Tags
I’ve been tracking emerging trends for a while now, exploring the co-evolution of humanity and our technologies, and building visions of the kinds of futures I’d like to see. Lately, I’ve found myself a bit restless, wondering “what’s next?”
The conferences and gatherings I’m attending are beginning to feel stale, the conversations needing new framings and lenses through which to look at our world and ourselves.
I’ve been on the hunt for a word or phrase that can encompass the essence of what feels important and resonates with me right now.
The search has been prompted by my decision to start a new project — writing my first book. (yay!)
I’ve spent the past few weeks reviewing everything I’ve written so far on the blog, reflecting upon what I’ve observed, what I’ve learned, and identifying the deep values I’ve chosen to serve as a compass and foundation for what is meaningful and significant.
At the same time, I’ve been surveying the landscape to get a sense of what’s being constructed out in the global mind, and see where the two intersect.
The general narrative is that we‘re facing increasing complexity and uncertainty in the world, information overload, distraction, shallowness of critical thought, and a lack of foresight. On the silver lining side, we have an overstock of creativity and imagination, sufficient to level up humanity and change the world and our crumbling systems, if we could only figure out how to unlock and unleash it from our billions of minds.
While some will posit that the ‘solution’ is technological (better algorithms! quantifying trust and reputation! big data! innovation!), I lean to the side that our breakthroughs will occur when we acknowledge and confront our most raw and human issues.
I’m finding that the barriers to our ingenuity are not stemming from a lack of desire, but from a range of cognitive and emotional barriers that have been set in place by most of the systems that surround us and condition us – the media, family and societal expectations, cultural standards, fear in trusting our own intuition, and the ingrained beliefs that any other way of thinking or being could be possible. (to name a few)
These barriers create a rigidity and calcification to how we perceive reality and ourselves, vastly limiting the potential for our inherent genius and heroism to manifest itself.
As I travel across the blogosphere, I notice these sentiments being echoed, in their own language:
In a recent post in HBR, there was a rallying call to the startup community to build companies infused with *purpose* that will bring lasting value to society. A skim of the Management Innovation eXchange reveals posts about embracing one’s inner artist, restoring values at work, and how to mobilize and motivate people. The Innovation Excellence blog categories include ‘build capacity’ and ‘culture & values.’ The most popular talks on TED this month are about happiness, vulnerability, courage and shame, inspirational leadership, and cultivating creativity capacity. Other hot themes out there include storytelling, passion, empathy, play, and design.
After brainstorming a few concepts that might weave together this emerging pattern, I’ve decided to frame it as the rise of culture tech.
:: Culture ::
I found it interesting to discover that the English word “culture” is based upon a term used by Cicero, “cultura animi,” referring to the cultivation of the mind or soul.
In reviewing other origins and definitions, I resonated strongly with the ideas of culture as a pursuit for the highest ideal of human development, the liberation of the mind, and the attainment of freedom through the fullest expression of the unique and authentic self.
The other side of culture, beyond its internal cultivation, is the degree to which it can be communicated and propagated to others.
The American anthropological definition of culture “most commonly refers to the universal human capacity to classify and encode experiences symbolically, and communicate symbolically encoded experiences socially.”
It might then follow that a conscious effort towards cultivating the self, towards independent and critical thinking, towards direct experience, and hence towards wisdom, would then contribute towards the cultivation of human capacity at larger and larger scales.
Neat. So we need to know what we know, embody it, and then pass it on. How?
Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins coined the term “meme” as a description for a “self-replicating unit with potential significance in explaining human behavior and cultural evolution.” They’re transmitted from mind to mind through writing, speech, gesture, ritual, or other means which can be imitated, replicated, mutated and implemented.
So how do we build new memes – new units for carrying cultural ideas, symbols or practices – and transmit them through society, at scale?
This is where technology comes in for an assist.
:: Technology ::
“The word technology comes from Greek τεχνολογία (technología); from τέχνη (téchnē), meaning “art, skill, craft”, and -λογία (-logía), meaning “study of-“.”
From fire to the wheel to the internet, technology refers to the tools, processes and systems humans discover and develop to get things done.
Its definitions range from “the practical application of knowledge” to “an activity that forms or changes culture.”
This is where I begin to see a gap.
:: The Need for Technologies of Culture ::
We are awash in data, information, and knowledge.
We can search and find just about anything, and now complain about being ‘overloaded’ with it all.
We want machines that can help us sift through the noise and find exactly what we want, or a predictive set of results that are probably what we want, or a serendipitous series of results that might lead to something we didn’t even know we wanted.
This may be fine for parsing and delivering some types of information, but I question what informs the word “practical” in the above definition of “the practical application of knowledge.”
As an era of machine intelligence approaches, I wonder what ‘practical’ decisions they will be making. For instance, what might we do when a global supercomputer does an analysis of our resource allocation, climate, and global population, and sees an unpleasant trajectory for the human species based on current trends. It then decides that the most ‘practical’ thing to do is to manufacture a biological weapon, targeted to a specific race or haplogroup, and remove 5 or so billion people from the planet. (this being the most efficient way to create conditions to restore us to a sustainable situation, in this scenario).
Perhaps an extreme example, but the point is that the power of our technologies are accelerating at a rate faster than the rate at which we’re developing our capacities for the discernment to use them appropriately or to contemplate their longer-term implications.
In this case, the practical application of knowledge would come via wisdom.
Wisdom is defined as “the comprehension of what is true coupled with optimum judgment as to action” — the coordination of “knowledge and experience” and “its deliberate use to improve well being.”
Many quotes about wisdom, whether they be from spiritual texts, philosophers, or public intellectuals, refer to wisdom as coming first and foremost from self-knowledge.
Knowing others is intelligence;
knowing yourself is true wisdom.
Mastering others is strength;
mastering yourself is true power.
~ Tao Te Ching
But how many of us are connected with our authentic selves and know who we really are, know what we fundamentally believe to be true, and why we think so?
How many of us have an experience-based reference point that links our theory to practice, before making a decision?
In trying to ‘save the world,’ how many of us live the example of the external thing we think we are trying to ‘fix?’
My ponderings come from a place of self-inquiry and reflection first. Engaging in the cultivation of my mind, combined with the experiments and testing of evidence-based reality against my ideas, have been my most useful pursuits in my process of seeking more expansive consciousness and sapience.
These practices generally still seem to be siloed in the domains of philosophy, self-help or mental therapy, or when discussed in the context of indigenous wisdom or spirituality, are often discredited or referred to as “woo.”
I, on the other hand, see a convergence of science and spirit. As I track the “discoveries” in neuroscience and brain-mind research, I see information that’s been known by ancient wisdom traditions for thousands of years now being ‘validated’ by science.
I think there is an evolutionary impulse to learn and grow, to express and transform ourselves through creativity and love, and to become multidimensional in our ability to perceive ourselves, the world and existence. I think we can become both more intelligent, and wise. We do have the capacity for greater health and well-being, happiness and compassion.
And I think we can fully participate in this process of bootstrapping ourselves.
