m of care – nov 13
40ish people on zoom call
mission statement shared in moc meeting on nov 13 https://pad.riseup.net/p/MoC_Residencies_Mission_Statement
holy cow.. so resonate w year 2 – the be you house – ie: diff rooms.. always changing.. et al
The Museum of Care is a museum with many rooms around the globe. Like in any museum, some of these rooms are more permanent than others. New rooms are opened, existing rooms are occupied and change their function, and some rooms are abandoned and closed.
There are rooms made for reading. There are rooms made for dancing. There are rooms for doing carpentry, for growing vegetables, for doing science. Some rooms are whatever rooms.
Anyone can open a room in the Museum. All you have to do is propose what kind of room you want to open. Anyone can move into a room in the Museum. All you have to do is tell us what you want to do there.
The rooms in the Museum of Care are curated by their inhabitants. These rooms are constantly curated anew; there is no permanent collection, there are no permanent residents. The Museum of Care stimulates the development of replicable practices that can cross over into different rooms as well as to the world outside. The Museum of Care does not end at its walls.
from an edit/addition to mission statement:
— the rules (that Dennis wrote) + a decision-making structure (Gabi+Clare?) that will allow for constant changes in the rules
now from meeting – dennis: describes rooms and then says.. not sure how it would work
need an infra to org that chaos.. again .. what we did in the be you house
nika: hope to invite people next week that can share similar projects and will present visual assembly project
paul: maybe not a legal matter but an org matter.. get org first then can usually get legal to match
let’s org to undo our hierarchical listening
paul (a lawyer): law is a waste of energy.. anything you can so w/o it is best
gabi: on researching decision making processes
started reading group
[my notes from reading: dead zones of imagination]
vassily hosting the reading group: noting rev in reverse
dmitrii: (doing overall of reading) – focus on interp labor.. on simplistic forms of interaction: exchange and violence.. w/o knowing a person.. then he shared (26 pg pdf – turning modes of production inside out) https://libcom.org/files/graeber_2006a.pdf
haven’t read yet
dennis: david sees violence (and so function of state) as squishing imagination
john fail: just the idea of imagining beyond policing.. imagining something beyond the structural violence
seamoon – in past experiences at art residencies.. institution so interesting in replicating.. there was no time to work.. w all these semi bureaucratic tracts.. so.. it can also happen in these spaces that are officially imagination spaces.. some kind of guidelines to try to keep imagination spaces free of the bureaucracy
graeber care/free law – we need to org for that
nika: not that you don’t have rules.. but have a structure w way to change the rules.. going on in democratic schools.. changing rules everyday
yeah.. actually great ie of what seamoon was warning against
nika: on having all the languages.. moc should not be english centric
idiosyncratic jargon ness
otherwise.. language as control/enclosure et al
clive russell: that’s about colonialism.. and it’s about trust.. if you can just trust one another.. then can go a long way.. basically for imagination to flow there has to be trust.. we give each other trust.. and then things become relatively simple
allows us to let go of bureaucracy ness
rachel: after suggesting humor.. so what are solutions
yash: how do we undo these structures
a means to undo our hierarchical listening
clive: quite a question.. only by creating alt cultures.. then quotes graeber model law.. can only offer something better.. it means it’s long term.. lots of people doing it at same time
michael reinsborough: on the post office being a bureaucracy but no one complains about it..
vassily: i’ve had many people complaining about the po recently (then others in chat.. esp noted one from russia saying standard to complain about po)
anca: on rojava.. how do we make sure we involve people who don’t have power like us to create these pockets of freedom
clive: where the hard work is.. making it properly open and remain open.. we’re going to have to have an outreach policy.. and groups.. going to take a lot of work
if we could just hear – ie: tech as it could be
nika: the way we allow residences to come in is by interview.. reduce any non human interactions.. how do we do that.. we need rules.. but changeable/transparent..
sevda: if we are all here than we are up for something.. so we all trust.. but can we trust the govt (from iran)..
vassily: on david’s revolutionary moments – crisis
rachel: so even if free.. not free.. if have to fill out all forms et al
dmitrii: infinite regress in idea of following rules.. ie: rule to tell how to follow no rules.. via graeber: always some interp labor that has to be done in order to follow rules..
dmitrii put this in chat: ‘I wanted to make a quick comment about the rules and bureaucracy. There is a long-standing debate in social theory about ‘rule-following’, going all the way back to the later Wittgenstein, and being basically about how in order to follow a rule one has to have a separate rule about how to do that, and so on ad infinitum, so there is an inherent problem of infinite regress here. and a way out of this infinite regress is to rely on some informal and perhaps implicit understanding of the context in which rules are to be followed. so, rules are not bad as such, what is ‘bad’ is when they are followed blindly, without regard to the context, or, putting it in Greaber’s terms, without the necessary interpretative labour. in this case, rules turn to violence’
dennis share this in chat: arendt said bureaucracy is herrschaft des niemand – rule of no one… which makes it sound democratic somehow, and i feel that’s the fantasy, that it’s somehow egalitarian, that everyone is equal in front of the rules. but of course that hides the big inequality of who makes them vs who has to follow them.
ivan: on group size linked w trust.. trust can be maintained in small group.. et al.. additional reason why bureaucracy could arise.. for larger societies missing direct interpersonal trust
anca: on some not wanting to opt in to B.. but there are punishments whether you opt in or not
nika: on request to condense academic texts
sveda: what’s our ultimate goal w B system
gabi: i feel that in m of c we should try to build trust.. little by little.. getting to know people to avoid it (B) as much as we can
again.. our findings:
2\ if we create a way to ground the chaos of 8b free people
matt schultz: on how to use B to get people to request (their unique) needs.. rather
nika: unconditional services.. what is money
vassily: no reading group next time.. next o
nika: next reading group on 27 – run by lse reading group that was run by david: https://www.facebook.com/events/370025947395718
from fb page: We are hosting a reading group to discuss the work of David Graeber. On November 27, we will discuss Direct Action: An Ethnography, participants are asked to read the Introduction, Chapter 5 and Chapter 10.
firstname.lastname@example.org for mailing list to reading group