This is a dialogue with Jim O’Connor on the similarities and differences in our respective approaches, based upon the essay presented in the previous page.
My own responses are in italic.
A dialogue between Jim O’Connor and Michel BauwensÂ
Jim O’Connor: I have been working through your essays posted in Frank Visser’s Reading Room and thought they were both very interesting – you make many good points and if I had read them previously I would have referenced them in my own
article. I particularly liked “P2P and Human Evolution”, which I read
several times.
I am in broad agreement with most of the points you make but I also noticed
a few areas of difference. I thought it might be helpful if I tried to
outline what they are.
The defintion you give of P2P in section 2.1 is very close to the definition
of the organic-integrative society that I gave in my essay – the only minor
point where I would differ is when you say that P2P exists “in order to
produce something” – I think this perhaps narrows the scope of P2P
uneccessarily and would preclude applying P2P to some areas where this is
not the case (the area of co-operative spiritual enquiry, for example).
Other than that I think we are in agreement.
Another difference I have is perhaps just a point of emphasis. I would
emphasise that the type of internal subjectivity exhibited by individuals in
a true P2P (or organic-integrative) society is centauric (or turquiose in SD
terms). This is not a point you make explicitly but you come close when you
talk of P2P individuals overcoming the subject-object split (as Andy Smith
has pointed out, autonomous holons, of which I consider the centaur to be an
example, have no concept of the subject-object distinction).
I think that P2P can occur at different levels of personal and social development, and used by individuals at varying levels of maturity. But the underlying principles that are inherent in the design and social archtecture are probably what you mean under ‘centauric’. Though I read Wilber extensively at some point, as well as the SD book, I have tended to avoid using the terminology the last few years, and have consequently forgotten much of their exact technical meaning, as such labelling is more often than not abused.
Another point of difference we have is when you state that P2P networks
became possible with the advent of the internet and “information abundance”.
This is a tricky issue, and perhaps I didn’t state my position too clearly
in the article, but basically I see the technological base of a society as
being largely peripheral to whether that society is organic-integrative or
not. In other words (and I admit that I haven’t thought this through fully)
I think it may be entirely possible to have a fully organic-integrative
culture without any form of information technology at all (except perhaps
the printing press), and in which the flow of information occurs almost
entirely through face-to-face communication.
Peer to peer processes were in evidence in small physical groups ,for example the tribal era, where there is no coercive apparatus separate from the tribe itself, and the forms of authority are ‘soft’ and based on custom (age, gender, warrior abilities). But as soon as societies complexified into larger units, fixed hierarchies set in, and the state was invented. We are now in a mega-complex global arrangement, but the paradoxical thing is that we have invented a technology that recreates the possibility to have large-scale coordination of small cyber-collectives. In my manuscript, I take great pains to explain a vision of technological determinism that is not based on technological causation, but whereby the technology already reflects prior changes in being/knowing/values, with a constant interplay between them. So I do think that technology is very important, in that it creates the objective possibility of massively coordinating an infinite amount of small units that operate autonomously, with the higher level of coordination only determining the overall goal.
To push this a little further, in my model each stage of development has an
integrated and a dissociated (flatland) form. The integrated version lies on
the organic-integrative path while the flatland version lies on the
(Wilberian) structural-hierarchical path. This means that the integral stage
also has a flatland form, which I see as being the aperspectival stage on
the structural-hierarchical path. The aperspectival also functions as a
network but it is a flatland network, and its participating individuals
still inhabit a flatland worldview that is based on a repressive internal
psychology, rather than true vision-logic.
I’m not sure I can follow you in that. I have read Gebser, and his definitgion of the aperspectival does not seem flatland to me. Could you elaborate on this. See the summary of aperspectival here:Â (the quote pretty much reflects my own understanding of it)
I think it is possible that a network society that is based too much on
communiction-via-technology could have a very strong tendency to slip into
this flatland form, especially if the economic base of that society is still
largely centralised. The consequence of this is that individuals remain
dissociated (ie. at the aperspectival stage) even while seemingly engaging
in a lot of networked communication.For me, the key issue as to whether a society is organic-integrative or not,
is the *quality* of the information flowing through the network, which in my
view, and as I outline in my article, is related to the amount of
felt-meaning that it invokes in the receiver. I agree that the internet and
other communication technologies have led to a vast increase in the amount
of communication that is going on, but in my view much of this communication
is largely meaningless and thus does not actually have much information
content.