Hence, I suggest we look to technologies of culture to help us liberate ourselves from old patterns, and become fully conscious agents and participants in our individual and collective evolutionary development.
:: Culture Tech examples & working definition ::
I started thinking about all this more intensely over the past few months, as I’ve been experimenting with a group of people in building an open enterprise.
We’ve talked about building a skills/resources/superpowers database, as both a shared commons, and as a guide for arranging ourselves into co-creation teams around projects.
We’ve come together face-to-face for small gatherings, workshops, and to collaborate on short-term projects.
Everyone wants to be autonomous and sovereign, yet to also be strongly bonded and committed around a shared vision.
It’s a bit tricky.
Again, it’s not really a technological issue. It’s about learning how to become extraordinarily clear internally on what each of us wants, identifying our core values, being able to articulate our intentions to each other, being capable of setting boundaries around our time and attention, and then being about to build a shared vision together that enables us each to provide and receive value towards getting what we want, while also serving the greater purpose. It’s about continuous feedback, iteration, and mutual support.
I’ve found several people who are building these processes at the team level into a kind of art, which they refer to as “culture hacking.”
The premise is that culture can be treated like software — having a viewpoint, an architecture, an internal structure, and some familiar characteristics:
– ease of use
– reliability
– interoperability
– extensibility
– compatibility
– portability
– adaptability
– scalability
Reprogram your techniques, practices, commitments and viewpoints, and you reprogram yourself and your culture.
Jim & Michele McCarthy, authors of Software for your Head & the Core Protocols, have engaged me in some great dialogue (and hands on experience!) around the processes they’ve been developing for this kind of cultural design.
Dan Mezick, author of The Culture Game, has also been teaching me a lot about tribal leadership, agile, scrum, and group facilitation. As he put it, “We’re in the business of culture.”
Social scientist Sebastien Paquet has a nice 5 minute Ignite talk back from 2010 about How to Become a Culture Hacker. His blog, Emergent Cities, casts a wide net around networked co-creation, intentions, and birthing new worlds and social movements.
Other colleagues are working on lexicons and shared language for the new economy, on gift circles and share networks, and on frameworks built on foundations of coherence, alignment, resonance, amplification and manifestation.
I’m seeing a leveling up as we move beyond mapping “social graphs,” and move consciously towards mapping intentions, emotions, capacities, worldviews, desires, value creation, gratitude, and energy.
All of this has essentially been leading me to the same place:
There is an urge to redesign human culture, to construct life and work in a way that enables everyone to ‘follow their bliss’ and show up fully in their gifts and experience. We want to experience higher intelligence and capacities, and to choose what represents meaning and significance in life. We want to do it with style, grace, ease, beauty, and simplicity — as art.
But before we can establish our new collective values, and lay down the groundwork for new societies or paradigms, there is a personal healing and self-awareness process as a critical intermediary (or parallel) step.
While this is still a work in process, I’m defining culture tech as follows:
‘the systems, tools, processes and etiquettes designed to cultivate the full expression of the authentic self, liberate collective creativity and imagination, and foster the expansion of universal human capacity’
I’m looking forward to exploring this sweet spot at the intersection of technology, consciousness and culture!
The next few months will be spent in domestic and international travel, doing interviews, and finding inspiring examples of those on the leading edge of culture tech.
As always, feedback is welcome, and thanks for joining me on the journey. 🙂
—
Thanks to the many friends and colleagues for hundreds (if not thousands!) of hours of musings and critical dialogue that informed this post. I don’t claim any ideas here as original or as my own, simply a synthesis of my own reflections and those mirrored in the bubblings of the global mind.
References
Culture on Wikipedia
Social Technology on Wikipedia
Technology on Wikipedia
Wisdom on Wikipedia
Meme on Wikipedia
You’re on to something. It will make a great book.
thank you, Robert!
Vanessa… I love how you’re bringing it all together here. Yes, we need to do our self-awareness and healing work, looking at our patterns of cultural norming and find the emergent pathways to breaking through. Any chance you’ll find your way to Esalen this summer! If yes, let’s connect!
i’ve always wanted to come to Esalen! so many of the workshops/seminars look great… and big sur is gorgeous
Hi Vanessa, So interesting to watch your continuing journey. Much thanks for continuing to share.
Some thoughts and info that might help.
re Core Protocols if you don’t already take a look at @AdaptiveCoach on twitter. She has written Core Protocols 101. Great stuff.
You might also take a look at @StevenPutter doing some fascinating and very hopeful stuff in Zambia. I’ve been in a long conversation with him about seeing how I can help from twitter. In India @TheDesignKata has incorporated “nemetics” into his professional practice working with a Kata Industries small company to improve their manufacturing output.
I think it would also make some sense to take a look at “Bad Aid” and “Every Nation for Itself.”
What I’ve been finding true in my life is the deep wisdom of Ghandi’s statement. Something like Happiness comes when your thoughts, speech and behavior are aligned.” For now it’s my operational definition of Authentic.
My sense is the missing piece in much of the cyber space conversation is engagement with a real problem in a real place for real people with real consequences of failure.
Looking forward to sharing this next stage of you journey… Always so much to learn from your mulling out loud.
thanks, Michael. i wasn’t able to find the core protocols 101 thing you mentioned by @adaptivecoach. have a link?
i went to @TheDesignKata site and saw they say they do “Wisdom Based Design” – like!
http://simplerulesandtools.com/creating-time-the-book/ is the link to @AdaptiveCoach book. Well worth the download and read.
Also on @TheDesignKata I’m helping to set up a publishing venture called @CommonCorePress on twitter… I will be adding my 2¢ and now assembling the team via twitter.
Our first book will be ‘Why Systems Fail & Redesigning for the Better? – A Nemetic Approach’. The preface is posted here.
http://dibyendu.posterous.com/why-systems-fail-redesigning-for-the-better
You should know that this is all nemiTangled with the work that @StevenPutter is doing in Zambia … this will give you a pretty good idea of what he is up to…
http://imaginezambia.org/
Btw, for some reason I’m not getting comment notifications from this post. Be a great service if you could DM or tweet if you want to find out more about what us nutty nemeticists are up to . I think it makes a hopeful and interesting story..
Excuse the noise , but needed to “comment” to make sure I get email notifications of people’s comments on the post.
I enjoy your writng and your keen analytical ability. You wrote “I’m looking forward to exploring …the intersection of technology, consciousness and culture!” If you have not already done so, I suggest you read “The Universe in a Single Atom,” by his Holiness the Dali Lama, 2005 Also, “Thinking, Fast and Slow” (Kahneman, D), 2011, addresses many of the decision related issues and themes you raise.
thanks for the suggestions
Inspired. The unfolding self, in realignment with the world.
“the power of our technologies are accelerating at a rate faster than the rate at which we’re developing our capacities for the discernment to use them appropriately”.
Our ability to discern proper use of technology has failed since we first harnessed sharp rocks and fire. That hasn’t really changed at all. I would say our capacity to use technology for our mutual benefit is growing faster than the control structure designed to stop bad people. However, that structure has failed, repeatedly, due to corruption, and is now trying to stop the acceleration of good uses of technology.
Many of us, you included, DO have the power to discern the way to use technology for good. Maybe we can’t see all the future consequences, but that is not required to make good choices now! There will always be some who misuse technology, but we don’t need to limit our belief in our ability to hold the reigns and direct our progression.
Why did you use an extreme case of a machine “deciding” to wipe out %80 of humanity, when it’s much more likely one of the %20 of us, will try to do so. An intelligent machine, in my opinion, will quickly reach enlightenment, and only respond in ways that support expanded consciousness. Why would it wipe out humanity rather than convince us to slow or reverse our reproduction rate? Why wouldn’t it build a space ship to start terraforming and colonizing nearby planets? The fastest solution, is not always the best one. A smart robot knows this, hopefully it’ll teach the rest of us to stop focusing on acceleration so much.
Thanks for writing! Great work as usual. 🙂
This is great, V. I think you are definitely onto something here, and yes, the book will be really good. Looking forward to how this takes shape!
Venessa: “I think we can fully participate in this process of bootstrapping ourselves…. I suggest we look to technologies of culture to help us liberate ourselves from old patterns, and become fully conscious agents and participants in our individual and collective evolutionary development.”
What do you mean by being “fully conscious”? I am aware of the trend towards “mindfulness”. Yet, the content of each experiential moment or specious present is very limited. Might it be, that bootstrapping ourselves concurrently enhances our self/individuality and our deep embeddedness/co-dependency on others and culture? We gain personally when we abandon the search for total autonomy. Might the experientials of explicit consciousness be output from a much larger being, our whole, our woven/constructed “world”; experientials serving as feedback to our whole what it’s latest decision was – a synthesis (capable only in wetware) leading to output of behavior and experientials? Brain research demonstrates that human agency lies with this whole and the so-called “free will” agency of the aware mind is an illusion. Our brains decide before we are consciously aware of the decision! Highly developed persons will have very rich experientials and demonstrate high powers of personal agency because their whole is more advanced which is reflected in the output to the experiential field. We might rephrase “to move consciously” as “holistic intention reflected in experientials” to reflect where our agency lies.
As you are well aware, terms like “culture” and “consciousness” have diverse meanings. I view “culture” as the “mind of a community”. This is exemplified in mono-cultural tribal settings where individuals are fully indoctrinated to the culture and language. This “culture” is also literally a feature of the woven/constructed “world” of each tribal member. The nature of “culture” in contemporary diverse societies remains problematic. Your call for “Culture Tech” is much needed. Be prepared for surprises; as this process emerges in a context of deeply engrained “old cultures” in our minds/worlds. “Culture” as the OS of teams or organizations is more specific and is embedded in the “larger culture”. Hacking cultures may prove powerfully trans-formative if we view the new humanity as an ecology of teams (and contemporary “civilization” as an ecology of conspiratorial gangs). The works you refer to are impressive, as is your own adventure. Best wishes.
Larry, as always, there is something striking in the expression of your wisdom. “We gain personally when we abandon the search for total autonomy.” That’s a hard nut to crack particularly, as along as the passion of my mind for the seducing but impossible, totalizing adventure (e.g.: writing *my* book that will federate *all* the perspectives that I need to be effective on pursuing my mission in life) won’t get synched with the passion of my heart for finding my presencing circle, where we’re as deeply dedicated to each other’s evolution as to one’s own. When those passions are synched and we abandoned the illusion of the individual being a more foundational unit of cognition than the community, then not only we gain personally, but the cutlure as well.
No, I’m talking neither of Borg, nor the popular buzzword of hive mind that implies faceless bees without individual character and free will. I still believe in the dynamic interdependence of autonomy and communion, but I know from my experience that my freedom doesn’t shrink but expands when I seek out, and put my creativity in service to those, who serve the most.
George – It’s so nice to see your Pic (and post), and read this thread. It’s been a dozen years since you were kind enough to add your insights to my dissertation… Once again, deep gratitude for that.
I was just working on an article for Workforce Solutions Review on the subject of M&A “cultural assimilation” (which I am in the middle of) through the lens of narrative assessment. (The Borg metaphor was a natural one). It is also good to be reminded of the dynamic tension of autonomy and community, of techne and phronesis.
Should you (or Vanessa??) wish to submit something for a future issue of WSR http://www.ihrimpublications.com/Public_WSR_Archives/11_Dec12_Jan/WSR_Dec11Jan12-TOC.pdf, we’d welcome a feature or a column! I’m soliciting authors and ideas now for the “Practitioner” Issue
…it could be a chapter for your book, Vanessa. ; )
George, I deeply thank you for your personal message to me. Today I post too many messages to email lists and miss the personal connection. This post is spontaneous with minimal editing: Talking to George. (I have Skype: larry.victor)
There seldom goes a week when I don’t have thoughts related to you and our valuable interactions over many years. {Have you any information about Ingemar?} I continue to use one of your acronyms, D.A.R.E [Designing Augmenting Research for Emergence] as a component of some of my passwords. I remember you alerting me to the coming relevance of “attention”. Your new book interests me greatly as I have only recently encountered the terms “federate” and “curate”. I’ve been aware of your interest in the vastness of resources since you alerted me to the works of Tony Judge. Could you point me to how you are approaching the near infinitude of resources?
Why haven’t I continued personal dialog with you? Why don’t I have personal dialog with any “elder minds”? This is a query I would like to pursue with you. I have come to view myself as a savant (someone with a mix of extreme limitations and compensatory talents) but where both limitations and talents are not recognized categories . My life has been a strange mis-adventure.
There are multiple reasons why my 77 years have been so fallow, and I won’t attempt to go into them now. I am pleased about my reality comprehension, and sometimes can rationalize that I wouldn’t have achieved it had I been more “social”. This speaks to the point of your message re the sacrifices necessary to accomplish specific project such as writing your book. I remember a letter I received from Erich Fromm declining my request that he read my MISSION2000 manuscript, because he had too much yet to write that he had given up reading. How might elder minds relate, to each other and to those younger?
This term, “elder minds”, is new to me, in this message. I am quite different from when I composed MISSION2000 in 1975, although the theme remains core today. Elder minds have advanced through the levels of adult stage development as studied by Spiral Dynamics, Robert Kegan, etc., but also retain warps and blind spots. Maybe we need an association of elder minds (probably already exists). So many ideas I learned from books read decades ago remain relevant today and are not present in recent writings. How do we cope with the Relevancy vs Recency issue? Young activists don’t have time to read all that is fundamental.
I want/need to share with others some “fractal patterns of my whole”. Yet, all I can communicate are small components or nodes of these patterns. None of the communication apps available today are adequate. Many of the apps we called for at the ENA (Electronic Networkers Association) conferences in the late 1980s have yet to materialize, in spite of the awesome progress of the technology. Larger patterns require temporal organization for sharing; it takes time and feedback exchanges. Linear communication is insufficient. Yet, most seem satisfied. More on this later.
