No subject

Tue Sep 18 10:10:38 UTC 2007

position, based on the premises describing what makes for an effective
network - or, say, what makes for a healthy forest. These are
principles that govern the effectiveness of networks in general,
of which a society is only one example, and hence can be described, and
studied, empirically, Hence, what I offer here is only my first
estimation, based on an understanding of mathematical, computational
and physical structures of networks. These are properties of the individuals
in a network - and I think, we can see, that the combination of these
four properties, adds up not only to a formula for successful networks,
but also as a formula describing the basic dignity of each member in
society. 
 
First, diversity. A successful network fosters difference, not
sameness. There is no presumption of a 'pure' prototype, a creed or a
faith, a doctrine or fundamental sent of principles to which all
members of a society must adhere. One of the fundamental principles of
Marxism is indeed a principle of diversity, not equality: "from
each according to his means, to each according to his needs."
Intuitively, we understand this. We know that a forest needs to be
composed of a variety of trees and animals; when it is composed of a
single type of tree, and few animals, it cannot survive, and must be
tended, and even then is more likely to be wiped out by a virus or
disease. Diversity is what Richard Florida writes about when he talks
about the 'Creative Class', the most productive element of society. 
 
Diversity is what propels some of the major planks of leftist thought:
the idea that we live in a multicultural society, the idea that we
ought to encourage and endorse people of minority faiths, values and
statuses. The encourage of diversity is part of what propels a
leftists' celebration of gay-lesbian causes, aboriginal rights,
minority rights, and more, while at the same time encouraging people in
the expression of their religious beliefs, not to mention expressions
of culture and identity in art, music and drama. 
 
Second, and related, autonomy. Where the individual knowers
contributing of their own accord, according to their
own knowledge, values and decisions, rather than at the behest
of some external agency seeking to magnify a certain point of view
through quantity rather than reason and reflection. Without autonomy,
diversity is impossible and sameness becomes the predominate value of
society. Autonomy is fundamental to human dignity, for without it, a
person is unable to contribute in any meaningful way to the social
fabric. 
 
Autonomy underlies the left's interest in social justice and equality.
People who live in conditions of poverty and dependence cannot express
their will. The right wing often depicts the free market merely as the
(best possible) means to distribute resources, howver, the market, as
it now exists, has become the means through which we employ scarcity in
order to create relationships of power, where one person, the one with
the resources, is able to deprive the second person of his or her
autonomy. Wage-labour isn't simply about the inequality of resources,
it is about the capacity of one party to impose its will on the other.
Leftists believe that market exchanges are and ought to be exchanges of
multual value, not conditions of servitude imposed by one against the
other, and hence seek the redistribution of resources in order to
maximize autonomy. 
Third, interactivity. Knowledge is the product
of an interaction between the members, not a mere aggregation of
the members' perspectives. A different type of knowledge is
produced one way as opposed to the other. Just as the human mind does
not determine what is seen in front of it by merely counting pixels,
nor either does a process intended to create public knowledge. Without
getting too far from the topic of this discussion, knowledge is not
merely the accumulation of facts and data, nor even the derivation of
laws and principles, but rather, is the recognition of states
of affairs. Recognition is not possible without interactivity, because
recognition entails an understanding of the relations between points,
which requires several perspectives on those points. 

Interactivity lies behind the leftists insistence on matters of
process. It is not simply the case that 'the results matter', because
without process, getting the right results is a matter of luck, not
policy.&nbsp; An interactive process values and respects the rights of each
of its members to speak and be heard. It is therefore a statement of
the fundamental freedoms of society - of expression, of the press, of
assembly. It is also the value that fosters respect for the principles
and structures of society, the laws and institutions. It's why we have
trials - where the matter can be discussed and brought out into the
open - rather than mere rulings, and why things like arbitrary
detentions and sentencing are contrary to the principles of a just
society. 

Fourth, and again related, openness. The is, in effect, the
statement that all members of society constitute the governance of
society. From a network perspective, the principle of openness entails
a mechanism that
allows a given perspective to be entered into the system, to be heard
and interacted with by others. It is not simply a principle of
connectivity between the members - though it is in part that - but also
the principle that there is no single channel or proprietary mechanism
through which that connection is established. It is, at its base level,
at once the principle that there ought to be a language in which to
communicate, but also, that no person should own that language, and
that there ought not be any particular language. 

In computer science openness means open standards and open source
software; in political discourse it means open processes and accessible
rule of law. It means that the mechanisms of governance ought to be
accessible to each person in society, which results in policy running
the gamut from electoral spending limits to voting reform to citizen
consultancy and open government, and ultimately, direct governance by
the people of their own affairs, self-governance, in the truest sense. 

These may not be the only principles, and they may not be the most
fundamental, but I offer them as a statement of what it means, and the
most elemental level, to be left. These principles offers us some sort
of hope in society, a hope that we as a whole can be better than the
best of us, but also with the understanding that this is made possible,
not through repression and control, but only through raising each and
every one of us to the highest level possible, to participate most
fully and most wholeheartedly, in society. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; Abe Burmeister wrote:
<blockquote
 cite="mid:49F3E99A-34C3-44FC-B436-26E3FC45C09C at abstractdynamics.org"
 type="cite">
 <pre wrap="">What is Left?

