[p2p-research] engaging with the core principles

Tue May 12 17:17:41 CEST 2009

Interesting Michel.  I suppose it is inevitable that someone must be called
retro by being postmodern, and I am it, it seems.

Seriously, I understand what you are saying and I agree.  Your view is that
the commons is a source of social linkage and therefore identity.  But one
would also like to avoid compulsory Nehru suits or Mao caps at the same
time.  We want an artistic freedom to express along with a willingness to
share...not an obligatory commitment to join the Borg (since Star Trek seems
vogue now.)

One area where I think P2P is sharply in contrast with socialism is in the
fact that P2P seems to eschew any notion of obligatory participation.

Perhaps we might say something like the following:

P2P is not a framework for institutionalizing worldviews or standardizing
political wills.  It is not ideological in any strong sense.  Rather, it is
a voluntary model where, even when commitment is quite high and very deeply
felt, it is inappropriate for a participant to feel bound to a specific way
of being, appearing, acting or judging in order to share in a P2P ethos.  At
the same time, destructive anti-commons actions, or highly heterodox
expressions to the point of being highly distracting and disruptive for most
participants in a sharing and trust model is counter-productive and
appropriately sanctioned by those charged to protect a group,

That seems overwrought and repetitive with some other sections, but I throw
it out for consideration..

Ryan Lanham

On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 3:41 AM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>wrote:

> Ryan,
>
> I have moved to section to.
>
> I only have one question:
>
> - (commons) is usually of low intensity in relationship to a participant's
> identity formation.
>
> hmm ... I'm actually assuming that people are more and more building their
> identities through their engagement with the commons
>
> see:
>
> "*Postmodernism was all about deconstructing oppressive mental structures
> that we inherited from modernity. Amongst other things the Cartesian
> subject/object split and the alienating effects of Kantian's impossibility
> of knowing true reality; it was a necessary destructive passage, a cleaning
> out process, but it didn't, as its names "post"- indicate, construct
> anything. So in my view, if modernity was about constructing the individual
> (along subject/object divisions), and postmodernity about deconstructing
> this, then this new era, which I'ld like to call the era of participation,
> is about constructing relationality or participation. We are not going back
> to the premodern wholistic era and feelings, but just as modernity was about
> rigorously individualising everything, eventually reaching the current
> dead-end of hyper-individualism, we are now just as rigorously
> 'relationising' everything. If in premodernity we thought, we are parts of a
> whole that is one and above us, and in modernity we thought we are separate
> and unified individuals, a world onto ourselves, and in postmodernity saw
> ourselves fragmenting, and pretty much lamented this, then this is the
> mash-up era. We now know that all this fragments can be reconstructed with
> the zillions of fragment of the others, into zillions of commonalities, into
> temporary wholes that are so many new creative projects, but all united in a
> ever-moving Commons that is open to all of us..*
>
> So the fragmentation of postmodernity is a given for us now, but we are no
> longer lamenting, we are discovering the technologies (infrastructural,
> collaborative-software-ish, political, but above all the mental and
> epistemological) that allow us to use this fragmentation to create the Great
> Cosmic Mash-Up. That is the historical task of the emerging Peer to Peer Era
> *."*
>
>
> On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 9:44 PM, Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963 at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Michel, in order to address your concern: I added Item H below.  See if
>> that affirmation of moral action makes you more comfortable with Section 1.
>> Also, for those new to the discussion, we are collaborating on
>> http://p2pfoundation.net/Core_Peer-2-Peer_Collaboration_Principles specifically
>> Article 1 and subsequent.  Any and all comments, changes, criticisms, etc.
>> are welcome.
>>
>>  [edit<http://p2pfoundation.net/Core_Peer-2-Peer_Collaboration_Principles?title=Core_Peer-2-Peer_Collaboration_Principles&action=edit&section=40>
>> ] Article 1. P2P Interactions
>>
>> A. High quality P2P <http://p2pfoundation.net/P2P> interactions exist
>> between peers. Peers typically recognize and interact with each other
>> without reference to rank or hierarchies<http://p2pfoundation.net/Core_Peer-2-Peer_Collaboration_Principles?title=Hierarchies&action=edit&redlink=1>.
>>
>>
>> B. Peers' willingness to interact is not primarily linked to external
>> drivers. External drivers might include, for example, prestige in
>> undertaking an interaction, financial gain, or duty.
>>
>> C. P2P interactions are not amoral or value neutral. A p2p ethos embodies
>> trying to act with goodness and goodwill<http://p2pfoundation.net/Core_Peer-2-Peer_Collaboration_Principles?title=Goodwill&action=edit&redlink=1>as well as with practical skills and wisdom.
>>
>> D. Peer interactions are judged (by others who aspire to a p2p ethos) as
>> qualitatively superior if linked to contributing to a commons<http://p2pfoundation.net/Commons>.
>>
>>
>> E. Another measure of quality is the contribution to mission critical
>> functionality <http://p2pfoundation.net/Mission_critical_functionality>.
>> For example, this might involve efforts that save lives, advance learning
>> and understanding, enable sustainable economic processes or otherwise
>> support or enable key components of the public good as openly understood in
>> free, deliberative and collaborative societies.
>>
>> F. P2P interactions attempt to minimize mediating forces or organizations.
>> Hierachies that impose governance on p2p interactions that are otherwise
>> consistent with social standards and laws are not appropriate to the ethos.
>> This is particularly true if the party imposing governance is acting with
>> some interest other than enabling smooth, stable and harmless p2p
>> interactions.
>>
>> G. A p2p ethos is inconsistent with the purposeful extraction of value
>> from interactions when no such value is contributed directly to a given
>> interaction. Simply enabling future actions is not a creation of p2p value
>> worthy of repeated compensation. That is, royalties or licensing fees are
>> not consistent with a p2p ethos.
>>
>> H. A P2P ethos is consistent with advancing the interests of the
>> underprivileged, the weak, those on the bottom of the digital divide, or any
>> who have need of a more sustaining commons provided through fair and honest
>> means.
>>
>> I. Unless dire political consequences are involved, peers should not be
>> anonymous[3]<http://p2pfoundation.net/Core_Peer-2-Peer_Collaboration_Principles#_note-Anonymity>.
>>
>>
>> J. What to avoid: P2P specifically does not aim to circumvent human
>> rights, democratically enacted laws, rightfully established organizational
>> controls, or legitimate claims of property in force. Rather, p2p seeks to
>> build and expand common resources that are expressly free, open,
>> collaborative and mutually beneficial.
>>
>> Ryan Lanham
>>
>>
>>
>>   On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 3:19 AM, Michel Bauwens <
>> michelsub2004 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Ryan,
>>>
>>> only a minor remark then for this first section, I feel I agree with all
>>> your formulations
>>>
>>>  On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 11:21 AM, Michel Bauwens <
>>> michelsub2004 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Ryan,
>>>>
>>>> I have been overwhelmed lately, but ready now to engage with your core
>>>> principles,
>>>>
>>>> Would it be useful for you to discuss your draft, say section by
>>>> section, starting with this:
>>>>
>>>> If you agree, I will start commenting after receiving that reply:
>>>>
>>>> Article 1. P2P Interactions
>>>>
>>>> A. High quality P2P <http://p2pfoundation.net/P2P> interactions exist
>>>> between peers. Peers typically recognize and interact with each other
>>>> without reference to rank or hierarchies<http://p2pfoundation.net/Core_Peer-2-Peer_Collaboration_Principles?title=Hierarchies&action=edit&redlink=1>.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Here a reference to Equipotentiality may be useful? see
>>> http://p2pfoundation.net/Equipotentiality
>>>
>>>
>>>>  B. Peers' willingness to interact is not primarily linked to external
>>>> drivers. External drivers might include, for example, prestige in
>>>> undertaking an interaction, financial gain, or duty.
>>>>
>>>> C. P2P interactions are not amoral or value neutral. A p2p ethos
>>>> embodies trying to act with goodness and goodwill<http://p2pfoundation.net/Core_Peer-2-Peer_Collaboration_Principles?title=Goodwill&action=edit&redlink=1>as well as with practical skills and wisdom.
>>>>
>>>> D. Peer interactions are judged (by others who aspire to a p2p ethos) as
>>>> qualitatively superior if linked to contributing to a commons<http://p2pfoundation.net/Commons>.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> E. Another measure of quality is the contribution to mission critical
>>>> functionality <http://p2pfoundation.net/Mission_critical_functionality>.
>>>> For example, this might involve efforts that save lives, advance learning
>>>> and understanding, enable sustainable economic processes or otherwise
>>>> support or enable key components of the public good as openly understood in
>>>> free, deliberative and collaborative societies.
>>>>
>>>> F. P2P interactions attempt to minimize mediating forces or
>>>> organizations. Hierachies that impose governance on p2p interactions that
>>>> are otherwise consistent with social standards and laws are not appropriate
>>>> to the ethos. This is particularly true if the party imposing governance is
>>>> acting with some interest other than enabling smooth, stable and harmless
>>>> p2p interactions.
>>>>
>>>> G. A p2p ethos is inconsistent with the purposeful extraction of value
>>>> from interactions when no such value is contributed directly to a given
>>>> interaction. Simply enabling future actions is not a creation of p2p value
>>>> worthy of repeated compensation. That is, royalties or licensing fees are
>>>> not consistent with a p2p ethos.
>>>>
>>>> H. Unless dire political consequences are involved, peers should not be
>>>> anonymous[3]<http://p2pfoundation.net/Core_Peer-2-Peer_Collaboration_Principles#_note-Anonymity>.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I. What to avoid: P2P specifically does not aim to circumvent human
>>>> rights, democratically enacted laws, rightfully established organizational
>>>> controls, or legitimate claims of property in force. Rather, p2p seeks to
>>>> build and expand common resources that are expressly free, open,
>>>> collaborative and mutually beneficial.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I probably agree with does not aim, but neither would it be opposed to
>>> legimate attempts to change them, see for example the landless movement in
>>> Brazil?
>>>
>>> Michel
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> 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/20090512/3b31fee8/attachment-0001.html>