Yes you read that correctly.

Actually, the thinking behind the project, or at least post-event justification, is to slow technology down, as a form of discipline or meditation. You send your email in the normal way, and this is then stored in a device in the snail’s tank. When a snail, fitted with a RF chip, crawls by, the data is loaded onto the chip. When that snail eventually passes another device, the information is passed from the RF chip, and the mail is delivered as usual. You therefore have no idea when your message is going to eventually be delivered.

Completely barking. But rather nice.

Reading material for the train/ferry/bus etc. on the way up/down was this month’s Prospect, which contained an article from some old Blairites challenging Brown to move away from top-down centralised governance to a more liberal bottom-up approach:

Labour politicians too often see a social problem—obesity, children at risk on the internet or declining interest in high culture—and make two assumptions: first, that the problem is amenable to a policy solution; and second, that this solution ought to involve the establishment of a council, commission or task force. But many of the issues facing modern society are too complex and too cultural for such a wooden approach.

Coming back I’ve just received an email from an organization struggling from within over whether they should be taking one or the other approach, and many of the discussions we had on Iona related to the same issue.

In other words, the debate continues to rage, and usually follows the same line: those in power want to preserve power structures because, from their perspective, it’s the only way to get things done, while those outside those structures see the world very differently and realise things aren’t working as well as those in power think they are.

I’ve been into this in detail in the book, but, to summarise: power and leadership are about facilitating communication or, in the governance situation, creating environments within which the best possible outcomes for people are likely to emerge. You can’t legislate for decency, but you can create the kinds of frameworks within which people are more likely to be decent to one another.

I think this is the tricky situation which both our Labour government and certain wings of the church find themselves: they feel so threatened by some external power (terrorism / biblical liberalism) that they panic and want to legislate hard in an attempt to protect us. I currently feel that I’d rather enjoy freedom and decent human rights / civil liberties and be blown up a free man, than be safely cocooned in a tight-assed, Orwellian world.

Technorati: Liberal | Prospect

Holding up his Smartphone, he gushed ‘look at this thing! Who a couple of years ago would have thought that I would be able to have 300 emails waiting for me on a mobile device this size!’

And I thought, ‘who the hell would want to have thought that?’

But it was one comment that interested me in particular. ‘If it’s on Google,’ he said, ‘why teach it?’ And I just thought that displayed perhaps the poorest understanding of education, and technology’s place within it, I have ever heard.

Just yesterday, as I sat reading in the evening light, the laptop shut, kids in bed after a day in the park, I pondered this.

Books and people make me a better person, I thought; the internet does not.

I think this is something to do with space and time. It is not internet access people need to be educated.

It is space and time to think and read and talk to people, and to be guided by a teacher. One cannot educate children by loading them with a smartcard pre-loaded with information. One might as well say ‘If it’s in the Bible, why preach it?’ But that’s a whole different can of worms.

Technorati: Education | Google | Intel | Smartphone

The most enjoyable was Edith Sitwell’s English Eccentrics*. It’s an eccentric volume itself, but delicious for that difference. The Folio edition I was perusing began with a quote from John Stuart Mill:

“In this age the mere example of non-conformity, the mere refusal to bend the knee to custom, is itself a service. Precisely because the tyranny of opinion is such as to make eccentricity a reproach, it is desirable, in order to break through that tyranny, that people should be eccentric. Eccentricity has always abounded when and where strength of character has abounded; and the amount of eccentricity in a society has generally been proportional to the amount of genius, mental vigor, and moral courage which it contained. That so few now dare to be eccentric, marks the chief danger of the time.”

The quote comes from his 1859 book ‘On Liberty‘, where he regularly rages against ‘custom’, believing it leads to conformity, and thus lack of freedom:

“Even in what people do for pleasure, conformity is the first thing thought of; they like in crowds; they exercise choice only among things commonly done: peculiarity of taste, eccentricity of conduct, are shunned equally with crimes.”

