[-empyre-] transforming human culture and the ideosphere through collective intellectuality

[Michel Bauwens]

yes, I agree, the map is definitely not the territory, and we know from
neoclassical economics how much reality can be abstracted away from models,
whose fictionality then becomes the real basis for atrocious policy-making
...

personally, I have found the relational modelling of Alan Page Fiske to be
the most clear and usable,

see http://p2pfoundation.net/Relational_Model_Typology_-_Fiske ; to
understand peer dynamics in particular, the thesis of communal shareholding
is much more explanatory than the gift economy analogies usually banded
about,

Michel

On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 5:29 PM, Simon Biggs <simon at littlepig.org.uk> wrote:

> Hi Michel
>
> You are right, I find the turquiose diagram closer to my own model. I also
> agree that the yellow one is quite scary.
>
> On a slightly different note, I find it interesting that we find it easier
> to represent relational models, such as social structures, through images
> rather than words. An argument for visual forms of knowledge. Nevertheless,
> such reductive graphics seem to be missing much of the nuanced detail I'd
> like to see before any of them start to come close to how one can apprehend
> human relations. I'm not suggesting that the visual cannot present this
> subtle level of information. It can. Breughel's paintings of crowd scenes do
> this quite well. It is just that when the image becomes as abstracted as
> words something is lost. The spaces between words foster our imagination but
> these spaces do not exist in diagrams like these.
>
> best
>
> Simon
>
>
> On 30 Jul 2011, at 07:23, Michel Bauwens wrote:
>
> ok, I get your point better now!
>
> Simon, perhaps you'd be interested in having a look at this,
> http://www.calresco.org/wp/spiral.htm
>
> in particular the graphic, more at the bottom of the article, at the right
> hand of the subtitle, "
> Connectivity Styles - controlling, ignoring or sharing"
> i.e. http://www.calresco.org/wp/matrix.gif
>
> what I like about it, is that we can look at fully p2p networks in a
> technology sense, only from our specific point of view or form of awareness
>
> in my view, a fully p2p form of awareness, is what the author calls
> 'Turquoise' ( bottom middle)
>
> Perhaps Kimura looks at the network from a yellow point of view, and you at
> a turquoise point of view, as a possible hypothesis ...
>
> Please note I just show this as a reference,not that I fully agree,
> especially as the author assumes the most evolved form to be 'guru-centric',
> or at least it seems that way from the picture,
>
> here is what he writes on that picture:
>
> "
>
> When we look at the 9 vMemes as complex systems, in terms of their
> connectivity approaches, then we see a number of different styles. At *
> beige* the people are isolated from each other, they behave independently
> as do plants in the wild, here there are no social benefits to speak of,
> meetings between the individuals are rare and likely to be competitive. [image:
> Connectivity Matrix] At *purple* the leaders cooperate, bringing a
> consensus rule to the local group and controlling by loyalty, whilst the
> tribe loosely associate with each other, giving a 'symbiosis' approach for
> mutual benefit. Yet all groups remain disconnected and local. At *red* we
> see the first true hierarchy, with a single leader, aided by underlings,
> ruling by physical force. In this local society power flows down and
> resources flow up, the rich take from the poor. Justice here is arbitrary,
> based upon the whim of the leader, it is a style rich in unpredictability.
> Many societies compete for power.
>
> Once we get to *blue* the emphasis changes to a bureaucracy, an inflexible
> hierarchy based upon the psychological<http://www.calresco.org/lucas/global.htm>forces of belief and the strong use of rules or laws to structure justice
> and order at both local and global levels. At *orange* local two-way
> transactions between participants comes to the fore, and we gain the
> benefits of exchange, with a freedom to decide whether or not to accept or
> make any offer. This is potentially a fully connected and somewhat chaotic
> matrix with global aspirations. Within the *green* worldview the focus
> shifts to more intangible ideas and small isolated consensus groups 'doing
> their own thing' as it were, but each competing to try to impose their *
> single* value globally upon all. It is a highly modular approach.
>
> A change now occurs as *yellow* arrives, and the first stage of 2nd tier
> 'vision logic' is seen. These people act as facilitators (shown in white),
> acting locally to bind together the six 1st tier vMemes and to encourage
> the use of the most appropriate vMeme. At *turquoise* networks of such
> facilitators coordinate actions globally, acting to help make visible and
> solve the world's problems. Finally at *coral* enlightened sages appear
> who act to help those lower on the spiral in ways to progress along their
> spiritual path to 2nd tier understanding and tolerance."
