philosophical pondering ponderosa

Cosmos as Meditation: Sufi and Baha'i Metaphysics

2011-02-05T12:01:00.001-08:00

If your looking for the Cosmos as Meditation ebook it has moved to:

https://sites.google.com/site/causeofgod/home/papers/cosmos-as-meditation

Introduction – What is Gnosis (`irfan)?

The following work deals exclusively with cosmology and spirituality. In Shi'a Islam, and it's modern messianic reflection in the Baha'i Faith, the idea of gnosis or innate direct experiential knowledge of the divine is known as `irfan:

Irfan also spelt eerfan (Arabic/Persian/Urdu: عرفان) literally means knowing. Sometimes it is transliterated as Erfan. It is used to refer both to Islamic mysticism as well as the attainment of direct spiritual knowledge. In the latter sense it is often translated in English as gnosis. Those with the name are sometimes referred to as having an insight into the unseen.

In Twelver Shi'a Islam, the term refers specifically to the discipline of mystical knowledge within religious teachings. In this respect Irfan overlaps considerably with Sufism in both meaning and content. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irfan)

How the great teachers of `irfan have conveyed their insights into reality has taken root in poetic utterances and philosophical treatises. These great teachers of `irfan have all traced their lineage through the Prophet Muhammad, through the imams of the Shi'a, down to the teachings of a former Shi'a Sufi named Baha' Allah (Glory of God). We shall trace and delineate out how philosophy along with cosmology has shaped the discourse and explication of the divine worlds in the writings of great `Irfanic and Sufi teachers. We shall read about the teachings of the Shi'a scholars, Sufi teachers and the divine revelation of Baha' Allah and how they relate to philosophical and experiential conceptions of cosmos. We shall encounter the great teachers like Ibn `Arabi, Mulla Sadra, al-Bab, Baha' Allah and others.

The first chapter deals with delineating what is meant by symbolic discourse and the topic of cosmos. The second chapter details the Qur'anic creative vocabulary, how the Qur'an teaches about creation. The third chapter delves into the lasting effects of Neo-Platonic philosophy on Islamic thinkers. The fourth chapter outlines the Sufi and Baha'i symbolic cosmology, specifically dealing with the five worlds (`alam) of God: Hahut, Lahut, Jabarut, Malakut and Nasut. The fifth chapter details the comsology as taught by gnostic Shi'a thinkers, specifically the teachings of Mulla Sadra. The sixth chapter delineates further the thinking of Mulla Sadra, specifically addressing his teachings on knowledge and existential reality. The seventh chapter addresses sufi symbols found in the Seven Valleys of Baha' Allah, delineating the sufi context to the work. The eight chapter goes into the ideas behind the sufi conception of resurrection (qiyamat). The ninth chapter deals with spiritual practices in sufism and the Baha'i teachings. The final and tenth chapter shows how Baha' Allah's Four Valleys is actually a work which touches on the Sufi Enneagram, a sufi program that helps the seeker overcome their ego deficiencies and draw closer to the Ultimate Reality.

Michael McCarron

mmccarr1@mail.ccsf.edu

Edition: Oct. 2009

covenant in the quran.odt

2009-10-27T13:25:00.001-07:00

Covenant in the Qur'an

by Michael McCarron

In Shi'a
Islam the term “day of the covenant” (yawm al-mithaq) is equated
with the day that `Ali was appointed the successor to Muhammad.
The covenant is a major ideal in Islam as it is in all Abrahamic faiths.
The Qur'an has many instances of the mention of the term covenant, the
Qur'anic terminology for covenant is on the one hand 'mithaq'¹
and on the other hand '`ahd'. Both terms come to mean to covenant
or a covenant. The definition of mithaq is:

Mithaq is a noun that signifies
covenant, agreement, treaty or alliance. Mithaq can be used to
describe an agreement between two parties. It is a confirmed contract,
guaranteed by an oath. In the Qur'an the covenant between God and his
servants is mentioned as many as twenty-six times. Allah took
the covenant from the prophets: 'And remember when We took from
the Prophets their covenant' (33:7). There are many Prophets and
Messengers of Allah, but only five are of alu-al-`azm (with strong will).
They are Muhammad, Noah, Abraham, Moses and Jesus. The above verse
specifies them as the strong upholders of the covenant with Allah: 'And
from you [Muhammad] and from Noah, Abraham, Moses and Jesus, sone of
Mary, we made with them a strong covenant' (33:7).

