"Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy":
He has restated it as:
This can be compared to the Iron law of oligarchy. His blog, "The View from Chaos Manor", often references apparent examples of the law.
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 necessityOn Thu, Dec 26, 2013 at 3:06 PM, Helene Finidori <hfinidori@yahoo.com> 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 <michel@p2pfoundation.net> 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 leadershipthese 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-logicthe 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,MichelOn Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 11:12 AM, Samuel Rose <samuel.rose@gmail.com> 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
<michel@p2pfoundation.net> 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 <samuel.rose@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 11:36 AM, Joe Corneli <holtzermann17@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> As I understand it, some focusing on reproducing the university , but>> > "If one is prepared to understand the faculty, the university and the>> >> 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:
>> >
>> > 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 :
>> >>
>> >> http://p2pfoundation.net/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
>> > commoning@listen.jpberlin.de
>> > https://listen.jpberlin.de/mailman/listinfo/commoning
>> _______________________________________________
>> commoning Mailingliste
>> JPBerlin - Politischer Provider
>> commoning@listen.jpberlin.de
>> 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
> commoning@listen.jpberlin.de
> https://listen.jpberlin.de/mailman/listinfo/commoning
>
_______________________________________________
commoning Mailingliste
JPBerlin - Politischer Provider
commoning@listen.jpberlin.de
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
commoning@listen.jpberlin.de
https://listen.jpberlin.de/mailman/listinfo/commoning
_______________________________________________
commoning Mailingliste
JPBerlin - Politischer Provider
commoning@listen.jpberlin.de
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
commoning@listen.jpberlin.de
https://listen.jpberlin.de/mailman/listinfo/commoning