Scharmer: You must change your life

[Edward theurj Berge]

Balder started a FB IPS thread on this here, linking to Scharmer's article here. I post it and my comments therefrom in this thread for those who don't participate in that capitalistic appropriation of the Commons.

A major theme in the piece we've discussed in other threads. The movement he describes is the Commons:
"It's that gap between our individual consciousness and our collective impact that makes Rilke's words relevant today: we must change our lives. Okay, but how? By joining the movement. The movement already exists."

One of the aspects of the Commons Scharmer highlights is the MITx program using a massive open online course format. It's a different approach to eduction that highlights P2P participation and collaboration for low to no cost. To reiterate his message, and a recent forum concern as to how integral can have an impact in the concrete world, join this movement that already exists.
We can retroactively try to understand it with our metatheories, but the latter are only relevant to the degree they feedback from and into the existing Commons instead of trying to pigeonhole the movement into metatheories' ofttimes rigid metaphysical categories. Or worse, just dismissing the Commons as some kind of irrelevant green meme and investing all our integral theory in so-called conscious capitalism.

We already have so engaged in the FB and the Ning IPS forum, where we enact open source P2P knowledge generation. So how do we engage and promote the other aspects of the Commons? And an important one: how do we move our P2P knowledge generation to a media format other than Facebook, one more in alignment with the Commons ethos?*

A key point in OOO is that our media infrastructures influence everything else. So how and to what degree is our P2P Commons being appropriated, diluted and made ineffective by this capitalist media structure? IPS is certainly only being channeled into those of like mind and not broadly linked or communicated. Its a form of isolationist marginalization built right into this format. Much like, I might add, how MSNBC has pretty much marginalized some of the most powerful progressive voices in politics.

* I'd suggest Ning is a step in the right direction.

[Edward theurj Berge]

Balder: Actually, the FB version of IPS is more open to the public than our Ning forum is. Posts in the FB forum are visible to the public and people are exposed to them through FB's various algorithms, which is not the case with Ning (where people have to specifically seek it out).

I agree with you that a different, more Commons-aligned media platform would be better, ideally (and Ning is better than FB in this regard), but I am not aware of any alternatives that would provide both the strengths of Ning and FB. As it is, people simply don't want to be troubled to join a separate site (witness the 877 members here vs. the 150 at the original Ning site); this is what is convenient for most people, and this is what is likely to allow for the widest exposure, currently.

As for whether the group *should* avoid a certain insularity and narrow focus/appeal, I'm not entirely convinced of that. Its small size, until recently, and its concentrated focus have allowed for a kind of sustained inquiry and exploration that wouldn't be as likely if the membership was significantly diversified. It would become a different kind of space, if we did that.

[Edward theurj Berge]

Me: I suppose FB IPS forum would be more widespread in that those who have friends therein get posts in their feeds from such IPS friends? But do they, since FB is getting pretty manipulative on what people receive in their feeds if they aren't already part of said communities?

And yes, it is much more convenient to hang out in FB. But isn't that one of Scharmer's points, that "we must change our lives" if we want to enact this new movement?

I'd disagree about the insularity, especially since ITC 2015 is about having impacts in the real world, and wanting to reach out and engage it. Sustained inquiry of a focused kind can be handled by a Commons format, as the integral community continues to grow. Keeping it small and elite is a key way the reigning structure keeps it from having impact.

[Edward theurj Berge]

Balder: I think the algorithms do give this group exposure, judging by the number of applications I get from people who don't appear to have any immediate connection to our close "integral" or my personal friends circles.

I'd be open to moving to another, more Commons-oriented platform, if one could be found. We'd lose the content here, though, which would be a shame.

As for maintaining a smallish think-tank-like or self-study environment, as this has been for a number of years, or having greater impact, I think both things are good and I'm not sure IPS itself needs to do anything particularly different. But IPS could certainly serve as a 'launching point' for other endeavors that aim specifically to work with various systems and work for desired changes.

