On Power, the Representation of Power and Visibility

It is a fact of existing or established power structures that the entity that is representative of power is, at the same time, represented as that which is powerful. For example, congress is both representative of power and represents power. The distinction is subtle but important. To be representative of power is to be a symbol of power. In contrast, to be represented as that which is powerful is to be powerful.The former is essentially symbolic, the latter is a claim about certain facts in the world. If the distinction is hard to envision its because in the world that we live in, their is no practical difference. That which is symbolically represented to us as powerful is also that which is powerful.

We might even say that what is constitutive of civilized, or modern, society is that these two notions converge. For the most part to be seen as powerful is to be powerful.

In the world that is forthcoming, this distinction will evolve and eventually be eroded. This is so because certain aspects of social formation will become visible that, heretofore, were invisible. The increased visibility of social forms will enable the emergence of alternative structures of power that, in time, will become visible. What will not change is that power is dependent upon visibility of social forms.

What will change is that the visibility of social forms will not be dependent upon their visibility emerging from existing power structures.

It’s important to note that. historically (and presently), visibility was closely related to established power structures, and in fact were mechanisms for reinforcing existing power structures. Controlling the media is an age old mechanism for the maintenance of power. In fact gaining access to the media is a well know strategy for the attainment of power. This line of argument is old news. What is less obvious is that this old news because in a very strong sense visibility is constitutive of power.

To get back to the point initially introduced… what is forthcoming are reduced constraints on the possibility of visibility and hence more possibilities for what is visible to represent power without as yet being represented as that which is powerful. To provide a simple example, we might envision an online community organizing for the purposes of eliminating poverty. At the outset what is observed would certainly be neither a representation of power nor representative of power. As the group grows and attracts members, commences certain action plans and starts achieving its goals, it will become visible as an entity that is truly powerful. It will represent power, but in a manner that is distinct from the structures where power is typically represented – powers that are represented as that which is powerful.

This will, in time, enable the emergence of groups such as this. They will emerge and in time be represented as that which is powerful.

If the distinction is still somewhat unclear then one must consider how, in the absence of systems, that eliminate the constraints of visibility, this group might have formed. The most likely scenario is that they would have formed a formal non-profit charter, organized local meetings, sought government and other funding support etc, Eventually they would likely have requested the support of government institutions, successful financiers and so forth. In short, they would have operated through the existing power structures as the conduit to power is through the existing power structure.

In what is forthcoming these relationships will evolve. We, therefore, see the intimate connection between visibility and power. That which is powerful is, in large part, what is most visible to most; what is most likely to be an object of the consciousness of others. The king is the most powerful in the kingdom because it is he that most people are aware of, most people are thinking about and so on. This is what it is to be powerful. It is this that creates the celebrity culture. It is that they are visible and that others desire to view them that results in their commanding the salaries that they do.      The important and interesting point is that historically their were constraints on the possibility of visibility. These constraints on the possibility of visibility can be understood as constraints in virtue of particular aspects of SPACE.

We might also now see why revolution happens so rarely… discussion of this issue will have to deferred…

On Massive Social Change (MSC!!)

I posted the following on the Technology and Social Change wiki that I am developing at:

http://technologyandsocialchange.wetpaint.com

So what is this wiki all about? This wiki is for those that believe that the internet can be used for socially beneficial purposes!

What makes this particular wiki unique?
Simply that it has a very specific focus – to aggregate information and ideas that lie at the intersection technological innovation and Massive Social Change (MSC!!)?

What is Massive Social Change
(MSC!!)? Good question! The idea that technology, and most specifically the internet, contributes to social change is not news. Obviously it is transforming our environment in immeasurable ways. What is not being discussed is the role that the internet can play in creating the sort of change that can positively transform the world on a massive scale – the sort of social change that is revolutionary in nature.

That sounds grand, but why bother with Massive Social Change? Well, are you concerned about issues like climate change, poverty, famine, war etc? If those sorts of Global Problems are to be resolved, they will require Massive Social Change.

Do you seriously believe that those sorts of problems can be resolved? Yes I do. I do not believe that it is intrinsic to our nature that we must kill each other, destroy our environment and so on.

