[p2p-research] Venture Communism or social capitalism

Sun May 3 17:26:42 CEST 2009

I'll break off a piece.

Big understudied and under-theorized areas:

1. Interaction of knowledge and p2p
2. Processes for learning in p2p environments
3. The relationship of the first 2 points with resilience.

In short, we don't understand how p2p systems govern themselves, how
collaboration interacts with learning, how informal processes become more
formal, etc.

With regard to MetaCurrency, I have more questions than answers and hope you
will inform us all.

We also, I would add, need more careful and factual coverage of p2p case
studies...what has worked and what has not.  We need to know what happens in
reality versus theory and why.  We need good text books and wikis that
compile information the way Michel has.  And we need openness to innovation
without collapsing into brand-push versus p2p pull systems.  P2P is
organic.  It isn't pushed (in my opinion).  It can be enabled.  So we need
to ask, what is the difference between enabling and pushing.  (Sounds like a
therapy session).

Ryan Lanham

On Sun, May 3, 2009 at 8:09 AM, Dante-Gabryell Monson <
dante.monson at gmail.com> wrote:

> Amazing , Great replies !
>
> I feel this topic could go on for ever !
>
> Right now, I feel like using the perspective of ( the feeling of ? )
> security...
> I want to see if we can collaboratively develop suggestions for solutions.
>
> ----
>
> Can we feel secure without having specific control on one specific object,
> place or person ?
> Can we feel secure when knowing that our interdependence can rely on
> "requests" to and from others.
>
> How do we choose to experience security ?
> Do we need reference points ?  Can we develop distributed reference points
> ?
>
> How can these questions be answered ?
>
> I ll give it an attempt below,
> re-opening a few questions,
> and re-opening the topic of information systems - including money -,
> consciousness, ...
>
>
> -------------
>
> What is "*engagement*" in a p2p paradigm of relationships ?
>
> Is engagement in a p2p approach about staying open to collaboratively
> empower each other towards an aim,   and not about specific mutual
> expectations ?
>
> How can we visualize *resilience* in p2p systems ? Through its *capacity
> to understand and learn* / adapt ?
>
> Is there any situation in p2p systems where *coercion* is being used ?
> Or is it merely a matter of each peer *making choices* in relation to *what
> it can do* towards supporting a choice...
> without needing to impose action on others ?
>
> Yet ... choices indirectly impact the environment which we can all
> experience.
>
> Is "engagement" merely that of *( having access to ) participating* when
> one wants to choose to participate / equipotentiality ?
>
> http://p2pfoundation.net/Equipotentiality
>
> *How do we collaboratively visualize the ( potential ) impacts of our
> choices on our shared environments*.  How can each of us have the
> potential to make informed choices,
> as to potentially *decide to act together with others towards common
> intentions* ?
>
> Is accumulation of ownership of property facilitating equipotentiality ?
> What forms of ownership facilitate equipotentiality ?
>
> Does equipotentiality lead to a feeling of security ?
>
> These are some inter-related questions that lead me to think about *"intentional
> information systems"*.
>
> -
>
> I mentioned some non linear axioms for a post-symbolic spatial language
> previously. ( some kind of "meta-cortex" )
> I ll reply to Georg in a next email, with some links and some more details.
>
> Such meta-cortex can be a distributed information system that allows such
> holoptic visualization.
>
> Yet *I also see other tools, which are closer to what we would currently
> call "money", although defined in a different way, with a different
> consciousness*,
> which itself could be visualized in the spatial post-symbolic language.
>
> I ll describe such kind of money architecture in the next paragraph.
>
> ------
>
> For the moment, I realize a great deal of interdependence is
> non-distributed,
>
> as it is specifically dependent on specific information systems
> architectures such as the current mainstream form of money. ( I ll add a
> description further below ** )
>
> --------
>
> Instead of a system where debt/money is owed from individuals to other
> individuals or entities,
>
> *I look forward to "reverse" the way we look at debt.*
>
> Instead of owing debt to others, everyone can choose to owe debt to
> intention one wants to support. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intention)
>
> Hence, *units could become "requests for support"*
>
> Instead of having a debt monetary system,
> one could have a "request for support" monetary system.
>
> If you are interested, I can send you more details.
> Although as Michel Bauwens pointed out, many of us are coming out with new
> inventions for monetary systems,
> and perhaps the MetaCurrency project can serve as an aggregator where we
