I disagree that nodal relations are entirely a function of one’s perspective. Not to get all technological deterministic on you, but I do believe technosocial networks have properties (or affordances) that shape the perspective of nodes. To see it simply as a matter of choice seems simplistic, and dangerous. While the triviality of “every inclusion is an exclusion” might have been replaced by the optimistic mantra of “everyone and everything can be included in something, and not excluded from everything,” the politics of that inclusion are still worth questioning.

In theory, the openness of networks would mean that, as you suggest, no single schema of inclusion and exclusion would prevail, and everyone would get a chance to be included in something. I am interested, however, in what happens when certain schemas are pushed virally within the network. I do believe that, as what has happened with other media, corporate interests will have a disproportionate power in imposing their schemas for inclusion/exclusion upon the majority (notwithstanding pockets of “insurrection”).

Meanwhile, there is no network, only networks. Moreover, there is no real, only reals.
Network nodes (and relations) are a function of one’s perspective, and it is the choice of perspective and not an imagined “reality” of the network that performs the including and excluding.

The saving grace, if the emerging system of panarchy can be said to have one, lies in the fact that overlapping, interpenetrated, networks of perspectives that interrupt, challenge, support, and dialogue with each other, provide grounds for hope that no single schema of inclusion and exclusion will prevail.

In other words, everyone and everything can be included in something, and not excluded from everything.

I’d be delighted if you could come discuss this more on http://www.panarchy.com

-Paul