diplomacy of a bondservant
what might be the diplomacy
of a bondservant?
perhaps we decide we no longer need validation to be.
what if we decide to focus (even more) on people than on policy.
what if then, we find we need less/little/no intercession.
disclaimer: no doubt prior to now, we’ve needed intercessors. there have been too many rules/policies/bureaucracies to not. we’d all have been held up in spaces, 24/7, if we hadn’t had the ticket/loophole/middle man to get us in/out/through, you name it, whatever it was. and so – our efficiency/ocd on credentialing/diploma-ing just about everything, has indeed left us dependent on intercession.
what it if that were different. what if we could change that up, get to a point of trust, where we didn’t have to jump through so many/any hoops to just be. where we had more time in our day to do the things we can’t not do. what if it’s not too difficult/unbelievable/utopian/ridiculous to get to a place like that. today.
it’s a dance, really. much to do with synchronicity. because at the very same time, we need to be truly, literally free. swimming in/embracing this culture/mindset of trust. believing/assuming that people are good. only then will our hearts find wisdom, and choose to serve.
perhaps we haven’t yet seen it, because we haven’t yet tried it.
what if acknowledging/seeing/noticing/serving people is what sets us free, literally free. what if that’s where we find the bravery to change our mind, ..everyday. perhaps we give it a go. we indulge/immerse/emerge. just to see.
perhaps we can model/see/find..
- what Thad Starner brings to a conversation
- what Julio Olalla sees in a conversation
- what hypertext brought to wikipedia
..not only a user-friendliness (tools of conviviality et al) via encouragement to follow our whimsy, but a rich access to the soul, where we find hunger, a craving for our people/collaboration/co-creation.
Making this transition won’t happen overnight. But if we truly want to use technology to transform higher education, we can’t just confine our efforts to transforming instruction. We have to transform certification too. In doing so, we have an opportunity to create a new system that makes it clear to students what skills are most relevant and in highest demand, and thus gives them a chance to pursue these skills more strategically.
what if there are only two skills/conversations that are most relevant and in demand:
imagine this strategy: 7 billion people choosing every day – how to spend their day.
- Russell, calling out rudeness
- Jon Stewart, calling out responsibility
- Jack .. et al, calling out genius
- Zeynep, Jeremy, Cevin, calling out pluralistic ignorance
perhaps it’s time we call into question this tradition of valuing people for the folded paper they somehow assume/acquire/purchase/sell-out for.. ?
un reputation ness
Julio Olalla tells us there is richness in authentic conversation, and that wisdom can’t be owned. what if fittingness is our only credential/diplomacy. a matching-ness of who we already are, rather than any proof/non-proof of purchase.
then if we ask..
what are you doing with your free\dom?
and that might just be…
how freedom grows..
i think of Ethan Zuckerman’s imaginary cosmopolitanism, and i wonder if we’ve got much the same going on in the realm of diplomacy/freedom/democracy.
are we missing it/us, because we obsess with a middle man, a go between, someone/something to vouch for us/others? or to blame if things don’t work out? someone/something to hide us from getting too close, too transparent. is our fear of seeing/being seen/touched keeping us oppressed/dependent/depressed.
perhaps tech can help us start to see each other/ourselves better, a personal fabrication of the invisible us, through ambient awareness, getting at the rawness/fringe of people, entering virtual peripheral vision (Clive describes this via Thad et al, in smarter than you think.)
Jose at 3:51:
i’m an american, i just don’t have the right papers….
we do this to immigrants. we treat human beings as not human beings. perhaps the only warped fairness in that, is that we actually do it to everyone.
what if the web is letting us go/see to the limit/discrimination of infinity. what if we’re now getting the perception/faculty/reality – of both converging on one and converging on 7 billion. everything is miscellaneous. a chaordic picnic. what if we can no longer label/diploma-ize/credential, because we’re starting to see how multi-dimensionally layered and hyper/inter-connected we are. what if that losing of control, of that intercessory power, that need/obsession to define, frees us all up. from the drudgery/stress/oppression of a bureaucratized day. and then we find out.. trust works/flows/plays/dances/feels/tastes/looks/acts/is much better than keeping track.
and if we can get at that fractal/soul narrative, the one for 100% of humanity, if we can honestly/bravely get at the heart of the matter, where we affect everything, (health, poverty, school to prison pipeline, .. all of it), well, …
…realistically, I suspect there’s no killer app to end distraction. The downsides of being highly networked are constitutionally tied to the benefits. The only way we can reduce the negative side effects is by changing our relationship to the digital environment, both as a society and as individuals.
You’ve got to make the systems so that they help people pay attention to the world in front of them.
– Clive Thompson, et al, Smarter Than You Think
- and grit (passion + persistence) becomes our authentic energy, our sustainability
- and synchronicity provides/promotes/facilitates a revival, by temporarily helping us back on our feet (into our shells), back to the dance
- and the intersection of city and school incubates/brews/affords an eclectic ecosystem, for a people experiment, perhaps an experiment we have not yet tried/imagined
perhaps, if we all end up free enough, we’ll all choose to serve.
and then – if we’re all bondservants.. we’ll not need a go between… we’ll be face-to-face with life/each other.