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

Fri Apr 24 20:29:31 CEST 2009

That's how I define Perfection.

I don't think anyone can ask for more out of a human being.

On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 8:19 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/
>

-- 

Marc Fawzi
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/people/Marc-Fawzi/605919256
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/marcfawzi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20090424/4d3053cb/attachment-0001.html>