intro’d via jeff’s share of binding chaos
reading this got to me (measuring things):
people weighed and measured
When a baby is born, they are assigned a gender, a generation, an ethnicity, a citizenship and a health rating. They are assigned a class by the neighbourhood, professions and income bracket of their parents. As children, they are sent to educational institutions where professionals examine and categorize them every day. Instead of providing sufficient teachers and adequate training and options to manage diversity in schools, many governments now provide extra funding only after schools have classified educational difficulties in the students. The underfunded schools are motivated in this way to classify as many students as possible with the preferred learning disabilities so they can be streamed into special programs and used as product by the pharmaceutical industry. Students who escape this are streamed into narrower and narrower paths towards their future assigned roles.
The sectarianism initiated at birth intensifies throughout adolescence until teenagers are expected to spend all of their time worried about what they will become. When they finally attain adulthood, they will be confident in their assertion of what they are: professional, unemployed, educated, ignorant, married, single, a success or a failure. These classifications are added to the ones they received at birth, and then still more. They will become liberal, conservative or apolitical, gay, straight, or asexual, criminal or law abiding, addicted or not. They may belong to churches or fraternities or professional groups. Simply losing a physical object can cause them to drop into the bottom class, and become part of the homeless. They are not simply the same people without homes, the loss of an object changes their class identity and who and what the world sees them as.
Societal institutions relate to each person by their assigned category.
Legal systems and media will call some people in countries they weren’t born into expats and others immigrants or illegals leading to vastly different treatment for the same situation. The same actions are crimes or not depending on social standing and whether or not the perpetrator is an agent of the state. Murder is unlawful killing. The law only objects when the lower classes kill, so killing is not murder if it is by police, militaries, judges and presidents. Taking property is only stealing for the lower classes who don’t write property laws and disobeying the rules is only a problem for those not making them. Credit cards, banking institutions and so many others pay the wealthy and charge the poor for the same services. People can be forbidden freedom of movement based on citizenship or refused the right to survival income based on education. These class based differences which result in everything from lifelong misery to death are far more easily accepted if they can be abstracted by categorization.
Language was eventually used to separate the religion(s), with Hebrew common for Jewish texts, Latin for Christian and Arabic for Islam but all texts were still available in all the regional languages and the name of god is the same and prayers are very similar in the same languages. The inflated differences under this religion were combined with academic depiction of all other religions on earth as cults or in some way not real religions. The definition of a religion (vs a cult) usually includes qualifiers that limit religions to only sects of this one religion. Common qualifiers for a religion are a belief in God, a formalized hierarchical structure and written religious texts. This has left most of the world under the moral directive of one religion, that of the Silk Road.
The part of patriarchy that remains morally relevant is the fact that society needs lifegivers, caregivers and protectors. In these days of less dangerous societies, birth control and weapons which do not rely on strength, the roles remain but are no longer gendered or exclusive. In times and places not on the major trade routes, men and women shared these roles. That is our human impulse in societies not being violently coerced.
The scientific obsession with human categorization attempted to justify a stratified society without religion. Categorization imposes an abstract construct based on perspective. It is not scientific fact.
Archaeology and DNA continue to find almost no differences between nations. …..Rights which depend on defective categorization of humans are put in jeopardy by more accurate information. Those rights should never have been dependent on these categories in the first place.
While differences between sexes are being denied and attempts are made to eradicate them, differences between ethnicities are being exaggerated and attempts are made to manufacture them.
With no scientific basis for race and no correlating national identities, there is not much to go on. People around the world look extremely similar. Ethnicity is not separated along lines of physical appearance and neither is it any longer separated by location or even ancestry which is too mixed to divide neatly. Neither is there any kind of a rational spectrum in appearance. Melanesian blondes have blonde hair with very dark skin and black Irish have black hair with very pale skin and the curliest hair is found at both ends of the skin tone spectrum. Claiming different cultures for people frequently raised in the same neighbourhoods or even families is beyond ridiculous. Claiming a similar heritage based on appearance is factually incorrect. While race was created for class segregation, that is no longer a reliable grouping either. Religious groupings created systems of beliefs which turned into laws which separated each other but race has not even that to go on.
Groupings by so-called race are solely political.
The imposition of class barriers was far easier when a class could not hide from their own physical appearance, whether that was sexual or ethnic appearance.
Once race and gender have been established, their use becomes a shorthand meme to remind people of who their outgroups are, even when no one remembers the reason. Race and gender have become a hereditary slave collar.
Despite the endless classifying of people, ostensibly and paradoxically in order to combat sectarianism, bigotry by class is not only tolerated, it is inherent in every institution. Every institution from education to the economy would collapse without classism.
It is the height of hypocrisy for legal systems to claim to have laws against bigotry and hate crimes when the entire legal system is institutionalized bigotry and hate by class. Legal systems which deny the poor the basic essentials of life and condemn people of all ages to misery based on class are built on hate. Any laws which pretend to protect people based on gender, sexual orientation or ethnicity are a distraction from this foundational sectarianism.
the most persecuted people on earth are indigenous women.
The violence directed against people for the social constructs of gender and race are not even in the same world as the violence directed at them as caregivers and protectors, no matter how much identity politics wants to conflate the two. Genocides have been committed the world over to clear populations off of land for industry or competing groups. The violence against people based on role will stop when the roles of lifegiving and caregiving are recognized and accorded the approval of the whole society.
Violence against people based on the social constructs of race and gender will only be resolved by abolishing race and gender, which will never happen while people are still profiting from these divisions.
people weighed and measured (above) from her ..autonomy, diversity, society:
adding more segments here (out of her order)
The point is not to have some kind of group affiliation tit for tat, which the war between the feminists and the masculinists has become. The solution to the marginalization of some groups from the halls of knowledge and power should never have been treated as a problem of group affiliation and the remedies should never have been to incorporate something called feminist critique or cultural perspective.
All that was needed was for everyone to be allowed input so that we could resolve all of these problems together, not from the sole perspective of one group.
The inclusion of one group should not mean the exclusion of another.
At the point of creating society wide action to achieve a goal, action must be driven by stigmergy and it must follow an idea, not personality based organization.
Where there are ingroups there are outgroups.
Creation of outgroups is the definition of bigotry.
The United States now has a United Nations microcosm of Thought Leaders who demand the international microphone to speak for every person in the world they claim to be ethnically representative of.
public consensus always oppresses someone
reps.. w inordinate amount of airtime… each claiming a huge amount of victimhood that almost none of them have ever been near.
taleb‘s skin in the game ness
Racism is only protested with international outcry if it happens to those in the top strata, where business travelers might be affected.
Endless new categorizations are being used to create increasingly more tenuous identity groups.
Identity politics creates personality based organizations demanding inclusion instead of idea and action based movements which would change the structure.
Oppressor and oppressed are class stratas, not identitarian groups.
People in the same strata can be bigoted against each other, but they cannot oppress each other because they have the same power. Those that fly can create international media outcry and lobby their countries to reciprocate. Those that are smuggled in trucks or trapped in countries being bombed are unheard. Single moms are sometimes wealthy mothers with fully participating spouses and supportive communities, family or staff. Married mothers are sometimes in poverty and receiving no support from anywhere or surviving abuse. Nicaraguan president and anti-imperialist icon, Daniel Ortega, quietly plans to run a canal through Lake Nicaragua and ruin the sacred indigenous island of Ometepe. Ecuadorian president and anti-imperialist icon, Rafael Correa signs mining deals on indigenous land in the Yasuni.
