ISSUE 156, February 20, 2006, Table of Contents
P2P News,
Issue 156, February 20, 2007
Ethical Economy, by Adam Arviddson,
Chapt. 2
A monitor of P2P
developments; a continuous attempt to construct an emancipatory P2P theory; Preferred
themes: peer production, peer governance, peer property. P2P News aims to
stimulate the dialogue between the following social and cultural movements:
the participatory movement, the `open' movement (open access, open sources);
the Commons movement; the relational/participatory spirituality movement.
For
subscriptions write to compiler and editor Michel Bauwens at michelsub2003@yahoo.com
P2P News is an emanation of the FOUNDATION FOR PEER TO
PEER ALTERNATIVES
This newsletter is sponsored by WS,
at http://www.ws-network.com/
Mindstormer: Michel Bauwens; Webmaster
and server infrastructure: Brice Leblevennec; Blogmaster:James Burke;
Podmaster: James Burke. P2P News Publisher: Michael Dubois. French-language pages: Remi Sussan; Thai
pages: Jim Puntasen; Propaganda Chief: Jeff Petry
CONTENTS
THE
FOUNDATION SITE
-
For a good summary of the key
ideas around P2P Theory, see the essay for CTheory, at http://www.ctheory.net/articles.aspx?id=499;
in French: http://p2pfoundation.net/index.php/1._Le_peer_to_peer:_nouvelle_formation_sociale; Translations are available in Spanish, Portuguese, Thai.
-
Extensive written
interview by Richard Poynder at http://poynder.blogspot.com/2006/09/p2p-blueprint-for-future.html and http://poynder.blogspot.com/2006/09/p2p-very-core-of-world-to-come.html ; Video interview at http://www.masternewmedia.org/news/2006/09/29/network_collaboration_peer_to_peer.htm
-
A completely updated bound version of
the P2P manuscript is available in PDF format, in print, for EURO 20.
Send me an email with your postal address. Please support this initiative by
ordering a copy.
-
The main Wiki of the P2P Foundation is at http://www.p2pfoundation.net/index.php/Main_Page;
our blog is at http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
-
Changes to the Foundation Wiki can be
tracked by subscribing to the following feed through bloglines or an RSS reader.
It's a good way to keep track of new encyclopedia or directory entries
http://www.p2pfoundation.com/index.php?title=Special:Recentchanges&limit=150&hideminor=1&feed=rss
-
Check our newsletter stats here at
http://integralvisioning.org/staticpages/index.php?page=articlestats2
; http://integralvisioning.org/staticpages/index.php?page=mbstats1
This is a continuation of
the first chapter of Adam Arviddson's
new book on the Ethical Economy. This second chapter is entitled Ethics
and the General Intellect.
Adam Arvidsson:
For quite some time now there has
been a strongly developing interest in ethics, and a multiplication of the
points of view that lend themselves to an ethical perspective. Perhaps this
`ethical turn' began in the 1980s, when thinkers like Levinas, Buber and,
following them, Bauman, argued that ethics was to become the central concern of
the philosophy of `post-modern'
times. Since then we have seen the explosion in business or corporate ethics,
ethical consumerism, various policies that aim at micro managing the ethics of
everyday life, like smoking bans or sexual harassment policies, and, most
recently, a renewed popularity of the conceptions of the `ethical state'
whether of religious (Bush) or secular (Berlusconi, Thaksin) inspiration.
In these more recent developments
`ethics' is not simply a `philosophy of the good', but a technology of
management. Corporate, or business ethics is no longer simply about benevolent
positioning and PR. It is about the rational management of investments in
initiatives that aim to shape patterns of behaviour and affect in order to reap
what management theory now speak of a `Return on Values' (RoV). Indeed a recent
McKinsey report states that ... Here then investment in corporate ethics, is
clearly productive. Its productive contribution comes from its ability to
fine-tune the behavioural and affective patterns that underpin the complex
network of cooperation at work in modern corporation. The productivity of
ethics thus resides in its biopolitical function, its ability to fine-tune the
formation of subjectivity and sociality. Similarly, as Clive Barnett (et al.
