---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Dante-Gabryell Monson <[email protected]> Date: Thu, Dec 26, 2013 at 9:32 PM Subject: Re: [commoning] [P2P-F] The Co-operative University To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> while there may be talk regarding politics, this thread ( and others ) reminds me of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Pournelle#Iron_Law_of_Bureaucracy "Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy"<http://www.jerrypournelle.com/archives2/archives2mail/mail408.html#Iron> : In any bureaucracy, the people devoted to the benefit of the bureaucracy itself always get in control and those dedicated to the goals the bureaucracy is supposed to accomplish have less and less influence, and sometimes are eliminated entirely. He has restated <http://www.jerrypournelle.com/reports/jerryp/iron.html> it as: ...in any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people: those who work to further the actual goals of the organization, and those who work for the organization itself. Examples in education would be teachers who work and sacrifice to teach children, vs. union representatives who work to protect any teacher including the most incompetent. The Iron Law states that in all cases, the second type of person will always gain control of the organization, and will always write the rules under which the organization functions. This can be compared to the Iron law of oligarchy<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_oligarchy>. His blog, "The View from Chaos Manor", often references apparent examples of the law. On Thu, Dec 26, 2013 at 1:44 PM, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]>wrote:
I agree that both will happen and both are needed, but I do believe in leadership and intentional social action, in order to actuallyu make things happen in such integrative ways; in my reading, most humans are naturally driven to more closed processes, and so intentional collective action remains a necessity
On Thu, Dec 26, 2013 at 3:06 PM, Helene Finidori <[email protected]>wrote:
Michel, our approaches are not that different, though the cohesive wholes I am referring to are emergent whereas integrative approaches may be constructed. There is construction in both, but in one case what is constructed or acted upon are the conditions and seeds for the emergence of a whole from uncoordinated diversity, and in the other its about bringing diverse pieces together to be integrated in a more proactive and coordinated way within defined boundaries, and this can be more or less granular. Both approaches can coexist and complement each other. What you are describing for religions relate to the latter, and open p2p processes to the former. Shared underlying principles as opposed to transcendent visions and rules can accelerate p2p processes and coalescence.
There's also a question of process narrative. Some people have construction narrative to describe emergent processes, and vice versa...
On Saturday, December 21, 2013 10:01 AM, Michel Bauwens < [email protected]> wrote: well people are at various levels (though I personally don't pin down people at levels, but focus on their equipotential complementarities), and the people who think integratively are already building equipotential systems where people who are not integrative nevertheless build integrated systems (wikipedia, linux, wikispeed, need I go on ..)
(http://p2pfoundation.net/Equipotentiality)
so we're not describing anything wishful or that wish for people to come, but rather describing very extant systems where people are already integrated and coalescing, whether they have integrative visions or not .. \ think about the great world religions or institutions, they have succesffully bound people together at various levels for several thousand years already ... from the superstitious, to the rational to the transrational mystics, but ruled by 'rational' power-centric leadership
these leaders, at whatever level they were at, were already binding together multiple levels; what has changed is the level of leadership, they are now enough people at p2p levels to bind people in integrative systems that already including p2p logics in their vision-logic
the question is not to create them, they already exist, but rather to think how they could me more central to the overall workings of social systems,
Michel
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 11:12 AM, Samuel Rose <[email protected]>wrote:
Hi Michel,
The approach is one thing.
The people whom are proposed to adopt the approach are another.
You may create an integrative approach, however "if you build it, they will not come" ...unless their thinking and ways of solving problems are already integrative. Or, unless they are genuinely ready to change towards an integrative way. Human nature is tricky like that.
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 11:01 PM, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> wrote:
hi sam,
but what indeed about an integrative approach,not just one works in some the other in other, but actually combining approaches,
I frankly don't see why we can't combine self-learning, with peer learning, with learning from excellent teachers, all in one package,
Michel
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 5:58 PM, Samuel Rose <[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 11:36 AM, Joe Corneli <[email protected]
wrote:
As I understand it, some focusing on reproducing the university , but in a cooperative structure ( with some social media blend ), and focused on the teachers, who would become the owners of the structure ?
