TED Conversations

AmirHossein Honardust

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

How do you define "openness"?

How do you define openness?
How do you define free as in freedom?
How do you define wiki?
And What are the conditions that a service should provide so that this service considered an open service?

+5
Share:

Closing Statement from AmirHossein Honardust

Thank you all for participating.
Your points of view are different but almost pointing to one big end: Humans need freedom.

Please feel free to read this conversation and contact me if you want make me happy by telling me more about your opinions.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    May 24 2013: Openness = A willingness to communicate

    How do you define free as in freedom? = Ability to pursue goals without too onerousness of barriers

    How do you define wiki? = a user sourced/created reference

    And What are the conditions that a service should provide so that this service considered an open service? = Accurate

    Is this going to happen in Iran?

    I'm surprised you have internet access.

    Iran ranks 168 out of 177, countries that are ranked, in freedom in this graph

    http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking
    • thumb
      May 24 2013: It's going to happen. But the real question is when and how many people are going to be sacrificed to reach this destination
      Iranians crave for the communication, audience, freedom and openness. We are having one of the most expensive internet connection in the world. And we are not able to access higher then 128kbit internet connection legally for a normal user and 512kbit for a university student user. And even then you will face a massive internet filtering (almost 98% of well known websites and 75% of other websites) and a low quality internet connection (compare to the real 128kbit that we should have!!!). But we reach anyway. Because we want to be heard. We want to say that "We, people of Iran, Wants peace.". There is a version of wikipedia in persian that we made it to 200,000 articles. But after defeating the wall of filtering that our government put on our way, We face some things like this: http://i44.tinypic.com/feggv5.png That will devastate us.
      I've got some posts on my English blog that i wrote on this topic: http://amirlifestyle.blogspot.com/
      Specifically this post: amirlifestyle.blogspot.com/2012/08/when-doors-of-open-world-are-closed-to.html
      If you are interested you might find them interesting :)

      Thanks for sharing your opinions on this conversation :)
      • thumb
        May 24 2013: It would seem you are trying to change the culture.

        I have heard stories about the oppression of the Baha'i in Iran.

        Why do you choose to stay?
        • thumb
          May 24 2013: actually me and many more Iranians (specially the young generation), Are trying to give back the culture we had. In last decades (and century) we lost our culture due the historic events in the middle east.
          The thing you've heard... I'm not sure if i understood it right, But Baha'is are one of the most oppressed groups in Iran. But they are just on the top of the list. They are worst, the rest is bad.
          I'm choosing to stay, because of many reasons. But on the top of my list:
          1. Iran is changing. Very fast actually. As i'm trying to play my role in this change, I hope to see an open, free Iran on my life time and hopefully before i roll out the possibility of having a child.
          2. Immigrated people are on the worst conditions you may believe. I cannot afford to loos my time washing dishes on united state, When i can be an architect, Have a good life and beside it completing my researches.
          If i immigrate in this situation, In the best conditions, It will be for my child and It will not provide myself any good.
          I hope i'd answered your question :) But for the sake of topic and my own safety i will be happy to continue this conversation, in a more private way (maybe like email).
      • thumb
        May 24 2013: Yes, thank you good luck
      • thumb
        May 24 2013: I salute your stand.
        Wishing all the best for you and your child and the future .
      • thumb
        May 24 2013: Dear AmirHossein,
        Thank you for sharing part of your story. I define openness and freedom, as being able to share our stories and information with each other around the world, as you do, to a certain extent here.

        I join Pat and Salim, and I'm sure many other people, in wishing and believing that someday, you will have total freedom and peace.

        Welcome to TED, and I sincerely hope you will continue to participate in conversations:>)
        • thumb
          May 24 2013: Thanks Colleen for your great wishes and your warm welcome. I'm a TED fan for quit a long time. But not much of an conversation joiner as i preferred listening for a while. :) Thanks a lot :)
          What are your opinions on the meaning of wiki?
          And what you will define as an open product and open service?
      • thumb
        May 24 2013: My pleasure AmirHossein:>)
        Glad you decided to join in conversation, and I hope you continue:>)

        Honestly, I am technically challenged, and not very familier with communication systems, so I cannot say much about wiki.....sorry.

        Open product and open service, to me, suggests that the product and service would be open to everyone without restrictions or limitations.
        • thumb
          May 25 2013: Thanks a lot for your answer. Will you read Salim's answer? He has a really close opinion to yours, but with an addition. What do you think? :)
      • thumb
        May 25 2013: Dear Amir
        You are welcome.
        I always find it pretty difficult to define seemingly easy concepts i.e. Openness , freedom etc.

        While I agree with Colleen's wisdom about these, but I feel our freedom also should have the ability to stand against or voice our views against tyranny . I mean agreeing to disagree is also part of it.

        I see "wiki" is a one stop repository of data and information, which need to be cross checked a lot to get a better understanding of the whole matter. Wiki definitely has got the individual bias of the person or group who has been compiling it.Any data or information seldom gives any idea of something if one can't find the story or insight behind the data or information.

        For quick reference I do use wiki , but before drawing any conclusion I try to check other sources.Have a good day :)
        • thumb
          May 25 2013: Thank you very much for your great and complete answer. I hope you will give the honor of reading others opinions and maybe giving your great opinions on their view too. :)
        • thumb
          May 25 2013: Since you asked AmirHossein....yes, I agree with Salim's additions..."our freedom also should have the ability to stand against or voice our views against tyranny", and the freedom to disagree.

          This complicates the question and answer, because tyranny usually involves absolute control and oppression, which probably would mean that freedoms are limited.

          So, while I agree that we "should" have the freedom to stand against tyranny, we may not, in reality, have that freedom. That does not mean that we cannot take a stand.
        • thumb
          May 25 2013: Thanks a lot Colleen!
          An absolute freedom, may also mean that it could also mean: "freedom to take others freedom".
          What's your opinion in this matter?
      • thumb
        May 25 2013: AmirHossein,

        Absolute: "having no restrictions or exceptions".

        When we talk about absolute control and oppression, we are saying that there are no restrictions or exceptions to the control and oppression?

        If it is absolute freedom, there are no restrictions or exceptions, so we cannot restrict other people's freedoms....we cannot take freedom from others?

        This is my own personal interpretation, and I'd like to spread the word....what do you think?
        • thumb
          May 26 2013: Now i understand that the question marks are accidental (?) . But I was really confused before this.
          I understand what you are saying. And the answer to your question... Actually that's my dilemma. I'm believing in anarchy. Not the bombing stupids that use anarchy as an excuse. No. The civil radical-freedom anarchy. But what i can't solve is how without a taking someone freedom can we protect another person's freedom when situations like what Salim said is coming up.
      • thumb
        May 26 2013: Hi Amir
        I feel absoluteness of freedom is an utopia.
        Freedom is relative to time , space and also the state of consciousness etc.
        Say , what can be considered as freedom at one place may be considered as anarchy in some other place. Similarly in the same place in the horizon of time it can be different at different time.

        "Freedom to take others freedom" may sound very oppressive.....but what if say a Killer is thinking it's his/her freedom to kill anyone at his will , to restrict that freedom is a must for the benefit of humanity.

        May be applying Golden Rules can be the way out.
        • thumb
          May 26 2013: Salim and Amir,
          The example you use Salim....a killer is thinking it's his/her freedom to kill anyone...

          By not allowing that to happen, we would be restricting the killer's freedom to kill?

          Or would we be protecting the victim's freedom to live in safety?

          Sometimes, we (society) need to restrict the freedoms of people who want to hurt others to be able to protect those who would have their freedom of peace and safety compromised?
        • thumb
          May 26 2013: Salim, I'm really happy that you feel freedom in Utopia. Not comparing, But just pointing out, Even in my country some people feel freedom. They don't just like doing things against the rules here. Just pointing out.
          And didn't understand your meaning by using anarchy. Do you referring to the social system, or chaos?

          Colleen, You point out a great thing (at least for me), Some times it's the choice between bad and worst. But i have to say, the whole point of radical freedom is that no person knows itself as higher thinker then others. Even a philosopher to a killer. Other then that, We just eliminated a group of people from their existence in our considerations. And i don't think we have the right to do that. What do you think?
      • thumb
        May 26 2013: Hi Amir
        Sorry for being vague in my post. Let me clarify with example what I meant by " anarchy" .
        For sometime I was in Middle East for professional reason. One afternoon I was having lunch in one of the near by fast food shop to have a quick lunch. It was hot sunny summer day with 50+ degree centigrade outside . As I was having my lunch saw a lady fully covered in Black Abaya quickly entered and ordered few lunch packs as take away. She was in real hurry , was thinking may be her car is waiting outside that's why she was hurrying. The person behind the counter also served her with unusual speed.