The Qur'an mentions the covenant
of God with the Children of Israel very often, for example: 'And We
made with them a firm covenant (4:154). Allah reminds the Jews
in the Qur'an of his covenant on different occasions, including: 'And
when we made a covenant with the Children of Israel' (2:83). pg.
409, The Qur'an: an encyclopedia By Oliver Leaman http://books.google.com/books?id=isDgI0-0Ip4C&pg=PA408&dq=mithaq&ei=Cs_lSqCBDYHclQTW9PysDA#v=onepage&q=mithaq&f=false

The definition of `ahd is:

“`Ahd, injunction, command;
thence: obligation, engagement; thence: agreement, covenant, treaty.
The term (as well as the 1^st and 3^rd forms of
the corresponding verb) occurs frequently in the Qur'an. It is
used there over the whole range of its meanings, of Allah's covenant
with men and His commands, of the religious engagement into which the
believers have entered, or political agreements and undertaking
of believers and unbelievers towards the Prophet and amongst each other
and of ordinary civil agreements and contracts (xvii, 34; xxiii, 8;
lxx, 32); occasionally, the agreement is personified: it 'will be asked'
to give evidence (xvii, 34; xxxiii,15). From the idea of God's covenant
derive the Christian Arabic terms al-`adh al-`atiq and al-`ahd al jadid
for the old and the New Testament respectively. The basic concrete
concept is 'joining together', whereas the synonym `aqd derives from
the concrete ide of 'binding'. In later usage, the latter term
is commonly used of civil engagements and contracts, whereas `ahd is
generally restricted to political enactments and treaties, in particular
to the appointment of a successor, a wali al-`ahd by a ruler,
and to treaties of alliance with non-Muslims outside the Islamic state,
who are therefore called ahl al-`ahd; thus last term is occasionally
extended, on one side to the mustamin, and on the other to the dhimmis;
both aman and dhimma are indeed, a political `ahd with religious sanction.”

J. Schacht Encyclopedia
of Islam, pg. 255, Vol. I, E.J. Brill, 1979, Leiden, Netherlands

Informing the conversation
on Covenant we are left with the pre-Islamic precedents for understanding
the covenant. In the Tanukh (Old Testament), in the New Testament
there are several covenants made. A covenant with Adam, Noah,
Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, the Children of Israel, David, and
Jesus². In the Qur'an not all the same Covenants are mentioned.
There is a primordial covenant with Adam, covenants with Noah, Abraham
and Ishmael, with Moses, with the Children of Israel and with Jesus.
These are the explict mentionings of covenants in the Qur'an 33:7.

And when We exacted a covenant
from the prophets, and from thee (O Muhammad) and from Noah and Abraham
and Moses and Jesus son of Mary. We took from them a solemn covenant
(mithaq); (7)

وَإِذۡ
أَخَذۡنَا مِنَ ٱلنَّبِيِّـۧنَ مِيثَـٰقَهُمۡ
وَمِنكَ وَمِن نُّوحٍ۬ وَإِبۡرَٲهِيمَ
وَمُوسَىٰ وَعِيسَى ٱبۡنِ مَرۡيَمَ‌ۖ
وَأَخَذۡنَا مِنۡهُم مِّيثَـٰقًا غَلِيظً۬ا (٧)

It is very controversial that
between the Bible and the Qur'an the covenant of Abraham's children
goes to two different lines, with the Qur'anic being that of Ishmael
while the Biblical is that of Isaac. There is also no direct mention
of the covenant with David, although David is given a special book of
revelation, the Psalms (zabur). In Psalms the Davidic covenant
is mentioned there is no mention in the Qur'an to refute the Davidic
covenant. Although, one could argue that because the Qur'an mentions
that Jesus (`Isa bin Maryam) is annointed (messiah³
) that the ideal of the Davidic Kingship is explicitly mentioned through
the appointing of Jesus in the Qur'an as the annointed of God.
In the covenant of the Children of Israel there may also be an oblique
reference to the Davidic Kingship:

In the Qur'an
there are forty-three references to "Banū Isrāʾīl", the
Islamic term for the Israelites, which means "Children of Israel".[19]
There is a Surah (chapter) in the Qur'an titled Bani Israel
(Arabic: بني اسرائيل, "The Children
of Israel"), which is also known as Al-Isra (Arabic: سورة الإسراء, "The Night
Journey").[20]
This Surah was revealed in the year before Hijrah and takes its name from Surah 17:4. Also,
starting from verse 40 in Surah Al-Baqara[21]
(Arabic: سورة البقرة, "The Cow")
is the story of Bani Israel. Finally, there is a Qur'an, verse in which Moses
addresses his followers as "Muslims" (Arabic: مُّسۡلِمِينَ Muslimïn)[22]
meaning, in English, "those who submit to God".[23]

In Surah Al-Araf Verses 158
and 159, there was also mention of the twelve tribes: (158) "And
of Moses' folk there is a community who lead with truth and establish
justice therewith." (159) "We divided them into twelve
tribes, nations; and We inspired Moses, when his people asked him for
water, saying: Smite with thy staff the rock! And there gushed forth
therefrom twelve springs, so that each tribe knew their drinking-place.
And we caused the white cloud to overshadow them and sent down for them
the manna and the quails (saying): Eat of the good things wherewith
we have provided you. They wronged Us not, but they were wont to wrong
themselves."[24][25]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_of_Israel#Islamic_theology

A further possible reference
to the Davidic Kingship is in the Qur'an 32:23-24:

We verily
gave Moses the Scripture; so be not ye in doubt of his receiving it;
and We appointed it a guidance for the Children of Israel. (23)
And when they became steadfast and believed firmly in Our revelations,
We appointed from among them leaders who guided by Our command. (24)

وَلَقَدۡ ءَاتَيۡنَا
مُوسَى ٱلۡڪِتَـٰبَ فَلَا تَكُن فِى مِرۡيَةٍ۬
مِّن لِّقَآٮِٕهِۦ‌ۖ وَجَعَلۡنَـٰهُ
هُدً۬ى لِّبَنِىٓ إِسۡرَٲٓءِيلَ (٢٣) وَجَعَلۡنَا
مِنۡہُمۡ أَٮِٕمَّةً۬ يَہۡدُونَ بِأَمۡرِنَا
لَمَّا صَبَرُواْ‌ۖ وَڪَانُواْ بِـَٔايَـٰتِنَا
يُوقِنُونَ (٢٤)

The covenant with the Children
of Israel (bani isra'il) is a very contentious issue in Islamic theology
with more moderate scholars putting forth the argument that the covenant
that the Children of Israel shall inherit what has become known as the
modern state of Israel is Qur'anic based while Islamists have put forward
arguments that the Covenant with the children of Israel is revoked and
hence they are not promised the land of Israel in the Qur'an.

The covenant
is a key instrument in understanding the difference between a strong
covenant and other covenants for in Islam the strong covenants go to
the strong Messengers (rasul) that revealed a Divine Book of Laws (shari'a).
These strong messengers (ulu'l-a`zim) are the ones mentioned specifically
as having a Covenant in the Qur'an: Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus and
Muhammad. The covenants mentioned specifically in the Qur'an go only
to messengers with divine laws (shari'a). The other messengers and or
prophets (nabi) though there may be a biblical covenant they are not
mentioned specifically in the Qur'an. An interesting passage occurs
in the Qur'an in relation to the Covenants of the Prophets in ayah 3:81:

When Allah made (His) covenant
(mithaq) with the prophets (nabiyyan) [including Muhammad see Qur'an
33:7], (He said): Behold that which I have given you of the Scripture
and knowledge. And afterward there will come unto you a messenger (rasul),
confirming that which ye possess. Ye shall believe in him and ye shall
help him. He said: Do ye agree, and will ye take up My burden (which
I lay upon you) in this (matter)? They answered: We agree. He said:
Then bear ye witness. I will be a witness with you. (Qur'an 3:81)

