[p2p-research] engaging with the core principles

[Ryan Lanham]

Haven't heard of bolo bolo Michel.  I'll look it up.  Love cult classics.

It goes without saying...by the bye, that none of my comments are meant
personally or taken as such.  I care about these things, but I am too
ignorant and humbled by stupendous past mistakes to ever have much
confidence I really know what the right approaches are.  Like a bad golfer,
something keeps taking me back to the course even though I know I'll be
miserable after the day's end.  Inuits have 33 words for snow or white or
whatever, futurists and theorists must have 33 words for fool.

R.

Ryan Lanham



On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 10:27 AM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>wrote:

> hi ryan,
>
> have you heard of the cult classic bolo bolo, which answers that question?
>
> I haven't read it myself though,
>
> Michel
>
>
> On 5/16/09, Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Left and right now, there is a strange anti-organizational power emerging
>> that can only remind one of Proudhon, Spooner and other
>> anarcho-libertarian-socialists.
>>
>> I'm inclined to think that Kevin may be on to something.  It is a social
>> order (or lack thereof) I cannot easily comprehend.
>>
>> If someone can give me a link to a futuristic portrait of how such a
>> society might work in the large...a real picture of it--I'd be very
>> grateful.  I'm trying to imagine 9 billion people living in anarcho-utopian
>> socialism and things working out OK.  Or is this just academic?
>>
>> Ryan Lanham
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 6:44 AM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Marc,
>>>
>>> let's distinguish a few things:
>>>
>>> - Ryan's core principles is his project, to which I'm commenting, and he
>>> is free to use the formulations he wants, just as you did with your p2p
>>> energy project
>>>
>>> - but I have my own, on certain aspects quite strong, convictions ...
>>>
>>> The distinction between p2p as ethics, which I think exists, and p2p as a
>>> specific mode of production/governance and property, is important, in <my>
>>> view, because it is its very hyperproductivity which makes it the likely
>>> candidate for the succesor civilization, if it would just be ethics ...
>>> well, we have christian ethics and buddhist ethics but still a very
>>> exploitative and destructive society .. Ethics is not enough, congruent
>>> change is needed on different levels at the same time, and can only succeed
>>> if it is demontrably better than what it intends to replace ..
>>>
>>> But again, these are my convictions, there is no requirement to adhere to
>>> it at all,
>>>
>>> just as you are free to defend the ethical point of view, please allow me
>>> to defend the other point of view,
>>>
>>> Michel
>>>
>>>
>>> On 5/15/09, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> But then you create two classes of citizens (or members) within the
>>>> P2P Foundation: those who uphold some officially recognized "core"
>>>> principles and those who don't, like America which is a Christian
>>>> nation even if Obama says its not (just look at the dollar bill or go
>>>> live in any small town where the dominant belief system is
>>>> Christianity) but they 'tolerate' non-Christians and are inclusive on
>>>> the surface.
>>>>
>>>> Having fixed or core beliefs or principles that are not open to change
>>>> (not just debate) and that are upheld and defended always separates
>>>> people and can never unite humanity.
>>>>
>>>> What we share as human beings are not principles that we fight for and
>>>> defend but moral and rational ideals and we can capture that
>>>> commonslity in our case here as the ideal of the commons and other
>>>> adjunct.
>>>>
>>>> I would definitely not subscribe to any Core Principles because of
>>>> what the phrase means but simply changing the phrase (not the ideas)
>>>> to Common Ideals will allow me to subscribe to them.
>>>>
>>>> As a thinking person, I'm very sensitive to the underlying meaning of
>>>> things.
