Well, the Media Ecologies conference in Manchester, UK, was (in my opinion) a rousing success.
Of particular interest was discussion around of the importance of getting ourselves engaged in activities that work in tandem with our thinking minds. As I was contemplating this, I realized the following. With so many minds and bodies jiggeting around in the p2p world, the chances for collision dramatically increase (the long tail of contact?), for better and for worse.
Fortunately there is a very simple thing that we can all do that will bias these encounters for the better. Basically, it is to avoid saying
“I/We know…”
My colleague Alf Seegert and I have long discussed the difference between declarative interactions vs. propositional interactions. In this scenario, an alternative would be something like
“My experiences/perceptions lead me to believe….”
This has two effects:
- First, when used as a mantra for ourselves, it highlights the contingency of not only the fact that the moments of our lives are merely a slice of an ongoing dynamic, but also, that this moment in history is only one of many “now”s and is but a snapshot of current philosophies and sciences.
- Second, when used in engagement with others, this phrase deflects conflict by acknowledging to each other, publicly, and with humility, that new experiences and perceptions, such as those offered by that very other, will continue to shape our beliefs about knowledge.
Engagement that begins with the intention of affecting others but not being affected by them, such as beginning with “I know” is ultimately merely an attempt to introduce or perpetuate a hierarchical power structure. By contrast, engagement that begins with the willingness to be affected by others is in accord with the horizontal and ethical environment of mutual respect that is characteristic of p2p culture.
And, after all, if we aren’t willing to be affected by the Other, then what, really, is the point of engagement at all?
