“Life, Meaning and Spirituality in the Commons: Towards a Cultural Paradigm Shift”

again – science of people ness

p 12

the experience of being alive is a basic human requirement that connects us to all living organisms to nature.. (often misunderstood as something apart from us)…. our inability to honour being alive as a rich, robust category of thought in economics, public policy and law means that we do not really understand how to build and maintain a sustainable life fostering or enlivened society

i’d even say..  doesn’t need to be a category of econ, policy, law… as once we are back to living… those become irrelevant..

if we can grasp enlivenment as a vision, we can begin to train ourselves to see differently and approach political struggles and policy with a new perspective….. at same time this perspective allows for a deeper acknowledgment of the unavoidable messiness of life…. for which rules of negotiation and accommodation have to be cultivated.

or not.. ie: decision making ness… perhaps we trust the one ness of us.. in order to let the dance dance.

the freedom that the enlightenment has sought to advance is the individual’s personal autonomy to e one’s own master the freedom that the enlivenment seeks to advance is our freedom as individuals and groups to be alive in connectedness – the freedom that comes only through aligning individual needs and interests with those of the larger community. only this integrated freedom can provide the power to reconcile humanity with the natural world.

and with ourselves.. ni ness… none of us if one of us ness… how do i have to be in order for you to be free

ch 1 – enlivening the crisis: looking beyond the current ideology of death

p 13

to stress the importance of this focus (hidden.. crisis of sense making), let me only note that unipolar depression was ranked as the third leading cause of the global burden of disease in 2004 and is predicted to move into the first place by 2030 surpassing infectious and heart diseases, and cancer.

… natural life and human support systems…. they are aspects of the same problem…. an analytical approach that separates and externalities problems to make them technically manageable is precisely why these trouble shave arisen in the first place.

it we hope to make any serious progress, we should first ask what is blocking us..

gupta roadblock law

is there a universal source from which most contemporary dilemmas arise..

indeed – two needs ness – deep enough

p 14

the scientific rules that are still as valid today as when they were established in the 17th century, require us to treat everything as dead matter.

the automatic application of ockham’s razor has become a lethal weapon transforming every object of interest in to an assemblage of non animated building blocks….

all things that our civilisation touches with the x ray vision of the scientific method in effect loses their aliveness.

science has erected a metaphysics of the nonliving to analyse the most remarkable aspect of our being in the world, namely our being alive.

huge.

p 15

it is quite possible that the grand political goals the enlightenment inaugurated 250 years ago, which in many areas of the world are still far from being realise, can only e achieved through a shift to the idea of enlivenment.

p 16

if we are to recover… first look for a fresh account of the principles of existence of living beings… are there basic rules how organisms realise their existence… what makes the individual experience of a full life possible.

2 needs ness…

p 17

the diff view of sustainability i will develop… does not emphasise technical improvement or sound treatment of scarce resources as a priority, rather, it sees in the goal of leading a fuller life the more important stepping stone toward changing… it is crucial to rediscover the linage between our inner experience and the external natural order…

p 18

all proposed efficiency revolutions invariably point to nature itself as the supreme model of efficiency. but this model is wrong. nature is not efficient, …. it is only to a huge extent edible or usable. living being are one interrelated, embodied whole, of which humans comprise only a fractional portion. the real flaw of the efficiency approach to sustainability is that nature is still seen as something outside that can be used for human means. but nature is not outside of us. it is inside of us – ad we are inside of it.

there is a threshold limit for any increase in efficiency, and that limit is the natural imperfection of embodied being….humans as natural beings will always suffer from deficiencies: they are mortal and full of contradictions – as every organism is. higher efficiency is not capable of improving upon that.

efficiency as a solution therefore amounts to a category error in thinking.

efficiency et al

another differ – in the idea of material growth as best way to improve conditions of life… nature does not grow in absolute terms.. only way nature grows – in diversity of natural forms and variety of ways to experience aliveness..

