Size Matters: A look at Social Cohesion in a Society Isolated by Context — an Intro

Smith and those that followed got it right, the division of labor does, in most cases, advance output. The downside to this remarkable insight results in not only more goods and services but the concentration of capital and, unfortunately, greater social isolation or a higher fragmented social order. We have adopted, for better or worse, the ultimate division, the lowest common denominator, of one person/family to everything else. This is justifiable in the drive to participate in this vastly complex society that we are a part of — — essentially a one-to-many problem of social isolation or the simple veneer of social cohesion in the form of social media or collective social organizations.

As the world advances, we, as the smallest units of labor grow smaller in relation to the technostructure that supports us, a structure that grows larger as we diminish in relation to it. As I write this I am keenly aware of my own race to keep up with change but also aware of how abstract and isolated I am. I, like many of you, since this remoteness, the lack of personal contact, and the absents of bonding at the personal level. For some, I am sure, this is fine, perhaps desirable, but for most of us, our sense of worth is more closely tied to a bounding that requires more direct personal interaction. This is not the fault of Smith’s observation but the outcome of an idea, perhaps necessary, at the beginning of the industrial era.

I am not unique in this observation and there are many others who have written about social isolation or a highly fragmented relationship between ourselves that has become the ground beneath our feet. Capital concentrations do not find this type of problem worthy and, indeed benefit, in many ways, a fragmented society based on the common denominator: the individual/family.

Size matters whether at the individual level or in terms of social interaction. Corporations, in many cases, create small groups to develop new or revise existing products — this idea is not atypical but mostly the norm. But what about the opposite, what size in relation to the general problem of living and adding meaning to another person and yourself? This idea is not new and I first thought about it after reading “Small is beautiful” by E. F, Schumacher in the mid-’70s. Schumacher was keenly aware of the scale of human endeavor. Independent of output, scale/size matters, perhaps more than we realize. Unfortunately, there is no fixed answer but only answers that resonate with any given issue. This became my focus in life and unfortunately played a large part in destroying my first marriage, my fault entirely, Essentially, I began with the question of SIZE which relates to scale.

The decades passed and on two separate occasions, I failed into translating size into its physical equivalent. I knew then, as now, that the physical is a prerequisite but the goal is metaphysical — a work in progress-life. Still, form follows function so I will let you the reader judge me on the resulting physical, I am not an architect, simply a person with an idea.

Now we have not addressed size as an issue itself and its limits with respect to the interpersonal which relates to the physical. Direct, or one-to-one, interactions are limited. This is easily determined by the equation N=n x (n-1)/2. Math is helpful but only as a starting point. For example, five people can have a total of 10 independent interactions, In reality, a second consideration is collective decisions — for the blockchain, this is a DAO process, So, if the base is 5, decisions are more quickly resolved with an odd base-the tie vote is eliminated This does not, of course, apply to rule-based decisions. For my purpose, a group of size five forms the foundation for my endeavor, my mundito — -my small world.

Benjamin Franklin founded an informal group called the Junto in Philidelphia to exchange books and discuss ideas. Later the Junto keep many of their books in a central location to be checked out by the members, the basis for our current library system. (Junto in Spanish means together.) So it seems appropriate to think in terms of a social junto, an interdependent effort for one form of social cohesion, This is not an abstract thought but a work in progress that hopefully deserves your consideration — IMHO — please bare with me on this my personal journey and follow my steps in addressing this concern, my Soul & Skin in the Game,

Self-esteem is at its best at the personal level, we can see and feel personal feedback that elevates us to our own sense of self-worth in a more wholesome context. This is a process, not an end. If social cohesion, at the personal, requires mobility, then it is axiomatic that it degrades with the time value of that movement.

Next, the physical manifested, limitations and considerations — some thoughts on social cohesion in my mundito — till then, wb