Group items tagged

allowing the free aggregation of individuals around shared values or common value creation

a huge sociological shift

new life forms, social practices and human institutions

emergent communities of practice are developing new social practices that are informed by the p2p paradigm

ethical revolution

openness

participation

inclusivity

cooperation

commons

the open content industry in the U.S. to reach one sixth of GDP.

political expressions

the movement has two wings

constructive

building new tools and practices

resistance to neoliberalism

we are at a stage of emergence

difficulty of implementing full p2p solutions in the current dominant system

At this stage, there is a co-dependency between peer producers creating value, and for-profit firms ‘capturing that value’, but they both need each other.

Peer producers need a business ecology to insure the social reproduction of their system and financial sustainability of its participants, and capital needs the positive externalities of social cooperation which flow from p2p collaboration.

peer producing communities should create their own ‘mission-oriented’ social businesses, so that the surplus value remains with the value creators, i.e. the commoners themselves, but this is hardly happening now.

Instead what we see is a mutual accomodation between netarchical capital on one side, and peer production communities on the other.

the horizontal meets the vertical

mostly hybrid ‘diagonal’ adaptations

For peer producers the question becomes, if we cannot create our own fully autonomous institutions, how can we adapt while maintaining maximum autonomy and sustainability as a commons and as a community.

Why p2p have failed to create successful alternatives in some areas?

In commons-oriented peer production, where people aggegrate around a common object which requires deep cooperation, they usually have their own infrastructures of cooperation and a ecology combining community, a for-benefit association managing the infrastructure, and for-profit companies operating on the market place; in the sharing economy, where individuals merely share their own expressions, third party platforms are the norm. It is clear that for-profit companies have different priorities, and want to enclose value so that it can be sold on the marketplace. This in fact the class struggle of the p2p era, the struggle between communities and corporations around various issues because of partly differential interests.

Even commercially controlled platforms are being used for a massive horizontalisation and self-aggregation of human relationships, and communities, including political and radical groups are effectively using them to mobilize. What’s important is not just to focus on the limitations and intentions of the platform owners, but to use whatever we can to strengthen the autonomy of peer communities.

requires a clever adaptation

use for our own benefit

The fact today is that capital is still capable of marshaling vast financial and material resources, so that it can create,

platforms that can easily and quickly offer services, creating network effects

without network effects, there is no ‘there’ there, just an empty potential platform.

p2p activists should work on both fronts

using mainstream platforms for spreading their ideas and culture and reach greater numbers of people, while also developing their own autonomous media ecologies, that can operate independently, and the latter is an engagement for the ‘long haul’, i.e. the slow construction of an alternative lifeworld.

The commons and p2p are really just different aspects of the same phenomena; the commons is the object that p2p dynamics are building; and p2p takes place wherever there are commons.

So both p2p and the commons, as they create abundant (digital) or sufficient (material) value for the commoners, at the same time create opportunities to create added value for the marketplace. There is no domain that is excluded from p2p, no field that can say, “we wouldn’t be stronger by opening up to participation and community dynamics”. And there is no p2p community that can say, we are in the long term fully sustainable within the present system, without extra resources coming from the market sector.

One trend is the distribution of current infrastructures and practices, i.e. introducing crowdsourcing, crowdfunding, social lending, digital currencies, in order to achieve wider participation in current practices. That is a good thing, but not sufficient. All the things that I mention above, move to a distributed infrastructure, but do not change the fundamental logic of what they are doing.

we are talking about the distribution of capitalism, not about a deeper change in the logic of our economy.

No matter how good you are, no matter how much capital you have to hire the best people, you cannot compete with the innovative potential of open global communities.

the p2p dynamics

the new networked culture

the opposite is also happening, as we outlined above, more and more commons-oriented value communities are creating their own entrepreneurial coalitions. Of course, some type of companies, because of their monopoly positions and legacy systems, may have a very difficult time undergoing that adaptation, in which case new players will appear that can do it more effectively.

the corporate form is unable to deal with ecological and sustainability issues, because its very DNA, the legal obligation to enrich the shareholders, makes its strive to lower input costs,  and ignore externalities.

we need new corporate structures, a new type of market entity, for which profit is a means, but not an end, dedicated to a ‘benefit‘, a ‘mission’, or the sustenance of a particular community and/or commons.

abundance destroys scarcity and therefore markets

open design community

will inherently design for sustainability

for inclusion

conceive more distributed forms of manufacturing

entrepreneurs attaching themselves to open design projects start working from an entirely different space, even if they still use the classic corporate form. Prevent the sharing of sustainability designs through IP monopolies is also in my view unethical and allowing such patents should be a minimalist option, not a maximalist one.