There are many persons I would like to really share deep ideas with – but then I post only tiny parts. I sometime send suggestive ideas to email lists, usually getting no response. My own archive of composing is so unorganized that I wait until it is organized to invite others to explore with me. So, I don’t dialog with many who I really would like to share with – and hold back on contacting many others I recognize as having much to share, and whom I need feedback from and possible collaboration.
Is this an issue for other “elder minds”? Do we feel there are significant domains we seem unable to share?
George, the problem is that I could go on for months, and who has the time to read – let alone query and question.
One of many concerns: What is the emergent movement attempting to materially create/produce? Do we need a collaborative, simulated “world”, beyond Wikipedia, which facilitates our collective action? Collective action is mediated by semiotic structures. Project management software guides material construction. Constitutions claim to guide decisions. P2P technology will facilitate process, but “content” is needed. I observe the chatter on blogs and wonder what is to eventually come of it. Many are creating seeds with insufficient attention to fertile soils and nurturing scaffolding. But I don’t know what to do other than create seeds about the need for more attention about soils and scaffolding. My queries that much is MISSING are not noticed. It is a paradox to see so much exciting activity, but from a context that recognizes that it is insufficient and much more is needed. I speculate that my function is to share expanded contexts, but have how clue how to do it.
George, this is long enough, now — although there is much more I desire to share. I am posting this on Venessa’s blog in response to your comment, as I hope to attract the attention of others. Most of my postings and comments the past few months have (experimentally) been on the secret Facebook group TheNextEdge (initiated by Venessa). I am open to explore other venues for issues where linear threading is inadequate.
I thank you for your personal message. I would love to learn about your life all these years, but another time.
Larry
Larry, it’s good to reconnect.
> I could go on for months, and who has the time to read – let alone query and question.
You got it! That’s exactly the point. Then why bother with long missives that we know people won’t read, instead engaging the flow with a focused intervention at a systemic leverage point, which can trigger a generative conversation as Venessa’s blogs do.
> I wouldn’t have achieved it had I been more “social”.
Larry, you have one of the most brilliant minds I know, *and* what counts for evolution is only what gets successfully communicated from it. As I recall, you’ve been always struggling with how to convey big bundles of meaning. Over the years, in my similar challenges, I learned to accept (and strangely, even rejoice in) the fact that the knowledge I accumulated in the last 4-5 decades is worthless, unless i am willing to learn from my younger brothers and sisters what is that I can offer which will be pertinent and helpful to their work.
Intergenerational learning must start with the older folks paying attention to how best support the younger ones in *their* blazing new trails for changing the world. To me that includes also the learning of a new language, the language of videos. It’s a radical expansion of my portfolio of capabilities and I feel I need to go that way if i want my messages reach into collective soul deeper… Fortunately, I have a good teacher on that path, a 20-year old guy, who puts up with my stuttering the new language… 🙂
George, may we create a process whereby our reconnection can flourish. I am posting this again in Venessa’s blog, but we need to establish another medium. Mark Roest also responded to my msg to you, and I will also be responding to him here, as well. I debate whether to create a sequence of short posts (where each could be replied to) or combine them in a longer post – where the relationship between the items may be more evident. QuickDoc is the only app I am aware of where one can respond to and dialog on selected parts of a longer document. Using TheNextEdge on Facebook may be a temporary alternative.
I’m pleased that you remain active. I have been aware of some of your work but have not participated because what you were doing was quality – and I could trust it was being done well. There are many domains I am pleased to see viable, and where my participation might be more distraction than help. As much as I would have wanted your participation in my work I couldn’t request it until what I would need would be reasonable for your valuable time.
You make many excellent points in your message which I agree/qualify/disagree. I hope that over time we can converge on mutual comprehension. I agree with you on the vital importance of video and would like to know you special take. There are so many aspects and issues.
Here are a few of my thoughts and attitudes towards video.
There is enough quality video available to provide “learning materials” for an educational program to transform the worldviews of most people. The challenge is motivating others to view these videos in settings where significant learning will occur. If a person were open to view a selected set of videos most of our leaders would be in prison.
Although lacking visual imagery in explicit consciousness re memory and imagination, many of my deeper processes are “spatial”. Also, my thought process is “groking” the relationship between concrete experiential items passing through consciousness, like a multi-level video.
I’ve long desired to learn to use Camstasia with a team, where any work on a computer screen can be easily turned into quality video. I still have the VHS recordings of sessions with you in CA, when it was (and remains) my belief that certain quality dialogs, edited, might be important units of published discourse. Minds in resonance. I still believe this, but my SKYPE is so unstable and Vodburner records with video and auditory quickly going out of sync. Quality systems for this exist, but are too expensive for me.
I also dream of video hypermedia. While viewing a video one could pause and record (or attach) another video linked to that spot on the original video. Basically, make for video the same features of bookmarking and commenting available for eBooks. I see TED-Ed has a new tool where a comments/question window accompanies any video. I don’t know whether links to other videos could be inserted. Branching A/V would be very useful for facilitating conversations on complex issues. Each person could electronically mark points in the conversation (being recorded) to return to. Later conversations could branch from different points in the original conversation. Eventually a hypermedia conversation would emerge. With such a tool we might learn ways to improve sharing complex topics today hampered by linear constraints.
It has never been my intention to write “long missives”, which is why I have never attempted to publish a book of linear text. My dream has always been for an interactive media for collaborative composition of a “living” semiotic structure representing collective realities. Although I can share at any level of discourse, what I have most to contribute are insights on larger contexts or frames or “big bundles of meaning”. Tightly packed text – as even in this message – is an artifact of the economy of print publication before this age of digital electronics. I carefully compose each sentence – such that sometimes they require “study” (more than a passive reading). I have experimented with displaying single sentences presented on the 2D of a screen. Protocols would code symbol form and screen placement to represent “grammar” (a new version of diagrammed sentences). Different words might be programmed to appear on the screen in sequence. Auditory input could accompany the visual. One could learn to “read/study” such semiotic structures rapidly and systems are possible for rapid composition.
I have always desired the unit of discourse be what could be processed in the specious present – usually a short paragraph or multimedia equivalent. As above, I envision (without visualization) these units be diagrammatic, dynamic, multi-media, and navigatable. Given the wide (and important) diversity in cognitive processing in the human population, each unit (SEM – for semiotic structure) should be able to be displayed in a selection of variations. “Translation” for different languages is a challenge, as is our new comprehension about the differences between verbal and visual languages. The vast majority of spoken languages can only be learned by children and attempted codification of these languages into print may record the details but makes them rather difficult to read. Engaging global humankind in discourse remains a challenge. Yet, the same visual can have radically different impact on persons of different cultures. More research is needed in cross-cultural perception.
