Having met Alan Raynor through Leon (who wrote this post) on an email engagement only a few days ago, and getting a fortuitous recommendation from John Wood of Metadesign to learn about Alan’s Inclusionality theories, Alan kindly shared his ideas on relativity which, as far as I can tell, is an attempt to include consciousness in the frame of reference.
an aside on alan’s article on “place-time”
As I write this, I have got as far as reading Newton’s famous equation, which Alan uses as a natural culmination of Parmenides’s discrete world view:
F = ma
This time when I came across it, my mind simply translated this to terms of money rates as defined by mttp. That is, acceleration, rate of change of distance over a duration, as rate of change of money over a duration, for example, £100-day per week. Think of a bundle of people who are engaged with these different rates of moneyflow, multiply them by the number of people, and you get some notion of the force of a social movement. A relatively simple translation we might be able to mathematise were we to be conducting such experiments.
(Why movement? Because my mind has just got off the back of engaging Indy with respect to Jeremy’s work with Purpose.com, who happens to be co-founder of avaaz. This video is a rather good example of the level of self-disclosure required for our new global “leaders”.)
Of course, the math of real cases is more complex than F=ma, and so is one where eg 50 people were working at different rates. F, in this case, would still give some idea of the “force” or “momentuum” of the movement. So far, the momentuum for ecological economics is around £10-hour per week, and it ends in a season. That’s barely a pulse. We were almost close to £100-day per week for a season, which starts to become reasonable, and ideally, and healthy, when it is five £100-day’s per week — for one individual.
And this is to talk about money. If we shift to subjective enumeration, where people are giving values for each other’s contributions, what kind of calculations can we derive regarding the “force” or “health” of a movement? Will increases and decreases of subjective enumeration derive patterns that we can study with standard mathematical tools? Will new laws emerge that capture how realistic a movement (or a project) is, the required “energy” to manifest results? Undoubtedly, in my mind.
(John, as you can see from his metadesign article based on our event, has been considering the required parameters for synergy to occur, but I feel he is jumping the gun slightly. I need to have more obvious palpable results, like the results that Jeremy has produced. Or, more like action cycles that derive some numbers in terms of moneyflow and subjective enumeration. That is, I would rather base analysis on what works, John having conducted many more social experiments with adults than myself. Nevertheless, may I make my customary call to ensure we have moneyflow while we examine these equations, rather than attempt to derive them sui generis.)
concluding alan’s article
I have now finished reading the article, and it ends with with a rather loud statement:
Space is an intangible presence, with qualities vital to the very possibility of cosmic evolution. SPACE HAS
INFLUENCE, which INDUCES ENERGETIC FORM INTO CIRCULATORY FLOW.
I am looking forward to reading Alan’s rather longer paper written with others, where I hope there are attempts to mathematise his thinking. I expect to find some material which relates to what I have dubbed XQ, observations on how math needs to change to capture the kind of thinking he is demonstrating.
And just in case anyone reading this thinks this is all pie-in-the-sky thinking, Alan has conducted courses at Bath University where the effects on his students have been quite remarkable; here’s a video of some “results”. That is, his engagement with real people is the proof of his thinking, much like my experience with kids has influenced my thinking. It is grounded in inter-subjective reality.
real world application?
The application of this thinking may prove to be substantial in terms of global movements, ala Jeremy’s Avaaz organisation, but I am personally interested in getting proof of process not only in classes (something we have achieved already), but in business. I am specifically interested in getting proof at the bleeding edge of business, in sales, marketing and advertising. I have met with some remarkable people, like Ken Dixon from Newhaven Agency, and if we get proof there, not only will we unlock a source of moneyflow from companies, we will provide companies with a new business methodology which will greatly accelerate all the good work being conducted by theorists, educationalists, entrepreneurs, environmentalists, and everyone attempting to avert the very real ecological disaster we are facing.
If I had a wish in my life, right now I’d use it. I wish that all the players mentioned in this post aligned sufficiently strongly to be able to… if we were mountain climbing, it would be putting in the effort to reach the next camp, higher than any of us have so far been. A stable point which may enable others to reach without too much difficulty. A vantage point that allows a clearer view of the terrain around, the socio-economic and historical-political position we are in. And a point from which we may progress onwards. It is as if this point is the first above the cloud-line. What might this mean in the real world? An algorithm? An operational model which enables a group of people to achieve something remarkable, the first manifestation of the “confluence model”? I do not know. This is what my wish might be.
Eco^2 embodies an alternative business methodology. Remember that the fundamental protocol, mttp, is not based on exchange, and this means that everything which is related to it is different from current practice, including business methodology. Imagine, a world where the fundamental economic social contract is not based on exchange. What does this mean? Well, it takes many forms, and anyone who begins using mttp will notice some of the consequences.
Having engaged Mathew at Jump Marketing and Ken at Newhaven Agency, who gave high scores at the end of the first meeting and said they would invite me the next time I was in Edinburgh, have slid back into traditional methodologies. They begin to treat me^eco as a normal person, perhaps as a potential employee or as a saleman from another company. They want me^eco to put something in writing. This is a bad idea, since writing is a poor means of communication. I wish to give something freely to them, gems which may result in their improvement with their current clients or indeed attracting new clients. Since we^eco are not contractually obligated, and it is about person-to-person trust, then it is imperative that we engage in person. That is, there is a personal relationship which they may choose to honour or not. A faceless email, a bunch of letters on a page, just don’t work.
We^eco are not offering a thing like a salesman does, nor do we^eco wish to be employed. There is nothing to do but to engage, give what we^eco can, and should this be of value, to re-engage. It is not complicated. It is simple, genuine, no-strings attached, not even any contract — beyond what mttp and dmp induce. By entering into the writing game, into persuasion and conviction, we enter into sales, as if there is an exchange. Or, like a prospective employee or partner, a test of whether I^eco will conform to the regulations, the system which they employ. And, clearly, that is not what we^eco offer. We^eco offer liberation from the current system and structures. We^eco offer a new methodology which once they experience it, and put it into practice, will result in new clients, as well as a means of engaging “consumers” in a new way.
Basically, if the social contract is not based on exchange, how can we^eco stop ourselves sliding into the behavioural patterns that people in companies fall back into?
Only two answers have come to me so far. The first: the first engagement I must be ready to offer specific gems so that they are in a position to go with them. The danger is that because in the first engagement they have not really invited me knowingly, they may not appreciate the immediacy of the gift and the necessity for securing my future engagement. By offering me a contract, eg a single £100-day per week or per season, I shall not share that gem with others, thus providing them with the edge. Eg, if I offer them the Levi’s gem, I shall not share that gem with other marketing companies so that they have an exclusive approach to Levi’s.
The second: invite them to a meeting with others in the second engagement. That is, an action cycle. That is, introduce them to potential “clients”.
I had thought that the process is lean enough. That after the first engagement, there is an optional second scoping session where we offer gems and they open the potential for co-creation, and once there is proof in terms of moneyflow, new clients, implementation of a gem or adoption of eco^2 methodology, then we can move ahead with a convergence across different sectors. I still think this is just about the minimum. To cleave closer to the bone as suggested above, either with offering gems in the first engagement or inviting them to an action cycle without “evidence”, seem premature.
Once eco^2 is up and running, with some clout behind it, then this should be fast enough and real enough to work. But at this so early of stages, I am suffering from not having enough momentuum. Not enough capital, financial or social, to carry the process through. The sliding to a traditional methodology, to ask for things in writing, to attempt to grasp with understanding, or to check the web for historical validation, has occurred. Mathew and Ken are good people, there is no denying this. They have high quality of engagement and they are on their game. But they suffer from the methodological problems which nearly all people in companies do, which essentially comes down to distrust.
And trust is the operating system for anyone who is adopting eco^2 principles and practices. Trust is how we^eco roll. That’s how we^eco get results, that’s how we^eco get more trust to go further, and faster. eco^2: trust begets trust through results.
Please remember, I am learning the methodology as I go along. And the openness of the experience, the process, at all levels, is part of the eco^2 methodology. Again, this compares favourably to the traditional methodology where we have salesmen and proposals that are masked with confidence and false figures — just consider the traditional “business plan” and how spurious that process is. With eco^2, it is a process of co-creation. No matter how far down the line we go, how “successful” or “established” the protocols and our experience becomes, we are learning at the very edge of engagement with each and every new person. There is always the opportunity to learn. This is the source of innovation with eco^2, at it’s edge.