Re: [-empyre-] Free Cooperation

[John Hopkins <jhopkins@uiah.fi>]

>  >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...
>
> In this context Buber's idea of religious socialism could be useful.
> For Buber "religious socialism means that man in the concreteness of his
> personal life takes seriously the fundamentals of this life..." And he
> underlines that the goals of socialism need to be mirrored in devoted
> everyday action.

a collectively determined pathway for the1-to1 human exchange such as 
"religious socialism" is exactly NOT what is needed, though, assuming 
the awareness that you suggest below.  A collectively applied pathway 
IS a hierarchy of power!  It is the very definition of collectively 
defined inter-human flow pathways that is the building block of 
hierarchic social structures.

> Presence and energy are aspects of collaboration but the danger of this
> focus is to leave out the social context in which the collaboration is
> situated. Talking of flows of energies is vague and dissipates the political
> as it assumes equality of the people engaged in the dialogue. It does not
> acknowledge hierarchies of power and economic inequalities.

that concept is not left out of my personal model at all.  The 
framework I outline above, though, preceeds those social constraints 
to the effect that without an awareness of the dynamic of 
inter-personal energy exchange, modeling the effects of socially 
prescribed filtration and re-direction of those flows is difficult or 
impossible.  Another words, the social context operates on what is 
potentially a free-cooperation, making it something less.  I also 
make a fundamental distinction between language (itself a constructed 
model or socially/collectively determined re-creation of the world) 
and the actual carriers of energy (from a physics point-of-view)... 
For example, when I am speaking with someone, what carries the real 
energy is the ability of my body system to convert food energy into 
sonic energy which crosses space to enter the Other's head, literally 
(all the way from my body to theirs as) electromagnetic energy.  The 
particular language carries no measurable physic(al) energy in the 
exchange.  It is merely an abstraction constructed by the social 
context (or IS the social context).  All that I am saying is that 
without a clear understanding of the REAL quanitfiable energy 
dynamics of human relation, one cannot effectively model more complex 
inter-human systems.  Nor extract the pseudo-exchanges that occur via 
meta-structures like language and monetary systems.

I don't find that an internal awareness of inter-human energy 
exchanges that happen all the time in momentary existence to be 
dangerous at all.  It is the denial of that awareness by social 
systems, dominant social models, that threaten sustainable human 
presence.

In your long list of examples, you are constantly shifting 
perspective between these pseudo-exchanges and real exchanges.  It is 
the energized human connection (two jazz musicians engaged in an open 
and reciprocated improvisation) where the singular energy of each 
individual added together ends up ain a phenomenal surplus that 
literally in-spires the audience around them.  The phenomena is 
primary.  When someone in the audience 'hates jazz,' that is an 
example of a learned or applied social construct that comples that 
person to deny the entry of that in-spired energy into their body 
system.  That is a secondary condition.

jh

--
-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
tech-no-mad::hypnostatic::
uni-bremen, dept. of informatik
domain: http://neoscenes.net
travelog: http://neoscenes.net/travel/recent.html
email: <jhopkins@uiah.fi>