"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace..."

...I borrowed that line from an email a friend sent me, who borrowed it from Jimi Hendrix. Now I'm using it online, to share with you. I admit, a little tame compared to Girl Talk, but hopefully you get the point.

The reason I chose this quote as my blog title was to demonstrate my interpretation(s) of the dynamics that seem to be going on regarding the whole issue of copyright, participatory culture, convergence, and collective intelligence. I can sum up the entire scenario like this:  The left is pushing against the right, and in the name of power, control, and money the right is pushing back...unless of course concession means more power, control, and/or money. But even then, the concession is only for their gain. I use the terms "left" and "right" (somewhat) loosely here. (I would have to do more research before I can talk more absolutely.)

The point is, one side is pushing against the other for political reasons. The side that wishes to open up the lines of communication, share ideas for a greater good, and participate in the world around them are being stifled by the side that wishes to maintain control. Jenkins uses the CNN/YouTube debate as an example. The simple fact that Mitt Romney refused to debate with a snowman, even though the snowman had a legitimate question, illustrates the higher ground on which these power players wish to be regarded. These "elite" types are much more comfortable controlling the conversation. They don't like the idea of participatory culture because incoming questions might make them uncomfortable or worse, make them look incompetent.

Unfortunate, for these power people, the internet is here to stay and it's only going to push the right further to the right and eventually off the playing field altogether. Well, maybe not altogether, but I do think the masses will be heard sooner than most may think. The world can only gain from sharing ideas and knowledge. Culture can only make itself relevant through innovation and creativity. Progress can only progress if it is allowed. A very small number of people hold the power, the control, and the money in this country. These are the same people who stand in protest against a culture of participation. They want to keep their power. They want to keep their control, and they most definitely want to keep their money.

It may seem I'm speaking only about politics proper. What I mean to convey is that politics are at play in every area that concerns power, control, and money. The owners of copyrights want to maintain the control of those copyrights to make as much money as possible. In this sense they hold the power. Participatory culture and collective intelligence would certainly dethrone patent holders if laws regarding certain types of patents were reversed, and convergence would keep a lot of corporate giants on their toes trying to keep up with the status quo. True, some companies have been successful in listening to their "fandom", but it was all in the name of making more money. Their attitude is, "If it'll make us more money we'll listen, if not we don't care what you have to say."

This tug-o-war won't end anytime soon. Meanwhile, the internet with all its channels of global communication will continue to grow. File sharing legally, and illegally, will continue to spread, and I don't think Girl Talk will go out without a fight. People have been borrowing, stealing, and manipulating ideas from the past since the beginning of time. Artists do it just as musicians do it just as politicians do it. The only difference now, the involved parties can share their creations online, and there inlys the problem.

Bottom line, the internet has and will continue to reshape culture and society. Those who keep up will succeed. Those who can't will fade away. Companies already see the necessity of listening to their customers. Politicians will acknowledge this truism soon enough. The remaining entity of Hollywood could be a different story. I think they will fight tooth and nail to the very end only to be slowly put out of business by the "amateur" film makers who collectively will prevail. At that point we will begin to see true democracy in action...at least for a little while.

...but is it probable?

Collective Intelligence left me feeling like a nebulous being floating within a larger cultural specimen being dissected and analyzed by those who fancy such studies. In this particular instance, the bunny men are microscopically drawing diagrams, relationships, interactions (or lack there of), and speculating outcomes of the fourth cultural space as it relates to its predecessors. Levy speaks of this fourth, or knowledge space, as perhaps a terminating space from which those who proceed its final formulation could enjoy the solutions to the thousands of years of strife that have come before. For the first time in my life, I feel like a part of history instead of a part of making history. A hard pill to swallow, especially in angst of my recent birthday.

I do however try to imagine how this whole idea of collective intelligence might play out. In Levy's Utopian scenario it plays out perfectly (of course): democracy by the people, for the people. After all, that's what our founding fathers had in mind, right? It was only when populations exceeded a realistic voice that we had to switch to government by representation. Now that we once again have the possibility of true democracy in the sights of our imagination, will we be able to return to a democracy truly by the people? A better question, will the powers that be allow us to return to such a system?

If collective intelligence is what our founding fathers intended, how will we achieve such collaboration in favor of good for the people? Has the current system divided us beyond repair, or will a system of demodynamics help us to overcome our differences? Given the opportunity, I think the latter would prevail. The majority of people care about equal rights for all. The majority of people are tired of corporations effecting policy. The majority of people want the same opportunities regardless of race, religion, gender, handicap, and so on, and the majority of people want to see these rights acknowledged and enforced.

Will collective intelligence in action affect the status quo? Indeed it will. Potentially greater than anything we have seen before. It will certainly disengage our state representatives as conduits to "what's best for the people". Their services will no longer be needed or desired. That is not to say that a core assembly of administrative officials should be displaced. Quite the opposite is true. Even a democracy based on collective intelligence needs a system of checks and balances.

My question is how this Utopian scenario might be put into practice? Is it possible? Is it feasible? It is certainly imaginable. What would the infrastructure look like and who would build it? How would the input and output be managed or filtered? How would we come to a consensus and how would our consensus' effect change? Case in point:  The war we are currently engaged in. If we as a collective, "vote" against the war, how would that effect the overall state of affairs? Could we simply disengage? As Levy mentioned, these types of decisions are slow moving. Would this cause frustration?

On a larger scale, how would our relationships with other countries be handled? Foreign affairs often (if not always) affect us directly. How would we come to a collective consensus on issues like trade relations, immigration, terrorism? How would we go about correcting the mistakes our predecessors made, both here and abroad, if that's even possible?

I can imagine Levy's land of Utopia. But, it is just that, Utopia. If anything even remotely resembling a transition of this magnitude were to take place, it would (obviously) take years to transpire. Years that most of us probably don't have.