A very important initiative proposed by Daryl Taylor:
(for background see here)
“A small team (Melbourne and east coast of Australia) have begun a focussed discussion about collaborating on the development of a ‘General Theory of Relationality.’
Starting with Adorno, we’re investigating shifts from a 20th C scientific-technical-industrial-instrumental rationality to a 21st C socio-ecological-egalitarian-empathic relationality.
We’ve begun by exploring discernible shifts and relational turns from the primacy of static and separate things (and its crises and consequences) to the primacy of dynamic-creative and reciprocal-empathic inter-relationships, contextual studies and neo-solidarities, that transcend and include things.
Kinda like a shift from … I think therefore I am .. to .. I link therefore I am .. we are .. etc
The core idea is to distill common principles, essences, language, practices, formulae and depictions of relationality
We share an interest in collaboration across all disciplines (the natural and social sciences, the arts and humanities) discourses, domains and practices (as well as new hybrid forms), and in documenting emerging practical exemplars and integrating ideas and linguistic, mathematical and other changes reflecting the emergence of ‘inter-being’, relational living systems, and critically, of contextuality, connectedness, collectivities and collaborative consciousness.
We have an interest in exploring the socio-political-economic and the cultural-ecological-cosmological implications of complementary shifts from domination/subjugation to partnership/co-creativity … from command and control to connectedness and collaboration … and … from tier upon tier to peer to peer.
We will be conducting some preliminary relationality gatherings in the coming months with a view to hosting a major generative workshop in Melbourne in September 2012.
We will be prototyping the development of an on-line collaborative platform, and international community, which will evolve in parallel with our face-to-face encounters.
We’d like to really open it right up once we’ve framed some initial questions, prompts, principles and opportunities.
We hope to model relationality in the development, distillation and dissemination of a General Theory of Relationality.
If any of your peers are interested in participating and contributing please encourage them to contact me?
We would certainly welcome initial thoughts, responses and critical and creative feedback?”
More Information via [email protected]
Hi Michel and Daryl,
Just beginning to explore P2P and am feeling related, so thought I’d offer some off-the-cuff thoughts on a General Theory of Relationality. I have found in my own experience that language (a medium with which I am quite comfortable, so am draw to) is not the best means of exploring relationality. Language is a tool of distinction, of separation, and so tends to create dualities. Movement, art, yoga, meditation – right brain activities – are, IMO, the best entry into the experience of oneness (the ultimate in relationality). We can talk about it all we want, but it’s in the experiencing that it becomes real. If I were planning the workshop I’d be sure to include lots of opportunities to experience what it is you’re discussing.
Good luck with the planning!
Namaste,
Renee
Thanks, I certainly understand your point, and as a sometimes (former) meditator, have some experience, but then, we nevertheless always need language to relate these experiences and to each other … I like John Heron’s approach because he has space for both the vertical and the horizontal … (whereas most new age spiritual narcicism is about the self and the absolute)
After all these years, I believe this remains one of most important blogs on the Internet. Incredibly great work, Michel. JL
Wasn’t familiar with John Heron. Definitely appreciate his approach from the bit I read on his Wikipedia entry.
Wondering what you consider “new age spiritual narcicism” – feel the urge to comment, but thought I should understand your meaning first.
Not sure we always need language. No doubt it’s a powerful tool, but it has some negative side effects. I think over reliance on language is a source of Western duality (e.g., man v. nature) that underlies much of what is wrong with the world.
I am looking at a set of concepts that are common to organizations, production, and technology–so I think they are pretty fundamental. Most of this has a p2p orientation.
All of the following concepts are highly recursive and interwoven so its difficult to organize them any certain way. The following outline could be arranged in many alternate ways.
1. Individual sovereignty (need definitions–what it is & isn’t in p2p context)
Interdependence
Equality of agency
2. Cooperation (need definitions–what it is & isn’t in p2p context)
Intersubjectivity
Reciprocity
Meritocracy
Enlightened self-interest
3. Openness (need p2p definitions)
Transparency
Informed Consent
Open participation
4. Commons (need p2p definitions)
Sustainability
Access
Scarcity and rivalry
markets
5. Composability
Per Wikipedia: Composability is a system design principle that deals with the inter-relationships of components. A highly composable system provides recombinant components that can be selected and assembled in various combinations to satisfy specific user requirements. In information systems, the essential features that make a component composable are that it be:
* self-contained (modular): it can be deployed independently – note that it may cooperate with other components, but dependent components are replaceable
* stateless: it treats each request as an independent transaction, unrelated to any previous request. Stateless is just one technique; managed state and transactional systems can also be composable, but with greater difficulty.
6. Subsidiarity
* (Christianity / Roman Catholic Church) (in the Roman Catholic Church) a principle of social doctrine that all social bodies exist for the sake of the individual so that what individuals are able to do, society should not take over, and what small societies can do, larger societies should not take over
* (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) (in political systems) the principle of devolving decisions to the lowest practical level
* Per Wikipedia: The concept of subsidiarity is applicable in the fields of government, political science, cybernetics, management, military (Mission Command) and, metaphorically, in the distribution of software module responsibilities in object-oriented programming. Subsidiarity is, ideally or in principle, one of the features of federalism, where it asserts the rights of the parts over the whole.
PR
thanks John … great to see you’re still following us!
Friends, I am honored in having been invited. Having met Michel in Rio in the Peoples´ Summit made me very happy. One first provocation is in looking at 20th century management theorists to see if there´s anything there that we can relate to. A couple names come immediately to my mind: Charles Handy and Henry Mintzberg. In both I see a healthy disbelief on the currently hegemonic management thinking based on the fever of PMBOK-like certification frameworks.
Maybe it isn´t still time to bring them to the dance, but I suggest to those who can reach them to keep that in mind for the best timing.