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

[magnus at ditch.org.uk]

With these most recent discussions and Michel's perspective I am now
keeping in mind a picture of carpenters refitting the inside decks of a
ship. Because of changing priorities and changing organizational
structures, substantial repartitioning is taking place.

Best wishes,

Magnus

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre