There is a danger in trying to always do the impossible
Author, Misfit Economy | musings on topics and trends where narratives have yet to crystallize: transmedia, poetry, DIY, new economy, authenticity, tech, innovation.
Last hours of #OSFest15: @qmanpvd & @alexaclay are discussing the implication of #RadicalLove http://t.co/pmtiJpmD4s
Original Tweet: https://twitter.com/ArthDeG/status/601759441982197760
4 min – on the folks who are not here.. not just the misfits.. the marginalized.. the remainders of the remainders
5 min – radical love – an intense version of love.. in the share economy: almost a banal version of love..
radical love is deeply human. it demands full presence.
king – on love as a weapon that would de-naturalize white supremacy
7 min – love should be disruptive, and grounding, unsettling.. and humanizing..
8 min – is share economy affording spaces/time where my full presence could show up. radical love is this insistence that my full presence would be there
i want to be a messy human.. i don’t want to ie: be collaborative all the time.. – alexa
9 min – humanization begins to happen where you don’t think the end of relationships is in the economy.. economy shouldn’t be where our desires are completed.. share economy almost fetishes economic/online relationships as ultimate relationships
if share economy is going to break things open.. it’s going to break open our access to people we might not have… ie: if i can only connect with you through my device.. how connected are we
10 min – what is it to actually insist
11 min – what is it to actually present my whole self to you and receive it.. in share economy.. through a form of capital.. my relationships to you are transaction.. not reciprocal..
13 min – opening spaces where people can actually be seen and experienced as they want to be as opposed to as they ought to be could be the way that love disrupts
14 min – innovation to what end… to reinforce those circles (where we are inside the circle of market.. inside the circle of tech).. what publics are the share economy serving…
17 min – everyone everyday.. being a part in making everyday world
18 min – what would share economy look like if it was more about solidarity than community… ie: more flexible… temporal..
22 min – on figuring out what kind of human you are
24 min – language about authenticity driven by an anxiety of authenticity
25 min – romantic identity- desire for transcending out of trending society.. romantics had a very robust sense of self.. (alexa – doesn’t that worry you).. here you have an abundance of imagination…. unleash yourselves even more.. not confined by profit or purpose or scalability.. the share economy could be much more self-reflective
27 min – how do we help each other insist on our integrity – as a form of love
Céline (@krustelkram) tweeted at 6:07 AM – 4 Mar 2017 :
Utopian communities have a failure rate of almost 90% the same as start ups. Both rely on “angel investors” via @mdvfunes https://t.co/7BgNSJ4pPr (http://twitter.com/krustelkram/status/838013140466024448?s=17)
Utopia Inc – exploring why so many intentional communities fail | A fine piece by
In Duhm’s eyes, communes had failed to create a viable model for a new society. In Tamera, he hoped to begin a social experiment that allowed for deep interpersonal healing.
The largest surge in communitarian ‘start-ups’ occurred during the 1840s and 1890s, coinciding with periods of economic depression. But it would be a mistake to see intentional communities merely as a knee-jerk response to hard times.
Theories of neo-tribalism suggest that instead of mass society, human nature is best suited to small, caring groups. The anthropologist Robin Dunbar at the University of Oxford claims that humans can comfortably maintain no more than 150 stable relationships, which suggests that communitarian living might not be so much of an ‘outlier’ or ‘experiment’.
From an evolutionary perspective, modern society itself might be the anomaly
science of people ness
Perhaps the irony is that many of the administrative and managerial forces that individuals are running away from within mainstream society are exactly the organisational tools that would make intentional communities more resilient……..malarial infested swamps, false prophecy, sexual politics, tyrannical founders, charismatic con-men, lack of access to safe drinking water, poor soil quality, unskilled labour, restless dreamer syndrome, land not suitable for farming: all sensationalise the rocky history of intentional communities. But the more relevant drivers that cause many communities to unravel sound more like the challenges afflicting any organisation today: *capital constraints, burn-out, conflict over private property and resource management, poor systems of conflict mediation, factionalism, founder problems, reputation management, skills shortage, and failure to attract new talent or entice subsequent generations.
hmm.. i would call *these irrelevant s.. holding us back yes.. but only because we can’t imagine them as irrelevant.. because again.. science of people [human nature]ness.. we have no idea what we’re capable of.. when we realize money/property/most-conflict/reputation… is made up..
i’d say.. places like new harmony.. didn’t fail because of the above.. but because they were partial.. ie: listed education.. that’s not free ing..time to leap… for (blank)’s sake…we need to go deep/simple/open enough..
Blinder’s days, however, were anything but experimental. ‘Nobody works that hard as an experiment,’ she writes about her time cutting and baling hay, making butter, driving a tractor, cutting firewood, baking bread, and taking care of children, animals and the wellbeing of her peers.
this is where the eagle and condor.. haven’t had means before to ie: host-life-bits via self-talk as data from 7 bn people as the day].. it’s how we hide and still be out there.. perhaps what graeber is saying about our misunderstanding of what jo freeman was saying about size.. not that it has to stay small.. just that we have to org it differently
Damanhur is a federation of communities made up of more than 600 full-time citizens, primarily organised into small ‘nucleos’, or makeshift families. The nucleos started as groups of 12 people; now they number 15-20. ‘Scale is critical,’ Tamerice cautions. ‘If you have too few people, you implode because you don’t have enough inputs. But if you have more than 25 people, then it is hard to create intimacy and keep connections close.’ The entire community is governed by a constitution that enables a so-called ‘college of justice’, which upholds the values of that constitution.
The bottom line is that many intentional communities exist because of wealthy patrons and benefactors, and courting philanthropy and start-up capital is part of the job of charismatic founders
so that’s great/fine.. we just need an intentional community that is designed to make ie: money irrelevant
The question confounding nearly all those seeking alternatives to mass society, says the dystopian novelist Margaret Atwood, is: ‘*What sort of happiness is on offer, and what is the **price we might pay to achieve it?
Sutherland told me: ‘It’s not utopia. It’s microcosm. Everything that’s in the outer world is there – marginalisation, addiction, poverty, sexual issues, power. Communities are just fractals of society.
having a visionary founder as a figurehead is almost always an essential ingredient of success – someone who carves out a coherent vision, empowers organisational ability among others, and acts as a publicist and propagandist of a company (or community) to the outside world. Over time, a founder’s role can be disassembled and distributed, but in the beginning it’s critical, *keeping a community focused on what’s important, while overcoming a lot of the pettiness that can creep into everyday life.
unless design is to a story about people grokking what matters.. from the get go.. shortening lag time between intention/curiosity and action/affinity-gathering .. everyday..