Thursday, November 15, 2012

Reading The Third Industrial Revolution

I posted the following in the end of the last hydrogen post but it belongs in a new post, since I'm now reading this book:

"Rifkin's agenda fully answers Bryant's latest rantings against academia as purely intellectual stuff, since Rifkin's ideas of a new energy infrastructure are currently being implemented in the EU. And it is ushering in a new  political economy based on renewable energy, distributed capitalism and democratic sociological restructuring within an emerging and viable P2P paradigm. And all of which far surpasses kennilingus conscious capitalism, still based in the old political economy and social structures."

One of the things Rifkin emphasizes in the book is that all of the pieces of the TIR must be generated, developed, coordinated and implemented simultaneously for it to work. I.e., it is an integral paradigm touching on and integrating all quadrants/zones. He observed that even with more investment in renewable energy sources it was still organized top-down with large-scale, centralized control as part of the old paradigm. While he recognizes that this is necessary as a transition step the goal is to have small-scale distributed renewable energy generation in every home and office building, thus supporting the P2P paradigm. 

Thus I criticize kennilingual conscious capitalism for investing nothing in the P2P paradigm, or in trying to change the economic base and energy infrastructure. I said it may very well be part of the transition process to such a distributed metaparadigm, but due to its focus on primarily the consciousness of individual development to the exclusion of corresponding equivalent enactments in the other quadrants/zones it cannot get very far at all per Rifkin above. To the contrary by not touching on the other paradigms it seems to mostly just reinforce its own insular agenda and profit motive while giving the social tools to corporations to continue and expand its oil-driven, top-down, 1% lifeworld.*

In discussing the energy smart-grid that is now being developed and implemented Rifkin noted that its focus is different in the US and the EU. In the US the energy lobby simply refuses to make the grid lateral and P2P, instead demanding it be centralized and top-down only so that they maintain control and profits. A member of that lobby admitted as much directly to Rifkin. Whereas in the EU, while acknowledging large, centralized investment is necessary to start, their energy lobby is also investing in the lateral capabilities to implement the P2P energy and profit sharing inherent to the TIR.

Their energy companies are realizing that they no longer have to be major producers of energy but can transition into being service agents managing energy usage along the grid for those millions of self-generating homes and offices. It's a completely different mindset and worldview. I'm reminded of Ray Harris' astute observations in "Left, right or just plain wrong?"

"Will an integral political economy be capitalist in character or be a totally new configuration that transcends any previous political economy? Is the integral movement really challenging the cultural norms of society or is there a bias that accepts individualism and capitalism as a given? Is the integral movement coloured by being largely an American phenomenon? Shouldn't the integral movement be truly international and integrate multiple cultural perspectives?"

And as we've observed in the "global capitalism" thread,* kennilingus maintains all of the infrastructure of centralized capital instead of distributed capital, as well as the centralized, top-down governance and proprietary property structure inherent to that economic form instead of the P2P meme. And all the while claiming an integral, postformal structure of consciousness but surrounded with all the accoutrements of formal enactment.

Perhaps we need to define ourselves by what we do and how we do it--our actual enactments--instead of our grand theories of everything? Then we'd get a better picture of our actual development? Like regressives in the last election that truly believed they would win by landslide, perhaps kennlingus needs a Nate Silver to give them an accurate picture they obviously don't want to see. Harris tried but was dismissed as MGM. I don't see that has changed much, ergo no Rifkin in their diet. Or P2P. Or OOO, etc.

Also see Dierkes' blog post "Free market philosophy is not integral."

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.