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

Fri Apr 24 17:50:49 CEST 2009

Michel,

These are, to my mind, reasoned and reasonable perspectives that obviously
demonstrate considerable reflection already.  Your openness is also
commendable.

Leaders do have warts and people are flawed (or perhaps people are not
straightforward systems of logic).  Anyone "out there" enough to be a social
entrepreneur is going to have personality rough spots that show with greater
than normal frequency than, say, an institutional business person hiding
behind all sorts of conventions to appear stable.  None of us are immune
from rough spots--historians wield considerable power in either glossing
over them or showing the to us in association with heroes and big egos in
general.  Only those persons who are absolutely unable to reflect on their
own rough spots and care about self-correction to some socially acceptable
degree are truly dangerous.  A cassock doesn't make a monk, and not all
monks wear their devotions on their sleeves.  All leaders and all social
entrepreneurs deal with ego issues.  It is a necessary paradox to be
selfless and central--I always think of Anthony Quinn's character in the
film, Lawrence of Arabia-Lawrence charms him by saying "you are a river to
your people."

It would be fascinating as well as potentially productive to deal with the
issues you raise systematically as part of a p2p governance action learning
self-as-experiment set of research.  To a large extent you already do that.
But with some radical transparency about your aims and advice as to p2p
consistent ways to achieve them, nothing seems bizarre or unreasonable.

You are of course right that institutions must exist.  Great people work
for universities, for instance, and my little peeves aren't too enlightening
to them...people need a paycheck, for instance, and health insurance, etc.
Social entrepreneurs are a rare breed who wander out Thoreau-style and just
try to make it work with relatively low value placed on the associated
ambiguity and uncertainty.  P2P social entrepreneurism is even more selfless
in that you are all but guaranteed to subordinate ego to collective.

It seems to me utopian socialism ran into similar issues.  I don't think p2p
is New Harmony, Indiana, though, and I don't think p2p-f is Michel Bauwens'
secret strategy for being the next Steve Jobs.  Simply being intentional,
reflective and open makes you worthy in your role.  Any who judges the rest,
has to walk a mile in your shoes or similar shoes.  Yet we do all judge, and
the judgements can at times hurt those who live something even when they are
lodged by someone rather peripheral to a life or institution.

Ryan

On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 10:19 AM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>wrote:

> 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/f22b0543/attachment-0001.html>