2005) have argued, `ethical consumerism involves both a governing of
consumption and a governing of the consuming self', reaching far into and
configuring the way people relate not just to commodities, but to other people
by means of commodities (cf. Miller. ...). Here as well as in the case of brand
management more generally (Arvidsson, 2006), the ability to mobilize a
consistent affective pattern from the multitude of such micro-configurations
that arise out of ordinary practices of consumption can be the source of
substantial monetary values. As in the case of corporate ethics, this would be
a case of `advanced liberal government' (Rose,.Dean..) put to work directly for
the valorization of capital.
The directly productive role that
ethics has acquired as a branch of management suggests that the general upsurge
of ethics as a branch of advanced liberal governance might be connected to an
overall reconfiguration of the relations of production. The novelty, as
suggested by a wide range of recent business phenomena, from `crowdsourcing' to
`web 2.0' would be that of the directly productive role of autonomous forms of
social interaction. The rise of ethics, thus conceived, would be a reaction to
the new productive power of the social, what Paolo Virno (2004) has called
`mass intellectuality'. In this paper I shall attempt to outline the contours
of that relationship.
`Ethics' derives form the Greek .....which can mean both `habit' (from etomai
to use to ..) and `character' mood or, affective state (as in o miaron eton kai
gynaikos ysteron- the terrible character that rests in a woman). Ethos relates
to that which is shaped in and concerns the interaction between people, whether
this be social habits and institutions or subjective moods. Furthermore, for
the Greeks, Ethics applied to the interaction between free men, and not to the
interaction between men and animals or slaves. Thus the space of ethics was
also a space of freedom, where interaction was not predetermined by rigid
hierarchies ultimately sanctioned by overwhelming power, but subject to some
degree of contingency and openness.
It is thus clear that already from the Greeks, ethics, or the ethical
problematic, has been concerned with more or less autonomous processes of
interaction in which forms of sociality and subjectivity, or, in other worlds,
a common social world are shaped. This connection of ethics to the common as a
space for autonomy has a long tradition in European continental philosophy,
from Hegel to Arendt. Indeed, for Hannah Arendt the fundamentally ethical
nature of human nature, and thus the status of human beings as zoon politicon,
was based on their capacity to construct a common social world through
interaction and communication. Human beings distinguish themselves by their
ability to produce what Maurizio Lazzarato has called an `ethical surplus' a
more or less table and enduring thing in common: a social relation, an affective
experience or a value judgement, that was not there before.
That very same tradition has
consistently understood forms of social relations imposed by capital in its
ongoing subsumtion of the social as directly antithetical to the fundamentally
ethical nature of human nature. To Arendt, the overall discipline that resulted
from this process (what she called `socialization') simply deprived human
beings of their ethical nature and reduced them to rule-bound creatures,
enacting the objective laws of the market or of bureaucratic rationality.
Consequently the rise of `society' in the shape of a state managed capitalist
administration of the social also deprived human existence of its ethical, and
by extension also its political dimension. Habermas argues along similar lines
in his thesis of the colonization of the lifeworld.
It is true that Fordist managerial
discipline aimed at a neutralization of the ethical or affective aspects of
work. The aim of Taylorism was to reduce the worker to an appendage to the
machine and to minimize the margin of error and insecurity in his interaction
with his fellows as well as with the machine environment. Similarly, early 20th
century marketing was conceived as a `programming of consumption' in which
spontaneous, `irrational' consumer desires and forms of consumer sociality were
to be replaced by programmed desires for a particular range of goods together
with the pre-constituted forms of sociality that they implied, like,
principally, the nuclear family. As in the logic of the ISAs analysed by
Althusser, the goal was the pre-constitution of subjectivity and social
relations and hence the reduction to a minimum of the space for ethics. Viewed
with recent developments in mind however, this `unethical' nature of capitalism
seems to have been more like a passing phase in a more general development.
Capital, I would suggest, does not so much obliterate, as much as it
re-mediates the ethical.
Indeed, the main productive advance
of capitalism, for Marx, and for Adam Smith before him, was that it makes
possible new forms of productive cooperation. In the Grundrisse and later in
Capital it is clear that the concentration of capital in machinery and large
factory systems makes possible new more complex forms of social organization in
which the productive energies of the multitude are organized in new and more
efficient ways. The contribution of
machinery is thus both material and immaterial. Indeed, in the Grundrisse it
seems that this reorganization of social cooperation constitutes the main productive contribution of
machinery and hence the chief source of what Marx called relative
surplus-value. [.....] This immaterial productive contribution of machinery is
what Marx calls General Intellect.
General Intellect consists in a number of competences that are inscribed
in the social environment organized by capitalist machinery, and hence
available freely to its participants, by virtue of their existence as `social
individuals'. These competences can be cognitive, as in technical or scientific
knowledge, but they are also social and affective, as in knowledge about how to
organize the production process or how to interact and function in the factory.
The point to stress at this point is that General Intellect is the outcome of
the re-mediation of social interaction performed by capitalist machinery in the
factory. But it is by no means controlled by capital. On the contrary, the free
availability of General Intellect in the social environment of the factory
means that capital cannot exercise a monopoly over this productive resource. It
can be employed for autonomous or even subversive purposes. General Intellect
thus contains the potential for an overcoming of the forms of discipline from
which this phenomenon originally emerged.
Many have argued that it was this
potential autonomy at the heart of the system of advanced capitalism that drove
the intensification of capitalist discipline, which marked the Fordist regime.
The aim of Fordist social engineering was to reduce the potential for
autonomous appropriation of general intellect and to collapse this resource coincide with the medium by which it had been
made possible. The aim of Taylorist scientific management was to render
productive cooperation on the shop-floor entirely directed by the
machine-system by means of which it had been organized. The aim of Fordist
marketing was to ensure that consumer needs and habits were predictably
dictated by advertising and, latter, television. Within this order
value-producing labour was defined as those practices that repeated the tasks
set forth by this over-coding of General Intellect: the repetition of an
isolated number of tasks in the factory, with no spontaneous interaction or
communication permitted; the enactment of the structure of needs transmitted by
television advertisements (as in Dallas Smythe's ultra-Fordist theory of the
`audience commodity'); the meticulous execution of bureaucratic tasks that
saved Eichmann from any ethical responsibility for the crimes he helped to
perpetrate.
This ideal of total control, of
tying the message to the medium, or agency to structure, to use sociological
terms remained an ideal (perhaps best expressed in the sociology of Talcott
Parsons), it was never (?) a reality. (Indeed as Paul du Gay has argued, the
space for deviance, for drinking on the job, taking time off, or insulting
management, was probably much greater in the bureaucratic organization than
today. ) One could argue that the
history of capitalist managerial techniques has been driven, to some extent by
the ongoing autonomous deployment of General Intellect in the construction of
forms of opposition and alternatives. The turning-point arrives in the 1970s
when capitalist discipline began to encourage rather than seek to repress
autonomous uses of general intellect. The story behind that shift is well
known. It can be reduced to three main factors. One, the geopolitical collapse
of the Fordism. Two, the extreme socialization of General Intellect achieved
(primarily) by the expansion of the culture and consumer industries in the
post-war years and the subsequent mass appropriation of this resource into
autonomous or deviant practices (what Paolo Virno has called `mass
intellectuality') and, three, the maturation of information and communication
technologies as a new means of production. This discovery unfolded chiefly in
three different areas. One, during the 1960s it was discovered that the
innovation of new processes of consumption (an essential component to the
accelerated turnover needed by Fordist mass production) was best left to
consumers themselves. With the new tool of ethical productivity at their
disposal- the socialized General Intellect of consumer and media culture- they
embarked in a continuous production of new forms of life. Some with strong
connotations of resistance, as in youth and counter culture, others embodying
weaker and more individualized attempts at escape (as in the (in)famous
`hedonism of the new middle class'). This `conquest of cool' constituted
arguably the first systematic attempt to incorporate the mass intellectuality
enabled by the far reaching Fordist re-organization of the social, and to put
it to directly productive ends. Two,
the development of post-burecratic or toyotist managerial techniques in
factories and knowledge intensive organization in the 1970s can be understood
as an appropriation of the self-organizing capacities developed as part of
worker resistance in the previous decades. This appropriation was now made
possible by means of the greater control capacities enabled by new information
and communication technologies. Three, the present boom in user-led
productivity known as Web 2.0. This has been made possible by the deep
penetration of networked computers with high speed internet access (on the
right side of the digital divide) and the subsequent ability to `socialize' the
immaterial productivity that rests in the minute details of everyday
interaction. In all these three
cases, the abandonment of media-centric, disciplinary managerial approaches
were all premised on a recognition that, as already Daniel Bell had argued in
this The Coming of a Post-Industrial
Society, the true source of productive wealth was not so much machinery (or
media) as in the interaction processes made possible by machinery (or media);
that the future development of the productive forces rested in the autonomous
appropriation of General Intellect on the part of living labour: in mass
intellectuality. Given the unpredictability of these processes, and the fact
that their productive autonomy made command in the classical sense impossible,
productive cooperation now emerged as an ethical space, a space where
productive performance was contingent on the inter-subjective construction of a
common social world, however within capital this time. This way, to manage the
ethics of interaction became a key to control and appropriate the productivity
of the social.
The source of value in this ethical
economy lies in the free, mediated cooperation between minds (Lazzarato, ....and,
one should ad, bodies). It is important to stress that this cooperation is free
and that it is mediated. The fact that it is free means that it cannot be
directly commanded. (One cannot order someone to be cool or creative).
Therefore other forms of governance are necessary. The fact that this ethical
productivity is mediated means that it is public. Gabriel Tarde anticipated
this over a hundred years ago. The public, ` the social form of the future'
mediates cooperation in new ways that transcend local and traditional
boundaries and renders what was once private, localized and isolated to closed
social networks, public, able to circulate and hence potentially valuable.
Mediation thus already solves the problem of translating particular use values
into general value, which is the first precondition for valorization to take
place. Contrary to Fordist valorization processes however, this is achieved by
the immanent properties of media of communication (that they make things
public) rather than by the imposition of any disciplinary law of value, form
above. This immanent fusion of the private-public boundary (your MySpace
profile is public, and it is also private) means that the context of action
itself becomes plastic and open to intervention. These two factors: freedom as
a precondition for productive cooperation and the plasticity of the context of
action are the main factors behind the development of ethics as a managerial
technique.
This discovery first developed as
the use of `values' as a managerial tool. Within management the concepts of
`corporate values' or `corporate culture' ermerged in the early 1980s with
Peters and Waterman's In Search of Excellence (and a number of similar seminal
publications). The argument there was that excellence was premised on the
existence of a well designed and correctly motivating corporate culture.
Corporate culture was conceived as centred on a set of values, usually decided
by senior management and written down, which were then inscribed in the social
environment of the corporation through a variety of techniques [of affect
modulation] that went from team meetings, weekend courses, investment in
communication and information campaigns and design of logos and the physical environment.
The purpose was to promote an environment of action where the autonomous
formation of sociality and subjectivity was likely to envolve in highly
particular directions. A second, but equally significant example of the
discovery of `values' as a point of managerial intervention was the brand. Like
corporate culture, the concept of the brand evolved as a response to a
new-found autonomy in the group subject to governance, in this case consumers.
Also, the development of the brand as a way of managing consumption was
premised on the discovery of `values' as a methodological construct. Here a
`value' was understood as a consistent principle that gave coherence to a
particular style of consumption, or `lifestyle' (as in the commercially
successful method for market segmentation VALS - Values, Attitudes Lifestyles).
A brand was conceived as an artificial `value' in this sense- as an abstract
principle able to give coherence to and centre a particular process of
consumption. Like corporate culture, brand management emerged as an attempt to
promote an artificial context of action able to promote the production of a
highly particular ethical surplus, a sense of community with other Macintosh
users or `the particular way we have in this company of [working together]
solving problems'. By working with values, management seeks to promote a
particular ethical style, which makes probable a particular ethical outcome.
This way management recognizes the open-ended future of productive cooperation.
Rem Koolhaas puts this well in his ....
