[p2p-research] Defining terms for clear communication

Sat Jan 12 12:56:35 CET 2008

Just to summarize my practical position, without the need to misinterpret my
thoughts (I do not advocate random strings in the wiki):

- I fully support your project, as long as it is property contextualized,
that's all really

Michel

On Jan 12, 2008 3:17 AM, Patrick Anderson <agnucius at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Jan 10, 2008 9:49 PM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi Patrick,
> >
> > I think your aim is totally irrealistic. Terms do never stabilize, they
> are ever moving > and used from particular perspectives which change over
> time, your example of
> > value is right on target for that. I did a lot of reading last year on
> that value thing,
> > only to conclude that it is used in a variety of ways. You can only
> enforce it in small
> > communities, probably with some power to back up your definitions. But
> the P2P
> > Foundation is a pluralist collective, with only a minimal consensus that
> peer to peer
> > is generally a good thing ...
>
> Ok.  I understand your goals for the wiki now.  I faultily assumed it
> was to be used toward the goal of *proving* or *disproving* parts of
> any one person's claims.  If the only purpose is to dump data that
> single humans have conjured into existence without debate or
> correction (I assume some of what I  write is also incorrect), then my
> approach is completely out of place.
>
>
> > What you can do is choose terms and define terms in the particular
> context of your
> > project, with the people who are willing to follow you on that path ...
> and for me
> > that means that it should be clearly indicated where that particular
> definition
> > comes from. Take cost, I'm using it in a very general way to refer to
> the debates
> > about coordination costs and transaction costs, as put forward by
> Benkler et al
> > and they are widely understood 'in a broad sense' in social science and
> economist
> > communities. As I reference the source, anyone can then verify what the
> > perspective is.
>
> Yes, we can view Benkler's arbitrary definition of 'cost', and we can
> view a dozen other definitions for 'cost', but when using the word in
> a sentence where we are trying to establish it's relation to 'price',
> 'profit', 'wage', etc. so that we can move forward with discovering
> the *truth* (assuming such a thing exists),  there is almost no hope
> of conveying our meaning to readers or for them to make meaningful
> replies because all of those terms are floating.
>
> What a mess.  Would it be any less effective to use random strings of
> characters to denote those terms?  Are you interested in discovering
> the real problems and solutions, or only in reporting what others have
> already dreamed up?
>
> >
> > In contrast, you give a definition, which in my view is terse and which
> I do not
> > understand, there is no reference, no contextual or perspectival add-on,
> and the
> > only way I could understand it, is if I have the willingness to follow
> you on a
> > long-term path of user ownership theory ...
>
> To clarify: I am not trying to "take over" any definition.  Anything I
> have written in the wiki is only my 'vote' toward that term's
> definition.  I assumed others would 'fight' with me about this until
> we could come to a semi-stable agreement.  As I said before, I really
> don't care which word is used for each definition, only that they can
> (eventually) be used when constructing sentences to each other so we
> don't have so many iterations and irritations.
>
> > the role of the wiki as I see it, is to offer a multi-perspectival
> vision on peer to peer
> > related subjects, not one particular view; if a particular view is
> offered, it should be
> > contextualized,
>
> Offering differing perspectives is useful at first, but will we ever
> use that data to come to any conclusions?   Is the whole point to
> simply record and to never act?  How will we know if any part of any
> theory is correct or incorrect if all we do is keep all authors
> separated by variations in terms?  That seems like a lonely and
> unproductive road.
>
>
> Anyway, I'll make the changes you suggest with the tag
> [[Category:User_Owned]] if that is ok with you.
>
> (I think "User Owned" sounds better, as it compares well with the well
> known idea of "Worker Owned" corporations.)
>
> >
> > Michel
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Jan 10, 2008 10:43 PM, Lord AGNUcius <agnucius at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hello fellow P2P Researchers!
> > >
> > >
> > > My name is Patrick Anderson.  I've been lurking here for a few months,
> but
> > > when I tried to post a reply to Michel yesterday, my email was not
> > > recognized I think because of something to do with the way DNS
> resolves my
> > > email address to my hosting provider instead of to my registered
> domain...
> > >
> > > Anyway, that's all fixed and here is my slightly edited response:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Michel,
> > >
> > > I agree with your concern, but the fix you propose would not help
> > > our community come to any sort of "agreement" on the definition of the
> > > terms we need to communicate clearly with each other.  Any such
> > > "agreement" would probably need to be held in a sort of semi-stable
> > > 'tension' after many suggestions, battles, and rewrites, but at least
> we
> > > would know what terms to choose when writing new sentences to minimize
> > > confusion.
> > >
> > > I consider term definition the primary reason for faulty communication
> and
> > > misunderstanding that often leads to unnecessary conflict and lack of
> > > resolution.
> > >
> > > For instance, what does the word 'Value' mean?  To some people,
> 'Value'
