Critique of Openness as a Transformative Force
A critique of “Openness as a Transformative Force,” by Ossi Kuittinen
Since I’ve started this course of study, I’ve always agreed with the beliefs of open knowledge or data; always finding the readings interesting that support open knowledge on their own terms, but I seldom find a reading that I agree with the writer’s purpose and not the grounds they base it on.
In the reading, Kuittinen talks about the innovation of open knowledge or data in society. He discusses how in our society, knowledge is power and in effect is mechanizing the human soul. The writer uses the word “mechanizing” in terms of our practical approach to life lacking spiritual capital. He also elaborates on his ideal solution and the kind of utopia that open knowledge or data can bring to the people.
After reading Kuittinen’s article, I can honestly say I agree with him; open knowledge (openness) can be used as a transformative force in society. We must start with transforming the subdivisions that control and influence society to a better purpose and objective not only complimenting businesses but as well as benefiting civil society.
However, I do find the writer more of a visionary, or a poet if you will, rather than a politic with his abundance of opinions and no objective reality. His idea that “the” human soul is emotionally driven is bias to a practical soul, as if practicality isn’t a necessity in the laws that govern us, and the rights that we possess as equals. There has to be a sense of balance; one of the important aims of the open knowledge movement.
Disregarding Kuittinen’s pompous approach where opinion outweighs the facts, a valid point is made about what knowledge means in society. In so many words the writers states that knowledge is power and an instrument of social domination. What the writer doesn’t say is that while we can use “openness as a transformative force,” we use closed-ness as a dominative force. This is exhibited through our society with major businesses
Since I’ve started this course of study, I’ve always agreed with the beliefs of open knowledge or data; always finding the readings interesting that support open knowledge on their own terms, but I seldom find a reading that I agree with the writer’s purpose and not the grounds they base it on.
In the reading, Kuittinen talks about the innovation of open knowledge or data in society. He discusses how in our society, knowledge is power and in effect is mechanizing the human soul. The writer uses the word “mechanizing” in terms of our practical approach to life lacking spiritual capital. He also elaborates on his ideal solution and the kind of utopia that open knowledge or data can bring to the people.
After reading Kuittinen’s article, I can honestly say I agree with him; open knowledge (openness) can be used as a transformative force in society. We must start with transforming the subdivisions that control and influence society to a better purpose and objective not only complimenting businesses but as well as benefiting civil society.
However, I do find the writer more of a visionary, or a poet if you will, rather than a politic with his abundance of opinions and no objective reality. His idea that “the” human soul is emotionally driven is bias to a practical soul, as if practicality isn’t a necessity in the laws that govern us, and the rights that we possess as equals. There has to be a sense of balance; one of the important aims of the open knowledge movement.
Disregarding Kuittinen’s pompous approach where opinion outweighs the facts, a valid point is made about what knowledge means in society. In so many words the writers states that knowledge is power and an instrument of social domination. What the writer doesn’t say is that while we can use “openness as a transformative force,” we use closed-ness as a dominative force. This is exhibited through our society with major businesses