If it is not intrinsic to our nature, then why is conflict and misery the story of human history? Things have been as they are due to the fact that the human race has evolved in a very specific way – with specific groups evolving in isolation from each other.

What does the particular pattern of the evolution of human history have to do with the current state of affairs in the world?
It is simply a fact that, for example, the hunter-gather tribes in Africa evolved separately from other hunter gather tribes in the Northern hemisphere. As a result of this, they evolved different value systems, customs etc. What is important to note is that the value systems and norms that they evolved were unique to their particular community. The point is that different communities evolved because people were spread out in different parts of the world and therefore had no contact with each other.

So even if it is true that different communities evolved because, historically, people were geographically dispersed across the globe, what does that have to do with the current problems in the world? It is my view that conflict, and the inability to develop solutions that account for all people, is due to perceived differences between communities, people etc. Perceived differences, in turn, are the result of the fact that communities have evolved independently and therefore have formed their own values, customs, religious paradigms and so on. It is this sort of heterogeneity that is an impediment to the formation of the sorts of consensus that are necessary for the resolution of global problems.

If, for example, we want to come together to address the issue of climate change, the underlying ethos must the our commonality not our differences. We must see each other as brothers.

A good example of this idea is played out in science fiction movies like Independence Day, where the threat of annihilation by an alien species causes the world to come together to ward off the enemy. What is interesting in this sort of narrative is there is a collective consciousness of our commonality in the face of something that clearly stands distinct from us. Furthermore, with the collective consciousness of our commonality we are able to do great things!

My contention (at least my hope) is that external threats are not necessary for us to have the sense of our commonality. What is necessary is that we recognize that the differences that we perceive are contingent realities that are the result of the evolution of the species and could have been different. For example, we can certainly imagine that the world consisted of only one small tribe in one location that expanded over time. We can reasonably assume that, if this were the case, we may only speak one language, have one religion etc. I fully recognize that this is an oversimplification, but the overall idea should be clear.

OK, so what does the internet have to do with solving the sorts of problems that you say are the result of the evolution of human history, but could have been otherwise? The answer has been hinted at in the conversation that we have been having. To the extent that the problems are the result of perceived differences, and perceived differences are the result of the formation of different communities, the answer lies in the formation of a singular Global Community.

The idea of a Global Village is not new, but it does not seem to be contributing to the solution. Many people would argue that globalization is part of the problem. It’s important to understand that the notion of a global village is still in its infancy. Keep in mind that the birth of the internet as we know it is less than two decades in the making!! What we need to do is to be able to think outside the box and envision how, as the technological infrastructure evolves, the changes that take place will fundamentally impact our lives. We must look further into the future to understand the sorts of things that are possible and then once we can envision the possibilities, we must work towards making them a reality.

So, give me an example of something that we should be thinking about that is not getting the attention that it deserves. Consider the utilization of social networks like Facebook. In most major North American cities and, in particular, in universities, the penetration rates are very high – ranging in some cases to the 75% range. Currently Facebook is used largely to keep in touch with friends, to organize social calendars, to exchange information about music interests and so on. In short, it is used to manage our social processes. The reason that Facebook has exploded in the way that it has is because it provides the best architecture and user experience for those that want to manage their social processes (there is more to be said about this and I have said more in The Concept of Facebook).

The important point is that what is important for the younger generation are their social processes, therefore the success of Facebook can, at least in part, be attributed to solving an important problem for those that are in high school and university. The point is that, for those, that are roughly 15 – 30 years old, there is nothing that a technology platform can do that is more important for them than to provide them with a means to meet people, keep in touch with friends, express themselves to friends etc.

Therefore, first and foremost, the success of social networks is that they solve the problem that people have regarding social contact.

The question that I believe needs to reflected on is: what happens when the user base of social networks gets older, they have families, have careers etc. and making more friends is not their first priority. What then?

Will social networks like Facebook evolve to account for the fact that peoples’ priorities in life change?

Will social networks evolve to provide applications that will assist people in making a contribution to their communities when contributing to their communities is more important than making more friends?