p 19

such eminent biological and systems thinkers as ……. and gregory bateson have opened up a picture in which organisms are no longer seen as machines competing with other machines but rather as a natural phenomenon that creates and develops itself in a material way while continuously making and expressing experiences..

sounds like output as the day via self-talk as data

being alive.. not a case of cause and effect alone.. but a complicated interplay of embodied interest and hence feelings..

p 20

physical sciences have for a long time been able to show that the separation of an observer (subject) and an observed phenom (object) is and artifact of causal-mechanism, linear thought. for quantum physics, there is no locality or temporal chronology. rater, an y event can be connected to any other. the physicist david bohm has called this the implicate order of the cosmos. this view not only calls into question locality and chronology, it blurs the separation of physical and psychological reality. we exist in a a space time that is a continuum of insides (meanings _ and outsides (bodies).

p 21

sustainability can be successful only if it enhances the aliveness of human agents, and of nature and society..

let’s do this first: free art-ists.

energy\ness

for (blank)’s sake…

p 21

the narrative of the living that i wish to unfold here will thus strive for poetic objectivity or poetic precision. this is the most appropriate way to describe the living world with its endless unfolding of existential relationships and meanings.

ch 2 – bioeconomics: the hidden megascience

p 25

political change must stat with our imagining of a different reality. only by imagining a different world have people ever been able to change the current one.

p 27

the natural world as it actually works refutes many axioms of the bioeconomic worldview: efficiency (biosphere is not efficient, photosynthesis 7% et al); growth (biosphere does not grow, quantity of biomass does not increase – only dimension that really grows – diversity of experiences… therefore nature does not gain mass or weight, but rather depth); competition (never been proven that new species arose form competition, species rather are born by chance, through unexpected mutations, competition rather causes monotony); scarcity (resources no scarce.. where they become so.. because of lack of diversity, basic energetic resource – sunlight – exists in abundance, a second crucial resource – the number of ecological relationships and new niches – has no upper limit…. leading to richer permutations… thus to an increase in freedom… the more that is wasted and thus consumed by other species – the bigger the common wealth becomes. .. result is an increase of symbioses and reduced competition); property (no notion of property in the biosphere.. an individual does not even possess  his own body.. it’s substance changes permanently and continuously as it is replaced by oxygen, co2 and other inputs of energy and matter. not only physical dimension made possible by communion… but symbolic, ie: language.. habits in a species are acquired by sharing them. in any of these dimensions the wildness of the natural world is necessary for the individual to develop its innermost identity. this world has become, and not been made by any particular individual, nor can it be exclusively possessed. individuality ….. can only emerge through a biologically shared and culturally communicated commons.)

whoa.

nice.

ch 3 – life as meaning: biopoetics as paradigm for living relationships

p 30

subjectivity is not an illusion that may help an organism maximise its evolutionary success, but rather the very force that makes biological existence possible in the first place.

google defin: Subjectivity refers to how someone’s judgment is shaped by personal opinions and feelings instead of outside influences. Subjectivity is partially responsible for why one person loves an abstract painting while another person hates it.

p 31

living being: produces itself; manifests its intentions to maintain itself and grow it shows behaviour that is constantly evaluating influences…

an organism acts out of concern/experience of meaning; an agent or subject w/an intentional pov/feeling; autonomous…. history of nature is also evolution of history of embodied freedom

p 32

lists potential principals – (as opposed to outcomes in neodarwinistic/neoliberal vision)

the biosphere critically depends on coop and interbeing… self is only self through other…

the individual can only exist if the whole exists and the whole can only exist if the individuals are allowed to exist..

re wire for ni ness

p 33

the living process is open

new structure and levels of enlivenment can be made possible through imagination

imagination as our freedom ..

to the scientific third person perspective of objective reality that now prevails we can add a first person ecology. conversely, the empirical objectivity that is so familiar to contemporary science must be enlarged by an empirical subjectivity – a shared condition of feeling and experience among all living beings.

