One common criticism of Deleuze and DeLanda is that their ontolog(ies) suffer from what might be called “virtualism”. It’s important that some might not consider this a failing and that there is, I believe, a way of interpreting these thinkers so that this problem largely disappears. Roughly, virtualism would consist in treating the virtual as the domain of the “really real” and reducing the actual to mere “epiphenomena” that have but an epiphenomenal “being”. In the language of Roy Bhaskar’s ontology, the virtual can roughly be equated with the domain of “generative mechanisms”, while the actual would consist of events take place as a result of these generative mechanisms. Virtualism would thus treat these generative mechanisms as what are properly real, while the actual events engendered by these generative mechanisms would have a subordinate and lesser status.

The problem with this sort of virtualism is that it fails to observe a particular property of groups known as “closure” as described by mathematical group theory. Roughly, closure is the property of a group such that for a group G, all operations carried out on elements of G– say a, b –are also in G. Thus, for example, if group B consists of the numbers 1 and 2, the conjunction of 1 and 2– 3 –is also a member of the group. This point can be illustrated for material systems with respect to fire. A flame requires all sorts of generative mechanisms involving chemical and atomic reactions that are conditions of fire at the level of the “virtual” with respect to the flame as an actuality or event. However, it does not follow from this that the flame is itself an epiphenomenon or lacking in reality. The flame has all sorts of powers, capacities, are “able-to’s” that cannot be found at the level of the generative mechanisms themselves. Put otherwise, a flame is itself a generative mechanism with respect to other relations.

read on!

It seems to be that the demotion of the actual produced out of the virtual or generative mechanisms is a variant of Bhaskar’s epistemic fallacy. Here issues of epistemology are being conflated with issues of ontology in a slippage that goes unnoticed. In A Realist Theory of Knowledge Bhaskar argues that reality is itself stratified. By this he means that phenomena at one level are themselves based on a lower level of generative mechanisms. However, the phenomena at each level are themselves autonomous domains with their own unique structural properties that, while dependent on the lower level and impossible without the lower level, cannot be deduced from the lower level. Organic life is dependent on chemistry and impossible without chemistry, but it has its own internal generative mechanisms or structures that diverge from those of chemistry and are irreducible to chemistry.

Part of inquiry consists in 1) the discovery of these structures, but also 2) discovering these deeper structures on which these higher order structures are based. Virtualism, however, conflates the aims of inquiry with the nature of being. Put otherwise, it confuses its search for deeper level structures and generative mechanisms with the “epiphenomenalization” of the structure to be accounted for at a higher level. However, the fact that something is dependent on a deeper level structure or set of generative mechanisms does not undermine the emergent reality and generative mechanisms based on these deeper level generative mechanisms. In this connection, the “virtual” should not be understood as a distinct ontological domain apart from the actual, but as a relative term with respect to a domain of the actual. What functions as a “virtuality” for one domain of actuality can, is, in turn, an actuality for another domain of virtuality or generative mechanisms.

På något vis känns det bättre. Kanske för att jag lyckats muta in ett litet område att jobba övertid på. Och samtidigt berättat för Pelle om min ångest över att känna att jag måste jobba igen min övertid hemma. För så känns det. Jobba över borta = jobba igen hemma. Rättvist, ja. Men möjligt just nu? Nej. Jag klarar det inte. (Och för övrigt… om jag nu känner så… nog har jag väl en stor buffert som Pelle borde beta av först… att ta till på nattkröken för mitt eget samvetes skull)

Det var ett jobbigt samtal. Kanske inte ens särskilt givande. Det var inte så att Pelle sa Självklart Älskling! direkt. Men på något vis räckte det med att ha det, med att lufta lite. Ett steg i taget. Skrapa ihop all ork som finns hos mig och Pelle och dela den dag för dag. Växeldra.

I am still experimenting with the diagram below, but as I was teaching the concept of translation in Harman’s Prince of Networks today, I found it to be a useful heuristic device for thematizing just what is new or interesting in Latour’s concept of translation. Scroll past the Scribd diagram for a bit of commentary.

