[P2P-F] Singularity and Gender - 'The End of the Beginning'

anna at shsh.co.uk anna at shsh.co.uk
Sun Sep 6 12:36:30 CEST 2015 

> "Distinguishing between entrenched 'power over' and hierarchy that for the moment responds to local needs, seems important".

This quote from your response Denis, is for me the key to preventing individuals from exerting 'entrenched' power over others. We need as you say, for people to acknowledge and be able to express the different skills and talents they have, in response to local and temporal needs, without this establishing a 'right', or hierarchy which extends beyond those needs. I would see such extended rights or roles as arising partially in response to the need to secure reward of some kind within a system based on artificial scarcity as we have within Capitalism. 

Michel's Equipotentiality envisages no fixed roles. But it would seem to me that 'contributory roles' are likely to give rise to some form of hierarchy, ie extended rights based on a person's contribution. Also I see them rising out of fear, fear that people will not contribute unless they have some incentive, like social recognition. The understanding that it is natural, inherent, to want to contribute, is absent from this analysis.

The only equality that really matters as Marx saw clearly, is that based on a person's need. Free sunglasses are no good to a blind man. Which is where clarifying our needs with Marshall Rosenberg's Non Violent Communication is helpful. http://www.nonviolentcommunication. According to Marshall human needs are universal, though we may use different strategies to achieve those needs. And sometimes our strategies don't meet our needs at all. This leads us back to human beings being essentially equal, since we all have the same needs. Once we recognise that, adjusting our strategies to better meet our needs becomes easier.

The inner tyrant, together with the inner victim, are strategies we have used to protect ourselves from difficult or painful situations, which have become entrenched, both inside us, and in the external world. Fathers being more involved in childcare may help towards using less dominator strategies to achieve our need for peace and harmony. Many factors will play a part in this, and I agree with you Denis when you conclude "a politics of resistance or renewal, or innovation that doesn't have this worked through seems very likely to reproduce, in subtle and unsubtle ways, some continuation of the historic trajectory of power relations we are on."

