The Decentralized Pen Pal BCC Intellectual Participation Network (or Write Club) Manifesto:

Imagine the exchange of information in a primitive human society. One without internet, cells phones or telephone lines. Primitive as can be, of course, but not without unique and interesting properties that are lacking in the confusion and madness of the modern globalized, social networking rush. Today's world seems to be a popularity contest in which no one communicates or develops any genuinely new ideas.

To connect without connection, and to speak without saying anything at all, is to do absolutely nothing at all.

Since when did being on the internet instantly mean that communication needs to be shallow? With attention spans being shorter than ever, I've grown weary of trying to exchange ideas and concepts with others through this frenetic and unfocused medium. The potential of having access to many other minds for the purpose of mutual exchange and understanding, however, remains a very appealing concept to me. Any resource that may be used for constructive purposes should be prioritized to serve those purposes.

Inspiration came to me one day in the form of a keyword popping into my mind: Knowledge. What if we were all in this to learn and grow as human beings? How would we even go about doing that?

My solution has to do with distance and locality. Because there is no definition of distance on the internet it tends to become abstracted into a single, homogenous entity; people who are online and take part of social networking become one with those websites. So, instead of just being on Facebook, you merely are a part of Facebook as a website. Your individual identity is subsumed into that of whatever mass organization you are a part of. Who could forget the sweet irony of MySpace? (The fact that everyone has one, and considers themselves to be "unique.")

Some of my friends get around this by making their own, highly personalized websites. By doing this they retain their own sense of individuality, but pay for it with a relative degree of isolation (usually) and maintenance . Online blogs have many qualities that I like, and they certainly are an inspiration for the WriteClub model; however, they tend to become populated with Yes Men and users who simply lurk and do not contribute much. Those who follow blogs can only follow so many without becoming overwhelmed by the complexities of sifting through different posts trying to find nuggets of meaningful information.

On the internet today we have attempted to compress the entire human world in a non-linear fashion, and the results are less-than-pretty. Individuals are bogged down in confusion and distraction as massive information overload floods their minds. Very little of it seems useful or relevant.

Once again, I think back to another age. Not with a misty-eyed and wistful adoration of the past, but with the discrimination of a scientist attempting to ascertain quantity and quality. In particular, I vividly recall a form of long-distance communication and collaboration that wasn't nearly as unfocused as the internet: The Pen Pal system.

Just as on the internet, Pen Pals would start out as total strangers, but with one very important difference: a deep, underlying sense of curiosity. A letter from a Pen Pal (if it was a good one) provided you with a window into a different world, and all that was asked in return was for you to do the same. The scale was perfect for focus and elaboration; the process involved two people doing their best to provide windows into each other's respective worlds. This system is good, but rather limited. Quality wins out over quantity.

I've come up with a system that I believe best combines the awesome data potential of the internet with the awesome focus of old fashioned personal addresses. This system I have dubbed Decentralized Pen Pal BCC Intellectual Participation Network, or Write Club. Its general purpose is to achieve a golden mean between quality and quantity of communication.

We as human beings often experience the same miseries and triumphs--conversely, we also experience reality in vastly different ways. Some people are out in the world, in the smoke, smog and people; others seem to hide away and concoct schemes to protect themselves from the toxic onslaught. They're all seeing, feeling and thinking; they are all collecting data whether they acknowledge it or not. To amass this huge amount of information without ever making productive use of it is absolutely ludicrous to me.

The information that we share can be about practically anything just so long as it may serve to illuminate and expand the minds of others with ideas or information. If you like an idea or are enlightened by information that you receive, you are encouraged to rephrase and develop the information. By doing this we can actually grow ideas organically and develop them as they are passed from person-to-person. As things are now, we far too often simply link to a source of information and receive it in its undigested, unrefined form. Ideas are more dead and static than alive and visceral--this is something that I believe we have lost in the world of direct communication. Oftentimes you'll be surprised by what you can discover by rephrasing and repeating information. In fact, you may find that you've created something new.

There are pros and cons to this method of information dissemination. I believe that the pros of this method balance out the cons of the most popular method. Each method is valid and useful.

We cannot expect to have independent thought without independence; and that is what I intend to foster with this amateur e-mail based network.

Here is how it works:

▪ There are two classes of users: nodes and receivers. In general, it is better to be a receiver for a while before you decide to become a node--it helps to learn the system. Nodes are people like me who send out General Addresses containing ideas and/or information to an e-mail list of friends and pen pals (or anyone else who's interested) using only BCC (blind carbon copy) to send. After receiving a General Address other nodes and receivers are obligated to give at least a minimum amount of feedback (feedback and interaction are like dues that you pay; give and you shall receive). Conversations are private between nodes, other nodes, and receivers. Despite the communal nature of this method, communication is always done one-on-one through the anonymity of BCC.

▪ The Network can be expanded in any way that a node sees fit, just so long as the BCC rule is enforced. Many of the people who I have discussed this system with have expressed doubt about the BCC aspect of it, even though it is a most critical element. BCC and localization of nodes will keep the exchanges one-on-one and focused. Also, it will prevent the exchange of information from becoming too scattered and verbose for receivers and nodes to handle productively. Information will disseminate on the network anonymously, by word-of-mouth. So that--for example--a flawed theory that begins on one side of the network is developed into a much better one as it is processed by several nodes. A good trick for overcoming writer's block when writing a General Address (GA) would be a rephrasing and digesting (anonymously, of course) of another GA that may have interested you. A healthy node/node/receiver relationship should be a well of inspiration.

▪ A network node does not give away his/her e-mail list; each list is to be treated as a list of friends whose privacy you respect. This network grows from connections you make in real life and elsewhere on the internet. It is a series of small, intimate circles that are still tangentially connected to a greater whole. Though it still may be used to connect and learn from absolute strangers (especially those with webmail, for there is less fear factor). Nodes will have a difficult time proving their trustworthiness to others--this is not a problem that can easily be solved. It has been my experience as the first node that it is possible to gain this trust through professional conduct and demeanor.

▪ GA's are sent out at least once a week, as a general rule.

And now for a few general suggestions that I think will make for a better network:

▪ General Addresses should be around 1,000 words if sent out once a week, but an average of 500 words every three days will also work. The general idea behind adhering to a minimum word count is to make sure that the information contained in a GA is worthy of the effort put into writing and sending it--other nodes and receivers would quickly become annoyed with short GA's about trips to Starbucks and how annoying Aunt Betty is (though one may certainly attempt to enlighten others about Starbucks as company, and attempt to psychoanalyze Aunt Betty). Think of a GA as a letter, journal entry and essay all rolled into one: it is an address to the little world of the local network. It could even be a short story, if it's relevant.

▪ Replies to GA's should average at least 200 words for 1,000 word posts, and at least 50-100 words for 500 word ones. For those going over 1,000 words I suggest a 250 word minimum. Some would say that this would mean having to reply to things that seem boring--this is actually the point. When people pick and choose the information that they respond to they tend to become more and more myopic and one-sided as their selective interests form a feedback loop. Imagine how much mental exercise you'll get trying to formulate an opinion on farm equipment or basket weaving (then you'll begin to grasp the spirit of Write Club). By expanding our ideas and responses into larger paragraphs and texts we make room for more nuanced thought processes to occur. Rather than typing out simple "agree" or "disagree" statements participants will be encouraged to produce more nuanced expression: it's difficult to write 100 words that simply add up to a binary 'yes' or 'no'. Directness is a blessing; curtness a curse.

Now to address a few criticisms:

▪ A few people have questioned the ability of a completely user-maintained and decentralized network to retain its philosophical integrity. Yes, putting complete control into the hands of participants (a more proactive term than 'member' or 'user') definitely compromises the system's integrity; many nodes will probably collapse and fail from sheer ineptitude. The rules and suggestions I have laid down in this manifesto will be enforced, however, by the very fact that they are designed to promote the functioning of a healthy node/node/receiver relationship. Those who fail to follow these rules (or invent better ones) will fail as nodes. Anyone is free to develop their own individual flair as a node, just so long as they pass on the original theory put forth in this manifesto (this is so that no matter how much the network evolves through the creativity of individual nodes it still maintains a relative degree of integrity). Natural selection will take care of those whose methods are flawed, and even I am subject to these cruel laws of nature, as I am merely a node myself. If I change the methodology I'll be sure to change this manifesto. Write Club shall be an evolving entity. Whatever works the best will eventually become the "rules" of the network: pragmatism shall be the network's enforcement mechanism. What I hope does not change too drastically, however, is the core mission statement.

▪ What about arrogant people who like to flame and provoke others (a common internet phenomenon)? Yes, there is definitely the chance of arrogant a-holes using this to forward their cretinous agendas; I do not, however, believe that this will ever be a common phenomenon should Write Club ever gain widespread participation. Observe how provoking, monomaniacal people generally behave on the internet: they usually reside on forums and other publicly accessible places where their egos can easily be stroked. Write Club is slower, more introverted. Most of these cretins are incapable of writing even a few hundred words of quiet, subdued introspection.

▪ What is its purpose among strangers? To this I say, quite simply, to stop being strangers. Pen Pals start as absolute strangers, too, and that's part of the excitement of having one. The entire point of this concept is to just keep talking about everything that matters. I invented this concept after talking to a friend who hated deviantArt, yet regretted leaving those she knew on that network behind. It began as a simple e-mail list, and then evolved into a more complicated philosophy. Think globally and act locally is a good general principle. It is of little consequence to me whether or not this evolves into some massive underground network. My only responsibility is to the local nodes and receivers that I know. When they trust or respect me they're likely to give better feedback, be more punctual and enthusiastic about developing ideas and sharing data. Consider it a break from trying to take on the stupidity of the world by conversing with others who are trying to take on the stupidity of the world. Each node is the builder of his own little kingdom of ideas.

▪ Why is it e-mail based? The idea behind using e-mail is simply an application of the KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) principle. With no need to sign up for and worry about the maintenance of servers and websites the Participation Network can be joined and/or created almost instantly. Another reason is that I just like e-mailing people; there are no distractions in that minimalist, textual realm. E-mail is still one of the most minimalist parts of the internet, and it is my preferred method of communication. Every time I've e-mailed someone the experience was more productive than phone conversation, face-to-face meeting or web-based interaction. The blank, empty page is absolutely inspiring.

In conclusion:

Oftentimes people who knew me from my overtly political days ask me why I seem to have abandoned my fiery political commentary. Much to their surprise, I'll tell them that I don't think that I've ever abandoned my convictions and my strong desire to see this world change (if only just enough to survive). What I have done, however, is reject the fallacious premise that every rule and concept by which men must order their lives was laid down for us long ago by philosophers who did all the thinking for us.

Every building in New York City was once an idea in someone's head; we are living in a word of ideas coming into reality. When I was trying to take on the entire political system I was trying to take on the harder reality of ideas instead of the ideas themselves. As difficult as it may be to conceptualize, there was a time in human history when there was no concept of democracy or authoritarianism; capitalism or communism. Hell, even the notion of good and evil is also probably a mere invention of mankind.

There was a time when nothing was known; the human world was then invented. Or so is my philosophy.

When our own ideas become shackles, it is incumbent upon us to shed them any way we can, if only for the sake of our individual integrity. One of the reasons why I am creating this system is to help bring order and purpose to my online connections, many of whom  were there to collaborate with me when I needed to test a concept against reality. Even this very manifesto is based off of an extended chat log with a buddy of mine. This may sound like a weird way to develop ideas for an introvert, and I suppose it is. I have, however learned the benefits of communication; I seek it out whenever I'm able and adapt it to my preferences.

Our greatest intellectual achievements have come through conflict and/or collaboration in the development of ideas. When ideas are allowed to develop in total vacuums through politeness or fear, they become far more susceptible to wishful thinking and delusion. When we collaborate and debate, our ideas develop a neat trenchancy. Now, one may say that this is simply "idea by committee" and that I'm wasting my time writing about this. The difference, however, has to do with the origins of the concepts; every idea sent out to the Network has to begin with the individual first, then (and only then) the collaboration and debate takes place. In this way I hope to discourage the practice of letting philosophers and groups replace true, individual thought.

The entire time I was writing this I heard a voice in my head repeating the same phrase over and over again: "One man cannot change the world." Even though I do agree with it entirely, I wrote this anyway. I did so because I have another repeating phrase to counteract the first one: "One man can change his world."

By this I mean that even one person changing an idea in his/her own head can make a world of difference for that particular individual; in turn producing change and results in the localized area around said individual. I changed my own self image in recent months and almost instantaneously my room was neater, more organized; my goals in life became much more lucid, and that in turn has produced a different localized reality for me.

Though of course, this will probably not grow much beyond myself and a few of my friends. I am fine with that, though, for this is only my first experiment in what I hope to be a long line of communication/colaboration models. Even if this one particular idea doesn't gain any traction, the next idea of this kind that I come up with will almost surely be developed using Write Club philosophy and methods.

That is all.