To toot the Peeragogy horn again, why distinguish between teachers and students? What do we gain from that dichotomy?
Joe, your point is well taken, and well founded.
I'd like to offer an alternative perspective, one grounded in the work of Clare W Graves http://www.clarewgraves.com/
Graves put forth a theory that it will be ineffective to first create a social "structure", then question why everyone is not adopting it.
This holds true for both a hierarchy (one-to-many_, and a many-to-many (p2p) relationship.
The problem lies in the fundamental assumptions (or world view, or "bio-psycho-social" conditions, as Graves described them) of the person in question. If a person's worldview resonates with hierarchical approaches, they are going to tend to reject p2p approaches, no matter how strong the argument. And, if a person's world view resonates strongly with p2p approaches, they are going to reject social hierarchies.
There really is no "best" way. Because, whatever way is selected, it must resonate with the people who actively pursuing it, or it will never work, no matter how good it is.
Another factor to look for is where people espouse, for instance a p2p approach, but actually are revealed to be consolidating resources and power under their control in a hierarchical way. It is my opinion that this is actually extremely common.
For me, I'd rather just say: let's admit that p2p works in some conditions, hierarchies in others, and let's call it a day.
I can ramify that with a pithy quote from Jean Baudrillard:
"Alienation begins with the internalisation of the Master by the emancipated slave." -- In pedagogy as originally practiced in Greece, the teachers were slaves. Now that they are (politically) emancipated, should they become students? Or should students take over the classroom, like Situationists taking over UNICEF? Or should they instead reject studies completely as the Situationists advised? I think we can understand better by comparing with two more quotes from another recent philosopher, Peter Sloterdijk:
"If one is prepared to understand the faculty, the university and the scholars' republic as collectivizations, anonymizations and perfections of the master function..."
"After half a century of militant youth movements, a creature that had been absent from the scene for a long time resurfaced: the adult."
If we follow Sloterdijk's argument: it turns out that "mastery" of either a topic, or practice, or of oneself, is the essence of education, training, religion, and most of our modern society. Perhaps we are mature enough at this point to concern ourselves mostly with forthrightness about our own experiences and valueS (in the plural). One more quote from the philosopher who inspired both these guys:
"While the noble man lives in trust and openness with himself [...] the man of ressentiment is neither upright nor naive nor honest and straightforward with himself."
Nietzsche's term, ressentiment, is another way to talk about "internalisation of the master". There is a world of difference between internalising a dominating master, and pursuing mastery, "be it the solving of a factual problem or the art of living as such."
More detailed versions of the quotes: http://gathatoulie.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/international.html
See ladder of participation :
Notice how that can be bent into a Möbius loop. I.e. do we really know that therapy is always "non-participation", or that citizen control is not a direct form of manipulation of one form or another?
_______________________________________________ commoning Mailingliste JPBerlin - Politischer Provider [email protected] https://listen.jpberlin.de/mailman/listinfo/commoning
commoning Mailingliste JPBerlin - Politischer Provider [email protected] https://listen.jpberlin.de/mailman/listinfo/commoning
-- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
#82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/
_______________________________________________ commoning Mailingliste JPBerlin - Politischer Provider [email protected] https://listen.jpberlin.de/mailman/listinfo/commoning
_______________________________________________ commoning Mailingliste JPBerlin - Politischer Provider [email protected] https://listen.jpberlin.de/mailman/listinfo/commoning
-- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
<http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
#82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/
_______________________________________________ commoning Mailingliste JPBerlin - Politischer Provider [email protected] https://listen.jpberlin.de/mailman/listinfo/commoning
_______________________________________________ commoning Mailingliste JPBerlin - Politischer Provider [email protected] https://listen.jpberlin.de/mailman/listinfo/commoning
-- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
<http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
#82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/
_______________________________________________ commoning Mailingliste JPBerlin - Politischer Provider [email protected] https://listen.jpberlin.de/mailman/listinfo/commoning
_______________________________________________ commoning Mailingliste JPBerlin - Politischer Provider [email protected] https://listen.jpberlin.de/mailman/listinfo/commoning -- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/