        After finishing my lunch as I came out of the shop , found 4 ladies struggling to have their lunches which one of them bought those from the shop. They are struggling to have it because their Abaya , they were struggling because of the heat outside. Being naive to the country I asked one of my colleague why these ladies didn't have lunch inside the shop?

        Answer was ladies are not allowed to enter any shop where there is no separate section for ladies. In any other country it is usual freedom for a lady to have her lunch comfortably inside shop but in that particular place that kind of behavior of lady will be considered severely punishable anarchic behavior.

        Actually entering that shop by that lady was also an anarchy to their social and country standard. Not sure what was thought of that lady while decided to enter that shop even , guess her personal belief told her that its her freedom to buy food while she is hungry from a shop at her convenience,but rest she didn't dare to implement.

        This is how our individual concept freedom get chained with societal / cultural concept of freedom.
        • thumb
          May 26 2013: I see.
          We don't have that kind of restriction on our females in iran (still pretty restricted sadly); So i'm pretty surprised by your story.
          Anyhow thanks for explaining :)
          So from my interpretation, what you mean by anarchy is a breaking the laws of a culture/government but for doing a thing that is one consider to be a human right. (sorry if i'm making no sense). In other word Anarchy is good kind of breaking the rules. Am i understanding that right? or am i wrong?

          In Iran, about 35 years ago, freedom was one of things that people wanted in that time during the revolution. It's really interesting how that did end up. But from my understanding, the person who was the leader to the revolution, His meaning to freedom was about freedom to edit and censor the people of his opposite side. And many people knowingly followed him, and most of that time's revolutionaries that saw "freedom" in his goals followed him, not knowing that his definition of freedom was something completely different.
          So i understand what you say by chaining to societal/ cultural concept of freedom.
          Thanks :)
      • thumb
        May 26 2013: AmirHossein,
        This is a response to your comment:

        "1 hour ago: Now i understand that the question marks are accidental (?) . But I was really confused before this.
        I understand what you are saying. And the answer to your question... Actually that's my dilemma. I'm believing in anarchy. Not the bombing stupids that use anarchy as an excuse. No. The civil radical-freedom anarchy. But what i can't solve is how without a taking someone freedom can we protect another person's freedom when situations like what Salim said is coming up."

        My question marks are NOT accidental. They ask a question....(what do you think?) I am exploring your topic with you and I do not have all the answers....I am offering some ideas, and anticipating your thoughts, feelings, ideas:>)

        Perhaps the type of anarchy you seek is defined as: "a utopian society made up of individuals who have no government and who enjoy complete freedom"

        The challenge, is that to reach that type of anarchy, there has to be an overthrow of the government and those that are in power? It may be the transition that is problematic?

        Is that what you mean when you say...
        "Some times it's the choice between bad and worst. But i have to say, the whole point of radical freedom is that no person knows itself as higher thinker then others.... We just eliminated a group of people from their existence in our considerations. And i don't think we have the right to do that".

        That is an excellect question Amir....do we have the right to "eliminate" some people to create a better situation for the masses of people? I would say no, and I would prefer to find a different solution, other than elimination.
        • thumb
          May 26 2013: I found something in my early years studying the reasons of why we are here and why for example Utopian are there. (I mean from reaching freedom) Sadly the answer to that was people was seeking for this kind of dictatorship knowingly or not. I'm not talking about the absolute 100%. But still a considerable share of people. So you can do as much as you want revolutions, But you will not reach freedom, As long as people are not as free minded and liberal; as governments and dictators come from this people. So it's a harder challenge. The transition you are talking about is not an political transition, It's a social and cultural transition. Imagine how hard that is! Plus overthrowing is not the solution. We have to "consider".

          And i agree with your no to "eliminate" perspective. But how? To eliminate elimination, we have to offer a better solution. Do you think it worth making another conversation in TEDconv?

          PS. Sorry for miss understanding your question marks. I try to understand next ones :)
        • thumb
          May 26 2013: The question is freedom to do what?

