[p2p-research] Venture Communism or social capitalism

[Dante-Gabryell Monson]

Ryan,

very interesting topics.

Should we map them ? Create wiki pages ? Or specific ecologies to process
further ?

By the way,
What could ( or is already ? ) the strategy to further input such questions
and process them ?

Is there a topology of "ecologies " ?  Both physical space ecologies and
online ecologies ?
How do feedback loops work in relation to ecologies ?

How to best engage in such trans-disciplinary processes ?
Also, up to now we converse through mailing list - we may be in different
parts of the world.

I felt that one first step, when we are a minority of people with common
questions, is to find each other. The internet is opening up our potential
to progressively emerge collaboration dynamics by converging such people on
a world wide scale, using a rather largely spoken language - english.  This
is happening right now, through this list, and other lists.

The second step , I feel, was for some of us to meet face to face, through a
international meeting, such as the p2pf/oekonux gathering in Manchester a
few weeks ago.

Is the next, third step, to reach a critical mass to develop such dynamics
in local social networks ? With people we can meet face to face. And
collaborate full time on projects, potentially by living together ?

If so, how do we reach it ? By gathering the people spread all over the
world into one place on a longer period of time as to be able to "manifest"
/ actively enable the systems we discuss about ?  Is this the case of active
prototypes such as E-Farm ?
http://openfarmtech.org/index.php?title=Main_Page

E-farm seems to offer the vision of the advantage of increasing autonomy by
setting up productive capacity to self sustain, and replicate this model to
other communities.

What other strategies do we use/could we use?

I look forward to facilitate the emergence of autonomous p2p production
capacity a la "Open Source Ecology".

My current strategy : I stopped traveling , as I felt there is not enough
potential for stigmergic intentional aggregation of resources through
"request for support" yet ( the "Dante" brand works, but not optimally yet
:-p ) ,
and try to create more or less long term autonomous urban physical spaces
serving as aggregators for peers sharing such intentions.

Can we get allies in the academic world to set up such spaces ?

I feel such p2p non proprietary social network aggregation spaces can be an
alliance of urban coworking spaces ( with potential variety of objectives )
, p2p tutoring spaces such as
http://onceuponaschool.org/ , p2p bike repair spaces, p2p nomad spaces such
as http://casarobino.org , p2p farming spaces such as e-farm, p2p fablab
spaces, hackerlab, ...
perhaps also p2p university spaces ... such as libraries ? How would this
manifest ?

Are such spaces emerging nearby you ? Are they getting connected with each
other ?

-----

Up to now, from my perspective, there is the potential to converge and
participate in - our growing ? :-) - network of ecologies, including
p2pfoundation,
and the will to organize a ( more formal, grant applying ? ) alliance of p2p
researchers. ( Athina, Michel, ... )

There are very active aggregators and facilitators ( such as Michel Bauwens
through p2pfoundation ), and these efforts in turn further attract
participant peers.

Should there be further spin-off aggregators from , for example, this
mailing list, for more specific questions , which adopt similar strategies ?

Although I m not sure if spin-off is the approproate word.

People involved in the MetaCurrency project also see to follow this list,
and participate in it,
and I in turn would be interested in further participating in a MetaCurrency
aggregator.

How can we visualize better when it might be more appropriate to create more
general aggregator platforms.

For example, my current feeling is that MetaCurrency is possibly more
general in terms of currency types of information system architectures, and
could lead to questions which can create spin-offs,
yet MetaCurrency seems more specific compared to p2pfoundation ?


On Sun, May 3, 2009 at 7:07 PM, Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dante:
>
> Yes, I think we are talking about the same things.  However,
>
> I am specifically interested in what ACTIVE but non-hierarchical actions
> work to facilitate the spread of P2P systems with a strong normative
> emphasis on sharing and trust.
>
> This is not the same as a purely natural evolutionary system in that humans
> have evolved leadership and social norms to a degree of sophistication that
> might not be mirrored in the rest of the animal or plant kingdoms.  We plan,
> we design, we target (and we do all these things with sophistication,
> regularity, and with a high degree of capacity for change.)
>
> I am also interested, but less so, in what PASSIVE but non-hierarchical
> systems evolve spontaneously to achieve similar ends. Most natural
> evolutionary processes I take to be PASSIVE.  It is a fine line.  Some say
> that humans have merely accelerated evolution by active emphasis on
> experiment.
>
> Thus, the words I emphasize for my primary interests is ACTIVE ENABLING.
> What actively enables P2P?  And when one understands what, the question
> becomes why?  Why do such efforts work?  Why do people try them?  Where is
> the motivation?
>
> To my mind these are questions of behavioral economics, sociology,
> organizational theory and organizational behavior and also questions of
> sociobiology, artificial intelligence, swarm biology, and similar topics.
>
> Ryan Lanham
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, May 3, 2009 at 11:08 AM, Dante-Gabryell Monson <
> dante.monson at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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/20090503/2ced2125/attachment-0001.html>