[-empyre-] collective capture, distributed identity

[John Hopkins]

> In fractured and (still) politically divided or contested societies or in
> (Western Europe or North  America, as far as I can speak; Chris Domingo had
> also told us his story from Whyalla, Australia) only superficially integrated
> and non-isolated cultures and cultural communities, what would "distributed
> identity" mean -- would not such a term capture only an illusion?

It's no illusion, unfortunately -- I had an argument with Eric Kluitenburg about 
this -- if illusion means something has no tangible reality, this is impossible. 
I think a 'distributed identity' is an abstraction of embodied energy flows. 
When we use the protocols of the masters (FaceBook being a dominant model), and 
we 'connect' via those attenuated flow pathways that are governed by FB we are 
taking our embodied energies and 'giving' them to the techno-social system (of 
many overlapping systems) that is FaceBook. Giving life-time and life-energy to 
a screen is to take it away from (those in) the immediate surroundings of 
oneself. That life-energy/life-time is harvested, accumulated by those who 
control the protocols through which we express our remote presence. This is no 
illusion. Where our attentions (aka life-energy/life-time) are directed 
ultimately determines where power is concentrated in the techno-social system. 
This is no illusion (Just look up how much google spends on lobbying in 
Washington now!)...

hmm, maybe I am making no sense... it's a wider discussion predicated on a 
different world-view...

& now I have to peel myself away from the screen to put embodied energy into 
reconstructing a house that is suffering water damage from the desert monsoon 
season these days...

ciao,

jh


-- 
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dr. John Hopkins, BSc, MFA, PhD
grounded on a granite batholith
twitter: @neoscenes
http://tech-no-mad.net/blog/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++