>>>>
>>>> Marc
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 5/15/09, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> > we do have a different approach, but it is not a 'requirement' to be
>>>> part
>>>> > of
>>>> > the p2p foundation, which is pluralist <g> ... so: difference is
>>>> > appreciated
>>>> >
>>>> > On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 11:22 AM, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> It sounds like a complex rational device.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Keeping it simple, focused on the ideals on top of which variety of
>>>> >> frameworks are based, is better in my opinion than presenting it as a
>>>> >> core of principles that one must to uphold and defend to be part of
>>>> >> the P2P Foundation's view of P2P.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Marc
>>>> >>
>>>> >> On 5/14/09, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >> > I have to disagree with Marc here.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > We use a very precise definition of p2p in the context of the p2p
>>>> >> > foundation:
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > peer production is based voluntary input, participatory process,
>>>> >> > commons-oriented output
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > the peer to peer dynamic is free self-aggregation to create common
>>>> >> > value
>>>> >> > without direct expectation of reciprocity from any particular
>>>> >> > individual
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > it is therefore not a hierarchical allocation method, not an
>>>> exchange
>>>> >> based
>>>> >> > market form, and not a reciprocity based gift economy
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > We can use it in a looser sense as well, as mere self-aggregation
>>>> >> > amongst
>>>> >> > equals. I use 'peer-informed' to indicate processes.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > So it all depends what we are talking about, the precise
>>>> definition, or
>>>> >> the
>>>> >> > looser principle of aggregation.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > Finally, there are different levels, the factual definition
>>>> described
>>>> >> > above,
>>>> >> > the underlying values and ethical principles on which it is based,
>>>> and
>>>> >> the
>>>> >> > social ideals and praxis that it inspires.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > It's important to keep these levels apart when we can.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > Of course, people are free to define it in any way they want, but
>>>> >> > 'traditionally' this is how it has been defined in our context
>>>> here,
>>>> >> > but
>>>> >> > again, people can disagree.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > Michel
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 3:27 AM, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi at gmail.com>
>>>> >> wrote:
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >> The preamble works as long as we call them Common Ideals not Core
>>>> >> >> Principles.
>>>> >> >> I have not explored what constitutes common ideals for me and say
>>>> >> >> Kevin or anyone else but I trust Michel's judgment on what
>>>> constitute
>>>> >> >> the common ideals for the P2P movement at this time in our
>>>> evolution
>>>> >> >> and I trust your integrity in articulating it.
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> I am totally in as long as we drop Core Principles, which scares
>>>> me a
>>>> >> >> lot, and call it Common Ideals.
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> Both "core" and "principles" are problematic words for me. The
>>>> first
>>>> >> >> implies an assumed center of mass in whatever follows the word
>>>> "core"
>>>> >> >> (in this case the principles as the center of mass or the
>>>> anchoring
>>>> >> >> center) where in fact our evolving morality and evolving
>>>> rationality
>>>> >> >> are the only grounding forces, so I reject the implied meaning
>>>> that
>>>> >> >> there is a solid core to our morality or rationality that does not
>>>> >> >> change. There isn't. And we live with an evolving morality and
>>>> >> >> evolving rationality.
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> So that's as far as my grievance against the word Core as used in
>>>> Core
>>>> >> >> Principles.
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> The problem I have with Principles as a word is that principles
>>>> are
>>>> >> >> meant to be upheld and defended and we are not setting out to
>>>> uphold
>>>> >> >> or defend any set of rules or ideas that we ourselves come up
>>>> with. We
>>>> >> >> are setting out to work toward common ideals.
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> So if we change Core Principles to Common Ideals the I'm super
>>>> fine
>>>> >> >> and Michel snd yourself can lead the definition and articulation
>>>> of
>>>> >> >> those common ideals.
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> I am fine as long as they're recognized as Common Ideals not Core
>>>> >> >> Principles. For me, it makes a big difference.
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> Thanks Ryan. I do like the preamble but with the title change to
>>>> >> >> Common Ideals, or any such phrasing, not just the preamble by
>>>> itself!
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> Marc
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> On 5/14/09, Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >> >> > Marc,
>>>> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> > I have no problem with ideology.
>>>> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> > But I take your point that this is not principles as in
>>>> legislative
>>>> >> >> > or
>>>> >> >> > moral
>>>> >> >> > law principles.  It is principles (or ideals) of current broad
>>>> >> >> > consensus.
>>>> >> >> > I
>>>> >> >> > suspect you feel affinities toward ideals of mutualism and
>>>> anarchism
>>>> >> >> > such
>>>> >> >> > as
>>>> >> >> > those Kevin espouses or that might find under Proudhon here:
>>>> >> >> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist
>>>> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> > I also share some sympathies with those views.
>>>> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> > What I think is going unstated is the OBLIGATIONS of individuals
>>>> and
>>>> >> >> > collectives.  You are so antithetical to obligations to the
>>>> state
>>>> >> >> (meaning
>>>> >> >> > compulsory or OBLIGATORY governance) you wish to leave any
>>>> comment
>>>> >> >> > on
>>>> >> >> > governance unsaid.
>>>> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> > This opens lots of cans of worms.  What do organizations do when
>>>> >> >> > they
>>>> >> >> wish
>>>> >> >> > to interact?  Must they assume that only anarchical governance
>>>> is
>>>> >> >> feasible
>>>> >> >> > if they wish to be "P2P"?  If one takes that to be an extreme,
>>>> what
>>>> >> >> > then
>>>> >> >> is
>>>> >> >> > allowed?  Where can we go?
