[P2P-F] emergent holoptism as OCL Re: open capital License?

Dante-Gabryell Monson dante.monson at gmail.com
Tue Feb 5 16:23:41 CET 2013

note : as to understand the element that enables the network effect, I may
perhaps focus on the understanding that such metadata can be used, pretty
much like a tag, and hence any corresponding metadata , or even data
patterns, could overlap across several "games", or in effect, "create" a
variety of games... or opportunities for games, as people find out about
such opportunities, and can decide to act upon them.

It opens up new markets, in a p2p approach, along a variety of forms of

This is one of the applications I see as possible with netention, once the
prototype will become more mature...

On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Dante-Gabryell Monson <
dante.monson at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Apostolis, Thanks.
> yes, I thought of the network effect.
> Hence the granularity, which enables modularity, at a single agents point
> of perspective.
> One agent / user / player,
> can play several overlapping "games" ( including economic ones ),
> and direct its choices based on understanding of how other people's
> engagements match, and on the contextualisation of resources or potential
> resources.
> This is possible through the use of a variety of metadata, including a
> combination of engagement metadata with resource related metadata ( apples,
> pears, ... ) , and which can include debt based metadata ( what we
> currently call money ), but certainly does not restrict the economic
> networks to such layers of transactions, broadening transactions to a much
> larger potential of transactions based on information of available capital.
> Hence, as briefly mentioned in the last message, the self contextualizing
> information systems open up an understanding of potential choices within
> economic networks, hence creating a defacto series of context based
> (meta)licenses ( themselves based on conditions defined within these
> granular elements )
> On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 3:25 PM, Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis <
> xekoukou at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Dante, have you thought of the network effect<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect>
>> ?
>> The usefulness of a system depends on the number of people using it. So,
>> even if people are able to create their own game, they will still have to
>> play by the rules that someone else created.
>> It was never a requirement to have electronic tools so that another form
>> of society would exist if everyone accepted the new society's rules.
>> We need to propose a specific game.
>> 2013/2/5 Dante-Gabryell Monson <dante.monson at gmail.com>
>>> Hi Flawer, Hi All,
>>> I totally get you flawer.
>>> Somehow, I see a variety of contracts, with shareable being one type of
>>> license / contract that could be used , amongst other ontologies many seem
>>> to be taking for granted , of which perhaps certain could overlap ?
>>> Sometimes, and I do not mean this for this list in particular,
>>> but generally speaking,
>>> I have the feeling that its not easy to communicate such views,
>>> except for examples related to collaborative consumption.
>>> Most people seem to understand the idea of a library of objects.
>>> Or the idea of renting some object or place from / to someone.
>>> Moving one step further, into the realm of currency, and metadata , is
>>> often a stage which seems to be more difficult to bridge.
>>> My impression is that very often people understand currency as an
>>> object, as in the case of a book in a library.   And not in terms of data
>>> and metadata, created out of specific contracts.
>>> I liked Etienne's approach of explaining it as a "game"...
>>> *A game other people need to agree to play with, for the currency to
>>> have any value.*
>>> Hence, I would hope that granular and modulable metadata assembled into
>>> contextualized descriptions,
>>> enables* all games to be taken into account, and provide a framework
>>> for "game 2 game" transactions. *
>>> Actually, before even the stage of facilitating transactions, such "meta
>>> game" enables its users to provide each other with context to support
>>> choice making, become aware of the current, or potential effects of
>>> interdependencies , opening up a *"meta-game of emergent contextualized
>>> collective intelligence".*
>>> I realize that once I start talking about an emergent system , it seems
>>> to become difficult ( too abstract ? ) for many to grasp ?
>>> Perhaps at it becomes a 4th order cybernetic order ?
>>> http://attainable-utopias.org/tiki/FourthOrderCybernetics
>>> I may need to find different ways of explaining it.
>>> Perhaps conversations on this list can help...
>>> How can one best explain that any transaction can potentially choose its
>>> license / conditions , and that such license can not only itself become
>>> currency when accepted by others,
>>> but that the combined descriptions of conditions by all users,  the
>>> contextualized metadata , becomes a type of (meta)currency, as the context
>>> and its interdependencies creates a defacto a license to choose from.
>>> In other words, becoming aware of potential economic networks creates a
>>> license to choose from, and to contribute from.
>>> In effect, the context created through emergence, becoming an open
>>> capital license...
>>> Related concept : http://p2pfoundation.net/Holoptism
>>> On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 1:43 PM, flawer <flawer at shareful.be> wrote:
>>>> > a) it decides whether the tools for the project are created and by
>>>> > whom they are used.
>>>> > b) they decide the price of those tools( through lending).
>>>> >
>>>> > After this analysis, we see that a bank does decide what the economy
>>>> > produces. In general, the owner of money controls the economy because
>>>> > of those 2 reasons.
>>>> >
>>>> > Any ruleset thus has to find a way to remove those abilities from
>>>> > money.
>>>> if you attach a contract that promises the universalization of access
>>>> you are giving more responsability and less rights to ownership (what
>>>> money could buy), you won't be able to ask for money for the produced
>>>> thing, and should let others use it, etc, so investing in my property is
>>>> increasing my responsability, so i'd like to share that charge (peer
>>>> property) and i'd like not being owner of too many things (i prefer to
>>>> be plain user). the "a)" reason you mention is mentioned to be universal
>>>> use by default.
>>>> i believe a job agency of workers investing their sales/budgets for the
>>>> commons can be bought by a rich in $ (and it's an internal matter of us
>>>> whether we know how to spend well the $ and if we still need to 'accept'
>>>> them), and this not being a power over from the rich in $ towards us. It
>>>> is rather a way we should experiment more, we shouldn't have much
>>>> competition in the actual 'market' if we corporate so.
>>>> also the clausing of community currencies with the shareful producing
>>>> condition, whether they choose the shareful project to be just accesible
>>>> for their associates or for the whole world, should help defining their
>>>> values and even justify the giving of 'basic incomes' for shareful
>>>> producers works in this way (who could buy preferent use/access for
>>>> those produced shareful things) (who could require to retain the
>>>> ownership of the shareful production or give it to the corp)
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> P2P Foundation - Mailing list
>>>> http://www.p2pfoundation.net
>>>> https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> P2P Foundation - Mailing list
>>> http://www.p2pfoundation.net
>>> https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
>> --
>> Sincerely yours,
>>      Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.ourproject.org/pipermail/p2p-foundation/attachments/20130205/798a7b76/attachment.htm 

More information about the P2P-Foundation mailing list