Promoting gender, ethnicity and other sects while ignoring class, or equating the appearance of class with the reality, is creating a completely distorted statement of the problem of stratified society.
Pretending that the problem is one of representation instead of one of tyranny will result in a surface diversity among homogenous tyrants.
Representative democracy is identity politics.
Democratic parties convince people they are different by representing different demographics in the same structure. Reforms promise adjustments to the grid, not the stratas. Not only does this representation not help those in lower stratas,
it silences them with a representative from the top strata who supposedly speaks for them.
when today.. we have means to listen to all the voices.. as the day
Those in the top strata have no ambition to fight the industrialization and corporate exploitation that created the victimhood they are representing. They want a place at the table of the exploiters. Since they are claiming to represent all of the oppressed, this also gives the appearance of the victimized groups being complicit in and acquiescing to their own victimization.
We do not need feminism, we need an end to masculinism. We do not need stifling solidarity, we need support for diversity.
Your worst enemy is not the person standing opposite you. It is the person standing where you would be fighting from, doing nothing.
Both cultures and nations have been part of an attempt to isolate and classify everything, whether it fits into a classification or not.
When lower classes demanded their culture be recognized along with the culture of the ruling classes, they frequently used group affiliation as a vehicle. This has brought us the concept of culture ownership by usually entirely imaginary social groups.
Cultures and nations at best describe vague tendencies and spectrums. While nations can be enjoyable and satisfying for the feeling of inclusion they bring and diversity of culture brings richness to humanity, both are too fuzzy and constantly evolving to be rigidly categorized or enforced. Culture is meant to be enjoyed, shared, passed down and modified.
Humanity is a living and evolving organism. It should keep historical records but never be forcibly preserved, much less guarded or enforced.
In the United States, manufactured sectarianism has produced people who are in every way assimilated to the dominant culture but spend great time and effort (and sometimes third party funding) to acquire and hoard the external trappings of cultures they have no experience of and nations they have never been near. Neighbourhood dialects and slang are attributed to race to manufacture a racial culture which excludes some people actually in the neighbourhoods and attempts to include some of those who are not.
begs.. system based on idio jargon
Particularly in the United States, this looks like a purely commercial endeavour with manufactured culture being purchased at stores, taught in schools and defended as copyrighted product. In these scenarios, nations and cultures are not a way of life to be lived and shared but a political power to be wielded and a product to be sold.
These are not nations or cultures at all.
Ironically, it is culture created primarily for trading which is mostly now culture hoarded by identitarians.
Instead of fighting racism, identitarians demanded it work for them. Instead of fighting the ownership of knowledge, the identitarians demanded a piece of the pie.
Since very little education or experience is enough to teach people that there are more similarities among people than differences, culture hoarders are invariably too ignorant to recognize the history of what they are hoarding.
Affinity groups are social groups with which people feel comfortable. Identity politics is an attempt to create large scale personality based organizations as affinity groups, based on nurtured divisions with wider society. Identity politics is created through group narcissism, not any shared culture, history or experience. The narcissism required to hold the group together feeds on emotion, not facts. Narcissism requires a myth of exceptionalism for the ingroup and vilification of the outgroup.
Identitarians are not of the street or the neighbourhood. They are a product of academia’s categorization fetish, an alliance for political power and careerism.
Racists and bigots of all kinds are not on opposite sides. They are all on the same side, the side promoting racism and bigotry.
The objective of a revolutionary is to keep everything exactly as it was but replace those in power with themselves, to become what they hate, to gain the approval of those they despise. The mark of a successful revolutionary is recognition and acceptance into the circles of oppressors.
A typical revolutionary is driven by a desire for justice and no imagination. They can see injustice, they see oppressors and oppressed, and they follow the obvious impulse to reverse the two without changing the system that allows for oppression.
Revolution almost always sounds like a new system because revolutionaries almost always call themselves The People, or at least The [oppressed category] People, but in practice there is no change. Revolution follows a Good Guy / Bad Guy, Manichean morality and the goal is to kill all the Bad Guys until there is nothing left but Good Guys. Fanon replaces white with black, Marx replaces master with worker, no one replaces the paradigm. Malcolm X and Robert Mugabe desired a perfect negative image of the apartheid state. *Feminists celebrate ‘what women have achieved’ along their path to be exactly like caucasian men.
*ok. this one i see.. thinking – wanting picture on money
A revolutionary outlook is binary.
Since people are never binary, revolutionary theory almost immediately has to start addressing the classification problem, who is black, who is white, who is bourgeoise or proletariat, who is male or female, and the rush to be at the extreme end of your side creates a new class war within the class war.
As long as the paradigm remains, it matters not at all if those on top become the former oppressed, they are just branch managers for the empire and oppression continues uninterrupted.
In the middle of a revolutionary frenzy it is unwise to point out that oppressed may become oppressors as they are the Good Guys who must never be accused of wrongdoing, but we really don’t need any more Israels or Rwandas to prove the point. ….Deviance is dangerous in a binary world.
Everyone is defined in relation to the caucasian man of power. It is the revolutionaries as much as the reactionaries that refuse to let the old system go.
Engels felt women lost their social power due to their loss of property ownership instead of seeing that property ownership was created to remove their social power.
As long as it is people, not actions, which are classified as Good and Evil, we will maintain a perpetual motion pendulum of revolution. As every revolution is a simple reaction to the initial action, they are mirror images. Slave morality is a reaction to master morality, revolutionary militias are a reaction to a police state, feminism is a reaction to masculinism, men with guns are a reaction to men with guns. The centripetal force that creates power also creates the centrifugal force that destroys it. In every case, reactions will become what they destroy.
If you define yourself in relation to your enemy, you’ve lost.
Mirrored reactions are a result of a lack of imagination to see outside the paradigm we live within. A reaction adds force to the initial action.
We will have equilibrium when we step off the pendulum.
All revolution has simply entrenched and strengthened the hierarchy of power, all revolutions will need to be followed by more revolutions unless they are immediately replaced with resistance.
Between reaction and revolution there is nothing to choose. Neither leave the track, they just allow different people to drive while the same people are run over.
Revolution fights tyrants, resistance fights tyranny
It is not revolution we need, another turn of the same wheel along the same path, it is resistance. Resistance uses the tyrant’s own power against them rather than strengthening that power by reaction. Resistance fights all forms of oppression and bigotry regardless of source by building and defending a tolerant society. Resistance to patriarchy is not feminism, it is removal of masculinism. Resistance to bigotry is not bigotry, it is diversity and tolerance. Resistance to capitalism is not unions, it is dismantling of the trade economy. It is not enough to weed, a new system must be planted or the old seeds of tyranny will instantly grow again.
Oppressive power of the size in place today will not be removed by the creation of revolutionary power.
Even if one chooses to think a new leader would stop the oppression it is no longer in the power of a leader or leaders. Mass disobedience and a refusal to acknowledge the authority of the powerful are the only hope to collapse the current empire.
It is not enough to remove oppressors, the system of oppression must be dismantled.
science, isolation and control
Science became the embodiment of these beliefs and a way to insist on the credibility of an omnipotent and autonomous man and discredit all other beliefs. Science is a method which achieved the status of an evangelizing religion.