>
>
> There are obvious authoritarian dangers in holding dogmatically to such
> evolutionary views of consciousness,
>
>
> this is why we rather use the concept of Equipotentiality in our work at
> the p2p foundation:
>
> Some citations:
>
>
> Michel Bauwens: in my interpretation, *peer production processes are
> characterized by the adoption of equipotentiality as an organizing
> principle. This means that everyone can potentially cooperate in a project,
> that no authority can pre-judge the ability to cooperate, but that the
> quality of cooperation is then judged by the community of peers*, i.e.
> through Communal Validation <http://p2pfoundation.net/Communal_Validation>.
> *In equipotential projects, participants self-select themselves to the
> module to which they feel able to contribute*. A related term, used by
> Jimmy Wales of the Wikipedia project, is Anti-Credentialism<http://p2pfoundation.net/Anti-Credentialism>,
> which refers to the fact that no credentials are asked beforehand, unlike
> the process of Peer Review <http://p2pfoundation.net/Peer_Review>.
>
>
>  [edit<http://p2pfoundation.net/Equipotentiality?title=Equipotentiality&action=edit&section=2>
> ] Why Equipotential Self-selection works
>
> Charles Leadbeater, in We Think <http://p2pfoundation.net/We_Think>summarizes the explanation of Yochai Benkler:
>
> "Benkler’s explanation for how open source communities coordinate
> themselves runs something like this. The raw material of these
> collaborations is creative talent. *But creative talent is highly
> variable. People are good at different things and in different ways. It is
> very difficult to tell from the outside, for example by time and motions
> studies, who is the more effective creative worker. It is very difficult to
> write detailed job descriptions and contracts for creativity, specifying
> what new ideas need to be created when. Creativity cannot be delivered
> just-in-time.* Open source communities resolve the difficulties of
> assessing creativity and quality by decentralising decision making down to
> individuals and small groups. They decide what to work on, depending on what
> needs to be done and what their skills are. There is little sense in working
> on a project that is already well staffed and where your contribution will
> add very little. It is very difficult to pull the wool over the eyes of your
> peers: they will soon spot if the contributions that you make do not really
> come up to scratch. That allows people to work on just their bit of the
> puzzle. Good central design rules allow the whole thing to add together.
> Work in open source communities gets done when creative people
> self-distribute themselves to different tasks, they submit their work to
> open peer review to maintain quality and the product has a modular design so
> that individual contributions can be clicked together easily.:" (
> http://wethink.wikia.com/wiki/Chapter_8_part_3)
>
>
>  [edit<http://p2pfoundation.net/Equipotentiality?title=Equipotentiality&action=edit&section=3>
> ] Some equipotential practices
>
> Projects also differ in whom they consider members, and the degree of
> membership within a given project can vary as well. Apart from officially
> assigned functions, such as being a member of the coreteam or a maintainer,
> writing access to Source Code Management Systems (SCM) is a distinguishing
> feature, as it allows contributors to work autonomously. Projects handle the
> granting of such rights very differently. Debian demands the successful
> completion of a series of tests to prove technical ability but also to show
> adherence to the Debian Social Contract — a kind of constitutional charter
> of the project which has a lot to say about freedom of software. Only when
> these tests have been passed satisfactorily — which can take a month or more
> than a year — is one assigned the official status of a Debian Developer.
> This form of admission — which is bordering on a formal initiation process —
> seems to be rather unique... It is widely assumed that the allocation and
> distribution of positions is based on reputation. Such reputation, though,
> is not only acquired meritocratically by writing good code; the idea of
> elders (where the project founder is assigned in some fashion the role of
> leader) is also quite important. The organisational structures of FLOSS
> projects are not designed at the drawing board; they are the result of
> happenstance, conventions ("that’s what is done in FLOSS projects"), and
> negotiation. " (
> http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue9_11/lehmann/index.html )
> [edit<http://p2pfoundation.net/Equipotentiality?title=Equipotentiality&action=edit&section=4>
> ] Citations
>
> *Jorge Ferrer*
>
> The quote by Jorge Ferrer is a good illustration of the underlying value
> behind equipotentiality.
