Hi Michel,<br><br>There is a distinction which perhaps needs to be made between the <i>complexity of consciousness</i>, and complexity of social design. While organisms and societies appear to increase in complexity as they evolve, consciousness (I would suggest) appears to remain one and singular -an untestable hypothesis since consciousness is invisible. What evolves is our ability to tap into it.<br>
<br>The quote from Jorge Ferrer in the article on Equipotentiality you mention is a beautiful description of how unconditional love can be embodied in social relationships. The call to do that comes from the urge to live up to our full potential as human beings. But it is a personal choice, based on a subjective experience. <br>
<br>The desire to find a method to assess in a scientifically rigorous way, ie objectively, how humans should live, is an attempt to by-pass subjectivity, which often (inevitably?) results in assumptions of superiority. The system of equipotentiality appears to be more <i>effective</i> in encouraging creativity, but that is still a personal choice. Subjectivity, which is our relationship to the invisible - consciousness, needs to be admitted back into the scheme of things.<br>
<br>Anna<br><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Michel Bauwens <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:michel@p2pfoundation.net" target="_blank">michel@p2pfoundation.net</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Interesting comments Anna.<div><br></div><div>I think this is a general difficulty with evolutionary schemes; whether they are true or not, they easily lead to interpretations of superiority,</div>
<div><br></div><div>at the same time, I do think there is such a thing as the evolution of the complexity of consciousness, which has been noted by many researchers (even if the need for such complexification may be a result of disfunctions of the society in which they occur)</div>
<div><br></div><div>my way out of this conundrum is the concept of Equipotentality, <a href="http://p2pfoundation.net/Equipotentiality" target="_blank">http://p2pfoundation.net/Equipotentiality</a>, i.e. the social design of contributory projects where everyone brings something to the table which is exactly right for the particular project, and hence can and has to be honoured,</div>
<div><br></div><div>Michel<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <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><a href="http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation" target="_blank"></a>Updates: <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>
<br>#82 on the (En)Rich list: <a href="http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/" target="_blank">http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/</a> <br>
</font></span></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
P2P Foundation - Mailing list<br>
<a href="http://www.p2pfoundation.net" target="_blank">http://www.p2pfoundation.net</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation" target="_blank">https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br>