Category: Power

Access to Contexts

Access to Contexts – Hoarding Vs Intentional Commons , in social networks

“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.

Paid Jobs = (Demand – (Stockpiled_Supply – War)) / (Automation * Good_Design)

interesting perspective of potential further developments in current, “infinite demand”, artificial scarcity “mainstream economics” …

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

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

excerpt :

<>

Video: Codex Alimentarius

See Meinhard’s comment below : ” somehow i have the feeling that the speaker in the video (Dr. Rima Laibow, no wikipedia page – hm) is a bit of a hoax.”


Your Food or Your Life: Divest FDA of Food Regulation

Codex Commission Meeting Report

Valley of the Moon Demonstration Eco Community

Forced Aerial Spraying Videos:

Video: Health Freedom News Reports Preview

Video: Nutricide – Criminalizing Natural Health, Vitamins, and Herbs

Video: Compulsory Psychiatric Medication in the US

Video: The Codex Two Step: Codex Options for Pro Health Nations (wmv format)

Please visit www.NaturalSolutionsMedia.tv for our archive of videos on Codex, spraying, vaccination, our community in Panama, and instructional videos on how to organize.

meaning through shared realities

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Dante-Gabryell Monson
Date: Thu, May 15, 2008 at 1:43 PM
Subject: meaning through shared realities

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.

Institution Vs Commons ?

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Dante-Gabryell Monson
Date: Fri, Dec 7, 2007 at 3:07 PM
Institution as part of Commons , and not Commons as part of Institution

in relation to our conversation of

” Institution ” versus ” Social Network ”
( or more exactly , I mean ” Commons of the Social Network ” )

me arguing that the ” Institution ” can potentially be part of a Social Network Commons , and feed it when there are shared ” Intentions ” ( and not ” Expectations ” )

The problem is that very often “Social Network Commons” and “Institutions” are being confused , and the Institution ( consciously or not ) often tries to reap the benefits of a Social Network in its own advantage , vampirizing the social network commons into the realm of its control ,

and imposing its own conditions and expectations to the social network commons.

Hence , the understanding of where ” The Institution ” lies is important , as to avoid the Intentions shared by the Intentional Commons Social Network to be taken over by an Institution.

Understanding of where the ” Institution ” lies , and where the ” Commons of the Intentional Movement of Social Networks ” lie , is not always easy.

But you can understand it from the moment you notice where there lies a specific expectation , and not an intention , and from the moment that you realize there is a consciousness of specific need for control …

A Social Network is more flexible , and rests on the intentions shared by individuals , and not on the expectations of Institutions.

Yet , Institutions may support a commons by opening up resources for it.

But again , lets stay aware of the consciousness.

By the way , also see this short text recently edited on the p2p foundation wiki :

” Iron Law of Institutions ”

http://p2pfoundation.net/Iron_Law_of_Institutions

“The Iron Law of Institutions is: the people who control institutions care first and foremost about their power within the institution rather than the power of the institution itself. Thus, they would rather the institution “fail” while they remain in power within the institution than for the institution to “succeed” if that requires them to lose power within the institution.” (http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/001705.html)