Forums: Discussions for entrepreneurs and small business.

-------------------------

Darryl Parker
Entrepreneur, CEO
http://www.parkerweb.com
http://www.iMatthews.com

Website Maintenance

Let`s remember that the discussion focuses on the future of the Internet. Because it`s such a huge social tool and event, it`s naturally associated with society and culture, and how human beings interact. So a discussion on a historic change in the movement and use of information must include the historical perspective of the societies and cultures using that information.

Paula, you and I disagree on the relative value of H-G versus technological societies. That`s okay, I think we agree in principle on a number of other concepts. Let me rephrase:

I hold that any uncontrolled growth is usually a disease, like cancer. Throughout history, the two main control protocols on the growth of societies has been either natural or political. H-G societies reacted to feast-famine controls, and were limited by non-human factors.

Technology and modern societies usually use political systems for control. They can be diverse, but basically they`re top-down (totalitarian, theological) or broad-based (representative democracies).

The third form of control protocol hasn`t yet emerged, and I believe it`s what Ken Wilber is trying to describe in his integral consciousness model, and that`s an ethical control protocol. Free-market capitalism is the first sign of this emerging combination of both natural and political influences. It`s natural in the form of human nature, not "environmental" nature, for want of a better word.

It`s also political in that there are regulatory bodies outside the overall market, which manage excess and abuse in that market. However, they`re not really political structures. What I think will evolve is an ethical control protocol, based on some sort of new, integrated philosophy of values.

At the moment, the Internet is global, but social philosophies (and religions) are national, for the most part---not universal, to be particular. We can try to force the Internet into older models, making it nationalized or bounded by cultural borders. Or we can change the way we think about life, resources, energy, and the Earth. I think the latter is what`ll happen.

Darryl, consciousness isn`t spontaneity. Random connections may show up in a computer program designed to report out scenarios, but that goes back to the infinite series of monkeys on an infinite set of typewriters eventually producing a replica of the works of Shakespeare.

The problem is that whatever those monkeys produce, someone will have to recognize it and compare it to what was first created by Shakespeare. Although there isn`t a theory of consciousness, yet, we can at least say what it isn`t. Random production without intent isn`t the same as consiousness itself. There`s a link (of some sort) between consciousness and intention.

Some people propose that consciousness spontaneously arises with enough complexity. Robert Heinlein`s "Moon is a Harsh Mistress" had a plot on that notion. I`ll agree, to a point; I think human consciousness does require a brain complex enough to extract information flowing through the universe. But consciousness, awareness, thought, and imagination are each different and none of them are the same as spontaneity.

I do agree that the Internet will mostly be a result of what we created, not what it becomes all on its own, though. :-)

To riff on Darryl`s question... What shall we create... and how will it be used?

And one very sad, Internet-based story that helps explain why our work as entrepreneurs on the Internet must constantly be challenging ourselves and our peers to stay several steps ahead of that which we create. 

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/05/15/internet.suicide/index.html

How do a soccer mom and some teenagers turn into pathological, brutal bullies that led to this suicide?  Unlike using car safetybelts, avoiding drunk driving or reducing second-hand smoke - we haven`t had time to fully absorb the positive & negative potential of our new technologies. 




-------------------------

Accelerate the launch of your web business
www.teamandadream.com

Darryl writes: How can/will the Internet influence the future of humanity?

In my opinion, and totally ripping off Marshall McLuhan and a bunch of other theoretical stuff I learned in my media studies classes, I think that engaging with any given media for long periods of time changes our cognitive processes such that we end up relating with the wider world in the same way we relate with that medium. So for example, prior to radio everyone read books, and all the way back to Gutenberg people saw the world in very black-and-white, linear terms. The radio generation was very compliant and carried out whatever orders came down from on high; the television generation turned out to be a riot of movements, sounds, trancelike states of altered consciousness, and interruptions to the radio generation`s previously scheduled programming.

I think the internet is training our brains to think in two new ways: we`re learning to process information nonlinearly; and we`re becoming trained to understand the world in terms of networks and systems. "Where" isn`t just a matter of geography, it`s also now a matter of one`s position within the network. Personally, I think this is part of what`s driving the local foods movement, because people aren`t especially happy with their position at the far edge of the industrial food system so they`re creating their own food networks in which they can actually participate as something more meaningful than an industrial eater. This phenomenon is having an enormous impact on military issues as well. But in general, I think internet is facilitating an evolution in social organization away from centralized hierarchies and toward networks, and networks of networks. I think it bodes extremely well for entrepreneurs and other small operators, so long as we can think in these new terms, too.

Craig -- I think you and I are in agreement about 80% of the time. The things that I have found valuable in studying H-G`ers don`t necessarily have to come from them; H-G can provide handy hyperlinks and lessons learned, but the knowledge is available from many sources.

I only vaguely know who Ken Wilbur is. He`s a buddhist, is that correct? I`m not much a fan of buddhism or of any worldview that wants to think humans are separate from the natural order. In fact, my enthusiasm for capitalism comes from noticing that when markets are unmolested, they function in ways strikingly similar to ecosystems... I have no doubt that if markets were allowed to work, economies would naturally fall into a state of homeostasis.

But in any event, what is "integral consciousness" and how does it relate to capitalism? Is it related to the internet?

