Rhizome : Product Information and Logistics

I tend to accumulate some sets of ideas.

They have in common to follow a same rhizomic pattern of inclusiveness and participation , transparency / holopticism , collaborative creation , unconditionality , absence of coercion , …

Some of these tools could be developed through internet solutions.

One of such ideas:

Some kind of wiki related to a google maps locator ,

allowing the opportunity for anyone to update prices of products in different shops

and visualize the difference in prices across different shops in a city , a country , and between countries.

This can also include further information about the price of logistics , the amount of money being spent for the raw materials , the amount spent on advertisement for every product , …

… Eventually leading to the empowerment of consumers that can better choose ,

or even get together to create consumer cooperatives , buying products they believe suit their own choices and ethics better , or even setting orders with specific craterias which can then be met by producers on the market.

It can also extend to producer cooperatives , and open up paths for new forms of social networks and economics ,
which can also include alternative forms of complementary currencies for the exchanges , …

Rhizome : Sustainable Hospitality

According to Dante ,

The Key to Sustainable Hospitality Exchange is Shared Intention.

As long as there is Shared Intention , and not Expectation ,
Hospitality Exchange can be Sustainable both for hosts and guests.


When Intention Shifts in a way that becomes more difficult to share ,
or when specific expectations arise ,
it puts an end to the synergy ,
and becomes unsustainable.

Rhizome : Logistics of Options

Subject: Logistics of Options ? – optimize collaboration and productivity as a boundary spanner

From: Dante-Gabryell Monson
Date: Thu, Nov 8, 2007 at 1:23 AM

Do you know any works that might be related to the idea of the ” logistics of options ” ?

When googling , I find 5 answers , and none really relevant.

On the other hand , ” Game Theory ” gets 1,8 million answers on google.



although Logistics of options I feel could be somewhat different. There is no winner or loser , its simply optimizing solutions according to options and last minute data synchronization.

Perhaps it relates more to

” Particle Swarm Optimization ”


although not exactly.

Actually one of the simple applications I know and that already exists , that could relate to some very basic form of ” Logistics of options ” is a GPS route planner , that picks up last minute data about the situation of the traffic , and recalculates routes constantly according to traffic , to find out the fastest route.

But in this case , it already knows its destination.

In the case of the ” logistics of options ” , there might not necessarily be a specific defined end objective , but a whole set of combinations with all kinds of potential criteria.

If it is , for example , a ” logistics of options ” related to the lifestyle of a neo-nomad ( whether it is a pennyless neo nomad like me , or a entrepreneur having hes own private jet ) ,

there might be different criterias that can be asked to take into account by a computer , and different channels of latest data , including the movements of other individuals or of changes in situations that relate to our network of possibilities , potential synergies , etc

In my case , it can include availability of hosts , capacity to share ideas and projects with hosts , capacty to meet other friends that travel and with whom i have a interest in meeting to share ideas and projects / or travel together if we go in the same direction , etc

I imagine that highly sophisticated probabilities might already take into account logistics of options ?

In my case , I move based on options that have been given to me – and my plans can change any time , according to the last minute information coming in , in people I meet on the way , etc

but options are still essential to permanently re-calculate ( in my head ) what seems to be more beneficial.

But if I could include a greater amount of options ( meetings , etc ) , include and calculate levels of hierarchy accoridng to a mixture between invested time , access to resources , etc

I could optimize my collaboration and productivity as a boundary spanner

rhizome : socialized child rearing

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Dante-Gabryell Monson
Date: Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 2:34 PM
Subject: ” socialized child rearing ” – in hospitality network style ? / networked intentional collaborative individualism

Thanks Marilyn and Michel. ( cc: hc ecology )

What if ” socialized child rearing ” would be extented , not simply to the family , but to intentional networks / new forms of intention based peer tribes.

Not going back to collectivist care , but moving on towards collaborative individualist care.