Value based techniques for managing
productive interaction are premised on increasing centralization and
surveillance. The brand as a consumerist institution was made possible by the
host of new market data that became available as computers grew powerful and
cheap enough to be put to commercial uses in the early 1970s: psychographics
and life-style segementation, and latter data mining form bar code and credit
card scans. Similarly, the arrival of value-based management was paralleled
with a host of strategies- from Statistical Process Control (SPC) to Total
Quality Management, that relied on a multiplicity of measure points planted in
the environment of productive action. With the diffusion of networked ICTs
within organizations as well as socially, the extent to which these measure
points overlap with the life processes subject to control has increased
significantly. This way it now becomes possible to survey the unfolding of
productive processes of interaction and adjust the programmed environment of
action accordingly, almost in real time. Very probably such possibilities will
grow in scope with the arrival of new and more seamless forms of augmented
space (Manovich..). The multiplication of control points also makes it easier
to identify and clamp down on undesired practices: smoke detectors for renegade
smokers, email scans to identify undesirable language, and surveyed online
habits to identify undesirable patterns of interest. The result is more freedom
at the immediate micro level (with respect to disciplinary surveillance
techniques of the last century) combined with a greatly increased
centralization of overall power and control [Sennett]. As Chris Rees concludes
his survey of studies of people `experienceing Human Resource Management'
`Employees are likely to experience sokme genuine extension of discretion and
autonomy albeit retaining to the detail of their immediate work situation,
whilst at the same time management will be able to consolidate more general
control'. (Rees, 50). The same thing goes for consumers. There is an increase
in freedom and autonomy as regards to market choice, but choice unfolds in a
media-augmented environment in which centralized power and control is much more
intense than before (The shopping mall with all its surveillance cameras).
Ethical management thus intervenes directly at life itself: it is a matter of
biopolitical intervention, in the Foucualtian sense of that term. The object of
intervention is a life process which is presumed to be autonomous and which
transpires across institutional borders. While disciplinary power regarded the
individual behaviour within the institution, biopolitical, ethical management
techniques touches the life of its subjects in a wide variety of points at
home, as well as at work. Life as an object of ethical management is thus
always `naked' in Agamben's term, deprived of its particular institutional
clothing and the rights and social status that pertains to it. (Indeed, the
object of management is not so much the particular individual with his or her
particular social determination, as much as the pattern of actions or affective
investments, of which he or she might be part- see my instalment on Affective
Apparatuses). The resulting subjectivity is a state of permanently managed
affect. Motivated by the omnipresent possibility of surveillance and
intervention, the subject develops an apparent emotional detachment form life
itself, a coolness which is however easily interrupted by the unexpected
(brilliantly illustrated by the British comedian ..who in the Character of
Borat tries to kiss everybody on a New
York subway car.).
To summarize. Under fordism, labour
power consisted in such actions that could function as an appendage to the
General Intellect socialized within the machine or media system: labour was
programmed. Under post-Fordism, the free appropriation and autonomous use of
General Intellect, mass intellectuality becomes instead a potential source of
value. The value of MySpace builds on the user-creativity that is a programmed
feature of the site (...), the value of a Reality Show is premised on the
affective loop, reaching deep into the everyday existence of viewers, that the
program is able to construct. But not all forms of free appropriation of
General Intellect are valuable. Only such freedoms that can potentially be
subject to management and control can potentially function as valuable labour
power. The first step to valorization of productive autonomy is thus the
construction of controlled biopolitical spaces where freedom can evolve in a
managed way. These can be physical spaces, like brandscapes or the branded City
(where the point is to stimulate the production of a particular affective
climate: one that promotes creativity and attracts the `Creative Class'), but
they can also be mediatic: the social media of Web 2.0 and the coming mobile
internet are particularly well adapted to this purpose in their ability of
fusing private and public and making every action and communication subject to
management and control. Increasingly, as in augmented spaces, some combination
of the physical and the mediatic is used. The use value of media capital is
thus less a matter of its ability to mobilize attention, and more a matter of
its ability to organize patterns of communication and interaction so that they
unfold in particualr ways (cf. Lash..). In this context the point of managerial
intervention is not the individual as much as the values that prevail in the
particular biopolitical context. `Value' - in the sense of corporate value or
brand value- is thus an abstraction of a particular affective milieu: in their
materiality, values are biopolitical [affective, or ethical] capital. Their use
value, as in recent managerial debates on the Return on Values, lies in their
ability to streamline processes of cooperation or , to `organize patterns of
communication and interaction so tha they unfold in particular ways'.