Clearly I have adapted this diagram from Hjelmsleves model of the sign. All of us are familiar with the relation between the signifier and the signified in Saussurean linguistics (to the left). In naive theories of linguistic translation (NTTs), the idea is that the concept remains the same (content), while it is only the signifier (expression) that changes. There are any number of reasons that this concept of translation is mistaken. I outlined some of these shortcomings in a previous post, so I won’t repeat them here. Latour’s concept of translation is broader than that of translation as it applies to linguistics or the transposition of texts from one language to another. The key point to take home from his analysis– and he doesn’t spell these implications out himself –is not so much the fact that a translated text always differs from the text that it translates, but rather that the process of translation produces something new, regardless of whether the relation is between texts in different languages, conscious minds to world, or relations between objects. What Latour wishes to do, I think, is generalize the concept of translation, such that translation is no longer restricted to the domain of language, nor requiring the involvement of living beings of some sort, but rather involves any relations among actants, human or nonhuman, living or material.

Hjelmslev’s key innovation in the domain of linguistics and semiotics was to recognize that both the plane of expression (loosely the signifier) and the plane of content (loosely the signified) have a form and substance that can enter into different relations with one another. Here I am partially basing my analysis of Deleuze and Guattari’s treatment of Hjelmslev’s model of expression and content as developed in “The Geology of Morals” in A Thousand Plateaus. This discussion would require a far more developed analysis than I’m capable of giving at the moment. For those who are interested, it would be worthwhile to refer to DeLanda’s early work on this essay (here and a number of Delanda’s articles, podcasts, and talks can be found here), as well as the first chapter of A User’s Guide to Capitalism and Schizophrenia by Brian Massumi. While I don’t entirely share the ontological commitments of either of these thinkers, their works nonetheless provide some pointers in the direction I’m thinking.

read on!

Hopefully I’ll have more time to elaborate on the diagram above in the near future (I’m in a rush now), but to understand what’s at stake it’s helpful to take a brief detour through Aristotle’s four causes. I apologize for the inelegance of my diagrams. Hopefully my diagram of Aristotle’s four causes in the upper right hand corner of this paragraph (click to expand) will convey some of the sense of his sorting. The important point to keep in mind here is that Aristotle’s term “cause” (aition) is closer to what we might mean by “reason” than how we think of “causes” today. Each of the four causes is a way of answering the question of what and why a thing is. The efficient cause is therefore that by which something is produced. The material cause is that out of which something is produced. The formal cause is the structure or pattern of a thing. And the final cause is the goal or that for the sake of which something is produced. It will be noted that bisecting the four causes is a dotted line distinguishing what is potential (δύναμις) from what is actual (ἐνέργεια). If the material cause and the efficient cause are associated with potentiality, then this is because matter– for example clay –has the potential to take on many different forms through the agency of an efficient cause. Likewise, if form and finality are associated with actuality, then this is because structure or pattern (the formal cause) indicate that matter has taken on a determinate form, whereas something is actual when it reaches its goal or telos. I take it that these distinctions are well known, so I will not elaborate on them in greater detail here with the proviso that much more can and should be said.

Closely associated with the distinction between matter and form and potentiality and actuality is the distinction between passivity and activity. In a crude version of the Aristotlean schema matter is the passive principle and form is the active principle. Returning to the Saussurean schema of the sign under NTT (the naive theory of translation), the signified as the constancy of meaning is the form or active principle that in-forms the signifier or passive material of expression. This reveals another dimension of form: it is what remains constant or identical in all of its instantiations in matter. The role of matter is simply to take on form, without contributing anything to form beyond the mere instantiation of that form in an existent. Referring to another inelegant diagram in the left above (click to enlarge), we can call this the ontology of “sovereignity”. The sovereign can be anything from a king to a general to a father to God to a boss to a teacher. The sovereign functions as the efficient cause containing the form as an ideational structure (like an architect’s or engineer’s blueprint) that is then imposed on a passive matter. The key point here is that causation is conceived in a unidirectional fashion, passing from the sovereign and his blueprints to the passive matters to be in-formed.

It is now possible to discern the innovation in the adapted Hjelmslevian schema. In the relation between Actant1 and Actant2 there are arrows between the two schemas. These arrows indicate one actant acting upon another actant. It will be noted that both actants possess both a form (structure, pattern) and a substance (a “materiality” broadly construed). As Harman often puts it “there is no such thing as un-form-atted matter. In addition to each actant possessing a form and a matter, each matter contains both a content and an expression. Here content– and I need to say much more about this –can be understood as the other actants that an actant has “appropriated” to constitute itself as an actant, while “expression” can be understood as the manner in which the actant has “actualized” itself qualitatively at a particular point in time. In Harman’s language, content can be understood as the “withdrawn” being of an actant, while expression could be understood as the “sensuous vicar” by which this withdrawn being is expressed for another being. Why, then, the additional dimension of matter for each of these actants? Because in addition to the internal composition of each actant or its content (what I call the endo-consistency of a being which is roughly analogous to Suarez’s “substantial forms”), the being of any actant is infinitely decomposable into other actants or entities. With great caution we can refer to this “matter” as “hyper-chaos”, so long as we note that this hyper-chaos is structured and that its apparent “disorder” is only disorder from the standpoint of the structured being of a particular actant (more on this another time).