In western europe , at the current moment and in the last years , it seems that most of the socialization people are having is within their ” work / office space ” , or with their family , if they still have any ties with their family.

What if the complete socialization aspects of most of the population would change , as it already seems to be , through the greater ease with which we might be able to travel and eventually connect with our ” intentional tribes “.

For example , Michel , imagine that you would come back to Belgium , for one or two months , with your family , where perhaps you would not have the same extended family as in Thailand , yet would be able to count on a whole network of peers that are part of intentional networks in which you are active in and contribute to.

We would ” pool ” child care into specific intentional community ” logistics ” , to people we believe we can trust , and each of us could take care according to opportunities we find.

For example , I am now in Tartu , Estonia.   I could take care of children of a certain age ,
and probably I would be even more interested to care care of children of friends , or potential friends.

It could even be a opening for me in the community with whom I would feel I share the most intentions with , and would open up not only opportunities and wealth creation through shared care for the community here , but also for me , as I would have access to new friendships and new information about the situation and issues I could collaborate on.

And when I would move on to Helsinki , I would already be able to dispose of a certain credibility m that would eventually open up opportunities with other intentional networks.

There would probably be a difference in the way one would imagine ” community ” in a collaborative individualist realm , compared to a collectivist realm – I think for example as hospitality networks being a community I connect to , yet I do not have to conform to changing decisions in my life because of some strong influence of the community on the way I rule my life – so it is not , as I perceive it , collectivist.

And the same with connecting with intentional network communities when I would travel , and eventually take care of their children , or gardens , or computers , or … whatever … my trust could increase ( or decline ) as on hospitality networks ( and my hospitality profiles ) ,

yet I do not specifically need to conform totally , as I am not specifically dependent on them – I can move on if none of us agrees.

When we can start creating such kind of logistics , as hospitality networks already do with hosting , we can create new opportunities for wealth creation.

And it does not even need to be dependent on money – even though we could imagine creating our own currencies used accross intentional networks.

So there is no specific dependence on the mainstrean financial system.

But these tools do not seem to be existing yet , although two years ago I was talking at the couchsurfing collective in austria about ideas that where going in this direction. Unfortunatly because of internal cs politics all the ideas have not been open for implementation , but perhaps it can be done through other social network tools that are slowely emerging. ( open social , etc )

Rhizome : Cosmology

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Dante-Gabryell Monson
Date: Jun 9, 2007 5:18 PM
Subject: we forget to see what is in front of us , at a higher level of abstraction ?

I would be glad , if this can inspire you , if you could give me some feed back on this – and if this can connect to some of your work / if some collaboration could be foreseen

– I prefer presenting it informally :

In the last week , as I did some more internet browsing on topics such as Quantum physics , I have the feeling that Physicists forget to see what is just in front of us , and what we are using all the time ,

and is simple to see even though it might be at a higher degree of abstraction :

the processes and other abstract objects such as concepts that are all around us.

My current hypothesis that I already exposed to some of you ( I ll re-paste some conversations below )
is that abstract objects , including objectified processes , are also dimensions , and that they function and are all part of the same universal system.

In other words , a process dimension is a ” Brane ” of a certain order ,



and as explained in my process dimensions axiom ,

http://oikoumene.coforum.net/processdimensions ( or see the yahoo groups links on that page )

there are process dimensions in process dimensions – there is a infinity of dimensions , and there are also flows , relations , etc –
Even dreams are part of it , at a higher level of abstraction.

So the structures we are , and the ones we develop , and the emergent negentropic process is actually a process of emergence related to all the other objects in the universe –

We could model this , and use this understanding to develop emergence / or ” visualize emergence ”

I also feel that asking ” why there is something ” is not as much the question as ” why this experience and not another ”

I feel that there is everything at all times , but that somehow we seem to limit ourself to a certain experience , possibly at first ( when understanding process dimensions ) through limitation by addiction , and then , possibly also to limitation by addiction to the string ( or ” brane ” of “n” value )  we might be experiencing : the direction of the flow of our CONSCIOUSNESS


I want to further experiment with these models – as there is great potential – and I have the intention to create synergies with other interested individuals , such as you ?

