"all things in existence are physiologically connected"

Archive for Philosophy

Minorities as a Heuristic

Yesterday I attended an event at the City University of New York’s Center for Lesbian & Gay Studies for a roundtable discussion on Black/Queer/Diaspora the seeming ultimate in minority topics. I have to admit that I was unsure what would actually be discusses at the event. To my surprise topics related to the “connectivity” explored  in Integrationalism were at the forefront.

In a special issue of GLQ, Jafari Allen beckoned us to see that “Black/queer/diaspora is an organic project of multivalent and multiscalar reclamation, revisioning, and futurity (yes, all at once).” This event brings together preeminent writers and thinkers at the forefront of engaging with this work. Issue editor Jafari Allen (Yale) and contributor Vanessa Agard-Jones (Columbia) present research from their new projects emerging from the conversations of the special issue. Robert Reid-Pharr (CUNY Graduate Center), and Rosamond S. King (Brooklyn College) will offer responses to this new work, informed by their own scholarship and research interests. Collectively, they will each present new research that considers and expands the methodological and conceptual inquiries grounding the issue.

UntitledAfter the presentation of Allen’s new book project Black/Queer/Diaspora and a Agard-Jones’s beyond fascinating paper What the Sands Remember (which could suggest radical political warfare on ethnic and sexual minorities via unethical bio & chemical policy. READ IT) their critiques made the event much more compelling. Rosemond King’s poetry was beautifully easy yet provocative, although I’m not sure she’d agree with my choice of language. But the kicker was Dr Robert Reid-Pharr’s critique of Allen & Agard-Jone’s work. He said

Black Queer Diaspora should be presented as a heuristic

Meaning that it “can” go away. In writing about the future colleagues, peers, critiques, and I regularly explore the ends of things to push understanding beyond the linear site of our day-to-day lives in an effort to understand the exponential growth of our actual reality. I’ve never seen so many minorities clash at one, and to think that they are a problem to potentially be solved with less-than optimal outcomes; or rather a diluted existence in to the tolerances and acceptances and general culture of a (or all) societies is quite likely what will happen per the history of all other physical systems in their respective evolution.

Even further and most interesting to me as a socialized African American, although my genome sequence reads quite different, was question posed from the audience by a woman asking Jafari Allan if he agreed with Rober Reid-Pharr’s comment about heuristics. Allen agreed that “Queer” could go away, as he elaborated about his and the academy’s difficulty with the term. He continued to say that “Black” could never go away.

To this point I haven’t dealt with Afro-futurism mainly because it is not an interest of mine, even after the request of editors at organizations like Humanity+ & IEET. Having stated that, the writings and comments around Afro-futurism concern me simply because I am classified as black. Phenomenologically I am inclined to reject Allen’s suggestion that “Black” could never dilute, especially while considering “Queer” to have the potential to do so. While we are still early in the commencement of our technological evolution it is possible to consider the potential of ethnic ranks pervading the humanoid population. Simply, human selection aside from that of natural selection allowing human-kind to design itself in the favor of its ambitions has commence. I’m compelled to think of the green-honed four-toed tri-breasted Spanish-speaking avatars designed in SecondLife and those in real life. Our population will be a large sea of minorities, identifying as a singular spectrum of species. From a socio-cultural standpoint, I think that Anthropologists can find and will continue to find remnants of tolerance leading to acceptance from individuals living OUT or transparent lifestyles to dilute the majority and minority normative: exposing everyone as a participating individual.


Critque: Capitalism, class and class struggle for (ex) dummies

Capitalism, class and class struggle for (ex) dummies

I just happened to be out at a festival in Brooklyn this past week and there was a table from the AK Press, as there are frequently. On the table are a few dozen pamphlets with Anarchist reads. so I took about 20, just to see what the people at this particular event are taking in. I’m not sure how many people were reading this stuff, because I was the only person asking questions at the free literature table for at least 30 minutes. This text Capitalism, class and class struggle for (ex) dummies tries to sum up capitalism in a friendly way, they even call the readers (ex) dummies. I’m unsure who the authors are, as they weren’t presented, but I do know that it came from someone or many @IOHNYC via @libcomorg & @AKPressDistro.

This critique will be short and is specific to Integrationalism which is the notion that we are all physiologically connected; based on my previous writings on “Human Nature / Technological Determinism / Competition as as spawn of Individualism”. The brief read was entertaining, and the use of prose made their concept of capitalism digestible. It elaborates that capitalism was established by other-than “natural” forces. More specifically: violence and imperialism. Sorts of politics by the first advanced countries in Europe as they aimed to compete for scarce resources.

The term nature will forever be ambiguous, because of its reference to the physical world; and as we are physical entities, all that we can know is a apart of the physical world/realm. “Natural” can also reference a nostalgic or more primitive state of existing socially and technologically. This is where I have to assume that the argument for capitalism by force (for lack of better phrases) stems. This notion of force is a false, as the first technologically elite nations fought over scarce land, resources, and allusive faiths. This competition stems from the inherent arbitrage that already existed by a more primitive brand of capital from tribal times: land & people.

We live in  a dynamic physical realm where growth is essential to our survival. Human-kind is inherently ambitious in this regard.

While it is impossible phenomenologically for human’s to actually have a nature about themselves, the one thing that we’ve always tried to do is control our situation to better manage the risks of uncertainty. It’s not an ill mission, but the pathology of our altruism often shows that it is our most stifling virtue. Projecting our idea of greatness onto the entire population is not progressive, even as technology progresses. we must compel growth via our technologies.

Regardless of the horrible brand at places like the economic phenomena (not system) of Capitalism is human-kinds most technologically advanced attempt at distribution of values, and while it has its flaws, the growth and ability of our information tech and bio tech will allow us the opportunity (if we so choose to seize it) to better distribute value and compel growth by participation of persons. This text called Capitalism for (ex)dummies is misleading and a dangerous attempt to bring attention to one of the most important issues of any time.

Portable Value

(c) Stan Honda / AFP / Getty Images

Hernando de Soto – The main message of de Soto’s work and writings is that no nation can have a strong market economy without adequate participation in an information framework that records ownership of property and other economic information.[10]

While I don’t agree with de Soto’s position on land titling and side with a more communal and democratic systems of collective land tenure because this offers protection to the poorest and prevents ‘downward raiding’ in which richer people displace squatters once their neighborhoods are formalized, I am aligned with the idea of an individual titling. While neither de Soto nor his opponents wrote about individual titling specifically, and I’m not very fond of the phrase, I’m assuming that they would have called the distributing of ownerships outside of land specifically some version of “individual titling”.

More opposing views on de Soto’s high level point of view lend a hand to a century lacking solutions to large complex statistical problems across a population outgrowing the traditional identification of known and own-able things (land included).

Robert J. Samuelson has argued against what he sees as de Soto’s “single bullet” approach and has argued for a greater emphasis on culture and how local conditions affect people’s perceptions of their opportunities.[30]

Roy Culpepper notes that it is often very difficult to establish who owns what among the poor. He also notes that the titling is biased against those who are completely landless and property-less.[34]

Currently there is an endless argument between the thinkers of the group of Dependency Theory and Modernization Theory

Dependency Theory: is a body of social science theories predicated on the notion that resources flow from a “periphery” of poor and underdeveloped states to a “core” of wealthy states, enriching the latter at the expense of the former.

Modernization Theory: is a theory used to explain the process of modernization within societies. The theory looks at the internal factors of a country while assuming that, with assistance, “traditional” countries can be brought to development in the same manner more developed countries have.

Per Integrationalism I’m not compelled by either of these social thought groups to align in any formal sense, as the prior is simply in defense to the latter, while the latter is lacking sophistication based on culture derived from geographic factors inherent to place. I don’t actually think that economic empowerment can have a group based policy. Its got to be specific to the individual. Actualization through empowerment is what is key, and blanket strategy cant be pervasively compelling.

Regarding de Soto’s emphasis on “adequate participation in an information framework that records ownership”, I think that this is where the value exists. If we consider the existing exponential forecasts for human population growth and for the growth of computing power, we start to notice a landscape where human-kind (consisting of humans and their creations) start to outnumber the amount of land and commodities available to be owned and traded for value. Likely reaching the population rage of 10,000,000,000 by the year 2080 C.E., as extrapolated by UNFPA (United Nations Population Fund), none of the confusion over who owns what based on inheritance or acquisition is helping our most urgent PEST dilemma.