the poetical dimension is the world of our feelings, of our social bonds and of everything else that we experience as significant and meaningful. the poetic is therefore part and parcel of our everyday world of social communication, exchanges, and interactions. it is the world of first person perspective, which is always there, and always felt and experienced. it is the world that we live in most intimately, and it is ultimately the world for which we conceive and make various *policies. the world of economic exchange, which is a social **exchange between living beings, takes place in this world as well.

loved it till last two sentences… i don’t think ie: *policy and **exchange.. are fitting to enlivenment… they seem to stand for proof, judgement, measurement.. so ie: not trust.. and not us.. as one..

p 34

we need other organisms because they are in a very real sense what we ourselves are… but they give us access to those hidden parts of ourselves that we cannot see – precisely we cannot observe ourselves while observing. there is always a blind spot central to the establishment of our own identity.

ch 4 – natural anti capitalism: biospheric householding as the foundation of an enlivened economy

p 37

an economy that does not exclude nonhuman beings and land also does not distinguish between material exchange processes and meaningful human relationships

so neither should be measured then… no?

p  40

freedom therefore, in a certain sense, always presupposes a negotiation with necessity. one might even call this commoning.

biological freedom in this sense is always freedom in an through relation. therefore, it does not have much to do with the daea of unfettered individual freedom that free market advocates champion. the equivalent of the market – the oikos of nature – is the natural system whose own needs limit the individual’s freedom, but on the other hand is the source through which such freedom can only come into being in the first place.

oikos ness – one ness – what will you do with your freedom ness…

to increase individual freedom by enlarging the community’s freedom

thinking rev of everyday life ..

ch 5 – from enlivenment to shared livelihoods: the emergence of a commons based economy

p 51

commoning exchanges are not meant to be fully theorisable because much of their functioning comes from the contagious energy and feeling of one’s own aliveness as it is being experienced and practised.

p 52

friedrich schiller – paradox of equally fulfilling our need to belong and our need to be autonomous is the culmination point of culture…

to find reconciliation to this paradox, schiller did not choose the solution that hegel (an in his wake, marx and engels) opted for a little later in history – to dissolve the contradictions in a higher synthesis. hegel and his followers aspired to actualise a supposed world spirit and by this achieve a classless society, whereby any failures to do so or any human suffering could always be blamed on failing to get the dialectics right. schiller, however, decided to stick close to the practice of the living, and in particular to the profound lessons learned in early childhood.

for schiller, the entanglement of individual autonomy and larger necessity could only – momentarily – be fulfilled through play. play unfolds from a person’ free choice about how to do what is necessary, and this opens up new possibilities in the process.  we are fully human only in play, schiller believed. we are natural only in play…

p 53

that vision, the deep attraction and satisfaction of serious play, may be the most potent, imaginative force for helping us deal with the realities of our time. 

ch 6 – first person science: towards a culture of poetic objectivity

p 54

last 400 yrs or so science has relied on an objectivity provided by rational thinking and measurements. the empirical method intro’d by .. william bacon had done away w/scholastic speculation even tough empiricism retained a discursive way of communicating arguments…. objective science is incomplete because it fails to take into account the living human observer. if to be more… reliable/insightful, science needs to go step further and include shared embodied experience in its methodology… continue third person… but also intro irreducible subjective…

unhindered by conventions, fear, and jargon we can train our empiricism and communication to access those parts of ourselves and others to study and report on the living self. poetic language allows us to systematically express our relationship with the world and with one another.

again – sounds like output as the day via self-talk as data….

where idiosyncratic jargon via anechoic chamber. ness matters..

but is this truly possible? is there a way to share felt experiences that are based on our common nature as bodies in a more than human world. ….. the ground of being arguably becomes the prereq for communication. in principle there is no methodology problem. the major obstacle here is the fact that humans have too little access to their embodied needs.