>>>> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> > To address your concerns, I propose a "preamble" to the whole of
>>>> the
>>>> >> >> > document like the following:
>>>> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> >  P2P should evolve to meet whatever needs peers have in building
>>>> a
>>>> >> >> commons
>>>> >> >> > or similar works.  Perhaps the term or whole concept of P2P will
>>>> be
>>>> >> >> > subsumed
>>>> >> >> > by other ideas or become irrelevant for one reason or another
>>>> over
>>>> >> >> > time.
>>>> >> >> > For now, P2P implies some conceptual elements to many who work
>>>> to
>>>> >> >> > advance
>>>> >> >> > its ideals and to research its elements, and there is value in
>>>> >> >> > setting
>>>> >> >> > down such details even if they often do not apply to a number of
>>>> >> >> particular
>>>> >> >> > instances.
>>>> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> > Note that these Collaborative Principles are not intended as
>>>> legal
>>>> >> >> > structures, definitions, or definitive assertions about the
>>>> nature
>>>> >> >> > or
>>>> >> >> > future
>>>> >> >> > of P2P relationships.  They are set down as a working, living,
>>>> >> >> > tentative
>>>> >> >> > set
>>>> >> >> > of ideas for discussion and as a normative guide for those who
>>>> wish
>>>> >> >> > to
>>>> >> >> > advance their own understanding of P2P as others see it who have
>>>> >> >> > tried
>>>> >> >> > to
>>>> >> >> > travel the road either through application, research or
>>>> both.  They
>>>> >> are
>>>> >> >> not
>>>> >> >> > intended to be trivially ignored just as they should not be
>>>> blindly
>>>> >> >> > subscribed.  They are norms to be considered, agreed, or
>>>> rejected
>>>> >> >> > for
>>>> >> >> cause
>>>> >> >> > when a group approaches a P2P partnership, project or
>>>> framework.  As
>>>> >> >> > any
>>>> >> >> > living document, it should change, evolve and reflect the ideas
>>>> of
>>>> >> >> > those
>>>> >> >> > working with P2P, researching it, or implementing successor
>>>> ideas.
>>>> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> >   Ryan
>>>> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> > On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 2:00 PM, marc fawzi <
>>>> marc.fawzi at gmail.com>
>>>> >> >> wrote:
>>>> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> >> A principle is something to uphold and defend, which leads to
>>>> >> >> >> ideology.
>>>> >> >> >> An ideal is something to work towards which leaves room for
>>>> >> >> >> imagination and creativity.
>>>> >> >> >>
>>>> >> >> >> The spat between Stefan and Michel, if it taught us anything,
>>>> is an
>>>> >> >> >> example of one person holding an ideology (Stefan) which is
>>>> based
>>>> >> >> >> on
>>>> >> a
>>>> >> >> >> principle while the other person (Michel) is holding a set of
>>>> >> >> >> ideals
>>>> >> >> >> which allows him to transcend the ideological state.
>>>> >> >> >>
>>>> >> >> >> I'm in as long as we are promoting ideals not defining
>>>> principles
>>>> >> >> >> as
>>>> >> >> >> if we're gods or law makers. Ideals to work toward with an open
>>>> >> >> >> mind
>>>> >> >> >> and room for all possibilities heading in the same direction,
>>>> not
>>>> >> >> >> constricting "principles."
>>>> >> >> >>
>>>> >> >> >> Else, I'm against any and all attempts to set in stone what is
>>>> and
>>>> >> >> >> what can be because that is futile. We don't own the concept of
>>>> p2p
>>>> >> >> >> and we can only aspire to match our ideals with our actions not
>>>> up
>>>> >> >> >> hold some principles that we ourselves make!
>>>> >> >> >>
>>>> >> >> >> Marc
>>>> >> >> >>
>>>> >> >> >>   On 5/14/09, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >> >> >> > We cannot control an idea, and P2P is in essence an idea.
>>>> >> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> >> > We can state moral and rational "ideals" not "principles" ..
>>>> I
>>>> >> >> >> > have
>>>> >> >> >> > a
>>>> >> >> >> > huge problem with the word "principals" and sorry I dd not
>>>> note
>>>> >> >> >> > it
>>>> >> >> >> > before.
>>>> >> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> >> > Also "core" abstracts away rationality and morality and
>>>> replaces
>>>> >> >> >> > them
>>>> >> >> >> > with some center of mass that is not really there. The word
>>>> >> >> >> > "core"
>>>> >> >> >> > is
>>>> >> >> >> > problematic but I may be insane.
