I agree that connectivity is important. Networks are fine and good. My argument is not really against networks or networking. As you point out, individualism (specialization) at the expense of the community (generalization) is as bad as community at the expense of the individual.

On the other hand, I don’t entirely agree with the “replaceable parts” hypothesis. For instance, when Steve Jobs was ousted from Apple, the company disintegrated. He is not replaceable in that company, and any iteration of “Apple” without Steve Jobs will not actually be the same Apple. As Heracleitus (supposedly) said – You cannot step into the same river twice.

Similarly with the body. While a heart-valve transplant from a pig-donor may allow an individual to survive and live for a long time, they will not be able to do the same things they could with their own valve. The brain is an even better example. The brain has an amazing ability to rewire after trauma (“plasticity,” though some would say this is too general a term). But the post-trauma brain is not the same as the pre-trauma brain.

I think you understand this intuitively – “individual nodes…need to…stay healthy on the whole.” But I disagree that they are unimportant or replaceable. Remove or replace a node, and you have something different than what you had before.

My argument above was more a tangent related to some of the implications of taking the network (generalist) approach over/above the individualist approach.

Anti-individualist arguments always stun me. If it is true, and the individual doesn’t matter, why would I listen to Matt Ridley at all? He’s just an individual. He’s of no importance to me.

First off, Ridley is creating a story. He’s selecting pieces of reality to construct an argument that will win you to his side. And in the end, his argument makes no sense – “what’s relevant to a society is how well people are communicating their ideas and how well they’re cooperating, not how clever the individuals are.”

The “mating of ideas” is what matters most. But where do ideas come from? They come from individuals.

The danger I see in this type of thinking is the “group-think” tendencies it generates. Most of the great ideas (or works of art – i.e., any new “perspective”) of Western history were created by individuals who were literally outcast or killed for those same ideas. Many of the other creators of new perspectives were scorned or ridiculed until years later when the thrust of science made it impossible to refute them. It is often these “fringe individuals” who see beyond the status quo. You have to, at times, stand outside of something in order to see it clearly. Being in the network doesn’t allow that. And a network-only approach to creativity or function will create opposition to that type of behavior.

So, while I agree that networking is good, and can be helpful, it can also be harmful, if it is used to discount the individual.

In my Ideal World, we are able to participate in the network (to the level of our own choosing), to benefit from that/those connection(s), and also able to step outside of that network, to view it, to see it as a “thing,” and create – absurdities, new possibilities, suggestions – that are then accepted by the network when we return. Maybe they are not all used, or valued, but at least they are (and this type of behavior is) accepted as good and necessary.

In “uncivilized” cultures, this type of behavior was called a “vision quest,” and was undertaken either by tribe members individually, by the shaman of the tribe (the person designated to be allowed to “go beyond”), or both.

What I question is the story our culture seems to me to be constructing – To me, a story that says that “progress” is always “good.” That progress must continue. That modern technologies necessarily represent progress. That those technologies “fix” things, and it is our job as human beings to “fix” things. And that we must sacrifice individuality, creativity, and aggression for the sake of “the network.”

I think you’re missing a key element of the network model – and the reason why it is extremely robust.

True, no one person knows how to create a piece of technology. But let’s look at it from a systems level. If one person dies, someone else with the same knowledge can fill the gap. Maybe it’s not the exact same knowledge – maybe it’s an equivalent or a parallel – but point is the system will “rewire” and accomplish the same task. The system is massively parallel and it’s not so much the individual nodes that matter so much as the connections between them.

You know what this sounds like, of course… the brain. Massive parallelism. Constant routing and rerouting. The system as a whole is incredibly resilient – knock out one node, or several nodes, and the system compensates.

To me, this suggests some very important questions. First, while the individual nodes are not important to the system, we need to make sure they stay healthy on the whole. Let’s stay with the brain/neuron analogy. We could try to regulate the health of neurons with a constant stream of drugs and procedures, or we could step back, let the body achieve homeostasis, and take care of itself. In our human network, the “nodes,” or people, need to be in their natural environment to function optimally. This means natural movement outdoors, connection to the land and the environment etc.

Second, the true value of such a network is in its connections and its ability for LTP. Specialization is required for the system to work, but overspecialization at the expense of connectivity is useless. We need the specialists to be sure, but we also need the transmitters – the people who have the multidisciplinary skills to move between fields and make these connections. We need lots of them. Without them, the system crashes. So how do we encourage human LTP?

Thank you for this fantastic comment! I love seeing the connections between methodologies!

From the Western numerological tradition (Kabalistic and Egyptian via the Tarot) –
0 –> Fool
1 –> Magician
2 –> High Priestess
3 –> Empress

0 – the Fool is both 0 & 22; the first and last; the beginning and ending of the journey; the innocent child and the old wise fool –> Lao Tzu

1 – the Magician is single pointed consciousness, focus, and action without effort. “In the beginning was the Word”

2 – the High Priestess is Gnosis –> the Wisdom of felt knowing in the body. Divine spirit reflected in Matter. “the breath of Spirit flowed across the surface of the waters” –> water (matter/sub-stance) reflecting (Knowing) the divine

3 – the Empress –> Divine Magic; bringing forth the abundance of nature. The Fool acting (flowing with the Tao) with single pointed focus without effort (Magician), embodying gnosis (the felt, deep knowing and wisdom of the divine reflected in matter) bringing forth divine magic of creativity. The out-flowing of generative creativity and abundance which generates the 10,000 things.
4 is the Emperor who brings order and blessing to the world (the 10000 things). He is in service to all – leg crossed and seated: he gives up his ability to go wherever he wants; holding the staff and globe of office: he gives up personal action; wearing a heavy crown: giving up freedom of mind to fully embody the ideal of emanating order and blessing.
…

I feel that the philosophical basis of our languages (mathematics and numbers being a language too) is so important in order to understand the underlying bases of and relationship with the world.

The stories we tell ourselves and the belief/faith it creates is reflected in the physiology of all our cells… just don’t ask me to prove it. Hahaha!!!!

Speaking of Native Americans and Europeans, have you had a chance to check out Jared Diamond’s “Guns, Germs, and Steel”? If not, you can get the majority of the story from some videos on the web.