[p2p-research] conditions for successfull resilience

Mon Feb 8 16:03:46 CET 2010

Michel,

On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 9:35 PM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

Yes, there is no downplaying of the value of p2p wiki and blog as
knowledge, synthesis, analysis, and information sources of tremendous
value. If all p2pf ever did was what it's doing now, it would be
internationally valuable/foundational in the efforts of people to
think about how to apply these concepts. So, no judgement is meant to
be passed by me on theory building.

The perspective that I am having is that people are increasingly
asking me how to apply this theory. I am realizing that application of
p2p theory has likely been viewed as being a massive undertaking,
requiring huge resources, cultural and political barriers, and general
difficulty. Plus, the fact is that the models/theories themselves were
in need of intellectual rigor and exploration to create a core
literacy of what is meant by all the main contributors to this way of
thinking. There is no blanket definition. Yet, we (Forward Foundation)
think there are core identifiable patterns that can be observed in all
of the basic survival needs areas of humans. We are pushing this week
to  publish this document and would love some feedback from this list
when we do.

The point I am getting to is that there are clues about how to
effectively and efficiently apply p2p theory in p2p theory itself. It
can inform design, economics, governance, education, science, resource
interaction, etc. The working idea as I see it is usually that
application begins on the scale of a person, connecting with and
working with another person, and builds from there.

> 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
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
-- 
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