Science became an attempt by powerful men of Europe to discover, catalogue and own all of the supposed secrets of the universe, including those previously widely collected, catalogued and distributed through the Islamic world, India and China and those newly discovered through European empires. European science was marked by two features: the isolation and control of each tiny element in the universe, and the obsession with credit to and ownership by European men of each supposed discovery.
Science was a continuation of trade exploration, intended for ownership and profit, not for expansion of tribal knowledge.
Access to knowledge was strictly controlled by those universities which admitted almost exclusively wealthy European men. Ownership of knowledge was strictly controlled by copyrights and patents, almost exclusively granted to wealthy European men. The so-called intellectual property that forms the basis of wealth for almost all of the world’s most wealthy today began with an aggressive global scramble to seize and control all of the world’s knowledge.
The fact that a great deal of the knowledge these men sought was already held by indigenous people, women and other empires around the world was not an issue for them as they decreed that nothing could be acknowledged in science unless it was scientifically proven and written in scientific papers. In other words, no knowledge was real knowledge until it came from the mouth or pen of a western man.
This idea quickly extended to all knowledge as even on the ground news reports today are labeled not verified until someone has paid a western journalist to repeat them.
Patents which had previously been granted to the medieval hoarders of knowledge in the form of guilds became available to individuals and corporations. Patents and copyrights pretended that each little piece of knowledge was not dependent on all others and could be individually owned and sold. With their requirement that the secrets contained be published for all to see, the new patents broke the power of the guild class. The secrets which were previously hoarded by the craftsmen using them were isolated and dissociated. Patents freed knowledge in order to hoard it in a higher class. Those with the power to purchase secrets no longer required the old societal ties to do so.
Patents and copyrights also solved the problem of most knowledge being already held by others for centuries or millennia because it granted ownership not to the origin of knowledge but to the first to file patents, almost always western men.
Patents and copyrights are exclusionary rights. They are not rights to do something but rights to stop others from doing it.
They do not exist to directly empower the owner, they exist to empower him in relation to his colleagues by restricting them.
University accreditation and licensing act in the same way.
Institutionalization and professionalization allowed control of the sources of knowledge and its use by the men of the dominant social classes, a situation still true today. Ownership and controlled access to knowledge established the new floor the upper classes stood on, the ceiling for everyone else.
With science began the discrediting of thousands of years of knowledge and the establishment of professions such as medicine as the exclusive domain of the caucasian men who had access to the universities and literacy.
The creation of officially sanctioned knowledge and reassigning of credit removed ownership of knowledge from women, indigenous societies, peasants, and all lower classes and placed it all under the rigid control of the scientific class.
Practices which had been used and tested for centuries were not considered official or tested until men of science approved and claimed ownership of them. Most prior knowledge had been transmitted orally, at least off the main trade routes. Even knowledge that had been written down was later transferred to manuscripts copied, purchased, stored and taught by wealthy men. The credit deserved by many great scientists and historians for their work in preserving a small part of these oral traditions does not mitigate the fact that almost all knowledge was needlessly filtered through western male bias and misunderstanding before it was accepted into the halls of officially accredited knowledge.
This collection of knowledge allowed social independence or dissociation to those with access to universities.
Self-congratulatory science produced generations of wealthy boys accustomed to the idea that their institutions already possessed all answers for all things and they no longer needed the listening skills and respect for their elders, colleagues and trade partners formerly necessary to acquire knowledge.
Even in media and politics, young male pundits were depicted as having all of the answers to everything without needing to consult anyone actually involved in an event and, as in science, all stories were presented through the filter of the western men who held the microphones.
The institutions which controlled the certification of knowledge then blocked the majority of the world from access to knowledge which was previously available to all as commons property.
The face of a western man became the face associated with expertise. The face of an old woman became the face of old wives’ tales and the face of indigenous people became the face of superstition.
Science is depicted as the source of all modern knowledge but it has, for centuries, stood in the way of the vast majority of people who may have contributed and has also ensured that all knowledge developed and disseminated was to the benefit of the powerful.
Science is not a source of knowledge; it is a gate. Knowledge was gathered from the global commons and then restricted by science, academia and licensing exactly like all other resources were gathered and then restricted by the trade economy. Knowledge was held to not exist until science discovered it, just like resources were claimed to be unowned until Europeans discovered them. Scientists and academia effectively burned the world’s oral libraries of tribal knowledge and went back to playing with alphabet blocks until they could rediscover what was already known and patent it.
The amount of knowledge irrevocably lost to this scientific cleansing is a global tragedy and the restriction of all forms of study to wealthy western men has retarded human progress for centuries.
science of people ness
Science and the trade economy were depicted as the only conceivable path to progress. All prior beliefs were subject to the burden of proof but everything said by the great religion of science was held to be true until proven again and again to be untrue. No matter how many times they failed, the scientific class was always held to be infallible. Scientists could, like Thomas Aquinas, prove that god existedv or like René Descartes, declare knowledge of god innatevi, and be given credibility. Skepticism was reserved for the old beliefs which were always derided as old wives’ tales and superstitions. Scientific beliefs were proven wrong every day by scientists themselves. It was not scientific methods or ideas being presented as infallible, it was the scientific class. They reserved the right to point out errors to themselves alone. To the people being studied by anthropologists, having their homes explained by biologists and their news reported by journalists, the experts were invariably ignorantvii, but they had no voice to say so. It was rare that they even had access to read what was being said about them. The knowledge experts prided themselves on their detachment from the objects of their study and called their ignorance impartiality.
The isolated thought bubbles of science and academia developed schools of western masculinist theory in service to industrial progress that were almost unusable when applied to the needs of the real world. It is only after intensive critique from the rest of the world, large scale adoption of knowledge from international sources and the commons, and frequent disastrous failure that science has made the contributions they are credited with. Even with the body of academic and scientific knowledge that has finally been built, progress is stalled by funding, credibility and fame that is only available in the west. The vast majority of funding and research is spent on topics that interest neither the researcher nor anyone else but serve to fulfill employment, accreditation or funding requirements. Topics which could be of huge benefit to wider society are not studied if they are not within mandates or of interest to funders or if they are not in the interests of state and industry. Research is driven by power, not need. Like silicon valley’s endless parade of apps of use only to the frat boys creating them, science and academia study issues that affect wealthy old western men from the lens of wealthy old western menvii
Academia and science still parasite off of people worldwide with knowledge to contribute and no way to fund it or be heard without attributing their work to someone with more power. …Ownership of ideas then continues to enable disparity of income and power and the cycle continues. The so-called scientific community is really a scientific class that hoards knowledge from the classes below and is in service to the classes above.
Science is not a synonym for verified knowledge. Science is a class structure in a hierarchical trade economy which regulates knowledge and controls access to it.
The average person has difficulty understanding a whole system at once (perhaps especially male people and even more especially those who are attracted to the study of the minutiae of science).[cite] In order to maintain control over a specimen for study they must break it into tiny pieces and view them in isolation where they will lose all context and relevance. The division of labour in factories helped efficiency by allowing people to build without understanding how to build the entire product. Science was supposed to allow study with the same compartmentalized efficiency, but in science no one understood the whole. Like humans, animals and nature do not respond well to isolation and torture. They must be considered as a whole of interrelated parts observed in their natural habitat for any understanding.