[Edward theurj Berge]

Me: Is there no way to save the content here like other formats (Ning etc.)? If that is so it is a strong manipulation to keep one from leaving. And I can already sense many here are having a panic attack at the mere suggestion of moving away from FB (me included), another telling symptom. Perhaps a better way to phrase Scharmer is, can we change our lives?

[Edward theurj Berge]

From this article:

"At times, we deliberately select our news filters (as with LinkedIn or Flipboard), but online material is also filtered implicitly based on what our friends, contacts, or inner circle discuss (as with Facebook or Twitter). Paul Resnick and colleagues at the University of Michigan's School of Information recently noted that 'collectively, these filters will isolate people in information bubbles only partly of their own choosing, and the inaccurate beliefs they form as a result may be difficult to correct.' Ironically, then, the proliferation of search engines, news aggregators and feed-ranking algorithms is more likely to perpetuate ignorance than knowledge. It would seem that excessive social media use may intensify not only feelings of loneliness, but also ideological isolation.

[Edward theurj Berge]

Balder: Here's one option (Diaspora, which I looked at a couple years ago). Does anyone here use it?

[DavidM58]

In spite of the many blessings, social media is in many ways isolating and dividing its users.

*DavidM58 "Liked" this quote:

theurj said:

From this article:

"At times, we deliberately select our news filters (as with LinkedIn or Flipboard), but online material is also filtered implicitly based on what our friends, contacts, or inner circle discuss (as with Facebook or Twitter). Paul Resnick and colleagues at the University of Michigan's School of Information recently noted that 'collectively, these filters will isolate people in information bubbles only partly of their own choosing, and the inaccurate beliefs they form as a result may be difficult to correct.' Ironically, then, the proliferation of search engines, news aggregators and feed-ranking algorithms is more likely to perpetuate ignorance than knowledge. It would seem that excessive social media use may intensify not only feelings of loneliness, but also ideological isolation.

[DavidM58]

[Balder]

In response to the notion that these filters isolate us in ideological bubbles, I've remarked before that partly the onus is on us:  if we are not ideologically narrow in the kinds of friends and online associates we choose, then the news we get exposed to won't be so ideologically narrow either.  Also, the problem with 'targeted' media is bigger than platforms like Facebook: the whole TV / cable industry now presents us with a range of news stations, each with its own ideological slant, and we can always choose to live in 'information bubbles' that way, too, by choosing only those stations that have messages which reinforce our own biases.  For me, I've long tried to buck that: I listen to conservative radio and TV, mainstream TV, and left / far-left radio and TV.  It's up to us to make choices to keep our 'channels' relatively diverse, whether on TV, in print, or on FB.

[Edward theurj Berge]

True, to a point. But media structures themselves exert a lot of unconscious control. Just take our participation in Facebook. I avoided it for the longest time but hardly anyone that goes to FB IPS posts here. So I joined just to get in on the good discussion. There are a lot of bright, educated and informed people on FB IPS, but we're all addicted to its ease and convenience so that all the other legitimate complaints about it slide right off. Scharmer says we must change our life, like our participation and addiction to FB, if we ever want to manifest a P2P Commons. But how many of us actually do it? There are alternatives but we'd have to change those media structures as well as ourselves.

[Balder]

Yes, those are good points.  To change, we need some alternatives ... either existing ones, or ones that could be set up without too much trouble and investment (at least for those of us with limited time and $$).  I've been looking for alternatives to FB over the past couple days, but haven't found anything really promising yet.  We still have Ning, but I don't know what it would take to entice FB members over here.

It might be worth taking a poll, on FB, on what an alternative network or location for the discussion forum would need to have for it to be attractive and compelling enough to users to actually step out of FB to use it.

Did you see my recent post on the FB Scharmer thread?  I found a company that sells a pretty cheap package for creating and hosting your own social network.  The issue there would be bandwidth, mainly... my home network wouldn't cut it.

[Edward theurj Berge]

Just read it and a few of Eric's suggestions. Seems we always need a tech-geek to handle some of these other systems. Whereas Ning and FB are easy to use by even us brainiac philosophers.