This is all very interesting, but it seems that we are digressing. We were talking about the creation of a Global Village for the purpose of resolving global problems. How does the internet contribute to this? In short, the internet changes three things; the Space between each other, the Patterns of Communication between each other, and the structure of Knowledge. It is in understanding these ideas and their interdependence that the solution will reveal itself.

It is not the place to go into this in detail, but if you are interested in more details, please visit my personal blog at suresfernando.wordpress.com. I will, however, give you a few thoughts on these ideas:

Space and Presence: We can think about Space intuitively. If we are both sitting in the same room, then we are both sitting in the same space. But what is it that makes it the same space? The fact that we are Present in relation to each other, where to be present in relation to each other means that there exists the possibility for us to be conscious of each other as a result of the sensory stimuli that we receive from each other. In short we can see and hear each other. In the olden days, in order to be present in relation to each other, we needed to be physically in the same space with each other. Nowadays, presence applications like Twitter make it possible to be present in relation to each other differently and therefore the nature of the space that exists between each other is changing.

The important point is that our presence in relation to each other is now not dependent upon physical proximity!

Communication: Communications technology is introducing a whole new range of possibilities for how we communicate with each other. Traditionally, the most common form of communication happened face to face, which is synchronous (exchange). Once could also send letters, which is an asynchronous exchange. In both cases, we were limited to communicating either to a single person or to a larger group that was confined to a space of restricted size (say a large hall). It is now possible, in theory, to communicate simultaneously with millions of people! It should be apparent that this has implications for the possibility of Massive Mobilization (MM!!).

The important point is that the scope for communication is now not limited by physical constraints.

Knowledge: The evolution of databasing technology, search engines, RSS, spiders etc. have had a huge impact on our capacity to interact with and form knowledge. What is important to note is that, historically, knowledge was something that was created either in isolation, or in small groups. For example, Mozart worked on his compositions alone. At best a team of a few scientists might have worked together on a project. It is now possible to create knowledge collectively like never before and what we must consider are the possibilities for community formation that arise from collective knowledge formation. In other words, we can now create projects that involve millions of people. Consider the implications that this has for bringing people together!!

The important point is that collective enterprise is not limited by physical (or geographic) or temporal constraints.

It is the constraints that I have identified (and that the internet mitigates) that have, over the course of the evolution of history, contributed to the development of community specific ideologies and therefore to the perception of difference.

Well, this is all very interesting and I wish you the best of luck in mobilizing people and resources around this project!!

Thanks very much!! Please circulate information about this project to anyone that you think might be interested.

On Massive Mobilization (MM!!)

What is Massive Mobilization? Real social change requires Massive Mobilization, which, simply put, is the deployment of a massive amount of resources around single projects. By massive amounts of resources I refer to primarily to labour and intellectual capital.

A brief examination of critical points in history where meaningful social change has taken place will reveal that this social change was the result of the collective will of many people. This is what a revolution is! It is only if there is a collective will towards change that change will take place?

But isn’t there a collective will to solve global problems like poverty, climate, famine etc? You raise an interesting point… I would say that there is a certainly a will to resolve global problems of the sort that you mention and that will (or intention is a better word) is held by many people. What is missing is the collective part. What is missing is the mechanism to bring people together in a manner that will force the sorts of change that many people want, and that are necessary.

Why is financial capital not just as important? It is not that financial capital is unimportant, it is only that there is no shortage of financial capital, nor is there a shortage of those with financial capital that are in search of worthy projects. Once the underlying organizational and mobilization mechanisms are in place the financial capital will follow. Those with the money are shrewd and wise. This is why they have the money! Once they see that there capital will be directly responsible for making the world a better place, they will support the projects.

So what is missing? If you spend as much time online as I do, it will be clear to you that there are many different organizations with good intentions. There are organizations that are focused on particular issues, say youth or poverty. There are those that are more regionally focused; say on Africa or South Asia. There are those that are very small, those that are somewhat larger and so on. There is no shortage of people making an effort to make change.

What is missing is the fact that all of this positive energy is not being effectively deployed. There is a strength in numbers and it just does not make sense for there to be hundreds of small organizations working on alleviating poverty in Africa, for example. Of course, each of those organizations that is working on alleviating poverty is making a positive contribution, but if all of these groups worked together on certain projects, the results would be much more dramatic.

