Dear Simon,<br><br>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,<br>
<br>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.<br>
<br>I'm exploring this at length in <a href="http://p2pfoundation.net/Category:Relationality">http://p2pfoundation.net/Category:Relationality</a><br><br>I'm citing a short article on my own 'relational' point of view, and below, see Kimura on alignment<br>
<br>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'.<br>
<br>In any case here are two quotes I wanted to share, from <a href="http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/?p=102">http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/?p=102</a> and, <a href="http://p2pfoundation.net/Next_Buddha_Will_Be_A_Collective">http://p2pfoundation.net/Next_Buddha_Will_Be_A_Collective</a> (followed by Kimura)<br>
<br><p>"<b>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..</b>
</p><p>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<b>."</b>
</p><p><br>
2. From: The <a href="http://p2pfoundation.net/Next_Buddha_Will_Be_a_Collective" title="Next Buddha Will Be a Collective">Next Buddha Will Be a
Collective</a>. <br></p><p>"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.
</p><br><br><h2><span class="mw-headline" id="Alignment_vs._Agreement">Alignment vs.
Agreement</span></h2>
<p>Yasuhiko G. Kimura:
</p><p>"Alignment is congruence of intention, whereas
agreement is congruence of opinion.
</p><p>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.
</p><p>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.
</p><p>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.
</p><p><br>
Alignment engenders synergy.
</p><p><br>
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.
</p><p>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.
</p><p>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.
</p><p>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.
</p><p>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."
(<a href="http://via-visioninaction.org/via-li/articles/Alignment_Beyond_Agreement.pdf" class="external free">http://via-visioninaction.org/via-li/articles/Alignment_Beyond_Agreement.pdf</a>)
</p><p><br>
</p>
<h1><span class="editsection"></span><span class="mw-headline" id="Source">Source</span></h1>
<p>Alignment Beyond Agreement. Excerpted from The Journal of Integral
Thinking for Visionary Action, Vol. One No. Four 2003
</p><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 10:01 PM, Simon Biggs <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:simon@littlepig.org.uk">simon@littlepig.org.uk</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
Kimura's reflections are evocative of the Fordist systems that underpin many<br>
socio-economic structures currently existent on our planet, especially those<br>
that are industrial or post-industrial (on both the left and the right). But<br>
I wonder if it describes all forms of human society and the manner in which<br>
individuals form in relation to it?<br>
<br>
Anthropologists such as Tim Ingold and James Leach take a different<br>
approach, considering self formation as a collective activity. This starts<br>
where Mauss's concept of the gift leaves off and moves into territory I have<br>
previously termed social ontology. Their work also references Heidegger, but<br>
to different effect.<br>
<br>
This is from an abstract for a recent paper by myself and Penny Travlou. In<br>
it you could replace the term "creativity" with Kimura's idea of "thinking".<br>
Where in Kimura the individual is considered to compose the collective in<br>
this account the process is seen as mutually recursive, with each composing<br>
the other in an iterative process.<br>
<br>
quote<br>
In its requirement for both an author and reader art can be considered a<br>
participatory activity. Expanded concepts of agency allow us to question<br>
what or who can be an active participant, allowing us to revisit the debate<br>
on authorship from a new perspective. We can ask whether creativity might be<br>
regarded as a form of social interaction rather than an outcome. How might<br>
we understand creativity as interaction between people and things, as sets<br>
of discursive relations rather than outcomes?<br>
Whilst creativity is often perceived as the product of the individual<br>
artist, or creative ensemble, it can also be considered an emergent<br>
phenomenon of communities, driving change and facilitating individual or<br>
ensemble creativity. Creativity can be a performative activity released when<br>
engaged through and by a community and understood as a process of<br>
interaction.<br>
In this context the model of the solitary artist, who produces artefacts<br>
which embody creativity, is questioned as an ideal for achieving creative<br>
outcomes. Instead, creativity is proposed as an activity of exchange that<br>
enables (creates) people and communities. In Creative Land anthropologist<br>
James Leach describes cultural practices where the creation of new things,<br>
and the ritualised forms of exchange enacted around them, function to<br>
"create" individuals and bind them in social groups, "creating" the<br>
community they inhabit. Leach's argument is an interesting take on the<br>
concept of the gift-economy and suggests it is possible to conceive of<br>
creativity as emergent from and innate to the interactions of people. Such<br>
an understanding might then function to combat an instrumentalist view of<br>
creativity that demands of artists that their creations have social (e.g.:<br>
"economic") value. In the argument proposed here, creativity is not valued<br>
as arising from a perceived need, a particular solution or product, nor from<br>
a supply-side "blue skies" ideal, but as an emergent property of<br>
communities.<br>
<a href="http://www.littlepig.org.uk/texts/authorship_community.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.littlepig.org.uk/texts/authorship_community.pdf</a><br>
<br>
Best<br>
<br>
Simon<br>
<div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
On 29/07/2011 13:51, "Michel Bauwens" <<a href="mailto:michel@p2pfoundation.net">michel@p2pfoundation.net</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> This relates to our discussion on the collective individual in Empyre this<br>
> week.<br>
><br>
> One of the ways I have conceived of the p2p foundation platform is through a<br>
> process of 'opportunistic updating' using the whole web as a source. In<br>
