Re: [-empyre-] Free cooperation
>I would position the 'underground' as the site of what Martin Buber
termed "genuine dialogue" -- the site of inspiring and inspired /
energized exchange between two human beings -- or in the case of
larger communities, the distributed/collective sites of exchange
between each individual (a network).
"Genuine dialogue" is quite a fascinating soul-full concept by the Jewish
theologian Martin Buber. And yes, meetings among friends should have this
It is one model that resonated with my experiences of inter-human
dynamic. Although I find that other models more fully circumscribe
the phenomena of human presence and interaction -- phenomena that,
once stripped of soul (or whatever you want to call it), IMHO are
empty of most everything...
aspect of a human encounter full of presence, guided by a creative mind
instead of a reactive one. But honesty, transparency and centered presence
is a lot to ask of a dialogue and is a little bit burdened by religious
connotations. There is a difference between friends meeting each other and a
group of people cooperating on a project.
what do you propose to be the difference? the human exchange I am
talking about is not limited to 'friends' and 'not-friends.' Whether
or not you acknowledge it, as you pass the stranger in the street,
you are transmitting and receiving energies. That they don't enter
into your sensibilities is more related to socially-induced filtering
on your part than proposing that the dialogue (or energy exchange)
doesn't exist... I admit that dominant social systems makes
open-ness a region full of fear for most all of us, but in that space
of facing the unknown in the Other with an open-ness to change, is
the root of all energized collaboration.
And, based in the phenomena where two can come together, engage, and
both become, literally "inspired" (filled with energy) -- a network,
as the site of collaboration, is a series of energized exchanges and
become the site for massive creative potential...
>confronted by. "Experiences" attenuated (and largely amplified) by a
heirarchic social structure whose existence is based on a process of
concentration of energies and a consequent re-distribution of those
energies in a 'collectively' mandated form such as (Guy DeBord's)
spectacle -- the hollow amplified social event...
This is an interesting connection, John. How would a non-hierarchical
investment of energies look like, one that refuses the bombastic event?
ones that seek balanced pathways of transit between the participating
individuals. it is in that seeking where the open-ness to change
(being changed by the Other), and creative potential lies. Social
heirarchies are 'built' by the ordering and prescribing of pathways
of energy transfer between people. The concept of 'chain-of-command"
is specific example. Of course even the most rigid structures have
elements of 'leakage' -- the difusion of energies between individuals
that occur not along the prescribed pathways. But, at it's core,
each situation of two humans coming to interaction holds the
potential for, in your words, a "non-hierarchical investment of
energies." though I would deny the fiscal wording and substitute
"exchange" or "movement" for "investment."
Spontaneous celebrations, random kinds of energy bursts
unrelated to any material interactions? I'm really curious, troubled and
excited about your implicit fusion of cooperation and religious morality. I
was deeply moved by G. Hage last week at Transmediale in Berlin who talked
about the politics of hope for migrants who should see the full
potentialities of their lives: deeply exacerbating but at least as
I don't understand your identifying religion and morality in these
statements. Or your refusal of any connection between energy and
other model systems that use other words for the same thing (Light,
spirit, chi). Religion is the social outcome of collective
organization of model descriptive systems of individual lived
experience. I am talking about lived experience, not the
re-creations based on that...
If you hold tightly onto material systems, then what I am talking
about will make no sense. It just seems to me that a materialist
point of view is spent. What is described in a mechanistic
physical framework as 'material interactions' has little or no
meaning from a quantum point of view where "things" are fields of
energy to begin with...
This archive was generated by a fusion of
Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and