> can compare and be mutually inspired by our system designs.
>
>
>
> -------
>
> ** Brief reminder / description of current mainstream money story as I see
> it :
>
> Many of us seem to set ourselves within the dimensions of interdependence
> which are "dependent" on monetary information systems.
>
> I realize that todays monetary information systems are setting most
> individuals in society into the consciousness of a dimension of "debt".  As
> debt is created ... money is created...
>
> Money currently seems to be "debt"... to a system with a private banking
> system... which promotes accumulation of other peoples debt.
>
> There seems to be a strong meme embedded in western socio culture which
> promotes itself through the aim of accumulating other peoples debt in the
> interest of our individualistic coercive decision making capacity on
> society.
>
> Furthermore, this coercive consciousness dimension is addicted, as there is
> interest... that needs to be paid with debt units/money that do not exist
> yet... hence the need to continually grow the total debt through creating
> new markets ( including speculative markets ).
>
> All this in ... the interest of the ones that have been able to accumulate
> and/or hoard other peoples debt... giving them power in a artificially
> scarce system of debt exchange units...
>
>
> On Sun, May 3, 2009 at 12:01 AM, <paola.dimaio at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I agree with your concerns, Patrick
>>  I need bits of personal property like my mug, my books, my sanctuary and
>> sacred space where I feel safe and where I am absolutely free, etc etc
>>
>> I agree that the notion of property may need  to be revisted a bit, (my
>> children, my boyfriend, to what extend we own things? isnt everything just
>> passing, and we do really is take care of things, or use things)
>>
>> just controlling things for a purpose may not necessarily imply ownership
>> as we know it
>>
>> but I feel it would be more productive to articulate a discussion around
>> how to increase the benefits of certain kinds of private properies by
>> sharing its usage and maximising the circulation of resources, or something
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 10:49 PM, Patrick Anderson <agnucius at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> Ryan Lanham wrote:
>>> > My own view of this is that ownership is moot in p2p.
>>>
>>> I agree property ownership has caused and continues to cause big
>>> problems for those that would otherwise organize for 'righteous'
>>> purposes.
>>>
>>> But if we cannot or will-not use some form of property ownership, then
>>> how will we even secure the Land and Tools we need to begin?  Are we
>>> going to beg the Capitalist controlled governments to hand these to
>>> us?
>>>
>>> But even if we can somehow gain access to the Means of Production
>>> without simply purchasing them, how will we solve the difficulties of
>>> allocation and scheduling that many would rather not even think about?
>>>
>>> It's nice to think we would all just share and do the right thing, but
>>> that is both naive and even downright dangerous because we then fail
>>> to prepare for those that WILL do the wrong thing.
>>>
>>> Protecting any organization requires we plan for the worst elements.
>>> Security is made best by taking the stance of the would-be attacker or
>>> disrupter and then designing measures that will thwart those advances.
>>>
>>> Again, 'raw' property ownership is a problem, and we cannot use it in
>>> 'bare' form while expecting to see a difference from what we already
>>> experience (Excessive Capital accumulation for example).
>>>
>>> But since owners are traditionally the semi-ultimate controllers of
>>> that property, maybe we could utilize the 'good' portions of ownership
>>> to have a place to stand while applying some restrictions against the
>>> 'bad' portions of ownership (since owners can always add "Terms of
>>> Use" to their own property) in a manner analogous to the way the GNU
>>> GPL uses Copyright against itself.
>>>
>>> I won't say what I think should be in the "Terms of Use", since I've
>>> already said this part in the past, and will only get in trouble if I
>>> repeat that now.
>>>
>>> I don't want to debate (right now) *what* the constraints should be,
>>> I'm only wondering if such an approach is worthy of consideration as
>>> an avenue of implementation.
>>>
>>> Patrick
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> p2presearch mailing list
>>> p2presearch at listcultures.org
>>> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Paola Di Maio,
>> ****************************************
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> p2presearch mailing list
>> p2presearch at listcultures.org
>> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> p2presearch mailing list
> p2presearch at listcultures.org
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20090503/26da9c5d/attachment-0001.html>