Inter-subject Protocol

< DRAFT+ >

Defining a set of protocols on how to operate with others,
in the context of a common struggle,
beyond arbitrary-whimsical relations.

Contact / Inter-relation->Co-Operation Co-Operation->Consolidation Discoverability->Contact / Inter-relation Contact / Inter-relation Contact / Inter-relation Co-Operation Co-Operation Discoverability Discoverability Consolidation Consolidation

Last updates:
    2015-08-27 started
    2015-11-15 touch
    2016-11-30 touch
    2017-10-12 (need to clean this page up)
    2017-10-15 cleanup
    2020-10-05 MO + overview
    2020-11-30 renamed from "inter-subjective" to "inter-subject"

Ties to / Related fields:
    P2P (peer-to-peer),
    mutual coordination economics,


In two sentences, Intersub...:

    (WHAT→) is a consequential mechanism of Subject description & activation

    by inter-relating them to others,
    via their similarities and differences

    (HOW→) defines a set of protocols on how to operate

    with other Subjects (projects, communities, institutions, individuals),
    in the context of a common struggle,
    beyond arbitrary / whimsical relations.

Initial motivation

    " We need a better way, a protocol for this inter-group, inter-people stuff... happens to me sometimes that I meet somebody cool like you all, we share what we do ... and then it's more unclear "what's next" than it should have been. Would hope that it'd be more of apparent process than a "ok let's skype sometime and figure it out." "

Current situation and practice


    "A" and "B"

... are (or, are representing) a project / institution / individual person ...
carrying an idea

    ... come into contact
    (of course, in a Totalist sense, the relation can never not be there, and lack of contact is only a suboptimality of incomplete system knowledge)

    ... their exchange and future interaction is unpredictable and random

    * in danger of misunderstanding by the whimsical:
        (arbitrary current context, momentary moods, etc)

    * limited by apparatus (nature of communication), usually workflow technologies, to follow-up:
        * inadequate and inexisting "ideal platform"
        * worse: different people use different non-ideal things
        * worse even: no setting to systemically study and resolve this!
        (ties to 🔗workflow)
### rewrite

    ... the outcomes at large are measurably disappointing

    * so called "networking" depends on chance meetings

    * the culture of ideas is non-consequential:
        relations are by choice & least resistance
        often, challenging/competing visions are simply ignored

    * there is too little productive systematic work (lists, curation, ...)

    * ... and too little critical/theoretical work (classifications, typologies, ...)

    * ... thus, expressions of identity and relations are dominated by PR/marketing concerns:
        "People will be scared if we call ourselves a Hackerspace"
        "We are kind of a Social center, but that has a stigma, so we call it a community living room"
        "If we call it a community, people will come to our bar"

    * in a culture that does not push towards co-operation, work is often simply co-opted:
        Legalities, like the Creative Commons-by-Attribution license, are weak if not non-enforceable, and simply ignored.
        Smaller projects within contexts with less access to capitals are especially vulnerable to this.


To offer an alternative logic to subject self-definition & inter-subject interactions: a set of consequential protocols.

    →Against vagueing it & faking it

It should not be possible to be (a Subject) without...

    * positioning clearly in a co-developed classification system

    * have explicit & categorized relationships to conceptual neighbours

    * having an unambigous ideological/political position
### examples:
    * Facebook: "Connect with friends and the world around you on Facebook."
    * Twitter: "See what’s happening in the world right now"

    →Beyond play-pretend uniqueness, a new, consequential logic of difference

Being a (different) Subject should mean having clear unsurmountable differences:

    Either on theoretical level, or "personal" level.

    These matters should not (be able to) "go unsaid".

    →Better co-existence infrastructure

### ... within a class/SECTOR/[...]
Developing better tools and processes that support & facilitate:

    * better commitments:
        ("Let's keep in touch" that means something, etc)

    * transparency & coordination of decisions and action within a "common struggle"

    * common oversight & narrative:

        "common statements", "neutral, third party grievance procedures", "true p2p curation", "anti co-option watch", "sector parliaments", "commoning resources", "common workgroup formation", "actively ensuring true diversity & global development", [...]

    * solve "attribution" void (and the wild-west of "borrowing" ideas):
        * ... solving co-option / dilution
        * ... in turn changing leadership and resource allocation politics
    * disqualify whim and rationalising based on moods

        $$$ (NOW)


###( : for CHT)

1) Discoverability { A }

    * Enable complete and transparent co-discovery:
        Publicly list out all similar/related/alike/competing/...
        ###Each subject should have an "alike" page
        ↑ 🔗alike

    * Reject brand logic!:
        Adopt and openly co-develop clear, shared typologies,
        made to be self-descriptive in-name,
        and open to distributed adoption & replication
        not unlike "genus proximum - differentia specifica"
        ↑ Hackerspaces.org🔗Hackbase
        ↑ 🔗hackbase-type1

2) Contact / Inter-relation { A, B }

    * Each investigates others' standard presentation, attempting to:

        ground the "common language",
            ↑ 🔗commonground

        understand motivation,
            ↑ 🔗why-how-what

        understand key parts,
            ↑ 🔗puzzles

        ask additional questions
            ↑ 🔗faq

### keep an eye on / establish understanding of the procesuality of this
    * State machine of the inter-Subject relation phase:

In consolidation->Consolidated No contact->In recognition In recognition->In consolidation In recognition->Insurmountable by difference X In consolidation In consolidation Consolidated Consolidated No contact No contact In recognition In recognition Insurmountable by difference X Insurmountable by difference X

    * Ensure process continuation:
        with transparent public queue
###        (for each Subject, full history of contacts with others, and plans)
### 🔗alike2

    * Establish best-possible workflow, considering:
        * rhythm and time-synchronisation
        * responsibilities

    * Understand and recognize each-other:
        * crosslinking:
            a subprocess cross-mapping A and B's elements ("inter-hermeneutics")
        * form common language:
            * terminology / conceptual
            * logical (modal verbs, ...)
        * identify differences

    * Find and disclose convergent/common causes as well as divergent/competing

3) Co-Operation { A+B }

    * Have a post-individual logic of dealing with scarce resources:
        * money (grants / donations)
        * attention
        * labour
    * Logic of presentation (visual level, "brands", etc)

    * Remove cliquey inside/outside barrier logic:
        * memberships, "calls"
        * internal / external information logic

    * Safeguards against exploitation:
        * understand attributions
        * disclosure agreement
        * [...]

    * Shared work management:
        * shared infrastructure and upkeep (physical, virtual, fiscal/legal, ...)
        * shared general ideation ("knowledge management") and executive tools and processes
        * division of labour
        * reporting and cross-assessment
        * [...]

4) Consolidation { AB }

    * First, establish an abstract unity around a common higher-level concept
        (classes like "hackbase", "living system", "system", "eco village", etc)

    * Full consolidation / integration is always a goal:
        ("post-brand", etc)

    * Commonize differences as polemics under stronger common banners

*** PAD

Todo !!!
    * >CHT: define full co-operational level toolset
    * >CHT: apply on 🔗alike
    * think implications of this applied at total scale (as hypercommunist)
    * [...]



so "Interobjective" sounds awesome...


inside a subject (group) there are subjects (individuals)
    at a low enough level, everyone disagrees
    at a high enough, everyone agrees (even if just "to make the world a better place", etc)

if you can't consolidate into "common struggle", you can at least do "common missions"

<------------------------------ ((new))