Scientific isolation has, for centuries, left us a legacy of medicine which seeks to kill disease instead of improve overall health, and agriculture which seeks to grow isolated crops by killing everything except the chosen plant.
All of the old knowledge which looked at ecosystems and organisms holistically and sought to work with them were replaced by petri dishes and attacks on every aspect of nature. Empathic and intuitive knowledge, where women were perceived to be stronger, were derided as unscientific. Science centred on isolated, sterilized experiments that explain how with obsessive mania without ever inquiring why. After centuries, science has yet to answer or even ask a single why and prides itself on its myopic views as indicative of reason.
Science encouraged the dissociation of all of its products from their natural origins, of medicine from plants to pills, of food from gardens to plastic bags of products unrecognizable as food. Medicine was conquered and in service to man instead of the former herbs and rituals working with nature and the body. Medicine, cosmetics and food, once inseparable, became isolated to the point that cosmetics were poison and food caused sickness. The hunt for wild animals, where people were joined in contest with the animal and grateful if they won, was replaced by domestic animals raised in factories under complete domination, torture and slavery. Prayers to thank the souls of animals for feeding them were replaced by assertions that animals were machinery made up of nothing more than working parts. Occasionally this isolation and dissociation was necessary but far more often it was to enable copyrights and patents for industrial control. The legacy of this isolation is a knowledge class that is dangerously removed from the world it studies.
Science sought to remove spontaneity as other institutions removed society. Biodiversity was shunned and Monsanto became rich on a promise to kill all that was unapproved. Human efficiency was studied like that of battery hens and both are isolated in corporate factories to maximize production and eliminate any life not related to service of trade. Isolation of work has been transmitted even to homes where isolated people argue about chores rather than gathering as communities to share work.
William Petty’s Political Arithmetickxiallowed the reduction of people to numbers and value and the importance of individual experience was lost.
The seed of collateral damage was born.
Every plant and animal, like every human, must prove its usefulness to the trade economy.
We now have corporate valuations of both people and nature and both must prove their worth to industry to be permitted to survive. Corporations are omnipotent, like gods, and have no duty to provide any social good or obtain any social approval. Science funded by corporations is more interested in mining asteroids than in rediscovering who we are or preserving life on earth.
Our world is in crisis. Verified knowledge has never been more necessary. Study, experimentation, analysis, publication and critique are necessary. Epistemic communities are necessary. Sometimes solving problems in isolation is necessary. Even various scientific methods, empiricism and also rationalism are necessary. What is not necessary, and is blocking achievement of the collective knowledge we so urgently need, is a social class that sets themselves up as the closed arbiter and keepers of all knowledge and operates in service to the trade economy.
the destruction of society
The root of society is a woman giving birth to a child. …. There is evidence that cells from the fetus cross over and remain in the mother’s body, possibly influencing her physiology for years and transferring cells to younger siblings.[cite] There are also indications that the fetus may receive DNA from not just their father but also previous men their mother received sperm from[cite]. The physical reality of an autonomous individual created by parasiting off another person and receiving input from many more, not just before birth but for years after, is a microcosm of society. Life is not an individual achievement but a continuum passed from one generation to the next through a vast number of life forms. Society is a network of dependencies.
Once communities are destroyed, families are the only society preventing children from growing up completely dissociated or as sociopaths. In stratified societies, particularly those heavily dependent on trade economy, women had their roles more restricted and were treated less as community members and more as possessions. Trade inherently favours those not performing the lifegiving and caregiving roles in society so power concentrated in men everywhere trade flourished. As women and their labour became more and more a possession that men could buy, women’s lives were more restricted and they were more guarded as the possessions of one man. With that isolation came a loss of community in almost every case unless a man could afford more than one wife.
Where all had previously worked together in a society, waged labour created class warfare and a new master-servant relationship between men and women. Men had autonomy through land replaced by autonomy through wages and women were now unpaid slaves.
Family relationships which had, once established, been purely social were now monetized and deeply humiliating and divisive to all.
The universities commodified care for society members into a product to make the Catholic church more wealthy, much as the medical industry has continued to put corporate wealth over medical care today. …..What is billed as The Birth of Modern Medicine was really the death of all women’s knowledge and most importantly, the death of women’s control over their own reproductive destinies.
Worker’s movements centre around waged workers and men’s rights activists insist more men die on the job because the occupational hazards of childbirth and marriage aren’t considered jobs. Laws protecting against forced labour and slavery do not include motherhood. According to the World Health Organization, 287 000 women die in childbirth every year.[cite] All United States combat casualties in all wars ever come to 848,163.[cite]
The erasure of value from women’s work was necessary for the enslavement of women. The enslavement of women was necessary for outside ownership of their bodies, the factories producing the labour force.
people are means of production
Today, children are killed by states constantly and very publicly and dismissed as simply ‘collateral damage’. A very short time ago, the death of a child was considered by western society to be a non-debatable tragedy, an evil so pure and complete its evil was never questioned. This mindset was first altered by a persistent campaign during the US war against Iraq to depict Iraqi children as bomb carrying subhumans created by their parents only for the purpose of death. ‘They do not value life’, ‘They would rather die than live’, and ‘Iraqi children are not like ours’, became the new truths that western society was convinced to accept.
The work, risk and financial burden of producing the work force is all on the parents and the benefit is all for corporations.
The message is clear. People are paid to kill people. People are not paid to give birth. It is more socially acceptable to kill people than to give birth to people. Genocides
A single mother on welfare is treated as the most contemptible creature within the law. Parasites are hated as they weaken the host. The trade economy does not recognize that all men and women parasited off of their mothers in a very physical reality in order to exist. Underlying every patriarchal society and the trade economy is the idea that lifegivers should be grateful to the society for letting them and their offspring live. This is a complete reversal of biological fact.
No human achievement would have been possible without the lifegivers and caregivers that raised and enabled those achieving. ….even a case that could seemingly not possibly be blamed on a woman, such as the Sandy Hook massacre, apparently can. The U.S. media and president aligned to exclude the killer’s mother from the recognized victims[cite] and media instantly began to question her parenting as a cause of his actions[cite]. Victim blaming is a phenomenon that occurs in all violence directed at a lower class, but only in violence against women can the victim be held to blame for the character of the killers. …lifegiving and caregiving both carry only the risk of loss of societal approval and no possibility to gain approval, at least for women.
People seem terrified that any money or support for lifegiving or caregiving would encourage people to give birth for the wrong reasons. Oddly, this reasoning is not applied to journalism, politics, medicine, killing people or even dissociated caregiving by teachers, social workers or foster parents.
While the mother is expected to be an impossible paragon, modern society feels no obligation to provide a safe and welcoming, educational and nurturing environment. A mother that does not love her child is considered an abomination. A society that does not love its children is considered natural and justified…..No one can demand a life free of those employed by military or refuse admittance to the elderly. Children and their caregivers are the lowest social class above criminals and they have been outcast, not just from the trade economy but also from the rest of society…..Society has ensured that the job of caregiving is impossible
When children are taught to disrespect their own caregivers for their gifts and for their acceptance of a slave role, they are taught to despise caregiving itself and anyone who acts outside of the trade economy. ..Caregivers and children are the last unit of social structure to be dismantled and the most physically and socially difficult to separate. The war against this relationship and its isolation from the rest of society is a war against society.
