intersub Inter-subjective Protocol

Defining a set of protocols on how to operate with others, in the context of a common struggle, beyond arbitrary-whimsical relations.




Last updates:
    2015-08-27 started
    2015-11-15 touch
    2016-11-30 touch
    2017-10-12 (need to clean this page up)
    2017-10-15 cleanup






Basics

In two sentences, Intersub...:
    * (WHAT) ...is a: consequential mechanism of Subject description and activation, by inter-relating them to others, via their similarities and differences
    * (HOW) ...defines a: set of protocols on how to operate ("be") with other Subjects (projects, communities, institutions, individuals), in the context of a common struggle, beyond arbitrary / whimsical relations.

Initial motivation:
    "We need a protocol for this inter-group stuff... happens to me sometimes that I meet somebody [cool] like you guys and then we share what we do, and then it's more unclear "what's next" than should be. Would hope that it'd be more of apparent process than a "ok let's skype some time and figure it out."

Related fields:
    Totalism, hermeneutics, P2P (peer-to-peer), communism, mutual coordination economics, ...




http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/ce/Archibald_Thorburn_Blackcocks_at_the_Lek_1901.jpg/800px-Archibald_Thorburn_Blackcocks_at_the_Lek_1901.jpg

Current situation and practice

    * Subjects "A" and "B":
        are (or are representing) a project / institution / individual person carrying an idea

    * ... come into contact
        (of course, in a Totalist sense, the relation can never not be there, and lack of contact is only a suboptimality of incomplete system knowledge)

    * Currently, their exchange and future interaction is unpredictable and random:
        * in danger of mis-understanding by the whimsical (arbitrary current context, momentary moods, etc)
        * limited by apparatus (nature of communication), usually workflow technologies, to follow-up:
            * inadequate and inexisting "ideal platform"
            * worse: different people use different non-ideal things
            * worse even: no setting to systemically study and resolve this!
            (ties to 🔗workflow)

    * The outcomes are measurably disappointing:
        * so called "networking" depends on chance meetings
        * the culture of ideas is non-consequential - relations are by choice, guided by a path of least resistance (and plain ignorance of what are challenging, or competing visions)
        * there is little systematics, both extensive (lists) or intensive (classifications, etc)
        * as a consequence, any expression of relation is dominated by PR/marketing:
            (evading even the weak and non-enforceable legalities, like recognizing source licenses like "CC-by-sa")




Goal

Changing the current situation of subject interactions, to a set of consistent and consequential protocols.

1) Against play-pretend uniqueness:
    It should not be possible to be (a Subject) without having explicit, defined relationships to conceptual neighbours.

2) New, consequential logic of difference:
    Being a (different) Subject should mean having clear unsurmountable differences: either on theoretical level, or "personal" level. These things should not (be able to) "go unsaid".

___  ___  ___  ___  ___  ___  ___  ___  ___  

More improvement systems (whether commitments, tools, via oversight, ...)
    * beyond arbitrary "keeping in touch"
    * disqualify whim and rationalising based on moods
    * transparency of decisions and action in a "common struggle"
    * solve "attribution" void (and the wild-west of "borrowing" ideas):
        * ... solving co-option / dilution
        * ... in turn changing leadership and resource allocation politics
    * [...]




THE PROTOCOLS

    Discoverability
:
    * enable complete, transparent co-discovery:
        <<< 🔗alike

    * reject brand logic - adopt and openly co-develop typologies, which are self-descriptive (and open to adopt and replicate)
        not unlike "genus proximum - differentia specifica"
        <<< Hackerspaces.org🔗Hackbase(R/W)



    Contact / Inter-relation
:
    * standard presentation, with attempt to ground "common language":
        <<< 🔗commonground

    * state machine of the status between two Subjects:


    * ensure process continuation with transparent public queue

    * establish optimal workflow:
        <<< 🔗workflow
        * rhythm and time-synchronisation
        * responsibilities
        * [...]

    * understand and recognize each-other:
        * crosslinking:
            a subprocess cross-mapping A and B's elements ("inter-hermeneutics")
        * form common language:
            * terminology / conceptual
            * logical (modal verbs, ...)
        * identify differences

    * find and disclose convergent/common causes as well as divergent/competing



    Co-Operation
:
    * have a post-individual logic of dealing with scarce resources:
        * money (grants / donations)
        * attention
        * labour
    
    * logic of presentation (visual level, "brands", etc)

    * remove cliquey inside/outside barrier logic:
        * memberships, "calls"
        * internal / external information logic

    * safeguards against exploitation:
        * understand attributions
        * disclosure agreement
        * [...]

    * shared work management:
        * shared infrastructure and upkeep (physical, virtual, fiscal/legal, ...)
        * shared general ideation ("knowledge management") and executive tools and processes
        * division of labour
        * reporting and cross-assessment
        * [...]



    Consolidation
:
    * First step:
        establish an abstract unity around a common higher-level concept
        (classes like "hackbase", "living system", "system", "eco village", etc)

    * Full consolidation / integration is always a goal:
        ("post-brand", etc)

    * Commonize differences as polemics under stronger common banners






****** PAD

Todo:
    * >CHT: define full co-operational level toolset
    * >CHT: apply on 🔗alike
    * think implications of this applied at total scale (as hypercommunist)
    * [...]

http://files.umwblogs.org/blogs.dir/7503/files/2012/10/Domains-of-evidence.png
so "Interobjective" sounds awesome...

GRANULARITY
inside a subject (group) there are subjects (individuals)
    at a low enough level, everyone disagrees
    at a high enough, everyone agrees (even if just "to make the world a better place", etc)
if you can't consolidate into "common struggle", you can at least do "common missions"

JavaScript license information


(Site generated by E2H, an "Etherpad hypermedia" project by @dcht00). Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.


Edit Site

Talk