Defining a set of protocols on how to operate with others, in the context of a common struggle, beyond arbitrary-whimsical relations.
Table of Contents
|2||Current situation and practice|
|4.2||Contact / Inter-relation|
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.
"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."
Totalism, hermeneutics, P2P (peer-to-peer), communism, mutual coordination economics, ...
Current situation and practice
* Subjects "A" and "B":
are (or are representing) a project / institution / individual person carrying an idea
* ... come into contact
* 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(R/W))
* 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")
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
* enable complete, transparent co-discovery:
* reject brand logic - adopt and openly co-develop typologies, which are self-descriptive (and open to adopt and replicate)
Contact / Inter-relation
* standard presentation, with attempt to ground "common language":
* state machine of the status between two Subjects:
* ensure process continuation with transparent public queue
* establish optimal workflow:
* rhythm and time-synchronisation
* understand and recognize each-other:
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
* have a post-individual logic of dealing with scarce resources:
* money (grants / donations)
* 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
* 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:
* Commonize differences as polemics under stronger common banners
* >CHT: define full co-operational level toolset
* >CHT: apply on 🔗alike(R/W)
* think implications of this applied at total scale (as hypercommunist)
so "Interobjective" sounds awesome...
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"
(Site generated by E2H, an "Etherpad hypermedia" project by @dcht00).
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.