I’m coming off the weekend having wrapped up Object Oriented Ontologies: A New Theory Everything by Graham Harman and have been thinking a lot about how close he comes to describing protocols.
The book is definitely too long for ROTW, but reminded me of a great article by Dominic Hofsetter on how complex systems and challenges require something more than just projects and programs…something that instead takes up/becomes the space in between these things.
In the second half of the book, Harman references Niklas Luhmann, a German sociologist and philosopher perhaps most well-known now for creating the zettelkasten method of note-taking, but also for his Systems Theory. In Luhmann’s Systems Theory (there are many others) he posits that the most basic unit of social systems isn’t the individual, but the communication (read as: protocols?) between them.
Reading Hofsetter’s article with Harman and Luhmann’s thoughts (and war/genocide) in the background, brought up some thoughts on agent-centric architecture and how if protocol-thinking was employed well, it might be possible:
We currently live in a very data-centric world. Blockchain is a perfect example of a data-centric ontology, as every node needs to be in agreement with a shared global state. Data-centric architecture requires that there is a single room temperature, even if I’m sitting by the air conditioner and am cold, while the person sitting across from me is by the sunny window and feels warm.
The question that comes up for me is if protocolization can help drive agent-centric ontologies. By recognizing that each person, node, etc experiences a reality/truth determined by their position in the social system and the linkages between them, they are therefore experiencing a different, but equally valid perspective of reality. Can we create social and technological infrastructure that can accurately reflect our reality of multiple truths and the numerous local states that exist? This is something that I think naturally can happen if we shift our focus to the spaces in between things – how things are linked and communicating – rather than the thing itself.
There are also some good thoughts in the article about the kinds of projects and funding required to deal with complex challenges in complex systems. Messiness or as Hofsetter calls it “fuzziness”, isn’t a bug or negative externality in the process of finding a solution or even the within the solution itself, it’s a requirement.