          If it is to practice Sharia law aren't the people of Iran already free?

          One of the problems in the U.S. is people do not see the need for change as they are happy with their current situation. In order to create the desire for change you can easily be seen as a subversive. In your case that could dangerous. Which I imagine is the reason the Baha'i are so persecuted?

          The other thing to look at is economic freedom. This vehicle transformed the most oppressive country in the world, using capital punishment as a metric. It would seem to me this is something to consider?
        • thumb
          May 27 2013: The freedom is to do any thing you will. If it's condition, Well prisoners can be consider free people. They are free to do any thing they want except the things they told not to in their cells.
          Baha'is as far as i know are harmless people. But as a dictatorship country always needs an enemy to fool their people to pretend they are saving them, Baha'is are the the chosen victims sadly.

          As for the second question, I didn't understand what are you saying. May you rephrase that please?
        • thumb
          May 28 2013: Amir

          The point is for your cause to gain any traction you have to have a clearly stated goal. Freedom to do what???

          The proven best way to raise the standard of living of all is through the free market. Economic freedom is paramount.

          In my experience the Baha'i are some the best people I have ever met, true salt of the earth.
        • thumb
          May 28 2013: Okay, You are pointing to a good question. But what i'm after is a parametric formula for definition of freedom and openness. I don't want get subjective. Being subjective and saying, "I want freedom in choosing to suicide" and then answering:"Well, It's your life, here is your freedom." That will solve one problem very quickly. But when it comes to other restrictions, Then we face a problem.
          Basically What i'm after is a universal perspective towards freedom and openness.

          PS. I know some baha'is and they are great people. Sadly they don't even have access to academic higher graduations. But as i know baha'is on other countries have good life. Two of the most inspiring architectures of Iran were baha'is!
        • thumb
          May 29 2013: Amir

          I disagree, if you are saying I want freedom to do everything that is the same as I don't want freedom to do anything. Do you see this?

          Freedom requires a rule of law if everyone want sharia law then you are good to go in that department.

          Is there private property in Iran?

          Is there freedom to compete in the market place or is there a monopoly?

          Is there much consumption in the marketplace in other words is there much of a marketplace? Especially regarding women. If you took women consumers out of the U.S. market place the economy would have the worst crash ever.

          Is there freedom to use technology?

          Is there freedom to use modern medicine?

          These things might not fly in the face of the government as with the Baha'i?
        • thumb
          May 29 2013: I cannot understand what are you saying. Everything doesn't necessarily means nothing.
          Freedom does not require rule. What require rule is security for a society that needs rules to keep them safe. Freedom means freedom.
          When we are talking about sharia law or any law, it's never EVERYONE.
          You talk about private property. Well we have that. But exactly when there is no transparency and openness in our country nothing works as well. Nor markets. nor women rights, nor technology and nor modern or even traditional medicines. and nor freedom for those who are not in the top of the power.
          When there is too much irrational rules, Then they all mean one thing and one thing only: You have to broke the rules.
          And then you lost your moral sense in the battle of broker and the ruler.
        • thumb
          May 29 2013: If someone is completely free to do as he wishes that is going to be at someone else's expense.

          Infinite freedom mean no barriers which means no game this is a sure fire way to fail as the barriers (not just the goals) define the game.

          Yup it has to be everyone.

          At a cultural level there is nothing more moral than the free market, when people voluntarily exchange.
        • thumb
          May 31 2013: I see we have a problem on the basic level. I don't think being free to do as wishes necessarily means to harm another. So if you may, Let's agree to disagree.
          :)
        • thumb
          May 31 2013: What you are saying is we want complete freedom and at the same time you are saying I don't have any reference points to navigate by, no true north, not even up or down.

          Good luck on that
      • thumb
        Jun 7 2013: Sorry Amir, I missed your question....

        AmirHossein Honardust
        May 26 2013
        "And i agree with your no to "eliminate" perspective. But how? To eliminate elimination, we have to offer a better solution. Do you think it worth making another conversation in TEDconv?"

        I wish I knew what the "better solution" was Amir. As Pat says...there are no reference points to navigate by, so perhaps we, as a global community need to find new solutions? Yes, you have started that line of thinking on this thread.... I think it would be an interesting conversation to explore the possibilities:>)

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.