State education takes responsibility for indoctrination of selected history and worldview and preparation for the work force, frequently a compulsory education that parents will go to jail for resisting. Propaganda dictates that the same parents who were capable of teaching nutrition, health, hygiene, speech, safety and so much more to their children are incapable of teaching reading. Capitalism insists every child has a right to daily indoctrination paid for by the state but not a right to food and shelter. To appoint only mothers and caregivers as fully responsible for producing and caring for the entire society and not recognize or support that work is institutionalized slavery. State propaganda is not a social right. Food, safety, shelter and all the benefits of the society are. If the child is to love their society, they must be welcomed by it. If a society is to benefit from caregivers, their labour must be recognized and included in the economic structure.
The root of society, the first dependence, is created when a woman gives birth to a child. The nature of society depends on how it is built out from that core, whether all share in responsibility for the first and all other dependencies or whether the strongest are pulled away to isolate caregivers and commodify dependency.
Every time scientists and academics have taken a stand against power, they are threatened, expelled, imprisoned or executed. It is almost impossible for scientists and academics to reach the public directly without media and politically vulnerable appointments. *Science can be undermined by demagogues because demagogues control communication between science and the public. We have to establish direct communication between epistemic communities and the wider public in order to remove power from demagogues. We have to build a protective network for knowledge preservation, auditing and dissemination. A time when knowledge is already under assault is the best time to establish this network.
Governance by the people requires knowledge as a societal right and a global commons. It should be the duty of all members of a self governing society to audit and share knowledge and promote and support its development. The ponzi schemes of academia and science shun anyone not in the citation circle and block access entirely to ideas and critique from outside of their class. Wikipedia, Twitter, Facebook and Google all serve as propaganda control for states and corporations. Our collective knowledge should not be directed by corporations or exclusively available to a tightly guarded class, either for access or for contribution.
The solutions being recommended to the lethal ignorance of the public are headed in the wrong direction, towards more corporate control and a more accredited expert class. Journalists are wanting the internet reconstructed to give themselves credit and funding for each piece of information posted while they still grant neither to their subjects or sources. Scientists are encouraging even more secrecy and delayed publishing and less communication with media, much less the public.
The scientific class encourages those admitted into it to listen to their peers ahead of their patients and listen to local and unsanctioned knowledge only to steal credit. Science encourages binary division and branding of people and nature as mad / sane, dangerous / harmless or normal / abnormal according to the needs of industry and the powerful and to the detriment of the public. Science, academia and the media together encourage a cult-like devotion to pronouncements of one truth at a time instead of reflecting the nuance and uncertainty inherent in most research.
If instead of a closed class of scientists we had created open, permeable, epistemic communities, it is hard to not believe we would have made far less mistakes and far more progress in directions more beneficial to all of humanity.
The new intelligentsia has often tried to be open and evolve but failed miserably because of a hierarchical classist structure that blocks input or access from the lower classes and puts knowledge in service to a tyrannical corporate empire. ..first age: if people have info they own, they will happily spread/preserve/use it .. second age: knowledge is power and if not shared..recipe for tyranny..third age: public has no trust in info outside own class strata
Artists and all creative or knowledge based professions have fought to criminalize their audiences since copyright was invented. ..In all cases, the removal of exclusivity and knowledge gates brought an explosion of work and far greater diversity and expertise. Instead of responding to the obvious societal good in removing copyrights and patents, as the reasonable time for either has shortened, the time of ownership has been lengthened under international law.[cite]
The problem with all of these movements is they only involve publishing scientific data. Knowledge is not accessible unless the public can understand it.
Our industrialized society has given us a backwards world where ideas are owned and personal data is not. …The technology industries have created a global governance system designed around control and manipulation of information.
Academia is the primary institution where people are sorted and taught to sort each other, where the class systems are created and perpetuated.
Academia, like science, is a knowledge dictatorship. The wider public are barred from seeing the source of knowledge and expected to accept the filtered and packaged versions as truth. They are expected to acknowledge the superiority of the keepers of knowledge,
Human Rights Watch and many other organizations protecting the rights of those on the bottom demand a PhD for applicants seeking employment with them, barring entry to most of the people they are speaking for. ..Academia provides the majority of the visas to the supranational classes and so acts as the bureaucracy for a global eugenics program.
Academia is conducted like religious study, focused on what the great men said and meant instead of whether or not they were correct. The printing press created a rigor mortis for debate which the Internet should have cured, but academia slogs on in its old path with the same methods.
Science hoards knowledge and uses it against the people and for the profit of corporations. Academia acts as gatekeepers to allow filtered streams of knowledge to a selected few. Journalism acts as a marketing agent for information which benefits the powerful.
If the world is to move away from representation and allow all voices to be heard, we need to find methods of collaboration which work with idea and action based systems.
Concentric user groups with epistemic communities and knowledge bridges may work for idea based systems; for action, stigmergy may be the best option
Most systems are now run by competitive organizations. Competition creates redundancy, is slow and wastes resources on idea protection, advertisement, and more. Competition also requires secrecy which blocks progress and auditing and causes lost opportunities and ideas. Patents and copyrights further limit speed and the potential for mass input of ideas.
The alternative to competition has traditionally been cooperation. This is most effective only in groups of two to eight people. ..Cooperation traditionally operates on the democratic principle that all voices are equal, so it does not allow for leaders, or users with greater expertise, energy or understanding to have greater influence than those on the periphery. Cooperation wastes a great deal of time and resources in both discussing and discussing the discussions. In an action based system, this discussion is rarely required as the opinion of those not doing the work is probably of little value unless it is solicited advice from a trusted knowledgeable party.
Cooperation and consensus based systems are usually dominated by extroverted personalities who make decisions to control the work of others and are justly resented by those doing the actual work.
Consensus based systems are also prone to the ‘hive mind’ appropriation of credit for individual ideas and labour which causes further resentment.
In a competitive environment, a new idea is jealously guarded, legally protected and shrouded in secrecy.
If the idea is instead developed cooperatively, it must first be pitched by the originator, who will attempt to persuade a group to adopt the idea. ..The majority of energy and resources are spent on communication, persuasion, and personality management, and the working environment is fraught with arguments and power struggles.
Both are hierarchical systems where individuals need to seek permission to contribute. Both focus on the authority of personalities to approve a decision instead of focusing on the idea or action itself.
Stigmergy is neither competitive nor traditionally collaborative.
With stigmergy, an initial idea is freely given, and the project is driven by the idea, not by a personality or group of personalities. No individual needs permission (competitive) or consensus (cooperative) to propose an idea or initiate a project. There is no need to discuss or vote on the idea, if an idea is exciting or necessary it will attract interest.
It is neither reasonable nor desirable for individual thought and action to be subjugated to group consensus in matters which do not affect the group, and it is frankly impossible to accomplish complex tasks if every decision must be presented for approval; that is the biggest weakness of the hierarchical model.
Resistance is existence.
[hasn’t tweeted on this one – georgiebc – since 2015]
Stigmergicly spreading the
#BindingChaos theory & book: The world is long overdue for a completely new system of governance…
Heather Marsh is a human rights and internet activist, programmer and philosopher. She is the author of Binding Chaos, a study of methods of mass collaboration and the founder of Getgee, a project to create a global data commons and trust network.