Would the effects of collaboration simply be increases in efficiency? A central part of the message that I want to communicate is that the process of large scale collaboration is more than just about improving process efficiency. Of course, processes would be improved as certain redundancies would be removed. Personnel and volunteer management, for example, could be centralized.

More importantly, large scale collaboration changes the community within which people participate. It extends the community and makes peoples’ activities part of a much larger enterprise. Wouldn’t you prefer to be working for a team of 10,000 people that are focused on solving poverty issues in Africa? Wouldn’t your confidence that meaningful change can actually take place be increased?

What cannot be forgotten is the human element in the social change process. People involve themselves in projects and their community for a number of reasons, and an important one is to be a part of a community that has a purpose. This is what provides them with purpose. Hence creating a community that has real purpose and a sense of collective momentum will improve the lives of those that are participating in it and this, in turn, will serve to generate further momentum.

This is what will make the sorts of change that we dream about a possibility!

So what has to happen to make this vision a reality? It is advances in technology, and the internet specifically, that will make this possible.

How and why this is so is not something that I can explain in detail in a paragraph or two, but is the purpose of this blog (and the wiki that I just started at http:///technologyandsocialchange.wetpaint.com).

I can give you a glimpse of what needs to happen and what will happen as the technology infrastructure evolves and user patterns evolve over time. In the previous entries I have introduced the notion of space and suggested that we need to think deeply about the nature of space and they way that it is changing in the modern world.

My contention is that as the nature of space evolves, it will be possible to extend the dynamics of small group interaction to a larger scale. Small group interaction is typically conducted face to face and in real time. This is what takes place in meetings etc. What technology makes possible is to extend some of the patterns that are at play in these sorts of interactions across physical boundaries.

I will say no more on this topic at the moment, but will treat it in great depth in due course.

Introducing the Technology and Social Change Wiki!

I just set up a wiki through http://www.wetpaint.com for the purposes of creating a collaborative environment where those that believe that the internet can play a role in the resolution of Massive Social Problems can contribute in a number of ways.

The wiki can be found at: http://technologyandsocialchange.wetpaint.com

I will cross post my general comments that can be found on the CONTRIBUTORS’ MISSION page in the wiki:

I originated this wiki on August, 25, 2008.

I fully realize that it is a wiki and therefore is an information repository/community is not the medium within which I should attempt to evangelize. That said, it would be disingenuous of me to suggest that I don’t have a personal agenda, and that this wiki this wiki has nothing to do with my personal goals.

In order to be transparent I will say a few words about what I believe to be true and it should be clear how this wiki will contribute to my larger process. Readers that want more detail on the ideas that I am advancing below can review my blog at https://sureshfernando.wordpress.com.

This wiki is for those ‘outside the box’ thinkers who believe that the internet can be utilized for socially beneficial purposes. By socially beneficial I refer not merely to the sorts of things that we conventionally understand to be its benefit; disintermediation, information dissemination, customized content creation, collaborating on documents in ones office, games, networking, keeping in touch with ones friends etc. etc.

What I am referring to is the sort of social change that we will actually care about and will contribute to changing the world in a meaningful way!

I strongly believe that problems that are seemingly intractable such as climate change, poverty, famine, war etc. are not intrinsic to human nature and therefore it is possible to create a world where these problems will be drastically reduced if not eliminated entirely.

If what I am saying has any truth to it, the internet and the evolution of the communications infrastructure will play a role in making the changes that I envision possible.

In a nutshell, many of the problems with which we are faced are due to the fact that communities evolved in a geographically dispersed manner. It is literally the case that hunter-gather communities in Africa evolved without the knowledge of the existence of similar hunter-gather communities in the Northern Hemisphere. The absence of contact results in the development of differing value systems, customs etc. These differences, in turn, foster a perception that there are fundamental differences between communities. The truth is that these differences are merely contingent facts; things could have been different. If the world comprised a singular community that was geographically homogeneous, we can safely assume that things would be different. Communities that perceive themselves as being homogeneous don’t have the same sorts of issues that arise between those that perceive themselves as being different.

Therefore, the solution to problems of global scope is to create a global community.

