This is not some scene from Monty Python’s “Holy Grail”. [1]
It’s a storytelling exercise posed by Josepha. [2]
- What is the story that you want to be able to tell about yourself?
- What is the story that you want to be able to tell about your time with us in WordPress?
- What is the story that you want WordPress to tell?
Here are my answers (or at least some ideas about what I think might be appropriate answers at this time [of writing] ).
- I am relatively insignificant. I find much more meaning in my own use of language (so-called “natural” languages are — IMHO — the world’s largest open source technology to date).
For the following answers, I will revise the questions somewhat. “WordPress” is a meaningless string to me (AFAIK, it is a registered trademark, and therefore can only be defined by the owner of those legally protected rights (which are often referred to as “intellectual property” and the corresponding rights are commonly referred to as “IP law”). In her presentation, Josepha referred to the WordPress mission as “democratize publishing”. I wish to do more than that: I want to democratize all communications. I actually feel that it is something like a natural law that all communications must be democratized (as communications require the open source technology of natural language). It is not even possible (IMHO) to communicate without involving the participation of this open-source community. So in the above questions #2 and #3, I will replace “WordPress” with “natural language (open-source communications)”.
The new-and-improved (revised) questions (and answers) are:
R-Q2. What is the story that you want to be able to tell about your time with us in natural language (open-source communications)?
Many stories can be told, heard, listened to, shared, understood, inspired and so on. One very significant story seems to be the story (or stories?) of evolution. When we realize that evolution is always happening, then we begin to become aware that the distinction between “natural” and “artificial” (or “non-natural”) is perhaps moot — because nature itself is also always changing and adapting. There is in fact (?) no such natural law written in stone which is always true.
Likewise, developments do not go from plain good to plain bad or vice versa. Good and bad may not even exist at all. Martin Luther King drew attention to such phenomena when he spoke about the merits of being “maladjusted” versus the apparent value of being “well-adjusted”. Since the world is so complex, the number of variables which might serve as guideposts are so vast, they might as well be considered innumerable or even infinite.
Languages which serve some purposes well may do a poor job of serving other purposes. Which language we choose to use in one circumstance might be quite obviously sub-optimal in different circumstances. Since languages also evolve over time, we can rest assured that we will always have a broad spectrum of options available.
All we have to do is to keep the wheels well greased by incessantly exchanging ideas and practicing our communications in a wide variety of languages — we do not need to invent them on our own, in labs, in isolation from their natural environments.
R-Q3. What is the story that you want natural language (open-source communications) to tell?
I am no longer very sure how I want to answer a question like this.
If human languages prove to be maladjusted to their natural environments, then evolution will probably lead to these languages (and perhaps also humans themselves) to go extinct. Whether human extinction would be a good thing or a bad thing, I don’t know.
[1] cf. “Bridge of Death” scene