This model has the potential of being a universal science as all knowledge and all relations can be included.

More and more questions could pop up – one that I have at the moment is how do they see each other ?

How do all objects , of all different abstraction levels , see each other ?  ( and how can we then create a meta cortex , etc etc – details in past pasted conversations below )
s concept some kind of EMERGENT GRAVITY applicable to all objects of all levels of abstraction ?

possibly quantum gravity and emergent gravity could give some answers ?


I have the feeling that all is aware of all at the same time – so they ( objects and objectified processes ) all see each other , and this can also be understood through process dimensions

But i still need to experiment with the axiom of process dimensions –

and would also like to experiment with a meta-cortex

and possibly you can help in developing such project ?

Ok , thats it for now

more below

greetings from Vilnius – or what seems to be vilnius at a certain level of abstraction , a certain ” brane ” we call ” real world ”



Rhizome : Post-Symbolic Meaning Dimensions

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Dante-Gabryell Monson

Date: Jun 5, 2007 3:43 PM
Subject: Using Quantum Gravity for Dynamic Relational System / Dynamic Relational Positioning of Objects ?

I am Dante , originally from Brussels.

My research has brought me to you , as I am currently trying to find solutions for a way to build a dynamic relational reference system , in a system of infinite dimensions and levels of abstraction.
Navigation in such a system would be relative to the reference chosen in the eventual navigation , yet the challenge is to understand how a specific kind of ” gravity ” could be used in the way that all objects relate and see each other – through each other ? –

I have the feeling some of your research related to quantum gravity could be used.

Such a dynamic relational reference system would be useful for many different applications , including the understanding of meaning through the dynamic relational positioning of objects ( in infinite levels of abstraction )

Some of these axioms and the tools to visualize and build with it raises interdisciplinary questions.

I have the feeling some of your research and understanding can lead to such solutions , and I also have the feeling some of my axioms could also be of interest to you – see links further below –

and I would like to have your views on how our visions on universal systems could converge , and complement each other.

To present some of my axioms briefly : everything is relations , relations with a certain conciousness become processes.

Processes and concepts , as much as what seems ” material ” , are ” Objects ” ( or are ” objectifiable ” ) with more or less abstraction.

A “relation” between two objects is an object itself , at abstraction level +1

all conciousness we have of ” physical ” objects , all knowledge ( objects with higher level of abstraction as physical objects ? ) , any relation , is connected and can be used to visualize other objects  on different levels of abstraction of which we do not have conciousness of yet.

I would like to experiment by developing a tool that could also be used as some kind of ” meta cortex ” ,
and that would not only make it possible to build and visualize databases of relations , but also to visualize the emergent levels of abstraction , as such a data base would have emergent properties and become a window for opening up our conciousness to infinite levels of abstraction.

I also feel that understanding ” conciousness” is also useful in finding solutions , and possibly my following axiom on ( objectifiable ) process dimensions can help in that matter :


I also feel it might connect to some of your research. In this axiom , ” time ” is also being questioned , and our experienced ” reality ” would be nothing more then an ” addiction to a string ” of process dimensions.

Individual process dimensions are experienced in one of the two following flows :

a negative flow being one that is narrowing down towards addiction to a specific channel / trust – i call this a ego experienced flow –

and a positive flow being one that is multiplying its strings of experienced objects , reducing ” specific ” dependency and addiction – i call this a metatized experienced flow –

as you can see on the process dimensions notes page , it starts with 0 , 1 , 2 , 3 –

” 0 ” as the relation that i call ” inspiration ” , and that can be negative of positive ( this is relative to the object / objectified process )

Negatively and positively experienced process dimensions can be connected between each other , and as energy flows along the string from greater process dimensions it can influence the sustainability of the experienced reality.

