Seize the Means of Community

In the previous post, we explored Richard Rorty's key concepts—contingency, irony, solidarity, and final vocabularies—laying the groundwork for understanding how the Communitarium Project might build upon and extend them. Now, let’s take a closer look at Rorty’s concept of solidarity and examine both its potential and its limitations. Can we envision a form of solidarity that is less fragile, more collective, and embedded in a community that continuously sustains itself?

Contingent Solidarity

For Rorty, solidarity is contingent—it emerges from shared vocabularies and the empathetic connection that grows out of these shared ways of talking and understanding. Solidarity, in his view, is not something rooted in universal truths or some essential feature of human nature. Instead, it is built in the everyday, through the act of imagining ourselves in the place of others, using the language that binds us together for a time.

But this solidarity is always precarious, because the vocabularies that form its basis are themselves contingent, ever-changing. Solidarity, then, must be continuously reimagined and renewed as vocabularies evolve. This raises a challenging question: How do we create durable communities when the very foundation of our shared experience—our language—seems to be in constant flux?

Might the fragility of Rorty’s solidarity be a strength, forcing us to remain adaptable? Or does it point to a need for more structured mechanisms of communal maintenance, something the Communitarium Project seeks to address?

Contingency In Rorty | The Communitarium Wiki

The Fragility of Rortyan Solidarity

Rorty’s solidarity is powerful in its emphasis on empathy, but it is also fragile. If solidarity depends on shared vocabularies, what happens when those vocabularies shift or fracture? If we accept that language is contingent—always subject to historical and cultural change—then we must also accept that solidarity, in Rorty’s sense, can never be fully stable. It must be continuously negotiated, continuously worked at.

But here’s where the Communitarium Project steps in. While Rorty’s solidarity may seem to fade as vocabularies evolve, we might ask: What if we could structure solidarity in a way that it doesn’t dissolve as quickly in the face of contingency? Can we design communities where solidarity is maintained even as the frameworks we use to make sense of the world shift?

This is not about fixing vocabularies in place, but about creating practices and interactions that keep the community coherent, even as its language evolves.

Is it possible to develop rituals or forms of schmooze-level interaction that preserve communal bonds in the face of linguistic and cultural change? How would these practices look in a living, breathing community?

Toward a More Durable Solidarity

The Communitarium Project is, in many ways, a response to the limits of Rorty’s vision of solidarity. While Rorty’s approach emphasizes the beauty and necessity of empathetic connection through language, it leaves us with the problem of how to sustain these connections over time. How can solidarity persist when it is based on vocabularies that are always in motion?

The Communitarium seeks to create a structured medium in which solidarity is not just a byproduct of shared vocabularies but is actively cultivated and maintained through collective practices. In this sense, the Communitarium aims for a form of solidarity that is more embedded—one that doesn’t simply arise from empathy but is reinforced through ongoing rituals, shared work, and schmooze-level interactions.

Here, we are not just talking about solidarity as a feeling or a momentary connection. We are talking about the possibility of building solidarity into the fabric of communal life, through practices that reinforce the bonds between individuals even as their vocabularies evolve.

What would it take to embed solidarity in this way? What practices and mechanisms could help communities maintain their cohesion as they adapt to new circumstances?

Solidarity In The Communitarium | The Communitarium Wiki

The Role of Language in a Durable Solidarity

Language, for Rorty, is central to solidarity—but its contingency is what makes it so fragile. In the Communitarium, we are interested in whether language might still be flexible and adaptive, but anchored within a structure that allows solidarity to be maintained despite shifts in vocabulary. Could there be a way to institutionalize the flexibility of language, ensuring that communities remain adaptable without losing their sense of coherence?

This is where we begin to see the distinction between Rorty’s individualistic solidarity—rooted in the contingency of language—and the Communitarium’s vision of a collective, embedded solidarity. For Rorty, solidarity can never be fully secure, as it is contingent on the constant renegotiation of vocabularies. In contrast, the Communitarium aims to create a space where solidarity is practiced and maintained through collective effort, even as language continues to evolve.

Is there a way to create a community that values both the contingency of language and the durability of solidarity? Can we imagine a structure where the flexibility of language becomes a source of strength, rather than a source of fragility?

In the next post, we will explore how the Communitarium Project builds on these ideas, expanding solidarity from an individual, empathetic practice to a collective, structured form of community cohesion.

Comments (moderated, scroll down to view):

When we consider Richard Rorty, especially through the lens of his work in Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity, we find ourselves engaging with a philosopher whose ideas seem to resist the very notion of foundational truths. This is not a rejection for the sake of nihilism but rather an invitation to view human knowledge, identity, and solidarity as contingent—shaped by circumstance, language, and historical context. But what does it mean to live in a world where nothing is truly foundational? And how might this fit into the Communitarium Project’s broader goals?

We can begin by exploring several key concepts from Rorty: contingency, irony, solidarity, and final vocabularies. Each of these offers us a way of understanding how human beings make sense of the world—and, more importantly, how we might reimagine our communities through the practice of shared, adaptable meaning-making.

Richard Rorty | The Communitarium Wiki

Contingency

Rorty urges us to embrace contingency, recognizing that our languages, beliefs, and identities are not eternal truths but products of particular histories and cultures. Everything we think and say is contingent on the circumstances we happen to find ourselves in. This is a powerful concept: it frees us from the need to search for absolute truths, but it also calls into question the very foundations upon which we build our lives.

How might we live if we take this seriously? What if we accept that our sense of reality is always subject to change, always open to reinterpretation? In the context of the Communitarium Project, this concept of contingency becomes central to understanding how communities might evolve—flexible, adaptive, and constantly re-creating shared meaning. The question is: How can we work with contingency in a way that enriches, rather than destabilizes, our collective efforts?

Contingency in Rorty |The Communitarium Wiki

Irony

For Rorty, irony is the attitude of recognizing that one's own most deeply held beliefs are contingent and, therefore, open to revision. The ironist is someone who understands that the words and frameworks they rely on are no more grounded in eternal truth than anyone else’s. This constant awareness of contingency creates a space for humility but also for creativity. The ironist is always ready to rethink and redescribe, open to new possibilities for understanding the world.

But here, we begin to see a difference between Rorty's ironist and the kind of community-based engagement envisioned by the Communitarium. The ironist, as Rorty conceives of them, often operates at an individual level—a kind of intellectual solitude. In contrast, the Communitarium seeks to embed this kind of reflective, ironic stance within the fabric of community life, moving from individual redescription to a collective reimagining of shared vocabularies.

Could we, as a community, become collective ironists? What would that look like in practice?

Irony In Rorty | The Communitarium Wiki

Solidarity

Rorty's vision of solidarity is something that emerges not from shared access to universal truths but from the shared experience of suffering and empathy. In his view, we build solidarity by imagining ourselves in the shoes of others and using language to create common ground. This is a fragile form of solidarity—contingent, like everything else, on the continued resonance of shared vocabularies and cultural empathy.