2 needs: a and a

p 55

enlivenment… begins with the foundational premise that we are embodied selves and therefore we know what it means to e animated parts of a living world. we know how it feels to be in the world and to be an individual. this is the deepest knowledge that we can access. why should such inquiries be off0limits to science and banished from economics and public policy.

and/or… why should we start with science.. econ.. public policy .. ie: r evolution in reverse.

the real challenge to such a vision of science, howeer, is to learn how we might systematically approach this kind of felt experience and generalise it inot knowledge and practice. such an approach will require not only theoretical shifts but also practical changes.

exactly. how to live a nother way. as the day. let’s try that.

the idea of enlivenment means that we can – and that we even have to  – find a complement of lived practice for any theory – in biology, ecology, economy, sociology, psychology, physics and also the arts. this lived practice might be able to provide a basis for generalisable principles and transdisciplinary inquiry.

indeed – we can’t not.

we need to take care not see this as complement.. but rather as essence… no? ie: principles and transdisciplinary inquiry… ness.. flow out of the grounding of a life lived alive. it’s where it begins.. when we begin being. huge.. that it’s already in us.

what guidelines… does model already exist… how to justify universal validity..

by being quiet enough to hear what’s already there.. in each heart..ie: short

then this… short bp… to model a means for 7 billion to leap frog to it..

in history of ideas… proposals like min have until now been viewed as impossible…. seen as too situational, contingent and particular.

exactly. prior to now.

p 56

i hasten to add that this is not the objectivity (poetic objectivity) of a scientist’s proof. poetic objectivity is weak. we cannot prove it with quantification or controlled, reproducible experiments.

can we w/scientific ness..? i don’t know.. i don’t think so. what is provable.. esp if what we’re iterating on – scientifically – isn’t really us

on the other hand, poetic objectivity is stronger than any scientific reasoning because we can feel it and because it can transform out actions even before our conscious minds can recognise it..

and hopefully… it perpetuates eudaimoniative surplus.. rather than.. wilde’s not us ness..

p 57

…any life enhancing improvement can be grasped only by poetic imagination. it cannot be analysed or directly measured. it can be known solely through experience ….. poetic objectivity is objectivity from a shared first person perspective.

self talk as data.. ni ness….

the idea of poetic objectivity makes the case – boldly and frankly  for a broader, more reliable scientific methodology that can acknowledge the inner dimensions of living.

more reliable…? or more antifragile..? ie: relying on chaos/disorder…

first person science shouls attempt to corroborate those theoretical findings with methods which make the felt existence accessible and that also enable the sharing of thee experiences.

indeed. – io dance et al..

this type of science is not new. most cultures from diverse epochs have developed techniques for providing a first person account of what we are within the world.

p 59

varela – found that feelings of serene emptiness elicited by meditation complements the scientific finding that organisms exist w/o a fixed anchor of identity, but rather as living beings implicated in a meshwork of selfless selves..

? emptiness..? – thinking of cage and silence ness…

,any of our current difficulties stem from the fact that we rejected the romantic notion of the world as inherently creative and alive – and then proceeded to build an entire civilisation upon a flawed foundation.

science of people  et al

aliveness as artistic transformation

joseph beuys.. spent his life trying to expand art into the general sphere of everyday life. from ere comes the (often trivialized) notion that everybody is an artist.. for beuys, life processes can be understood and emulated only if they are perceived as part of the unfolding creativity of a living self in contact with others.  – he called this warmth process/work….. only enlivening processes can truly transform society and one’s own consciousness.

p 61

open up a poetic space in which being alive itself becomes a malleable, highly creative artistic material..

spaces of permission with nothing to prove...

the it is me ness – bravery to change..

p 62

on the need for caution… danger of seduction into emotional states that might feel quite poetic but which have no objectivity, and which cannot be truly shared..