وَإِذۡ أَخَذَ
ٱللَّهُ مِيثَـٰقَ ٱلنَّبِيِّـۧنَ لَمَآ
ءَاتَيۡتُڪُم مِّن ڪِتَـٰبٍ۬ وَحِكۡمَةٍ۬
ثُمَّ جَآءَڪُمۡ رَسُولٌ۬ مُّصَدِّقٌ۬
لِّمَا مَعَكُمۡ لَتُؤۡمِنُنَّ بِهِۦ
وَلَتَنصُرُنَّهُ ۥ‌ۚ قَالَ ءَأَقۡرَرۡتُمۡ
وَأَخَذۡتُمۡ عَلَىٰ ذَٲلِكُمۡ إِصۡرِى‌ۖ
قَالُوٓاْ أَقۡرَرۡنَا‌ۚ قَالَ فَٱشۡہَدُواْ
وَأَنَا۟ مَعَكُم مِّنَ ٱلشَّـٰهِدِينَ

Here we have the covenant in
a eschatological context, after the covenants are made with the Prophets
a figure shall come, it is not Muhammad, it is a reference to a future
personage that shall be a messenger, a rasul⁴
. Not every prophet is a rasul, not every rasul reveals a book
of Laws (shari'a), so here we must have a messenger that will not reveal
a book of Laws (shari'a) but rather confirms all the previous scriptures
and the knowledge contained within. This is undoubtedly eschatological
in context.

So we see
in the overall schema of the Qur'an the Qur'an is interested mainly
in the covenants of the major messengers (ulu'l-a`zim). The covenants
of the prophets are not mentioned specifically. David only being a prophet
his covenant is not mentioned explicitly or specifically unless the
ambigous verses regarding the leaders of the Bani Isra'il are interpreted
as referencing the Davidic Kingship. The title of Jesus in the Qur'an
is Messiah, which is a direct reference to be annointed in the line
of David. The conception of the Davidic Kingship thereby is not
foreign to the Qur'an. Interestingly, a eschatological figure
is mentioned as coming after the ministries of the strong covenant messengers
(Qur'an 3:81).

Pattern Anarchy: Toward a Libertarian...

2008-10-14T13:11:00.001-07:00

Pattern Anarchy: Toward a Libertarian Understanding of Network
Theory

Compiled by Michael McCarron

Patterns
in society are easy to see. We recognize them everyday whether it is the same
people at the bus stop at the same time on your morning commute or the same
people dominating meetings we know that humans act in identifiable ways.
However, the study of these patterns and emergent behaviors is a relatively
modern phenomenon. Social Network and Network Theory Analysis are some of the
latest sciences to attempt at understanding behavior in networks from social
networks to biological networks we can see defined patterns and emergent
behavior. This is a brief overview of Network Theory with brief remarks on how
it is relevant to Libertarian Socialist organizing. SOME KEY CONCEPTS IN NETWORK
THEORY"Network theory or diktyology is a subject within applied mathematics and
physics, and coincides with graph theory. It has application in a varied range
of disciplines including computer science, biology, economics, and sociology.
Network theory concerns itself with the study of graphs as a representation of
either symmetric relations or, more generally, of asymmetric relations between
discrete objects. Typically, the graphs of concern in network theory are complex
networks, examples of which include the World Wide Web, the Internet, gene
regulatory networks, metabolic networks, social networks, epistemological
networks, etc." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_theory
Networks display certain emergent behaviors, that is to say they exhibit
self-organization without any central planning authority. There are several
types of networks however for our purposes we are concerned with what have
become known as "scale-free networks" which is a complex network:

"Most social, biological, and technological networks (as well as
certain network-driven phenomena) can be considered complex by virtue of
non-trivial topological structure (see e.g., social network, computer network,
neural network, epidemiology). Such non-trivial features include: a heavy-tail
in the degree distribution; a high clustering coefficient; assortativity or
disassortativity among vertices; community structure at many scales; and
evidence of a hierarchical structure." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_networkA scale
free network is defined as:"In scale-free networks, some nodes act as "highly
connected hubs" (high degree), although most nodes are of low degree. Scale-free
networks' structure and dynamics are independent of the system's size N, the
number of nodes the system has. In other words, a network that is scale-free
will have the same properties no matter what the number of its nodes is. Their
most distinguishing characteristic is that their degree distribution follows a
power law relationship" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale-free_networks

As
left libertarians we may automatically see some interesting similiarities to how
we organize, we often group ourselves into hubs that can act as conduits to
integrating more nodes or people into our networks, there is no central planning
authority and links are made freely between different nodes in the networks but
hubs do remain. These hub clusters which we may even see as embodiments of the
protest clusters of affinity groups shape the overall network topology of
libertarian activists. Some hubs have a high degree of what is known as
"preferential attachment":

"In preferential attachment, new nodes are added to the network one
by one. Each new node attaches itself (creates a link) to one of the existing
nodes with a certain probability. This probability is biased, however, in the
sense that it is proportional to the number of links that the existing node
already has. Therefore, heavily linked nodes ("hubs") tend to quickly accumulate
even more links, while nodes with only a few links are unlikely to be chosen as
the destination for a new link. It is as if the new nodes have a "preference" to
attach themselves to the already heavily linked nodes…. Preferential attachment
is an example of a positive feedback cycle where initially random variations
(one node initially having more links or having started accumulating links
earlier than another) are automatically reinforced, thus greatly magnifying
differences. This is also sometimes called the Matthew effect, "the rich get
richer", and in chemistry autocatalysis." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferential_attachment

The notion of preferential attachment can be seen in how we
prioritize some peoples opinions over others it can also be seen in the
financial networks or markets as the rich-get-richer. The question of
preferential attachment in networks is a very interesting question to address as
libertarians for we seek an equitable distribution to the scale free network
flows. One issue that has been studied is the issue of "fitness" in terms of
preferential attachment:"The introduction of fitness does not eliminate growth
and preferential attachment, the two basic mechanisms governing network
evolution. It changes, however, what is considered attractive in a competitive
environment. In the scale-free model, we assumed that a node’s attractiveness
was determined solely by its number of links. In a competitive environment,
fitness also plays a role: Nodes with higher fitness are linked to more
frequently. A simple way to incorporate fitness into the scale-free model is to
assume that preferential attachment is driven by the product of the node’s
fitness and the number of links it has. Each new node decides where to link by
comparing the fitness connectivity product of all available nodes and linking
with a higher probability to those that have a higher product and therefore are
more attractive. Between two nodes with the same number of links, the fitter one
acquires links more quickly. If two nodes have the same fitness, however the
older one still has an advantage." Pg. 96, "Linked: How Everything is Connected
to Everything Else and What It Means for Business, Science and Everyday Life" by
Albert-Laszlo BarabasiWe can see that through fitness there is the possibility
of reducing the differential equation (extremes) between rich and poor nodes,
and thus help nodes to compete for links, money and other objects within the
network. This is one area of study that should be looked into further. How can
promoting fitness within a decentralized network help create equity among all
members of the network? One researcher, Valdis Krebs, has addressed the nature
of power in networks, while others have studied the economic impact of
preferential attachment in monetary networks such as the capitalist society we
live in:

"in markets the standard strategy is to drive the hardest possible
bargain on the immediate exchange. In networks, the preferred option is often
creating indebtedness and reliance [cooperation] over the long haul." Walter W.
Powell "Neither Market nor Hierarchy: Network Forms of Organization" http://www.cooperationcommons.com/Documents/EntryView?id=18

The
traditional tree-shaped corporate structure, suited to mass production, is
poorly suited to deal with rapid innovation and market change. The challenge of
competing in such environments led to industries like pharmaceuticals and
technology developing scale-free networks of alliances and outsourcers. For
years, economists spoke of a standard formal model of economics, in which
companies interact not with each other but with "the market," a theoretical
entity mediating economic transactions. Barabasi: "In reality, the market is
nothing but a directed network. The weight of the links captures the value of
the transaction, and the direction points from the provider to the receiver. The
structure and evolution of this weighted and directed network determine the
outcome of all macro economic processes." Id. pp.
208-209.

see, http://www.visualcomplexity.com/vc/project_details.cfm?id=22&index=2&domain=Business%20Networksfor
a study on the ruling class’ social network. Dr. Krebs work shows us how power
in networks is created and how it can be deconstructed into more horizontal
forms of power law distributions:

"Two social network measures, Betweennness and Closeness, are
particularly revealing of a node’s advantageous or constrained location in a
network. The values of both metrics are dependent upon the pattern of
connections that a node is embedded in. Betweenness measures the control a mode
has over what flows in the network—how often is this node on the path between
other nodes? Closeness measures how easily a node can access what is available
via the network—how quickly can this node reach all others in the network? A
combination where a node has easy access to others, while controlling the access
of other nodes in the network, reveals high informal power." http://orgnet.com/PowerInNetworks.pdfHe
demonstrates how informal power is actually real power. Say we have a typical
hierarchical structure of a leader with followers. Yet the leader does not know
all the nodes or followers but some followers do know all the other followers.
Real power resides with the followers that know all the other followers. So the
power dynamic actually resides with the most linked node which has high
preferential attachment with other nodes in the network. Other studies have
found that preferential attachment is also a measure of class stratification an
early study, "Contacts and Influence" by Ithiel de Sola Pool (MIT) and Manfred
Kochen (U. of Michigan) Social Networks, 1 (1978/79) pg. 5-51

"Thus in a a country the size of the United States, if
acquaintanceship were random and the mean acquaintance volume were 1000, the
mean length of minimum chain between pairs of person would be well under two
intermediaries. How much longer it is in reality because of the presence of
considerable social structure in the society we do not know (nor is it
necessarily longer for all social structures). Those are among the critical
problems that remain unresolved. (emphasis added)" pg. 15"Increased social
stratification reduces the length of chains between person in the same stratum
and at the same time lengthens the chains across strata lines." Pg. 17"Blue
collar workers and housewives had the smallest number of different contacts over
the 100 days. They both lived in a restricted social universe." Pg. 23"The
tendency of society to cluster itself as like seeks like can also be seen in
Tables on contacts by age, sex and religion. These data reflect a society that
is very structured indeed." Pg. 23

Stuctures meant by the author are
analogous to any subdivision in a social network although here it is class
structure which impedes equitable linkage between different members of the
network. Yet, these structures are aptly referred to as modules in networks,
research has shown that networks are actually modular in structure and have many
different communities or modules in the overall architecture, some hubs may be a
community onto themselves or a hub may be a member of hub with other hubs of
communities. There are many suggested algorithms for understanding community
structure in networks. This understanding has led to the term of Modular
Scale-Free Networks:

"The hierarchical modularity of the protein interaction network
offered another biological example, reinterpreting the role of the hub proteins
as the mediators of different functional modules. Therefore, hierarchical
modularity is a generic property of most real networks, accompanying the
scale-free architecture." Pg. 237 Barabasi, "Linked"

However, one
should not read to much into the terminology of "hierarchical" for it is used in
many clustering activities at major protests that libertarians attend as well as
a structure that proved useful during the Spanish Civil War. In the same sense a
cluster is composed of different work groups or affinity groups is the same
sense as "Hierarchical" in this terminology of network theory. A graphical
reference shows how the structures interfere with equitable distribution, the
first being what a libertarian socialists ideal would be of a social network and
inter-linking relationship:

A second grouping with some interaction between different
groups, which would be a Liberal view, capitalism perhaps:

and finally one with complete social stratification with
structures divided between two groups, feudalism perhaps:

As one can see there are immediate points of recognition to
social network analysis and the critique made by libertarian socialists. We can
see how on one hand we live in scale free networks yet we can also see that
there is much to be done to improve fitness among the different nodes in the
real networks we live in. Structures, Communities, Modules and Factions lead to
extending networks distancing different nodes in the network from each other,
whether it is financial networks divided between the rich and the poor or a
network of activists that can’t get consensus to work well enough or open enough
to make the links between members short and direct thus increasing trust in the
group. When it comes to political organizing different authors have shown how
social networks are the prime force in political decision making. One study at
the grass roots level has found that networks of friends is a good way of
mobilizing support while not activating undo attention from
adversaries.Demographics is the wrong focus in political campaigns friendship
networks are far more valuable.