Identifying and distributing value among the existing human-kind is crucial in assigning carbon-foot prints, identifying information sets which can recommend solutions to how we cooperate in this growingly global community, lowering culture barriers via clichés, and lowering the  entitlement gap. The difference between de Soto, his contemporary’s theory, and the most modern day is that we possess the technology to start tracking what I like to call “Portable Value”.

Unlike the ties of ownership to static (non or slowly changing physical) entities which is what de Soto and his contemporaries argue about too eloquently, portable value is rooted in identifying ownership of dynamic (changing) and static entities. Reference my General Theory of Value.

… Much more to come on this issue ….

General Theory of Value

Per integrationalism, entities in existence are connected at the sub-atomic scale. The growth or retraction of entities in existence directly affects that of the broader group of entities, with variances of entity affects based on degrees-of-separation.  


Sub-atomic – while Integrationalism stems from theories derived in string-field-theory and it is difficult to define precisely what the sub-atomic domain looks like with a lack of visible experiments; this term is representative of the most-microscopic scale, suggesting that all matter is physically connected, even as it changes.

Entities – refer to physical bodies, as large as a galaxy of planets, and billions of times smaller than a grain of sand, including sentient beings or persons.

Degrees-of-separation – refer to the indirect connection an individual-entity has with other entities. These affiliate phenomena identify and have the potential to quantify the influence happenings of one entity can have on another.

Variance – refer to the differed influence of entities of groups of entities based on the interactions of the individual-entity.

Integrationalism pours over into political, economic, social, and technological theory…In, the very cores of what humans believe or know to be true about their existence, even spirituality. As our social technologies grow and our ability to mine through large data sets, we will discover more and more connections between the individuals known to be in existence. This will continue to make a compelling case on modern economic theory and our existing distribution of value or wealth of sorts.

Per integrationalism, I am not of the group that can afford to identify anything as rigidly “good” or “evil” as they are not concepts understood buy the physical realm. I mention this while reading the world’s new papers from South Africa to North America. During a time of economic turmoil and disruption on a global scale, I find similarities in the rhetoric-war between the rich and poor. The political differences are abundant and so are the social, per the lifestyles assumed by the decision makers of yesterday and today. The Fat-Cats versus the Lazy-Leaches….they are surprisingly of the same ideological and religious faiths, economic philosophies, and technological aspirations. With some caveats of course that I will delve into later, these people are as similar as identical twin.

Based on my general theory of value, the differences occur when entities are allocated values through their ability to procure ownership of growth and/or retractions. The means are irrelevant phenomenologically; it will however, be necessary to identify some of the most known instances to show how we all participate in a somewhat primal set of activities to leverage our degrees-of-separation and stifle others in order to hoard what we’d find as “enough” ownership. Even while competition pervades the animal species of the known existence, we can gradually do better at distributing an equity stake to entities participating in past/present/future of existence.

With the slightest sarcasm the evil-rich or the good-n-poor can’t be as they are labeled. There has to be an engineering (root-causing / error-proofing) problem worthy of solving here. Each time that man has faced an obstacle of political or economic strain, the status quo has evolved to ensure that we’d continue to grow. We are at another crossroads; unable to allocate values to human-kind as we actively deplete the labor force (note: I didn’t use the term workforce). While I don’t think that any one group can be inherently evil, I would think that a group might lack the tools to cooperate with the modern society. In modern political and economic ideals we have no frameworks to adequately distribute the value that is actively created by the interaction of so many.

In integrationalism I’d like to identify the mechanism as, ownership. The objective of these writings in the general theory of value are to make the distribution of value work well for a larger number of human-kind’s population, based on the most modern tools to quantify values.

