another mindflow and another end in sight

So a run of events have conspired for my rising from bed at 6.37am to write this. For hours I have lain in bed, at first because of the irritation of my skin and then because of ideas, and finally because so much has coallesced I know it shall be lost in the mist of sleep. Here are the threads that compose this twine, the currents of this mindflow:

invitation to immigrants to our nation, as children to this world

education as factories, the mass production of awareness

an end in sight for the next edge group, the failed experiments, a demonstration

reading harding, then compounded by talking with wendy

Reading "The Science of the 1st Person" by Douglas Harding has been good so far. It has affirmed my own indepenent exploration, the basis for a science of the subjective which contains within it the quite distinct methodology of the science of objects. It has stimulated my memory of the heightened state I was once in, of having nothing inside, the state of no self-reflection. It has challenged my position, sharpening my sense of now while I visit my favourite spot, the rock. My mind is in flux as I try to resolve the relation between zero and one and where my identity is located. His position is radical, so radical, it is reminiscent of the state I was in. Resolution may settle before the end of my time here in Madeira.

And if this was not enough, I had a conversation with Wendy this evening and we talked about Harding. One thing is to engage a book, left to one's own devices, however challenging that may be, it is quite different from engaging another mind. And Wendy is bright, sharp, inquisitive, spacious, gentle, yet defined. She seldom enforces her knowledge upon me, and is generous enough to allow my mind to confront her understanding. So a space is created in which we explore the full implications of Harding's position, and this led to talking about my experience, as well as the 2020 scenario. She acts like an accelerator, because she allows presence, and in presence the connection of thoughts, past and future weaving, and between us, the space between. I do not want to have Harding's work an item in my memory, a dusty memory of a book I read months or years before. There is quickness here, and it needs effect in presence, now, nowhen else.


I have recently been engaging a group on Facebook called The Next Edge. At first it was a joy to engage others who already comprehend notions such as flocking, who engage directly and openly, and have the capacity to swing between content and meta-discussion. But this turned a little sour when it became clear that it is operational as a talk shop, for that is the only thing that seems to be supported by the technology of FB and perhaps the motivations of many of the participants. Those few who have indicated a frustration, who wish to do something as a collective, all go in different directions, and though there is talk of alignment and action, there is not enough concerted effort for any actual steps to be taken. I can now see an end to my engagement with this group, because I know how chat is a subtle devourer: however nourishing it might be to be part of a group, to speak and actually felt heard, without social manifestation beyond the participants, it is as insubstantial as an opium dream, a preparation for what could be, a preparation I am already familiar with.

Yesterday a new idea came to me, which I thought tied together various intentions various people had expressed, a meeting of chat and action. There is a lot of recycling discussion about the limitations of Facebook and how the group might migrate to another platform, or wiki or more formal forums. Indeed, some of these spaces have been created, but the movement does not manifest. The thought was, how about we gather together suggestions of improvements that would facilitate our engagement, simple, elegant design, and submit this to Facebook itself. This happens to conform to my "design ethic" if I have one, which is to improve the system in which you find yourself immersed. I got a little response, but nobody was taking it further, it was not catching. Then a chap called Suresh, who I've actually met in real life, who was one of the early adopters of flocking as far as I can tell, looked like he took the next step and had compiled a provisional list of improvements. But when I checked, I was disappointed to find he had shoehorned my new idea into an old document that dealt with the design principles of a collaboration system. And I said as much as a comment in response. I would not have minded if he has directed me to exactly the same question which had been asked by a previous Next Edger, but to shoehorn to an old item was beneath us. It was a bit sharp, but it was accurate and there was no ego attached. Suresh responded simply that he himself disliked the experience of shoehorning a new idea into an old format when it happened to him. What happened next was amazing. It may not sound like much, but you can tell that when I go into this level of detail, take this amount of time to describe something, there is something that is worthy of our attention. As I write this, it is live, and which way it goes is still to be determined by people's conscious responses. Not an academic interest, but a genuinely real one, which has significant potential consequence within and beyond this group.

