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

Sun Apr 26 09:30:22 CEST 2009

Hi Ryan,

well if you do have some special process, not just for me, but for the
others, we can always try that out?

by the way, I urge everyone to buy mathieu's cyberchiefs book, which has a
really excellent chapter on theories of online authority,

Michel

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

-- 
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/20090426/003a4d50/attachment-0001.html>