…
bingo free cash
…
such as new organisms (‘humansâ€) or ‘new communities'. that view, which seems to be implied in your above post, is akin to the view of evolution as ‘progress†in object forms along the axis of time as in ‘ape-to-manâ€. the view that i am trying to share is the view of evolution in terms of ‘thinglessness†and ‘connectedness†of relativity and quantum theory. in this view, the only thing that evolves, the only thing that has ever evolved is ‘spacetimeâ€, the gravitational field, if you like, every ‘thingâ€, instead of being an object in itself, being an inextricable ‘feature†within this energy flow-field. in this view, there is no break between ‘inanimate nature†and ‘animate natureâ€, the new complexity we call ‘life†or 'human' being a feature of the evolving hostspace rather than an ‘objectâ€. as shroedinger proposed, ‘life†is a property of the universe (not something that ‘infects†an inanimate universe.)
‘objects†such as ‘a species†or an individual human are, in the thingless-connectedness of relativity, abstractions that we impose on the evolving flow-field to allow us to better share our experiences through language. therefore the complexity that we see in ‘animal life†that is we say is GREATER than the complexity we see in the non-organic world is not ‘greater†at all because IT IS NOT IN THE ANIMAL LIFE; i.e. there is just one world and the split between the animal world and the inorganic world is not a ‘real†split but simply an abstract convention that we impose on our mental modeling of the world..
that this may be ‘too far out†for some, many or even most readers to ‘swallow†at this juncture, i accept (the situation is as it is). but it is becoming less so as people continue to work on the implications of relativity and quantum theory vis a vis evolutionary complexity that is not unveiling its origins to us via our ‘thing-based†representation of reality.
just as a new business can be whipped up and sustained by nonlocal currents in the manner of a cyclone and henceforth be described EXPEDIENTLY BY THE OBSERVER as if it were and had always been a center-driven activity, even though it is more essentially a nonlocal dynamical phenomena, so it is also in the case of organisms and objects in general; i.e. (in the thingless connectedness of relativity and quantum theory) they are nonlocal phenomena (field-flow features) that we find it convenient to personify as local objects with local object behaviours.
the ‘new complexity†that has emerged in the open software movement would innappropriately be ‘objectified†as a ‘new organizational form†analogous to ‘a new life form†or ‘a new type of community†(‘a p2p communityâ€), but can be instead understood in terms of a transformation in spatial relationships within a common hostspace dynamic (e.g. what we call a ‘crowd†is not a group of permanent members but a standing wave pattern through which new people are continually flowing, as in a crowded intersection.).
according to margulis et al, the eukaryotic cell does not have to be seen as a ‘new object†but can be more realistically seen as a symbiotic (p2p) group of prokaryotic micro-organisms. this kind of symbiotic spatial-relational association can be extended up through what has been thought of as ‘man†all the way up to and including the earth this view of ‘new complexity†no longer requires that a ‘new object†be the body-host of the new complexity, the new complexity instead being seen in terms of spatial-relational dynamics that nest inclusionally within one another from micro to macro scales.
an important aspect of this new complexity is that its emergence is WITHOUT EXPLICIT INTENTION. it is like the wildgeese that go into their inverted ‘V†formation because they can experience the synergies/resonances of doing so. when there are a multiplicity of participants that can ‘connect up†in many different ways, some of those ways will deliver unplanned synergies/resonances and the continuing co-discovered resonances will provide the evolutionary ‘direction†of the organizing rather than it coming explicitly from the participants. this sort of ‘p2p community†is ‘unintentional communityâ€; i.e. the community organization takes shape from synergy/resonance in spatial-relationships.
in the case of the open software movement as in the case of the eukaryote, the ‘new complexity†is apparently ‘orthogonal†to locally centered intentionality.]]>‘objects’ such as ‘a species’ or an individual human are, in the thingless-connectedness of relativity, abstractions that we impose on the evolving flow-field to allow us to better share our experiences through language. therefore the complexity that we see in ‘animal life’ that is we say is GREATER than the complexity we see in the non-organic world is not ‘greater’ at all because IT IS NOT IN THE ANIMAL LIFE; i.e. there is just one world and the split between the animal world and the inorganic world is not a ‘real’ split but simply an abstract convention that we impose on our mental modeling of the world..
that this may be ‘too far out’ for some, many or even most readers to ‘swallow’ at this juncture, i accept (the situation is as it is). but it is becoming less so as people continue to work on the implications of relativity and quantum theory vis a vis evolutionary complexity that is not unveiling its origins to us via our ‘thing-based’ representation of reality.
just as a new business can be whipped up and sustained by nonlocal currents in the manner of a cyclone and henceforth be described EXPEDIENTLY BY THE OBSERVER as if it were and had always been a center-driven activity, even though it is more essentially a nonlocal dynamical phenomena, so it is also in the case of organisms and objects in general; i.e. (in the thingless connectedness of relativity and quantum theory) they are nonlocal phenomena (field-flow features) that we find it convenient to personify as local objects with local object behaviours.
