Note the analysis and comment of two disparate backgrounds: one from a
society that awards individualism, the other from a society that awards
community. The two are products of generations of teaching; of being
moulded into a "type" of thought and like structure. Delusions come from
no communication, no exchange. Then comes the insanity (as seen from the
group or society but from the perspective of the individual, it is not
insane). No individual can know all that goes on around him. No group
can know all that goes on within one. There is always a struggle from
within to without and back.
As Keith has said many times, there are groups within groups.
Communities grow from an individuals' need for security - in deed if not
in thought (but thought usually blends a well). Now we have Facebook and
the "twitterverse" both international and intercultural communities. How
they are used will determine haw society is abused.
D.
On 21/07/2012 11:47 PM, Ray Harrell wrote:
The reason for community is the limitation of the individual in knowing
everything. Morality assures sharing and pathology has a delusion of more
than they are worth. Im Fruhling:
The only things that change are will and delusion:
Joys and quarrels alternate,
the happiness of love flies past,
and only the love remains -
The love and, alas, the sorrow.
Ernst Schulze and Franz Schubert
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mike Spencer
Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2012 1:07 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [Futurework] Re: FW: New Blogpost: The Mobile Revolution and the
Rise and Rise of Possessive Individualism
Mike G. wrote:
http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2012/07/21/the-mobile-revolution-and-the
-rise-
and-rise-of-possessive-individualism/
and in the referenced paper wrote:
An example, in a recent excursion here in Ghana I happened to notice
that the local artisanal in-shore fishery consists largely of boats
with up to a dozen fishermen. When it comes time to haul in the nets
up to 30 or so villagers may be involved. These folks don't need to
know as individuals what the local price of fish might be in a
particular market (they aren't selling the fish as individuals)....
....
So, in the vast majority of instances (and the design of both the
mobile systems and the individual applications almost require this)
the information is made available only on a one-to-one (individual to
individual) basis. Any follow-on as for example through the sharing of
this information with others say in the village is solely at the
discretion (and the responsibility) of the individual without there
being any formal or informal (let alone technical) structures to
support this (in fact community radio often becomes a means for
"community"integration of mobile communication but that is a subject
for another blogpost).
In a village there's no privacy. So if Cousin Alice sends word to Bob that
fish prices are better up-town than down-town, everybody in the village
knows Bob had a visitor. They probably know from whom the message comes and
what it's about. In fact, the messenger may deliver the message in public.
So getting private info on the fish market will require deviousness and
subterfuge which will themselves be noticed by other villagers.
Now Alice calls Bob on his mobile. No one knows what he learned and
probably can't guess who the call was from.
Taking the Devil's Advocate role here, if the *possibility* of private
information leads to individuals abandoning communitarian behavior in favor
of maximizing personal gain, shouldn't we assume that "possessive
individualism" is the natural thing a la Friedman -- that communal behavior
was the result of surveillance, not of any deeply felt commitment to
community? If there were such a commitment, Bob would immediately go tell
Claire & Dennis the news and pretty soon everybody would know.
So is the moral here that privacy enables deviance and a local but
distributed panopticon ensures conformity to community values?
Well, I haven't read Macpherson (whom you cite [1]) but perhaps I should. I
did read the cited Wikipedia page:
WikiP> For Friedman, economic freedom needed to be protected because it
WikiP> ensured political freedom.[9] Friedman appeals to historical
WikiP> examples that demonstrate where the largest amount of political
WikiP> freedom is found the economic model has been capitalist. In
WikiP> Friedman's words, "history suggests...that capitalism is a
WikiP> necessary condition for political freedom."[10] Macpherson
WikiP> counters that the 19th-century examples that Friedman uses
WikiP> actually show that political freedom came first and those who
WikiP> gained this freedom, mainly property owning elites, used this new
WikiP> political freedom for their own best interests which meant to
WikiP> open the doors to unrestrained capitalism. It follows then, that
WikiP> capitalism will only be maintained as long as those who have
WikiP> political freedom deem it worthwhile. As the 19th century
WikiP> progressed and suffrage was expanded, there were corresponding
WikiP> restraints placed upon capitalism which indicates that political
WikiP> freedom and capitalism are at odds with one another. "At any
WikiP> rate", Macpherson contends, this "historical correlation scarcely
WikiP> suggests that capitalism is a necessary condition for political
WikiP> freedom.
which makes sense to me as do the rest of the ideas attribute to him. [2]
Is the village panopticon a necessary political constraint on economic
activity? How does it scale to modern nation states and transnational
corporations?
OTOH, how do the tangible, best-case benefits of ICT in the village context
scale to help we'uns sitting alone at our computers and already more or less
wedged in possessive-individualism mode?
- Mike
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._B._Macpherson
[2] Except for two sentences that I can't parse.
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