Yet here again, the Communitarium Project seeks to build on Rorty's foundation. If Rorty’s solidarity seems vulnerable to the shifting sands of language, how might we structure communities that can maintain solidarity even as vocabularies evolve? This is where the idea of embedded practices—rituals, schmooze-level interactions, and ongoing collective meaning-making—comes into play. Solidarity, in the Communitarium, is not just about feeling with others in moments of shared understanding; it is about co-creating and continually nurturing the very frameworks that make solidarity possible.

How might these practices take root in everyday community life? Could such a form of solidarity become durable even as everything else remains contingent?

Solidarity in Rorty | The Communitarium Wiki

Final Vocabularies

Rorty introduces the idea of final vocabularies—the terms and descriptions that anchor our understanding of the world, terms we are often unwilling or unable to question without losing a sense of who we are. The ironist, of course, is always aware that these final vocabularies are provisional, that they too are contingent. But for many, these vocabularies feel foundational, non-negotiable.

In the Communitarium, however, we might ask: How do we maintain a community that recognizes the contingent nature of final vocabularies while still preserving the coherence of shared meaning? How do we prevent these vocabularies from becoming static, while ensuring they are robust enough to hold the community together?

This tension—between the necessity of shared vocabularies and the recognition of their contingency—lies at the heart of the Communitarium’s vision for adaptive, creative community-building.

Final Vocabularies in Rorty | The Communitarium Wiki

In the next post, we will delve deeper into Rorty’s notion of solidarity and begin to explore how the Communitarium Project expands on it.

Comments (moderated, scroll down to view):

Reclaiming Sociality: Rethinking Community in the Age of Corporate Control

[I buried an important statement of purpose in a forbidding and unreadable previous post. So here it is again, rewritten and updated, easier to find and to read.]

In the context of modern civilization, many of the intimate community structures that once shaped human life have been fragmented and reconfigured by larger institutional forces. This transformation has often resulted in a commodification of human connection, where once-meaningful interactions are extracted, altered, and repackaged in ways that benefit powerful entities, leaving many of us feeling increasingly disconnected and individualized.

But what if there was a way to reimagine and rebuild our communities to counteract this trend? The Communitarium Project offers a potential path forward.

The Shift in Community Dynamics

Historically, human interactions often occurred in direct, face-to-face settings where decisions were made transparently and collaboratively. However, over the past few centuries, the rise of centralized institutions and corporate algorithms has transformed these interactions into more transactional and profit-driven exchanges. The result has been a shift away from organic communal bonds towards more controlled, monetized forms of engagement.

For instance, social media platforms provide an illusion of connection while primarily serving as tools for data collection and commercial exploitation. Corporate wellness programs and engagement initiatives, while marketed as ways to enhance well-being and collaboration, frequently function as mechanisms for gathering data and reinforcing control.

In this landscape, our natural tendencies for cooperation and meaningful interaction are often co-opted for purposes that may not align with collective good. The rich textures of everyday social interaction have been flattened, standardized, and absorbed into systems that prioritize efficiency and profit.

Introducing the Communitarium Project

The Communitarium Project responds to this trend by aiming to offer an alternative that reconnects with the essence of intimate, small-scale sociality. Drawing from the insights of scholars like Erving Goffman and James Scott, the project seeks to establish platforms that support genuine interaction and collective decision-making.

Central to the Communitarium is its decentralized, open-source design. Unlike corporate platforms, which centralize power and control, the Communitarium operates on local servers, allowing communities to create their own environments for communication and collaboration. This approach seeks to provide tools for building relationships and making decisions in ways that are less susceptible to commercial exploitation and surveillance.

Inspired by the resilience of small-scale social systems, the Communitarium aims to create spaces where communities can thrive without the constraints imposed by large-scale institutions. By focusing on direct, accountable interactions, it strives to counteract the effects of standardization and hierarchical control.

Reclaiming Community

The Communitarium Project represents more than just a technological solution; it is a step towards reclaiming the forms of community that have been diminished in modern society. It acknowledges that the fragmentation and alienation many experience are not inevitable but are the result of deliberate processes of extraction and commodification.

Through fostering environments for open deliberation and shared action, the Communitarium seeks to restore trust, accountability, and transparency in community interactions. It offers a vision of a world where human connection is valued not as a commodity but as a shared resource for building a more equitable society.

Moving Forward

Addressing the challenges posed by current institutional dynamics requires concerted effort and innovation. The Communitarium Project provides a framework for leveraging technology in ways that support rather than undermine human connection. By creating spaces where communities can engage freely, it offers a path towards reimagining how we live and interact together.

This initiative marks the beginning of a journey towards reclaiming and revitalizing our social bonds. The path ahead is complex, but the Communitarium Project represents a meaningful step towards a future where community and connection can flourish on their own terms.

#TheCommunitariumProject

Comments (moderated, scroll down to view):

On Integrating the Communitarium Wiki with Blog Posts

We have perhaps reached the point at which, besides talking about the world in various ways, we must attempt to change it.

The Basic Idea: The Wiki Expands On the Blog Post

As part of the ongoing effort to develop and refine the ideas behind the Communitarium Project, I’ve decided to incorporate a wiki into the process of writing and publishing blog posts. Bare blogging, while useful for outlining thoughts and communicating ideas, doesn’t always lend itself to the more structured and evolving nature of what we’re working on. By adding a wiki, I’m hoping to create a better fit between the nature of these explorations and how we document and elaborate on them.

This integration reflects the experimental nature of the Communitarium Project itself. The wiki is being introduced as an auxiliary platform to help organize, deepen, and interconnect the various ideas, terms, and discussions that have come up in posts, allowing us to build a more coherent and accessible resource over time. Whether or not this proves to be a workable solution remains to be seen, but it’s a step toward a more organized approach to the project.

Here’s what this means in practical terms:

1. The Communitarium Wiki as a Supplementary Resource

The wiki will serve as a central repository where key concepts, terms, and critical discussions are documented and gradually expanded. This includes terms like “information ensembles” and “interpretive frameworks,” which, rather than being repeatedly explained in blog posts, will now be defined and elaborated upon in their own dedicated pages.

This approach also allows us to refine definitions and perspectives over time as discussions progress. The wiki will be an evolving tool, structured to grow with the project rather than offering a static set of definitions and ideas.

2. Reducing Redundancy in Blog Posts

One of the main benefits of integrating the wiki is the ability to link directly to detailed discussions of specific terms or topics rather than having to re-explain them in every post. This should reduce redundancy in blog content while allowing readers to dive deeper into certain ideas if they wish to.

For example, instead of revisiting what an “information ensemble” is in each post, I’ll simply link to the wiki page where it’s already defined and discussed in full. This frees up the blog space to focus on new developments or applications of the concept without sacrificing clarity.

3. Wiki Maps for Transparency and Navigation

As the wiki grows, maintaining a clear structure will be important. To aid in this, I’ll be creating wiki maps that show how the different pages are related and where new content fits into the larger framework. These maps, which will be shared periodically, should help readers (and me) navigate the wiki as it becomes more complex.

4. Coordinating Blog Posts with the Wiki

Going forward, blog posts will be written with the wiki in mind. This means:

  • Links to Existing Wiki Pages: Blog posts will include links to existing wiki entries wherever relevant. These links will help readers explore background information, definitions, or in-depth discussions on key terms.

  • Placeholder Links for Future Pages: When a post introduces a new idea or topic that hasn’t yet been covered in the wiki, I’ll insert a placeholder link to a future wiki page. This indicates that the term will be further elaborated upon in due course.

  • Suggestions for New Wiki Pages: As new concepts arise in blog posts, I’ll suggest corresponding wiki entries. For instance, if a post touches on a new theoretical angle, I’ll propose that it be expanded in the wiki and draft an entry for it.

This approach allows for the blog and wiki to evolve together. Blog posts will inform wiki entries, and the wiki will provide the necessary background for more complex posts, creating a feedback loop between the two platforms.

5. A Forum for Deeper Discussion

I’ve also been experimenting with using NodeBB as a platform for more in-depth, structured discussions. The idea is to move away from the quick, often superficial commentary typically found in blog comment sections, which I’ve found doesn’t suit the kind of engagement these ideas require.

By linking blog posts to corresponding discussions in NodeBB, I hope to encourage a more thoughtful and sustained dialogue around the topics we’re exploring. WriteFreely, which I’ve been using for blogging, doesn’t offer any built-in commenting functionality, and this shift to NodeBB is part of an attempt to address that gap in a way that aligns with the broader goals of the project.

6. A Tentative Step Forward

All of these developments—integrating the wiki, creating wiki maps, coordinating posts with future entries, and experimenting with discussion platforms—are part of an ongoing process to see what works. There’s no guarantee that this approach will be the best fit, but it’s worth trying as we continue to develop the Communitarium Project.

This is very much an experiment in finding the right tools and structures to support the research, prototyping, documentation, and eventual packaging of these ideas for wider use. The goal, ultimately, is to create workable frameworks for building communitaria—initially through online platforms but always with an eye on real-world implications.

I look forward to seeing where this leads and will keep you updated on how these experiments unfold.

Comments (moderated, scroll down to view):

Communitarium Project – IV

Cultivating Civic Engagement and Ecological Evaluation

In previous posts, we've discussed how the Communitarium Project offers an alternative to the capitalist lifestyle by fostering solidarity, mutual aid, and collective action. In this post, we’ll explore how communitaria can play a crucial role in re-educating people in the lost arts of civic engagement and democratic participation. At the same time, we’ll examine how these spaces can serve as laboratories for ecological evaluation, enabling a more holistic, context-sensitive approach to decision-making and problem-solving.

The erosion of civic engagement in modern society is not just a symptom of capitalism—it’s a deliberate feature of what Neal Curtis calls idiotism. This term refers to a state where people are isolated from the public realm, leading to the degradation of their capacity for collective action and shared governance. Under capitalism, we are conditioned to retreat into hyper-individualism, treating public issues as distant, irrelevant, or simply unsolvable. The Communitarium Project aims to reverse this process by creating environments where democratic participation and public life are not only encouraged but required for community well-being.

Rebuilding Civic Engagement

The capitalist system has stripped away much of the infrastructure that once supported vibrant civic life. Town halls, cooperatives, and local councils have given way to consumerist spaces and a politics of disengagement. Communitaria seek to restore these lost forms of social life by providing platforms where people can relearn the practices of cooperation, deliberation, and shared responsibility.

In communitaria, participation is not a choice—it’s a way of life. Members are expected to be active in decision-making, from the management of resources to conflict resolution and project planning. This participatory structure offers a space for training in civic virtues, such as accountability, transparency, and compromise. Unlike the transactional logic of capitalism, which encourages competition and individual gain, communitaria are spaces where collective well-being is prioritized. Here, people can practice solidarity as a learned behavior, not just a response to crisis but an ongoing, deeply ingrained practice.

Training for Cooperation and Deliberation

The Communitarium Project also offers a direct response to the cultural and political isolation fostered by idiotism. In capitalist societies, most people lack meaningful opportunities to engage in governance, often left feeling powerless or indifferent. Communitaria can break this cycle by offering hands-on experience in democratic processes. From electing representatives to organizing community projects, participants gain skills in cooperation, negotiation, and deliberation.

These micro-democracies will serve as real-life laboratories where people can practice self-governance, learning how to navigate the complexities of communal life. By engaging in these processes, participants build the confidence and skills necessary to engage in broader forms of public life beyond the walls of their community. This kind of education can ripple outward, rebuilding a culture of civic engagement that has been systematically dismantled by capitalist structures.

Ecological Evaluation as a Core Practice

But civic engagement is only part of the transformation that communitaria aim to bring about. They also provide an ideal setting for a more holistic, multi-dimensional approach to problem-solving: ecological evaluation. As we discussed in earlier posts, ecological evaluation moves beyond narrow, quantifiable metrics—favoring an approach that accounts for the social, ecological, and communal impacts of decisions. The capitalist evaluative model prioritizes efficiency, profit, and growth, often at the expense of the environment and community well-being. In contrast, ecological evaluation demands that we consider the full spectrum of consequences, recognizing that no decision occurs in a vacuum.

Communitaria, with their emphasis on participatory governance, are natural incubators for this kind of evaluative practice. Decision-making in these spaces isn’t confined to economic metrics; instead, it considers the broader effects on relationships, ecosystems, and community health. By embedding ecological evaluation into the fabric of communitaria, we can begin to normalize this broader, more thoughtful approach to decision-making.

Shifting the Evaluative Default

In the long run, communitaria could shift the default approach to evaluation away from capitalist models. Over time, members would come to see ecological evaluation as the natural way to make decisions, whether they are managing communal resources, developing infrastructure, or resolving disputes. By regularly practicing this form of evaluation, they would develop a richer sense of how their choices impact not only their immediate community but also the wider world. This would mark a profound cultural shift, one in which people come to value complexity and interconnection over efficiency and reductionism.

Communitaria thus represent more than just an alternative lifestyle. They are spaces where people can relearn both the lost skills of civic engagement and the lost art of evaluating holistically. In contrast to the alienation and isolation of capitalism, communitaria provide environments in which members can actively participate in the governance of their own lives, practicing solidarity and sustainability as intertwined processes.

Cultivating a New Culture of Solidarity and Evaluation

By combining participatory governance and ecological evaluation, communitaria offer a blueprint for rebuilding public life in a post-capitalist world. As these communities proliferate, they could create a new culture in which people not only engage in collective decision-making but also approach every issue with a broader understanding of value—recognizing the interconnectedness of social, environmental, and personal well-being.

In this sense, communitaria are not merely alternatives to capitalist living; they are crucibles in which new ways of thinking, acting, and evaluating can be forged. Over time, as more people experience these new systems of incentives, constraints, and values, they may begin to shift away from the capitalist lifestyle without even consciously opposing it. Instead, they will simply adopt new habits of life that prioritize cooperation, sustainability, and collective well-being.

The Communitarium Project, therefore, offers not just a critique of capitalism but a vision of how to build something better—one community at a time. By embedding civic engagement and ecological evaluation into everyday life, it provides a practical path toward creating a more just, sustainable, and meaningful world.