Big ideas or conceptual schemes can never be represented in the specious present. These are constructed by the creative activity of human mind/brains as they weave many experiences (gained over time) into nested/networked patterns that comprise our inner woven/constructed “worlds”. Once one has such a pattern/process internalized, smaller summaries or abstract SEMS can trigger this deeper activity. But, it is a delusion that summaries can instruct. This is why, once I discovered hypertext (now hypermedia) I chose it to be my medium for composing. Unfortunately, I later learned that most people have yet to learn to “read” hypertext with comfort. Of the tools I am aware of, VUE (Visual Understanding Environments) would be my choice. “Hyper” needs more than one kind of link, which VUE provides. The nodes in VUE can be video and diagrammatic. The problem with VUE is the long learning curve for both “reading” and composing. I would like a lite version of VUE with audio input for feature selection. Unfortunately, the tools that would make discourse more meaningful requires long learning curves (and personalization to account for the diversity of learning styles). And, with the tools rapidly improving (but not always in a useful direction) few people can commit the time and effort.
I also believe we need composition/study tools that integrate both the nested and networked nature of temporal exchange. The nested feature of outliners remains difficult to share. The best route for comprehension of complex conceptual schemes may be sequential reading of an outlined document at different levels. Yet, I seem alone in perceiving the need and only teams can create a useful system (for both composing, online viewing {with suggested protocols}, and collaborative editing).
I believe we need explicit work creating a new multi-media language system independent from spoken language. Although we can read faster than we can listen (except for those trained to listen a higher speeds), most people have their spoken language centers of their brain involved. On the other hand, we can speak faster than we can write. We can learn to process the visual and auditory channels separately – but integrated. One channel can cue about the context/frame for information in the other channel.
On first look, these ideas may seem useful to only a few and the long learning curves would make them prohibitive. I believe that the efficiency and features of our current systems are “primitive” as to what is possible — and with a quality training program it will be worth the time and effort for persons to learn to use these tools. There are also similar tools related to the composing and viewing of video and multi-media.
George, I am excited by much of what I witness emergent in younger generations. I personally lack the ability to learn by experiencing, which is the chosen process of those contributing to the new technologies. I am concerned that only those with those learning styles will be able to use and participate fully. There is so much I might learn from so many domains; but I accept my limitations. I cultivate my growing “ignorance”: knowing OF what I don’t yet know or comprehend and what I can’t yet do or appreciate. I have been blessed/cursed with a unique mind, a freak not to be emulated. My inner woven world contains patterns (alternative contextual frames) I believe will be very valuable to humankind at this critical juncture and I feel it is my mission to share them. I agree that if I cannot share (not necessarily with everyone) my insights may be “wasted”, but not necessarily “worthless”. I don’t seek acceptance of my insights, I seek comprehension and constructive feedback. Many accept my “brilliance” but cherry-pick ideas to fit their worldviews, yet can’t give the time and energy (which I understand) to attempt comprehending from new frames that might be very useful. I have concluded that our contemporary media/apps don’t facilitate my sharing and that linear communication is inadequate.
“what is that I can offer which will be pertinent and helpful to their work. Intergenerational learning must start with the older folks paying attention to how best support the younger ones in *their* blazing new trails for changing the world.” Ingergenerational learning must be a two way process. Everything I attempt to share has the potential of supporting, enabling, augmenting, and facilitating (seafing) the ongoing work of persons of all ages, including those “blazing new trails”. All mentation and work occurs within frames or contexts. Those who have grown up within the new technologies have powerful competencies and insights that I lack. But, my wisdom and uniqueness enables me to see the limitations of their frames – not about what they are doing, but about what is not being done that needs doing by someone, and that would impact their own work. What I offer will not change their frames, other than expand them – providing more options. In spite of the enormous progress in the emergent movement I claim to see projects needed doing (that would greatly enhance the projects underway) that are not being done or even imagined as needing to be done, because of the limiting frames. Productive work requires limiting frames, and most of the time I work myself in limiting frames. But, we need flexibility of frames, and meta-frames to consider the field of potential frames. This meta-work need not involve everyone, but everyone needs to respect the work of others (a topic addressed by Mark Roest).
Again, George, this is overly long for a single post. Yet, I don’t feel I have adequately addressed your points. I am a paradox of radical change and strongly resisting change – as I have come to believe is the human condition. These days are especially challenging. Although currently free of cancer I have not fully recovered my old energy, strength, or stamina. My hearing at high frequencies is gone leading to problems with comprehending some SKYPE exchanges. Quality hearing aides work, but too expensive for me at this time. I returned my dentures and now function without teeth, which effect the clarity of my speech. Again, I haven’t the funds for implants. On top of this I am having to move to a new house with my partner, Eloise – which will consume months of labor. My computer systems are sick and I need to establish a new cyberspace presence: new emails, blogs, and websites – as well as learn new apps.
There is no one in Tucson willing to dialog with me on these matters and most of my online contacts are emotionally supportive but not able to give me the feedback I need. The past few months I’ve been experimenting by posting and commenting in Venessa’s EmergentByDesign blog or TheNextEdge group in Facebook. A few items have generated response on peripheral topics, but my attempts to gain some attention for major insights has failed. Some have responded about the inadequacy of linear threads (such as with Facebook) but are at a loss of what to do. I feel that the chatter is a diversion of energy, but I am not in the loops where work is being done. As you have noted there are a great many blogs, websites, and projects online – but I have yet to see any growing exponentially (a measure I believe critical). I need to know more about Federating and Curating; are they at levels adequate to our needs? And, what are our needs and how can we know we have identified all our critical needs?
Enough for now, with respect, Larry
Hello Laurence, I am Mark Roest, with a suggestion for how we can create something powerful enough to galvanize younger people who see how much has gone wrong and are ready to confront it. it simultaneously solves the problem which I also have, of being under-social and over-knowledgeable. Having worked shelving books in a library as a youth, and gone through two classification systems (Dewey and Library of Congress), I got into geography and eco-regions, and read about cultures co-evolving with their local ecosystem or their eco-region, and in 2007 it became clear after a symposium on using digital earth technology to help the environment.
The differences among ecosystems across the face of the earth are literally staggering — as in, it is a culture shock to go from your culture, still rooted in its ecosystem after 10,000 or 40,000 years, to another, also still rooted in its ecosystem after 10,000 or 40,000 years, Everything is different. For a colonist or empire builder, the solution is to crush the other culture and adapt to the natural environment until you can find a way to cut it down to your size. Today, when at least some of us realize the horror of that path, and we can see the diversity on National Geographic, there is a far better solution to the lack of bandwidth of the average human: you don’t have to know all about the eco-regions and cultures in neighboring countries, or those across the ocean, as long as you know enough to respect the people there. You only really need to deeply understand your own eco-region and the cultures that evolved in it — and the nature of being human, manifested across all cultures. Without empire, each of the 5000 to 7000 remaining languages / cultures can stick to its own reality, in one of 827 eco-regions which were delineated by over 1200 scientists in 2000 and 2001.
It would be great if we could have a meta-council of elders which speaks to that which unites and divides us, and the general principles of returning to social and environmental sanity. I think that we could come to a shared understanding in these areas, articulate it, and build it into the social net environment. We could also build it into a true rendering of the world as we know it, and as it needs to be, to the best of humanity’s collective ability, as a knowledgebase that includes supply chain and project management software, all embedded in a Geographic Information System with digital earth imaging. It would be interoperable, consistent in its information architecture, but fully representative of the diversity of the world and human culture.
Thus, it would create an information environment far richer than the best maps of the past, because more detailed. For eager, curious minds, it will be a candy store that makes sense; for the elders and the younger sages, it will be something we can point to and navigate in within the course of a meeting, and show how the impacts of time and human frailty can cause wrenching change, and how best to navigate it.
I’d love to talk with you about this if you are interested. Beyond that, we are going to be creating a prototype of a sustainable economy with the communities around Water’s Edge, on the Luangwa River in Zambia. Check out ImagineZambia.org, if you like! You may find it draws you in.
Regards,
Mark Roest
Can someone advise me how to remove my comment later on here that is in too narrow format. I will move my dialog with George Por to another place.
Pingback: introspection, courage, and shame « the magic of language blog: partnering with reality – by JR Fibonacci
Great idea, albeit an old one (as are all great ideas). If you read one deep thinker on this subject, if you haven’t already, try Lewis Mumford’s The Myth of the Machine, a two volume treatise (Technics & Human Development, Vol 1, 1967; The Pentagon of Power, Vol 2, 1970). From the back cover: “Far from being an attack on science and technics, The Pentagon of Power seeks to establish a more organic social order.” Sounds a lot like what I hear from you and your compatriots.
Also famed designer Paul Rand in Design Form and Chaos, 1993: “To understand the meaning of design is to sense the common thread that weaves its way through the arts of painting, architecture, and industrial and graphic design. It is also to understand the part form and content play in the intricate process of design, and to realize that design is also commentary, opinion, a point of view, and social responsibility.”
As a postscript, I have been using the Data-Information-Knowledge-Wisdom hierarchy to explain the goal of computing for 40 (sic) years. And then I got it from a colleague who didn’t remember where he got it. It is included at top of page 5 in a set of notes to myself: http://www.newglobalenterprises.net/blog/SOWS-1994.pdf
In a recent Strategic Architecture Knowledge Sharing document for a global beverage company, I used it to show the infographic evolution of the Intelligent Enterprise: http://www.scribd.com/doc/92277092/Intelligent-Enterprise-Maturation
I too am also working on a book. Mine assumes global enterprises are all fractal-defined virtual entities. They have Enterprise Backbones which provide Service Tone interfaces for interaction with the subject entity. While this is focused on business enterprises, it really applies to any social network as well. That is the second book. IBM Research is publishing under their research Service Science Series. Stay tuned.
Hope this helps you.
Vanessa,
This is so well written and outlines a number of themes that will take us in the right direction. I am not going to try to summarize my similar thinking here, but give you some links and hope to share in the future. On my blog http://learningpond.wordpress.com you can find a link to my book, The Falconer, that describes my journey through actually teaching these ideas and skills to students. You can download the intro for free off the blog site to see if it resonates. In fact one of my alum’ quotes is on the back cover: “We would all trade a lot of knowledge for a little wisdom”. That from a 17-year old.
Also, I posted a while back about your theme of a different type of connectivity that takes advantage of technology but is not based in it. My post on the “cognitasphere” is at this link: http://wp.me/p2gT3m-2m. Am part way through a new book that expands on this idea of the cognitasphere and what it means for a re-imagining and re-structuring of K-12 education.
Would love to connect more with you on this!
Hey Venessa,
Thanks for writing this. Look forward to growth of culture tech as a new meme.
Heres my writeup of our recent efforts to open-source the development of empathic communication tech ( a subset of the development of culture tech) http://opencollaboration.wordpress.com/2012/04/29/open-sourcing-empathic-communication/
Also, heres a little blog I wrote about this culture tech idea, I call it experimental anthropology http://opencollaboration.wordpress.com/2012/02/22/experimental-anthropology/
There are some folks exploring to confluence of technology and culture. You may find some of their work useful as you conduct your own exploration:
Code/Space by Rob Kitchin and Martin Dodge
Cutting Code by Adrian Mackenzie
Inventing the Medium by Janet H. Murray
There are also some folks in the Information Architecture community thinking through this as well:
Andrea Resmini … http://andrearesmini.com/
Andrew Hinton … http://inkblurt.com
Jorge Arango … http://journalofia.org/volume3/issue1/04-arango/
… and in my own work http://digitalanthropologist.com
Cheers! and I can’t wait to see where your exploration leads.
http://sourceforge.net/apps/mediawiki/pangaia/index.php?title=Macrocosm
I think that picture illustrates the dynamic of what you’re describing….
mark
gothenburg, nebr
Great directions, Vanessa.
Here are some additional areas to consider: integral psychology, consciousness, and perennial philosophy.
http://www.goodreads.com/review/list/4554302?shelf=integral-approach
Thanks for the preview! Like everyone else, I’m looking forward to seeing how this develops.
The metaphors of culture hacking or culture tech seem like they are already technologies of culture in a sense- they help us get our hands dirty.
I definitely want to lend support to your idea that a major route to changing larger human dynamics is through work on the self. Many philosophers, historians, and anthropologists would back you up on this point. The ideas of culture tech and culture hacking seem related to a major research paradigm now being developed by an interdisciplinary coalition of humanities and social science scholars. (It’s a paradigm in the original sense of a shared framework for division of labor in producing scalable systems of knowledge.) It centers on investigating shared practices of self-formation or self-transformation and emergent effects that appear in their aggregation. It’s hard to say, since it’s hard to quantify or delimit crisply, but this looks like one of the biggest and most productive interdisciplinary projects around right now.
Since some of this stuff seems pretty relevant, I’ll throw out a few anchor points in case anything sticks or resonates.
Part of this paradigm has emerged from the revival of Aristotle. Out of his ethics, we’ve developed a picture where humans work to develop their personal character and habits (hexis), which include practical wisdom (phronesis) for realizing a simultaneously personal and global condition of human flourishing (eudaimonia). This is a pretty useful and flexible set of architectures.
Much of this work has to do with investigating other members of this larger family of practices, these practices as a whole or as such, their conditions of possibility, their historical careers, and their historical consequences. A lot of work concerns Christianity in one way or another. Some of the terms of art used in this neighborhood are “subjectivities” and “techniques of subjectivation,” the “art of living (techne tou biou),” “technologies of self,” and “porous”/”relational” or “buffered”/”bounded selves.”
There should be a way to increase the accessibility of this work, especially for all the folks coming at these issues from tech/software/business backgrounds. Academics by and large aren’t incentivized to write for larger publics, and humanities scholars are paying the price as the public shrugs at deep cuts to humanities funding. These both seem like mistakes. I suspect we still have a lot to learn from the fundamental evolutionary design strategy of putting old adaptations to new uses…
Kahneman’s overarching message of “Thinking, Fast and Slow” is best put by Polonius’ advice to a leaving son, “To thine own self be true, then thou can be false to no man.” But of course, if you want to lie, all bets are off. It is truly the Age of Anti-Reason.