>
> "*equals in the sense of their being both superior and inferior to
> themselves in varying skills and areas of endeavor (intellectually,
> emotionally, artistically, mechanically, interpersonally, and so forth), but
> with none of those skills being absolutely higher or better than others*.
> It is important to experience human equality from this perspective to avoid
> trivializing our encounter with others as being merely equal." (
> http://www.estel.es/EmbodiedParticipationInTheMystery,%201espace.doc)
>
> The full quote:
>
> “An integrative and embodied spirituality would effectively undermine the
> current model of human relations based on comparison, which easily leads to
> competition, rivalry, envy, jealousy, conflict, and hatred. When individuals
> develop in harmony with their most genuine vital potentials, human
> relationships characterized by mutual exchange and enrichment would
> naturally emerge because people would not need to project their own needs
> and lacks onto others. More specifically, the turning off of the comparing
> mind would dismantle the prevalent hierarchical mode of social
> interaction—paradoxically so extended in spiritual circles—in which people
> automatically look upon others as being either superior or inferior, as a
> whole or in some privileged respect. This model—which ultimately leads to
> inauthentic and unfulfilling relationships, not to mention hubris and
> spiritual narcissism—would naturally pave the way for an I-Thou mode of
> encounter in which people would experience others as *equals in the sense
> of their being both superior and inferior to themselves in varying skills
> and areas of endeavor (intellectually, emotionally, artistically,
> mechanically, interpersonally, and so forth), but with none of those skills
> being absolutely higher or better than others. It is important to experience
> human equality from this perspective to avoid trivializing our encounter
> with others as being merely equal.* It also would bring a renewed sense of
> significance and excitement to our interactions because we would be
> genuinely open to the fact that not only can everybody learn something
> important from us, but we can learn from them as well. In sum, an integral
> development of the person would lead to a “horizontalization of love." We
> would see others not as rivals or competitors but as unique embodiments of
> the Mystery, in both its immanent and transcendent dimension, who could
> offer us something that no one else could offer and to whom we could give
> something that no one else could give." (
> http://www.estel.es/EmbodiedParticipationInTheMystery,%201espace.doc)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 5:39 AM, Simon Biggs <simon at littlepig.org.uk>wrote:
>
>> Sorry, slight misunderstanding. I'm not suggesting that Kimura is Fordist.
>> Only that he is reflecting upon the Fordist foundations of many of our
>> societies. What he argues for is of course profoundly different to that and,
>> as you state, not distant from my own argument. The distinction I am making
>> though, and which I feel stands, is that his conception of selfhood is
>> individualist rather than collectivist.
>>
>> best
>>
>> Simon
>>
>>
>> On 29 Jul 2011, at 23:19, Michel Bauwens wrote:
>>
>> > Dear Simon,
>> >
>> > I'm a little surprised of your interpreation of Kimura as being Fordist,
>> in
>> > fact, I think both of you are grappling with post-fordist epistemology
>> and
>> > social practice, but I think you're taking a different perspective of
>> what
>> > is a same process,
>> >
>> > as I see it, his concern is to create authentically thinking individuals
>> who
>> > can engage in the global ideosphere as  equals, and in this way, he is
>> > saying, 'everybody else is really in you' and you have to know that;
>> while
>> > your perspective it seems, is the new type of collective process of
>> creation
>> > that it engenders. But for my point of view, individuality,
>> relationality,
>> > and collectivity, are three necessary aspects and perspectives on the
>> new
>> > emerging peer to peer dynamics, which change all three.
>> >
>> > I'm exploring this at length in
>> > http://p2pfoundation.net/Category:Relationality
>> >
>> > I'm citing a short article on my own 'relational' point of view, and
>> below,
>> > see Kimura on alignment
>> >
>> > To say a bit more about my own intellectual background, it is largely
>> > situated in the 'integral tradition', an extra-academic tradition that
>> most
>> > 'postmodern-influenced' academics are generally unaware of ... Names are
>> > Aurobinda, Sarkar, Jean Gebser, Ken Wilber, Roy Bhaskar, and I think
>> Kimura
>> > is at least aware of this, as I've seen references to wilber, in the
>> essays
>> > I have browsed through today. In a nutshell, it's a subjective-objective
>> > reading of reality, which refuses to separate them, so it's neither
>> > materialist, nor idealist, in the old classic marxist sense, but 'both
>> at
>> > the same time'.