She gives talks about mass collaboration, democracy, economy and other societal issues. She has spoken about Getgee and the need for a global data commons at various software conferences. She gave a keynote speech on approval economy at the Alternate G8 summit in 2013. She was invited to the 2012 Berlin Biennale as part of their Occupy art exhibition. She represented the Berlin Biennale hackathon at the World Free Media Forum in Rio in June 2012. As a journalist, she has written articles and given many interviews to mainstream media and from 2010 to 2012 she was the sole editor and administrator for the Wikileaks sponsored news site, Wikileaks Central. As an activist, she has started many very successful human rights campaigns.
She has been primarily associated with political theories which relate to horizontal collaboration such as approval economy, stigmergy as a system of mass collaboration, and concentric circles with knowledge bridges for epistemic communities.
She has also written a great deal about global power structures and what she sees as the “ponzi schemes” of power, celebrity and wealth, how they are created and upheld and the roles which contribute to oligarchy. She advocates governance by user group and local autonomy supported by international networks and research and information provided by open epistemic communities. She advocates an economy based on societal approval and calls for a rejection of the trade economy. She calls the transition from social approval to currency a form of dissociation which removed societal inter-dependence and discourages collaboration.
She has advocated for both transparency for actions and organizations that affect the public and privacy for individuals. She is against control and ownership of knowledge by copyrights and patents but writes “Privacy and ownership of personal stories are closely related to human dignity” and credit (although not ownership) for ideas and intellectual labour is essential in an approval economy
agree w ownership take.. uneasy about approval econ though
nothing to prove ness matters..
Internet and Journalism
Since 2015 she has been working to initiate a global data commons project with Getgee, a universal database and trust network. Getgee seeks to allow global collaboration on research and information without control by a specific platform.
let’s try hlb
This is a continuation of her earlier viral project called the Global Square and a continuation of years of writing about mass communication including open journalism and scientific and academic research.
Her own journalism has covered investigations of leaked material and individual human rights cases as well as breaking coverage of global events. In one unpublished interview with Guantanamo defence attorney Dennis Edney, the two discuss blackmail attempts of witnesses by the FBI and the possibility that Omar Khadr’s plea deal was signed without legal counsel. The interview was subsequently leaked to Cryptome. The interview discusses the delaying of publication until after Edney returns from Guantanamo; when he returned from Guantanamo he was fired from the case and forbidden to speak of it.
As both a journalist and a media critic, she has often combined the two in articles such as The Guardian: Redacting, Censoring or Lying?, (the topic of an interview between Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger and Julian Assange in the documentary Mediastan), Toronto Star Coverage of Omar Khadr since his trial week and Zimbabwe election, Reuters and the troll who accidentally won the Internet.
She has been active in freedom of information, anti-poverty, justice related cases and all forms of ‘human dignity’ as well as advocating for individual rights ahead of all systems of governance. She has been associated with Guantanamo activism, primarily for Canadian POW Omar Khadr, and Anonymous activity, particularly human rights issues. She has reported and campaigned extensively against human trafficking and violations committed by global resource corporations.
She has written extensively on her activism including investigative reports and interviews on Canadian juvenile Omar Khadr, one of the youngest prisoners of Guantanamo Bay. Her popular blog is well-received globally. She is the national spokesperson for the Free Omar Khadr group in Canada, spending her time writing, speaking, advocating for Omar’s release. One of her most recent interviews were published in The Diplomat related to her work about Omar Khadr.
She wrote the first English media articles about Abdulelah Haider Shaye, a Yemeni journalist ordered imprisoned by Obama, a year and a half before any report appeared in the US. She brought global awareness to topics such as the Rohingya genocide in Burma and ritual killings in Gabon as well as many other individual and group cases through both activism and journalism.
She began a research project to map connections between the people behind resource corporations, militias, spies and prisons in response to a fracking protest in New Brunswick. This became opCanary which seeks to form alliances between local groups fighting the same multinational resource corporations. She started the OpDeathEaters campaign to inform the public of high level complicity in the human trafficking and ‘paedosadism’ industries with a goal of independent inquiries to investigate and a change in public discourse around these crimes. Her opGabon and opDeatheaters campaigns were the subject of a book, Crime, Justice and Social Media by Australian criminologist Michael Salter which asked “How is social media changing contemporary understandings of crime and injustice, and what contribution can it make to justice-seeking?” and featured extensive interviews with her.
She started Gaza Rebirth, “a new paradigm for recovery activism” to establish direct aid to Gaza in 2014 and “to start a dialogue about this cycle of destruction and ‘rebuilding’ where corporate empires are feeding off real human torment as a growth industry to enrich themselves.” She has frequently called for the decentralization of NGOs which she considers part of the “systems of dissociation” which stand between people and prevent creation of healthy society.
WikiLeaks, Anonymous, Occupy and more
In 2010 she became administrator, editor in chief and domain holder for the Wikileaks sponsored news site Wikileaks Central. As editor/administrator of WL Central, she created a community for 70+ activists around the world to provide a new hard news organization, covering only “the news people require in order to govern themselves”. She used WL Central to tie Wikileaks releases to current events and advocate for social change under the slogan “News, analysis, action.” The Action section contained protest calendars, petitions, and information for activists. The site published in 16 languages and protests were listed for over one hundred countries.
WL Central rapidly became an internationally very widely read news site, broke several important stories such as the secret CIA prisons in Poland and provided the most in depth coverage of many uprisings. Influential net critic Geert Lovink called WL Central the fourth website he visits every day: “WL Central turned into an alternative news aggregator and a kind of alternative CNN a.k.a. follow-up of Indymedia in the good old days of 2000-2001. it’s gone down a bit but still can up with amazing stories from its own correspondents. WL Central shows what the Web is capable of doing beyond the 140 characters of Twitter and the informal chit-chat on Facebook.”
She resigned as editor in chief, administrator and domain holder of Wikileaks Central on March 8, 2012.
She used the media attention on Wikileaks from 2010 to 2012 to shine light on human rights and transparency issues and support activist movements around the world. Some of those groups were the South Korean Hope Riders, the North African Day of Rages, the Chinese Jasmine revolution, the Spanish Indignados/Take the Square/15M movement and the Occupy movement. She wrote the first article referencing what became the US Occupy movement on the day it started, March 10, 2011, and covered many other day of rages within hours of their beginnings. A Canadian activist, she created Take the Square Canada in association with the Spanish movement.
She has received frequent international support from Anonymous for her human rights campaigns since 2010 and she calls them “old friends”. She has referenced them as a method of collaboration, not a movement or group, and says the method they use is stigmergy. She says Anonymous follows ideas and actions instead of personalities, a form of organization she recommends for mass movements.
via Heather rt – post from april 2017
we can show the power of chaotic order, the beauty/creativity of collab freedom, if we build the right structures now.