>>>> >> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> >> > I prefer Rational and Moral Ideals or more specifically
>>>> Ideals.
>>>> >> >> >> > No
>>>> >> >> >> > Principles as principles bound and dictate.
>>>> >> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> >> > On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 9:49 AM, marc fawzi
>>>> >> >> >> > <marc.fawzi at gmail.com>
>>>> >> >> >> wrote:
>>>> >> >> >> >> Ryan,
>>>> >> >> >> >>
>>>> >> >> >> >> Speaking for myself, I have developed a half-decent model
>>>> (still
>>>> >> >> >> >> has
>>>> >> >> >> >> potential to evolve to capture more realism) of a P2P
>>>> economy
>>>> >> where
>>>> >> >> >> >> the more one shares the more one benefits. This contrasts
>>>> with
>>>> >> >> >> >> the
>>>> >> >> >> >> Commons idea if 'just sharing and not necessarily benefiting
>>>> >> >> >> >> from
>>>> >> >> >> >> the
>>>> >> >> >> >> sharing" It gives an incentive to sharing which is closer to
>>>> the
>>>> >> >> >> >> notion of fairness to about 80% of people. It's the reason
>>>> >> >> >> >> charitable
>>>> >> >> >> >> foundations get so much money around tax time, as there is
>>>> >> >> >> >> mutual
>>>> >> >> >> >> benefit. Sharing without expectation of benefit (to the
>>>> >> >> >> >> individual
>>>> >> >> and
>>>> >> >> >> >> community) is what the commons is right now but layers of
>>>> >> >> >> >> abstraction
>>>> >> >> >> >> could evolve around this core idea that are less purist than
>>>> the
>>>> >> >> >> >> core
>>>> >> >> >> >> but still hugely beneficial.
>>>> >> >> >> >>
>>>> >> >> >> >> So my issue with your statement that P2P cannot be about
>>>> >> >> >> >> exchange
>>>> >> >> with
>>>> >> >> >> >> reciprocation. It's because you're looking at classical
>>>> >> >> >> >> reciprocal
>>>> >> >> >> >> exchange that does NOT reward sharing, whereas I'm looking
>>>> at a
>>>> >> >> >> >> kind
>>>> >> >> >> >> of reciprocal exchange that does reward sharing and in fact
>>>> >> >> >> >> makes
>>>> >> >> >> >> sharing a necessity for growth. That's the model in the P2P
>>>> >> >> >> >> Energy
>>>> >> >> >> >> Economy. Why should it be barred under this non-definition
>>>> >> >> >> >> definition
>>>> >> >> >> >> (or core principles)
>>>> >> >> >> >>
>>>> >> >> >> >> ?
>>>> >> >> >> >>
>>>> >> >> >> >> Marc
>>>> >> >> >> >>
>>>> >> >> >> >> On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 9:33 AM, Ryan Lanham
>>>> >> >> >> >> <rlanham1963 at gmail.com>
>>>> >> >> >> >> wrote:
>>>> >> >> >> >>> Marc,
>>>> >> >> >> >>>
>>>> >> >> >> >>> My own view is that more description is useful even if
>>>> >> problematic
>>>> >> >> at
>>>> >> >> >> >>> times.  But descriptions ought not to be laws.  This work
>>>> is
>>>> >> meant
>>>> >> >> to
>>>> >> >> >> be
>>>> >> >> >> >>> normative... Norms are guidelines not rules or laws.  If
>>>> that
>>>> >> >> >> >>> point
>>>> >> >> >> >>> isn't
>>>> >> >> >> >>> made explicitly enough, it should be.
>>>> >> >> >> >>>
>>>> >> >> >> >>> Stating that P2P can evolve is good.  But what can't it
>>>> evolve
>>>> >> to?
>>>> >> >> >> >>> Can
>>>> >> >> >> >>> it
>>>> >> >> >> >>> become commercial?  The history of public corporations
>>>> evolved
>>>> >> >> around
>>>> >> >> >> >>> the
>>>> >> >> >> >>> idea of granting a license to firms to act in the public
>>>> >> >> >> >>> interest
>>>> >> >> >> >>> in
>>>> >> >> >> the
>>>> >> >> >> >>> use
>>>> >> >> >> >>> of certain assets to make a profit.  Admittedly, that ethos
>>>> is
>>>> >> >> >> >>> long
>>>> >> >> >> >>> gone,
>>>> >> >> >> >>> but what can't become P2P, and what can't P2P become?
>>>> >> >> >> >>>
>>>> >> >> >> >>> What isn't a commons?  To me, if something has relatively
>>>> >> >> >> >>> strong
>>>> >> >> >> >>> exclusivity, it isn't a commons or P2P.
>>>> >> >> >> >>>
>>>> >> >> >> >>> Strong exploratory assertions of what isn't and what is P2P
>>>> >> >> >> >>> could
>>>> >> >> >> >>> lead
>>>> >> >> >> >>> to
>>>> >> >> >> >>> disagreement, but the document isn't a definition.  It is a
>>>> >> >> >> >>> description
>>>> >> >> >> >>> of
>>>> >> >> >> >>> collaborative principles.  Still, people can and should
>>>> >> >> >> >>> disagree.
>>>> >> >> >> Apply
>>>> >> >> >> >>> it
>>>> >> >> >> >>> or not.  The point is to have a locus of departure when
>>>> talking
>>>> >> >> about
>>>> >> >> >> >>> P2P.
>>>> >> >> >> >>>
>>>> >> >> >> >>> It seems to me that P2P is a mode of interacting with a
>>>> commons
>>>> >> or
>>>> >> >> >> groups
>>>> >> >> >> >>> of
>>>> >> >> >> >>> commons with minimal bureaucratic overhead and low
>>>> transaction
>>>> >> >> costs.
>>>> >> >> >> >>> That
>>>> >> >> >> >>> mode arises based on an ethical commitment to responsible
>>>> >> >> >> >>> sharing
>>>> >> >> >> >>> goods and
>>>> >> >> >> >>> furthering shared goods.  It arises most frequently in
>>>> >> association
>>>> >> >> >> >>> non-rival
>>>> >> >> >> >>> goods because those are least prone to perceived selfish
>>>> value
>>>> >> >> >> >>> in
>>>> >> >> >> >>> ownership.
>>>> >> >> >> >>>
>>>> >> >> >> >>> But to say all those things introduces ethics, economics,
>>>> modes
>>>> >> of
>>>> >> >> >> >>> management, organization, etc.  Without some expansion, it
>>>> is
>>>> >> hard
>>>> >> >> to
>>>> >> >> >> >>> understand what one is even talking about.
>>>> >> >> >> >>>
>>>> >> >> >> >>> I agree the P2P Foundation is not a rulemaker for P2P, but
>>>> as
>>>> >> >> >> >>> an
>>>> >> >> >> >>> advocate,
>>>> >> >> >> >>> as a research body, doesn't it have responsibilities to
>>>> expand
>>>> >> the
>>>> >> >> >> ideas
>>>> >> >> >> >>> of
>>>> >> >> >> >>> the shared framework?  That is, isn't the knowledge of P2P
>>>> and
>>>> >> the
>>>> >> >> >> >>> current
>>>> >> >> >> >>> ideas about it also a commons?  If one can reject the parts
>>>> and
>>>> >> >> >> >>> use
>>>> >> >> >> >>> the
>>>> >> >> >> >>> substance, it is like using free lines of code without
>>>> using
>>>> >> >> >> >>> the
>>>> >> >> >> >>> whole
>>>> >> >> >> >>> object or program.  I certainly don't propose to legislate
>>>> for
>>>> >> >> anyone
>>>> >> >> >> in
>>>> >> >> >> >>> a
>>>> >> >> >> >>> strong sense what is or isn't P2P.  But to discuss and
>>>> outline
>>>> >> >> >> >>> theories
>>>> >> >> >> >>> of
>>>> >> >> >> >>> it seems responsible and reasonable, just like it is
>>>> >> >> >> >>> responsible
>>>> >> >> >> >>> and
>>>> >> >> >> >>> reasonable for the Creative Commons to do fundraising, to
>>>> hire
>>>> >> >> >> >>> lawyers
>>>> >> >> >> >>> and
>>>> >> >> >> >>> to draft intellectual property licenses that fit various
>>>> >> >> >> >>> national
>>>> >> >> >> >>> frameworks.
>>>> >> >> >> >>>
>>>> >> >> >> >>> Ryan
>>>> >> >> >> >>> Ryan Lanham
>>>> >> >> >> >>> rlanham1963 at gmail.com
>>>> >> >> >> >>> Facebook: Ryan_Lanham
>>>> >> >> >> >>>
>>>> >> >> >> >>>
>>>> >> >> >> >>>
>>>> >> >> >> >>> On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 11:02 AM, marc fawzi
>>>> >> >> >> >>> <marc.fawzi at gmail.com>
>>>> >> >> >> >>> wrote:
>>>> >> >> >> >>>>
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> There is a huge problem in seeming to say two
>>>> contradictory
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> things,
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> even if that's not the intent or can be argued against:
>>>> >> >> >> >>>>
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> 1. You seem to say that P2P is "open" (although I don't
>>>> see
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> the
>>>> >> >> word
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> "evolvable" or "evolving" which is key to description of
>>>> any
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> model
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> that is .. um.. evolving, not set in stone, not static,
>>>> not
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> already
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> out dated)
>>>> >> >> >> >>>>
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> 2. You seem to contradict the above by excluding
>>>> reciprocal
>>>> >> >> exchange
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> (in the last paragraph) and saying that  that is not P2P.
>>>> Who
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> is
>>>> >> >> the
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> P2P Foundation to tell people what P2P is and isn't. All
>>>> we
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> can
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> do
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> is
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> describe the core moral and rational ideals and keep it
>>>> open
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> and
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> evolvable.  Prosper uses the term P2P Lending for "lending
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> with
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> interest." P2P is also used the P2P Energy Economy which
>>>> is a
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> reciprocal system optimized for "the more you share, the
>>>> more
>>>> >> you
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> have" which is a commons-inspired ideal that benefits all
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> while
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> benefiting the individual. To dictate what P2P is and
>>>> isn't
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> and
>>>> >> >> then
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> call it "open" is a very clear contradiction.
>>>> >> >> >> >>>>
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> What we need to do is state what the moral and rational
>>>> ideals
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> are
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> (of
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> the commons) and let the P2P definition alone in peace so
>>>> as
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> not
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> start
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> new wars of ideology. That is because the term P2P is
>>>> being
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> used
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> in
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> a
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> huge variety of ways, way beyond the very purist
>>>> definition.
>>>> >> >> Stating
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> the moral and rational ideals is sufficient, IMO, we don't
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> need
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> to
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> become a dictionary authority for the term P2P, as that
>>>> will
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> surely
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> relegate us to irrelevance. We can't own the concept. And
>>>> I
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> feel
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> part
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> of the core principles assumes that we can.
>>>> >> >> >> >>>>
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> Marc
>>>> >> >> >> >>>>
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 8:03 AM, Ryan Lanham <
>>>> >> >> rlanham1963 at gmail.com>
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> wrote:
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > Article 3 re-edited...
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > [edit] Article 3: Economic and Political Theories
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > A. P2P is not associated or disassociated with any
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > particular
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > economic
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > theory such as capitalism or socialism.
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > B. P2P relations, in their strongest form, are specific
>>>> type
>>>> >> of
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > non-reciprocal exchange characterized by voluntary
>>>> >> contribution
>>>> >> >> to
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > a
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > pool
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > shared by all. P2P is arguably its own economic theory
>>>> but
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > it
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > is
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > not
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > exclusive of other economic approaches. A person picking
>>>> up
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > a
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > piece
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > of
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > litter in a park is making a non-reciprocal contribution
>>>> to
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > a
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > commons...the
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > park. From a P2P ethos perspective, this is done out of
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > advancement
>>>> >> >> >> of
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > a
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > shared resource. It is not a duty, but a practical way
>>>> to
>>>> >> live.
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > The
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > expectation is that, in concert with others committed to
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > sharing
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > and
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > advancement of commons, a responsible network of mutual
>>>> >> benefit
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > and
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > shared
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > purpose is feasible. Further, the conflicts associated
>>>> with
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > sharing
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > can
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > be
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > minimized through reasonable agreements and norms.
>>>> Avoiding
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > free
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > riders
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > and
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > selfish uses is perhaps easiest in the context of
>>>> non-rival
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > goods--goods
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > where nothing is lost through sharing. Thus one finds
>>>> P2P
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > systems
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > often
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > associated with software--a classic non-rival good. But
>>>> it
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > is
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > in
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > the
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > area of
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > exclusivity where P2P takes on its primary political
>>>> traits.
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > P2P
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > respects
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > rights to exclusivity, but normatively attempts to
>>>> advance
>>>> >> >> willing
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > participation in systems where exclusivity is minimized
>>>> or
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > abandoned
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > in
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > the
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > interests of a shared advancement. Some systems such as
>>>> >> >> publishing
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > scientific research are partially exclusive or
>>>> non-exclusive
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > with
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > attribution, etc. P2P advocates typically advance the
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > weakest
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > reasonable
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > exclusivity arrangements. Such views often lead to P2P
>>>> being
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > likened
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > to
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > a
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > utopian communist system or a mutualist/anarchist
>>>> system.
>>>> >> These
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > are
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > not
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > unreasonable comparisons. However, P2P itself is not an
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > exclusive
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > economic
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > framework.
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > C. There is much interest in the ways P2P systems
>>>> influence
>>>> >> and
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > work
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > in
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > association with other economic systems. For example,
>>>> how
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > does
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > a
>>>> >> >> >> free
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > software framework influence or change software markets
>>>> or
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > consumer
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > actions?
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > D. Strong advocates of a P2P ethos search for means by
>>>> which
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > a
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > culture
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > of
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > sharing and trust could largely reduce or replace the
>>>> need
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > for
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > many
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > market
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > or governmental systems.
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > E. P2P is most consistent with democratic systems where
>>>> free
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > expression
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > and
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > other human rights are respected and protected; however,
>>>> no
>>>> >> >> >> political
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > model
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > other than one that abolishes the concept of a commons
>>>> is
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > antithetical
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > to a
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > p2p ethos. It is implausible that a political system
>>>> with
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > strong
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > restrictions on freedom of expression could be
>>>> consistent
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > with
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > a
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > p2p
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > ethos.
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > P2P is often associated with Non-Market Economics. It
>>>> might
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > also
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > be
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > situated
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > with certain branches of Communitarianism.
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > F. Implementations of Alternative Currencies, Open Money
>>>> and
>>>> >> >> modes
>>>> >> >> >> of
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > exchange that do not necessitate governments, central
>>>> banks
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > or
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > state-based
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > regulatory authorities are linked elements of a p2p
>>>> ethos.
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > G. P2P is not typically a national system. P2P entities
>>>> are
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > perhaps
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > most
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > appropriately situated with or compared to transnational
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > civil
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > society
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > organizations.
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > H. What to avoid: P2P is not a transaction-based mode of
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > exchange
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > where
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > compensation is explicitly expected. Optimization of
>>>> trades
>>>> >> and
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > exchanges
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > exclusively for personal gain is not consistent with a
>>>> p2p
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > ethos.
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > Ryan Lanham
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 2:06 AM, marc fawzi <
>>>> >> >> marc.fawzi at gmail.com>
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> > wrote:
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >>
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> I would totally love it if what Michel just captured
>>>> (i.e.
>>>> >> the
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> blending) below can be added to the P2P Core Principles
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> along
>>>> >> >> the
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> lines of this interpretation: P2P is not a static idea
>>>> of
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> thing
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> we
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> can
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> frame and hang on the wall. It's life. And as life,
>>>> it's
>>>> >> >> complex,
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> adaptive and evolving, with the caveat that, as an
>>>> ideal,
>>>> >> both
>>>> >> >> >> moral
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> and rational, it holds on to its core values and
>>>> inspires
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> change
>>>> >> >> >> all
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> around it, toward that ideal.
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >>
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> If that makes sense to you Ryan.
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >>
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 11:53 PM, Michel Bauwens
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> <michelsub2004 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> > Hi Marc,
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> > I would add an additional observation.
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> > When we are in a transition process of one format of
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> > domination,
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> > say
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> > the
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> > commodity form, to another one, say peer to peer,
>>>> then
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> > the
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> > other
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> > forms
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> > start
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> > an adaptation to the new mode.
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> > Examples are blended value (doing well by doing
>>>> good),
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> > social
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> > enterprise
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> > (the corporate form in the service of a social good),
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> > fair
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> > trade
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> > (trade
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> > submitted to partnership and fairness). I think we
>>>> are
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> > witnessing
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> > many
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> > examples of hybrid formats, driven by an adaptation
>>>> of
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> > the
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> > market
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> > form
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> > to
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> > the emerging chaotic attractor that is the commons,
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> > Michel
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> > On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 12:24 PM, marc fawzi
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> > <marc.fawzi at gmail.com>
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> > wrote:
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> The moral ideal is the commons. But that doesn't
>>>> really
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> work
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> universally right now and so market dynamics enter
>>>> into
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> it
>>>> >> >> but
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> moderated by the moral ideal, and so they become
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> dynamics
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> in
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> the
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> service of an ideal, not counteracting it.
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> And the balance is where most people find comfort
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> between
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> the
>>>> >> >> >> two
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> different worlds of the market economy and the
>>>> commons.
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> I sort of tried to do that in the P2P Energy Economy
>>>> but
>>>> >> it
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> was
>>>> >> >> >> a
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> raw
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> and initial attempt and more learning is to be had
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> before
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> something
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> more viable emerges.
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> Some people like to interrupt this process in order
>>>> to
>>>> >> hold
>>>> >> >> on
>>>> >> >> >> to
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> the
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> ideal but Michel, for one, realizes that it's
>>>> important
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> to
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> stay
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> open
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> to this process of reconciliation even when it
>>>> swings to
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> extremes.
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> Marc
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 9:16 PM, Michel Bauwens
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> wrote:
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > Hi Ryan,
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > I'm tacking ARticle 3
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > For me, p2p is a particular form of non-reciprocal
>>>> >> >> exchange,
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > voluntary
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > contributions to a common pool which is available
>>>> to
>>>> >> all.
>>>> >> >> As
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > such
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > it
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > is
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > a
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > very specific system, not really barter, gift
>>>> economy,
>>>> >> or
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > market
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > exchange.
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > But, it co-exists with these plural forms. What is
>>>> of
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > interest
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > therefore
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > is
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > how it influences them and how it is influenced by
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > them.
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > So I would say that a specific 'p2p theory' is
>>>> >> interested
>>>> >> >> in
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > understanding
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > the specificity of p2p dynamics and how they
>>>> relate
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > with
>>>> >> >> all
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > other
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > economic
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > forms, eventually with a special interest in
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > sustaining
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > and
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > promoting
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > p2p
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > dynamics in such a plural environment.
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > In its 'strong form', the one I adhere to, it is
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > interested
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > in
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > making
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > p2p
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > dynamics the core of a new type of economy and
>>>> >> >> civilization.
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > I think that perhaps these comments could trigger
>>>> more
>>>> >> >> >> specific
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > formulations
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > in article 3?
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > Michel
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > Article 3: Economic and Political Theories
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > A. P2P is not associated or disassociated with any
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > particular
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > economic
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > theory such as capitalism or socialism.
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > B. P2P is most consistent with democratic systems
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > where
>>>> >> >> free
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > expression
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > and
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > other human rights are respected and protected;
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > however,
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > no
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > political
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > model
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > other than one that abolishes the concept of a
>>>> commons
>>>> >> is
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > antithetical
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > to a
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > p2p ethos. It is implausible that a political
>>>> system
>>>> >> with
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > strong
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > restrictions on freedom of expression could be
>>>> >> consistent
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > with
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > a
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > p2p
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > ethos.
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > P2P is often associated with Non-Market Economics.
>>>> It
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > might
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > also
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > be
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > situated
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > with certain branches of Communitarianism.
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > C. P2P may represent its own framework of economic
>>>> >> theory
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > most
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > closely
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > aligned with what have been considered barter and
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > exchange
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > economies.
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > D. Implementations of Alternative Currencies, Open
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > Money
>>>> >> >> and
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > modes
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > of
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > exchange that do not necessitate governments,
>>>> central
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > banks
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > or
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > state-based
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > regulatory authorities represent core elements of
>>>> a
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > p2p
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > ethos.
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > E. What to avoid: P2P is not a transaction-based
>>>> mode
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > of
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > exchange.
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > Optimization of trades and exchanges for personal
>>>> gain
>>>> >> is
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > not
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > consistent
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > with a p2p ethos. P2P is not typically national.
>>>> P2P
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > entities
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > are
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > perhaps
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > most appropriately situated with or compared to
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > transnational
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > civil
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > society
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > organizations.
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 11:22 PM, Ryan Lanham
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > <rlanham1963 at gmail.com>
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > wrote:
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> I further changed Article 1 to reflect recent
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> discussions:
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> Item J is new, and the latter part of the item A
>>>> is
>>>> >> new.
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> No
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> other
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> changes.
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> Article 1. P2P Interactions
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> A. High quality P2P interactions exist between
>>>> peers.
>>>> >> >> Peers
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> typically
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> recognize and interact with each other without
>>>> >> reference
>>>> >> >> to
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> rank
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> or
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> hierarchies. Interactions are best when cordial,
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> tolerant,
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> respectful
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> and
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> made, where possible, without judgments
>>>> especially
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> regarding
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> aspects
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> not
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> directly relevant to the P2P domain.
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> 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 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.
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> E. Another measure of quality is the contribution
>>>> to
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> 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].
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> J. P2P interactions ought not to be used as a
>>>> opening
>>>> >> to
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> proselytize,
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> sell, advance unrelated political, social or
>>>> moral
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> positions
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> except
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> when
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> such discussions are expected, invited and made
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> welcome
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> by
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> other
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> peers.
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> K. 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
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> rlanham1963 at gmail.com
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> Facebook: Ryan_Lanham
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 6:27 AM, Michel Bauwens
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> wrote:
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>> 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
>>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>>> c
>>>
>>> ...
>>
>> [Message clipped]
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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/20090517/ed2e6a04/attachment-0001.html>