For example, ‘the commons’ can be viewed as a dynamical space that includes ‘process flows’ which are continuously withdrawing and depositing commons materials, ‘the commons’ being the collective of such processes and including all materials and processes.

This view of the world dynamic uses the logic of mutual inclusion wherein ‘the commons’ is seen as the collection of processes that operate under one another’s simultaneous mutual influence and thus ‘the commons’ and ‘a process’ enjoy a ‘dynamically mutually fused’ relationship equivalent to that of ‘atmosphere’ and ‘hurricane’. This alterative is consistent with relativity and quantum theory.

The process called ‘organism’ and ‘the commons’ are in this case mutually inclusive (the former is included in and CO-EVOLVES with the latter in this case, and ‘co-evolution’ does not depend on ‘time’ and ‘temporal interaction’ but is instead constituted by spatial-relational transformation.)

The standard alternative of our hierarchic-center-executing culture is where we see ‘the commons’ as distinct and separate from ‘the process’ as in ‘Darwinian fundamentalism’ and ‘free-market-economy’. The standard view of ‘the commons’ is that of a passive environment which ‘temporally interacts’ with the process so that the process ‘adapts’ to ‘the commons’. This view of the world dynamic uses the logic of mutual exclusion wherein ‘the commons’ is seen as ‘environment’ or ‘everything but the process in question’. For example, the process called ‘organism’ TEMPORALLY INTERACTS with ‘the commons’ now seen as a mutually-exclusive entity. This, the standard alternative, is consistent with Newtonian mechanics.

The open software P2P movement (and all P2P cooperation which is not driven by a DISCRETE AND EXPLICIT end-objective) lends itself the former ‘mutually inclusive’ alternative. Imagine a large crowd dynamic wherein the participants are animated by a diversity of directional intents (the overall software industry). P2P initiatives in this ‘inclusional’ situation, such as the open software movement, operate so as to influence/shape the transformation of the collective dynamic they are included in. For example, if the P2P initiative in the crowd dynamic was to spread the word that everyone should ‘yield to the right’, this non-hierarchical practice developed and promulgated through P2P cooperation, rather than contributing to the achievement of some specific objective, would contribute to the ‘interpermeating’ of the diversely motivated participants (‘interoperating’ in computer terms).

In the P2P alternative based on the logic of mutual exclusion, still using the example of crowd dynamics, a group of P2P collaborators would work together to develop a better way to ‘get through the crowd’ (here they ‘split themselves off’ from the crowd) and they may come up with an inverted ‘V’ formation that slices neatly through the traffic, then ‘productizing’ this inverted ‘V’ solution so that it becomes the popular choice and the crowd dynamic transforms from independent objects to inverted ‘V’ shaped clusterings.

The philosophic difference lies in whether we understand dynamics ULTIMATELY in terms of a center-driven executive (absolute motion, newtonian mechanics) or as ‘relative’, where the behaviour of the individual is relative to the dynamical spatial-relationships in which he is included (e.g. the man in the cart being taken to the guillotine continues to have center-driven executive powers locally, but is nevertheless inextricably bound up in the evolutionary tsunami-like flow-dynamic).

One must ask; ‘Does the particular P2P organism/process enhance ‘interoperability’ and thus facilitate co-evolution of diversely intentioned processes or does it enhance particular center-driven executive processes?; e.g. ‘We want to build the best user-interfacing-window-system we can for computer users’, a particular-intentioned process/initiative that can inspire a lot of P2P collaboration, or ‘Support for enhanced interoperability amongst the diversely intentioned participants in the commons demands ongoing flexible user-interfacing-window-systems.

Systems sciences pioneer Russell Ackoff points out, using the example of ‘university’; systems (processes) are inductively birthed and shaped by the suprasystem in which they are included, but the moment we objectify and analyze the emergent system, we tend to ignore the ongoing coevolutionary relationship (e.g. community-university) which as a result falls out of attunement as we proceed to optimize the system we have analyzed in-its-own-independent-right.

P2P collaboration can thus be based on serving ongoing a-centric coevolutionary dynamics (as in the case of open software) or it can be based on serving the needs of optimizing particular center-based executive structures. Mathematically, the difference is characterized by whether we consider the participants in the P2P initiative as being INCLUDED in the commons (as in the crowd dynamic) or as EXCLUDED from and TEMPORALLY INTERACTING with the commons. This is the same difference as distinguishes ‘Darwinian fundamentalism’ (survival of the fittest/mutual exclusion) and ‘Post-Darwinism'(coevolution/mutual inclusion).