Binding Chaos

[coffin_dodger]

Been looking for a workable alternative to the insane system we all suffer under atm?

I haven't found fault with the ideas expressed in this book - yet.

Binding Chaos - Heather Marsh 2013

Opening paragraphs:

Defining boundaries
The world is long overdue for a completely new system of governance. If there was ever a need for political representation or a paternalistic and opaque authority, it has been removed by technology. Every political system we have tried has proven incapable of protecting human rights and dignity. Every political system we have tried has devolved into oligarchy. To effect the change we require immediately, to give individuals control and responsibility, to bring regional systems under regional governance, allow global collaboration and protect the heritage of future generations, we need a new political model.

Corporations have the freedom to live in a world without borders or social responsibility, to own property no individual can claim and to control a one world government and legal system. This has had insupportable consequences for the world’s resources and individual rights. People are locked within arbitrary national borders by ever increasing surveillance, military and xenophobic propaganda, crippling our ability to collaborate and frequently, our ability to survive. Our naturally migratory species are being caged like zoo animals, increasingly even as technology makes it more possible for us to interact. Immigration has become a privilege of the elite instead of a right of the desperate. The world’s people are being divided not into naturally forming communities but into corporate controlled economic markets. Governance by nation states is now as arbitrary and illogical as city states were earlier found to be.

The accelerated pace and power of global communication strains and bursts the old systems of control. People can walk en masse across borders, shun the current financial system, establish our own trade, create transparency and provide emergency assistance to each other. This power to dismantle the structures we have relied on is terrifying to many because there is no clear path ahead, and few structures have yet formed to replace the ones that are crumbling. The growth of extreme nationalists and traditionalists worldwide, the buildup of militaries and intelligence monitoring are indicative of this fear of our unknown future. Old authoritarian systems can no longer bind the natural chaos of a free society, but we can show the power of chaotic order, the beauty and creativity of collaborative freedom, if we build the right structures now.

The transference of old ideas to our new capabilities has so far mostly served to prove the ridiculousness of the old ideas, not provide alternatives. The hilarity of the Bitcoin stock market is a funhouse mirror of the old stock market but does not provide a marked difference in approach. The instant celebrity and celebrity power of social media is a more transparent and gameable but no less ridiculous version of celebrity influence. We now have the opportunity to create real alternatives for both economy and influence, for communication, collaboration and all tools of society. If we are unaware of the potential before us, we will not achieve everything we are capable of at this moment. What we are building with our software and laws at this time is nothing less than a completely new social structure. It deserves all of our attention.

This text is in no way meant to be a definitive answer to any of the questions before us. This is just a documentation of what seems apparent at this moment, what ideas have not worked and why, and what ideas seem to be working in isolated instances and may be able to scale to help us on a much wider basis in the future.

the rest of the book is here: https://georgiebc.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/bindingchaos85x11.pdf

[Wombaticus Rex]

Read that last year: I felt it was a gorgeously written summation of The Problem, with a Proposed Solution so nebulously half-assed it probably should have been omitted altogether.

Still, Marsh's conceptual toolkit was exceptional and her argument is fundamentally sly: she can't limn the contours of the next paradigm because that's built into her theory. Her solution is holisitic, emergent, and heavy on one of my all-time favorite concepts, stigmergy. This absolves her of having to really account for it.

I don't know how I feel about that. (Hopefully I wind up thinking it's great, because then I will finish writing a number of books very, very quickly.)

Edit: Very, very relevant thread: Structured Thinking: Analysis, Exploration, Exploitation

[Project Willow]

Read that last year: I felt it was a gorgeously written summation of The Problem, with a Proposed Solution so nebulously half-assed it probably should have been omitted altogether.

Still, Marsh's conceptual toolkit was exceptional and her argument is fundamentally sly: she can't limn the contours of the next paradigm because that's built into her theory. Her solution is holisitic, emergent, and heavy on one of my all-time favorite concepts, stigmergy. This absolves her of having to really account for it.

I don't know how I feel about that. (Hopefully I wind up thinking it's great, because then I will finish writing a number of books very, very quickly.)

Edit: Very, very relevant thread: Structured Thinking: Analysis, Exploration, Exploitation

Sounds somewhat similar to my much less precise (and informed) first impressions. I read it quickly a few weeks ago after my encounter with her on Twitter, put a big Hmmm bookmark on it and haven't had time to revisit.

[coffin_dodger]

Wombat said:

with a Proposed Solution so nebulously half-assed it probably should have been omitted altogether.

This will probably sound facetious but certainly isn't meant so - can you point me towards what you consider a better solution?

[Wombaticus Rex]

There is no solution for the human race except extinction. Our problems are our talents are our shortcomings are our potential.

I would like to pose a question to you, though, because I found your summary curious: "a workable alternative to the insane system we all suffer under atm?"

What is the "workable alternative" contained in this book?

[coffin_dodger]

I'm grasping at straws, Wombat - because I live in a world that is making me feel more insane (and isolated) as every day passes.

Having re-read the 'solution' and (realistically) applying it to us, it is indeed, as you pointed out, hopeless. A fantasy.

I've finally (today, in fact) realised that the people who think less - and more importantly - worry less about these kind of things are blessed.

I intend to re-join them, for my own peace of mind.

Thank you.

[Wombaticus Rex]

Hey, I feel you. Shit, I was secretly hoping you'd re-state it in a way that gave me some hope!

Really, Marsh's visions of "online collaborative communities" is all the more poignantly disappointing considered in light of our own fumbling efforts here at RI. We're living her dream and it sure doesn't feel like The Revolution most days. (Maybe if we used more Linux? MAYBE IF WE PROGRAMMED AN APP?)

I will say, though, that it is possible to contemplate the broken pile of razors that is human culture without bleeding in the process. The heartbreak never goes away, of course, but it gets duller, warmer, almost comfortable some days. If you can look directly at the center of the vortex, do so; surely your disposition and perspective were no accident.

Edit: went digging to see if anyone had directly asked Marsh this. Didn't find any examples, but I thought this was interesting:
https://georgiebc.wordpress.com/2013/09 ... he-people/

Politicians and reformers have been promising governance by the people (with caveats) since the beginnings of democracy. Unfortunately, democracy will never bring governance by the people and neither will an overthrow of democracy. So how do we peacefully transition from a democratic system to governance by the people?

The typical promises of politicians are contingent on them being elected. Without your votes, they do not have the power to represent your interests. If you elect them to represent you they promise to take your opinion into account when governing. If your chosen party is not elected, you must wait patiently for another chance in the next election.

Fortunately, governance by the people is not something you need to be represented for or something you need to request from your current government. It stands to reason your current governent could not give you governance by someone else (the people). Governance is something the people must simply do. It is only after governance by the people is established that politicians can be lobbied into supporting it until it makes them obsolete.

If Binding Chaos was a political party in a parliamentary democracy

The first goal of a Chaos party* would be to enable every person to participate. Therefore the primary purpose of a Chaos party would be to write software, platforms and guides and provide outreach of all kinds to help people participate wherever their interests lie. The party would exist not to govern but to enable governance.

Currently, the leader of an elected party gets to appoint an MP to serve as the policy guide for each ministry. Seldom, if ever, does the minister have the expertise needed for such a position. The public never has an opportunity to assess or promote expertise to this position. There is very little opportunity for the public to influence the decisions made.

Unofficial ministries for each system should be set up as permanent open epistemic communities regardless of what party is in power. If a Chaos party comes to power, the unofficial ministries will become the epistemic communities that guide policy. If another party comes to power, the unofficial ministries which represent the will and peer promoted expertise of the people will still guide policy or the elected politicians will face the electoral consequences. Currently, lobby groups are sometimes formed to attempt to influence policy but what is needed is a full and permanent shadow cabinet by the people. When this shadow cabinet is established and effective, there will be no need for any other.