What one must ask oneself is whether this is possible. If community has something to do with communication, and the dynamics of communication are changing rapidly and drastically, is there any reason to think otherwise?

Peace and Love.

Suresh


Contributors’ Mission
This page is dedicated to allowing the contributors to this wiki a few paragraphs to outline what their larger mission is, and why participation in this wiki will be beneficial to the process.

SURESH FERNANDO
I originated this wiki on August, 25, 2008.

I fully realize that it is a wiki and therefore is an information repository/community is not the medium within which I should attempt to evangelize. That said, it would be disingenuous of me to suggest that I don’t have a personal agenda, and that this wiki this wiki has nothing to do with my personal goals.

In order to be transparent I will say a few words about what I believe to be true and it should be clear how this wiki will contribute to my larger process. Readers that want more detail on the ideas that I am advancing below can review my blog at https://sureshfernando.wordpress.com.

This wiki is for those ‘outside the box’ thinkers who believe that the internet can be utilized for socially beneficial purposes. By socially beneficial I refer not merely to the sorts of things that we conventionally understand to be its benefit; disintermediation, information dissemination, customized content creation, collaborating on documents in ones office, games, networking, keeping in touch with ones friends etc. etc.

What I am referring to is the sort of social change that we will actually care about and will contribute to changing the world in a meaningful way!

I strongly believe that problems that are seemingly intractable such as climate change, poverty, famine, war etc. are not intrinsic to human nature and therefore it is possible to create a world where these problems will be drastically reduced if not eliminated entirely.

If what I am saying has any truth to it, the internet and the evolution of the communications infrastructure will play a role in making the changes that I envision possible.

In a nutshell, many of the problems with which we are faced are due to the fact that communities evolved in a geographically dispersed manner. It is literally the case that hunter-gather communities in Africa evolved without the knowledge of the existence of similar hunter-gather communities in the Northern Hemisphere. The absence of contact results in the development of differing value systems, customs etc. These differences, in turn, foster a perception that there are fundamental differences between communities. The truth is that these differences are merely contingent facts; things could have been different. If the world comprised a singular community that was geographically homogeneous, we can safely assume that things would be different. Communities that perceive themselves as being homogeneous don’t have the same sorts of issues that arise between those that perceive themselves as being different.

Therefore, the solution to problems of global scope is to create a global community.

What one must ask oneself is whether this is possible. If community has something to do with communication, and the dynamics of communication are changing rapidly and drastically, is there any reason to think otherwise?

Peace and Love.

Suresh

The Relation Between Modernity, Space, Consciousness and Massive Social Change

In yesterday’s entry I introduced the notion of Vectors of Consciousness in order to capture sense in which Outside Spatial environments have a ‘collective’ feel. When a number of people are in the same space and are conscious of each other, the way that collection of people stand in relation to each other, and therefore their environment will depend, in part, on the extent to which the Object of which they are Conscious (Locus of Consciousness) is something about which they are all conscious (Intersection of Consciousness). We used the contrast between watching a performer in a concert hall and being present in a shopping mall. In both cases we are in Outside Space, but clearly these are very different environments. The difference that I want to highlight is that in the case of watching a performance, we are collectively focused on the performer. In the case of walking around in a shopping mall, there is a certain randomness to the way that peoples’ attention is focused.

Today I want to introduce a few more concepts that will give us further tools to understand the sense in which the spaces that we operate in are different. After introducing the concepts I will say a few words about how these ideas are relevant to the wired world that we are living in today.

Size: Defined as the distance required to establish the spatial boundary. This is to be understood in its intuitive sense in that, for example, a concert hall is a large space, whereas a coffee shop is a smaller space.

At first glance we might think of this boundary as being defined by the physical facts involved – that, for example, the walls of the concert hall and the coffee shop define the size of the space. I would like you to think of Size differently, however, as the area within which we can be phenomenally conscious[1] of objects within the space. Since consciousness of objects requires that they are phenomenally present for us, the size of a space defines the boundary within which we can receive meaningful phenomenal stimuli. The walls of the coffee shop define the space because when we are inside the walls, we are not able to be conscious of things outside of the walls.[2] In the case of the piano recital, we are very conscious of being quiet and this is because we know that the slightest sound can be heard by all others in the room (as well as the performer!).

