“Authoritarian Individualism” ( ? )
- or the cultural results of “Competitive Individualistic Culture” ( ? )

Is the ( provocative ? ) term I used today,
in an exchange with a friend living in Brussels,

for expressing the “hoarding of opportunities”
related to our shared context.

More specifically, a perceived “need of control” on surrounding contexts,
which can have as consequence
the hoarding of access to “space” and a potential “flow” of interdependencies.

Instead of a potential for inclusiveness,
enabling personal choice of ones own attention
without a specific sense of need for hoarding of one’s context.

A mode of “contextual property”,
which in my definition,
can enable a right of access to contexts we facilitated to converge or create,
as long as the other does not hoard, but contributes to such context.

Some kind of “copyleft/access” license which does not enable the other to hoard what we share in the first place.

—

In other words, the issue I underline may come from
a difference in “borders” set in our realities:

Example:

I may choose to constantly keep my reality “open”, day and night,
including all my resources, knowledge, social networks, and access to living spaces,

while my friend’s “borders”, and that of other people I met in a city such as Brussels,
currently seem to be limited to the direct perceived personal interests, defined in time and space by my friend,
and more often related to direct consumption of leisure opportunities,
which, according to my interpretation, complement while sustaining a lifestyle
of “psychological and emancipatory deficiencies”
of an apparently extrinsically motivated conditional working lifestyle,
compensated by access to an opportunity inter-dependency space conditioned by monetary transactions.

In yet other words,
my friend’s experience of an individualist lifestyle
seems to be different from my individualist lifestyle.

In my own case, All my resources are set available to a network of people “I choose” to connect with.
Usually people I share common intentions, values, objectives with.
In other words, I can set myself as an operational access node within a “intentional commons”.

The big question is “how to enable synergies” between such two modes,
while not enabling the control of “intentional commons” forms of autonomous / free association individualistic lifestyles,
by “conditions for participation” of a “hoarding type of individualism” ?

Conditions often related to personal consumption and gratification on the moment,
and not necessarily staying at the service of opportunity making towards shared intentions.

Such “individualist authoritarianism”, according to my own experiences,
often limits the sets of “choices” within the “conditions” and norms of such forms of “individualistic” memes.

http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing/

note : thankfully alternatives are emerging… ( such as open source peer production … http://p2pfoundation.net )

excerpt :

<< if "Demand" is ultimately limited once most people meet their basic
needs for food, water, shelter, information, and some consumer items ("the
best things in life are free or cheap"), or at least "Demand" is rising less
quickly than improvements in productivity "(Automation * Good_Design)", then
the number of paying "Jobs" will go towards zero. And as there are less
"Jobs", and so more competition for them, the remaining "Jobs" will get paid
less and have worse working conditions.

The absence of good "Jobs" creates a crisis in a society that only allows
people with jobs to direct the market and take goods from it (thus, the
unemployed will starve, or riot, or be on unrelated small and depressing
welfare payments, see Marshall Brain's Manna or described in the Triple
Revolution memorandum).
"War" can increase jobs by destroying any stockpiled goods or existing
infrastructure, requiring more goods and infrastructure, or vast stockpiles
of military might intended to never be used, but "War" has become too
terrible to contemplate even as stockpiles of war materials begged to be used,
and in any case, building a *need* for "War" into an economic system seems
inelegant and unethical, especially when "War" can so easily mean Armageddon
these days. >>

I have grown up in a individualist society , and I feel that my heart and mind is not satisfied with competitive and consumerist individualism. In eastern europe I discovered a certain sensibility that resonated with my heart , yet at the same time I realize that I am part of a Paradigm that is not one of ( some mainstream socio culture in ) eastern europe , or not of western europe , but one that is in creation.

I realize that there are some precious people I meet on my road , and with whom I would like to build with.

I also realize that what has meaning is to share , and to co-create , yet that it is not easy in the current situation to find a way to share space in peoples realities , as often it is already packed with their obligations , or also because a lot of people are scared of the chaos of the unknown , which I might reflect to them through my attempts of creating new solutions , beyond the current structures ,

even when many of them do appreciate that I am trying to develop new solutions.

I meet a lot of people , but at the same time it feels isolated , as it is most of the time only for the time of a cup of tea , and not in a shared reality , towards a common intention.

Sometimes people are curious about my different approaches , but when i stay for longer then a cup of tea it seems to often make them feel threatened by my different approach , perhaps as it becomes a mirror to their reality , and to a potential of doing things differently , which re-questions their own structures , and re-questions the validity of what they considered being obligations.

Yet I am progressively developing the intentional networks with which I hope to co-create , and develop the bases that will facilitate alternative lifestyles , approaches , solutions – preserving and expanding our space to be different , while opening up the opportunities to empower each other through and with our differences – in a collaborative individualist approach :

Many people , including politicians and economics , are not satisfied with the current financial system , and the ways whereby we count economics and value creation , as we realize that it does not necessarily lead to ” development ” , but to destruction in the interest of a few.

To be able to cope with the complexity of the world of today , we need to empower each other while using the available tools , and learning and living approaches are very central.

Trust information systems and decision making are also very central ,

and today , compared with the past , we do not need to fight for control over land and people to have control on communication channels that enable such society building ,

we do not need to go through civil wars ( as the one that hapenned in Finland in the beginning of the 20th century ) ,

we can develop alternative systems that can provide solutions directly to the people , and , as more and more people see their interest in using it , it will grow by itself without having to take over control on any other system – in effect , ending up with multiple parallel societies and realities , and as individuals we could choose the multiple solutions and societies we are active in – complementing each other.

Anyway , hope this does not all sound too complicated. I hope soon we can develop some documentary that can illustrate and make such perspectives easily accessible.

1. Equatorial Guinea Economy 2008, CIA World Factbook

   Government officials and their family members own most businesses. Equatorial Guinea now has the fourth highest per capita income in the world, after Luxembourg, Bermuda, and Jersey.

   to Africa Corruption Economy development politics … just posted

2. Equatorial Guinea – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

   A huge proportion of the £370 million revenue is confiscated by the president while most of the 500,000 subjects subsist on less than a dollar a day, sewage runs through the streets of the capital Malabo, and there is no public transport and little drink

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hc_ecology/message/441

—

about video :

http://theshiftmovie.com/about.html

A massive worldwide phenomenon is in progress, offering seeds of great hope for the future.

Millions of individuals, organizations and corporations around the world are waking up and embracing a new outlook with an emphasis on their responsibility to contribute positively to our collective future.

We are in the middle of the biggest social transformation in human history, The SHIFT.

At this critical point, it is imperative we make the masses aware of this global movement quickly. This evolutionary phenomenon is broader and deeper than the most visible SHIFT, the environmental movement. It involves our very understanding of who we are as human beings, and our responsibility to the world and to life itself.

THE SHIFT movie raises awareness to the story of our roles in an evolutionary shift in our collective consciousness.

As it chronicles the faces, the stories and leaders assisting in this social transformation, the film reveals its emergence & meaning.