Once principles for each ministry are agreed to, every person can further ideas and take corresponding actions as they see fit. The power of the voters is in the contribution of their ideas and actions far more than their ballot vote every four years. The unofficial ministries can call their own referendums and submit their own bills to all elected MP’s. Official organizations and positions are replaced by actions, ideas and epistemic communities which are open to all to participate in. In many cases the permission of elected officials is not necessary, epistemic communities can guide policy by education and participatory discussion instead of official government policy.

How "epistemic communities" would achieve immunization from the same problems that affect every other community appears to be beneath examination. C'est la vie.

[minime]

There is no solution for the human race except extinction.

Is that a fact, or is that your opinion.

[Wombaticus Rex]

Is that a fact, or is that your opinion.

I've yet to have anyone ask me for my facts on something.

Well, except my autistic friends, who have definitely taught me to think about my opinions more.

But, on a profane Bayesian spread, I would put my confidence in that one at 90% -- or, quantified less meaningfully but more viscerally, I'd wager a couple months of paychecks on that. Earlier this evening I made $50 on a bet that Mitt Romney would not be running in 2016 under any circumstances -- I would have wagered $500,000 on that without even blinking, if I could find someone to make bets against someone without the collateral to pay them. Romney's refusal was as obvious as blood on a wall, I'm not bringing it up to demonstrate forecasting finesse (consult General Patton for that) but as another example of where I stand on the Stated Belief / Cash Currency spectrum.

I'm far less sure about humanity being an intractable problem unto itself. But I'm pretty damn sure, for a book's worth of reasons.

I'll never write that book because who cares if Donnie Downer can prove his case on a whiteboard? Plus, Catton already wrote Overshoot -- then Jensen wrote Endgame. No more really needs to be said, except perhaps that William S. Burroughs provides an important roadmap for future generations with "The Job," which is pessimism with a strong Will To Power and clarity of purpose.

This is perhaps a good opportunity to illuminate a double bind as well, since facts are rather slippery things which come in several dozen different species. The average height of a human being is a fact, but it also doesn't contradict the fact of how tall you or I am. Really, most human sentences which are not numbers are opinions; forged from a constellation of diffuse data points. But are data points "facts" ? -- well, my opinion on that would be: A Flat No.

In this case my opinion is forged into the future as well and thus, impossible to verify without consulting God. (Or Gnon, depending on who's reading.)

Considering humanity as the emergent global brain many thinkers have taken it to be, global revolution would basically be a seizure, in EKG terms. When I look a the recursive architecture that Marsh laid out in her book -- using the crude framework of social media interaction to actually legislate consequences: economic penalties, banishment, imprisonment! -- all I see is a nightmare in an echo chamber, a hive, or perhaps Magnasanti.

Whether you're a Socialist, a Salafist, or a Republican: you're right. Because the basic argument from any ideology is true ... if we could all just GET ON THE SAME PAGE and AGREE ON THESE SIMPLE THINGS, life would hugely improve for the whole world.

Try making that happen, though. Recipe for murder. Every time.

[SonicG]

There is no solution for the human race except extinction.

Is that a fact, or is that your opinion.

Mais oui, le praxis...always the sticking point. The only solution might be to wait until our powers of telepathy return...

Or maybe we need to update the bolo to the cyber age?

To summarise only part of this wide‑ranging project, bolos are communities of between 300 and 500 ibus (people), who, within the bolo, are clustered into smaller communities called kanas. The urban bolos are linked with kodus that constitute the agricultural basis of their self-sufficiency and are arranged according to interest group, life-style, or identity (the long list of potential bolos provided for illustration includes Les-bolo, Play-bolo, Jesu-bolo, and Alco-bolo). Formal communication between these nodes is via assemblies and delegations, travel is borderless, the basis of exchange is the gift, labour is almost entirely voluntary and the only truly private property is limited to what can fit inside a taku, a 50 by 50 by 100cm box kept by each ibu.

The use of invented words is not affectation. In part, there is a clear attempt to shed the baggage of certain ideas through renaming (‘communism’ being a prime example). More importantly, corresponding to the new social relationships described in the text, these words have new meanings that make direct translation impossible. Ibu, for example, can be loosely understood as referring to the individual but the limits, reach and shape of the individual are different here, resulting in an overlap with the social. Similarly, gano refers to what we might call ‘productive space’ but in bolo’bolo, with its radically different approach to work, the meaning of ‘productive’ is transformed.

http://www.redpepper.org.uk/classic-book-bolobolo/

[minime]

What is the color for rhetorical question?