> other words, I'm presupposing that there is a collective wisdom out there,<br>
> but that it is insufficiently connected or aware of each other, and that<br>
> bringing this together in a platform as a curator, can create more of a<br>
> collective self-awareness, a recognition of commonality, mutuality and<br>
> complementarity, and hence, an increased mutual alignment where non<br>
> necessiraly existed before.<br>
><br>
> This assumes that there is no center that 'knows the truth'.<br>
><br>
> I find this idea well expressed by Kimura here below. I found this today and<br>
> know nothing else of this (Japanese?) thinker, but it resonates with my own<br>
> efforts:<br>
><br>
> Yasuhiko Genku Kimura:<br>
><br>
> "For the locus of thinking is within the individual. It is not the<br>
> collective but the individual composing the collective that alone can think<br>
> and generate ideas. The ideospheric transformation of the kind I speak is a<br>
> synergetic phenomenon that emerges when individuals in sufficient numbers<br>
> become authentic, independent thinkers, that is, originators of ideas,<br>
> producers of dialogues, and contributors to the network of conversations<br>
> that comprises the world."<br>
><br>
><br>
> The configuration of the ideosphere throughout history has remained<br>
> concentric with external authorities at the center surrounded by circles of<br>
> believers and followers, where an authority did the thinking for its<br>
> followers. Even today, in the scientifically and technologically advanced<br>
> Western world, our educational system is, for the most part, designed to<br>
> produce well informed, intellectually-adept, and professionally-marketable<br>
> non-thinking adults. Thus the philosopher Martin Heidegger states: 'The most<br>
> thought-provoking thing in this most thought provoking time is that we are<br>
> still not thinking.' For, authentic thinking requires self authorship, which<br>
> in turn requires authentic self-knowledge about which our education is<br>
> utterly silent."<br>
><br>
><br>
> In following the evolutionary thrust for optimization that is driving our<br>
> collective transformation toward an unprecedented height of culture and<br>
> civilization, the ideospheric configuration we require for the 21st century<br>
> is omnicentric, having independent yet interconnected centers within the<br>
> intellectually and spiritually sovereign individuals, living and working as<br>
> self-authorities in the matter of thinking, knowing, and acting. Then, the<br>
> thinking, knowing, and acting of these authentic individuals will<br>
> synergetically co-develop throughout the omnicentric configuration of the<br>
> evolving ideosphere. The Information Revolution that is underway with the<br>
> omnipresent Internet is simultaneously the manifestation of, and the<br>
> apparatus for, this new omnicentric configuration of the ideosphere."<br>
><br>
><br>
> Thus, the transformation of the ideosphere does not mean the propagation of<br>
> any particular set of ideas. Rather, it is the transformation of the<br>
> configuration of the ideosphere itself from concentricity to omnicentricity<br>
> in which every individual will engage in authentic, independent thinking in<br>
> synergy with others."<br>
><br>
><br>
> We human beings are at our best not when we are engaged in abstract solitary<br>
> reflection or on our individual transformation for its own sake but when we<br>
> are engaged together in the act of transforming the world. The act of<br>
> idea-generation through authentic thinking and the sustained engagement in<br>
> the conversation of humankind, if conducted in the context of pursuit of<br>
> truth, beauty, and goodness, will lead to powerful moral action that will<br>
> engender a New World. To engage in such moral action and to become a<br>
> co-creator of a New World is to become a world-weaver in the act of weaving<br>
> the world and a history-maker in the act of making history."<br>
><br>
><br>
> There is no complete individual transformation apart from real world<br>
> transformation. For the individual is the whole world; for the individual is<br>
> the whole of humanity." (<br>
> <a href="http://wakeupdream.blogspot.com/2011/07/kosmic-alignment-principal-of-global.h" target="_blank">http://wakeupdream.blogspot.com/2011/07/kosmic-alignment-principal-of-global.h</a><br>
> tml)<br>
><br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
</div></div>Simon Biggs | <a href="mailto:simon@littlepig.org.uk">simon@littlepig.org.uk</a> | <a href="http://www.littlepig.org.uk" target="_blank">www.littlepig.org.uk</a><br>
<br>
my new work email address from August 1 2011 is <a href="mailto:s.biggs@ed.ac.uk">s.biggs@ed.ac.uk</a><br>
<br>
<a href="mailto:s.biggs@eca.ac.uk">s.biggs@eca.ac.uk</a> | Edinburgh College of Art<br>
<a href="http://www.eca.ac.uk/circle" target="_blank">www.eca.ac.uk/circle</a> | <a href="http://www.elmcip.net" target="_blank">www.elmcip.net</a> | <a href="http://www.movingtargets.co.uk" target="_blank">www.movingtargets.co.uk</a><br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
empyre forum<br>
<div class="im"><a href="mailto:empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au">empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au</a><br>
</div><a href="http://www.subtle.net/empyre" target="_blank">http://www.subtle.net/empyre</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>P2P Foundation: <a href="http://p2pfoundation.net" target="_blank">http://p2pfoundation.net</a> - <a href="http://blog.p2pfoundation.net" target="_blank">http://blog.p2pfoundation.net</a> <br>
<br>Connect: <a href="http://p2pfoundation.ning.com" target="_blank">http://p2pfoundation.ning.com</a>; Discuss: <a href="http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation" target="_blank">http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation</a><div>
<br>Updates: <a href="http://del.icio.us/mbauwens" target="_blank">http://del.icio.us/mbauwens</a>; <a href="http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens" target="_blank">http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens</a>; <a href="http://twitter.com/mbauwens" target="_blank">http://twitter.com/mbauwens</a>; <a href="http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens" target="_blank">http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens</a><br>
</div><br>