Seminars
Econet has resulted from some historical developments and these have influenced the forms and modalities of how we interact and carry out our investigations. Some of these influences mean that other modalities might work as social technologies for different purposes.
The purposes which we are considering are:
1. Investigation - Econet has a scholarly aspects, as can be seen with actor-network theory (ANT) from Bruno Latour, and must cater to that. This is the primary aspect. Without investigations we are only a news service or an archive. So we are scholars / investigators / scientists / theorists / philosophers.
2. Cultural transition - Without cultural transmission then what we study is lost. Some of that transmission can be via oral culture, some via visual media, new media, print media. Some is a lived experiential tradition akin to apprenticeships, mentoring and co-creation. As well as simple transmission we also want cultural transition to participate in our subculture.
3. Practitioners - Econet has a purpose and is not for its own sake. As a result we want what we do to have a practical aspect too. In ANT, practitioners are recognized and these are informed educated thinking practitioners not drones or robots. So we also want to empower practitioners to have a theoretical underpinning. If we are ecologically cognisant - which we aim to be - then we must also be activists, scientivists, artivists.
4. Policy makers - here ANT has this idea that the deciders are separated to some degree from scholars and practitioners. This is not so strong in our culture. Hosts and thought leaders and founders have elements of policy creation - but we are not so focused on this aspect of our work. We are aware of engineering perspectives and how and what we investigate has ethical and moral underpinnings. Thus we are not in a vacuum, though we are not taking an explicitly party political line nor an overtly religious one.
5. Entertainment - If it is not fun no-one will take part. This is not simple hedonism, but has sound pedagogical reasons. It is also so as humans we do need an element of entertainment and engagement to get participation. There are questions around if there is a participative active culture - we are all dancing together / playing in the skiffle band. OR if we are an audience without active engagement as mere consumers. Our focus is a culture of participation where we are co- co-learners, co-creatives, co-investigators. We welcome those who want to play, dance, investigate, explore with us. We caution those who only want to watch we are unlikely to let you sit every dance out.
Evolution of seminars
Our seminars have developed from several cultural influences. The seminar format has existed in academia for many decades. Traditionally a small number of researchers (perhaps post grad students) would present their research, papers they were working on and conference presentations to their peers. As supervisors and more senior scientists from their department would attend. Participants would each give feedback on what they think of the work presented. This would allow the presenter to modify before presenting it elsewhere, give research ideas and allow a chat around the subject.
In the USA TV shows are often named after a main presenter - The Late Show with David Letterman, or Phil Silvers Show or the Ben Shapiro Show on the Daily Wire for example. This tradition seems to have arisen from vaudeville theatre which emerged in the late 19th and early 20th century. In all these cases it is not clear what the show entails by the name only.
In many parts of Europe TV shows are rather named thematically - Tomorrow's World, Equinox, Arena in the UK. In this case it is also not clear what the content is in these shows.
When we created the seminars we originally called them meetings with thought leaders. But how should they be arranged? We can look back to Minicui Sodas - where independent thinkers were arranged around their deepest values. We could do that. In other cases we could arrange them around investigators and just name them thus. We could also make them broader and have them like a magazine with various investigators sharing who have commonalities.
This latter approach also prompts a comparison with podcasts such as The Joe Rogan Experience. Tim Pool, Ben Shapiro and Joe Rogan all have a format where they discuss current affairs. They give their perspective with guests, and take a magazine approach with a variety of related content.
Thus we could have Community Economics hosted by Marcus Petz - an investigator with other investigators. Would this work? How would it work? Does it mean that everyone has to follow this modality? Or that this is the only modality? Where would other investigations and investigators relate? Would there be the same status if you have a successful Seminar like this and someone else only has one on their own and very infrequently? Does there have to be competition? Or cooperation in this way? Does this allow a new format that would only be magazine without any investigator? Can you have a host or someone involved without any seminar? Andrius has played this role so far and if we look at the Daily Wire we can see similar with Jeremy Boring.
Such questions arose when Marcus and Andrius discussed this format in early 2025.