[p2p-research] [Commoning] Am I missing any commons?

[Alex Rollin]

I was just reading Stefan's critique of Franz presentation on 'pattern
languages' and I am reminded of the fuzziness of so much of our definitions
from another perspective.

Ryan, you mentioned, in some way, that the applicability of P2P is central,
and as I did a little background checking I was reminded that pattern
languages, by Christopher Alexander, are problem oriented, at least on the
design pattern side of things.

On the one hand, this is like the music man, looking around for a problem,
drumming up music about all sorts of decay, rallying the troops, and putting
up something new.  On the other we are attempting, together, on the list, to
... come up with patterns and structures ... that answer our issues and
problems from our past experience.  Of course lots of other things, too!
 And we need both and much more!

Anyways, I am working on the wiki for the last few days, and trying to find
a way to "play through" a set of pages that allow a new visitor to build
'context' around problems, and then to visit pages that offer pattern
solutions.  On the other hand, I am aware of several very common problems,
some of which have pages already and some don't, and so I am adding to
those.

I got very hung up in the discussion about the Commons, and a definition of
such, because that's the point I was at... trying to figure out how to
present something so big, so general, so multi-valent, to someone with an
unknown problem (who, we assume, might consider a Commons-based solution.)


Alex
I cannot teach anybody anything, I can only make them think.- Socrates



On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 8:12 PM, Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963 at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2/26/10, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> In terms of cooptation, I'm in favour of social charters that clearly
>> delineate what a true commons is, setting boundaries for cooperation with
>> partially friendly forces,
>>
>> Michel
>>
>>
>
> I share this pragmatic view.  Really, it is my only view.  I do not have a
> framework from which I can sit in judgement of this organizational form or
> that distribution mechanism and say it is good or bad.  I can only see
> "better" where better is defined in some reasonably pragmatic way.
> Collaboration, sharing and broader access are all reasonable goals for
> "better".  That doesn't entail a set worldview with bright line boundaries.
>
>
> One doesn't have to have a coherent link to a normative framework to be
> part of a commons or a P2P commons or system.  There is no real
> weltanshauung for the commons or for P2P beyond some pretty basic aims at
> increased access, sharing, and collaboration with minimal emphasis on
> individual gains in the process.
>
> The lesson to me of P2P theory is that it is ultimately about
> applications.  I suspect that is the frustration Alex is expressing, and it
> is one I share.  Still, I also agree with the point that we need better
> tools of classification, typology, etc. so as to understand the
> organizational theories of commons and P2P.  Some work has been done on that
> (e.g. by Elinor Ostrom).  It is, to my mind, only the vaguest sort of
> beginning.  It will not and cannot be definitive or
> constitutional.  Descriptive guidelines are simply suggestions...not
> rules.  No one is claiming high ground.
>
> What Alex also says I very much agree with: that is, we need a
> normative guidelines of P2P and the commons that are sui generis.  This is
> far more difficult territory because there are already so many normative
> theories that people bring to the table: e.g. libertarian, corporate,
> Marxist, anarchist, liberal, etc.  A normative theory tends to derive from a
> philosophy of history...e.g. class struggle, or religious evolution toward
> some necessary outcome.  It remains to be seen whether technical change is
> entailing new theories of history and justice.  I suspect such theories are
> needed.  I doubt they will link much with 19th or 18th century beginnings
> (much less those of 20+ centuries ago).  Normative guidelines are simply
> suggestions...not rules.  No one is claiming high ground.
>
> There is no science of the ideal commons or P2P commons nor can there be.
> Still, guidelines on design descriptors and normative approaches are
> extremely useful.
>
> I think a binding philosophy of history that is emerging amongst P2P
> commoners is the idea that profit is increasingly problematic both
> intrinsically and, for a subset, morally.  Meanwhile, the state as a
> substitute for profiting institutions is even more problematic.  Thus, we
> search for solutions in the applications areas...how will people live with
> commons in fact, rather than in theory.  Further, there must be means by
> which items easily copied and shared can be distributed broadly without some
> sort of skewed and ridiculous version of a market model...even while markets
> in general are not spurned and considered somehow inherently flawed.
>
> _______________________________________________
> p2presearch mailing list
> p2presearch at listcultures.org
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20100226/78a40c4a/attachment.html>