>> >
>> > In any case here are two quotes I wanted to share, from
>> > http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/?p=102 and,
>> > http://p2pfoundation.net/Next_Buddha_Will_Be_A_Collective (followed by
>> > Kimura)
>> >
>> > "*Postmodernism was all about deconstructing oppressive mental
>> structures
>> > that we inherited from modernity. Amongst other things the Cartesian
>> > subject/object split and the alienating effects of Kantian's
>> impossibility
>> > of knowing true reality; it was a necessary deconstructive passage, a
>> > cleaning out process, but it didn't, as its names "post"- indicate,
>> > construct anything. So in my view, if modernity was about constructing
>> the
>> > individual (along subject/object divisions), and postmodernity about
>> > deconstructing this, then this new era, which I'ld like to call the era
>> of
>> > participation, is about constructing relationality or participation. We
>> are
>> > not going back to the premodern wholistic era and feelings, but just as
>> > modernity was about rigorously individualising everything, eventually
>> > reaching the current dead-end of hyper-individualism, we are now just as
>> > rigorously 'relationising' everything. If in premodernity we thought, we
>> are
>> > parts of a whole that is one and above us, and in modernity we thought
>> we
>> > are separate and unified individuals, a world onto ourselves, and in
>> > postmodernity saw ourselves fragmenting, and pretty much lamented this,
>> then
>> > this is the mash-up era. We now know that all this fragments can be
>> > reconstructed with the zillions of fragment of the others, into zillions
>> of
>> > commonalities, into temporary wholes that are so many new creative
>> projects,
>> > but all united in a ever-moving Commons that is open to all of us..*
>> >
>> > So the fragmentation of postmodernity is a given for us now, but we are
>> no
>> > longer lamenting, we are discovering the technologies (infrastructural,
>> > collaborative-software-ish, political, but above all the mental and
>> > epistemological) that allow us to use this fragmentation to create the
>> Great
>> > Cosmic Mash-Up. That is the historical task of the emerging Peer to Peer
>> Era
>> > *."*
>> >
>> >
>> > 2. From: The Next Buddha Will Be a
>> > Collective<http://p2pfoundation.net/Next_Buddha_Will_Be_a_Collective>.
>> >
>> >
>> > "the 3 paradigm shifts (open/free, participatory, commons), although
>> only
>> > emerging as seed forms at this stage, are letting themselves be felt
>> through
>> > contemporary spiritual practices. It suggests a new approach to
>> spirituality
>> > which I would like to call a contributory spirituality. This approach
>> would
>> > consider that each tradition is a set of injunctions set from within a
>> > specific framework, and which can disclose different facets of reality.
>> This
>> > framework may be influenced by a set of values (patriarchy, exclusive
>> truth
>> > doctrines, etc…), which might be rejected today, but also contains
>> > psycho-spiritual practices which disclose particular truths about our
>> > relationship with the universe. Discovering spiritual truth then,
>> requires
>> > at least a partial exposure to these differential methods of truth
>> > discovery, within a comparative framework, but it also requires
>> > intersubjective feedback, so it is a quest that cannot be undertaken
>> alone,
>> > but along with others on the same path. Tradition is thereby not
>> rejected,
>> > but critically experienced and evaluated. The modern spiritual
>> practicioner
>> > can hold himself beholden to such a particular tradition, but need not
>> feel
>> > confined to it. He/she can create spiritual inquiry circles that
>> approach
>> > the different traditions with an open mind, experience them individually
>> and
>> > collectively, and where the different individual experiences can be
>> > exchanged. In this way, a new collective body of spiritual experiences
>> is
>> > created, which is continuously co-created by the inquiring spiritual
>> > communities and individuals. The outcome of that process will be a
>> > co-created reality that is unpredictable and will create new, as yet
>> > unpredictable spiritual formats. But one thing is sure: it will be an
>> open,
>> > participatory, approach leading to a commons of spiritual knowledge,
>> from
>> > which all humanity can draw from.
>> >
>> >
>> > Alignment vs. Agreement
>> >
>> > Yasuhiko G. Kimura:
>> >
>> > "Alignment is congruence of intention, whereas agreement is congruence
>> of
>> > opinion.