Suresh writes a new post saying he is willing to give 4 hours of his time a week to a project by another Next Edger. Here he was combining the little interactions we had, both about the shoehorning and the difficulty of doers to align, and he was stepping up to the plate. This is rare. Very rare. I was surprised, and immediately wrote this of course. And as I wrote I found myself writing that I would offer 4 hours of my time to whatever project he decided to help. We shall see if anyone takes up his offer, and in turn offer projects for him, for us, to assist on. That much is obvious, offering our service. What is not so obvious, and only became clear as I told Wendy later, was that I was doing exactly what I do, which is to follow someone else who was following my lead, and the group would prove its quality if others join in and offer some time to follow a project that Suresh decides upon. This is quite remarkable. He is not putting himself as a leader, but as a person who is being of service. We flock around him. He is an emergent leader, potentially.

But will people notice? Will a flock of followers arise? And if so, will Suresh honour his position, not as a leader, but as someone who happens to be followed because he is of service to another? The dynamic is so different. It is beautiful! And it is so rare. I wonder if members of this group will notice!

And here is where I see the end of my engagement with the group. I started to imagine a post I shall write. Hopefully when the time comes, the wording will come well. It is not to be taken personally, unless positively in the sense of my intention in writing. I shall part from the group because I have demonstrated, not just described, but demonstrated, how we can have action through our words. And it hasn't worked. And I do not want to settle for anything less. As mentioned I do not want to settle for huddling around a fire with like-minded thinkers, as the world gets torn apart, nor am I wanting to be the person who introduces the discomfort of time-pressure, the need for urgency, nor do I want to go repeating what I have said and demonstrated. It has not worked, and I need to accept this, and leave it. If a thought occurs to me afterwards which I can usefully contribute, I shall return, of course. But I shall be awaiting the time that a group is ready to engage in a way that I think collaboration works. Presently, in increasing time periods, getting feedback from what actually works socially beyond the participants.

Right from the start, I have been completely transparent in my response and intention to the group, to manifest collective result, energised as I have been by meeting such vibrant, open, and experienced minds. A rare environment. But again, something I can not seduce myself into living in, however satisfying it might be intellectually, and nourishing emotionally. So, I came up with various solutions to the gripes voiced by various parties. I invited people to contribute to writing a non-linear book in a week. No takers. The idea for improving Facebook. A few nibbles, likes, but no takers. Now this move by Suresh, a demonstration of flocking, which by the way is another recycling post; the contrast between actual doing and talking about could not be made more consciously, even though it is serendipitously presenting itself to members of the group. And one more suggestion I shall make to the group, or in fact, I shall put into play to see what happens, and this leads to the final thread of the mindflow, that of inviting new people to the group, immigrants to our nation, and children to our world.


The first person who responded to me on Next Edge was a guy called Curtis. I noticed his language, it was fluid. I asked to befriend him in Facebook. And I was right, he has noticed and pieced together many similar things, as well as placing himself experientially. He is not just a talker, or a category-box-pusher, but a real man, it seems to me: empassioned, solid core, open-minded. And I remember in our first correspondence mentioning to him about the importance of how new people in a group are responded to.

I then later consolidate this thinking in a post on the Next Edge wall, with a description of the living edge. Just as a tree has a cambium layer, or a flock takes its cues from those at the edge, so I have imagined a collective where the edge of it is the living part of it. It is not the old guard, the familiar faces, the established voices that determine the direction of the collective, but the new voice, the person just arrived. It is not that the new person "joins" the group, has to learn the protocols etc, but that the network listens to he newcomer, and in this way grows into the space that the newcomer is in, their social context, their problems. That is, the entire collective is geared towards solving the problem of the person who arrives, not the other way around. I've described something like this as tuttle=twitter or ipool in various books, but here it was emerging in situ with this group resulting from some discussion, emerging with precision because of the conditions that only actuality can present.

So my last effort before parting, will be to invite newcomers to view a post, and the post will be an invitation to play a thought-experiment/reality-experience. Namely, if all the members of the group were here to serve them, providing access to their innumerable resources, money and contacts and skills, what could the newcomer hope to achieve within a week? Or what about a day, when I think about it? I usually like a week because there is a reasonable amount of time to actually do something. A day seems too short. So, the newcomer is invited to write a response before unadulterating their reading of other people's responses and getting a sense of the group -- a naked, first wish response. It is a gauge of the next edge, or any collective, to see how far it is from fulfilling these wishes, as well as a learning experience for newcomers to be able to verbalise accurately what may actually be achievable yet idealistic enough to catch the dreams and hopes of others. Like a pitch, but better. This is real stuff here.

I like the sound of this thought-experiment. There is something pretty deep about it. I think, if it catches, it might allow people to hone in to the space between us more accurately. Of course, the thought-experiment is open to members, but they have the advantage of already knowing how the group works, what does and does not pass. And another edge, as you might appreciate, is the distinction between a thought-experiment and a reality-experience. After all, what happens if someone actually says something that is so... attractive... exciting... sensible... that members of the group actually attempt to fulfill it? What happens if it actually works? What then? Will it be an isolated case, or can it happen again? Not replicated -- hideous term. Then it will become important who is invited into the group. It might even become strategically important who is invited in. I haven't invited anyone in. I'd like to invite Wendy, but I'd only like to if this living edge was actually implementable. She might suggest something about improving her work, perhaps inviting members of the next edge to visit her workplace, conduct some kind of discussion, workshop, event along the lines of Insite. And thus, the next edge, is the edge that grows into our lives, into our workplaces. It is no longer a meeting so minds in the comfortable confines of a virtual space, or the rare and artificial spaces of a conference, but completely immersed in the contextual social lives of people, conversations of action.


Which leads to the widest ranging spiral of the mindflow, immigrants and children. Imagine a nation where immigrants are invited in, giving tours, given time to explore, and provided for while they get accustomed to the way things run, for them to come to an understanding of how they can contribute well. Imagine. No, not work, nothing like it. A privileged position, not knowing, exploring, and finding one's place. To be useful. To find one's place. To make one's home.

Where is this nation? This is the nation of the future. The global nation. Newcomers are invited in, and bringing with them, new solutions, a new voice, a new perspective, and the other members of that nation are attentive, are welcoming, are celebratory. For they themselves went through such an experience. They were respected for what they brought. They were welcomed, given time, and listened to.

Is this what we do with children now? As they enter into the global nation of the world? Are they listened to, acknowledged, celebrated for their different perspective, while being introduced to current practice? Imagine a school where the primary objective is the mass production of awareness. If we are still going to have schools, if w are to have factories, if we are to somehow normalise the wide-ranging social conditions in which individuals are born into. To become aware of themselves, their skills, and mutually. By the time they are adults, they are rooted in the hearts and minds of their companions. They cherish the vitality of difference, of confrontation, and are self-disciplined enough to avoid too much comfort, too much self-similarity. The taboo of social self-similarity. The tendency to gather in like-minded groups. A taboo. Heh. That just came to me. The equivalent of not marrying your sibling, or close cousins. Similar enough, but not too similar.


So, that's the mindflow. Clocking out at 8.16am. I will post a link to this in the Next Edge group, and of course it will pop up in my Facebook feed. I suspect only a few eyes will read this. Very few. Maybe only one pair of eyes, maybe none. And if anyone from the group does read this, it must be because there is enough evidence from my comments that it is worthwhile to spend five minutes reading as I have spent an couple of hours writing. But where are we then? Will they become followers of Suresh's offering of service? Perhaps they already have, in which case you are leading! And knowing a little of my future steps, what then? There is always an invitation, if we are sharing our intentions for the future. Will it influence your actions? Will you try to influence mine? Are we getting closer to constituting "we"?