the ‘new complexity’ that has emerged in the open software movement would innappropriately be ‘objectified’ as a ‘new organizational form’ analogous to ‘a new life form’ or ‘a new type of community’ (‘a p2p community’), but can be instead understood in terms of a transformation in spatial relationships within a common hostspace dynamic (e.g. what we call a ‘crowd’ is not a group of permanent members but a standing wave pattern through which new people are continually flowing, as in a crowded intersection.).
according to margulis et al, the eukaryotic cell does not have to be seen as a ‘new object’ but can be more realistically seen as a symbiotic (p2p) group of prokaryotic micro-organisms. this kind of symbiotic spatial-relational association can be extended up through what has been thought of as ‘man’ all the way up to and including the earth this view of ‘new complexity’ no longer requires that a ‘new object’ be the body-host of the new complexity, the new complexity instead being seen in terms of spatial-relational dynamics that nest inclusionally within one another from micro to macro scales.
an important aspect of this new complexity is that its emergence is WITHOUT EXPLICIT INTENTION. it is like the wildgeese that go into their inverted ‘V’ formation because they can experience the synergies/resonances of doing so. when there are a multiplicity of participants that can ‘connect up’ in many different ways, some of those ways will deliver unplanned synergies/resonances and the continuing co-discovered resonances will provide the evolutionary ‘direction’ of the organizing rather than it coming explicitly from the participants. this sort of ‘p2p community’ is ‘unintentional community’; i.e. the community organization takes shape from synergy/resonance in spatial-relationships.
in the case of the open software movement as in the case of the eukaryote, the ‘new complexity’ is apparently ‘orthogonal’ to locally centered intentionality.
]]> of human-behaviour from natureâ€s-behaviour (it employs the Cartesian split). human behaviour can only be relative to the dynamical hostspace in which it is included. as Gould says, ‘there can be no assessment of ‘hitting†out of the context of ‘fieldingâ€; i.e. these are simply two aspects of a dynamical one-ness, though we can simplify this 'androgynic' complexity by IDEALISTICALLY imposing independence on individual entities and building up a one-sided 'masculine' representation of reality based on ‘what independent things doâ€.
this ‘idealismâ€, which is the default REALITY-REPRESENTING practice of the ‘Westâ€, while a convenient simplification, fails to hold true to our experience, and neither does it hold true to relativity, nor to quantum wave dynamics nor ‘complex systemsâ€. my comments therefore do not equate to ‘reducing human behaviour†from its superior and lofty position ‘above physical and animal behaviourâ€, but are based on the acknowledging that THIS SUPERIOR/INFERIOR VIEW ITSELF occludes the ‘relativity of motion†view wherein behaviour is innately ‘spatial-relational†rather than emanating mysteriously (some would say ‘superstitiouslyâ€) from the idealist concept of ‘self-standing inner purposeâ€, an ‘ideal†that is NECESSITATED to prop up the simplified view that human individuals and other individual entities are ‘independent†of their hostspace and that the world dynamic equates to the sum of the behaviours of the ‘independent entities†that ‘populate†absolute, empty and infinite euclidian space.
from manâ€s dependence for sustainability upon two genders and the generational continuum, from the diverse bacterial flora in his gut to the oxygen mix and humidity he needs in the atmosphere and stability in the narrow range of temperatures and pressures he can function in (not to mention his inbuilt inertial guidance system as an essentially ‘fluid†inclusion within the gravitational field), all of which is topped off by his inextricable inclusion in the evolutionary flow-dynamic, it is difficult to regard his ‘behavioural independence†as more than a simplifying convention-of-convenience (as it has indeed been described by philosopher-physicists such as Henri Poincaré).
western ‘IDEALISM†itself would appear to be ‘the reductionâ€, by the logic of mutual exclusion, that results in the notion of ‘behavioural independence†of man which is the necessary underpinning of ‘his superior behavioural capabilityâ€; i.e. it is not ‘his†behaviour in an exclusive sense any more than (hurricane) katrinaâ€s behaviour is ‘her behaviourâ€, it is just simpler and more convenient to personify a ‘dynamical form†that is essentially relational, in a purely male, forward-asserting representation so that we donâ€t have to deal with the a-centricity and a-temporality of spacetime transformation, a continuing ‘coniunctio oppositorum†wherein asserting entities, as a collective, spatially accommodate their own assertings. thanks to the ‘idealized†convention of absolute space and absolute time, which we can impose on our mental modeling but which is not imposed on nature, we can represent, discuss and debate ‘reality†in the simplified terms of ‘local objects†with ‘local object behaviours†of their own.