Eccentricity simply means ‘having a different centre’. For this reason alone, and with no thought for wanting to be ‘quirky’ or ‘different’, I’d like to sing in praise of being eccentric. Within this definition it is only the eccentric who can speak prophetic criticism. It is only the eccentric who can, by the gravity of their thought, draw close and change the orbit of the masses. Bauman writes in Liquid Life of “the mind-boggling quandary of having to mark oneself out as an individual, while also remaining obviously an acceptable part of the group” and it is this pressure that draws us into predictable, one-dimensional orbits. Being such a satellite around such a large mass is safe, yes, but cold and life-less.

The force to break away from this comes in two forms. The greater force, perhaps, is the gravity of the a-centrics, the vacuous cult of celebrity that tempts us with ideas of total freedom: responsibility-free sex, rootless trans-atlantic existence and the exultation of form over content. But nothing can have no centre, save nothing itself.

So it is down to the eccentric, the differently centred, the ‘dirty trickster’ as my book would have it, to provide some alter-orbit. The physics is clear on this: the closer this eccentric orbit swings to the other mass, the greater its changing effect. Eccentricity is not an excuse for seclusion or flight, but an invitation to challenge the prose-flattened, cathode-ray world with some vital poetry.

[* The book. Not the online fashion store. Urgghhhh.]

Technorati: Eccentricity | Eccentrics | Mill | Sitwell

I’ve just written a piece for Third Way - coming out in November – about Facebook, and other social networks. In the article I quote two things from Bauman’s Liquid Life. Firstly Bauman himself who writes that:

“flattened into a perpetual present and filled to the brim with survival-gratification concerns, [the world] leaves no room for worries about anything other than what can be consumed and relished on the spot”

Secondly, Bauman quotes a Stasuik, another cultural commentator, who notes that:

“it is highly probable that the quantity of digital, celluloid and analogue beings met in the course of a bodily life comes close to the volume which eternal life and resurrection of the flesh could offer.”

And what I’m feeling at the moment, springing out of these thoughts, is just the volume of noise in the blogosphere. I’ve likened it in the past to being at a party where everyone in the room is shouting, but no one is actually listening. Conversation is thus impossible. To converse we must be quiet and listen, and digest what others are saying, and reflect and then reply.

(By the way – welcome to those readers who’ve made it past the 240 word mark. You’ve done better than most web-readers do, according to studies)

For me the ‘emerging conversation’ has become too much like a whole bunch of people mouthing off… Pretending to listen, by occasionally quoting others, but, for the most part, just yabbering on about their little world regardless of what others are saying. In the book I mention some of the conditions under which a system might become ‘emergent’, or ‘self-organizing’, or ‘a learning system’, to use different syntax. One of the key conditions is an ability to sense and respond to its environment. And this requires careful listening. I think we’ve lost the art.

So I’m moving over to a new blogging-style system called Conch. The creators say that Conch is “designed to emphasise the connectedness side of being part of a network, not unlike sitting round a dinner table, where certain rules about listening before speaking are important.”

You thus start by creating what they call a ‘table’ of other members. Once your table is set, you can begin posting, just as you would with any other blogging system. The difference is in the discussion element. Conch uses an algorithm to detect how the conversation around any post is going, and table members can rate other members’ comments. These ratings are then used, along with the algorithm, to invite a member of the table to post a new thought once discussion around the previous one has died down. This member can then either: post a new piece or defer to someone else in the group who they feel ought to ‘have the conch’ that time round – the allusion obviously being to Golding’s Lord of the Flies. Such a deferral gains a member ratings; members can force a new post themselves, but doing so is ratings-costly.