The high road scenario proposes an enlightened government that ‘enables and empowers’ social production and value creation and allows a much smoother transition to p2p models; the low road scenario is one in which no structural reforms take place, the global situation descends into various forms of chaos, and p2p becomes a survival and resilience tactic in extremely difficult social, political and economic circumstances.

accelerated end of capitalism

Making sure that we get a better alternative is actually the historical task of the p2p movement. In other words, it depends on us!

I don’t really think in terms of technological breakthroughs, because the essential one, globally networked collective intelligence enabled by the internetworks, is already behind us; that is the major change, all other technological breakthroughs will be informed by this new social reality of the horizontalisation of our civilisation. The important thing now is to defend and extend our communication and organisation rights, against a concerted attempt to turn back the clock. While the latter is really an impossibility, this does not mean that the attempts by governments and large corporations cannot create great harm and difficulties. We need p2p technology to enable the global solution finding and implementation of the systemic crises we are facing.

There is a clear institutional division of labour between these three players

a set of "for-benefit institutions' which manage the 'infrastructure of cooperation'

an enterpreneurial coalition that creates market value on top of that commons;

because democracy, and the market, and hierarchy, are modes of allocation of scarce resources

Is there perhaps a new model of power and democracy co-evolving out of these new social practices, that may be an answer to the contemporary crisis of democracy

we are witnessing a new model for the state. A 'P2P' state, if you will.

The post-democratic logic of community

these communities are not democracies

Can we also learn something about the politics of this new mode of value creation

has achieved capacities both for global coordination, and for the small group dynamics that are characteristic of human tribal forms and that it does this without 'command and control'! In fact, we can say that peer production has enabled the global scaling of small-group dynamics.

Everyone can contribute without permission, but such a priori permissionlessness is  matched with mechanisms for 'a posteriori'  communal validation, where those with recognized expertise and that are accepted by the community, the so-called 'maintainers' and the 'editors',  decide

These decisions require expertise, not communal consensus

tension between inclusiveness of participation and selection for excellence

allowing for maximum human freedom compatible with the object of cooperation. Indeed, peer production is always a 'object-oriented' cooperation, and it is the particular object that will drive the particular form chosen for its 'peer governance' mechanisms

The main allocation mechanism in such project, which replaces the market, the hierarchy and democracy,  is a 'distribution of tasks'

no longer a division of labor between 'jobs', and the mutual coordination works through what scientist call 'stigmergic signalling'

work environment is designed to be totally open and transparent

every participating individual can see what is needed, or not and decide accordingly whether to undertake his/her particular contribution

this new model

Such communities are truly poly-archies and the type of power that is held in them is meritocratic, distributed, and ad hoc.

conflicts between contributors

are not decided by authoritarian fiat, but by 'negotiated coordination'.

s. Euclidean space

metric space

topological space

Physical space is the extension surrounding a point

My presentation of a general theory of living systems will employ two sorts of spaces in which they may exist, physical or geographical space and conceptual or abstracted spaces

Physical or geographical space

Euclidean space

distance

moving

maximum speed

objects moving in such space cannot pass through one another

friction

The characteristics and constraints of physical space affect the action of all concrete systems, living and nonliving.

information can flow worldwide almost instantly

Physical space is a common space

Most people learn that physical space exists, which is not true of many spaces

They can give the location of objects in it

Conceptual or abstracted spaces

Peck order

Social class space

Social distance

Political distance

life space

semantic space

Sociometric space

A space of time costs of various modes of transportation

space of frequency of trade relations among nations.

A space of frequency of intermarriage among ethnic groups.

These conceptual and abstracted spaces do not have the same characteristics and are not subject to the same constraints as physical space

Social and some biological scientists find conceptual or abstracted spaces useful because they recognize that physical space is not a major determinant of certain processes in the living systems they study

interpersonal relations

one cannot measure comparable processes at different levels of systems, to confirm or disconfirm cross-level hypotheses, unless one can measure different levels of systems or dimensions in the same spaces or in different spaces with known transformations among them

It must be possible, moreover, to make such measurements precisely enough to demonstrate whether or not there is a formal identity across levels

fundamental "fourth dimension" of the physical space-time continuum

is the particular instant at which a structure exists or a process occurs

or the measured or measurable period over which a structure endures or a process continues.

durations

speeds

rates

accelerations

irreversible unidirectionality of time

thermodynamics

negentropy

"time's arrow."

