It's interesting to see that Mastodon (https://joinmastodon.org), a decentralised social network is under siege right now from new joiners, and that Jack Dorsey is considering a decentralised network, "Blue Sky". We know from everything from insurgent movements to energy distribution that decentralisation works. It also decreases the "distance/trust factor - we are more likely to develop trust with people who are closer to us.
I read an interesting pre publication draft paper today, covering research on "tipping points" which once passed, do not allow trust to be recovered.
These are challenging times, and we need to shine a bright light on the importance of trust.
All the centralized institutions like the UN and the WEF have decentralization strategies. So, decentralization isn't the complete answer. The localization of networks of relationships on a global scale is.
I am a member of several local networks. I'm a member. I have no say, except through my ideas. I understand that these are networks of local people where they live. I am an outsider, a stranger, a trickster at times, who observes and advises as needed. Empowering local people to take charge of their community's develop is really the key here. So, a decentralized social network that is not rooted in a specific place is going to have a difficult time avoiding outside or elite interests trying to take control.
In my two posts, As The Center Does Not Hold, the Periphery Grows,(https://edbrenegar.substack.com/p/as-the-center-does-not-hold-the-periphery), and Networks of Relationships in Transition, (https://edbrenegar.substack.com/p/networks-of-relationships-in-transition), I use Edward Shils Center and Periphery metaphor to show how even as the Center fails, the Peripheral networks may have their own centers. It is helpful to see that we need both a center and a periphery. We are not trained to think in these terms. However, if I believe that when a local community can form a respectful, trusting center for their relationships, then they can reach out beyond their community to find the resources that they need. This is where I have found myself in this stage of my career.
A colleague and I regularly discuss the shifting tides of what is termed "trust", in both business and Christian / church / mission circles. It's a currency that is devalued by the inflationary demands placed on us increasingly in our interactions with institutions who assume they are trustworthy — in the post-modern, post-christendom era, they almost invariably are not … unless we understand them more deeply, when they can be relied on - trusted - to act in the interests of their own instituted mission and its sub-culture, which we ignore at our peril. Our dialogue has often referred to a concept known as the Trust Equation:
"There's a lot of talk about trust, but not much about being trustworthy. A formula has been suggested for 'trust' though I think it is more about being trustworthy.
• Trust = credibility x reliability x intimacy divided by self-orientation (i.e. self-promotion.)
(The dictionary says that 'intimate' is connected with 'deep'.)
I think it is a good rule of thumb for trust. Of course it begs the questions:
What is credibility?
What is reliability?
What is intimacy?
What is self-orientation?
All good ideas that require an equal of reflection.
In my leadership model, Circle of Impact, I see trust as a product of respect. We respect ourselves. We respect others, even if they are disrespectful, because ultimately, trust cannot exist in a place without us being trustworthy.
In addition, I see institutions in our society as not only failing to be trustworthy, but the conditions that you describe, will ultimately lead to the collapse of modern institutions. The lack of trust is not the cause but rather the product of a whole set of developments that have led them towards this eventuality.
Yes, I believe this to be true. It took the crisis of COVID to shake people out of their complacency to realize that the course that our world is traveling will not bring good to anyone.
Personally, I entered the world, from the youngest age, sensing that it was fundamentally dysfunctional and prone to slip into evil, through the exhibition of dominance. When I personally encountered the story and personality and teaching and spirit of the Messiah, I sensed the possibility of the world being turned right way up and followed wholeheartedly. Everything I've encountered since has confirmed the veracity of evil and the enormous difficulty of confronting and challenging its hold over people.
“ If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?”
And…
“ To do evil a human being must first of all believe that what he's doing is good... Ideology - that is what gives devildoing its long-sought justification and gives the evildoer the necessary steadfastness and determination. That is the social theory which helps to make his acts seem good instead of bad in his own and others' eyes, so that he won't hear reproaches and curses but will receive praise and honors.”
This why most of our talk about evil ends up having no effect. John, I can tell you are deeply moved by evil in the world. However, we who are persons of faith cannot allow ourselves to simply turn the presence of evil into a cosmic battle between God and the Devil. It turns the question of evil into just another simulation that cuts us off the real suffering and destruction that evil causes. We are witnessing a level of human evil that is unprecedented in human history. This why I wrote The Ostrich, The Peacock, and The Sheepdog last spring. https://edbrenegar.substack.com/p/the-ostrich-the-peacock-and-the-sheepdog
No, indeed, Ed. I believe the battle with evil is precisely a human battle: a war fought, first and foremost, on the 'altars of human hearts'. There, the sacrifices we make form and cultivate either good or evil within — our *intention(s)*. Our intent, in turn, nudges us (sic) towards those external realities that gain our *attention*. Here we are easily seduced by memetic desires cultivated by "the world". Here, even good intents easily "pave the road to hell." I do believe the current state of things is parlous, perilous and I'm searching my own heart prayerfully, constantly to enquire about my part in the regeneration to come that is our only hope.
I much enjoyed your article on the Ostrich, Peacock and Sheepdog. I need to read more of your work to understand the depth of what you are wanting us to understand in relation to 'simulation'. I'm working through at a rate of a few articles a week!
Another interesting, important and thought provoking article.
Thank you, Gary. Its an honor.
It's interesting to see that Mastodon (https://joinmastodon.org), a decentralised social network is under siege right now from new joiners, and that Jack Dorsey is considering a decentralised network, "Blue Sky". We know from everything from insurgent movements to energy distribution that decentralisation works. It also decreases the "distance/trust factor - we are more likely to develop trust with people who are closer to us.
