[p2p-research] Was Re: P2P Medicine -- Making Your Smart Phone / Now P2P and Futurism

Fri Apr 24 16:56:36 CEST 2009

Michel Bauwens asks...

"would you consider the p2p-f a spontaneous organization? In my case, I have
a loose vision of what I want to see happen next, and certainly, I/we are
able to realize some of it, even though, most of it is, in the context of a
totally volunteer organization, out of my control, but nudging constantly in
a certain direction is not without effect, and a certain intuitive
understanding of the logic of social dynamics ('what is likely to happen
next'), can help"

I think that leadership that becomes ego-centric tends to lead to
institution-making.  I know that is not your intent.  P2P institution making
is (almost) a contradiction in terms.

You walk the fine line between facilitator-in-chief and personality of the
organization of p2p-f.  At some level of success and prominence, you will
need to decide between your role as institution facilitator and the free and
open p2p evolution of what you have created.  This is a grave challenge to
all successful open systems organizers.  I'd guess the right answers come in
dialogue with the people you've listed in the p2p Hall of Fame.  I have not
faced that moral bridge myself, and I cannot gauge where the p2p-f is in
relationship to any ego-versus-peer governance crisis.  I believe that your
sensitivity to this issue probably prevents your being blinded by ego more
than the great majority--as was true of Lessig, Stallman, etc.

The advantage p2p entities have is that they are rooted in a particular
morality--it is not a technology or an architecture--it is a morality--a
political economic theory--at least to me.

Some questions you would need to reflect on (if I was some sort of mentoring
consultant)

1. Where do you want the organization to be in 3 years?

2. How do you see your role/ego playing out in the future of the
organization?

3. What would you want to have happen to the organization if some personal
crisis blocked your participation?

4. Who are the stakeholders of the p2p-f?

5. How dependent is the organization on your personal zeal, commitment,
mind, reputation, etc. and should you manage that to some alternatives?

I cannot judge these things.  I do like you and am confident in your moral
compass as a leader from a reasonable set of interactions on which to form a
judgment.  That said, I can imagine any leader falling in love with their
own visions to the point of losing collaborative legitimacy (and too many
have done so again and again.)

Ryan

 Ryan Lanham

On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 9:19 PM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>wrote:

>
>
>  On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 9:10 AM, Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963 at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>> Hi Michel, Marc,
>> I'd see visioning as teleological.  Engineering requires
>> visioning...visioning is teleological.  At some juncture what we implement
>> is what we imagine as feasible and good--a purpose.  Yes, accidents and
>> black swans are major factors, but you've got to plan for some end---and
>> having a vision is necessarily ideological.
>>
>  agreed
>
>
>
>>
>> But planning isn't done well by spontaneous organizations...they react.
>> P2P either is a worldview, or it is a description of certain social
>> phenomena.  If it is a description, it is planning neutral.  If it is a
>> worldview, its vision is to reach normative states of high trust and
>> sharing.  It doesn't try to reach some defined end.
>>
>  would you consider the p2p-f a spontaneous organization? In my case, I
> have a loose vision of what I want to see happen next, and certainly, I/we
> are able to realize some of it, even though, most of it is, in the context
> of a totally volunteer organization, out of my control, but nudging
> constantly in a certain direction is not without effect, and a certain
> intuitive understanding of the logic of social dynamics ('what is likely to
> happen next'), can help
>
>
>
>
>>
>> So, isn't p2p divergent from a planning culture?  Isn't it inconsistent
>> with progressive theories?  It might be a mode of interacting, but not a
>> philosophy that reaches for a purpose other than ideas surrounding its mode
>> of interaction.
>>
>  well, I think we need to distinguish a broad shift towards an informal
> p2p ethos and attending practices, full blown peer
> produciton/governance/property by communities aware of what they're doing,
> the p2p-f community, and my own understanding of p2p theory, these are 4
> different things
>
> I don't think p2p is inconsistent with planning, but it is with top down
> centralized planning, but that the glocal coordination in view of the
> realization of value can have a planning component, I don't discount at all;
> I actually suspect that we may see a revival of planning at some point
>
>
>>
>> Maybe you have to combine pragmatism with p2p, or some utopian model--like
>> a mutualist or socialist utopian model.  Does p2p stand by itself as a
>> worldview, or does it complement existing worldviews?
>>
>  I think, in my p2p theory version of it, it aims to stand on its own, but
> it is very specifically oriented to thinking about understand p2p trends,
> and achieving a p2p society; it does not claim to explain all of reality,
> nor to substitute for all social movements; therefore, it seeks
> complementary theories, and alliances with complimentary movements; p2p, as
> ideology most appropriate to the value system of contemporary knowledge
> workers, needs to find connection with workers and farmers for example
>
>
>>
>> (All above is at least half-baked...maybe wholly so.)
>>
>> Ryan Lanham
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 8:49 PM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Hi Marc, Ryan,
>>> beautifully said Marc,
>>>
>>> of course, vision, and thinking about the future, even utopia, are all
>>> legitimate
>>>
>>> my problem with superlative transhumanism is its lack of any social
>>> awareness, its technological determinism, and scientific reductionism
>>>
>>> of course, today, most h+ is no longer right-libertarian, but as the WTA
>>> is, rather social-democratic in approach, so by all means, I'm in favour of
>>> dialogue around areas of common concern
>>>
>>> but the relentless imagining that what we wish for is already there, or
>>> just around the corner, I find cumbersome; as is the focus on technological
>>> promise above everything else
>>>
>>> what I try to do, perhaps imperfectly is to distinguish clearly between
>>> facts (they must  be correct, not imagined), moral interpretation (what
>>> aspect do we like in these facts) and a praxis (how can we strengthen what
>>> we like). To the degree that futurism and visioning inspires such action,
>>> and does not distort the facts, I see no problem at all.
>>>
>>> Michel
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 8:37 AM, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi at gmail.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I think Michel is referring to the ideology in a vacuum, i.e. in the
>>>> absence of anything real.
>>>> You can have a vision in the absence of something real to substantiate
>>>> it and that is called futuring or visioning and it's part of human nature.
>>>>
>>>> But you cannot have an ideology in the absence of something real to
>>>> substantiate it.
>>>>
>>>> So the issue, IMO, is vision vs ideology.
>>>>
>>>> Ideology that is there before there is any supporting reality is
>>>> delusion.
>>>>
>>>> Vision is different, as it foreshadows what is to come and does not
>>>> pretend that it is already here.
>>>>
>>>> Marc
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 12:09 PM, Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963 at gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 11:21 PM, Michel Bauwens <
>>>>> michelsub2004 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Sam,
>>>>>> as you perhaps know, I studied for a number of years the implications
>>>>>> of the  transhuman promises, when making TechnoCalyps,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> my problems are:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1) people like kurzweil and other superlatives go seemlessly, and
>>>>>> unwarrantedly, from actual research, to the promise of the research, to
>>>>>> imagining that everything is done already
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> I wonder if the follow-on from your position, Michel, is that
>>>>> evangelism and futurism are inconsistent with P2P systems, which are more
>>>>> focused on deployment and solutions?
>>>>>
>>>>> I find the distinction of p2p to be its moral tones.  Its pervasive
>>>>> political economic view is trust and responsibility--much more than any
>>>>> brand of socialism or libertarianism, for example, I am aware of.
>>>>>
>>>>> It may be those ethical traits which remove it from evangelism and,
>>>>> especially, futurism.  Futurism must be speculative, rhetorical and
>>>>> visioning.  Perhaps the risks associated with those veins makes futurism
>>>>> inconsistent with p2p's moral/ethical tone.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ryan
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> p2presearch mailing list
>>>>> p2presearch at listcultures.org
>>>>> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Marc Fawzi
>>>> Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/people/Marc-Fawzi/605919256
>>>> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/marcfawzi
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -- Working at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University -
>>> http://www.dpu.ac.th/dpuic/info/Research.html -
>>> http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
>>>
>>> Volunteering at the P2P Foundation:
>>> http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net -
>>> http://p2pfoundation.ning.com
>>>
>>> Monitor updates at http://del.icio.us/mbauwens
>>>
>>> The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN,
>>> http://www.shiftn.com/
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Working at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University -
> http://www.dpu.ac.th/dpuic/info/Research.html -
> http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
>
> Volunteering at the P2P Foundation:
> http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net -
> http://p2pfoundation.ning.com
>
> Monitor updates 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/20090424/62c91afe/attachment-0001.html>