>> >
>> > Opinion is a supposition elevated to the status of a conclusion held to
>> be
>> > right but not substantiated by positive proof—rational or evidential.
>> > Because disagreement means difference of opinion, disagreement often
>> > escalates into a dispute as to whose opinion is right. When the dispute
>> is
>> > not resolved through the logic of argument, the illogic of might tends
>> to
>> > enter the realm of right , sometimes resulting in violent conflict.
>> >
>> > Alignment does not require agreement as a necessary condition. Alignment
>> as
>> > congruence of intention is congruence of resolution for the attainment
>> of a
>> > particular aim. An aim being in and of the future, unknown or
>> unpredicted
>> > variables inevitably enter the generative equations for its achievement.
>> > Inherent in alignment, therefore, is the spirit of quest.
>> >
>> > The spirit of quest generates open and evolving dialogue-in-action.
>> > Participants of a quest bring in diverse points of view while remaining
>> > united in the same quest. When they jointly choose a course of action,
>> they
>> > know that the choice is a tentative mutual agreement, to be modified,
>> > altered, or even discarded along the way. The question is not “who is
>> right”
>> > but “what is best” for the fulfillment of the intention.
>> >
>> >
>> > Alignment engenders synergy.
>> >
>> >
>> > Following R. Buckminster Fullerʹs definition, synergy means behaviors of
>> > whole systems unpredicted by behaviors of their subsystems taken
>> separately
>> > and observed apart from the whole.(1) When individuals are aligned in
>> quest,
>> > their collective intelligence often produces results that are beyond the
>> > intelligence of any single individual. Although the locus of thinking
>> always
>> > remains within the individual, the synergetic impact of the thinking of
>> > others takes the individual beyond the normal mode and boundary of his
>> or
>> > her thinking.
>> >
>> > Intelligence follows intention. Aligned intention creates a synergetic
>> field
>> > of spiritual coherence that works as a conduit for enhanced intelligence
>> and
>> > empowered action beyond the usual limitation of the individual. This
>> > explains in part the occurrence of concentrated upsurges of phenomenally
>> > creative geniuses in certain epochs in history, such as the ancient
>> Greek
>> > civilization, the Renaissance, and the Enlightenment.
>> >
>> > In an alignment-based organization or movement, disagreement among
>> > participants does not diminish but rather enhances the power of the
>> > alignment and its synergetic impact. Plurality and diversity of ideas
>> and
>> > views, united in a shared intention, mutually enrich one another toward
>> the
>> > achievement of an end. In an agreement-based organization or movement,
>> on
>> > the other hand, disagreement among participants often leads to internal
>> > strife, divisive politics, splitting into cliques, or eventual demise.
>> >
>> > An agreement-based organization can transform itself to an
>> alignment-based
>> > organization by shifting its value focus from agreement to alignment,
>> from
>> > opinion to intention. Alignment is not a static state; it is a dynamic
>> > process of constant aligning and realigning in the continual movement of
>> > time through the timeless commitment to an intention.
>> >
>> > People who differ in their opinions can align in their intentions. No
>> more
>> > do we need the usual politics of opinion-domination, which is subverting
>> the
>> > very integrity of human-unity. What we need instead is a new politics of
>> > intention-alignment, which is a cocreative art of peaceful and mutually
>> > contributory coexistence of people and nations through alignment beyond
>> > agreement or disagreement." (
>> >
>> http://via-visioninaction.org/via-li/articles/Alignment_Beyond_Agreement.pdf
>> > )
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Source
>> >
>> > Alignment Beyond Agreement. Excerpted from The Journal of Integral
>> Thinking
>> > for Visionary Action, Vol. One No. Four 2003
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 10:01 PM, Simon Biggs <simon at littlepig.org.uk
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >> Kimura's reflections are evocative of the Fordist systems that underpin
>> >> many
>> >> socio-economic structures currently existent on our planet, especially
>> >> those
>> >> that are industrial or post-industrial (on both the left and the
>> right).
>> >> But
>> >> I wonder if it describes all forms of human society and the manner in
>> which
>> >> individuals form in relation to it?