(feeling alive can delute self) – ie: mass murderer feels alive.. personality disorder makes hi feel dead and disconnected at all other times.. a fetish for feeling alive can in this way become totalitarian.. his is the main reason why western civilisation has developed its scientific method in the first place: to safeguard against seduction and superstition by requiring testable, reproducible results.

again – that’s not boding us so well.. ie: causing the personality disorders.. no? so perhaps we go gershenfeld something else law and your own song ness… via something that is systemic enough – ie: deep/simple/open enough..

if we accept nature as the epitome of freedom in necessity, we can no longer regard it as a haven of morally elevated, beautiful and healthy behaviour. ecological thinking often tries to substitute a nostalgic, mother earth version of redemption for the deadening, rational dystopia of modern times but both of these choices represent an evasion. to be really alive means to be embedded in a mess that must constantly be negotiated. 

antifragility

above all our science, econ, and law must honour the feeling core in each one of us – but at the same time must constantly evaluate our passions with the maturity of the adult personality.

whoa. isn’t tat what got us to where we are ..? assuming science, econ, law, maturity of adult personality..?

the most convincing guideline for a culture of poetic precision, to my mind is to always put the other’s needs first. to understand the other – streams and forests, bees and birds, children and lovers – as the source of one’s own aliveness…. it means to remain open to experience the diff’s… to accept the thou as something unfathomable that cannot be subject to judgment.

listen. nothing to prove. i know you ness. danger of single story … prej decreases as discrimination increases.. et al..

opening up oneself to the other’s aliveness makes possible the expereince of embodied interbeing..

interconnectedness..

p 63

only if the caregiver really sees the baby .. and deeply welcomes …

invited to exist et al

a self that is unsure of itself will fail to welcome the other.

and too.. when authenticity threatens attachment.. attachment trumps authenticity – mate

failing to relate to the other self is not a viable strategy for maintaining life… always feeding the network of *reciprocal interdependence..

caution of *reciprocal bleeding into obligation ness.. which compromises us.. (ie: 10 day care centers)

ch 7 – basic principles of enlivenment: working with paradoxes

p 64

the richness of an existence which does not define itself by identities but by relationships

we must not fight these contradictions or flatten them out. they are the material life’s creativity and the raw stuff upon which improvisation draws.

improv\e ness

p 65

ecological systems – with humankind in their midst – are sliding from catastrophe to catastrophe as part of their normal process of transformation and self-creation.

already the mere living cell is self-contradictory. its existence results from the interplay of two entirely different forms of coding in our bodies,… but only by being incompatible these two code systems together generate meaning in translation and hence coherence. 

…reducing the living world to nonliving building blocks the prevaiing scientific approach has turned into a ideology of non0living its underlying assumption is that in truth the world is non-living, and so the experience of lived reality has no value. this attitude is paradoxically fed by the attempt to control the world and to improve on its flaws, motivated by the desire to make human life better. emphatically striving for life, bioeconomics does not accept death as a reality within life and therefore becomes a practice focused on the nonliving.

whoa.

p 65

the world is not subjective, it is not objective – it is relative…..  the disconcerting implication of this insight is that we must systematically include this indeterminacy in our search for truth….. a culture of enlivenment thus is emphatically anti utopian. but to be anti utopian does not mean to give up the quest for an enlivened reality. it only means that this quest is, … endless, ever without total *achievement, though not w/o effect and reward..

*perhaps that’s the utopia (or anti utopia – whatever) our souls are striving for.. where there is no total achievement.. i’d also say ..too.. where there is no reward..

ie: shalom

p 67

the commons therefore is not only a name for an economic or ecological regime, but also a political way of re organizing relationships

p 69

..the only quality that really grows over time is the amount of different experiences – felt depth – in biosphere over time. life is making more and more experiences about itself. it is enlivening itself. the interesting fact is that we do have an inborn instinct for it, a drive just to do the same as the world does: to deepen our experiences, to extend our knowledge of ourselves and others, to unfold new capacities, to strengthen bonds, and so on. one might say that this process is about learning to respect and learning to love.

p 70

… a pattern of life that is inscrutable yet which at the same time is its own explication – but only as a phenomenon, not as an explication or algorithm, both of which are reductive.