Yes, I agree with you, that communication and information flow by themselves, do not improve the quality of human interrelationships ‘as such’, and in fact may even deteriorate it. But there is also a process where by an expansion of participation, a democratization of the potential, leads to a greater emergence of quality. So I think that the indirect effect may be there.
So for example, I would say that individuals using internet music sharing
networks to exchange the latest output from the pop music world would
actually be contributing less to the flow of meaning than two individuals
sharing Mozart or Beethoven in a personal setting, as the former type of
music does not actually invoke much felt-meaning in the listener when
compared to the latter.
But more people having the chance to co-produce and distribute the music, might enhance the pool from which true talent can rise, and in any case, might speed up the collective learning process.
So I would say that the internet and other communication technologies have
the *potential* to contribute to the creation of an organic-integrative
society; the issue is the psychology of the individuals doing the
communicating (ie. are they truly centauric), and the quality of the
material being shared (ie. is it meaningful).
I can agree with that, it’s the interplay of these different factors.
Another place where we would possibly differ is on the issue of spritual
enquiry and the value of the guru system. I agree that the P2P model as well
as the model I have put forward both suggest that in the area of spiritual
enquiry a peer-based system is the most effective way forward. However, in
reality I have some doubts that this is actually the case. I think the
danger with peer-based approaches is that they can lead to a watered down
spirituality, with practitioners not making much progress on the spiritual
path, and that people actually make more progress when practicing under a
guru-type figure. I am of course talking about healthy gurus and not the
“scumbag gurus” that you talk of in your essay.
I take a less exalted view of guru’s. I think that advances in meditation are largely a technical matter, a technical expertise, which is in no way directly related to moral or scientific or whatever other progress (though it can ‘sometimes’ coincide). So there should be room for ‘teachers’ that hava specific domain expertise, but in no way would this mean a guaranteed power over followers. But in any case, even accepting that there would be such exalted persons amongst us, it should be divorced from any authoritarian structures, it should be an entirely voluntary ‘benevolent dictatorship’, as is evidenced in other contexts in peer production.
I largely buy into Wilber’s descriptions of the higher stages of development
(the psychic, subtle, causal etc) so I don’t think there is much in the way
of spirituality still awaiting discovery, and hence not much call for open
processes of spiritual exploration, although there is of course no way to
know this for sure.
I entirely disagree with such a closed view of spiritual evolution, we do not know what new forms may arise in the future, which in any case will also be culturally differentiated.
You say in your essay (and I agree) that natural hierarchies can arise
within P2P networks based on the competence of the individuals involved. I
would see a healthy guru system as being an example of this.However, I have to admit that given the model I have put forward, which sees
the organic-integrative society as being basically heterarchical, that a
peer-based spirituality follows more naturally from this logic than does a
guru-based one.Perhaps as a compromise between the two positions I could introduce the
concept of spiritual friendship as practiced within the Friends of the
Western Buddhist Order (FWBO), of which they define two types: horizontal
and vertical. Horizontal friendship exists between individuals on the same
level of spiritual development, while vertical friendship exists between
more and less developed individuals. Without going into detail (I think the
concept is fairly self-explanatory), I wonder if this could form a bridge
between the idea of a spritual hierarchy and P2P theory. You can read about
the FWBO system in Subhuti’s “Sangharakshita: A New Voice in the Buddhist
Tradition” if you are interested in pursuing this further.
I would see it differently, in the form of distributed leadership, where highly developed meditators, or personalities showing a high level of engagement for others, can teach their particular skills, while this in no way precludes that they are still imperfect humans, who can learn a lot from others in their various communities. And whereby these teaching capabilities are divorced from any form of coercive ‘power over’?