—paula

Paula -

Your first paragraph on Marshall McCluhan`s work (and I confess I haven`t studied him) reminded me of a book written by Steve Vedro called Digital Dharma.  I heard Vedro talk and much of what you discuss in paragraph one is reviewed in his book - and he correlates it to the chakra system.  Interesting read relative to this dialogue.

Ken Wilber is a philosopher/anthropologist/psychologist/systems theorist who has sought to unify the wisdom of humanity into a unified model that he calls A.Q.A.L.  A conversation about him is probably out of scope of this conversation - but his work is informed by all world religions, including Western traditions of Chrisitanity, Islam, Judaism,  - with a strong eastern influence, but that includes Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Sihkism, etc..  He has written a book called "A brief history of everything" and another which is a summary of many of his main works calle "A theory of everything" which seeks to synthesize these traditions - along with Western psychology, economics, systems theory into a map of human experience.  This map can actually be used to place a conversation or person`s perspective in context with specific coordinates (e.g. we could map this dialogue with coordinates in the AQAL model - that would consider each person`s perspective, the topic, the forum being used, etc. etc.)

Again - out of scope for this conversation - email me if you`d like more resources or pointers, but he is definitely not one who considers humans as "separate from the natural order".   His theory rationally and deliberately spells out how we got to where we are as part of the natural order.

Skip






-------------------------

Accelerate the launch of your web business
www.teamandadream.com

Skip, I saw the indictment of the woman who allegedly caused the teen suicide. I also was thinking about this topic, driving around today.

One of the things we all seem to agree on is that the Internet AT THE MOMENT is a new form of society, with no controls other than consensus and market drivers. I may be simplifying, but my proposition is that the whole world uses the thing, and nobody`s "in charge," basically.

Now consider the XXX porn industry. One of the evolutionary pathways was the combination of popups, and those popups taking control of the browser. We`ll assume a strong market for the product.

As an example of free-market reaction, offered in much faster timeframes than previous types of markets, the overall response was popup blockers, anti-hijacking softare, better antivirus software, spyware removers, and so forth.

What that shows me is that because the Internet is electronic, we can test the basic ideas of  free markets much more easily. Go back to the railway monopolies: It`s true that *in time* open and free markets will take down monopolies. The problem is the amount of time it requires for changes in a physically-oriented marketplace.

In an electronic one, how long did it take for the Mozilla project to emerge, grow, and become a powerful competitive force to Microsoft`s IE? Not very long.

So I think the future impact on society will include a real-world and true proving ground for the still undeveloped principles of free-market captialism, ethical control protocols, and mental rather than physical boundaries to social groups.

Look at how it`s almost impossible now for totalitarian states to completely censor information going out of or coming into the populations. China, previously well-known for repression, isn`t able to completely clamp down on information coming out of underground groups. So I think we`ll see the Internet as a force for free thought as well.

Paula, as a side note, Ken Wilber has been "branded" as some sort of Buddhist guy, which is why I didn`t read his stuff. But a way-out liberal recommended the book, "Sex, Ecology, and Spirituality." I read it, expecting a liberal academic with nothing much to say. I was 180-degrees wrong.

Wilber happens to have some Buddhist influence, much the way that I happen to have studied the Catholic religion. I`m not religious, don`t subscribe at all to catholicism, but I understand it. If I were branded as a Catholic, it would be meaningless.

So-called integral consciousness is Wilber`s term for the reunification of what`s become a great divide: intellectual analysis (structuralism) versus emotional empathy (romanticism). He argues that the fundamental trend in evolution is toward complexity, and that the modern "whole Earth" (Gaia hypothesis) is actually a regression, not a progression.

Instead, Wilber argues that the interaction of living and non-living entities on the planet are in a hierarchical form---a pyramid, not a flat line. Higher complexity takes priority, but requires the infrastructure of lower complexity. For example, human beings are more complex than corn, but we require food in order to live.

Modern romantics would like to make corn equal to human beings, and modern liberalism (progressive thinking) also attempts to use force (the law) in forming a society based on those principles. Modern intellectuals are the opposite, wanting to force a society into removing lower complexity entities, where we don`t need corn at all and it has no bearing on human existence.

They`re both wrong, and Wilber explains why, and what likely will emerge over the coming time segments. He names it "integral" but only to describe a solution and how it would work. He`s trying to offer a practical way to bring about that solution, but that`s still developing.

As a conservative, I would label Wilber as another conservative, so I have no idea why this liberal fella was so involved with the book. :-)

Craig - I`ve been meaning to carve out time to digest your post.  Great insights on the nature of electronic markets in enabling iterative testing of ideas.  I`m interested in finding more sites that take advantage of such testing - and haven`t researched it much, but know of Zoomerang (for surveys and now will recruit - i think - market specific candidates) and Dneero.  

Does anyone know of others that help explore the "wisdom of the crowds" affordably?

On Wilber - nice analysis... I have not read SES yet - but you seemed to have totally absorbed many of key points of Integral from it.  Romanticism vs. Structuralism might also be described as "interior/consciousness focused" and "exterior/systems focused".  As you say, they are both wrong.  But they are both right as well... meaning that they have partial truths to be integrated (hence integral) into a unified model .  Structure & hierarchy give levels - and consciousness unfolds in levels as well. 

Thanks for the riff everyone.  BTW - I`d love to hear of any other "wisdom of crowds" or market testing/focus group-like services/tools to help unravel the "future of the internet" much faster & better!





-------------------------

Accelerate the launch of your web business
www.teamandadream.com