I read an interesting pre publication draft paper today, covering research on "tipping points" which once passed, do not allow trust to be recovered.
These are challenging times, and we need to shine a bright light on the importance of trust.
All the centralized institutions like the UN and the WEF have decentralization strategies. So, decentralization isn't the complete answer. The localization of networks of relationships on a global scale is.
I am a member of several local networks. I'm a member. I have no say, except through my ideas. I understand that these are networks of local people where they live. I am an outsider, a stranger, a trickster at times, who observes and advises as needed. Empowering local people to take charge of their community's develop is really the key here. So, a decentralized social network that is not rooted in a specific place is going to have a difficult time avoiding outside or elite interests trying to take control.
In my two posts, As The Center Does Not Hold, the Periphery Grows,(https://edbrenegar.substack.com/p/as-the-center-does-not-hold-the-periphery), and Networks of Relationships in Transition, (https://edbrenegar.substack.com/p/networks-of-relationships-in-transition), I use Edward Shils Center and Periphery metaphor to show how even as the Center fails, the Peripheral networks may have their own centers. It is helpful to see that we need both a center and a periphery. We are not trained to think in these terms. However, if I believe that when a local community can form a respectful, trusting center for their relationships, then they can reach out beyond their community to find the resources that they need. This is where I have found myself in this stage of my career.
A colleague and I regularly discuss the shifting tides of what is termed "trust", in both business and Christian / church / mission circles. It's a currency that is devalued by the inflationary demands placed on us increasingly in our interactions with institutions who assume they are trustworthy — in the post-modern, post-christendom era, they almost invariably are not … unless we understand them more deeply, when they can be relied on - trusted - to act in the interests of their own instituted mission and its sub-culture, which we ignore at our peril. Our dialogue has often referred to a concept known as the Trust Equation:
"There's a lot of talk about trust, but not much about being trustworthy. A formula has been suggested for 'trust' though I think it is more about being trustworthy.
• Trust = credibility x reliability x intimacy divided by self-orientation (i.e. self-promotion.)
(The dictionary says that 'intimate' is connected with 'deep'.)
Does it speak to you, at all, Ed?
You may also find this post from early last year interesting in relation to trust.
The Ostrich, The Peacock, and the Sheepdog.
https://edbrenegar.substack.com/p/the-ostrich-the-peacock-and-the-sheepdog
Terrific, Ed, yes.
I think it is a good rule of thumb for trust. Of course it begs the questions:
What is credibility?
What is reliability?
What is intimacy?
What is self-orientation?
All good ideas that require an equal of reflection.
In my leadership model, Circle of Impact, I see trust as a product of respect. We respect ourselves. We respect others, even if they are disrespectful, because ultimately, trust cannot exist in a place without us being trustworthy.
In addition, I see institutions in our society as not only failing to be trustworthy, but the conditions that you describe, will ultimately lead to the collapse of modern institutions. The lack of trust is not the cause but rather the product of a whole set of developments that have led them towards this eventuality.
Thanks for the comment.
We are evidently perceiving, seeing and foreseeing similar aspects to the Cultural development of the post modern / post Christendom era …
Yes, I believe this to be true. It took the crisis of COVID to shake people out of their complacency to realize that the course that our world is traveling will not bring good to anyone.
Personally, I entered the world, from the youngest age, sensing that it was fundamentally dysfunctional and prone to slip into evil, through the exhibition of dominance. When I personally encountered the story and personality and teaching and spirit of the Messiah, I sensed the possibility of the world being turned right way up and followed wholeheartedly. Everything I've encountered since has confirmed the veracity of evil and the enormous difficulty of confronting and challenging its hold over people.
Alexandr Solzhenitsyn on evil.
“ If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?”
And…
“ To do evil a human being must first of all believe that what he's doing is good... Ideology - that is what gives devildoing its long-sought justification and gives the evildoer the necessary steadfastness and determination. That is the social theory which helps to make his acts seem good instead of bad in his own and others' eyes, so that he won't hear reproaches and curses but will receive praise and honors.”
This why most of our talk about evil ends up having no effect. John, I can tell you are deeply moved by evil in the world. However, we who are persons of faith cannot allow ourselves to simply turn the presence of evil into a cosmic battle between God and the Devil. It turns the question of evil into just another simulation that cuts us off the real suffering and destruction that evil causes. We are witnessing a level of human evil that is unprecedented in human history. This why I wrote The Ostrich, The Peacock, and The Sheepdog last spring. https://edbrenegar.substack.com/p/the-ostrich-the-peacock-and-the-sheepdog
No, indeed, Ed. I believe the battle with evil is precisely a human battle: a war fought, first and foremost, on the 'altars of human hearts'. There, the sacrifices we make form and cultivate either good or evil within — our *intention(s)*. Our intent, in turn, nudges us (sic) towards those external realities that gain our *attention*. Here we are easily seduced by memetic desires cultivated by "the world". Here, even good intents easily "pave the road to hell." I do believe the current state of things is parlous, perilous and I'm searching my own heart prayerfully, constantly to enquire about my part in the regeneration to come that is our only hope.
I much enjoyed your article on the Ostrich, Peacock and Sheepdog. I need to read more of your work to understand the depth of what you are wanting us to understand in relation to 'simulation'. I'm working through at a rate of a few articles a week!