1. 'In entering a non-patriarchal, non-hierarchical world, we realise that the images to explore and define that era have not yet been made' – Taylor van Horne, Instituto Sacatar - a challenge to every living artist if ever there was one!
2. Society is complex, so the future is likely to be complex, and shouldn’t be based upon one single ideology. Preferably not any ideology at all, as much of history since 1500 has consisted of elites imposing their ideologies on others (often less powerful) and then spending the next hundred years in damage control until their power fails. Recent examples: Afghanistan (1870s, 1930s, now), Iraq (1930s, 1990s, now), Communism (1917-1980s), neoliberalism (1980s-now)...
3. People who speak of ‘The New Religion’ (whether New Ager, 2012 adherent or even fellow visionary artists) make me tremble as much as those who speak of ‘scientific morality’ – ‘the’ as a singular, monolithic entity, and lig- in religion referring to binding, ligature. Such ideas are in the past, subcultures are multiplying, and multiplicity and relativity are the main ideal now. The new religion is just another ideology which its adherents hope to be able to confer on others: I await the damage control.
4. Facebook, Wikipedia, blogger these are networked – businesses are already talking about networked markets. And since business has already bought into this idea and seen it as the most promising method for making profit and economic growth, its emergence is virtually inevitable. Such business methods encourage creativity and information generation, which are the new commodities. But note, Facebook and Google are profit-making companies, so ultimately not altruistic. Wikipedia is non-profit and has a coordinating centre, and consensus proceeds by networking and peer-review (in theory) - at present it seems the best model upon which to base a system of societies-coodination
5. On the local level the network is primarily partnership-based: non-hierarchical, akin to a Neolithic village
6. On the larger level, a similar non-hierarchical nature pervades the network between communities and localities.
7. The end of the nation-state is inevitable, whether founded upon ethnic heritage (Europe) or ideology (China) or upon ideals as enshrined in a constitution (USA). The resurgence of local, sustainable communities coordinated by the UN/EU-style non-hierarchical networks is favoured.
8. Governments become ‘Coordinating Councils’ to aid society rather than govern. This is the future of networked society, and is a kind of positive liberty in which people and communities are encouraged to grow and evolve. Note that this system of ‘coordination’ lacks both the overt coercion of most positive libertarian societies (including those economically driven societies in which advertising rather than political ideology functions as the primary coercive force), and the meaninglessness of negative libertarian societies where coercion is anathema. A decentralised, networked/partnership society cannot be coerced since it is down to the individual/community to decide in which direction it should grow: the ‘state’, such as it remains, does not seek to monitor that growth.
9. As for the sacred, it becomes personal again, it becomes a transcendent sensation again, rather than a Law handed down from Heaven. Any society which uses laws – ideological, political or religious – to uphold the failing morals of a patriarchal society is already living in the past and deserves to be consigned to history. Any religion which seeks to convert or dominate monolithically the whole world is already on the wane: cf: Catholicism in Europe…
10. The model of sacred experience of the hunter-gatherer - idiosyncratic, creative, explorative, experiential - becomes favoured: we should not be speaking of 'The New Religion' (capital letters intended) but of something far less monolithic and binding: Some New And Interesting Ways To Explore The Inner And Outer Sacred. The language one uses here is important. Granted, it's not catchy as a phrase, but it has several advantages: i) it sits upon the soul easily and effortlessly using simple words without the technical jargon of new religious movements which sound more like indoctrination than exploration, ii) it is plural and positive about that plurality, iii) it does not profess to be The Truth or The Future Of Humanity, but simply an avenue of exploration, iv) it uses the words 'interesting' and 'and' - it is therefore attractive and additive, not damning and exclusive, and v) it does not seek to define what the sacred is, or where the sacred might be located: within or without the human being.
11. Practitioners of Some New And Interesting Ways To Explore The Inner And Outer Sacred (or explorers, or experiencers or even players, if you will) are not required to buy into the idea that the sacred is exclusively invested in some external deity, or that it is some kind of delusion in an atheistic universe. One may simply explore, and then network those explorations in whatever form may be seen fit to the wider communities and societies for aid in coordination, evolution and growth.
12. Only when the sacred is personal again will human addiction to Control really be cured. The State must die, but the community, large and small, coordinated, networked, must not die with it. This is not a system of anarchy, but of equarchy...
13. Participation in the Coordinating Councils should be, on the large scale, like jury duty: something one is randomly selected for, rather than some office that one runs for. This helps to ease the negative effects of Control-addicted politicians in power. Particpation in community councils should be democratically-elected, and bullshit can be happily kept to a minimum in most councils as they are local enough that everyone knows personally or socially the character of those seeking to be elected.
