[p2p-research] P2P Ideology

[Samuel Rose]

On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 12:18 AM, Tere Vaden <Tere.Vaden at uta.fi> wrote:
> Quoting Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963 at gmail.com>:
>
>> Athina interprets me just right I think...there is always ideology.  There
>> is no such thing as an anti-ideology or ideology free identity.
>
> Indeed, as many scholars interested in ideology critique would emphasise,
> ideology has its finest hour (peak ideology) in exactly those moments where
> we think that we behave "naturally" or "free from ideology". Some would go
> so far as to define ideology as "that which comes naturally/without
> conscious ideology". (This is, as can be seen from the dialectical
> definition, the Hegelian school).
>



I agree that there are always fundamental assumptions (which is what I
think you all are calling an "ideology"). This set of fundamental
assumptions are the result of gene/organism/environment/culture (as
described by Lewontin)


So, I'll revise my previous statement:

'Where what we are calling "P2P" begins to resemble and function like
an ideology, the culture attracted will begin to disaggregate. What
will be left is an ideology that is fundamentally not what we are
calling "P2P".'



to:


Where the "ideology" that we are calling "P2P" begins to resemble and
function like
**previous** ideologies, the culture attracted will begin to disaggregate. What
will be left is an ideology that is fundamentally not what we are
calling "P2P".


The idea here is that p2p is an emergent set of "bio/psycho/social"
fundamental assumptions, which does not resemble previous emergent
fundamental assumptions about solving problems of existence. I
personally prefer this over "ideology", but your mileage may vary.

Clare W Graves ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clare_W._Graves ) came
close to identifying the emergent simple rules of humans operating
with fundamental assumptions that resemble what we are calling "p2p".
In Graves's language, these are "sacrifice self now so that all may
gain now", and "express self now, but not at the expense of others".
Whether these are 100% accurate or not, they come closer than anything
else that I know of to describing on a worldview level how people are
acting/re-acting with their environment, and why.

Both of these ways of solving fundamental problems of existence seem
to have emerged in reaction to the domination of control-centric
social structures/worldviews.






-- 
-- 
Sam Rose
Social Synergy
Tel:+1(517) 639-1552
Cel: +1-(517)-974-6451
skype: samuelrose
email: samuel.rose at gmail.com
http://socialsynergyweb.com
http://socialsynergyweb.org/culturing
http://flowsbook.panarchy.com/
http://socialmediaclassroom.com
http://localfoodsystems.org
http://notanemployee.net
http://communitywiki.org

"The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human
ambition." - Carl Sagan