>> >>
>> >> Anthropologists such as Tim Ingold and James Leach take a different
>> >> approach, considering self formation as a collective activity. This
>> starts
>> >> where Mauss's concept of the gift leaves off and moves into territory I
>> >> have
>> >> previously termed social ontology. Their work also references
>> Heidegger,
>> >> but
>> >> to different effect.
>> >>
>> >> This is from an abstract for a recent paper by myself and Penny
>> Travlou. In
>> >> it you could replace the term "creativity" with Kimura's idea of
>> >> "thinking".
>> >> Where in Kimura the individual is considered to compose the collective
>> in
>> >> this account the process is seen as mutually recursive, with each
>> composing
>> >> the other in an iterative process.
>> >>
>> >> quote
>> >> In its requirement for both an author and reader art can be considered
>> a
>> >> participatory activity. Expanded concepts of agency allow us to
>> question
>> >> what or who can be an active participant, allowing us to revisit the
>> debate
>> >> on authorship from a new perspective. We can ask whether creativity
>> might
>> >> be
>> >> regarded as a form of social interaction rather than an outcome. How
>> might
>> >> we understand creativity as interaction between people and things, as
>> sets
>> >> of discursive relations rather than outcomes?
>> >> Whilst creativity is often perceived as the product of the individual
>> >> artist, or creative ensemble, it can also be considered an emergent
>> >> phenomenon of communities, driving change and facilitating individual
>> or
>> >> ensemble creativity. Creativity can be a performative activity released
>> >> when
>> >> engaged through and by a community and understood as a process of
>> >> interaction.
>> >> In this context the model of the solitary artist, who produces
>> artefacts
>> >> which embody creativity, is questioned as an ideal for achieving
>> creative
>> >> outcomes. Instead, creativity is proposed as an activity of exchange
>> that
>> >> enables (creates) people and communities. In Creative Land
>> anthropologist
>> >> James Leach describes cultural practices where the creation of new
>> things,
>> >> and the ritualised forms of exchange enacted around them, function to
>> >> "create" individuals and bind them in social groups, "creating" the
>> >> community they inhabit. Leach's argument is an interesting take on the
>> >> concept of the gift-economy and suggests it is possible to conceive of
>> >> creativity as emergent from and innate to the interactions of people.
>> Such
>> >> an understanding might then function to combat an instrumentalist view
>> of
>> >> creativity that demands of artists that their creations have social
>> (e.g.:
>> >> "economic") value. In the argument proposed here, creativity is not
>> valued
>> >> as arising from a perceived need, a particular solution or product, nor
>> >> from
>> >> a supply-side "blue skies" ideal, but as an emergent property of
>> >> communities.
>> >> http://www.littlepig.org.uk/texts/authorship_community.pdf
>> >>
>> >> Best
>> >>
>> >> Simon
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 29/07/2011 13:51, "Michel Bauwens" <michel at p2pfoundation.net>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> This relates to our discussion on the collective individual in Empyre
>> >> this
>> >>> week.
>> >>>
>> >>> One of the ways I have conceived of the p2p foundation platform is
>> >> through a
>> >>> process of 'opportunistic updating' using the whole web as a source.
>> In
>> >>> other words, I'm presupposing that there is a collective wisdom out
>> >> there,
>> >>> but that it is insufficiently connected or aware of each other, and
>> that
>> >>> bringing this together in a platform as a curator, can create more of
>> a
>> >>> collective self-awareness, a recognition of commonality, mutuality and
>> >>> complementarity, and hence, an increased mutual alignment where non
>> >>> necessiraly existed before.
>> >>>
>> >>> This assumes that there is no center that 'knows the truth'.
>> >>>
>> >>> I find this idea well expressed by Kimura here below. I found this
>> today
>> >> and
>> >>> know nothing else of this (Japanese?) thinker, but it resonates with
>> my
>> >> own
>> >>> efforts:
>> >>>
>> >>> Yasuhiko Genku Kimura:
>> >>>
>> >>> "For the locus of thinking is within the individual. It is not the
>> >>> collective but the individual composing the collective that alone can
>> >> think
>> >>> and generate ideas. The ideospheric transformation of the kind I speak
>> is
>> >> a
>> >>> synergetic phenomenon that emerges when individuals in sufficient
>> numbers
>> >>> become authentic, independent thinkers, that is, originators of ideas,
>> >>> producers of dialogues, and contributors to the network of
>> conversations
>> >>> that comprises the world."