But how is the value of values
measured? This issue points at a conflict within informational capitalism which
still awaits its resolution and which has potentially very important political
implications: There are basically two ways in which the value of values are
currently measured. The first way is premised on a proliferation of measurement
points in which the overall performance of a particular affective environment
is estimated. This can be a matter of the proliferation of quality control
points and the manifold points of quantification that permeate the quality
oriented organization: be this a factory, hospital or university. Here the
performance of the organization's values are continuously measured in terms of
a series of output variables, like customer satisfaction, performance
benchmarks or numbers of errors. Usually, such measured performance is linked
to some form of concrete value stream and/or system of sanctions: forom
individual renumeration to institutional financing, as in the British QEA and
REA exercises. Brand valuation works in similar ways. The performance of a particular
set of brand values is measured against a number of performance estimates, like
bar-code scans, consumer surveys or the status of the brand in market and trend
indexes. These values are used as a proxy for determining the overall marketing
performance of the brand. (It is interesting to note that this performance,
like the performance of the value based organization, is not only measured
quantitatively, as in sales or productivity output, but also qualitatively as
in accumulation of trust, standing or other forms of affective capital, to be
capitalized on mainly on financial markets). This system of ubiquitous
quantification is coherent with contemporary managerial drives towards
inscribing control and surveillance systems within the environment of action.
In its drive towards keeping freedom under tight control it often risks
limiting the productivity of mass intellectuality. It is possible for users to
be creative and innovative, but such creativity risks scoring badly on
measurement cards.
A second emerging valuation system
builds on what is known as `folksonomies'. Value here is based on some form of
agglomeration of the ratings produced by immaterial producers themselves.
Google works this way. Its ranking (effectively a hierarchy of value) is based
on an agglomeration of user generated estimates of the utility of a particular
site in relation to their specific productive pursuit.) De.licio.us is another
example. P2P systems use forms of folksonomy in determining the value of the
contribution of particular co-producers- mainly in terms of immaterial reward
systems like `respect'. There are indications that similar principles are
entering the corporate world. The Danish Actics system for ethics management is
an innovative start up that builds on folksonomy-like techniques for measuring
the ethical performance of individual co-producers. The crucial thing with such
folksonomy techniques is that they do not rely on centralized definitions of
value, but rather encourage the formation of autonomous circuits of
valorization. While taxonomies are part of an effort to keep mass
intellectuality within the fold of a single logic of capital (or perhaps,
Empire), folksonomies encourage further self-organization of the productive
forces. In other words, the conflict between taxonomy and folksonomy is a
conflict between a system that attempts to centralize command over mass
intellectuality and a system that encourages auonomoy not only of production
process but also of command and value.
Key Resources:
-
P2P News
Archive at http://integralvisioning.org/index.php?topic=p2p
;P2P Theory foundational essay at http://integralvisioning.org/article.php?story=p2ptheory1
; The Foundation for P2P Alternatives Wiki is at http://www.p2pfoundation.net/index.php/Main_Page
; The Foundation's Blog is at http://blog.p2pfoundation.com/
; in French: http://blogfr.p2pfoundation.net/
-
The ABC of P2P: P2P Encyclopedia at http://p2pfoundation.net/index.php/Category:Encyclopedia
); Summary essay on P2P Theory, at http://www.ctheory.net/articles.aspx?id=499;
Delicious P2P tags, at http://del.icio.us/mbauwens
