Talk:Introduction to the P2P Foundation Wiki Material about Relational Topics

Hi Adrian,

I'd like to discus some points in your intro. My comments start with <<

Michel, my comments start with ;-)

AC: What kind of human relationships arise in a peer to peer context? What are their dynamics? When we say that P2P takes a relational approach to the world, what do we mean? We mean that relations are paramount. In contrast to individuals or entities, for example. Relations among terms are given privilege over the terms themselves. Now this doesn't of course mean that the terms have no value for us. It means that we believe the terms will be given their value through the relations they take up.

<<I agree, but would put it that relations are what enrich and constitute individuals, so that in no way is peer to peer an obstacle to individualism

-) "Of course. I'll reword it

I meant to convey that relational approaches treat nodes/terms as black boxes, and view relations as having organizing force."

The relational view, while dating far back in western thinking to debates on causality, identity, truth, predication, and so on, gripped philosophical traditions mid 20th century with what's known as the "linguistic turn." A product of European semiotics and structuralism, philosophies took up the pursuit of truth and value in the organization of relations rather than in terms themelves. Context of meaning took precedence. This view drew from linguistics, which ascribes meaning not to a single word but to its use.

<<I think that peer to peer and relationality should be seen as resulting from multiple traditions, including many pre-linguistic turn strands such as the cosmobiological tradition of the renaissance, the tradition of socialist individualism, etc.., including premodern and non-western traditions. I agree with you that the linguistic turn is important, but not exclusive.

-) "Feel free to add; I'm not as versed in those."

There are many ways of organizing relations. P2P has its roots in cybernetics and network relation theory, both of which have been used to model communication and production. Networks comprise of nodes (people, organizations, etc) and relations between them. They are visualized as dots connected by lines, and nothing more. For this and other reasons, p2p stands apart from social theories that examine the historical and traditional hierarchies and power relations that structure and organize society.

<<Does P2P really derive from cybernetics? Perhaps the part that inspired the internet engineers, but all of them? Networks relations theory, is a form of subtle reductionism (to use Wilber) or interactionism (to use Bhaskar), as you indicate. But peer to peer as I understand it, is not dots connecting, but subjects connecting, and peer to peer implies that we all treat each other as subjects, not objects. Thus it does not stands apart from theories of power and society, which study alienation and emancipation from it.

-) "This is really interesting. My sense of P2P may be off. I've not understood it to take an intersubjective approach, say along the lines of hermeneuics and much of the philosophical traditions borne out of that. That was the gist of end of my editorial

that an intersubjective reading of how the dots connect could complement P2P. Addition of a communication theory that place emphasis on modes of connection, esp mediated modes (P2P technologies). I should reword the last sentence."

It stands apart also from theories oriented to exchanges of meaning, interpersonal dynamics and communication, psychologically-oriented theories that take an interest in the individual. But p2p does have a view of the actor, and it is sensitive to the actor's position in a network of relations.

Where p2p has compelled thinkers to consider its application to fields beyond cybernetics is in its flatness and equality as a form of organization. P2P is used, for example, as a model for new kinds of production. Or for the organization of grassroots movements. In many of these, p2p, or peer production, creates the communication that sustains the organization. Messages, not power, organize relations. We can see then how networking technologies make an easy fit, to wit, democratizing social arrangements, flattening or challenging traditional power, and embedding authority within communication rather than inherited social arrangements.

<<From the above comment, it results that I do not agree with a restrictive interpretation of p2p in those terms.

-) "I'm into expanding the view

could you suggest a rephrasing?"

This section examines topics related to p2p-oriented views of relations, which are, and true to the p2p tradition, inventive and exploratory. A great deal of interest is focused on markets, social relations, and production efforts (knowledge, research, products, even politics). --Adrian Chan This page and on-going investigation is maintained by Adrian Chan and Remi Sussan.

<<I agree with the conclusion <g>. Mine is, after citing my questions and differences, that your approach is appropriate but partial, and should not exclude those that you say a p2p approach stand apart from.

-) "No problem -- I don't need to constrain the definition. I'll rephrase and email you first."

Michel