Anna






> On 4 Sep 2015, at 06:46, Denis Postle <denis.postle at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hello Anna, some further thoughts.
> 
>> On 31/08/2015 21:06, anna at shsh.co.uk wrote:
>> Denis, thanks for your comments. I'm not sure I share your optimism that the 'massive improvement in childcare towards a more child-centred formation, with more present fathers, may be leading to a different, less domineering politics.'
> re the r/evolution in child-care History of Childhood ed. Lloyd deMause is very informative.
>> 
>> 
>> However it would be helpful to expand on how we might deal with our inner tyrants.
> I guess it is obvious that inner tyrants mirror outer tyranny and any change requires attention to both. However we have to start from where we are.
> 
> So three things we can do: 1. become aware of the extent to which domination is 'naturalised'. I have given up taking any more pictures of the ads for films on London buses that feature a man (and sometimes a woman)  with a gun. See the large collection of such social media and environmental dominance at http://poastell.jalbum.net/Cultures%20of%20Domination/ be sure to scroll through the images full size.
> 
> 2. We can be diligent about eliminating from our own behaviour, coercion, bullying, threat, manipulation, and undue deference, ie model facilitation, influence and negotiation plus resistance to abuse
> 
> 3. We can engage in deep psychological inquiry into our historical formation and its influence on our interpersonal and social relations.
> 
> Perhaps this is familiar to most readers here?
>> Power as you say is very entrenched into our everyday social relationships. Is there a possibility of seeing each other as essentially equal, in spite of differences in wealth, status, education, ability, beauty, all the standards we use to feel superior or inferior to each other, and many of these have objective measurements which validate such judgements, and thus feel like facts we can't avoid.
> In the IPN commons there have been some lively discussions with participants who are strongly     suspicious of hierarchy and who favour some kind of absolute equality. I tend to feel that It is one thing to 'see each other as essentially equal' but also, not to deny intrinsic hierarchies of skill and experience. Distinguishing between entrenched 'power over' and hierarchy that for the moment responds to local needs, seems important.
>> We may prefer to believe that people are naturally unequal and therefore treating people as if they are equal is denying reality.
> As with other human condition tasks, when the organic and historic roots of 'liking' are so deeply (and unawarely) embedded, it can be tricky to honour each other's intrinsic uniqueness. A politics of resistance or renewal, or innovation that doesn't have this worked through seems very likely to reproduce, in subtle and unsubtle ways, some continuation of the historic trajectory of power relations we are on. 
>> All this is of course pertinent to the underlying philosophy of capitalism
> Yes indeed, for instance compound interest! I wonder how any of this sits with you? (and anyone else, if there is anyone reading us)
> 
> Denis 
> 
>> 
>> I would welcome your further thoughts on this.
>> 
>> Anna
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 31 Aug 2015, at 08:28, Denis Postle <denis.postle at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> Thanks for this Anna, I had missed the earlier messages. 
>>> 
>>> I agree that this list like most of the rest of the world, often seems in the hidden grip of patriarchy. e.g. the tit for tat listing of significant womanly voices. Yours is very welcome here.
>>> 
>>> With one caveat, unless and until significant numbers of us, including women, deal with our inner tyrants 'dominance' as 'natural' and 'normal' and even 'inevitable', will continue. The caveat, that as the psycho-historians have pointed out, the massive improvement in childcare towards a more child-centred formation, with more present fathers, may be leading to a different, less domineering politics. Let's hope so. The alternative means today's men (and women) giving up a devotion to power that tends to be deeply and often unawarely embedded. 
>>> 
>>> Denis
>>> 
>>>> On 30/08/2015 09:20, anna at shsh.co.uk wrote:
>>>> My original intention in pointing out the lack of women contributors to this book was not to give rise to the game of 'tit for tat', in terms of equalising numbers of men and women, that                       is the direction the discussion seems to have taken.
>>>> 
>>>> My comments were motivated by the fear that these essays, and I haven't read them, express the deep schism with nature and reality of the patriarchal and dominator culture in which we live, which is taking us towards self extermination. That the lack of women contributors could be, and it was a question, pointing to ignoring the part women need to play in shaping our future.
>>>> 
>>>> Below Ted Goertzel writes: 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Already today,
>>>>>> gender is becoming a choice rather than something biologically determined,
>>>>>> presumably that will be more so as technology improves. Will men be able to
>>>>>> get surgery enabling them to get pregnant and give birth?  Or will that
>>>>>> function be taken over by incubators?  Will we be able to have both male
>>>>>> and female sexual organs, as some animals and plants do? 