; Raw Sugar tags at http://www.rawsugar.com/links/mbauwens
; the P2P Meme page on Wikipedia, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer-to-peer_%28meme%29
;
-
Thematic Issue
Index: Issue 127 = Cooperation
Science; Issue 126 = The Struggle for the Commons; Issue 125, 116,
109, 108, 107 = Post-Media Developments; Issue 124 = Collective Intelligence;
Issue 123, 120, 118, 117, 111, 110, 102, 101, 99, 98, 97, 96 = P2P Economics; Issue 122, 112, 103 = Peer Governance; Issue 121 = P2P Epistemology; Issue
119 = Relational Spirituality;; Issue 115, 106, 105, 104 = P2P Politics; Issue 114: Open
Access, Content, Knowledge; Issue 113 = Peer Property; Issue 100 = P2P
Social Software, theory and tools. (available at http://integralvisioning.org/index.php?topic=p2p
); The full, article by article Topical Index is at http://integralvisioning.org/staticpages/index.php?page=p2p-fullindex
Support:
-
This
newsletter is sponsored by the WS Network, at http://www.ws-network.com/;
"a group of associates who help organizations `achieve breakthrough
opportunities in a complex environment', using a variety of innovative
strategies and methods". Contact Philippe Vandenbroeck at philippe.vandenbroeck@ws-network.com;
or Alain Wouters at alain.wouters@ws-network.com
-
Material
support has been received from
the following individuals: THE P2P HALL OF FAME: Brice Leblevennec, for the hosting of the
wiki-website; James Burke, untiring in his moral and practical support; Philippe
Vandenbroeck & Alain Wouters, for their sponsorship through WS; Michel
Dubois, for hosting P2P News; Kris Roose and Frank Visser,
for hosting the early versions of the P2P essay; Jim Puntasen, for
crucial support here in Thailand; Alan Kazlev, for posting my bio and the P2P
meme on Wikipedia, as well as links to my Wilber material on his site; John
Heron, for his spiritual guidance. Thanks also to Salvino Salvaggio, Jaap van Till, Bonnita Roy, Jan Van
den Bergh, Luc Hoebeke, George Dafermos Tom Munnecke,
Tim Sullivan, Eric Davis, Joannes Vandermeulen, Philippe de Cuzey, Jan
Servaes, Timothy Wilken, Tattoo Mabonzo, Darren Sharp, Thomas Murray, and the rest of the family Puntasen (Apichai, Titiporn).Total
collected so far: EUR 7,550). More is needed, if we are to be able to
continue these `for-benefit' activities, so please donate! Contact me for
modalities at michelsub2004@gmail.com
(Paypal, IBAN account, book wishlists).
-
Contributors:
Thanks for regularly suggesting
links: Christophe Lestavel, John L. Petersen, , Jim Hightower, David Spillane,
Larry Penslinger, Nik Baerten, Maurice Nsabimana, Tattoo Mabonzo, Philippe Van
Nedervelde, Pascal Houba, Jaap van Till, Geert Drieghe, Darren Sharp, and the
Multitudes and Oekonux mailing lists for regular suggestions;
-
Chief Contributors
to our Wiki and Blog: Samuel
Rose (cooperation issues), Adrian Chan (relationality), Jeff Petry (book
reviews), Valentin Spirik (autonomous audiovisual production), Remi Sussan
(French pages); Michael Pick (standards); Luis Gustavo Lira (Peru)
-
Thanks in
particular to the following people for their regular mindstorms. James Burke of
Lifesized, http://lifesized.blogspot.com/,
http://del.icio.us/james9; John Heron,
pioneer of relational spirituality and Cooperative Inquiry, at http://www.johnheron.info/ and http://www.hunan-inquiry.com; Jim
Puntasen, the first Thai P2P enthousiast, at http://thaip2p.blogspot.com/; Kris
Roose, advocate of the Noosphere and a tertiary culture, at http://www.noosphere.cc/; Tom Munnecke of
the Uplift Academy, http://upliftacademy.org/
, Erik Davis, expert on the intersection of technology and occulture, at http://www.techgnosis.com/ ; Alan Kazlev,
creating an integral theory of everything, at http://www.kheper.net
; Timothy Wilken, advocate of a cooperative and synergetic future, at http://www.synearth.net/ ; John L.
Petersen, futurist, of The Arlington
Institute and Future Edition, at http://www.arlingtoninstitute.org/futuredition/futuredition_05.asp
; Jan Van den Bergh, http://i-wisdom.typepad.com/iwisdom/;
Thomas Murray, http://www.perspegrity.com;
Jeff Petry, anthropologist in
Chiang Mai, takes care of our statistics and metrics, http://www.lanna.com
This
newsletter is sponsored by WS, at http://www.ws-network.com/
Search
Tools: