“Ontology is overrated”
(As wise men say).
Is it so important to divide the world into “Edgeryders” and “unMonastery”? I can’t see how that helps in any way. Worse, it seems to point at potential conflict of “us” vs. “them”, rather than at the generative potential of diversity. But maybe I am wrong. Can you explain why it seems so attractive to you?
In return for your explanation, I can offer an alternative interpretation. It goes like this: at some point someone started an unMonastery prototype. People could choose whether to locate themselves deep inside, stay completely out or anything in between. Examples of in-between behaviour:
- visit
- participate in the online debate
- buy a resident unMonasterian coffee/ice cream/a meal to cheer her/him up
- help with admin/politics/fundraising
- write an article/make a film about what is being done
- various combinations of the above and more
People closest to the center have a greater stake; people further away a smaller one. This is not an ontology because it is flexible: people can adjust their position by getting more or less involved. No one is locked into a category. No one is completely dismissed, because even people who are not involved at all might decide to move towards the center, and they would be welcome to. I know you don’t like T-shirts, but there is a reason why the one I am wearing now says “Networks have no borders”!
Note that that does not mean everyone is the same: different nodes have different degrees of centrality (so this allows for who does the work calls the shots). But it does mean that the difference across people is one of gradient, not of nature. And that seems a more accurate description of reality. You once told me that you only heard of the residency a week before the deadline: if that week you had gone skiing, your strict ontology would classify you as “complete stranger” (you were not even Edgeryders then); my network thinking as “potential unMonasterian”.