>>>> 
>>>> I fear that technology is going in the direction of what is possible rather than what is desirable. And the thrill and excitement of wondrous achievements are disconnected from what it means to be truly ourselves, to feel whole and fulfilled.
>>>> 
>>>> Anna
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 29 Aug 2015, at 06:43, Dante-Gabryell Monson <dante.monson at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>> From: "Weaver" <silkenweaver at gmail.com>
>>>>> Date: 29 Aug 2015 01:24
>>>>> Subject: Re: Fwd for Ted Goertzel
>>>>> To: <gbrain at listserv.vub.ac.be>
>>>>> Cc: 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 10:00 PM, goertzel <goertzel at camden.rutgers.edu> wrote:
>>>>>> It seems to me that both science fiction and futurist writing in general are largely male domains. There are some exceptions, such as Charlotte Perkins Gilman's Herland
>>>>> 
>>>>> Doris Lessing, also Nobel prize laureate in literature (Canopus in Argos series))
>>>>> 
>>>>> Mary Shelly (Frankenstein)
>>>>> 
>>>>> Ursula K. LeGuin (Left hand of Darkness!!! - a groundbreaking work of feminist science fiction and many others)
>>>>> 
>>>>> C.J. Cherryh (Hugo Award for Down Below Station)
>>>>> 
>>>>> Connie Willis ( 11 Hugo awards + 7 Nebula awards, more than any other author ever!)
>>>>> 
>>>>> Just to name a few SF giantesses and futurists... :-) See also:  Gwyneth Jones's top 10 science fiction by women writers
>>>>> 
>>>>> Not so male domain after all...
>>>>> 
>>>>> Weaver
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 29 Aug 2015, at 06:42, Dante-Gabryell Monson <dante.monson at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>> From: "goertzel" <goertzel at camden.rutgers.edu>
>>>>> Date: 28 Aug 2015 23:00
>>>>> Subject: Re: Fwd for Ted Goertzel
>>>>> To: <gbrain at listserv.vub.ac.be>
>>>>> Cc: 
>>>>> 
>>>>> It seems to me that both science fiction and futurist writing in general are largely male domains. There are some exceptions, such as Charlotte Perkins Gilman's Herland.  I don't know if Ayn Rand counts as a futurist, but she certainly has been influential, albeit with a very sexist view of the world. Perhaps men are more inclined to abstract thought not grounded so directly in experience.  In The End of the Beginning we were trying to move to focus to the more immediate future which is challenging.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The second most influential secular book of the 19th Century was Looking Backward by Edward Bellamy. But the most influential was Harriet Beecher Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin.  I don't know if the difference between the two is suggestive of the difference between male and female writers generally, but it is suggestive.
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 2015-08-28 13:59, Jayne Gackenbach wrote:
>>>>>> Thanks Ted for your qualifiers which are excellent points - your
>>>>>> right re our book being more about self and yes women do drift to that
>>>>>> and further to be fair the VR and digital physics sections (changes
>>>>>> and views of reality) are all authored by men, but one - me -
>>>>>> anyway while i appreciate the popular press emphasis on gender
>>>>>> switching, the reality is that it is a very small percentage of the
>>>>>> population - maybe leading edge - hard to say - my point is more along
>>>>>> the lines of Wilber's take on gender differences in various
>>>>>> transpersonal practices - he comments that men want to stare at walls
>>>>>> while women want to hold and embrace and feel - this is of course a
>>>>>> bit simplistic but the dominance of male views in the whole idea of
>>>>>> transcending consciousness as a sort of silent stillness or blank or
>>>>>> pure consciousness is fine but the woman's engaged, active, and
>>>>>> intuitive perspective takes the experient in a different direction -
>>>>>> how is this related to the issues at hand here - perhaps in how the
>>>>>> questions are asked?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Jayne
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>> From: "Francis Heylighen" <fheyligh at vub.ac.be>
>>>>>> To: "Global Brain Discussion" <gbrain at listserv.vub.ac.be>
>>>>>> Sent: Friday, August 28, 2015 11:07:22 AM GMT -07:00 US/Canada Mountain
>>>>>> Subject: Fwd for Ted Goertzel
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> [This was rejected by the mailing list, probably because Ted is
>>>>>> subscribed at the different address than the one he sent this from.]
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> From: Ted Goertzel <tedgoertzel at gmail.com>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> "Boundaries of Self and Reality" sounds psychological, which may explain
>>>>>> why it interested more women.  It is also about current reality, not the
>>>>>> Singularity or the Global Brain.  So far as I know, no one, male or female,
>>>>>> has written about gender issues related to the Singularity. Ben wrote the
>>>>>> chapter on The Future of Human Nature in our book, but I don't recall that
>>>>>> he discussed gender differences.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>   I think we might interest Humanity+ press on a book on gender and the
>>>>>> singularity if someone were to volunteer to organize one.  Already today,
>>>>>> gender is becoming a choice rather than something biologically determined,