Of course, for the small part of the bell-curve who made it to the end of a post this long, you’ll realize Conch doesn’t exist. But sometimes, amidst the noise and haste of a movement that appears to be whirling around in hyperspace like a dervish, constantly spinning and going nowhere fast, I wish it did. Thus ends, according to Technorati, the 17,754th post on ‘emerging church’, the 100th in 24 hours, and that’s including a Sunday, when good bloggers like TSK don’t even post

Technorati: Bauman | Blogging | Conch | Emerging Conversation | Golding | Lord of the Flies | Stasuik

With the release of the book, people have been wondering if this is just ‘another emerging church book’. I’d like to answer that with an emphatic no!

Part of the reason for that is, I feel less and less confident about the use of the term ‘emerging church’ anyway; like verbal spun sugar it appears to mean something, but on closer analysis, appears to shapeshift into anything you like.

Two points to make: firstly, when I wrote the original version – ‘The Complex Christ’ – back in 2003/4, I had never heard of the umbrella organization ‘Emergent‘. I think what Emergent is trying to do is, in many ways, fantastic, but my use of the term ‘emergent’ (lower case) in the book actually refers to the science of emergence/complexity/self-organzation.

Secondly, then, the book is not about the emerging church, but it is about how the church could ‘emerge’ – it is, as the opening sentence says, a book about change. I strongly believe that all arms of the church need to change – to listen to and adapt themselves to meet the challenges of their local situations. The thesis of the book is that this is what we see God doing in the incarnation, and that ‘theomorphosis’ gives us an archetype for how we too might change.

So the book is for all Christians who feel the divine itch of dissatisfaction with their church – Anglican, Baptist, Pentecostal, Alternative… I’ve had some wonderful feedback from all corners. It offers no ‘off the shelf’ solution for what the perfect church should look like, but rather some DNA code to take and evolve into some wonderful beast totally suited to the local environment the reader may find themselves in, whether that be South London, South Bronx or South Africa.

In other words, it’s for you, so click the link and purchase now

Technorati: Signs of Emergence | Emergent | Kester Brewin

He includes this diagram, which prodded me to think not only about how renewal occurs within religion, but more generally about how religions are founded.

Mark notes: “Arbuckle talks about three stages; 1) Initial unease, the separation stage. One could talk about a sense of disconnection and a growing awareness of the dissonance between the action and the foundation story of the community/group. 2) The liminal stage or reflection stage “that moment between old patterns of reality and new ways of looking at reality”. In this stage Arbucle says there is a point of choice; do we seek to retreat, to wallow in nostalgia, to cling to past securities, do we try to stand still and maintain the status quo, to be paralysed by the chaos or do we “move forward with risk and hope in an uncertain world”? 3) Re-aggregation, or re-entry. A new application of the vision and story of the community.”

I wish I’d read it before – it resonates well with the Advent/Incarnation/Emergence path that I identified in the book. More generally, If we think about Abraham, and his unease at life in Ur, and Jesus and his unease at the way Judaism had gone, or about Mohammed, and his dissatisfaction at the way the Makkan’s were living, or about Guru Nanak, coming back out of the river after 3 days, claiming ‘There is no Hindu, there is no Muslim’… We could go on.

All of these people had some sort of ‘epiphany’ and saw beyond the local claims of a bounded worship to something unified. All of them radically went through Arbuckle’s stages as outlined above, and all of them suffered for it.

And in each case, those who have come after them claiming to lead and carry on their movement have solidified that boundary, have ‘kept order’ once that place has been found, and made it difficult for renewal to continue.

Why? Why do we always screw it up? Why do we always have to tie things down and bind them? And how long before this happens to the Emerging Church?

Technorati: Abraham | Arbuckle | Hinduism | Islam | Judaism | Mohammed | Nanak | Sikhism

The only teleportation reference in the Bible?

Anyway, seems like they’ve finally worked out how to do it. A brilliant paper by a top US defense scientist on practical teleportation can be found here

Best quote from it:

A traveler stepping through the throat will simply be teleported into the other remote spacetime region or another universe (note: the Einstein equation does not fix the spacetime topology, so it is possible that wormholes are inter-universe as well as intra-universe tunnels)

In other words, we can teleport you. But we’ve no idea where you’ll end up. Could be somewhere in this universe, could be somewhere in a parallel one.