Archimedes said, "Give me a fulcrum and I will move the Earth"; but there isn't one. It is like betting on the future of the human race — I might wish to lay a bet that the human race would destroy itself by the year 2000, but there is nowhere to place the bet. On the contrary, I am involved in the world and must try to see that it does not blow itself to pieces. I once had a terrible argument with Margaret Mead. She was holding forth one evening on the absolute horror of the atomic bomb, and how everybody should spring into action and abolish it, but she was getting so furious about it that I said to her: "You scare me because I think you are the kind of person who will push the button in order to get rid of the other people who were going to push it first." So she told me that I had no love for my future generations, that I had no responsibility for my children, and that I was a phony swami who believed in retreating from facts. But I maintained my position. As Robert Oppenheimer said a short while before he died, "It is perfectly obvious that the whole world is going to hell. The only possible chance that it might not is that we do not attempt to prevent it from doing so." You see, many of the troubles going on in the world right now are being supervised by people with very good intentions whose attempts are to keep things in order, to clean things up, to forbid this, and to prevent that. The more we try to put everything to rights, the more we make fantastic messes. Maybe that is the way it has got to be. Maybe I should not say anything at all about the folly of trying to put things to right but simply, on the principle of Blake, let the fool persist in his folly so that he will become wise.
Play to Live : Lectures of Alan Watts (1982).

[coffin_dodger]

...global revolution would basically be a seizure, in EKG terms.

Yeah, that's a conclusion I've arrived at during past forays. The only catalyst I can envisage to effect the required state is mass trauma beyond our control. For every human being to be in absolute, undeniable peril of their existence. All in the same boat.

Double bind time yet again; that's hardly a scenario conducive to straight thinking, if it should arrive. Back to the drawing board.

[minime]

This is the quote I was looking for but couldn't find...

When I make predictions from a realistic and hard-boiled point of view, I tend to the gloomy view of things. The candidates of my choice have never yet won in any election in which I have voted. I am thus inclined to feel that practical politics must assume that most people are either contentious and malevolent or stupid, that their decisions will usually be shortsighted and self-destructive and that, in all probability, the human race will fail as a biological experiment and take the easy downhill road to death, like the Gadarene swine. If I were betting on it and had somewhere to place my bet—that's where I would put my money.

But there is nowhere to lay a bet on the fate of mankind. Likewise, there is no way of standing outside the situation and looking at it as an impartial, coldly calculating, objective observer, I'm involved in the situation and therefore concerned; and because I am concerned, be damned if I'll let things come out as they would if I were just betting on them.

Wealth v. Money
Alan Watts
1970

[BrandonD]

If one follows the arguments about our insane systems and world problems to their very bottom, one finds nothing objectively measurable in the physical world.

Many smart people in power are aware of this, and justify their position by concluding that all is subjective and relative. There is nothing wrong with our social structures, just as there is nothing wrong when a meteor hits the earth and drives the dinosaurs to extinction. All that exists is the physical world and power, some have more of it and some have less.

This is the dominant POV that is being promoted in the world right now, as far as I can tell.

However, if one believes that there is anything wrong with the world, then he is in fact presupposing a "higher" reality than the physical world, whether he acknowledges this or not.

I personally see nothing wrong with this, I tend to agree with the ancient thinkers on this point. But religious institutions brutally murdered the ancient concept of a higher reality and now modern intellectuals won't touch the idea with a ten-foot pole, so I find it odd that intellectuals so easily agree that there's something wrong with the world.

I see a great gulf between our beliefs on paper and our beliefs in actuality, and this gulf keeps us running in a perpetual circle. If one looks at history, it doesn't seem crazy to suspect that this gulf between the two is the result of an intentional long-term project. Perhaps it isn't, who knows. I don't pretend to be sensible, just providing food for thought.