________

________

http://www.kosmosjournal.org/article/healing-ecology-finding-the-human-in-nature/

The ‘poetic ecology,’ which I propose and develop throughout this book, is able to connect these deep human and cultural experiences with a scientific understanding of life. Within nature, those values and meanings that life processes naturally produce manifest as living, vibrant forms that are therefore observable by the senses. In the bodies of other living beings existential experiences such as abundance and threat, flourishing and hunger, and death and birth, are not hidden but visible.

__________

___________

find/follow Andreas:

http://www.autor-andreas-weber.de/

…Weber is committed to overcoming the mechanistic interpretation of life phenomena. Organic existence is described by him as the continuous self-creation of sentient, evaluative and meaning translated subjects against the backdrop of the possibility of death . Life, as of interest in physical wholeness and development of certain process with the crosslinks generated by it, does not go on merely object-like processes in the analysis. Weber Thus borders as a reductionist popular- Darwinism as on the other hand the concept of intelligent design from.

from wikiquotes:

https://de.wikiquote.org/wiki/Andreas_Weber

__________

David Bollier

commons ness

__________

a nother way

__________

@biopoetics

Loving is a call for vulnerability. tinyurl.com/yaa97tff

And human affairs are affairs of control. They secure that we do not trespass norms, behave accordingly, function, are on time, cope with what is desired and what one increasingly is desiring—status, a beautiful face which does not show the traces of age and of any vulnerability. Traffic noise, anonymity, peak-hour hurry, traffic lights, cars rushing by with deadly speed are not “inhuman forces” destroying human naturalness. They are forces in service of control.

The evening sun warmed my hair and my body from behind. The poppies’ embraced me from in front. I was immersed in sweetness, and melancholy, and did not immediately understand why. I could not walk away.

swimming ness

“Loving is touching souls” writes Joni Mitchell in her song “A Case of You”. This includes being allowed to be vulnerable, finally. That is why we are all searching for it, in the haze of the cities, among other single humans, hasty, lonely, very much in control. But love not only allows vulnerability, it also needs it. Loving is a call for vulnerability.

Love is a call for vulnerability. To let yourself be loved is to show all your vulnerability, because one who truly loves you wants you to be true. To be who you are. That’s the essence of it. And this is why the poppy is leading the way. It is encouraging us to be all we already are. It is a fundamental way of loving.

__________

matter & desire

___________

in David Bollier‘s think like a commoner

10 – the commons as a different way of seeing and being

147

to andreas weber.. the commons is not simply a matter of public policy or econ.. it is an existential condition of life in all its forms, from cellular mater to human beings.. ‘the idea of the commons provides a unifying principle that dissolves the supposed opposition between nature and society/culture.. it cancels the separation of the ecological and the social.’  according to weber, the commons provides us w the means to reimagine the universe and our role in it

indeed..

andreas

if we are to truly transform our economic and political systems, weber argues, then we must also address some unquestioned, deeply embedded premises of those systems.. in effect we must reassess the nature of reality itself..

as creatures immersed in the liberal political paradigm and the principles of darwinian evolution, most of us implicitly see life as a fierce, competitive struggle and the econ as a kind of machine in which countless individuals strive to max their personal wealth and advantage. competitive triumph is all .. we also see implicitly.. a newtonian universe in which large abstract forces buffet the inanimate particle of nature. in his view, human consciousness and meaning are insignificant if not moot in the cosmic scheme of things

148

weber calls his new evidence based theory ‘biopoetics’.. both a metaphysics and bio theory that can explain ‘the deep relationship between felt experience and biological principles’..  weber argues that the ‘science of life’ as traditionally studied  is no longer an adequate methodology for understanding living things..  conventional science fails to address the realities fo consciousness and subjectivity in living organisms;