If the space that I am in is defined by the boundary that encompasses the set of possible Objects of which I can be conscious and you also happen to present in the same space, then it follows that it is possible for us to be conscious of each other; their exists the possibility for Reciprocal Consciousness.

One more point needs to be emphasized. Not only is there the possibility for Reciprocal Consciousness, we note that the consciousness is Simultaneously Reciprocal. This is important because not all cases of Reciprocal Consciousness need to be simultaneous. We all, for example, have a consciousness of our friends and family members but this does not mean that when I am thinking about my mother that she is necessary, at that moment, thinking about me. The possibility for Reciprocal Consciousness is simultaneous because it is a form of consciousness that arises from phenomenal stimuli.

If I am able to see/hear you at the same time that you are able to hear/see me then there exists the possibility for Simultaneously Reciprocal Consciousness and we are thus in the same Space.

Stability of Locus of Consciousness: Defined as the predisposition for the Locus of Consciousness to remain constant, across the group, over a period of time. For example, in the case of the performer at the recital, we can expect that he/she remains the Object of Consciousness for the vast majority of those in the hall for the vast majority of the time. We would therefore say that, in this case, the Locus of Consciousness is stable.

Spatial Stability of the Locus of Consciousness: Defined as the relationship between the Locus of Consciousness and the physical characteristics of the Space. If the relation between the Locus of Consciousness and the physical environment remains constant then we can say that the Locus of Conscious is spatially stable. If the performer stays seated on her piano stool, then she represents a spatially stable locus of consciousness for those in the audience. In contrast, we can imagine a pop star dancing around the stage with great enthusiasm. In this case, the performer is the Object of Consciousness to no lesser a degree than the concert pianist (all eyes are trained on both!). Yet in the case of the pop star, the physical facts of the situation are different.

Practically speaking this is pretty obvious. In the case of watching a piano recital we are likely to be fixed in our seats. It is the kind of environment that requires that we constrain ourselves physically etc. A pop concert marks a strong contrast with not only the performer, but the audience free to move around, All of these sorts of variables bring to bear on the nature of how we are conscious of ourselves and others in the spaces that we inhabit.

You can now think about the sorts of spaces that you inhabit, who/what the Locus’ of Consciousness are in the spaces that you inhabit, and the extent to which these spaces are stable.

So what does all of this have to do with anything you ask!

It should be pretty clear that the notion of spatial size has less meaning in the modern world. This is not to say that large rooms aren’t still large rooms! What it means is that the range of possible objects about which we can be conscious do not have to be physically proximal in the same way that they had to be in the olden days. In the days of the Hunter Gatherer communities, people lived in close proximity to each other and the people that they were conscious of were those that they could see, hear and touch. It is literally the case that our ancestors in Africa would not have had the slightest idea that others on different continents even existed.

Therefore, modernity serves to eliminate certain constraints on possible of objects of consciousness.[1]

Intuitively this should be pretty clear to anyone that utilizes the internet. If you are reading this blog, then there is a sense in which you and I are in the same space. It is the precise nature of this change that is taking place that we want to understand.

OK, but then what does Locus of Consciousness and Stability of Locus of Consciousness have to do with anything?

Part of what I will demonstrate is that Modernity gives rise to the possibility of Social Change on a scale, and in a manner, never possible before. I will argue that it is possible to engineer solutions to large scale global problems such as climate change, poverty, famine, war and so on; typically problems that we have thought of as insoluble.

The reason that this is possible is that the evolution in the communications infrastructure allows us to make a Particular Object of Consciousness the Locus of Consciousness for a very large number of people – millions! There is nothing, in the world that we live in today that prevents us from aligning a very large portion of the worlds collective energy on large scale problems and thereby creating collective developed solutions for these sorts of, seemingly intractable, problems!

More on all of this tomorrow!


[1] It’s important to note that it does so in other ways than this which I will discuss as we move forward.


[1] Remember that phenomenal consciousness refers to the sort of consciousness that arises from data that is presented to us via our senses. Photons impinge on my retina and I see your face.