Matter and energy

Matter is anything which has mass (m) and occupies physical space.

Energy (E) is defined in physics as the ability to do work.

kinetic energy

potential energy

rest mass energy

Mass and energy are equivalent

Living systems need specific types of matter-energy in adequate amounts

Energy for the processes of living systems is derived from the breakdown of molecules

Any change of state of matter-energy or its movement over space, from one point to another, I shall call action.

It is one form of process.

information (H)

Transmission of Information

Meaning is the significance of information to a system which processes it: it constitutes a change in that system's processes elicited by the information, often resulting from associations made to it on previous experience with it

Information is a simpler concept: the degrees of freedom that exist in a given situation to choose among signals, symbols, messages, or patterns to be transmitted.

The set of all these possible categories (the alphabet) is called the ensemble or repertoire

.) The unit is the binary digit, or bit of information

. The amount of information is measured as the logarithm to the base 2 of the number of alternate patterns

Signals convey information to the receiving system only if they do not duplicate information already in the receiver. As Gabor says:

[The information of a message can] be defined as the 'minimum number of binary decisions which enable the receiver to construct the message, on the basis of the data already available to him.'

meaning cannot be precisely measured

Information is the negative of uncertainty.

information is the amount of formal patterning or complexity in any system.

The term marker was used by von Neumann to refer to those observable bundles, units, or changes of matter-energy whose patterning bears or conveys the informational symbols from the ensemble or repertoire.

If a marker can assume n different states of which only one is present at any given time, it can represent at most log2n bits of information. The marker may be static, as in a book or in a computer's memory

Communication of almost every sort requires that the marker move in space, from the transmitting system to the receiving system, and this movement follows the same physical laws as the movement of any other sort of matter-energy. The advance of communication technology over the years has been in the direction of decreasing the matter-energy costs of storing and transmitting the markers which bear information.

There are, therefore, important practical matter-energy constraints upon the information processing of all living systems exerted by the nature of the matter-energy which composes their markers.

organization is based upon the interrelations among parts.

If two parts are interrelated either quantitatively or qualitatively, knowledge of the state of one must yield some information about the state of the other. Information measures can demonstrate when such relationships exist

The disorder, disorganization, lack of patterning, or randomness of organization of a system is known as its entropy (S)

the statistical measure for the negative of entropy is the same as that for information

entropy becomes a measure of the probability

Increase of entropy was thus interpreted as the passage of a system from less probable to more probable states.

according to the second law, a system tends to increase in entropy over time, it must tend to decrease in negentropy or information.

therefore no principle of the conservation of information

The total information can be decreased in any system without increasing it elsewhere

but it cannot be increased without decreasing it elsewhere

. Making one or more copies of a given informational pattern does not increase information overall, though it may increase the information in the system which receives the copied information.

transforms information into negative entropy

smallest possible amount of energy used in observing one bit of information

calculations of the amount of information accumulated by living systems throughout growth.

the concept of Prigogine that in an open system (that is one in which both matter and energy can be exchanged with the environment) the rate of entropy production within the system, which is always positive, is minimized when the system is in a steady state.

in systems with internal feedbacks, internal entropy production is not always minimized when the system is in a stationary state. In other words, feedback couplings between the system parameters may cause marked changes in the rate of development of entropy. Thus it may be concluded that the "information flow" which is essential for this feedback markedly alters energy utilization and the rate of development of entropy, at least in some such special cases which involve feedback control. While the explanation of this is not clear, it suggests an important relationship between information and entropy

amount of energy actually required to transmit the information in the channel is a minute part of the total energy in the system, the "housekeeping energy" being by far the largest part of it

In recent years systems theorists have been fascinated by the new ways to study and measure information flows, but matter-energy flows are equally important. Systems theory is more than information theory, since it must also deal with energetics - such matters as

the flow of raw materials through societies

Only a minute fraction of the energy used by most living systems is employed for information processing

I have noted above that the movement of matter-energy over space, action, is one form of process. Another form of process is information processing or communication, which is the change of information from one state to another or its movement from one point to another over space

Communications, while being processed, are often shifted from one matter-energy state to another, from one sort of marker to another

transformations go on in living systems

One basic reason why communication is of fundamental importance is that informational patterns can be processed over space and the local matter-energy at the receiving point can be organized to conform to, or comply with, this information

the delivery of "flowers by telegraph."