2. Society is complex, so the future is likely to be complex, and shouldn’t be based upon one single ideology. Preferably not any ideology at all, as much of history since 1500 has consisted of elites imposing their ideologies on others (often less powerful) and then spending the next hundred years in damage control until their power fails. Recent examples: Afghanistan (1870s, 1930s, now), Iraq (1930s, 1990s, now), Communism (1917-1980s), neoliberalism (1980s-now)...
3. People who speak of ‘The New Religion’ (whether New Ager, 2012 adherent or even fellow visionary artists) make me tremble as much as those who speak of ‘scientific morality’ – ‘the’ as a singular, monolithic entity, and lig- in religion referring to binding, ligature. Such ideas are in the past, subcultures are multiplying, and multiplicity and relativity are the main ideal now. The new religion is just another ideology which its adherents hope to be able to confer on others: I await the damage control.
4. Facebook, Wikipedia, blogger these are networked – businesses are already talking about networked markets. And since business has already bought into this idea and seen it as the most promising method for making profit and economic growth, its emergence is virtually inevitable. Such business methods encourage creativity and information generation, which are the new commodities. But note, Facebook and Google are profit-making companies, so ultimately not altruistic. Wikipedia is non-profit and has a coordinating centre, and consensus proceeds by networking and peer-review (in theory) - at present it seems the best model upon which to base a system of societies-coodination
5. On the local level the network is primarily partnership-based: non-hierarchical, akin to a Neolithic village
6. On the larger level, a similar non-hierarchical nature pervades the network between communities and localities.
7. The end of the nation-state is inevitable, whether founded upon ethnic heritage (Europe) or ideology (China) or upon ideals as enshrined in a constitution (USA). The resurgence of local, sustainable communities coordinated by the UN/EU-style non-hierarchical networks is favoured.
8. Governments become ‘Coordinating Councils’ to aid society rather than govern. This is the future of networked society, and is a kind of positive liberty in which people and communities are encouraged to grow and evolve. Note that this system of ‘coordination’ lacks both the overt coercion of most positive libertarian societies (including those economically driven societies in which advertising rather than political ideology functions as the primary coercive force), and the meaninglessness of negative libertarian societies where coercion is anathema. A decentralised, networked/partnership society cannot be coerced since it is down to the individual/community to decide in which direction it should grow: the ‘state’, such as it remains, does not seek to monitor that growth.
9. As for the sacred, it becomes personal again, it becomes a transcendent sensation again, rather than a Law handed down from Heaven. Any society which uses laws – ideological, political or religious – to uphold the failing morals of a patriarchal society is already living in the past and deserves to be consigned to history. Any religion which seeks to convert or dominate monolithically the whole world is already on the wane: cf: Catholicism in Europe…
10. The model of sacred experience of the hunter-gatherer - idiosyncratic, creative, explorative, experiential - becomes favoured: we should not be speaking of 'The New Religion' (capital letters intended) but of something far less monolithic and binding: Some New And Interesting Ways To Explore The Inner And Outer Sacred. The language one uses here is important. Granted, it's not catchy as a phrase, but it has several advantages: i) it sits upon the soul easily and effortlessly using simple words without the technical jargon of new religious movements which sound more like indoctrination than exploration, ii) it is plural and positive about that plurality, iii) it does not profess to be The Truth or The Future Of Humanity, but simply an avenue of exploration, iv) it uses the words 'interesting' and 'and' - it is therefore attractive and additive, not damning and exclusive, and v) it does not seek to define what the sacred is, or where the sacred might be located: within or without the human being.
11. Practitioners of Some New And Interesting Ways To Explore The Inner And Outer Sacred (or explorers, or experiencers or even players, if you will) are not required to buy into the idea that the sacred is exclusively invested in some external deity, or that it is some kind of delusion in an atheistic universe. One may simply explore, and then network those explorations in whatever form may be seen fit to the wider communities and societies for aid in coordination, evolution and growth.
12. Only when the sacred is personal again will human addiction to Control really be cured. The State must die, but the community, large and small, coordinated, networked, must not die with it. This is not a system of anarchy, but of equarchy...
13. Participation in the Coordinating Councils should be, on the large scale, like jury duty: something one is randomly selected for, rather than some office that one runs for. This helps to ease the negative effects of Control-addicted politicians in power. Particpation in community councils should be democratically-elected, and bullshit can be happily kept to a minimum in most councils as they are local enough that everyone knows personally or socially the character of those seeking to be elected.
No comments:
Post a Comment