Re: The Herd Instinct

//de — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 16:29:02 -0000

Herds, or streams? I do believe there is a herd layer, don't get me wrong. But I also see a similar dynamic which balances individual action and community interest (rather than landslides and arbitrary shifts, or whimsical sways). It is subtle but not for long.

Being able to track the various streams of intention allows for a spectrum of colors to result. The clarity itself is a basis for confidence (without any "external" insight or influence). This is objectivity, but I don't see people doing this, besides a few researchers, and some feared neurologists.

Right now there is an induced lower standard keeping people away from being individual, so herds are our history. Removing this hard to maintain intent impediment make herds impossible. It is an evolutionary shift of changing food sources (in consciousness).

It is like the difference between threaded and individual email, or irc vs. twitter... not like fish to bread. We are almost to a point where the standards people hold for their content will condition the environment to be well organized. Herds will die out, and digital natives hunting them will be forced to adapt to an individual confidence base.

Mad Love //de 9 Keme

Re: Stuck In The Middle With You

//de — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 18:42:34 -0000

Well put together assessment of Obama's personal situation, from a social traction perspective. It seems more about the individual opportunities in the actual life situations of Obama's country and his opportunities to act, than about policy.

My own hope is to work through conflict resolution (in a diff/merge code repository sense) and progress (in a journey sense, not in a task list sense) from an environment distanced from the problem itself, that is objective.

It is difficult to prove you are truly objective, but once you are, you can show your self to be evident (which is the value to others, by getting there).

Constitution framers said this, and the document itself (pending interpretation) keeps power in place. But countries do not have an objective space to assess other political entities because they compete for resources and individuals. Similarly, monogamous married people cannot see around each other, because they "are" each other in the sense a mirror "is" its imager. Mirrors do not hold an image, they continually create one by their own existence. If the mirror and the imager where to talk, without any outside perspectives in the discussion, there would be no need for objectivity (if there is an enjoyable harmony which self-sustains). The mirror itself gains an individuality for the imager, by enjoyment. Practically speaking, if a teenage girl needs to leave the mirror, a father needs to open the bathroom back up to the rest of the house. That is a more common issue.

In front of a mirror, with only mirrors and no other outside perspectives, no one knows who is who, and no one can negotiate because the images are more and more complex by virtue of the format of relationship itself (the kind of space), which is the deliberate object of the relationship type. But one type of relationship does not decide the subject of relationship itself. I get frustrated because people cannot see beyond formats of relationship, to life. Right now we are deciding what relationship types exist at all! For a few hundred years a certain relationship type has been in place. It is more successful in most visible ways, but losing ground. This scattered position in time explains why people are one party or another in their own claims, or for/against rather than "always on" enjoying their life freedoms.

The one-to-one, on-and-off, systemically monogamous type of relationship makes life an experience by default (and possibly only that, in a diminishing state). Other types of relationship continually create a situation where experience is not possible without participation in every case. Resource backed currencies balanced by true markets are this idea, until they lose their minds and subscribers. Governments and their various instruments allowed citizens to know the score of it all, fairly. Paired with currencies, there was traction for any individual of honorable intent, or at least an intent which ought to be honored (and will be, due to passion and persistence).

I like the gaming currency way to fix a lot of the problems Obama needs to heal up, but only because it is a way to create a link to an ancient principle - not because it will run away with all markets and policy. Ultimately, all relationship types being free to "be" is the only way to "be" free. The formats possible are merely being found, so we need to just apply ourselves to tangibles. If stuck, that is at least tangible. Individuals who cannot admit being in a situation which is not ideal, cannot deal with being individual because we are all in this situation together. Once the problem is well stated though, with an objective perspective in the talks, the solution is the reward - not a difficulty. An investor is never one to want unattended interest accrual. That is a parasite eating a host. Investors cheer through fear. They take on an adventure with someone less experienced to act, gaining ground in their own life because an investor stepped back into a more abstract mode of their own participation in life.

Obama is only flailing because citizens have not taught him how to relate to them, possibly because there has never been the bandwidth for total-national exchange. So as innovators go, Obama is a message system proof of concept, and his way of being elected was social media. His traction is always here. Buildings which are not digital, are not his home turf as much as this world. That is fine with me, for now. This is not at all about policy or positions in a theoretical battle. It is about all of us getting to a point of living, and not debating about debts and wars we are lost to. Youth is the situation of being ready to do whatever it takes, without explanation. Trust, passed down for generations, makes that a good thing to rely upon. Same as we bring our grandparents to social media, our grandparents brought us parents, and our parents came with all these systems we properly own and rightfully rule.

Give the rebel kids the damn ball already. They know how to do this; I guarantee it. Sun Tzu would say this is just a sunken army, unaware it is even being militarized. Social participation is measurable. We just choose not to measure by sanity itself.

Mad Love //de 9 Keme

Disqus - Latest Comments for digitalextremist

Re: The Herd Instinct

Re: Stuck In The Middle With You