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> The configuration of the ideosphere throughout history has remained
>> >>> concentric with external authorities at the center surrounded by
>> circles
>> >> of
>> >>> believers and followers, where an authority did the thinking for its
>> >>> followers. Even today, in the scientifically and technologically
>> advanced
>> >>> Western world, our educational system is, for the most part, designed
>> to
>> >>> produce well informed, intellectually-adept, and
>> >> professionally-marketable
>> >>> non-thinking adults. Thus the philosopher Martin Heidegger states:
>> 'The
>> >> most
>> >>> thought-provoking thing in this most thought provoking time is that we
>> >> are
>> >>> still not thinking.' For, authentic thinking requires self authorship,
>> >> which
>> >>> in turn requires authentic self-knowledge about which our education is
>> >>> utterly silent."
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> In following the evolutionary thrust for optimization that is driving
>> our
>> >>> collective transformation toward an unprecedented height of culture
>> and
>> >>> civilization, the ideospheric configuration we require for the 21st
>> >> century
>> >>> is omnicentric, having independent yet interconnected centers within
>> the
>> >>> intellectually and spiritually sovereign individuals, living and
>> working
>> >> as
>> >>> self-authorities in the matter of thinking, knowing, and acting. Then,
>> >> the
>> >>> thinking, knowing, and acting of these authentic individuals will
>> >>> synergetically co-develop throughout the omnicentric configuration of
>> the
>> >>> evolving ideosphere. The Information Revolution that is underway with
>> the
>> >>> omnipresent Internet is simultaneously the manifestation of, and the
>> >>> apparatus for, this new omnicentric configuration of the ideosphere."
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Thus, the transformation of the ideosphere does not mean the
>> propagation
>> >> of
>> >>> any particular set of ideas. Rather, it is the transformation of the
>> >>> configuration of the ideosphere itself from concentricity to
>> >> omnicentricity
>> >>> in which every individual will engage in authentic, independent
>> thinking
>> >> in
>> >>> synergy with others."
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> We human beings are at our best not when we are engaged in abstract
>> >> solitary
>> >>> reflection or on our individual transformation for its own sake but
>> when
>> >> we
>> >>> are engaged together in the act of transforming the world. The act of
>> >>> idea-generation through authentic thinking and the sustained
>> engagement
>> >> in
>> >>> the conversation of humankind, if conducted in the context of pursuit
>> of
>> >>> truth, beauty, and goodness, will lead to powerful moral action that
>> will
>> >>> engender a New World. To engage in such moral action and to become a
>> >>> co-creator of a New World is to become a world-weaver in the act of
>> >> weaving
>> >>> the world and a history-maker in the act of making history."
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> There is no complete individual transformation apart from real world
>> >>> transformation. For the individual is the whole world; for the
>> individual
>> >> is
>> >>> the whole of humanity." (
>> >>>
>> >>
>> http://wakeupdream.blogspot.com/2011/07/kosmic-alignment-principal-of-global.h
>> >>> tml)
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Simon Biggs | simon at littlepig.org.uk | www.littlepig.org.uk
>> >>
>> >> my new work email address from August 1 2011 is s.biggs at ed.ac.uk
>> >>
>> >> s.biggs at eca.ac.uk | Edinburgh College of Art
>> >> www.eca.ac.uk/circle | www.elmcip.net | www.movingtargets.co.uk
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> empyre forum
>> >> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
>> >> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  -
>> http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
>> >
>> > Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
>> > http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
>> >
>> > Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
>> > http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > empyre forum
>> > empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
>> > http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>> >
>> > ------ End of Forwarded Message
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> empyre forum
>> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
>> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>>
>
>
>
> --
> P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
>
> Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
> http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
>
> Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
> http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
>
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>
>
>
> Simon Biggs | simon at littlepig.org.uk | www.littlepig.org.uk
>
> my new work email address from August 1 2011 is s.biggs at ed.ac.uk
>
> s.biggs at eca.ac.uk | Edinburgh College of Art
> www.eca.ac.uk/circle | www.elmcip.net | www.movingtargets.co.uk
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>



-- 
P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net

Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation

Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.cofa.unsw.edu.au/pipermail/empyre/attachments/20110731/268ddba9/attachment.html>