Volunteers? If Apple release iTeleporter, who’ll use it in a service first, Grace or Moot? My money would be on iKon turning up at Greenbelt and causing havoc with it

It’s a Parisian social networking site that is helping people to meet their neighbours.  Which is great. Sort of.

Of course it’s a positive thing that people are meeting up. But it worries me that it has taken the mediation of a website to do so. The proof of the pudding will, of course, be in the eating: will the site reinvigorate community and neighbourly feeling so effectively that it won’t be needed in the future?

I hope so. I am currently reading The Challenges of Ivan Illich – a series of essays by some of Illich’s collaborators – and there is a piece there entitled ‘Hospitality Cannot be a Challenge’ which I think is pertinent…

Illich was a radical in all senses: a radical Catholic, a radical academic, an iconoclast unafraid to challenge even the most basic elements of modern society. He was against institutional education, seeing it simply as an organ to feed an institutionalized society. He instead – and this is 1971 remember – proposed “educational webs which heighten the opportunity for each one to transform each moment of his living into one of learning, sharing, and caring.”

This highlights Illich’s grand vision: care for one another. He wanted most to be remembered for hospitality:

“I do think that if I had to choose one word to which hope can be tied it is hospitality. A practice of hospitality recovering threshold, table, patience, listening, and from there generating seedbeds for virtue and friendship on the one hand. On the other hand radiating out for possible community, for rebirth of community.”

But such hospitality should not, the essay proposes, been seen as a ‘challenge’. Challenges are for technology, problems that need to be worked out logically. “It is absurd to talk of a guest and a host challenging each other to live under the same roof” – there should be no battleground here.

Instead hospitality – the act of meeting ‘the other’ – is a mindset, a philosophy, a way of the heart. So while I’m sure Illich would have applauded the creators of Peuplade for getting people together, I’m not sure he would have been enthralled by the prospect of a society where it took computers to do so. If it takes technology to mediate us to our neighbours, I’m not sure we’ve got the philosophy of hospitality right yet.

Technorati: Illich | Peuplade | Hospitality

Having written the book and reflected on it for a while, I’ve been wondering what the essence of it really is. In a world where brutal dictators are hung, with violence piled upon violence, where the birthplace of our faith rips itself apart in acts of frustrated self-harm, and – as the BBC reported the other day – in a country where four fifths of the population don’t think that good relationships with neighbours is important… In such a world as this, what possible relevance could a book paralleling the theory of emergent systems with the gospel have?

As 2007 begins, I’ll begin with the only conclusion I can come to: love thy neighbour.

Complex, emerging systems such as you might read about in the book – or in more depth in Steven Johnsons Emergence – rely on the local, neighbourly connection. The grand designs of our minds, the viral web of the internet… neither of these rely on high-level connection. They work because at the low level they are interconnected.

In 2007 what can we do to stop the global violence, to prevent climate change, to improve our cities, to build bridges across the divides in and around our beliefs? Only one thing: make low-level connections. Walk, don’t take the car. Be kind. Show love to those who disagree with you.

A recent commentator on the radio highlighted the problem of dealing with anti-social behaviour in a world where there is no neighbourly relationships: the only route is to call the police, which ramps up the tension and solves little in the long term. It’s very hard to be antisocial when you are in good relationship with your neighbours.

So perhaps we are left with this single resolution as we head into 07: try to love our neighbours more. Why? Well, as the aboriginal leader Lilla Watson said,

"If you have come to help me you are wasting your time. But if you have come because your liberation is bound up with mine, then let us walk together."

This interdependence is, I believe, at the heart of the gospel, and at the heart of what I’ve tried to write about.

Peace,

Technorati: Civilization | Emergence | Emerging Church | Love | New Year | Neighbour | Saddam