149

weber writes ‘only if we understand organisms as feeling, emotional, sentient systems that interpret their environs and do not slavishly obey stimuli, can we ever expect answers to the great enigmas of life’.. for him, biopoetics has the potential to provide ‘a new holistic account of bio as the interaction of subjects producing and providing meaning and hence laying the ground for understanding the meaningful cosmos of human imagination’

the commons is central to this vision.. only thru commoning do we start to reintegrate ourselves w nature and w each other

indeed..

our challenge, weber contends, it so bring about a new ‘enlivenment’ a new type of rebirth to succeed the 300 yr old enlightenment.. our calling is to enact a vision of the universe that honors our subjective id’s and need for meaning as bio necessities…  we can do this by engaging in ‘the ritual and idiosyncrasies of mediating, cooperating, sanctioning, negotiating and agreeing, to the burdens fo and the joy of experience reality.. it is here where the practice of the commons reveals itself ans nothing less than the practice of life‘.. weber

spot on .. rev of everyday life

while weber’s biological theories, like the commons, remain outside of the mainstream, to me they help explain the deep visceral appeal fo the common paradigm

indeed.. already in us

150

to see the commons – to really see the commons – we need to escape the highly reductionist mindset of market based economics and culture..

exactly.. and why they can’t coexist.. it has to be all of us seeing this.. and not being compromised..

we have to learn to see .. that with the right social *structure and norms, this humanisitc ethic **actually works..

indeed.. ie: *2 convers.. as infra.. i believe that simply **modeling a nother way will be enough to get 7bn people to leap (global do-over).. since.. this is something already in each one of us.. something each of us is craving.. the missing holes.. ness

market culture has insidiously narrowed our imaginations.. by privileging the interest of private property, capital and markets and governing priorities, our very *language marginalized the idea of working together toward common goals

indeed.. huge..  ie: *property is poison

it is perfectly possible to talk about the commons in conventional terms and not raise any bothersome questions about the prevailing frameworks of knowledge or worldview.. economists do it all the time.. they conflate the common sw ‘public goods’ treating them as things and ignoring the social practices of relationships that animate those things..  taking the commons seriously, means changing some of the ways that we see the world.. 

exactly.. i hope you mean that.. to the meta (aka: deep enough) level.. otherwise.. i don’t see any of this as commoning..

151

our culture and language do not equip us to see the humanistic and spiritual *roots of the commons. it is nonetheless possible to glimpse some very diff ways of seeing, acting and being in the world… raises some disruptive questions about the **basic assumptions fo market economics and liberal democracy.. the commons challenges some of the myths that lie at the heart of liberalism, market econ and modernity..  the commons dares to challenge the commodity logic that enshrines price as the supreme arbiter of value and material progress as the linchpin of all progress..

*meta/deep enough:to get to the root/soul of all of us

indeed.. hard for us to see/grok.. since we’re currently whales in sea world.. more than anything.. i’d say it’s the **assumption that things need to be measured.. aka: managed..

__________

enclosure – reality as commons

huge

__________

andreas on animism

_________

That is what becomes of #Panpsychism, when I dictate it into my iPhone. Maybe I can get some deeper philosophical gleanings from that? https://t.co/dAwua1Vpqm
Original Tweet: https://twitter.com/biopoetics/status/1471060352716754946

cool word

Panpsychism is the view that mentality is fundamental and ubiquitous in the natural world. … Panpsychism, strange as it may sound on first hearing, promises a satisfying account of the human mind within a unified conception of nature.

__________

andreas on seed & spark

What is the biology of wonder? Mark your calendars for a can’t-miss @SeedSparkLive convo w @biopoetics this Wednesday night . . .
https://t.co/JFV2FkES5D https://t.co/oQJNdwBhEL
Original Tweet: https://twitter.com/samchaltain/status/1513535100948037654

‘We have attempted to sneak away from our Siamese connection with all other beings’ @biopoetics

thurman interconnectedness law: when you understand interconnectedness it makes you more afraid of hating than of dying – Robert Thurman

________

charles & andreas on kinship

________

_________

_________

__________