The diagram at the beginning of this post requires a great deal more commentary than I can give it here. The shift from the Aristotlean model where we have– at least in thought –pure unformed matter that is completely passive or a sort of “hyletic flux”, thereby requiring in-forming-ing from another actant to my adapted version of Hjelmslev’s model where all actants have both a form (structure, pattern) and a substance (formed matter) initially appears slight. However, if we refer back to Aristotle’s model the significance of this slight shift becomes apparent. If each actant involved in an inter-act-ion has form, then it follows that the actant receiving the action of another actant cannot merely be a passive matter taking on the form of the other actant (the ontology of sovereignity). Rather, because actant2 itself has form, structure, or pattern, it too is an active principle. Yet as an active principle it too must contribute difference. Yet, if this is the case, then it follows that the form of actant3– the outcome produced by the interaction of actant1 and actant2 –cannot merely be the instantiation of the form of actant1, but must instead be a “synthesis” of the forms of actant1 and actant2 producing something new through this inter-act-ion. A task and a critique are here announced at the ontological level. The critique would be a critique of all those vestiges of the ontology of sovereignity where some set of actants is treated as consisting merely of passive materials that take on the form of some other actant. The positive task would be to trace these imbrications of forms in inter-act-ion, investigating the manner in which they produce new forms as a result of the “struggle” between these forms. It now becomes clearly why the alternative ontology is a horizontal, flat, immanent, or networked. No longer can one actant stand apart from the rest imposing a unidirectional, form-bestowing causality on all the others. Rather, the so-called “sovereign” now becomes an actor in a field of actors where causality is bi-directionality and where form is a result of inter-act-ions among actants rather than an identity preserved across chains of inter-act-ions like a signified behind a signified that is in-different to its instantiations in other matters.

Mackan skulle ha lite firande med sin mormor som fyller jämt. Han skulle iväg och äta med henne och passade på att ta en liten powernap innan.

Och Wille

Jag gjorde ett kort till henne på typ tre minuter

Jättesynd att bilden är dålig. Men det är en sådär grön ko och så står det: “Grattis mormor! Kram Fanny”

213321     อุณหพลศาสตร์และความสัมพันธ์ของเฟสในระบบวัสดุ     Thermodynamics and Phase Relation in Materials Systems

อุณหพลศาสตร์ในระบบปิดและระบบเปิด ศักยภาพและสมดุลทางเคมีของระบบวิวิธพันธุ์ เสถียรภาพและองค์ประกอบของเฟสที่ปรากฏ บทบาทของก๊าซและก๊าซผสม ส่วนประกอบที่แปรเปลี่ยนในระบบ การใช้งานของอุณหพลศาสตร์เชิงปริมาณ เฟสชนิดสมบูรณ์แบบและไม่สมบูรณ์แบบ สมดุลของมวลและพลังงาน การเกิดการเปลี่ยนแปลงเฟส การประยุกต์แผนภาพพลังงานของกิบบ์ สมดุลเฟสและแผนภาพของวัสดุทางวิศวกรรม การเปลี่ยนแปลงเฟสของโครงสร้างจุลภาค กรณีศึกษาของความสัมพันธ์ของเฟส

(Thermodynamics of closed and open systems, chemical potentials and equilibrium in heterogeneous systems, the stability and composition of coexisting phases, roles of gases and gas mixtures, systems with variable compositions, manipulations of thermodynamic quantities, order and disorder phase, mass and energy balance, phase transformations, applicatio ns of Gibbs energy diagrams, phase equilibrium and diagrams in engineering materials, phase transformation on microstructures, case study in phase relations.)

(213321 มหาวิทยาลัยเกษตรศาสตร์)

(English follows)

Cela est un fait indéniable que le processus créatif est essentiel, voire vital pour l’artiste. Sans aucun doute, toute démarche artistique vaut en soi son pesant d’or.

