[p2p-research] Venture Communism or social capitalism

[Dante-Gabryell Monson]

Hy Ryan

I share your interest in , if I understand properly,

studying feed back loops in a system of choices in p2p dynamics,
and how this emergent system of choices in a distributed system :

- enables the system of peers to dynamically adapt its relations ( aka: it
learns ? and adapts ? )

- enables a peer in a system of peers to understand sets of relations and
use such understanding in the choices in can contribute when being past of a
distributed system of peers.

----

In other words,

The feedback loops between participation of peers to an environment and the
positioning of choices of each peer in such environment - through actions
and choices which can raise questions, and through materials documenting
such processes.

On Sun, May 3, 2009 at 5:26 PM, Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963 at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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/20090503/890fa38f/attachment-0001.html>