[2] One shouldn’t interpret this absolutely literally. Obviously even when one is sitting inside a coffee shop one can see cars passing by, hear people talking on the sidewalk and so on. This is true, but clearly the availability/accessibility of such stimuli is reduced by the presence of the concrete that separates us from those outside of the coffee shop. One must understand this notion as a matter of degree.

Content

i just updated my content page and thought I might as well post it…

It is necessary for me to say a few words about the nature of the content that you can expect on this blog so that you can understand why many of my posts are abstract and philosophical and yet I have am providing links to various organizations. Read the following to understand where all of this is going…

It is the nature of the issues that I am interested in writing about that they are complex and therefore there is no simple way to address them. Therefore, the vast majority of the content that you will find on this blog is conceptual in nature. If you are going to benefit in any way from this blog, you will have to think and reflect on the ideas that I put forth.

My objective is, over time, to advance a THEORY about MODERNITY, that will provide people with a certain amount of optimism about the future.

A THEORY (in the sense that I am describing it) is a set of interdependent CONCEPTS that will comprise an overall vision of how I see things. My goal is simply to communicate what I am thinking with the hope that this will generate a certain amount of DIALOGUE.

CONCEPTS will be represented in ALL CAPS and, over time, will be elucidated in much greater detail. If the purpose for this is not clear consider my making the assertion that the ‘modern world is a lot different than it used to be in the past’. For you to understand this, you will have to know what I mean by modern as this is a central concept in the assertion that I am making. Hence, if I am to effectively communicate with you it will be imperative for me to elucidate in some detail many of the concepts that I introduce. Unfortunately this cannot be done all at once.

In due course I will hyperlink the concepts so that you can click directly to a more precise elucidation of the idea.

The specific content that I am introducing relates to the role that the evolution of the INTERNET is playing on the formation of IDENTITY and COMMUNITY, and how this creates unique conditions for positive social change.

As a result, I AM GREATLY INTERESTED IN ORGANIZATIONS THAT UTILIZE THE INTERNET FOR THE PURPOSES OF POSITIVE SOCIAL CHANGE. I AM CREATING A DATABASE OF SUCH COMPANIES, some of which are provided as links on this blog.

Please let me know if you have any thoughts or comments on my project.

Peace and Love,

Suresh

Blogging, Modernity and Space

So where do I start? I have to admit that the ideas that I want to write about have been percolating in my head for the better part of the last ten years. Furthermore, this is not the first time that I have convinced myself that I should start blogging. The problem that I keep running into is that my writings cover a wide range of topic areas that, I believe, are related, but the exact relationship continues to elude me. Hence there is no real starting point. Or, to be more precise, I don’t know where to start!

With that in mind I am going to be true to the process of blogging itself by not thinking too much about what it is that I want to say. I will just start saying things and hope that in due course it all starts to make some sense – especially to me!

Part of the reason that I have not systematically blogged in the past is that my self imposed requirement to maintain a high quality level with respect to my content has resulted in my putting too much pressure on myself. The end result has just been that I have decided to stop the process.

Furthermore, I have, in the past, wanted to see immediate results from my blogging. My expectation was that I was going to connect with lots of neat people right away. Although I did see some results, they weren’t as stellar as I would have hoped. Hence this time around I am going to write for myself, but in a public forum.

What is noteworthy about this decision is that it is an illustration of one of the themes that I am interested in, the way that MODERNITY IS TRANSFORMING THE NOTION OF SPACE. One notes that in my deciding to write from a PERSONAL PERSPECTIVE within a PUBLIC SPHERE, I am doing something that couldn’t have been done at any previous point in history. In the past one could store ones ideas on paper (after paper was invented!), but the range of possible observers of ones work was quite limited. It is likely that the paper was stored somewhere and that, at the least, an organized effort needed to be made in order to make it possible for others to view what one had written. When one blogs on the other hand, what one writes is a POTENTIAL OBJECT OF CONSCIOUSNESS in a way that is distinct from the way that it has ever been in the past.

(At this stage I want to make a methodological point whic is that you will note that certain words or terms are emphasized in BOLD. The reason I do this is that these represent KEY CONCEPTS that will be expanded upon in due course and therefore are ideas that you can start thinking about. One can imagine how, as this blog evolves, the KEY CONCEPTS can be hyperlinked to a more detailed explication of the concept. Within each concept there will be other hyperlinked concepts and therefore, the sum total of the content will represent a WEB OF THOUGHT where all concepts are defined in relation to each other.)