Matter-energy and information always flow together

Information is always borne on a marker

. Conversely there is no regular movement in a system unless there is a difference in potential between two points, which is negative entropy or information

If the receiver responds primarily to the material or energic aspect, I shall call it, for brevity, a matter-energy transmission; if the response is primarily to the information, I shall call it an information transmission

Moreover, just as living systems must have specific forms of matter-energy, so they must have specific patterns of information

example

example

develop normally

have appropriate information inputs in infancy

pairs of antonyms

one member of which is associated with the concept of information (H)

the other member of which is associated with its negative, entropy (S)

System

A system is a set of interacting units with relationships among them

.The word "set" implies that the units have some common properties. These common properties are essential if the units are to interact or have relationships. The state of each unit is constrained by, conditioned by, or dependent on the state of other units. The units are coupled. Moreover, there is at least one measure of the sum of its units which is larger than the sum of that measure of its units.

Conceptual system

Units

terms

Relationships

a set of pairs of units, each pair being ordered in a similar way

expressed by words

or by logical or mathematical symbols

operations

The conceptual systems of science

observer

selects

particular sets to study

Variable

Each member of such a set becomes a variable of the observer's conceptual system

conceptual system may be loose or precise, simple or elaborate

Indicator

an instrument or technique used to measure fluctuations of variables in concrete systems

Function

a correspondence between two variables, x and y, such that for each value of x there is a definite value of y, and no two y's have the same x, and this correspondence is: determined by some rule

Any function is a simple conceptual system

Parameter

An independent variable through functions of which other functions may be expressed

The state of a conceptual system

the set of values on some scale, numerical or otherwise, which its variables have at a given instant

Formal identity

variables

varies comparably to a variable in another system

If these comparable variations are so similar that they can be expressed by the same function, a formal identity exists between the two systems

Relationships between conceptual and other sorts of systems

Science advances as the formal identity or isomorphism increases between a theoretical conceptual system and objective findings about concrete or abstracted systems

A conceptual system may be purely logical or mathematical, or its terms and relationships may be intended to have some sort of formal identity or isomorphism with units and relationships empirically determinable by some operation carried out by an observer

Concrete system

a nonrandom accumulation of matter-energy, in a region in physical space-time, which is organized into interacting interrelated subsystems or components.

Units

are also concrete systems

Relationships

spatial

temporal

spatiotemporal

causal

Both units and relationships in concrete systems are empirically determinable by some operation carried out by an observer

patterns of relationships or processes

The observer of a concrete system

distinguishes a concrete system from unorganized entities in its environment by the following criteria

physical proximity of its units

similarity of its units

common fate of its units

distinct or recognizable patterning of its units.

Their boundaries are discovered by empirical operations available to the general scientific community rather than set conceptually by a single observer

Variable of a concrete system

Any property of a unit or relationship within a system which can be recognized by an observer

which can potentially change over time, and whose change can potentially be measured by specific operations, is a variable of a concrete system

Examples

number of its subsystems or components, its size, its rate of movement in space, its rate of growth, the number of bits of information it can process per second, or the intensity of a sound to which it responds

A variable is intrasystemic

not to be confused with intersystemic variations which may be observed among individual systems, types, or levels.

The state of a concrete system

its structure

represented by the set of values on some scale which its variables have at that instant

Open system

Most concrete systems have boundaries which are at least partially permeable, permitting sizable magnitudes of at least certain sorts of matter-energy or information transmissions to pass them. Such a system is an open system. In open systems entropy may increase, remain in steady state, or decrease.

Closed system

impermeable boundaries through which no matter-energy or information transmissions of any sort can occur is a closed system

special case

No actual concrete system is completely closed

In closed systems, entropy generally increases, exceptions being when certain reversible processes are carried on which do not increase it. It can never decrease.