Another point which is probably just a difference in emphasis is in the
nature of the information commons. I would see this in more aesthetic terms
as comprising the great works of literature, music, poetry, philosophy,
religious texts and so on (the “classics”) rather than the more technical
commons that you describe in your essay. So I would say that in these areas
it is not so much a case of “building the commons” as engaging with the
commons that already exists. I see no reason why your arguments about the
nature of P2P could not in principle apply to these areas, so as I say, this
is probably just a difference in emphasis.
I think both are elements of the broader information commons. Again, I think that the P2P processes we are engaging in, create a lot of new emergent values. Think of free software as a cathedral for example. We are still building something grand, even though it is not physical. It is my experience that I’m learning a lot of the totality of the internet, not just from selected high quality pieces that already exist.
I thought the three scenarios for the future of P2P that you outline in
section 7.1.C were very interesting. My own view is that your second
scenario is the most likely in the forseeable future. I base this on the
work of David Icke and the idea I outline in my article that we are heading
for a highly centralised form of the aperspectival stage of the
structural-hierarchical path. But even if your third scenario is the correct
one, I think we would need to be careful that the network we create is based
on true vision-logic and the communication of felt-meaning, rather than a
flatland version based on the networked communication of dissociated
individuals.
I don’t know David Icke, but would agree with your conclusion.
The final point of difference that I would highlight is that in your essay
you base your account of the evolution of P2P on the Wilber/Beck model of
development, whereas in my essay I use Andy Smith’s One-Scale model. I
personally accept Andy’s critique of Wilber’s holarchy and believe that
Andy’s own model offers a more fertile avenue for the development of
integral theory. The problem with gaining a wider recognition of the value
of Andy’s work as things currently stand is that Andy is a scientist and
therefore tends to focus his articles on the lower, material levels of the
holarchy, which means that most readers don’t really see the implications of
his model for the psychological and social levels; this is something I have
tried to address in my own essays.
I have read Andy Smith a long while ago, and cannot remember in detail the differences. I consider AQAL as an interesting hermeneutic, it is a good way to organize and find knowledge, but not as the hidden metaphysical structure of the universe.
Having stated these points of difference, I would like to say again that I
am in full agreement with the majority of the points you make, and very much
enjoyed reading them. It would take me a long time to list all the points I
found interesting and that I agree with. I especially like your section
4.2.B “Equality, Hierarchy, Freedom” where you discuss P2P in the context of
the democratic process. I hope very much that you will write more essays,
particularly pushing for P2P to be accounted for in integral theory.
I may have to disappoint you , in the sense that I now only marginally follow integral developments, and I have written my critiques of the Wilber/Beck path. But I’m still attempting to write integratively, and open to authors in that broad tradition (I recently discovered Roy Bhaskar, and should read Edgar Morin). My current priorities are building the knowledge base at P2PFoundation.net, and at some point, rewrite the basic manuscript, enrichted with new insights.
A point you made in your email to me was that we have no examples of
organic-integrative societies to work with. I think this is a valid point
and creates a difficulty for my model. However, given that I don’t define an
organic-integrative society in any terms dependent on the technological base
of that society, I think we have seen cultures that approximate the
organic-integrative structure. The examples I give in my article are ancient
Greece and some aboriginal cultures.
If that is the case, I think you need to spell out, given that there are no contemporary examples of organic-integrative cultures, how the transition would work. My view is that there is a maturation of a fairly important number of people, and that this is what drives the emergence of peer to peer, and that one day it may be strong enough, so that the current P2P subsystem, becomes the overarching system, and the current dominant system, becomes a subsystem in the form of a transformed market subjected to peer arbitrage, and a state reformed in the context of multi-stakeholdership.
I realise I haven’t addressed most of the points you make in your articles,
largely because I’m not knowledgeable in the areas that you write about, but
I found your arguments very provocative. I believe, with the caveats I have
outlined in this email, that the organic-integrative and P2P models are very
compatible, and that each can very usefully inform the other.
I agree with your conclusion, and that we can learn a lot from each other and from the confrontation of those eventual differences.
Michel Bauwens