( a negatively experienced process dimension , when too disconnected from metatized processes , has a high risk of dying )

what concerns 1 , 2 and 3 , I prefer letting you read my notes and the examples further on that page.


This would only be the beginning – many more elements can be found on the basis of 0 , 1 , 2 , 3

for example , strings , that are the continuity of experienced process dimensions , would be the next step that can be further understood and developed.

It would be interesting to understand what happens when there is no more addiction to the string –

It seems there is the potential for a infinity of process dimensions at all times , but they are not all experienced , and not all on the same string /  would it be possible to relate strings , etc ?

Anyway , these are questions for later – questions that could become easier to solve when I / we can find some answers for a


also see some older notes on :



To be able to build such a meta-cortex tool – a tool that opens up dimensions to input , relate , build ,  and allow emergence of ( abstract ) objects and relations –

The question I have at this point of time and need to solve is : how to facilitate the visualization of the meaning of different abstract objects , according to its relation to all other objects – its relative position.

I have the feeling that according to its position , a position determined to all the relations the object has with other objects , the object will find itself closer or further to other objects , and therefore one will start visualizing different ( multi ) dimensions of meaning.

This implies that , with the use of such a meta-cortex space , we will also be able to use a new language , where all concepts can be built upon and can be communicated according to their relations , and their position according to their relations  ( all concepts expressed in verbal language , but also all other concepts that are not yet expressed verbally , or that can be found through emergence of the system of inter-related objects )

That would mean that the more objects ( for example , abstract objects like concepts ) are added to the data base ( or the more data bases of relations are connected ) the more the system fine tunes itself , and the higher the precision of its positioning.

Therefore , it would be interesting to have a dynamic system of positioning of abstract objects and relations – that would be based on all the other relations.

Possibly , there could be a navigator ( I call it a ” rhizomic visualization browser ” ) ,

and one would be able to navigate based on the points of reference one would want to choose.

I would like to experiment with this.

I have the feeling that a conventional program , where we define too many rules in advance as to get a specific result , is not exactly what i m looking forward to , as I would like to see how the system itself is capable of defining itself.

So based on the dimensions in which the relations end up , they would acquire specific meaning – and it would not be necessary , for example , for semanticists , to pre-define meaning of certain relations.

I also want to see how it creates new dimensions , and how it creates emergence on relations.

In other words , such a system would not only have the emergent property of creating new relations and objects in infinite levels of abstraction , but also of constructing relations that would be able to visualized as types of relation , or relations in certain dimensions , and could be attributed a certain meaning.

I have the feeling that ultimately the processing power of a conventional bits processing engine would not be appropriate to facilitate emergence in such a system , especially if it grows to a large number of relations.

On the longer run , it will be interesting to understand how would be possible to instantaneously have the results of a new relation integrated into such a ( networked data base ) system.

Like when one string pulls all other strings it is attached to , and that the dynamic position of such evolving and emergent system fine tunes itself ?

Ok , possibly questions for later.

For now ,

I hope some of the ideas I presented are clear enough – and that they could be complementary with some other ideas you know of or develop.

If the ideas expressed are not clear enough , feel free to let me know – I could also meet up with you somewhere in europe to explain it face to face.

by the way, although I am from Brussels originally , I live a post-nomadic lifestyle and am sending this message from Vilnius , Lithuania.

my profile on the internet : http://oikoumene.coforum.net/DanteGabryell

I would be interested to see what these ideas could inspire to you or people you know.

I am organizing a one month collective in Germany , gathering thinkers , programmers , activists , artists , …
to which you or other persons you would suggest are invited if you want :


I am also pasting below some conversation I shared in the last month with Michel Bauwens and Francois Rey , in relation to the ideas expressed in this letter.

– for future communication , we can communicate both in english and in french. –