Yes, I’m A Fire Sign (@KateAllDay) tweeted at 12:30 AM – 27 Oct 2017 :
Yes to all of this. Heather Marsh is maybe our greatest modern philosopher. https://t.co/S2wfhuWu3x (http://twitter.com/KateAllDay/status/923799046275391488?s=17)
from Heather rt.. post from may 2017 – The evolution of democracy
Carlos R. Ferreira (@carlosrof) tweeted at 10:21 AM – 7 Oct 2017 :
The evolution of democracy
Posted on May 9, 2017 by Heather Marsh
Transcript (more or less) from The evolution of de…https://t.co/RmUCPHQKhz (http://twitter.com/carlosrof/status/916700115858997248?s=17)
My name is Heather Marsh. I am a writer and a programmer and I have been studying and experimenting with both local activism and methods of mass communication and collaboration for many years now. From 2010 to 2012 I was the administrator and editor in chief of the Wikileaks news site Wikileaks Central where I experimented with creating knowledge repositories, tying that information to things that were happening in the news and creating action based on that information. News without action is just voyeurism and action without information creates a very easily manipulated public, so I was trying to bring the two together in one place. In 2012 I concentrated more social media collaboration and I wrote a first book called Binding Chaos about all the problems I had seen while working with Wikileaks, Occupy, Anonymous, M15 and many other mass movements in recent years. We all seemed to be coming up against the same issues with hierarchy, direct democracy, consensus and collaboration. As I kept working on various projects it became apparent that we as societies had been butting heads for millenia on these same issues which really come down to trying to create a balance between autonomy, diversity and society, which is the title of my next book. And along the way I have been thinking of what tools we would require to help us achieve this balance, and the primary one I have been working on is a universal database and trust network called Getgee.
post from 2015:
back to the evolution of democracy
We can’t have real direct democracy or self governance any more because none of us can understand every aspect of everything. We need to rely on collaboration instead and this is going to require a completely different set of rules than we have used in the past. We need more than simple referendums and voting to govern ourselves this way. We need to somehow create nuanced and detailed information t.. we can trust and we need to coordinate goals with people we will never speak to.
2 rules via 2 daily convos.. ie: 3 min self.. 30 min others
The challenge in a societal singularity is how to allow all people to participate and communicate but still be able to filter signal from noise .. t.. and how to allow people democratic choice but still retain worker autonomy.
The alternative to competition has traditionally been cooperation. Cooperative groups try to replace the top down hierarchy with a group consensus driven system which allows diversity of opinion at the top.
This is most effective only in groups of two to eight people. For groups larger than 25, cooperation is extremely slow. It is still a personality based system. An idea in a cooperative must be approved by the entire group, both on initiation and at each stage of development. The majority of energy and resources are spent on communication, persuasion, and personality management, and a power struggle can derail the whole project
It can be dominated by extroverted personalities who make decisions to control the work of others and are very justly resented by those doing the actual work. Cooperatives frequently use consensus or votes to make decisions for the entire group. These methods may not produce the best results, particularly in large groups, as many people may not understand the work if they are not actually doing it and they may demand things they would never be willing to do themselves. The feeling of the workers at the bottom is no different whether there is a horizontal or a hierarchical structure making the decisions, the workers still have no personal autonomy.
Both competitive and cooperative projects .. are hierarchical systems where individuals need to seek permission to contribute. ..still have no autonomy and because of the need to reach consensus there is also no diversity of product…This isn’t in any way to say that cooperative and consensus driven systems are bad. They are actually the most comfortable way of working in small groups who know each other and have similar styles and share a goal, but they are very difficult to scale.
begs we iterate to approach the limit of small.. everyday.. of that hierarch.. ie: art ist vs bot ist ness.. we scale by going ginorm small.. and by getting a new go.. everyday
A system is stigmergic if
– it follows one goal
– it is completely transparent
– it is open to everyone to participate, at least within the user group
– the output is free for anyone to use and improve on
i think this is wrong approach.. i think we start.. everyday.. with individual curiosity.. and then do some crazy/chaotic matching.. and i think the goal can ongoingly change.. a singularity goal perhaps.. lines blurred..
With stigmergy, an initial idea is freely *given, and the **project is driven by the idea, not by a personality or group of personalities.
perhaps rather/also.. an idea/curiosity is non-judgmentally *listened to.. and the **connection is driven by the idea/curiosity.. project seems too nouny.. to defined.. dead.. confining..
So no one needs permission, like they would in a competitive system, or consensus like they would in a cooperative, to initiate a *project. There is no need to discuss or vote on the idea. If an idea is exciting or necessary it will **attract interest and the interest attracted will be from people ***willing to contribute so those with more involvement in the idea will automatically have greater influence through their contributions.
otherwise we end up with ie: patreon.. ness.. where we are still spending our days.. selling ourselves.. rather than being ourselves..
When we *allow anyone to contribute ..t..we also have a great diversity of talent and people can step up to further the goal in ways the originator never imagined
of course anyone can join anything.. but i think we miss a big part if that is our basis.. rather.. thinking.. we *allow any curiosity to be facilitated.. ie: listen to them all.. from 7 bn people ..everyday.. that is the data.. that is used to connect people.. no selling.. no willing to contribute.. just finding your people.. to do the thing you can’t not do that day..
toward.. eudaimoniative surplus
I am often asked if Wikipedia is a good example of stigmergy and no, it is not. Wikipedia is a cooperative. You may contribute work without asking anyone but your work can be thrown out and you can be locked out of contributing, or the topic locked, and there is a definite personality based hierarchy and a need to reach consensus around one final product. There is no diversity of product tolerated and there isn’t any real autonomy either.
If you think of this in a governance context, we won’t be electing personalities, we will be electing ideas.
why elect anything.. i think we need to disengage from elections.. votings.. monies.. this is where i think we fall into a bind.. when we use history as ie’s.. science of people ness keeps us perpetuating that history.. that not-us ness.. rather than what is possible..
A noun is not a stigmergic goal, a noun is an organization, so when feminism became a noun it stopped being a stigmergic movement and became a competitive, personality driven, organization which became completely divided, as is typical, these types of organizations do not scale.
All that mattered in whether the action was a success was whether people could be sure the goal is sound..t
seems then we’re headed for dead/nounish goals..? thinking langer outcome law.. and what we’d be missing if we didn’t try things even if they might not work..
finding the information we need for conviction in our goals is not easy.
unless looking inside.. everyday.. as our conviction.. holmgren indigenous law et al
If we think of a large population creating a *knowledge repository stigmergicly, we have a picture of a bunch of ants sifting and sorting information and **putting the best in a pile.
this is what tech/mech could do.. if we seek to create *curiosity repository (hlb).. via 2 convos (esp 3 of 3 and 30).. everyday.. the tech/mech would sift sort curiosities (self-talk as data).. **connecting people rather than putting info in a pile..
This is why we need knowledge bridges to replace the gatekeepers because most ideas can’t make it across this chasm on their own.
what if there’s no chasm to get across.. what if .. if you think it.. that morning.. it’s happening.. imagine that ongoing energy..
The people had information that was too difficult to audit themselves, and they had no faith in the people offering solution
they lose faith in any stigmergic goal these people present and they will block it
gershenfeld sel .. no one has time to block anything.. because all doing art that matters.. to all of us.. if lose faith in that.. trust gut and try something different
We need to be able to find expertise and accurate and diverse information that we can trust before we form our opinions and long before we measure them.
seems we only needed to ie: form opinions and measure.. in the society we’re in now.. which is so toxic.. i don’t see the need for opinions/measure to be our focus.. if at all..
i think if 7 bn were doing their thing.. trusting in our interconnectedness.. we’d not need to consensus/meeting/poll/measure ourselves.. all these things seem to be needed.. only to solve problems we created.. not natural phenom
Intellectual property in a stigmergic system is like an ant that finds food but doesn’t leave any pheromones to tell the other ants. Or worse, actually blocks the other ants and that idea is so ridiculous I can’t even think of a stigmergic example of it..t
Ownership of ideas is in complete opposition to stigmergy which is to say it is in complete opposition to rapid progress, finding the best solutions and democracy.
k (@DeliciousAnon) tweeted at 4:51 PM on Sat, Aug 12, 2017:
“A societal singularity” by @GeorgieBC https://t.co/QKyfeTXCe0
We need to somehow create *nuanced and detailed information we can trust and **coordinate goals with people we will never speak to..t
*self-talk as data
Collaboration in a personality based system can only be by authority or consensus.
from below (stigmergic action follows ideas, not personalities.)
