[p2p-research] conditions for successfull resilience

Mon Feb 8 03:35:15 CET 2010

Hi Sam,

I think you are right on target, and you are one of the people emintently
capable of bridging theory and practice.

My case is very different, I have two left hands, so I choose a different
practice, that of internetworking and information/education through
permanent synthesis of what the movement is doing, thinking, learning ...
notice for example how the wiki is hardly what I say, but  rather organized
pilfering of the collective intelligence of the associated movements. This
is both my limitation, but also I think a quality, which has its place in
the overall technology. Of course, if everybody where doing the same, that
would be a disaster <g>. Thank god for the practitioners, and the boundary
spammers like you!

in time, I hope to augment this with also offering guides to the practical
science and experience of the distributive transformation, i.e. courses
etc... but I will probably need help from others to negotiate this turn...

your article is already excellent and wouldn't need much adaptation for the
blog, if you hadn't said so, I would  already used it as is,

Michel

On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 1:48 AM, Samuel Rose <samuel.rose at gmail.com> wrote:

> I am going to comment here while fresh in my mind, and then I will
> post and rework it into P2P blog
>
> Robb is right that there is not a 1:1 historical precedent for
> creating resilient communities centered around p2p networks (unless
> you consider the last 15 years and what people have established on the
> Internet, and are now transferring to general existence to be
> "history". Arguably there is a recent historical precedent in this
> form.)
>
> It's great to have theoretical models talking about community
> resilience and building p2p networks. I enjoy reading Robb for this
> reason. He covers this perspective really well, and challenges people
> to think about the dynamic nature of systems they are a part of. I am
> now of the opinion that what are asking for the most, in addition to
> these theoretical underpinnings, is practical guidance, in their
> communities, day to day, for building and sustaining actual resiliency
> and actual p2p network-based ways of operating in their own context
> right now, today. The fastest way to seeing this happen, in my
> opinion,  is by actually working with people in communities. There are
> varying degrees of people being ready to solve problems in this way.
> Most people generally lack a core understanding for surviving and
> thriving in an ecology that is network/systems-perspective, and
> P2P-political based. Yet, it is my experience in the last 2-3 years
> that people who are "on the fence" can be walked over to understanding
> this in steps and phases, driven by their own usually gradual
> acceptance of the core assumptions inherent in many-to-many systems.
>
> The illusion that some have operated under is that the industrial age
> paradigms can be somehow force-fit into these emerging systems. The
> reality is that industrial-age paradigms are fundamentally different
> than many-to-many systems.  John Robb understands and acknowledges
> this. So this paragraph is not about his writing, but about what I am
> adding to the discussion. The industrial paradigm is fundamentally
> about "control". The emerging p2p paradigm is fundamentally about
> distribution of control. I think a huge amount of people in
> communities realize this now. But, they look for guidance in
> succeeding in operating in participatory ecologies. Not controlling
> guidance, but guiding guidance. Guidance that offers clear paths to
> meeting basic fundamental survival needs while distributing control.
> For decades, following the commercial consolidation and decline of
> Agronomy-based communities in the US, we've all outsourced, and
> mortgaged our basic survival needs to industrial and commercial
> systems that tend to control in non-distributed ways. Those industrial
> systems benefited from us "users" having a narrow focus, guided by
> one-way mediums, and funneling resources away from our control as an
> "exchange" for food, energy, physical goods, culture "products", and
> access. The emerging system massively empowers the individual and
> people in their communities. But, having lived and worked in a
> previous and arguably collapsing system, so completely different from
> what is emerging, there is little available in the environment that
> helps many people understand how to operate in this new environment.
> Imagine getting into the seat of a Formula One race car, having never
> driven one before, and being expected to pull out into a track with
> cars wizzing past you at over 200kph, and you can have an idea of what
> this emerging environment is like for the majority of people.
>
> How do we help people learn to drive in this new race-car that,
> without them getting knocked off the track, or worse?  I think that
> those of us who build theory have an opportunity to also synthesize it
> into learning, and engage communities around the world that are ready
> to empower themselves to actually become resilient communities right
> now. Those of us who build tools also have an opportunity to help
> people learn how to use them to their full potential. In turn, those
> who benefit from the learning have an obligation to make sure that
> people who help foster and steward their path to resiliency are
> reciprocated back to fairly. I know, Michel, that you have realized
> this, and are working to create physical space in Thailand where you
> can do exactly what is described here, and likely more that I have not
> even fathomed. We are moving into a time of action, now that it is
> clear that the theory we have been building is sound in many ways
> (thanks to all of you who have dedicated yourselves to forging it). I
> think John Robb and many others are right, that if we do not act soon
> to make good on the promise of P2P systems, that we are headed towards
> a human evolutionary turn that many would likely deem undesirable.
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 6:44 AM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Hi Sam,
> >
> > if you have time, this might be something to comment on:
> >
> >
> http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2010/02/journal-driving-resilience-by-building-networks.html
> >
> > --
> > Work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University - Think
> thank:
> > http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
> >
> > P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  -
> http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
> >
> > Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
> > http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
> >
> > Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
> > http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> --
> Sam Rose
> Forward Foundation
> Social Synergy
> Tel:+1(517) 639-1552
> Cel: +1-(517)-974-6451
> skype: samuelrose
> email: samuel.rose at gmail.com
> http://socialsynergyweb.com
> http://forwardfound.org
> 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
>

-- 
Work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University - Think thank:
http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI

P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net

Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org

Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20100208/319dd5cf/attachment-0001.html>