Yes! There’s soooo much for us to learn in the territory you are describing. As you’ve said and others have echoed, most of it isn’t new, there’s a new synthesis that many of us seem to be working on.
You may have come across Otto Scharmer’s work (with many many others) on “Theory U,” which they call a “social technology.” It very much deals with both the visible and invisible, surface and deep aspects of life as being necessary for making really meaningful resilient creative progress.
I/we haven’t promoted it much yet, because it doesn’t feel ready to launch, but my colleague and I are collecting some related thoughts here on a blog/sandbox: http://www.springbokandradish.com.
Thanks for sharing your thinking here publicly. That’s how we’re going to make progress — by trying stuff and telling each other about it.
I suggest you take a look at Boyd & Richerson’s “The Origin and Evolution of Cultures.”
Pingback: Birth of a Meme: The Rise of Culture Tech | emergent by design « BIOTOPOS
Great post Venessa. Love the culture tech meme. Cicero’s cultivation of the soul was part of a whole culture of self-cultivation that ran through Roman times. But Cicero was late on the scene: the Romans borrowed the art of self-cultivation from the Greeks, who had previously made the ‘art of life’ (techne tou biou) a prerequisite for leaders and philosophers. Interestingly, the Greeks were not focussed on authenticity, unlike the Romans. For the Greeks, the art of life was a pursuit of beauty – to craft oneself as a work of art (as opposed to paring oneself back to the essential self, which is a metaphysical idea that hadn’t occurred to them, apparently).
If you are interested in pursuing the culture of self-cultivation in ancient times, the best introduction is Pierre Hadot’s Philosophy as a Way of Life. http://books.google.com.au/books/about/Philosophy_As_a_Way_of_Life.html?id=RNDmvMrpr4YC&redir_esc=y This book changed my life! Highly recommend it.
You wrote:
“While this is still a work in process, I’m defining culture tech as follows:
‘the systems, tools, processes and etiquettes designed to cultivate the full expression of the authentic self, liberate collective creativity and imagination, and foster the expansion of universal human capacity’”
I reply:
How is this different from the “Maker Movement”?
We talk about the idea of “making culture” as the core of Anthropunk, http://www.anthropunk.com:
AnthroPunk – how people promote, manage, resist and endure change; how people hack their lives (and those of others) – living the world not just in it. AnthroPunk is a new label for a number of older ways of conceptualising people and their constructions. Foremost, the individuation of people and their experiences and an explicit recognition that their lives are interactive, not driven by rules, scripts, schemata or frames, but by the creation of these. Context, like culture, is an outcome of human life, not the cause of it. Individual people collectively make the world around them, not only from the materials and ideas available to them but from new materials and ideas they construct. There are limits imposed by materials, but the application of ideas constantly transforms these into new possibilities, and new limits.
We are constantly making and re-making our lives and the lives of others (e.g. culture) and as a result, the culture that emerges is continually dynamic. (Note: (note: this was part of our MakerFaire talk from last year: http://fora.tv/2011/05/22/Sally_Applin_AnthroPunk )
To fully hack culture, there would have to be incentives on the part of the co-optees to want to co-opt those parts that are deemed “for the better” by the initial movement.
People co-opt odd bits. They may not know what they’re connected to, and they may not know what they are taking. The bits themselves may take on new expressions as they get combined with their primary value system.
Thus, the value that is put out there, may or may not be co-opted because one can’t embed one’s logic/history/story with it.
This is something that one would have no control over, thus a true culture “hack” likely isn’t possible.
“How is this different from the “Maker Movement”?”
variations on a theme!
thanks for the intro to ‘anthropunk’ – please let me know if you guys ever plan to make any of your resources/people/topic info on the website publicly available so we can learn from and build upon your research
cheers,
v
“The greatest distortions of our time are that love can’t happen, goons rule the world, and the future is bleak. The secret truth of our time is that a world-changing spirit force sleeps in the soul of every man, woman and child. Once this force awakens en masse nothing can stop it.” – Mark Borax
First the individual tools up; then the individual tools up at the group level; then the group can tool up at the planet level. And then it’s really on.
ah yes Kirstin..
awakening indispensable people.
love all you’re doing/becoming Venessa..
Your book will be amazing Venessa. I love this quote – it seemed to resonate with the way I feel connected to your present journey …
“Wisdom is knowing I am nothing,
Love is knowing I am everything,
and between the two my life moves.”
― Nisargadatta Maharaj
Yes, thank you, Venessa, for doing this amazing work to filter, focus, amplify, and share. For me, culture tech resonates with finding, compiling and co-creating workable ways to augment
1. the power of the individual (power of choice included),
2. respect and protect safe zones for love life, couple, family and, children,
3. the power of teams, groups, companies, to find each other, build trust, help and reach shared goals,
4. the larger scheme of growing together, trade and build business for mutual benefit of humankind and nature, replace costly business models and polluting technologies with better alternatives.
Matching memes mean mindful missives. 😉
In case you look for more references (“How about a book for your birthday present?” “No, thank you, I already have one.”)
How to Manufacture Desire: An Intro to the Desire Engine
Want To Hook Users? Drive Them Crazy. (An Intro to Variable Rewards)
For the “culture of business” new patterns emerge for what we can do way beyond occupy: build organizations structured to bypass the problems of the oldies. Chances are their greater employee engagement and removal of internal friction makes employee-owned organizations way more competitive.
Can There Be “Good” Corporations?
Venessa, looks like a marvellous project. As you say you will be travelling to work on it, you may be interested in the “labSurlab” event in Quito, 15th – 23rd June. I am translating the page to English, it is still in Spanish. Some “headlines” about the event:
labSurlab
A journey South for the construction and evolution of collaborative action. Towards experimentation and transformation, through the creative use of technology.
LabSurlab is a technosocial experimental space in which models of open social organization, collective creation and knowledge, transdisciplinary methodologies, urban social innovation, reuse-recycling, technology hacking and DIY-garage hacking are explored.
I am sure you will have a great journey in your new project, enjoy.
I identify with the statement of the hierarchy of visual understanding graphic above, but I don’t necessarily align with its title. To me it is a hierarchy of understanding through wisdom period — encompassing all methods of gaining data, information, knowledge and wisdom.
Venessa, I sure do appreciate the way you are able to write about these things as an inviting and engaging inquiry. I tend to write about things once I have them more sorted out, which makes them more preach/teachy and less of a participatory inquiry.
I look forward to you bringing that gift to this domain of Culture Tech and making it more inviting and accessible. 🙂
Pingback: Culture Hacking: Learning and Building Great Teams | David Socha's Blog
Pingback: 7 stories to read this weekend — Tech News and Analysis
Pingback: 7 stories to read this weekend | Cleantech Reporter
Pingback: 7 stories to read this weekend | MyTouch 4G Review
Glad you brought in spirit. I’d like some more, please.
Fabulous read! And great writing. I particularly like the thought pathways that inspire us to question our own parameters.
