ab8da44a   
   From: vagans@inanna.eanna.net   
      
   Wy  wrote:   
   > On Dec 25, 10:41 pm, Sourcerer  wrote:   
      
      
      
   >   
   >> So, maybe sharing the concept of the "enclave" is the way to go. Not my   
   >> enclave or yours, but the concept.   
   >   
   > Maybe. I'm disturbed, actually, at the displacement of the cohesive   
   > group by the individual, and the promotion of such in western   
   > cultures. The classical utopia in many cultures is the clan or cluster   
   > of families, cooperating towards a common shared goal of prosperity.   
   > In the west, we glorify the individual, and mock those who choose to   
   > collectivize our resources for a common good.   
      
   The concept of the individual is valid; with luck, societies generate   
   individuals. What we have today is the individual as niche market.   
   It is not particularly western anymore, and less a matter of culture   
   than it is of a particular economic system tethered to an enabling   
   technology, and rather than "enclaves" we have web forums whose purpose   
   is to  propagate commodities. Such things are basically focus-groups   
   sampling commodities, including ideologies.   
      
   Or, consider Facebook. Despite having 350 million members, its owners   
   now realize their business plan is fatally flawed. Currency on the   
   web is data, and in terms of commerce, data that is not public might as   
   well not exist -- what good is data that cannot be exchanged, and what   
   good are individuals who cannot be converted into data? So, economically   
   speaking, for Facebook's owners, privacy is 'tired' because it is not   
   'wired'. I'm am sure it is all to the benefit of the members.  Information   
   wants to be free, it was often said. It is especially the desire of   
   governments, police, and marketeers. Soon enough each of us will be   
   hagridden by personalized hacks, if we are not careful about our   
   data-selves.   
      
   > In our postmodern dystopias, our enclaves and shelters should really   
   > concentrate on finding others of similar mind, grouping because of   
   > shared memes and ideals, into cooperative clusters, evolving rules to   
   > govern the same, recognizing these structures as entities in their own   
   > right. It's the Corporation, really. But as more than just a foe to be   
   > served as a master, then quickly fled from once your contracted hours   
   > are over. It's a shareholder owned corporation of most common assets,   
   > a commune with strong bindings from willing choice and agreed upon   
   > common structures.   
      
   An issue is this corporation has to conform to the common structures of   
   the system it is embedded in, and not only a few haven't understood that   
   in the several such efforts I'm familiar with. First recruit a business   
   lawyer and an accountant, and everyone read the fine print.   
      
   Getting from discussion group of the like-minded to a social entity that   
   can persist over time -- reproduce itself -- is an interesting problem.   
      
   --   
      
     (__)    Sourcerer   
    /(<>)\ O|O|O|O||O||O   
     \../  |OO|||O|||O||   Mirroring the shadows of futurity   
      ||   OO|||OO||O||O   since 1993   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)