[P2P-F] [-empyre-] transforming human culture and the ideosphere through collective intellectuality

[Michel Bauwens]

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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.ourproject.org/pipermail/p2p-foundation/attachments/20110729/0398cddc/attachment.htm