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

Fri Apr 24 17:19:00 CEST 2009

Dear Ryan,

Thanks for this input.

As a personality, I do love the limelight and the particular role as
evangelist, apart from the passion of learning while also contributing
hopefully to a somewhat better world. What I try to do is I think congruent
with the p2p philosophy, i.e. to turn my particular ego structure and wants
into something that is useful to a collective p2p project. Perhaps because I
did a lot of self-work in my twenties, as well as an intensive spiritual
search, I'm a little more sensitive than average against the danger of
letting this ego drive dominate.

What I do consciously, and as much as I can,  is to nudge and push other
people to contribute and take a role, and not to feel threatened by this. My
preferred method is to position such people as 'experts' in their own right,
part of an ecology in which I have my own, admittedly 'big' part. It is my
concern that I'm taking so much place, that it indeed discourages others, as
it must sometimes do, but at the same time, I think that the growing number
of participating people  in the network also show a relative success.

I also try to consciously escape any "edifice complex', i.e. the
identification of the project with ego that destroyed Wilber's work.

All the big decisions I always put to the other contributors, not the hall
of fame people, but people like you and Sam etc.. . I've seen Lessig's
attitude against Yochai Benkler in a conference, and the obvious jealousy
was not a pretty sight, but of course, I cannot but acknowledge his major
contributions, despite these human flaws; similary for Richard S., to which
I'm very forgiven because he has a medical condition, and I don't think he's
in any way power-hungry.

The only times I would 'take' power, would be in the case of grave
violations of civility, and when I would feel the very principles of the
project would be in danger.

Would I love to disappear behind the project, frankly no, but would I love
the project to continue were I not able to do so, yes, very much so.

Now, I would love a certain level of institution building for the P2P
Foundation, but this is not for my ego, nor for power, but for finding ways
of sustaining full time work for it, not just for myself, but for other
people, as there are just so many things a volunteer organization can do.

like in free software and peer production, such institutionalization should
just be for the infrastructure of cooperation, and not a command and control
structure that would have any say over the volunteers.

For me an institution, i.e. a set of social relationships that exist in time
independent of the particular individuals involved, is not contradictory to
p2p, only a rigid hierarchy would be. P2P has to find its own forms of
institutionalization and sustainability.

I'm trying to answer some of your questions below, inline

On 4/24/09, Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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?
>

I would like to have enough money to pay myself well (say, 2,000 EUR if I
were to live in Thailand, more if I were abroad), as well as 2-3-4 other
people; find funding for projects so that more people can make a living from
dedicated work to p2p; I would like the p2p alternative to be much better
known, including in the mainstream; I would like to develop a minimal
commercial infrastructure, selling books, etc... to make it sustainable and
pay people liek James burke; I'd like to see a flurry of spinoffs, which
I/we would not need to control or command, but would be somehow related to
in a ecology of cooperation, i.e. the academic research group, a think
thank, a publishing house ...

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

to be one of the leading figures of a broader p2p movement, with enough time
to continue to devote to thinking and research, and without worry for the
survival of my own family

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

that a few core members care enough to 'take over' the role of nudging and
leading the community to more participation and outreach

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

everybody who contributes, as well as secondarily, all that are interested

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

I think it is too dependent, and I worry a lot about what would happen if my
own possiblity of contributing would diminish, as in fact could happen at
the end of May already, when I start teaching; but how do it differently I
don't know, I do all I can ...

> 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/
>
>
>

-- 
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/20090424/2293ff67/attachment-0001.html>