Most workers do not enjoy authoritarian systems as they lose autonomy, mastery and creative control over their own work and rule is by coercion, not choice. Consensus is ideal for small, local, like-minded affinity groups, but it only works in groups of under twenty-five people, preferably two to eight. *Consensus is not useful for **large scale collaboration or collaboration that is separated by communication barriers or over time.
*public consensus always oppresses someone..
**but less about size and more about coordination infra.. ie: if based on incentives rather than basic needs.. personality (the combination of characteristics or qualities that form an individual’s distinctive character.) is compromised/distorted into a coping mech (via maté)
Neither knowledge based industries nor governance ought to be personality based and neither can operate effectively in that way. *The goal of all knowledge industries, including governance, is to stimulate the public to action. **The only effective and voluntary large scale method of action based collaboration is stigmergy and stigmergic action follows ideas, not personalities. Since knowledge industries want to trigger stigmergic actions, they ought to be focused on ideas.
Currently, knowledge communities act like closed, internationally linked, affinity groups at a level of expertise not accessible to the general public. Affinity groups are personality based and allow expertise to be held by gatekeepers controlling information flow between groups. While local, self-governing, affinity groups should have the ultimate authority of acceptance or rejection of ideas, they all need access to the expertise of international epistemic communities in order to make the choices which are right for them. A structure which allows gatekeepers to control information flow will create both demagogues and an easily manipulated public. Epistemic communities that develop and audit ideas should use transparent and permeable concentric circles to integrate ideas from the epistemic communities directly with the public.
In a governance context this means we won’t be electing personalities, we will be *electing ideas. We won’t have representatives for groups of people, we will have concentric circles around ideas.
*listening to (and facil ing) curiosities
Without stigmergy, their progress is not nearly what it could be.
with electing ness.. not nearly as it could be
Stigmergy is a method of collaboration for mass movements, not organizations.
When feminism stopped following ideas, it stopped being a stigmergic movement and became a competitive, personality driven organization which then became completely divided, as is typical. Personality based organizations do not scale.
Stigmergy can scale to an entire population if support for an idea is unanimous and identity politics is not used to drive people away. Because stigmergy follows ideas, ideas are as important in stigmergy as personality management is in organizations. *The single biggest factor for whether or not someone will participate in a stigmergic action is whether they are **sure of the idea behind it. Whether it affects them, or if its simple to grasp or easy or even safe to do matters very little compared to their belief in the goal.
*i see that in the deep/simple/open enough infra.. but in the daily stigmergy.. more about curioisity than **surety of an idea.. otherwise we lose that energy we’re currently missing.. again
If we want those making the decisions to hear the voices that are seldom heard, that may expand their Overton windows and give us some fresh perspective, or represent a rare case that will cause their solution to break, *amplifying the most popular ideas or people is again the exact opposite of what we ought to be doing.
Instead of doctors ignoring their patients for the latest paper from their colleagues or funding from the powerful, knowledge bridges would encourage community driven knowledge and research. Psychologists should not have the sole authority to decide what is normative. *Anti-social or social acts should be decided by the society itself.
*rather.. not decided at all.. w gershenfeld sel.. no one needing to spend their days in that kind of judgment infra
Science will tell us that a woman died of a heart attack. Her village could tell us that she died of a broken heart because her son died. Science tells us how, but without the village, we will never understand why. Science today is not asking the village. They are too busy telling everyone that people can’t die of a broken heart and sneering at superstitious villagers.
When left out in isolation, user groups can be as guilty of group narcissism as the scientists they criticize. As psychoanalysts looked to parenting as the cause of scizophrenia and other illnesses as part of their vilification of mothers, feminists seized anorexia nervosa and anorexia bulimia as evidence of the body shaming culture women and girls lived in
The current demand for people in knowledge industries to go on speaking tours, delivering sound bites like performing monkeys, is a waste of their expertise and forced crowd pleasing for survival. Epistemic communities should be allowed to work and to communicate only when they choose, to whom they choose.
It is only possible for science to be opposed by worthy rebuttals if it is within the power of everyone to make worthy rebuttals,
true.. and.. if infra set up as it could be.. less time rebuttal ing.. more time facil ing everyone’s art
They can’t be attacked just by demagogues and rhetoric. They can only be opposed by *another working solution, so the user group has a choice between two or more working solutions instead of simply **rejection or acceptance. This is only possible if the information is free for anyone to use or modify. ***Ownership of ideas is in complete opposition to both stigmergy and concentric circles, so it is in complete opposition to rapid progress, finding the best solutions and self governance.
(fishmonkey) (@pezmico) tweeted at 6:27 PM – 16 Mar 2018 :
@_chloeswarbrick @GeorgieBC She talks a lot about epistemic societies, and peer reviewed and approved panels that work on reputation. Also technology enabling mass participation and involvement.
thinking reputation is a killer..
Heather Marsh at RMLL 2017
Original Tweet: https://twitter.com/sandovalrudy922/status/980196622910058501
been studying methods of mass collab
from 2010-2012 – i was admin of wikileaks news site.. i took info from leaks & combined w current news to create a catalyst for informed action
in 2012 i moved more onto sm collab.. and i wrote a book called binding chaos about methods of collab that had been used to create mass movements
and i’m currently writing a book called autonomy, diversity, society.. about societal/institutional structures that are getting in our way of having mass collab.. particularly those around knowledge industries like science and academia and journalism..
and i’m also creating a universal database and trust network.. which will hopefully help resolve some of the issues i kept coming up against for the last several years
1 min – i’d like to talk about the methods of collab we use online and what kinds of structures we’re creating w the tech that we’re building.. and then i’d like to talk about what is a universal database and why we’d need such a thing
2 min – so.. what was it about the internet that was so world changing and important..usually we get the answer in terms of communication.. but we don’t actually communicate on a 1 to 1 basis w every single person on the internet and reach consensus..
so this is a picture (stigmergy – swarm) of what mass collab usually looks like both online and offline.. an action based method of collab that follows an idea.. no real structure.. just an idea/goal that’s reflected to everybody.. and this is the kind of collab that can spring up spontaneously.. very quickly.. and very very effectively.. once this idea is released publicly.. if people believe in it they will follow it across cultures..language barriers.. generation.. it can be truly unstoppable..
3 min – this is the kind of collab we have used throughout history.. for mass migrations.. for adopting new tech.. for adopting moral principles.. but for the last several thousand years we’ve been moving more and more relentlessly toward this really structured/ordered/coercive type of collab which has official channels and hierarchy and a system of sticks and carrots like military or money that is used as rewards/punishments to guide us thru these official channels and coerce our behavior..
and we’ve been progressing more and more towards this method until the internet appeared and then suddenly we had this proliferation of stigmergic movements.. that sprung up very very quickly and globally and it scared a lot of powerful people very much and deposed some of them
rest of notes on getgee page