[p2p-research] engaging with the core principles

Wed May 13 13:27:45 CEST 2009

Hi Ryan,

I think we understand each other, not sure if it is necessary to have a
whole paragraph to indicate this subtle discussion ?

I'll leave it up to you?

(perhaps we can say that a peer project only judges persons on their
voluntary participation to the common object, without requiring involuntary
changes in identity in matters unconnected to the project; that
differentiates with premodern communities that do require it)

Michel

On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 10:17 PM, Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963 at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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/
>>
>
>

-- 
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/20090513/d029f5b1/attachment-0001.html>