>>>>>> presumably that will be more so as technology improves. Will men be able to
>>>>>> get surgery enabling them to get pregnant and give birth?  Or will that
>>>>>> function be taken over by incubators?  Will we be able to have both male
>>>>>> and female sexual organs, as some animals and plants do?  If our life span
>>>>>> is greatly extended, will we be able to have generations of children? What
>>>>>> would we like the Singularity to bring?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 9:45 AM, Jayne Gackenbach <jayneg at athabascau.ca>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> As a woman who is editing a book for Elsevier along the same lines as
>>>>>>> Ben's, if a bit narrower, called "Boundaries of Self and Reality Online",
>>>>>>> we have 18 contributing chapters lined up of which five are authored by
>>>>>>> women. Maybe women need to ask women.
>>>>>>> Jayne
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>>> From: "Ben Goertzel" <ben at goertzel.org>
>>>>>>> To: gbrain at listserv.vub.ac.be
>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2015 2:03:28 AM GMT -07:00 US/Canada Mountain
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Book "The End of the Beginning" finally published!
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 3:55 PM, Dante-Gabryell Monson
>>>>>>> <dante.monson at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> > after forwarding this message about the book, I was asked why there are
>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>> > men within the author list ?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Well, we made a web page for the book and sent out a bunch of emails
>>>>>>> and social media announcements soliciting authors....   Adult males
>>>>>>> were the ones who responded by sending chapters....   The author list
>>>>>>> wasn't restricted to our chums, though many who responded were in fact
>>>>>>> our chums...
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I did make an effort to get geographical/cultural representation ...
>>>>>>> but it happened that of the African and Asian transhumanists I
>>>>>>> solicited, the ones who responded favorably and wanted to submit
>>>>>>> chapters, were both young males...
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> So I think this really reduces to the question of why the overall
>>>>>>> topic of the Singularity, transhumanism and advanced tech appeals to
>>>>>>> men more than women....  When I used to organize transhumanist
>>>>>>> conferences, recruiting one or two good on-topic female speakers was
>>>>>>> always something I had to explicitly strive for... I generally found
>>>>>>> men more eager to push themselves forward and advertise themselves in
>>>>>>> this way, than women...
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> (Note, I am simply being empirical in the above observations, not
>>>>>>> making any hypotheses about the causes....   But I note that when I
>>>>>>> was working in psychology for a while in the 90s, things I organized
>>>>>>> attracted a high proportion of females....  So this doesn't seem to be
>>>>>>> an artifact of my or Ted's personal styles, but more of the subject
>>>>>>> area...)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> -- Ben
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> -- Ben
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>     This communication is intended for the use of the recipient to whom it
>>>>>>>     is addressed, and may contain confidential, personal, and or privileged
>>>>>>>     information. Please contact us immediately if you are not the intended
>>>>>>>     recipient of this communication, and do not copy, distribute, or take
>>>>>>>     action relying on it. Any communications received in error, or
>>>>>>>     subsequent reply, should be deleted or destroyed.
>>>>>>> ---
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> P2P Foundation - Mailing list
>>>> 
>>>> Blog - http://www.blog.p2pfoundation.net
>>>> Wiki - http://www.p2pfoundation.net
>>>> 
>>>> Show some love and help us maintain and update our knowledge commons by making a donation. Thank you for your support.
>>>> https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/donation
>>>> 
>>>> https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> I have a new web-site: denis.postle.net - street poetry, free ebooks, writing, photos, videos, music and therapy all in one place.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>    	
>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. 
>>> www.avast.com
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> P2P Foundation - Mailing list
>>> 
>>> Blog - http://www.blog.p2pfoundation.net
>>> Wiki - http://www.p2pfoundation.net
>>> 
>>> Show some love and help us maintain and update our knowledge commons by making a donation. Thank you for your support.
>>> https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/donation
>>> 
>>> https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
> 
> -- 
> I have a new web-site: denis.postle.net - street poetry, free ebooks, writing, photos, videos, music and therapy all in one place.
> 
> 
> 
>   			 			
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. 
> www.avast.com
> 
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.ourproject.org/pipermail/p2p-foundation/attachments/20150906/d2fb06ca/attachment-0001.htm

More information about the P2P-Foundation mailing list