The left perhaps has never been unified. Perhaps it has always been a  
patchwork of interests: labor unions, marxists, socialists,  
feminists, queers, green activists, anarchists, progressives,  
billionaire followers of Karl Popper, Hong Kong born pyramid  
schemers, a whole slew of post-hippie entrepreneurs, and who knows  
what else all get mushed together under the same banner, although a  
few might deny it themselves. Unity is perhaps a luxury reserved for  
the right, although it of course has it's own divides, particularly  
between those whose politics stem more from a desire to gain and  
retain power and those whose politics are more about a reluctance to  
embrace change.

Last week a study in Nature Neuroscience [ <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.nature.com/">http://www.nature.com/</a> 
neuro/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/nn1979.html ] presented a very 21st 
century interpretation of left vs. right. Those on the political left 
apparently are more cognitively open to and aware of change itself. 
The classic conservative vs. liberal divide has been reconstructed as 
a neuro-politics. For those that identify themselves as being on the 
left (and I suspect most of this list does in at least some regard) 
it's a tantalizing study, for it basically says that to be 
conservative is to be stupid. Unfortunately though it is based 
entirely on a study of the letters "M" and "W" being flashed on 
screen in a set up where response time is measured. Hardly enough 
grounds to make large scale conclusions about politics at large, or 
at least one would hope. For one thing the left is far more 
conservative than many of it's members would like to let on.

The right wing (or at least a small intellectual section of it) after  
all has long been struggling to reclaim the word liberal, while large  
sections of the left are increasingly mired in fits of nostalgia. In  
the French Revolutionary era of course the left rapidly moved  
rightward as new more radical members joined the Legislative  
Assembly. Yet today if there is any movement at all it is probably  
best described as a churning. The center left is alternately busy  
dismantling the gains of the 20th century or busy frantically trying  
to hold on to and defend what remains. The most active and charged  
leftist movement of today is the green movement, which has the  
scientific community behind it, and increasingly the media and in  
some spaces popular politics behind it as well. Yet at its roots  
environmentalism (or at least large strains of it) is about  
conservation, that is to say conservatism by another name.

It's not just in environmentalism where the left flirts with  
conservatism. It's perhaps most visibly apparent in architecture at  
least in America, the more liberal the town or neighborhood, the more  
regressive the housing stock. Meanwhile it is conservatives who are  
more likely to embrace genetically modified food, nuclear power and  
the latest march to war. The liberal / conservative divide as laid  
out in by neuroscience is all about change yet it breaks down when  
applied across the actual politics of people. There are other vectors  
for explaining and dividing politics of course, power being the most  
glaring of them. But when you start combining it all, power, money,  
change, faith, race, land, freedom and whatever else people bring to  
the table, the political landscape that emerges does not divide on  
left versus right axis at all, nor on straight top to bottom  
hierarchy either but instead fragments in many dimensions, and into  
the multifold complexities that make up real politics the world over.  
What is left then is of course... very complicated.

This is being posted to the "Institute for Distributed Creativity"  
and the real question being asked is: What does a distributed  
politics look like? For we are just beginning to create a tool set to  
really look at and understand the distributed networks that  
interweave the globe. From power laws to protocols, through tracings  
and generations, and as it goes almost without saying by utilizing  
the unprecedented ability to transmit information across the globe, a  
whole new way of looking at politics is now at least theoretically  
possible. There are antecedents of course, Bruno Latour and company's  
Actor Network Theory (ANT) in particular comes to mind. But while ANT  
and its variations has resulted in some rather interesting and  
detailed tracings/portraits of complex networks, it has done little  
to incorporated the actual advances in network theory itself. By  
understanding these dynamics and ever evolving interconnections is it  
possible to move beyond the politics of left and right, the politics  
of have and have not and towards an understanding of distributed  
politics?

- Abe Burmeister
New York City, September 2007

ps. Big thanks to Trebor for inviting me to moderate this list, as I  
non-academic I suspect it will be quite an intriguing and hopefully  
exciting experience...

Abe Burmeister | <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:abe at abstractdynamics.org">abe at abstractdynamics.org</a> | +1 917.806.8177
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Abstract Dynamics | <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.abstractdynamics.org">www.abstractdynamics.org</a>
Abe Burmeister Design | <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.abeburmeister.com">www.abeburmeister.com</a>

_______________________________________________
iDC -- mailing list of the Institute for Distributed Creativity (distributedcreativity.org)
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:iDC at mailman.thing.net">iDC at mailman.thing.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mailman.thing.net/mailman/listinfo/idc">https://mailman.thing.net/mailman/listinfo/idc</a>

List Archive:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/">http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/</a>

iDC Photo Stream:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/idcnetwork/">http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/idcnetwork/</a>

RSS feed:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://rss.gmane.org/gmane.culture.media.idc">http://rss.gmane.org/gmane.culture.media.idc</a>

iDC Chat on Facebook:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2457237647">http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2457237647</a>

Share relevant URLs on Del.icio.us by adding the tag iDCref

  </pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>

--------------080709000607090802080401--