> > > means the ability withhold the physical sources of production from
> user
> > > control for the sole purpose of keeping price above cost.  Governments
> use
> > > this definition and the scarcity logic based on it to do terrible
> things
> > > in the name of progress including using OUR tax dollars to pay farmers
> to
> > > NOT grow foods such as wheat so supply is artificially restrained and
> > > profit is perpetuated.
> > >
> > >
> > > After writing that last paragraph I was reading the Oekonux list and
> > > noticed a great example of this:
> > >
> > > Dmytri Kleiner writes at
> http://www.oekonux.org/list-en/archive/msg04129.html
> > > >> Here Stefan appears to have lost his command of the distinction
> > > >> between "value" (use-value) and "price" (exchange-value). Does
> > > >> he mean that workers can capture the "use-value" of their
> > > >> labour-power ("work-force")? This would mean his claim was
> > > >> self-contradictory as with equal access to productive assets
> > > >> this by definition would be the final product of their
> > > >> labour ("value of their work")?
> > >
> > > Stefan Meretz responds with
> > > http://www.oekonux.org/list-en/archive/msg04145.html
> > > >>> Due to "translations" being wrong, you are mislead. Value means
> value,
> > > >>> and not use-value. Price means price and not exchange-value.
> > >
> > > How can we ever expect to help each other resolve concerns when we are
> not
> > > even speaking the same language?  We each live in our own little world
> > > where every word and phrase means slightly different things to each of
> us
> > > depending upon our background and the assumptions we make.
> > >
> > > I don't really care which definition is chosen for each term, only
> > > that we can finally use them in regular discourse and that they are
> > > 'stable' enough to allow the creation of claims and proofs that have
> > > deterministic meaning.
> > >
> > > Once these definitions stabilize, the meaning of a sentence such as:
> > > "Profit can be calculated as the difference between the Price a
> consumer
> > > pays, and all the Costs (including Wages) that the Owners already paid
> for
> > > that round of Production." will either make sense to the reader, or
> that
> > > reader can click on any of those terms to find what the community has
> > > already decided about how that word or phrase is to be interpreted.
>  The
> > > clickability of those words is not yet automated, but could be through
> a
> > > plugin that implements the ideas at
> http://CommunityWiki.org/en/PlainLink
> > > .
> > >
> > > I will add the tags you suggest if you reject this proposal, but
> otherwise
> > > would like to see pages such as the following adjusted according to
> what
> > > is most "correct" in the collective minds of the P2P Foundation
> members.
> > >
> > > http://P2PFoundation.net/Rent
> > > http://P2PFoundation.net/Cost
> > > http://P2PFoundation.net/Price
> > > http://P2PFoundation.net/Profit
> > > http://P2PFoundation.net/Wage
> > > http://P2PFoundation.net/Product
> > > http://P2PFoundation.net/Physical_Source
> > > http://P2PFoundation.net/Value
> > >
> > > ... There are others I've forgotten for now...
> > >
> > >
> > > Your peer,
> > > Patrick
> > >
> > > > Hi Patrick,
> > > >
> > > > thanks for adding your items to the wiki, which I think is a good
> thing
> > > > ...
> > > >
> > > > however, I'm concerned by the lack of context for readers, as your
> prose
> > > > is
> > > > very terse, and self-referential, referring to a context most people
> will
> > > > be
> > > > unfamiliar with.
> > > >
> > > > I therefore propose to things:
> > > >
> > > > 1) that you would have your own area under Projects (see bottom of
> right
> > > > column); that you would tag your items so they also appear
> automatically
> > > > in
> > > > that category, and that you clearly indicate in your entries, some
> > > > indication of the context, for example: "as used in [[User
> Ownership]]
> > > > theory .. Readers have to know why there is no general description
> of the
> > > > term, but a definition within a specific context .
> > > >
> > > > What do you think? If you agree, what should you/we use as a
> specialized
> > > > tag? Perhaps: [[Category:Usertheory]] ??
> > > >
> > > > Michel
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > p2presearch mailing list
> > > p2presearch at listcultures.org
> > > http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > The P2P Foundation researches, documents and promotes peer to peer
> alternatives.
> >
> > Wiki and Encyclopedia, at http://p2pfoundation.net; Blog, at
> http://blog.p2pfoundation.net; Newsletter, at
> http://integralvisioning.org/index.php?topic=p2p
> >
> > Basic essay at http://www.ctheory.net/articles.aspx?id=499; interview at
> http://poynder.blogspot.com/2006/09/p2p-very-core-of-world-to-come.html
> > BEST VIDEO ON P2P:
> http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=4549818267592301968&hl=en-AU
> >
> > KEEP UP TO DATE through our Delicious tags at
> http://del.icio.us/mbauwens
> >
> > The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN,
> http://www.shiftn.com/
>

-- 
The P2P Foundation researches, documents and promotes peer to peer
alternatives.

Wiki and Encyclopedia, at http://p2pfoundation.net; Blog, at
http://blog.p2pfoundation.net; Newsletter, at
http://integralvisioning.org/index.php?topic=p2p

Basic essay at http://www.ctheory.net/articles.aspx?id=499; interview at
http://poynder.blogspot.com/2006/09/p2p-very-core-of-world-to-come.html
BEST VIDEO ON P2P:
http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=4549818267592301968&hl=en-AU

KEEP UP TO DATE through our Delicious tags at http://del.icio.us/mbauwens

The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN,
http://www.shiftn.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20080112/bc0ee39f/attachment.html 