Mais d’un point de vue de mise en marché, la musique ne vaut rien d’autre que le nombre d’oreilles disponibles pour l’écouter. Rien d’autre que le nombre de cœurs qui battent pour elle. Le succès de votre groupe, de votre carrière dépend d’abord de cela. Rappelez-vous que les marques top Fortune 500 auront toujours besoin de squatter votre précieuse relation avec vos fans afin de vendre leurs produits. En d’autres termes, ne vendez pas votre musique; vendez votre réseau! Prenez soin de vos fans en leur donnant votre contenu, votre musique, vos vidéos et l’accès à quelques tranches de votre vie. Arrimez-vous avec vos fans. Donnez à vos fans une raison d’être. Une raison de faire partie de quelque chose de merveilleux. Faites en sorte de les rendre conscient que leur implication a un impact sur votre évolution. C’est la chose la plus importante pour vos fans : faire partie de vous.

Le succès et l’argent suivront assurément.

—

This is an undeniable fact that the creative process is essential, even vital for the artist. Undoubtedly, for its creator, any art work in itself is worth more then anything else.

But from a marketing standpoint , the music is worth nothing less than the number of ears listening to it, the number of hearts beating for it. Your band’s value depends of this. And the Fortune 500 Brands always needs to squat your precious relationship with fans to sell their products. That’s how you’ll succeed in making money with your music. In other words, don’t sell your music, but sell your network; take care of your fans by giving them your content, your music, your videos, some parts of your personal life. Give them a reason to be. A reason to be part of something. Make them being conscious and involved in you career evolution. This is the most important thing they need : being part of…

Success and cash will surely come then.

It’s funny how things unfold really and I don’t know if people are going to recognize who they are in this post but I’m going to write about them anyways.

A couple of months ago, a high school friend of mine sent me a message to go on a double date with her and her then-bf which I agreed but it never happened. Then she told me that she broke up with him, because he was afraid of commitment and he was young and confused. Also a long distance relationship never works out the way you planned it to. So he broke it off with her and they went their separate ways.

About a month ago, this ex-bf of hers which never spoke to me before, Facebook messaged me and told me that he really liked her still and all that but he went on the defensive and said he didn’t want to waste her time, and all that. I called her up and told her about it and she was quite flustered. I think they made contact.

A couple of days later she called me and asked if he ever spoke to me again, I said no. Which was true.

Then today he messaged me again, I think he was a little drunk. He started with:

Ex-bf: T, T, why haven’t you changed your last name yet.
Me: It is not customs here yet to change last names
Ex-bf: Hahaha, Hahaha
Me: Are you drunk?
Ex-bf: I just came back from a German Beer Party
Me: Sounds great. What’s the difference between a German beer party and normal beer parties?
Ex-bf: They have better beers
Me: Is Hoegardden German?
Ex-bf: No it’s Belgian. But I was organizing a work event and I decided to call everyone I know.
Me: Sounds like fun.
Ex-bf: It would’ve been better if that particular someone was there.
Me: Who? A new crush?
Ex-bf: Pik Yien LA
Me: If you miss her that much why did you leave her then?
Ex-bf: That’s a good point

He was mostly silent after that so I was also silent. He went on to say they’ve been on talking terms nowadays. And the conversation ended.

In my guess he regretted dumping her because he was naive and young. Well not that young. He’s 25, probably doesn’t know what he wants yet in life. In the end, I think he still loves her. But he still cannot see how they can be together or a long time due to the distance. And money it takes to fly back and forth.

I know how that feels. And it sucks. To not be able to be with that someone everyday.

Ehhh…

It’s like a real life drama. This entire month has been nothing but drama. Drama at work, drama at home, drama with the hubby, drama with friends etc.

I guess it is a November thing.

I’m currently in a very busy mode..need to settle all my workloads before i went for my Cambodia trip with jess and nadya. So i’ll be very busy this week till next thursday..selepas itu i akan cuti start 27/11 – 3/12. InsyaAllah my flight will be on 30/11 , 7am if tak delay la kan memandangkan cuaca sekarang ni asyik hujan je and i’ll be back InsyaAllah on 3/12 , 11am. Hopefully what we’ve plan went well..InsyaAllah.