"To put this all another way, with the web system facilitating a
friend to friend campaign, we were able to recruit and utilize 2% of the
vote-eligible population as volunteers, and with that 2%, come very close to
saturating the potentially supportive population (late-comers to the volunteer
ranks complained that almost every person they could think of was taken),
without wasted effort and alienation or mobilization of the opposition."
"Targeting [demography] made little difference in the rate of success in
identifying supporters…""By utilizing the existing network of relationships
within a community, a friend to friend campaign is a community effort that
strengthens the social fabric. It also inspires the population to become a
community of activists, rather than a passive "market". "Friend to Friend
Politics and the "inside-out" campaign: a tale of three campaigns" By Pat
Dunlavey

Dr. Krebs has also studied social interaction and politics.
He has found that again socialization is of far more value then trying to target
certain demographics. For instance his study, "It’s the Conversations, Stupid!:
The link between social interaction and political choice" (
http://www.extremedemocracy.com/chapters/Chapter%20Nine-Krebs.pdf)

"… social voter—modern citizens do not make decisions in a social
vacuum. Who we know influences what we know and how we feel about it. After
controlling for personal attitudes and demographic membership, researchers found
social networks, that voters are embedded in, exert powerful influences on their
voting behavior. ""Research on voter participation in elections has revealed the
importance of social networks. Voter turnout is highly correlated among family,
friends and co-workers. If those in your social network vote, and make that
known, then there is a much higher probability that you will vote also. We are
all influenced by those who we view as similar to us. We may adopt the actions
of a similar others either through conformity or competition. To fit in with a
group, we conform to the actions of others. To keep up with those we view as
competitors, we mimic their behavior so as not be left behind.""Recent research
in social networks has shown that human networks tend to follow the small-world
model. The way people connect results in clusters according to common interests,
views, goals or affiliations—small worlds of people with similar sentiments.
Yet, clusters are not isolated from each one another. They are connected to each
other by bridging ties—Person X in Group A works with Person Y in Group B. Some
of these bridges are cross-cutting ties, or shortcuts, that minimize the
distance between all clusters. Shortcuts between otherwise distant cluster are
what make the world seems small—strangers in the mirror are closer then they
appear to be."

How can we make organizing more effective through
Network Theory? I’ll leave that up to each of us to address on our own.However,
one final thought is that of how networks do create their "intelligence
networks". Thus a "Collective Intelligence":Collective intelligence is an
amplification of the precepts of the Founding Fathers, as represented by Thomas
Jefferson in his statement, " A Nation’s best defense is an educated citizenry."
During the industrial era, schools and corporations took a turn toward
separating elites from the people they expected to follow them, Both government
and private sector organizations glorified bureaucracy and, with bureaucracy,
secrecy and compartmentalized knowledge. In the past twenty years, a body of
knowledge has emerged which demonstrates that secrecy is actually pathological,
enables selfish decisions against the public interest. Collective intelligence
restores the power of the people over their society, and neutralizes the power
of vested interests that manipulate information to concentrate wealth."If we
recognize that people exist in networks, which is hard to argue against, then we
must understand the role of a free thinking collective intelligence that is a
composite of the nodes that make up our networks. If we can learn to effectively
and equitably inter-network with the different nodes then we will decrease the
length between the different nodes thus increase harmony in our communities. We
can do this through harnessing, like the precepts of our radical direct
democracy, thoughts and feelings and understandings of all the members of our
networks. If you care to comment on this article you can contact me via http://www.myspace.com/autonomous019
I am working on the next paper which shows how collaborative filtering could be
used as a means of adjusting preferential attachment, oh joy! Some academic
network theory articles, http://netwiki.amath.unc.edu/p.s. mind your security
culture ;-)