with respect to our p2p initiative/s and your comment; ‘humans do have intentionality, are building intentional communities, do have desires. It would be unwise to ban them or leave this human emergence on the waysideâ€, ... my point is that this ‘forward assertive, center-of-independent-self-based constructivism†is not ‘reality†but one of alternative REPRESENTATIONS OF REALITY, this particular representation emanating from the IDEALIZED notion of ‘behavioural independence†and as such it is a simplified (but very convenient in some ways) illusion. all ‘action†in a relative space such as the living space of our experience, is ‘transformation†(evolving of spatial relationships). insofar as we attempt to assertively construct our desired 'utopian' IDEAL of a communityâ€, we lose sight of how such positivist/idealist-make-it-happen actions 'in reality' transform the common hostspace we share inclusion in.
p2p can and does exist in the world as a relational ‘collective work ethic†and were it more pervasively ‘the ethic of choice†so that ‘hierarchical control†took a back seat to it, we both feel that the dynamic of our common living space would in this case be healthier and more harmonious. we would in this case be ‘living the p2p theory†rather than debating the theory of p2p. but what could become ‘more pervasive†instead would be ‘p2p intentional communities†and by that same ‘ideal†of independence (mutual exclusion) that allows us to say that ‘human behaviours are superior to animal behaviours†and ‘the behaviours of some humans are superior to the behaviours of other humans†we could also say that ‘p2p community behaviours are superior to hierarchical community behaviours†(to 'not-p2p community behaviours'). the ‘ideal†of independence opens the door to mutually exclusive pairs such as; ‘superior/inferiorâ€, ‘right/wrongâ€, ‘good/badâ€, ‘better/worse†whereas p2p as a purely spatial-relational form of organization is a-centric and a-temporal (un-objectified and therefore not amenable to mutually exclusive membership set representation). thus the p2pfoundation can ‘see itself†either as an inductive cultivator of the p2p spatial-relational organizational form (by collaborative development of tools and understandings) or as a promoter for the assertive launching of p2p intentional communities (communities that are regarded as ‘superior†to ‘not-p2p†communities). while p2p as a form of organizing can and does exist in all communities, the notion of --- ‘aâ€--- p2p community implies the existence of mutually exclusive ‘not-p2p†community with all the clubist trappings of objectified superiority/inferiority, .... hence, .... ‘what a difference an ‘a†makesâ€.
my intention is not 'to ban intentional communities', it is to cultivate awareness of the 'design shortfall' that has people single-mindedly constructing their 'desired communities' without recognizing and taking responsibility for how their idealized constructivism is necessarily transforming the living space that we all share. the danish cartoonist can hold absolutely to his idealized principle of 'freedom of the press' which purportedly leads to harmonious community as a future ideal, but meanwhile; 'there is no path to community harmony, community harmony is the path' (which membership collective is 'right' and which is 'not-right' is a question that is only meaningful if the subsets of 'right' and 'not-right' are mutually exclusive. such sets are abstractions that are not 'more real' than the manner in which we experience behaviour in relation to one another, which 'doesn't need them' and in fact is often plagued by them.).]]>this ‘idealism’, which is the default REALITY-REPRESENTING practice of the ‘West’, while a convenient simplification, fails to hold true to our experience, and neither does it hold true to relativity, nor to quantum wave dynamics nor ‘complex systems’. my comments therefore do not equate to ‘reducing human behaviour’ from its superior and lofty position ‘above physical and animal behaviour’, but are based on the acknowledging that THIS SUPERIOR/INFERIOR VIEW ITSELF occludes the ‘relativity of motion’ view wherein behaviour is innately ‘spatial-relational’ rather than emanating mysteriously (some would say ‘superstitiously’) from the idealist concept of ‘self-standing inner purpose’, an ‘ideal’ that is NECESSITATED to prop up the simplified view that human individuals and other individual entities are ‘independent’ of their hostspace and that the world dynamic equates to the sum of the behaviours of the ‘independent entities’ that ‘populate’ absolute, empty and infinite euclidian space.
from man’s dependence for sustainability upon two genders and the generational continuum, from the diverse bacterial flora in his gut to the oxygen mix and humidity he needs in the atmosphere and stability in the narrow range of temperatures and pressures he can function in (not to mention his inbuilt inertial guidance system as an essentially ‘fluid’ inclusion within the gravitational field), all of which is topped off by his inextricable inclusion in the evolutionary flow-dynamic, it is difficult to regard his ‘behavioural independence’ as more than a simplifying convention-of-convenience (as it has indeed been described by philosopher-physicists such as Henri Poincaré).
western ‘IDEALISM’ itself would appear to be ‘the reduction’, by the logic of mutual exclusion, that results in the notion of ‘behavioural independence’ of man which is the necessary underpinning of ‘his superior behavioural capability’; i.e. it is not ‘his’ behaviour in an exclusive sense any more than (hurricane) katrina’s behaviour is ‘her behaviour’, it is just simpler and more convenient to personify a ‘dynamical form’ that is essentially relational, in a purely male, forward-asserting representation so that we don’t have to deal with the a-centricity and a-temporality of spacetime transformation, a continuing ‘coniunctio oppositorum’ wherein asserting entities, as a collective, spatially accommodate their own assertings. thanks to the ‘idealized’ convention of absolute space and absolute time, which we can impose on our mental modeling but which is not imposed on nature, we can represent, discuss and debate ‘reality’ in the simplified terms of ‘local objects’ with ‘local object behaviours’ of their own.
with respect to our p2p initiative/s and your comment; ‘humans do have intentionality, are building intentional communities, do have desires. It would be unwise to ban them or leave this human emergence on the wayside’, … my point is that this ‘forward assertive, center-of-independent-self-based constructivism’ is not ‘reality’ but one of alternative REPRESENTATIONS OF REALITY, this particular representation emanating from the IDEALIZED notion of ‘behavioural independence’ and as such it is a simplified (but very convenient in some ways) illusion. all ‘action’ in a relative space such as the living space of our experience, is ‘transformation’ (evolving of spatial relationships). insofar as we attempt to assertively construct our desired ‘utopian’ IDEAL of a community’, we lose sight of how such positivist/idealist-make-it-happen actions ‘in reality’ transform the common hostspace we share inclusion in.
p2p can and does exist in the world as a relational ‘collective work ethic’ and were it more pervasively ‘the ethic of choice’ so that ‘hierarchical control’ took a back seat to it, we both feel that the dynamic of our common living space would in this case be healthier and more harmonious. we would in this case be ‘living the p2p theory’ rather than debating the theory of p2p. but what could become ‘more pervasive’ instead would be ‘p2p intentional communities’ and by that same ‘ideal’ of independence (mutual exclusion) that allows us to say that ‘human behaviours are superior to animal behaviours’ and ‘the behaviours of some humans are superior to the behaviours of other humans’ we could also say that ‘p2p community behaviours are superior to hierarchical community behaviours’ (to ‘not-p2p community behaviours’). the ‘ideal’ of independence opens the door to mutually exclusive pairs such as; ‘superior/inferior’, ‘right/wrong’, ‘good/bad’, ‘better/worse’ whereas p2p as a purely spatial-relational form of organization is a-centric and a-temporal (un-objectified and therefore not amenable to mutually exclusive membership set representation). thus the p2pfoundation can ‘see itself’ either as an inductive cultivator of the p2p spatial-relational organizational form (by collaborative development of tools and understandings) or as a promoter for the assertive launching of p2p intentional communities (communities that are regarded as ‘superior’ to ‘not-p2p’ communities). while p2p as a form of organizing can and does exist in all communities, the notion of — ‘a’— p2p community implies the existence of mutually exclusive ‘not-p2p’ community with all the clubist trappings of objectified superiority/inferiority, …. hence, …. ‘what a difference an ‘a’ makes’.
my intention is not ‘to ban intentional communities’, it is to cultivate awareness of the ‘design shortfall’ that has people single-mindedly constructing their ‘desired communities’ without recognizing and taking responsibility for how their idealized constructivism is necessarily transforming the living space that we all share. the danish cartoonist can hold absolutely to his idealized principle of ‘freedom of the press’ which purportedly leads to harmonious community as a future ideal, but meanwhile; ‘there is no path to community harmony, community harmony is the path’ (which membership collective is ‘right’ and which is ‘not-right’ is a question that is only meaningful if the subsets of ‘right’ and ‘not-right’ are mutually exclusive. such sets are abstractions that are not ‘more real’ than the manner in which we experience behaviour in relation to one another, which ‘doesn’t need them’ and in fact is often plagued by them.).
]]>That collectives can become oppresive is another matter. This happens when the collective becomes a ‘collective individual’, where a power structures transcends the concrete immanent togetherness of the participants. But the solution there is not to regress to pre-human modes, but rather, to develop peer governance methods that prevent such power transcendence. The P2P Foundation is in fact a purely virtual structures, based on the free association of anyone that shares a broadly similar set of ideals. It doesn’t have an authority structures beyond the cooperation of those who sympathise with its aims. That could change, but the relationship is one of complex interdependence, not one of dependence, so that, absent any coercive possibilities, it has to function on a mode of consensus. Ted Lumley’s second option would deprive us of the essential liberty of creating and inventing new social forms, and that is an option which I strongly reject.
Peer governance has developed a series of techniques to insure itself, successfully or not that we will see in the future, against transcendence of power.
See chapter of the P2P Foundational essay, at http://www.p2pfoundation.net/index.php/4._P2P_in_the_Political_Sphere, especially 4.2.A, 4.2B, 4.3.
Michel Bauwens
]]>