Ohh..update untuk hari selepas ‘life changing status’, i went for a movie and lunch date with Mr F at our usual place. Tengok Pisau Cukur..cause that time movie tu tengah hangat ok..pas tu Mr F belanja kat Kenney’s, at first he wanted to treat me at Manhattan Fish tapi I menolak dengan baik hatinya sebab time tu terasa nak makan ayam disaluti black pepper sos..hehe! Anyway thanks Mr F for the treat..nanti boleh lanje lagi..i suke2..luv u!!

So i guess that’s all untuk entry ni, i’ll update before i’m off to cambodia ok..

*chentahati selepas sessi nonton + melantak*

Ok..its currently 6:21pm, hujan turun lebat and i’m still at office..blurgghhh!!

x0×0

Det var ju egentligen igår som Zarko fyllde. Därför passade jag på att fira honom lite till. Jag lagade lax med dillstuvad potatis och grönsaker. Det blev väldigt uppskattat!

Sedan kom den där bullriga killen förbi. Han pratade i telefon typ hela tiden.

Till efterrätt blev det apfelstrudel

I livet flätas vi samman med männsikor, ibland för vi söker dem, ibland för att våra vägar korsas på mer eller mindre möjliga eller omöjliga sätt.

Vi möter människor som rör oss på djupet,

Vi lever i goda relationer vi lever i mindre bra relationer…

I goda relationer lever vi vi i en anda att acceptera varandra för dem vi är…att ge varandra suport och hejarrop i våra liv tillsammans och utmana varandra till att ta nya steg mot nya världar…

Men hur lever vi tillsammans med dem som vi inte söker, fast egentligen så kanske vi alltid sökt alla vi har i vår närhet, på ett andligt plan vi egentligen här och nu inte är medvetna om??

Men de som vi lever med som det är svårt att acceptera, ge support och utmana? De som med rädsla hindrar goda relationer at kunna vara så gode de kan vara?

Fast å andra sidan… är det dem som hindrar, egentligen?

Ja, så lever vi människor tillsammans, sammanflätade av livets små överaskningar…

Acceptera uppmuntra och utmanna…

Spännande.

Kärleksfullt utan rädsla.

Så flätas vi samman…

Så blir vi stigar i den världsliga relations kartan…

Så blir vi del i något större…

Så flätas vårt liv samman…

Et bien! Qui l’aurait cru? Stephan Harper veut encore plus d’échanges avec l’Inde!

Il est drôle cet homme, il me surprendra toujours. Allez voir (si vous le voulez bien sûr) l’article sur ce sujet.

http://lcn.canoe.ca/lcn/infos/national/archives/2009/11/20091116-192324.html

3213601    ความสัมพันธ์ของโครงสร้างและหน้าที่ของโปรตีน    Relation between Structure and Function of Protein

หลักการของเทคนิคและเครื่องมือสำหรับการแยกและการวิเคราะห์เชิงปริมาณและคุณภาพ โครงสร้างและ สมบัติ/หน้าที่ของโปรตีน การจัดเก็บและวิเคราะห์ข้อมูล การอภิปรายผล

(Principles of techniques and instrumentations for separation and qualitative and quantitative analysis; structure and properties/functions of proteins; data collection and analysis; result discussion.)

(3213601 จุฬาลงกรณ์มหาวิทยาลัย)

This is an answer to one my previous (personal) post.

I party sammanhang eller när man bara är tre som vid MKM (=ManKvinnaMan) så är det alltid kvinnan/kvinnorna som styr. Hur kan jag då vara så tvärsäker? Av erfarenhet förstås, men framförallt reflektioner av mina swingervänner. För vi diskuterar gärna hur vi socialt sexuellt fungerar i gruppsammanhang, uppförande överhuvudtaget men även hur svartsjuka (vilket jag anser är obekräftelse från motparten) kan påverka.

Om jag återgår till det förra inlägget och det lama intryck paren gav mig så funderade jag just på tjejernas roll och hur de bestämmer. För ska en fest komma igång, och då menar jag de inbjudna paren emellan, så måste tjejerna göra de första inviterna. En kille ur ett par kan så gott som aldrig (såvida man inte känner varandra innan) komma till en tjej i ett annat par och bjuda upp till sex eftersom han då överger sin egna tjej. Och görs inte detta blir det bara parsex i samma rum. Festen uppnår aldrig ett flöde.

Killens roll är mer stödjande till tjejen, som jag ser det. Han hakar på när tjejen börjar hångla med en annan tjej. Eller om man som singelkille gör invit till ett hånglande par så märker man mycket snart om tjejen tycker det är okej eller inte. Tjejens kille säger ytterst sällan nej.