Nonliving system

the general case of concrete systems, of which living systems are a very special case. Nonliving systems need not have the same critical subsystems as living systems, though they often have some of them

Living system

a special subset of the set of all possible concrete systems

They all have the following characteristics:

open systems

inputs

throughputs

outputs

of various sorts of matter-energy and information.

maintain a steady state of negentropy even though entropic changes occur in them as they do everywhere else

by taking in inputs

higher in complexity or organization or negentropy

than their outputs

The difference permits them to restore their own energy and repair breakdowns in their own organized structure.

In living systems many substances are produced as well as broken down

To do this such systems must be open and have continual inputs of matter-energy and information

entropy will always increase in walled-off living systems

They have more than a certain minimum degree of complexity

They either contain genetic material composed of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA)

or have a charter

blueprint

program

of their structure and process from the moment of their origin

may also include nonliving components.

They have a decider, the essential critical sub-system which controls the entire system, causing its subsystems and components to interact. Without such interaction under decider control there is no system.

other specific critical sub-systems or they have symbiotic or parasitic relationships with other living or nonliving systems

Their subsystems are integrated together to form actively self-regulating, developing, unitary systems with purposes and goals

They can exist only in a certain environment

change in their environment

produces stresses

Totipotential system

capable of carrying out all critical subsystem processes necessary for life is totipotential

Partipotential system

does not itself carry out all critical subsystem processes is partipotential

A partipotential system must interact with other systems that can carry out the processes which it does not, or it will not survive

parasitic

symbiotic

Fully functioning system

when it

Partially functioning system

it must do its own deciding, or it is not a system

Abstracted system

Units

relationships abstracted or selected by an observer in the light of his interests, theoretical viewpoint, or philosophical bias.

Some relationships may be empirically determinable by some operation carried out by the observer, but others are not, being only his concepts

Relationships

The relationships mentioned above are observed to inhere and interact in concrete, usually living, systems

these concrete systems are the relationships of abstracted systems.

The verbal usages of theoretical statements concerning abstracted systems are often the reverse of those concerning concrete systems

An abstracted system differs from an abstraction, which is a concept

representing a class of phenomena all of which are considered to have some similar "class characteristic." The members of such a class are not thought to interact or be interrelated, as are the relationships in an abstracted system

Abstracted systems are much more common in social science theory than in natural science.

are oriented toward relationships rather than toward the concrete systems

spatial arrangements are not usually emphasized

their physical limits often do not coincide spatially with the boundaries of any concrete system, although they may.

important difference between the physical and biological hierarchies, on the one hand, and social hierarchies, on the other

Most physical and biological hierarchies are described in spatial terms

we propose to identify social hierarchies not by observing who lives close to whom but by observing who interacts with whom

intensity of interaction

in most biological and physical systems relatively intense interaction implies relative spatial propinquity

To the extent that interactions are channeled through specialized communications and transportation systems, spatial propinquity becomes less determinative of structure.

PARSONS

the unit of a partial social system is a role and not the individual.

culture

cumulative body of knowledge of the past, contained in memories and assumptions of people who express this knowledge in definite ways

The social system is the actual habitual network of communication between people.

RUESCH

A social system is a behavioral system

It is an organized set of behaviors of persons interacting with each other: a pattern of roles.

The roles are the units of a social system

On the other hand, the society is an aggregate of social subsystems, and as a limiting case it is that social system which comprises all the roles of all the individuals who participate.

What Ruesch calls the social system is something concrete in space-time, observable and presumably measurable by techniques like those of natural science

To Parsons the system is abstracted from this, being the set of relationships which are the form of organization. To him the important units are classes of input-output relationships of subsystems rather than the subsystems themselves

system is a system of relationship in action, it is neither a physical organism nor an object of physical perception

evolution

differentiation

growth

from earlier and simpler forms and functions

capacities for specializations and gradients

[action] is not concerned with the internal structure of processes of the organism, but is concerned with the organism as a unit in a set of relationships and the other terms of that relationship, which he calls situation

Abstracted versus concrete systems

One fundamental distinction between abstracted and concrete systems is that the boundaries of abstracted systems may at times be conceptually established at regions which cut through the units and relationships in the physical space occupied by concrete systems, but the boundaries of these latter systems are always set at regions which include within them all the units and internal relationships of each system

A science of abstracted systems certainly is possible and under some conditions may be useful.

If the diverse fields of science are to be unified, it would be helpful if all disciplines were oriented either to concrete or to abstracted systems.

It is of paramount importance for scientists to distinguish clearly between them