Humergence®

Collective Action vs. Collectivism

The P2P Foundation Blog has an excellent blog posting by Michel Bauwens on Jaron Lanier's new essay for Edge. 

The basic ideas of Lanier's essay are (quoted from CommunityWiki):

• There is a resurgance of the idea that the collective is all-wise, and that this is bad.

• There is an attempt to erase the individual, and this is dumb.
• AI is dumb. The Internet is dumb. Only people are smart.
  

The P2P foundation blog posting by bauwens borrows from his own P2P Manifesto, which looks at human collective action through the lens of Clare W Graves's theory of human nature. Clare W. Graves's theory shows that the fundamental nature of communist "collectivism" is different from the collective action of people voluntarily cooperating, as discussed by author Howard Rheingold here.

I also talk about this in the discussion section of this CommunityWiki page. I talk about how we are lacking a general "literacy of human nature", and how I believe that this lack of understanding is what is driving people to place labels where they do not belong. The reasons "why" people voluntarily collaborate are different than the reasons "why" people go along with state-imposed "collectivism" rules.

P2P (Peer to Peer) and E-C Theory

[via Social Synergy Weblog]

The P2P Foundation blog has posted a little quote from both myself and Spiraldynamics author Chris Cowan. This was partially from a discussion about the Cooperation Commons project, and how the theories of Clare W. Graves might give another lens onto the concepts of peer to peer dynamics and cooperation.

Chris' response is very interesting. Here's a small quote:

The presupposition of many P2P discussions at your level seems to be collaborative, open minds with a shared goal of building better systems capable of adaptation and knowledge gain with individual ambitions attenuated while individual rights increase. The pitfall is that open systems nearly guarantee a mix of minds with multiple agendas - a hard fact often unacknowledged. Some motives are overt while others are cloaked. Thus, the motive field is a complicated one, and it is part of the whole when the system is open to all and the distribution of systemsis ‘normal.’ Motive recognition and management is a challenge in the P2P arena quite as much as the knowledge spread.

Our own small adventures with the Wiki world have demonstrated for us how the psychology and motivations of contributors can sway ‘truth’ and their approach to its promotion. If there is a culture of open inquiry and sharing, things have a chance to work. If there are fanatics with agendas - either ideological or financial - or fixated minds stuck on particular ideas, then the outcomes turn into products of endurance, competitiveness, and alliance-building. If you’ve got a couple of folks who believe themselves without peer, it’s a problem. And for those who find such things unpleasant or not worth the effort, truth inevitably suffers. It doesn’t take but a couple of rotten apples to spoil an egalitarian barrel. There has to be a mechanism for rotating the fruits and monitoring process, as well as content.

Read the rest at P2P Foundation Blog

The Cooperation Commons project is at least partially about creating an open literacy of cooperation. This is a sorely needed resource in our world right now. Chris Cowan's statements above reflect the value of also having literacy of epistemology/human psychology/human nature, in my opinion.

What does ‘emergent’ mean in context of Graves/SD?

(This article was originally posted to the Spiraldynamics FAQ)

This question has caused lots of head scratching among  scholars of chaos and complexity theories, as well as Gravesians  and serious students of Spiral Dynamics (SD). The lack of a clear  answer leads to protracted discussions and considerable  frustration. In the SD world, that's especially true for the analytical sorts who want - even demand – a single 'true  meaning' and would like to impose one on Dr. Graves post mortem.

Rather than that, we will look at how he employed the word  and its relatives. While that will not satisfy those searching for  a definitive answer, a brief discussion with some examples drawn  from his writings might better clarify the usages of the  term in a Gravesian context – at least some operational definitions for those prepared to accept a bit of semantic  relativism.