Per the ancients, Value theory from a philosophical perspective encompasses a wide range of approaches to understand how, why, and to which degree entities value things. Although it is a 20th century term (Paul Lapie), value is historically coined as axiology or ethics. Some of the earliest investigations aimed to understand the concepts of good and evil and the concept of the “the good” or even “God”. Much of the investigation today resides in economics and a scientifically empirical documentation of what and how entities have been willing to designate the value of things (monetary and other). Specific to meta-ethics and questions like “what is goodness?”, In Integrationalism, I don’t think it necessary to establish a definitive answer to a seemingly abstract concept. Value cannot be warranted by “the good,” but a formidable and tangible representation of one’s participation: influence over degrees-of-separation.

Confirming Value in Human-Kind


I’ll just start right out with it. The problem with this century is and will continue to be (unless we fix it philosophically), how we compensate the individuals of our species for the value that they add to our evolving existence.

We have the tools today to start quantifying the value that human-kind generates based on the following phenomena:

  • Degrees-of-separation – This is the number of others that each person has the ability to influence from a PEST (politically, economically, socio-culturally, or technologically) standpoint beyond a nominal rate.
  • Influence – This is information published and could be rhetoric, opinions, research findings, creations, reactions, etc. I think that the field of ethnography in sociological study has shown us that people influence each other via their culture and language regardless of the macro geographic or economic conditions.
  • Action – This s where the data compiled from the prior is used to argue in the legal fashion the just due for labors of publication and participation. Per Integrationalism, we understand that every innovation is crowdsourced regardless of how large/small it is. Further, those so compelled will have grounds to actively negotiate the value of their existence.

In the information technology age where the buzz word BigData I so difficult to understand from an implementation standpoint, we find ourselves (in my opinion) overwhelmed with information resources. Like any situational abundance, it is difficult to see the opportunities, even as they are within our grasp.

The current view on value and creation: a provider entity (individual or institution) produces a product/service and a consumer entity pays with insights and value for exchange. I think that it is possible to prove in many situations that the consumer or 3rd parties influence heavily on the provider; and further, that the provider is owning a too pervasively, consuming too much of the value produced by product/service creation. This is stifling to our growth and capacity to produce products/services.

On the ideal of Integrationalism, I’m looking to build a team to produce an application that generates both degrees-of-separation and influence more thoroughly than the utilities of social networks and micro blogs, but also factoring in financial transactions, location based data, viewership and participation in physical world events, and all voluntary information formally captured per the individual.

General Theory of Value

The 3rd book from Integrationalism will be specific to the distribution of value via ownership. We are looking to start editing in the Summer of 2013

General Theory of Value:

Per integrationalism, entities in existence are connected at the sub-atomic scale. The growth or retraction of entities in existence directly affects that of the broader group of entities, with variances of affect based on degrees-of-separation. Variances of shared stakeholder value exist across the connected group of entities, regardless of its distribution.  


James Felton Keith


Difference between Networked Individualism and Integrationalism

In recent week’s I’ve been asked multiple times to explain the different between the central ideal in the book titled “Networked” and Integrationalism. On my last post I mentioned the term networked individualism, which per this site and the first group of essays from Integrationalism, was an older term, but more well define recently in a the great read above. Integrationalism is not about technology specifically. Kudos to Barry Wellman and Lee Rainie, they’ve done a great job of elaborating on the very tangible dependencies of our successes and pitfalls brought on by the technological might of the last few decades.

One way that I’ve always tried to explain “what” Integrationalism “is”, was to use terms like networked-individualism….as the first text was essentially an attack on the inefficiencies and ineffectivenesses of philosophies that stem from rigid individualism as an understanding of human-kind. In the second text I elaborated more on the physical connections that actually create a recognizable network and the foundations of string field theory that allude these connections…among other things.

Networked Individualism is a grand display of how human-kind and its dependents have moved away from the sociological frameworks of “tribalism”. Wellman’s text didn’t use this term specifically, but as a sociologist he refers regularly to the transition in how human-kind is surviving (discovering, developing, and deploying its progress). The term, from a philosophical standpoint is less phenomenological and more socio-cultural. Integrationalism in its shortest, replays that we are connected physiologically, and not “other-lly” (which could take on many interpretations). Network Individualism would be a manifestation of physical connections, making the perceived notion “real”.

I’ll be sure to elaborate more on this in the coming future, as I’ve found that >250 words on a post starts to lose eyeballs.

%d bloggers like this: