SPCC A Casa Amarela

one of the reasons why we started this website this way (with personal blogs and open access, versus a public website with private access), was to sample objectively the irrelevance of fact and the multiple realities phenomenon in human groups (or stories).

even though most participation was mine and T's, now, to the end of this, we are starting to get more data points. from rants to raves, we now have some good comments on what goes on. if we add to this our data on guests, their length of stay and some of the comments, we end up with a huge dataset. so thank you everyone for posting (even the angry posts). they are essential for our study.

the facts have been objectively documented, and this blog has been my story about them. to date, we now have maybe 4 or 5 different perspectives on this page of what goes on and of the same facts. the facts themselves will be described on a full report later, for analysis.

but the stories themselves are the greatest bounty of this. take any fact. the stories around them are not only incompatible, but contradictory. but the thing is each individual's perception (and story) represents the /reality/ of the house for that individual. therefore, there are N+1 houses, where N is the number of observers, and the 1 is the "factual house", unknowable by definition, but observable using the scientific method (i don't want to go into deeper philosophy about this now).

what i wanted to sample, and i did, successfully, was how that "factual house" has little to no place in the politics of the house, whereas the N stories do. the stories are so important, lies can take over and become real. let's take analyze this case study.

observers: {P,M,O,R,I,A,L,S,J,T,Ma}

the facts:
- {P,M} argued every day, loudly, even during the night (waking up everyone), P cheated on and beat M on several occasions, but M was trapped in this loop so never broke free, P also pulled a knife twice on people and beat up O once. on the other hand, they were excellent workers, active every day in making the house a better place. their issues were psychological, but their skills and capacities were above average.

the stories:
- {P,M}, their story, as interviewed by me, was that it wasn't important, that it was their private matter, and that what mattered was what they were contributing to the house. P's account of his violence was one of helplessness, of a traumatized, violent youth, so fucked up he couldn't bear the facts that he was repeating the very same abuse he suffered. despite that, according to their stories, this was a minor issue, not a major issue, and what mattered was how well they worked for the house;
- {L,A}, were heavily supportive of them, endeared by M and in their story, they were excellent people, even though, by for {A}'s standards, not fully aware of their own political ideologies. {L,A} were also moderately unaffected by the violence, and had a supportive opinion throughout the process, to which i think not speaking the language contributed ({L,A} couldn't understand what the arguments were about);
- {T,J}, were also heavily supportive, but in hope that the house and its positive setting would help regenerate them. when violence became too much, T stood up to P and as the trust was broken, so was T and J's stories about P and M, the story became they should go;
- {O}, was, as always, very positive and accepting of P and M, despite having a knife pulled at him and getting into a fist fight one night with P. but as violence continued, his story became that they should go;
- {S}, wasn't happy with any of the situations, but as usual, refrained from any commitment to an opinion, so his story was neutral, until the majority ruled, taking the side of the majority;
- {R,I}, were also tolerant at first, but when violence began, their story also changed from housemates to they must go;
- {Ma} was always critical of them, and never liked their participation in the community, but since he didn't share space with them, he refrained from any issue.

as a group, the decision emerges from each final story. depending on the political system, so will be the result. in this case, we were using anarcho syndicalism and assembly vote (majority vote, direct democracy). so, we have the set of stories: {P,M,L,A} see no issue, {T,J,O,R,I} want them out, {S,Ma} don't participate but have a negative bias. the final decision was that they had to go. they also rejected my help in getting them psychological help and housing (for free). following up on them, despite promises of getting treatment, they still live the same way, repeating the old habits.

now the same set of stories could have different outcomes, depending on the political system. for example, if this was a lawful democracy with a judicial system (and police), the mere fact of P and M violence would be enough for disciplinary action and probably exclusion/expulsion. this would keep the rest of the citizens "unaffected" by the weight of the decision, and would have the same outcome.
if this was a street anarchist system, there would be no expulsion at all, and eventually people uncomfortable with the situation would leave.

depending on the political system we choose, so the stories will be accommodated and dealt with. also, each political system exhibits different bias towards facts or stories.
an anarchist system, shows a clear bias towards stories in decision making, and can only work if stories are representative of facts. in P and M's story, there was no fact. in that sense, conflict will always imply some stories being trampled, but fake stories win too.
a lawful system, on the contrary, shows more bias towards facts and enforcement, and will therefore have a bias towards the "truthful stories". the honest group wins. this would guarantee that, for instance, since {S,L,A,J,O,T} are peaceful, they would end up being the only residents of the house. this requires, however, enforcement of some sort.

politics, in my opinion, is an algorithm applied to the N stories and 1 fact that generates a decision (and possible enforcement) for group decisions. it can be described mathematically, as long as stories are documented.

but if one chooses facts as a main decision tool, then enforcement is a requirement, since there is no guarantee that stories will be representative of facts, or anywhere near the "truth".

facts, as i said, are knowable using the scientific method. so in order to have a fully rational political system, there must be some kind of lawful enforcement system. as for the stories, depending on this enforcement, they can be preserved or trampled.

in the case of capitalist democracy, stories are instead "standardized", so that they differ little from a main "story" (note that this story is, usually, not factual, but promoted by propaganda). stories that are too different become outlawed and eventually are turned into criminal offenses. street art, dumpster diving, squatting, etc, are examples of stories being eliminated by such political systems, even though factually they might be better for the community.

these are some conclusions i can take, just by using the scientific method in small scale politics. by participating and analyzing community behavior, i have matured several of my naive ideas of political systems. i think it's essential to turn away from idea (or story) based political discussions, and turn to factual political discussion, as in many other sciences. this has several nasty effects, as the template "left" "right" are no longer meaningful as a metric or category (except, obviously, as categories for personal stories).

i'm very happy to have gone through all of this, this house has been a source of tremendous political understanding (along with many other things).

i know that with this whole project, i made many enemies and friends, that range from hatred to love and anywhere in between, that the stories about me are as diverse as the ones about the house. but the fact, itself, remains unknowable, even to myself (me, like the house, has N+1 existences, my story of myself is just another story).

therefore, all i can say is thank you for making my existence bigger, in any form or fashion. every story made up increases the N+1 i'm made of by 1. i don't really care what kind of story it is, and i'm just happy i can make your reality a bit richer, and be another story in your collection, no matter how it turns out.

godspeed starstuff ☆★☆☆★★★☆☆☆☆☆