Är det däremot en extra tjej kan det ibland uppstå mer hotfullhet i konstellationen. Hon kan aldrig bjuda upp killen utan måste gå via tjejen först, be om lov helt enkelt. Såvida hon inte bara är ute efter tjejsex, men det är sällan extratjejer på partyn bara vill ha det, de vill ha både och.

Alltså, konklusionen blir att det är tjejerna som bestämmer vare sig det är en man eller kvinna som tar kontakt med paret för att invitera till sex.

Men icke att förglömma: det viktigaste i swingersammanhang är som alltid kommunikation, inte bara med talet utan framför allt med sitt kroppsspråk!

392241     ศิลปะการติดต่อสำหรับเลขานุการ     Relation Arts for Secretaries

การพัฒนามนุษยสัมพันธ์และบุคลิกภาพ การทำงานเป็นทีม มารยาททางสังคมการติดต่อธุรกิจและการเจรจาต่อรองกับกลุ่มบุคคลต่างวัฒนธรรม

(Human relations and personality development. Working as a team. Social etiquette. Business contact and negotiation with people of other cultures.)

(392241 มหาวิทยาลัยเกษตรศาสตร์)

allra enklast vore om alla begrepp var kända av alla. då kan man prata om klimatneutrala lösningar eller om google blackbox eller om algomotorer utan att behöva förirra sig i komplicerade beskrivningar av referens och mening. men det skulle också vara ganska tråkigt. utan möjligheter att använda stora och svåra ord blir kommunikationen i vissa sammanhang mycket komplicerad.

bankerna rör sig inom en värld där man gärna tar avstånd. man slänger sig med termer som är okända för mannen på gatan. vad är en option? och hur mycket är den värd, när vi nuvärdesberäknat och tagit hänsyn till value-at-risk? eller ska vi använda monte-carlo-modellen?

david craelius, it-chef på aktiemäklaren nordnet, talade om enkelhet på seminariet bank 2.0. och om spaghetti. pastaröran skapas när man uppdaterar eller utvecklar it-system kortsiktigt. gäsp. men analogin är slående. företag utvecklar sina affärer jämt och ständigt. det är ett måste för att hänga med i konkurrensen. nya produkter och tjänster måste förklaras för kunden. om kunden handlar en ny produkt men tror att de köper den gamla har vi misslyckats. inom kort kommer kunden lukta dissonansen. och den luktar illa. förändring måste kommuniceras. annars kommer du snart att ha en spaghettihög på golvet. den består av förbannade kunder och en kundtjänst som hatar dig. håll det enkelt. förklara varför kunden ska välja dig. förklara vad det är du gör. så slipper du spaghettiröran. tack till david för analogin.

att känna sin kund är väsentligt. därför tar man hjälp av en planner som förklarar vem kunden är. hur tänker kunden? om kunden handlar vår klients produkter, vad handlar de mer? och om de inte handlar våra produkter, var lägger de då slantarna vi vill komma över? dessutom vill vi veta hur kunden pratar.

ok. så du vet hur kunden talar. du känner hans vokabulär. du känner till vilka forum han kommunicerar inom. tala nu inte till honom på det sätt han talar. då får du ingen uppmärksamhet. tala till honom med en liten dissonans. en liten skillnad mellan hur han brukar kommunicera och budskapet väcker intresset. få kunden att känna sig smart. genom att inleda kommunikationen med en liten dissonans slipper du den illaluktande dissonansen när kundens förväntan inte stämmer överens med verkligheten.

titta på stockholmsmässans reklam, signerad draftfcb och anders dalenius. så enkelt kan man göra det. på samma gång underhållande och effektivt. ingen undgår budskapet. ingen känner sig behandlad som en idiot.

ytterligare en kort kommentar från bank 2.0. bo andersson på sbab. banker hör till de mest konservativa företag som finns. vi pratar konservatism i nivå med mormor och farmor. det måste finnas utrymme för kreativitet och idéer. våga möta trögrörliga chefer och inse beroendet av att ha en fungerande informationsstruktur. och att ha utrymme att misslyckas. kanske inte något som är begränsat till marmorpalatsen i bankvärlden.

alltihopa kan ju sammanfattas ganska enkelt. varför ska jag göra som du säger, om jag inte förstår vad du säger?