Back to the topic at hand, the relationship between MODERNITY and POTENTIAL OBJECTS OF CONSCIOUSNESS… I suppose that it behooves me to say a few words about MODERNITY before proceeding. By MODERNITY I do not mean anything exceedingly complex. I am just referring to the world that we live in today, the modern world, so to speak. It should be noted that it is generally assumed that there is a relationship between MODERNITY and PROGRESS. At least this is what HEGEL thought. His way of thinking about the evolution of history was that it was RATIONAL, in some sense. I do not believe that there is any reason to assume this to be the case de facto. For example, or collective behaviour with respect to the climate change issue reveals that we did not act rationally from a collective perspective. If we had, we would not have been in this mess!

One feature of MODERNITY, however, that is unique to the modern world is the ubiquity of technology in general and the COMMUNICATIONS INFRASTRUCTURE, in particular. The wide availability of networked communication makes it such that we are PRESENT in relation to each other in a way that is different from the way it has ever been in the past.

(I now need to make another methodological point which is that you will have to forgive the way that I am writing. I am aware that I began by introducing the notion of SPACE, then started talking about MODERNITY and am now talking about the COMMUNICATIONS INFRASTRUCTURE. This may be confusing for you, but after musing on these topics for as long as I have it seems to be the method of communication that works best for me. This is to say that in developing a WEB OF THOUGHT one is developing a set of CONCEPTS and defining RELATIONS between these CONCEPTS. In doing this there are two approaches that can be taken. Philosophers tend to try to be as rigourous as possible and some of the work that will be presented will be of this form. Experience has taught me, however, that ones readership is inversely proportional to the amount of philosophical rigour that one utilizes. If one wants lots of people to read ones work, then one must write in a style that is readable. Therefore I will, most of the time, sacrifice rigour in favour of readability with a view to MOVING THE CONSCIOUSNESS of the reader, for that is all that I believe is possible.}

So let me wrap up this initial teaser by noting that blogging is a feature of MODERNITY and its force in our lives would not be the same if it were not for the fact that COMMUNICATIONS INFRASTRUCTURE were completely ubiquitous. Therefore, we can also see that the fact that the range of POSSIBLE OBJECTS OF CONSCIOUSNESS is dependent upon the nature of the COMMUNICATIONS INFRASTRUCTURE.

In short, the internet makes it possible for us to be conscious in a way different from any other point in the course of human history and it is exceedingly imperative at this stage in our evolution that we closely examine what we mean by this and why it is important!!

The Beginning

Hello! That seems like a good place to start. I have commenced this blog in order to communicate ideas on a range of topics. I am currently a doing a Masters in philosophy with a concentration in philosophy of mind. This is a very broad topic area, but encompasses study of consciousness, mental states, language and many other things.

I decided to return to school after many years in the private sector because I felt that my greatest contribution to humanity would not be realized in blindly pursuing material wealth. During my latter years in the private sector I acted as an investment banker, providing financing and strategic advisory services to early stage technology companies. It is during this period that it started to become apparent to me that the world that we live in today is much different from the world that our ancestors lived in, and that the way that the world is different makes possible global change in a manner that was not even conceivable in the past.

This is so because due to advancements in the technology infrastructure, it is now possible to create a GLOBAL COMMUNITY. With the creation of global community it becomes possible to resolve LARGE SCALE GLOBAL PROBLEMS such as climate change, poverty, famine and so on.

I am attempting to synthesize all of my ideas in a book entitled FIXING THE WORLD.

Admittedly all of this sounds grand and utopian and I certainly expect you to challenge this assertion…

However, as you mount this challenge, I hope that you will attempt to understand what I am saying.

I should also like to point out that, from a more practical perspective, I am interested in specific organizations (private or not-for-profit) that are contributing to the solution. Hence, I am developing a database of such companies. You will note that the blogroll consists of links to many of these companies. If you see any that you think would be of interest, please let me know as I would love to add them to the list.

Suresh