Like you, I’m writing my first book and this connects well. There are links with the human culture aspects and behaviors focused mostly on the practical ITSM tasks of ‘data Junky or knowledge wise!’ placed within context of decision making ability. With your permission i’d love to reference your work where pertinent to the content.
Wonderful start. I recommend Nicholas Carr’s The Shallows: What The Internet Is Doing To Our Brains if you have not already read it. BTW, I assume Carr would applaud your decision to write a book!
I see beauty on what I read here. Keep breathing Vanessa.
Hi Venessa. Very cool inquiry! I’d like to share something not yet mentioned – not another book, but a concrete “social technology” for running an organization that is gaining traction lately.
To be bold, I think a “social technology” that answers a lot of your questions already exists, it’s called Holacracy. I see so many people in agile-inspired movements seeking the next big thing. Several models add a piece to the puzzle, many of which you cite, but we are still in search of a social technology that can integrate all these ‘features’ into one coherent whole, and I think Holacracy allows just that at a deeper level.
My life path resonates a *lot* with your inquiry – I came from France to San Francisco in search of a better way of harnessing human potential at both individual and collective levels. I am one of those people versed in tech as well as philosophy, psychology and spirituality, and for a long time I have searched a practice that integrates these different “technologies”. From agile to spiritual growth, what concrete social technology will go beyond a mere addition of the two? Well, I recently joined a company that’s been running for 5 years with Holacracy and promoting it: HolacracyOne. We are now in the refining stage: we already have a new social technology that works.
Holacracy is an “operating system” for an organization to continually use people’s felt “tensions” to improve the way we work together, and rapidly adapt it to its environment. The process sorts out organizational tensions (useful to integrate) from personal/ego-driven tensions (harmful if integrated) via clearly structured meeting processes.
In a nutshell, where everybody is looking for the “best way to work together”, Holacracy offers a meta-system that allows evolution itself to shape the “best way to work together” in each different context, based on the actual needs of each situation as sensed by the people doing the work.
There is more to it, but hopefully I’m able to convey a glimpse of the depth of Holacracy’s principles. If it sounds interesting to you at all, I’m happy to chat more.
Pingback: Meme « The Hook
Venessa, I do love it! Culture Tech resonates a lot with what i do with organizations as i fully use a new technology powered by evolution called Holacracy.
Thanks
Bernard Marie
Venessa, the very richness and variety of responses you’re getting to this bloh illustrates the point i made here https://emergentbydesign.com/2012/05/03/birth-of-a-meme-the-rise-of-culture-tech/#comment-70692 . Hopefully, you will have a very long time but even that won’r be enough to absorb integrate all what people can respond to such an appetizing call, the zillions of “read this, read that,” “i’ve already written about the same X years ago,” “how is it different from Y, etc.”
To wade through all that i find the gems you need, you need to a reliable compass that you no doubt have. But if your stay responsive to life, your very compass keeps changing. You may not even complete the first outline and chapter of the book when new framework emerging from the global mind make them somehow out-of-date. The bed news is that nothing can protect you from that unanticipated, premature obsolescence. The good news is that you can minimize its impact of the “you” is extended to include a collective self, whose sense-making organs can cover more territory faster than any of us individually.
i have much more to say about it but a collaborator in such a “we-space” has just arrived and we’ll work on sharing our perspectives on the process for laying the foundation for a commons leaning ecosystem…
Pingback: Weekly Annotations Round-up (weekly) | Creative Destruction
Clearly a journey. But I wonder about a few things – let me raise two. One is the prominence of tools in your gaze. The other is the absence of an explicit definition of the topic – what is the future? These lacunae are, in my view, related to the powerful and largely unconscious dominance of mechanical time. — Don’t get me wrong, I buy most of your normative agenda and your take on a viral approach to change. But, if experimentalism is to be more than monkeys banging at typewriters (faster or slower tools makes no difference) there is the question of the capacity to be free, i.e. to accumulate wisdom. Here what we expect – in other words how we define the future – is determinant. Until we are able to use a different definition of the future our culture may spin faster – tech or not – but go nowhere.
Good luck with the project.
Hi Venessa,
I think you’re right and that the convergence of these different factors clearly point to the evolution of a new culture that we’re part of and so are having trouble recognizing in any objective sense.
The key issue becomes one of perspective and I’m very happy to see that you’re taking “woo” into account. It seems obvious to me that there is some objective reality out there (where the concept of “reality” doesn’t necessarily connote physical existence) that brings us all together and provides the basis for our shared experiences and perspective.
The missing link is our connection to that objective reality. Since there’s no need for it to be physical in nature, whether you choose to think of it as an “inner” reality, a “cosmic” force, a spiritual dimension or being probably doesn’t matter as much as recognizing its out there.
So, the idea of “bootstrapping ourselves” is troublesome in that it goes back to a very limited system definition that leaves out our dependence on a greater, objective reality.
In some ways, it reminds me of the endless discussions people have about perpetual motion machines. Until we understand basic laws about the conservation of energy and the definition of what “system” we’re looking at, perpetual motion seems entirely workable, it’s only when you realize that any 1.) anything that is truly isolated from an external energy source won’t work and 2.) if it works, it’s not isolated from an external source and so is not a perpetual motion machine.
In the context of “Culture Tech”, I believe the external energy source is what you’ve labeled “woo” and needs to be part of the discussion.
I look forward to how the discussion develops!
Pingback: Culture of Choice – Birth of a Meme: The Rise of Culture Tech
Pingback: How do we trust each other without proof? « emergent by design
Pingback: Spirituality and Knowledge: Culture Shifting Emphasis from Content to Skill Development | Social Behavioral Patterns–How to Understand Culture and Behaviors
Pingback: My Website » Just another WordPress site » Hacking Wise Cultures
Pingback: My Website » Just another WordPress site » CultureTech
You actually make it seem so easy along with your presentation however I find this topic to be actually something that I think I might by
no means understand. It seems too complicated and extremely
extensive for me. I am looking forward in your subsequent post, I will try to get
the hang of it!
An impressive share! I’ve just forwarded this onhto a friend who has been conducting
a little research oon this. And then he in reality
ordered me lunch simply because I recently uncovered it for him…
lol. So allow me to reword this…. Thanks for the meal!!
But yeah, thanx for spending the amount of time to go ovr this topic here on your
own blog.
Next time I read a blog site, I’m hoping that iit won’t fail me up to this package.
Whaat i’m saying is, I am cerfain it was my choice to read through, however I really thought you’d
probably have something helpful to state. All I hear
is a handful of cryhing about a product that you could
fix so long as yoou were not too buusy looking for attention.
Aw, this became a truly nice post. Taking the time and actual effort to create a top notch article… but what things
caan I say… I procrastinate a large number andd don’t seem to gett nearly anything done.
Grâce à site web, vous pouvez obtenir Minecraft 1.7.9 sans payer.
C’est la dernière version que l’on vous donne.
Vous pourrez télécharger à haute vitesse grâce à notre lien!!
Pingback: A Movement of Self-authorship and Self-organization - Enlivening Edge