The Communitariun Project, Part I: Living the “Capitalist Lifestyle” Without Knowing It

The Communitarium Project, Part II: Imagining a New Way of Life: From Capitalist Erosion to Real Utopias

The Communitarium Project, Part III: Combatting “Idiotism” and Rebuilding Our Collective Life Through the Communitarium Project

#TheCommunitariumProject

Comments (moderated, scroll down to view):

Communitarium Project – III

Combatting “Idiotism” and Rebuilding Our Collective Life Through the Communitarium Project

One of the greatest challenges in building alternatives to the capitalist lifestyle is confronting the way in which our very ability to participate meaningfully in society has been eroded. Neal Curtis, in his book Idiotism: Capitalism and the Privatization of Life, describes how capitalism has systematically “privatized” our social existence, reducing our capacity to engage with others and view ourselves as part of a collective. Curtis argues that this privatization creates what he calls idiotism—not in the pejorative sense of the word, but derived from the Greek idiotes, meaning someone who is concerned only with their private affairs and removed from public life.

In this post, we explore how the Communitarium Project seeks to combat idiotism by rebuilding the collective sphere of life. In a world where our attention, relationships, and communities are constantly commodified, communitaria offer an alternative that reclaims these basic human needs for collective good, restoring meaning to our interactions and relationships beyond their market value. Through this process, we can confront the capitalist forces that keep us isolated, hyper-individualized, and disconnected from our ability to act collectively.

Idiotism: The Privatization of Life

Under capitalism, we are increasingly encouraged to live as isolated individuals. The idea of being part of a community, or seeing oneself as responsible to and for others, has been replaced by the imperative to compete, consume, and maximize personal gain. Curtis’ notion of idiotism captures how capitalism shrinks the scope of our lives, directing our energies inward toward private concerns—our careers, our purchases, our individual successes—at the expense of any sense of broader solidarity or public responsibility.

Idiotism is more than just a retreat from civic engagement; it is a fundamental reshaping of how we experience the world. As consumers, we are trained to view everything through the lens of individual utility. Our relationships, attention, and time become commodities to be bought, sold, and optimized for personal benefit. Even basic human capacities like trust, cooperation, and care for others are reshaped into transactional, market-driven interactions.

In this way, idiotism dovetails with the capitalist lifestyle. Under the current hegemonic system, people are often unaware that their daily choices and actions—far from being “free”—are deeply shaped by capitalist ideologies that prioritize individualism, consumption, and competition. Our sense of solidarity and shared purpose is eroded, replaced by a world where public life is minimized, and we retreat into our own private spheres.

The Communitarium as a Solution to Idiotism

The Communitarium Project seeks to confront this privatization by rebuilding public, collective spaces for meaning generation and social life. In contrast to idiotism, communitaria offer a lifestyle that is rooted in community, cooperation, and shared responsibility. Rather than seeing themselves as isolated consumers, members of a communitarium experience a way of living that is grounded in mutual aid, collaboration, and care for others.

Within communitaria, people actively engage in the governance, management, and nurturing of their communities. The spaces themselves are designed to foster these connections. Whether they are physical, digital, or a blend of both, communitaria provide a platform where people can contribute to and benefit from collective life. From shared resources to cooperative decision-making, these communities offer a radical alternative to the privatized existence that capitalism promotes.

One of the key ways the communitarium combats idiotism is by providing structures where people can see the tangible results of their cooperation. For example, instead of relying on corporate-owned services to meet their needs, communitarium members might collectively grow food, run community kitchens, or develop shared housing. This fosters a sense of ownership and responsibility that goes beyond individual consumption and helps people recognize the power of collective action.

Reclaiming the Intimate Processes of Social Life

In the first post, we discussed how capitalism has “fracked” the most intimate processes of social reality—our trust, attention, and ability to cooperate—and turned them into resources to be exploited at scale. This not only commodifies our relationships but also distorts the very nature of what it means to be human. Under capitalism, our ability to connect with others is repurposed into something transactional, which strips away the deeper meanings that can only be found in genuine, non-market-driven interactions.

The Communitarium Project offers a space to reclaim these processes. By building communities that prioritize human connection over market value, communitaria restore the capacity for trust, cooperation, and solidarity. Members of a communitarium are not competing with each other for scarce resources or trying to maximize personal gain; instead, they are building a community that supports collective well-being. This restores the schmooze-level social reality—the day-to-day interactions and meaning-making processes that form the bedrock of human life, but which have been so deeply exploited under capitalism.

Communitaria create the conditions for these basic social processes to thrive by removing the incentives for competition and consumption. They offer a space where people can focus on mutual support, shared goals, and collective decision-making. In doing so, they actively counteract the hyper-individualism that capitalism encourages and create a culture where solidarity and cooperation are valued over personal gain.

Resisting Hyper-Individualism Through Solidarity

One of the most insidious effects of idiotism is the way it isolates us, making collective action seem impossible. The idea of solidarity—of acting together for mutual benefit—feels foreign to many people who have been trained to see themselves as competitors in a zero-sum game. This hyper-individualism not only impedes our ability to work together but also leaves us vulnerable to exploitation, as we are less able to organize and demand better conditions for ourselves and our communities.

The Communitarium Project directly challenges this by creating spaces where solidarity is not just a theoretical concept but a lived reality. In a communitarium, members see firsthand how their collective efforts can create positive change. Whether it’s through shared governance, resource pooling, or mutual support systems, communitaria provide a model for how people can come together to meet their needs without relying on the market or the state.

Over time, as more people experience life in a communitarium, the capitalist narrative of hyper-individualism begins to break down. People start to see that cooperation is not only possible but preferable—that solidarity can provide security and fulfillment in ways that capitalism cannot. The communitarium becomes a seedbed for new forms of social organization, where people learn to trust each other again, where mutual aid replaces competition, and where collective well-being is prioritized over individual gain.

Toward a Collective Future

Ultimately, the Communitarium Project represents a bold vision for combatting idiotism and reclaiming our collective life. By creating spaces where people can reconnect with one another and with the deeper, non-commodified processes of social reality, communitaria offer a real alternative to the privatized existence that capitalism promotes. They provide a model for how we can live differently, rooted in solidarity, cooperation, and mutual aid.

As these communities grow and proliferate, they have the potential to erode the capitalist structures that keep us isolated and disconnected. The more people experience the value of collective life, the less they will be drawn to the hyper-individualism of capitalism. In this way, communitaria offer a path toward a future where idiotism is replaced by a renewed sense of shared purpose and public life—a future where solidarity and cooperation are not just ideals but realities.

In the next post, we will explore how the Communitarium Project can scale up these efforts and create lasting, structural change that extends beyond individual communities. By building networks of communitaria, we can begin to lay the groundwork for a new way of organizing society—one that prioritizes human connection, collective responsibility, and the common good. Stay tuned for more on how we can bring this vision to life.

The Communitariun Project, Part I: Living the “Capitalist Lifestyle” Without Knowing It

The Communitarium Project, Part II: Imagining a New Way of Life: From Capitalist Erosion to Real Utopias

The Communitarium Project, Part IV: Cultivating Civic Engagement and Ecological Evaluation

#TheCommunitariumProject

Comments (moderated, scroll down to view):

The Communitarium Project – II

Imagining a New Way of Life: From Capitalist Erosion to Real Utopias

[What follows was largely generated by ChatGPT, after extensive prompting by me. It conveys my basic thoughts pretty well but... ChatGPT is prone to a style I call 'corporate rah-rah', stating as certainty things I am more comfortable proclaiming as possibilities. I have, in one place below, crossed out ChatGPT's phrasing and substituted my own. Elsewhere I have inserted my own writing — surrounded by brackets. I have not made as many changes as I deem warranted but those changes I have made should be enough to give you an idea of how I would do so.

One big point I should make clear: Although in what follows it is sometimes unclear, my immediate vision of the Communitarium Project is strictly one of the forging of online spaces. I thinks such spaces can serve as think tanks, laboratories, prototypes, and staging grounds for the larger projects of “capitalist erosion” which will be required in the real world. I also believe that, in important ways, the online world is more vulnerable to collective action than are institutions of the real world, something which I believe the rise of TikTok demonstrates.

And now, our feature presentation: ]

Introduction

If the first step in resisting the capitalist lifestyle is recognizing it for what it is, the next step is imagining alternatives. What does it mean to live differently? And how do we create spaces where people can experience a lifestyle that doesn’t revolve around productivity, consumption, and individual competition?

In this post, we explore how the Communitarium Project can foster a new way of living by drawing on the ideas of Erik Olin Wright, particularly his notions of “real utopias” and “capitalist erosion.” Wright’s work provides a useful framework for understanding how small, intentional efforts can challenge capitalism and create viable alternatives, even within the system itself.

The Power of Real Utopias

Erik Olin Wright’s concept of “real utopias” starts from a simple but radical premise: Utopian thinking—envisioning a better, more just world—isn’t just a matter of fantasy or speculative fiction. Instead, utopian ideals can guide the creation of real-world institutions, practices, and communities that embody those ideals. Wright believed that we can experiment with different forms of organization and social relations that represent the values we want to see flourish in society. These experiments might start small, but their success lies in their ability to demonstrate that alternatives to capitalism are not only possible but desirable.

A “real utopia” is a space where cooperation, equity, and collective well-being are prioritized over competition and profit. It’s a place where the values that often seem out of reach in a capitalist society—solidarity, mutual aid, sustainability—are made tangible. Wright believed that real utopias could act as prefigurative models, showing that a different world is possible even within the constraints of our current system.

The Communitarium Project is, in essence, a real utopia. It envisions intentional communities—both physical and digital—where people can organize their lives around principles that subvert the capitalist logic. Within communitaria, the lifestyle isn’t driven by market incentives or individual gain, but by cooperation and shared responsibility. These communities offer a lived experience of an alternative way of life, not as an abstract theory but as a tangible, practical reality.

Capitalist Erosion: Chipping Away at the System

Wright’s idea of “capitalist erosion” refers to the process by which alternative institutions gradually weaken the hold of capitalism by providing functional, attractive alternatives to capitalist structures. Rather than waiting for a revolutionary overthrow of the system, capitalist erosion suggests that the slow, steady growth of non-capitalist practices can undercut capitalism’s dominance.

One key mechanism of capitalist erosion is the creation of spaces where people can meet their needs in ways that do not rely on capitalist markets. This is where the Communitarium Project plays a critical role can play a role. By building communities based on collective ownership, shared resources, and cooperative decision-making, communitaria [can] erode the capitalist lifestyle by offering an alternative that is not only feasible but preferable. The more people engage with these spaces, the more they begin to see that capitalism is not the only option.

For example, within a communitarium, members might [,eventually,] collectively own resources, such as housing, food production systems, or even digital infrastructure. [More immediately, they can certainly undertake to create and own their own digital platforms. ] Decisions about how to allocate resources are made democratically, prioritizing the collective well-being of the group over profit or individual gain. In doing so, the communitarium offers an alternative to the hyper-individualism and consumerism of capitalist life. It shows that people can meet their needs through solidarity and cooperation rather than competition and accumulation.

Over time, as more people participate in communitaria and other non-capitalist spaces, the dominance of capitalist institutions can be eroded. This is not to say that capitalism will disappear overnight, but that its hold on everyday life can be weakened as people find ways to live outside its logic. The proliferation of real utopias—like the communitarium—can slowly undermine the capitalist system by providing functional alternatives that chip away at its monopoly on organizing social life.

Creating the Conditions for Capitalist Erosion

One of the most important tasks of the Communitarium Project is to create the conditions for capitalist erosion to take place. This means not only establishing communitaria but also making them accessible and attractive to people who are accustomed to living within a capitalist framework. It’s important to recognize that most people living a capitalist lifestyle aren’t actively choosing it—they’re simply responding to the incentives and constraints of the world around them. The challenge is to create spaces where different incentives and constraints exist, so people can experience a new way of living without feeling like they have to “opt out” of the system.

This is where Wright’s concept of “interstitial transformation” becomes useful. Rather than seeking to confront capitalism head-on, interstitial transformation involves building alternative practices within the cracks and margins of the system. The Communitarium Project aims to build these “cracks” by creating spaces where people can experiment with new ways of organizing their lives—ways that are not bound by the logic of the market but instead prioritize human connection, mutual aid, and sustainability.

For example, a communitarium might offer a platform for resource-sharing that operates outside of traditional market mechanisms. People could share tools, skills, or even housing in ways that prioritize collective well-being over individual gain. In doing so, they are participating in a small-scale version of what a post-capitalist world could look like, while also weakening capitalism’s grip on their lives.

Living the Alternative

The most powerful aspect of the Communitarium Project is that it allows people to live the alternative, rather than merely theorize about it. One of the challenges in confronting capitalism is that it feels so all-encompassing, so totalizing, that imagining life beyond it can seem impossible. But real utopias like communitaria show that another way of life is not only imaginable but already happening.

The key to capitalist erosion lies in making this alternative lifestyle accessible, attractive, and sustainable. As more people come to see the value of cooperation, mutual aid, and shared responsibility, the capitalist lifestyle will begin to feel less inevitable. In the next posts, we’ll explore how the Communitarium Project can build the structures and networks necessary to make this new way of living a reality for more people, and how the gradual erosion of capitalist norms can open the door to a more just and sustainable world.

Stay tuned as we delve into the specific practices, values, and structures that communitaria can offer, and how these real utopias can grow and proliferate to create lasting change.

The Communitariun Project, Part I: Living the “Capitalist Lifestyle” Without Knowing It

The Communitarium Project, Part III: Combatting “Idiotism” and Rebuilding Our Collective Life Through the Communitarium Project The Communitarium Project, Part IV: Cultivating Civic Engagement and Ecological Evaluation

#TheCommunitariumProject

Comments (moderated, scroll down to view):

The Communitarium Project – I

Living the “Capitalist Lifestyle” Without Knowing It

Introduction

Most of us don’t wake up each day and consciously decide to live according to capitalist values. In fact, many people don’t even think about their daily decisions in terms of capitalism. We simply make the best choices we can—about what jobs to take, what products to buy, how to spend our time—based on what’s available to us. Yet, whether we realize it or not, we’re living within a “capitalist lifestyle.” This doesn’t mean we’re all rabid defenders of capitalism, but rather that the systems of incentives, constraints, and ideas that shape our lives overwhelmingly favor and reinforce capitalist structures.

Let’s break this down. The capitalist lifestyle refers to more than just engaging in a market economy or holding certain political beliefs. It’s a pattern of living that centers on productivity, consumption, and individual achievement. These values have become so deeply embedded in our culture that we rarely stop to question them, much less recognize that they belong to a particular system. Instead, they feel like “just the way things are.” We work hard to achieve personal success (or even just to keep our heads above water), compete with others to get ahead, and consume products and services to meet our needs or improve our status. The world is built to reward these behaviors, so naturally, we follow along.

The Invisible Hand of Capitalist Incentives

What’s crucial here is that most people living within this capitalist framework don’t necessarily know they’re doing so. It’s not a matter of choosing to support a capitalist system out of ideological commitment; it’s simply the way the world around us operates. From an early age, we are taught to measure success in terms of financial gain, professional advancement, and personal achievement. Schools train us for competitive careers, workplaces reward us for maximizing productivity, and the broader culture celebrates consumption as a form of self-expression. These incentives are so pervasive that we often accept them without a second thought.

Consider the following examples:

  • Education: Students are steered toward degrees and careers that promise the highest earnings potential, with little attention given to what kind of work benefits society as a whole or fosters personal fulfillment.
  • Work: Jobs are increasingly precarious and competitive, rewarding those who hustle hardest, while collective efforts or community-oriented careers are undervalued.
  • Leisure: Our free time is filled with activities designed to keep us consuming—whether through streaming services, shopping, or engaging with social media—all of which operate on platforms that profit from our participation.

These examples show that the capitalist lifestyle isn’t just about working in a capitalist economy; it’s about how we internalize the values of that system, how it shapes our behavior, and how it limits our options. When the incentives of the system steer us toward individualism and consumption, it’s hard to imagine alternatives that prioritize cooperation, solidarity, or community well-being.

A Way of Life by Default

Because capitalism is so ingrained in our daily lives, we often don’t recognize that our choices are being made within a constrained system. It’s like living inside a box where all the rewards and signs of success point in one direction: individual gain. And the more we follow those signs, the more we reinforce the capitalist system itself.

This doesn’t mean we’re powerless or that people can’t resist. In fact, many people are already trying to live outside these constraints by prioritizing communal activities, adopting sustainable living practices, or organizing collective projects. But the system as it stands makes these choices difficult to sustain. The “capitalist lifestyle” isn’t just about how we spend our money or time—it’s a whole way of thinking about ourselves and our place in the world. It’s a structure that encourages us to believe that personal advancement is the highest goal and that success comes from maximizing our individual potential.

Breaking Free: Awareness as the First Step

The first step to challenging the capitalist lifestyle is recognizing it for what it is: not an inevitable reality, but a system that shapes our choices and values. We don’t need to subscribe to anti-capitalist ideologies to begin questioning this lifestyle. Instead, we can start by asking ourselves how much of our daily life is driven by external incentives that reinforce individualism, productivity, and consumption at the expense of community, cooperation, and mutual well-being.

What would happen if we designed a lifestyle that rewarded different behaviors—where the systems of incentives and constraints were restructured to prioritize collaboration over competition, shared resources over personal wealth, and collective well-being over individual achievement? This question brings us to the heart of the Communitarium Project.

In the following posts, we’ll explore how the Communitarium Project aims to create spaces where people can experience a new way of living, one that doesn’t rely on opposing capitalism directly but instead offers a viable and appealing alternative. Through these intentional communities—both online and offline—people can start to see the possibilities for a different kind of life, one that is built on cooperation, solidarity, and mutual care.

In short, the capitalist lifestyle might be the default for now, but it doesn’t have to be the only option. Stay tuned as we dive deeper into how we can begin to shift from the invisible hand of capitalism to something more meaningful and sustainable for everyone.

The Communitarium Project, Part II: Imagining a New Way of Life: From Capitalist Erosion to Real Utopias

The Communitarium Project, Part III: Combatting “Idiotism” and Rebuilding Our Collective Life Through the Communitarium Project The Communitarium Project, Part IV: Cultivating Civic Engagement and Ecological Evaluation

#TheCommunitariumProject

Comments (moderated, scroll down to view):

Long ago, in a galaxy far away, I thought I might undertake to become a writer of comedy. That thought was dashed when:

  • Having submitted a sketch to an aspiring comedy duo (one-half of whom I'd attended college with) I was told: “We wanted a comedy script, not an IQ test!”;

  • A ventriloquist wanted me to help him develop a bit for a new dummy, named Dick, a talking penis..and I. JUST. COULDN'T. — (an extended riff on cruise missiles was deemed off point);

  • A friend of mine from high school, who mostly performed comedy on public access cable channels, wanted me to write the inner monologue of a fly crawling over a mound of shit of indeterminate origin (hard pass)

Somewhere inside, despite my failure, the aspiration to produce comedy seems to have lingered, despite my faltering stamina and concentration. Given my circumstances, I decided that being a comedy producer, sort of an impressario, would address my stale longing.

So (inspired by my admiration of Sesame Street), I decided to give ChatGPT detailed prompts for a light-hearted script that would incorporate ideas about science and what I am calling “dybbuks”.

This is what I got, self-congratulatory intro and all:

Here’s a vaudevillian-style dialogue featuring Maxine and Louis, the dybbuk-busters, as they hilariously uncover the truth about science and its reliance on “Max's Dybbuks”:

(Scene: Maxine and Louis stand at the entrance to the “Science R Us” headquarters. Maxine is holding a strange glowing gadget while Louis fumbles with a map. Both are dressed like 1930s ghostbusters, complete with hats and trench coats.)

Maxine: (looking at the gadget) Alright, Louis, we’re here to find the dybbuks. The head Ontic says this place is crawling with 'em!

Louis: (confused) Dybbuks? I thought this was a science lab, not a haunted house. What’s a dybbuk doin’ here?

Maxine: (matter-of-fact) It’s not a ghost, Louis. It’s an interpretive framework that sneaks into science and messes with the facts.

Louis: (scratches head) Oh, so it’s like my Uncle Morty at Thanksgiving?

Maxine: (rolling her eyes) No, no. Morty’s just confusing. Dybbuks are different. They help scientists find meaning where there might not be any. They make things look “real,” but they’re sneaky, see? They hide in plain sight.

Louis: (nodding sagely) So...they’re like really smart metaphors that nobody notices?

Maxine: (sighs) Exactly, Louis! And we’re here to get rid of 'em. Ontic says if we exorcise all the dybbuks, science’ll be good as new. Objective, clean, pure facts!

Louis: (squints at map) I dunno, Max. We start evictin’ dybbuks, there might not be much left.

Maxine: (looking stern) Nonsense. Science will be just fine. We’ll start in the Quantum Mechanics Department. I hear it's full of 'em.

(They enter the Quantum Mechanics Department. The lights flicker as they walk in. A giant chalkboard is covered with equations that seem to move on their own.)

Louis: (nervously) Uh, Max? I think I see one. (points at an equation that’s changing itself)

Maxine: (brandishing her gadget) That's the Many-Worlds dybbuk. It makes scientists think every decision splits into a new universe. Let’s bag it.

Louis: (steps back) Wait, wait, wait! If we get rid of that, how are they gonna explain all the weird stuff down here? You know... Schrödinger’s cat, particles actin’ like they’re in two places at once? Ain’t they needin’ a little… wiggle room?

Maxine: (pauses) Well, they’ll just have to get by with one world, like the rest of us!

(She zaps the dybbuk. The equations stop moving. The lights dim.)

Louis: (nervously) Uh, Max? I think you just killed half of theoretical physics. Look! They’re… they’re all standing around scratching their heads!

Maxine: (confidently) Nah, they’ll figure it out. Onward! The Thermodynamics Wing awaits.

(They rush to the next room. It's hot, and there’s a demon-like figure sorting tiny particles. Louis yelps.)

Louis: (panicking) That’s a real dybbuk, Max! Look, it’s sortin’ hot from cold! He’s makin’ physics work backwards!

Maxine: (calmly) That’s Maxwell’s dybbuk. It’s fine. We just zap it and entropy will be back to normal.

Louis: (waving his hands) No, no! You zap that thing, and I bet they can’t explain half the stuff in here! Heat'll be heat again, but where’s the fun in that?

Maxine: Fun? Science isn’t about fun, it’s about facts!

Louis: (nodding) Sure, but facts without a little mystery? You zap this dybbuk, Max, and suddenly all them fancy refrigerators they got in here might stop workin'! People like a little wiggle room. Scientists need their wiggle room!

Maxine: (hesitates) Maybe you’re right. Let’s leave him be... for now.

(They turn to leave, but the dybbuk gives them a sly wink and keeps sorting.)

Maxine: (determined) Okay, we need to hit the Big One. The Framework of Objectivity. You know, the one where they think everything is just “real” without help from any interpretive mumbo-jumbo. Let’s zap that, and science will finally be pure again.

(They head to the central hall of Science R Us. A massive statue of a scientist stands, holding scales labeled “Objectivity.” The statue glows ominously.)

Louis: (looks at the statue) Uh, Max? Are we sure about this? I mean, if we zap this dybbuk... what if it takes out the whole idea of facts? Then where will we be?

Maxine: (frustrated) You think science needs this dybbuk too?

Louis: (shrugs) Maybe? If everyone agrees on the same framework, ain’t that the same as havin’ a framework in the first place? We take it out, and what if nothin’ makes sense no more? No facts, no experiments, no beakers—no science!

Maxine: (pausing, realizing) Oh no… Louis, if we exorcise all the dybbuks… there won’t be any more science!

Louis: (triumphantly) That’s what I’ve been tryin’ to tell ya! Science needs the dybbuks! They’re part of the deal! They help the scientists make sense of all the crazy stuff, give 'em somethin' to work with!

Maxine: (looking around, bewildered) But the head Ontic said…

Louis: (grinning) Maybe the head Ontic don’t like dybbuks ‘cause they’re tricky, but without ‘em, science is just a bunch of numbers floatin’ around! It ain’t about facts, it’s about what the dybbuks help 'em see in those facts.

Maxine: (defeated but amused) So… science is full of dybbuks, and that’s a good thing?

Louis: (cheerfully) You bet! As long as they keep their act together, we’ll be fine. You leave the dybbuks alone, and scientists will keep figurin’ things out.

Maxine: (laughing) I guess we’re out of a job, Louis. No more dybbuk-bustin’.

Louis: (smiling) Nah, we just found out we're in the job. Science needs its dybbuks. Maybe we’ll open a new business: “Dybbuk Protection Services.”

Maxine: (grinning) Now you’re thinkin’ like a scientist, Louis. Wiggle room and all.

(They exit Science R Us, arm in arm, leaving the dybbuks to keep doing their mysterious work.)

End Scene.

The dialogue conveys how interpretive frameworks, represented by the dybbuks, are essential to the functioning of science—removing them would lead to the collapse of scientific inquiry itself. Maxine and Louis gradually discover that the very essence of science relies on these tricky interpretive structures to make sense of the world.

Comments (moderated, scroll down to view):

Dybbuks and Proto-Sociality: 21st Century Science

What follows is a bit of an experiment. Battling a lifelong case of writer's block I poured all my thoughts into prompts to ChatGPT, including a few new terms, and asked it to turn out readable expository prose. It did, but not entirely to my liking. I tweaked with prompts containing clarifications, expansions and corrections and, after a few iterations, we arrived at the following first draft. Much flesh must be added to these bare bones but I think this will give you a good idea of one of the threads I want to pursue in this blog

1) A Dybbuk Is Haunting Science: Rethinking Knowledge in the Age of Information

For centuries, Western science has been an extraordinary engine of knowledge. Through meticulous observation, mathematical reasoning, and experimentation, it has yielded a robust understanding of the natural world—solid, tangible, reliable. This process was accelerated by a guiding assumption: that scientists could, in a sense, glimpse into “God's sensorium,” observing nature directly and yielding objective, ontologically solid results. The intricate frameworks or interpretive systems used to obtain these results could be conveniently left in the background, dismissed as mere instruments rather than integral to the reality they revealed.

This strategy worked wonders during the early phases of scientific discovery. The study of classical mechanics, electromagnetism, and even early thermodynamics didn’t need to wrestle with foundational questions about the frameworks of interpretation. The phenomena studied were, by and large, macroscopic, relatively simple, and resistant to the strange contradictions that would later emerge. Scientists could afford to isolate information from its context, assume objectivity, and discard the scaffolding of interpretation. Nature yielded her truths, or so it seemed.

But what if this approach, successful as it was, concealed a deeper epistemological error? What if the frameworks we so readily discarded were not incidental, but central to understanding the information we extract from nature?

The Cracks Begin to Show

By the mid-19th century, the cracks in this approach began to emerge. Take Maxwell’s Demon—a thought experiment that introduced questions about the role of information in thermodynamic processes. Suddenly, information itself seemed to influence physical outcomes. The demon’s ability to discern the speed of particles, and thus lower entropy, suggested that measurement and observation were not neutral processes but deeply entangled with the behavior of the system.

From there, the cracks only widened.

  • Quantum Mechanics: Here, different interpretations proliferated, revealing deep ambiguity about what we were even observing. Was the wavefunction real? Did particles have definite positions when we weren't looking at them? Interpretive frameworks became unavoidable.

  • Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem: This mathematical result demonstrated that formal systems (and by extension, any scientific system built upon them) had limitations—there would always be truths that could not be proven within the system itself, suggesting that some frameworks of interpretation were incomplete or irreducible.

  • Computation and Complexity: With the advent of computation theory, chaos theory, and complexity science, we began to realize the vast limitations of linear, reductionist frameworks in understanding dynamic, non-linear systems. Information theory suggested that frameworks themselves—how we encode, decode, and manipulate information—were central to understanding the behavior of the systems we studied.

