Comments on: Chapter One. The Stigmergic Revolution (Second Excerpt) https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/chapter-one-the-stigmergic-revolution-second-excerpt/2012/05/14 Researching, documenting and promoting peer to peer practices Wed, 16 May 2012 06:40:03 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=5.5.15 By: Øyvind Holmstad https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/chapter-one-the-stigmergic-revolution-second-excerpt/2012/05/14/comment-page-1#comment-491642 Wed, 16 May 2012 06:40:03 +0000 http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/?p=23820#comment-491642 “In this regard it attains the radical democratic ideal of unanimous consent of the governed, which is never completely possible under any representative or majoritarian system. Consent—the extent of the individual’s partcipation in the decisions that affected her—was the central value of Jeffersonian democracy. The smaller the unit of governance, and the closer it was to the individual, the closer it approached the ideal of unanimous consent to all acts of government. Hence Jefferson’s ward republics, whose chief virtue was the increased role of each individual in influencing the outcome of policy. But this ideal can only be fully attained when the unit of governance is the individual. So majority rule was the lesser evil, a way to approximate as closely as possible to the spirit of unanimous consent when an entire group of people had to be bound by a single decision. Stigmergy removes the need for any individual to be bound by the group will. When all group actions reflect the unanimous will of the participants, as permitted by stigmergic organization, the ideal of unanimous consent is finally achieved in its fullness.”

To me this seems like classical liberalism: http://www.preservenet.com/classicalliberalism/index.html

]]> By: Carlos Boyle https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/chapter-one-the-stigmergic-revolution-second-excerpt/2012/05/14/comment-page-1#comment-491627 Mon, 14 May 2012 12:36:29 +0000 http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/?p=23820#comment-491627 Muro Walf says, about Elisabeth Noelle Neumann’s the Spiral of Silence, that people prioresses “where to position them selves ” rather than to “what to say”. In a mob if you priories “what to say” you are acting individualist, the if you close your mouth, and keep quiet although you realize that you don’t think that way but you keep silent, then you act stigmergity. Ernesto Laclau explains that there is a populist reason for this, he calls it empty significant , that is many independent significant that for some reason (external to the collective) converge to one unique significant that in PART represents everybody, but that part is so important that represents the idea of antagonism against hegemony.
I traduced the Spiral of silence postulates into informatics stuff :
1 – There is a permanent threat in the network to stop the flow of
information that link the agents one with each other, a latent possibility of the cessation of the communication, of being in isolation.
2 – Each agent receives a level of information flow (streaming) perceived as normal, decreased or loss of this flow is interpreted as a fear of being held incommunicated, isolated, out of the game. Isolation is the place where the messages do not flow.
3 – The fear to isolation causes that each agent continuously monitor the integrity of its links confirming them. They note that information circulates among them by sending messages and waiting for answers.
4 – The result of this assessment gives a self-reference on where they are located within the topology of your network and according to this they act repositioning.
5 – The various repositioning in time form a Nash equilibrium that give stability as a whole while operating within the continuous changes. It is homeostasis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernesto_Laclau
http://doublesession.net/indexhibitv070e/files/laclau-on-populist-reason.pdf

]]>