Re: re-2: W Wager - Centripetal & Holograhpic models

Richard,

        The advantage of being a historian, when you're studying the
future, is that you have a fairly rich array of data at your disposal to
inform you of how human beings have behaved and interacted in many
cultures and eras.  The disadvantage of being a historian, when you're
studying the future, is that you're less likely to be able to anticipate
real breakthrough moments, times when the rules change fundamentally.  I
would like to believe that we're approaching such a time, thanks to the
advances in education and literacy recorded during the 20th Century, and
thanks to the cyber-revolution that began only in the 1980s.  Many people
in Latin America, Africa, and Asia have been left out of all this, but not
all.  The opportunities for laterally rather than hierarchically
orchestrated change are immense.  Maybe we are on the brink.

        But as a historian, I still cannot bring myself to imagine a
coherent movement to build a post-capitalist, earth-conserving,
justice-dealing world civilization without the help of some of the
traditional mechanisms for effecting change--parties, leaders, texts,
ideologies, working across national frontiers, and coordinating efforts.
Perhaps I am too mired in the past.  But why does it have to be all or
nothing?  Can't lateral energies and hierarchical forces work in tandem,
complementing one another?  I would like to believe that we are entering a
New Age when everybody singing their own song will somehow produce a
symphony, but my faith in this happening any time soon is very weak.

        Cheers,

        Warren    


On Sat, 16 Dec 2000, Richard K. Moore wrote:

> 
> Warren,
> 
> I'd like to offer a second response to your sensible
> comments about the need for greater movement organization,
> and your suggestion that 'centripetal' forces (World Party,
> or whatever) are the appropriate candidates to satisfy that
> need.
> 
> In a spirit of joint investigation, permit me to suggest
> that we look at the problem in terms of its components. 
> Let's consider first some of the functions that one would
> expect from a central organization if there were one.  I
> presume some of these would be:
> 
>     (a) dissemination of movement-wide bulletins & information
>     (b) provide forum for strategic discussion and coordination
>     (c) provide initiative to keep things moving
>     (d) provide planning and logistical support for actions
>     (e) act as focal point for communication and networking
>         among movement organizations
>     (f) act as voice of movement to outside organizations
> 
> This kind of stuff is familiar to all of us, with our
> lifetime of experiences in a hierarchialized world.
> 
> Now let's think in terms of a holographic movement, where
> leadership and intiative comes from every direction, just as
> every star and galaxy interacts electromagnetically and
> gravitationally in a center-less universe.
> 
> In the centralized model, the problem of harmonization
> becomes in some sense a problem of recruitment - bringing
> more people and organizations 'on board'.  In the
> holograhpic model, the problem of harmonization becomes a
> problem of achieving coherence out of diversity. Centralized
> harmonization naturally leads to the incremental refinement
> of a single-thread platform/agenda.  Holographic harmonization
> leads to parallel development of hundreds of threads, and
> creates a communication matrix in which collective
> understanding and consciousness can evolve rapidly and
> organically, on many fronts at once.
> 
> Now consider how the centralized functions (above) might be
> remapped into the holographic paradigm.  Here are some
> off-the-cuff possibilities...
> 
>     (a) IndyMedia (http://www.indymedia.org) and many more like
>         that, in touch with one another globally.
>     (b) Various organizations take initiative to organize forums
>         related to their concerns and to invite others; overall
>         strategy is one of the 'threads' developed during such
>         forums.
>     (c) Intiative comes in parallel from many directions, in
>         response to local conditions.
>     (d) Organizations local to actions take primary
>         responsibility for logistics; organizations generally
>         collaborate on projects in their region.
>     (e) Networking is the business of every movement
>         organization; some organizations specialize in
>         cross-pollenization and facilitation.
>     (f) The movement speaks everywhere at once and with one
>         spirit.
> 
> Consider, Wager, that we (you and me and the WSN list) are
> by-our-dialog acting as a volunteer 'strategy proposal
> committee' for the movement at-large.  Suppose that we come
> up with something that gets promulgated, acted on, and
> refined by others.  Notice that organizations play no role
> in this process, apart from the fact that
> organizations-as-actors might be among our eventual
> 'audience' (or a new organization, or organizations, might be
> part of our recommendations.)  We don't need to join
> anything, pay dues, compete for office, or attend meetings.
> 
> ---
> 
> The holographic approach, if it makes sense at all, hangs on
> a particular critical hinge: the existence and promulgation
> of processes which are effective in harmonizing face-to-face
> gatherings which include diverse constituencies.  If such
> processes can be identified, and if strategic application of
> them is pursued, my current thinking leads me to believe that
> much would follow of its own accord, driven by the liberated
> energy of latent synergy which has thus far been mostly
> stifled by regime-encouraged divisiveness and a culture
> which emphasizes in-clique communication.
> 
> I'm copying Tom Atlee (http://www.co-intelligence.org) on
> this message in the hope of getting him to tell us about
> Dynamic Facilitation and the rest of his bag of tricks, and
> how the process has been performing in practice.
> 
> yours,
> rkm
> http://cyberjournal.org/cj/guide/
>