The Role of Information Ensembles and Entities

Despite these developments, the traditional practice of science has been to address these cracks on an ad hoc basis, invoking frameworks of interpretation as needed, but without a wholesale reassessment of their role in shaping the nature of scientific knowledge.

This brings us to the concepts of information ensembles and information entities. Historically, science has focused on entities—the tangible outcomes, the “facts” or data points revealed by experimentation and observation. These entities, however, are always extracted via ensembles—frameworks of interpretation that specify how we measure, what we consider relevant, and which parameters we are willing to ignore.

For example:

  • The mass of an object is meaningless without a framework that tells us how to measure it and what context it exists within. A mass in a vacuum behaves differently from mass on Earth or inside a star.

  • DNA carries genetic information, but only within the interpretive framework of molecular biology. Without that framework, we wouldn't even recognize what constitutes “information” here.

It is in this broader ensemble of interpretive frameworks—let's call it “Max's Dybbuk”—that information entities acquire meaning and relevance. The distinction between what is real and what is contingent on interpretation breaks down under the strain of the deeper complexities we now face.

Toward a Reformulation of Science

It is time to reconsider how we do science. The great successes of the past came from treating information entities as ontologically independent, stripped of their interpretive baggage. But as we've seen, this method is no longer sufficient. We need a more explicit acknowledgment of the role information ensembles play in shaping our understanding of reality.

This does not imply a rejection of realism in science, but it does suggest a shift toward an epistemic humility—one that recognizes the limits of any given interpretive framework and opens the door to multiple valid approaches to understanding complex systems. It also calls for a re-examination of the canon of scientific knowledge: How much of what we consider objective reality is contingent on unexamined information ensembles that might obscure deeper truths?

By reframing science through the lens of information entities and ensembles, we might finally address the cracks that began to show in the 19th century and continue to challenge us today. It’s time to acknowledge that every scientific result carries with it the ghosts—or Dybbuks—of the frameworks that shaped its discovery.

2) From God's Sensorium to Proto-Sociality: Reframing the Foundations of Scientific Inquiry

In Part 1, we explored how the history of Western science has been shaped by an implicit assumption: that scientists, standing in “God's sensorium,” could observe nature directly, extracting real information entities without needing to account for the interpretive frameworks through which these observations were made. This strategy served science well during its early stages, yielding discoveries rapidly and allowing for cumulative progress. But as science ventured into more complex territory, cracks began to appear in this model.

The time has come for a paradigm shift, one that acknowledges the indispensable role of information ensembles—the interpretive frameworks that shape what counts as information in the first place. Yet there’s a deeper, more profound implication here: information ensembles introduce into science a form of proto-sociality, replacing the metaphysical fantasy of a lone observer in God's sensorium with a more grounded, relational model of knowledge.

The Relational Turn: Science as a Collective Endeavor

The assumption that science is carried out from some metaphysical “outside” perspective—an observer detached from the world they observe—has been central to the traditional conception of scientific objectivity. This has meant treating scientific inquiry as a process of extracting truths from nature, much like a miner extracts valuable ore from the earth. But this model no longer suffices in light of what we now understand about information ensembles.

When we acknowledge that information entities are always constituted within ensembles, we are forced to confront the fact that scientific knowledge is inherently relational. These ensembles are not passive background conditions; they are active frameworks that shape the interaction between observer and observed. They establish the rules for measurement, define the boundaries of relevance, and determine the very structure of inquiry.

In essence, they instantiate a form of proto-sociality—a basic form of collective engagement where meaning is generated not in isolation, but in relation to a framework that governs interaction. Just as social reality is constructed through relationships and shared norms, scientific reality is constructed through engagement with information ensembles that mediate between the observer and the world.

Proto-Sociality in Scientific Practice

What do we mean by proto-sociality in this context? In social life, individuals act within systems of shared meaning—languages, customs, norms, and rules—that allow communication and coordinated action. Without these systems, interaction would be chaotic, and mutual understanding impossible.

In science, information ensembles function similarly. They establish a common interpretive structure that scientists rely on to coordinate their observations and findings. A few examples:

  • The Standard Model in Particle Physics: This is not just a collection of facts about subatomic particles; it is an elaborate framework that defines what can be observed, measured, and considered meaningful. It allows scientists across the globe to interpret experimental results in compatible ways, establishing a proto-social context for engagement with fundamental particles.

  • Quantum Mechanics and Interpretive Frameworks: Whether one adopts the Copenhagen interpretation, Many-Worlds, or another, each framework represents a kind of proto-sociality. The framework guides how observations are made, how probabilities are calculated, and how measurements are interpreted, creating a structured interaction between physicists and quantum systems.

  • Statistical Mechanics and Thermodynamics: When calculating entropy or dealing with thermodynamic systems, the choice of interpretive framework defines the relevant parameters (e.g., microstates, macrostates). The proto-sociality here is the shared set of assumptions that allow for the consistent interpretation of statistical measures across different contexts.

The Death of the Lone Observer

The invocation of proto-sociality in science marks the death of the lone observer model. No scientist, no matter how brilliant or insightful, operates in isolation from these interpretive frameworks. The idea that one could directly access the truth of nature without the mediation of a framework now seems untenable.

Instead, science can be seen as a fundamentally collective practice, one that is social not merely in the sense that scientists work in teams or share papers, but in a deeper, more structural sense: science requires participation in shared information ensembles. Just as social reality is sustained by shared norms and values, scientific reality is sustained by shared interpretive frameworks that define the boundaries of what is knowable.

This proto-sociality is what makes science possible. It provides the scaffolding within which individual observations gain meaning and become communicable. Without these frameworks, scientific facts would be nothing more than idiosyncratic data points, disconnected from any larger understanding.

Moving Beyond the Myth of Objectivity

Recognizing proto-sociality within scientific inquiry does not undermine objectivity; it redefines it. Objectivity is no longer about standing outside of the system, viewing it from an impossible God's-eye perspective. Instead, objectivity becomes about participation in a well-structured ensemble, where the rules of engagement are clear, shared, and transparent.

Rather than pretending that our interpretive frameworks are incidental to the reality we uncover, we can embrace them as integral to the process of inquiry. This doesn't mean all frameworks are equal; some are better suited for certain tasks, and their effectiveness can be tested, refined, or replaced as needed. But it does mean that all knowledge is relational—born out of a dialogue between observer and the world, mediated by an ensemble of shared interpretive structures.

Proto-Sociality as a New Foundation for Science

This shift from God's sensorium to proto-sociality represents a new foundation for how we think about science. No longer can we see scientific inquiry as a process of extraction, where information is mined from nature and cataloged as objective fact. Instead, we must see it as a participatory process in which knowledge is forged through interaction within an ensemble.

This shift invites us to be more mindful of the frameworks we use and the assumptions we carry into our inquiries. It also opens the door to a more pluralistic understanding of science, one that recognizes the value of multiple interpretive frameworks and the potential for different ensembles to yield different, yet complementary, insights about the world.

In short, by embracing the proto-sociality inherent in scientific practice, we can move beyond the myth of detached objectivity and toward a richer, more nuanced understanding of the nature of knowledge itself.

Comments (moderated, scroll down to view):