This page is part of the archives of the IshCon.org discussion forums, as they existed from November 2002 to January 2007. Some links and other content references may be outdated or broken. For more information about IshCon, visit www.ishcon.org.
Topic: Living on the Edge
Part of the forum "Dialog Cafe" in the IshCon Forum Archive
| Poster and Date | Post |
| Nene Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 07:32 PM |
Hey -- A couple weeks ago, Jason wrote a piece on bioregionalism – the natural breakpoints between cultural groups based upon terrain – ecology – climate etc.(Spirit of Place. In the ensuing comments, Jeff Vail reflected that the most useful place to be might will be at the boundaries of those regions. Jason's reply included a suggestion that the concept of 'edges' (as used in permaculture) may apply to regionality as well. Things that make you go hmmm.... It has since become quite clear to me that regardless of the system you are talking about, the edges are where everything happens. It is true of social groups, physical systems (liquid dynamics being the obvious exception – although perhaps only through the lense of our linear thinking), ecology, economics, war and peace. Thinking back on the time in my life when I had the most satisfying and useful social network, I find that it was for exactly this reason. We have all seen a basic venn diagram expressing overlapping fields of influence/interest etc:  If each sphere represents a person's social group, then the point where they overlap represents the friends shared by all three persons. Simple enough. However, bearing in mind that all models are wrong, but some are useful, let me suggest a more useful (though still wrong :-) ) version:  In any strong and diverse social group, each individual has not only a core group of friends, but each individual also has multiple other groups that they belong to. At the same time, each of those groups has some amount of interaction with each other (how much depending largely on the personalities of the shared members) When I was in high school, I had extremely close relationships with five people, and temporally close relationships with another dozen. Of the people in that first group, every single one of them had a different primary group. Whereas the temporal relationships generally came out of the one group that we all did share. Because of this dynamic, almost every extended group interaction included multiple edges. So what? I think what I am finding in this is a recognition that while it is critically important to have a stable central core of strong relationships, it is equally important to have a wide, diverse, loose network outside of that central core. And the way that happens is by encouraging 'outside influences'. Without that expanded network, the central core becomes stagnant and insular. Without the central core, there is no stable 'safe' place to retire when things get rough. I think this awareness could be very useful in building tribal groups. Of course, in any group building endeavor, relationships that build spontaneously, organically, naturally will always be the strongest and most resilient, on average. But it may be that by considering this model we can avoid falling into 'pushing' those that we are closest too, while being more open to the possibilities of embracing more distant relationships. This is only one piece of 'living on the edge' as I see it. Deciding where we want to be, what we want to do, how we plan to do it... I think all of these questions and more can be re-focused by consider what edges are relevant and useful. So anyone that wants to toy around with those questions, please do. But for now, I'm kinda hung up on the relationship angle :-) Thoughts? Janene |
| Rogerflat Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 10:01 PM |
You know, for kids. |
| Saline_Solution Mon Jun 26th, 2006 at 12:56 AM |
I think this could be well aplied to my coffee house. Lots of different people coming to the same place and casually networking. Could people have more than one core area? |
| Nene Mon Jun 26th, 2006 at 07:21 AM |
Hey -- ABSOLUTELY. This is all very simplied. Amongst a group with strong social bounds and extended network... the actual structure is going to quickly become MUCH more complex than the model expresses. And the coffee shop is a great venue for proactively building these kinds of relationships. It 'grounds' (forgive the multiple level pun 8O ) group formation activities to a physical place with its very own raison d'etra... we talked about starting one, ourselves not to long ago :-) Roger... Fuck off. Janene |
| Saline_Solution Mon Jun 26th, 2006 at 01:40 PM |
If you need any advise on starting your coffee shop don't be afraid to ask. one love. |
| random_vagrant Mon Jun 26th, 2006 at 01:46 PM |
*cuz im livin on the edge*.......naw I hear what your saying social network breakdowns and the relationships that corrilation between influence/interest an ones actual network. Right? ya..maybe? Anyway all good stuff. |
| jefgodesky Mon Jun 26th, 2006 at 04:51 PM |
Ran Prieur linked to "Power of the Marginal" today. I drop this here not only for your benefit, but for my own; when the Thirty Theses find their way into book form, there will be a good bit of rearrangement as some theses get moved, others are dropped, and some are added. One of the new ones will come back to this idea (and I'll be mining this thread for inspiration when I come back to it), and a notion mentioned by Jack Weatherford in Savages & Civilizaton: that civilization innovates along its edges. We "mine" indigenous cultures for all of our innovations--scientific, medical, artistic, religious, across the board. Weatherford sees the threat civilization faces not in terms of Peak Oil, global warming, or any of the threats I've previously discussed, but the strangulation of stagnation born from homogeneity, and the loss of productive edge. |
| slumberelegy Mon Jun 26th, 2006 at 10:37 PM |
Quote: Weatherford sees the threat civilization faces not in terms of Peak Oil, global warming, or any of the threats I've previously discussed, but the strangulation of stagnation born from homogeneity, and the loss of productive edge. Yeah, Jason, I see what he means. Someone (can't remember who) made the comment that mentally, civilization is the equivalent of psyhic inbreeding. (Ya know, I think it was Ran.) - Chuck |
| jefgodesky Mon Jun 26th, 2006 at 11:02 PM |
That one will be, "Homogeneity may lead to collapse," which is the nice way of saying, "Civilization might just implode in on itself, like at the end of One Hundred Years of Solitude" |
| memeshredder Tue Jun 27th, 2006 at 11:42 AM |
Thanks for the link to a long, but well written essay. |
| This page is part of the archives of the IshCon.org discussion forums, as they existed from November 2002 to January 2007. Some links and other content references may be outdated or broken. For more information about IshCon, visit www.ishcon.org. |