their news will be organized by either PinfoNet or PubfoNet sources, or some combination of the two. 

 

Also, one might consider all of pinfo as existing within bubbles of its own, as though, by contrasting, PubfoNet arises as a giant "virtual PinfoNet" all its own.  There are no direct associations between authors and readers, but public information is all collectively there. All communications seem to be taking place inside of bubbles (of associability).  Would the network with the largest circulation be the biggest bubble of them all?  Bear in mind that the largest circulation of them all may also be an exclusive club, and difficult to get into, so don't mind its size or inertia; its pub, fu'!  (Sorry, that's "pubfo")

 

As one example of compromised public information, congress passes legislation, from a public standpoint, half the time like it never happened.  We don’t even talk about it.  Another example is how really important articles, because of their placement in public information, can wind up as articles that the vast majority of the public doesn't see.  I will put together a collection of emails from what I have written and distributed in recent times.  They look like blog entries, but these are past emails.

 

Blogs go in various directions, but they all appear in the middle; as pinfo publicly purveyed.  When you are not treating sources as one-on-one, or direct associations, you are not treating them as (from the first half of the sentence) direct associations.  A blog could be pinfo, but it would have to possess the three pinfo-source virtues:

 

1)     To fold and navigate (my) information well 

2)     To elevate the level at which information is validated

3)     To well-represent (your) time and interest

 

Sometimes, like with politics, it pays to be good for real (2), and not just for friends (3), and not just for oneself (1), but sometimes, "that’s what friend are for".  As above, PinfoNet expresses a direct associate, whereas PubfoNet expresses a public entity, in either case, as (1).  Blogs appear to me most strongly as PinfoNet going public.

 

Sometimes, people don't read your email, because it would waste their time, or because they're not interested.  Sometimes, people just aren't using their email.  Do you know?  With trusted transmissions, emails are read, and with forwarding, address books are exercised.  This is an interpersonal political network at work.

 

As I see it, half of my Blog-like emails to more personal contacts have been deleted, and not read, which leaves about half as being read.  I think it also goes along with my moods.  I also think different people take kindly to different things.  Learning about a variety of persons and perspectives can help to enlighten an author as to how to go about communicating in a world full of differing perspectives.  I drop addresses off my news-mail list when I find them more-so disliking my news-mails. 

 

In today’s dark, public times, I think we might want to take it upon ourselves to continually add new personal acquaintances to our address books as they arise.  When people feel compelled enough by what information can come through an alternate route to them, then they can exercise their address gardens, and forward material that they then choose, or feel compelled to promote.