Yay! An actual "case history" in "matriarchal studies", a potential
"transformative" node of learning if one wanted to see it that way?
And in attempting to sincerely see it in that more "potentialized" way:
Sometimes historic ignorance of all the particulars is not always a terrible
place to come from in weighing in on a long and detailed dispute, despite one's
wariness and admitted lack of facts. But isn't that the kind of "history" and
repeated breakdowns in communication that most dissension and grudges and
conflicts really come from, in most, though not all, cases of conflict? It
seems to me that is an important area to be prepared to look at and resolve in
a "Commons forum" a la Denis and Anna's comments. In particular I find the
communication of the internet, even in mostly erudite and reasoned forums such
as this one, consistently reflects a much greater tendency towards this very
kind of polarized mis-communication versus interpersonal face-to-face
communication, even when it too is also already polarized and therefore fraught
with potholes of derailed communication. (Usually time for a good "mediator" at
that point :-).
So I truly do see Michel's points and frustration, think it has real history
and actual perceived hurts and damages he might feel remain unaddressed
sufficiently by Willi. And Willi, clearly some of what you say, the way you
say it, definitely appears to be meant in provocation. From a completely
out-of-the-loop and again, ahistorical perspective it was my impression that
you comments on David Bollier, who again I claim complete ignorance about but
don't feel in this case I need that knowledge to ascertain this, were just
unnecessarily provocative. To me, and remember I tend to come from this realm
of managing large groups of younger people and their sometimes more evidently
honest emotional needs, it did seem a "cry for attention". If so, it got it
but I can't imagine in the way you actually most wanted it?
Because of my lack of knowledge of the true facts and history, despite all the
words that have gone by on this topic on this forum, I am willing to defer to
Michel's call on his own needs for maintaining a list (as he clearly is one of
the ones who invests most in its maintenance), that he feels is personally
comfortable and respectful of himself and others. But wouldn't this very
issue, again a la the matriarchal studies conversation that does in fact
address this very concept of diversity and communication and frames of true
understanding of the underlying needs attempting to be heard in that
communication, potentially exist at the very core of how the "Commons" must
learn to resolve such issues and disputes? We certainly know they have to
happen, will naturally continue to happen, are constantly happening in all such
attempts to bridge different worlds, viewpoints, ways of seeing and
communicating of which the "Commons" is necessarily based upon?
Or truly how is that vision of the "Commons" going to end up any differently
under what we already see as dominant forms of control and accepted
communication?
It's true, not all such disputes are always resolvable. But it is also true
that since they will indeed be a critical part of opening the conversation of
what makes a Commons more "common to all" despite the limits of its dominating
forms of communication now used by everyone by default on the internet because
of its initiators and strongest proponents -- developed-world "educated"
English as the primary language, and left-brain rational as the primary mode of
valued communication often ignoring emotional discriminatory or devaluing
undertones that are still felt and heard by those sensitive to them -- that we
have to remain blind and resigned to accepting those very limitations in that
communication? I honestly think that will never ultimately work in creating
that wider, broader more inclusive "Commons" discussion.
Thus, as most usually my stance, I think there is real learning to be done here
and it is the learning most necessary to truly form these needed bridges across
diverse communications. I also grant how sincerely frustrating it can be to
open these issues up to a totally foreign, and currently very
dominant-discourse-demeaned potentially more "irrational" way to have these
discussions, again preferably interpersonally initially, in order to get to
true hurts and even true feelings about those trespasses.
Because I honestly and deeply believe without seeing this and subsequently
trying that communication with this more difficult and even uncomfortably
awkward new perspective in mind and heart, which ie forms the core of the
message of "matriarchal studies", we will continue to narrow our communication
to that which most constricts the resolution of these very natural and
consistently re-occuring conflicts in any attempt at any viable, sustainable
and even ultimately enjoyable, true "Commons".
Is that possible?
________________________________
From: Anna <[email protected]>
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; P2P Foundation mailing list
<[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2014 9:49 AM
Subject: Re: [P2P-F] Fwd: P2P-Foundation Digest, Vol 44, Issue 43
I do not find Willi's 'desperation' as inadmissible as others seem to find it.
It raises a question which is seriously being addressed in other circles about
how to make a living while making one's work available to as many as possible.
We can focus on the principles he raises without getting offended by the
personal criticism. They are important questions. By excluding him we only
weaken the diversity expressed on this list, diversity which actually enriches
rather than threatens our aspirations. Individuals can exclude his
contributions if they wish, without restricting the traffic of the whole.
Anna
On 21 Aug 2014, at 07:25, Denis Postle <[email protected]> wrote:
I don't doubt Willi has to go.
If you are reading this Willi, your messages seem to be written from
a place of distressed desperation and I suspect that with the
Bollier book message you may, intentionally or not, be actually
seeking rejection. Some of us can get into a psy framework where
such rejection is necessary to sustain our view of the world or
ourselves and eventually we may succeed in getting our wish.
That said, I wonder if there is anything we need to attend to re P2P
Foundation governance and its (our) public presence? Don't Willi's
provocations amount to the third such attack this year on, or
resistance to, the P2P Foundation's accumulation of power? At a
minimum, the power to define what matters in economic and social
futures?
I don't know the answer to this but having experienced a few attacks
myself, I have come to see all dissent, including that coming from
distress, as carrying a story that can have value for the target.
What is this opposition trying to tell us?
I find the Foundation hugely valuable but I still find its, (our?)
governance less than transparent. The present debacle has been
useful for me in opening this out a bit and also in providing an
example for the parallel discussion under 'matriarchy' which
provides a very relevant context for these questions.
Thanks Michel for the facebook posting of some of my remarks there.
Goodbye Willi. Take care.
Denis
On 20/08/2014 18:09, Michel Bauwens wrote:
I used to maintain a strong rule of no personal attacks on the list, but I must
say I have gotten tired to be the only one reacting,
Willi, who is notorious for these kinds of attacks and false accusations, is
clearly making a gratuitous accusation against our friend David Bollier, whom I
know as a lifelong activist for the commons, at great personal sacrifice, and
the contrary of someone who uses the commons for private personal gain.
does everyone find that normal ? do we have to the time to spend answering such
provocations ?
personally, it is here that I would give a warning to Willi, and say, this is
not the place for such unsupported attacks, and please abstain or you will have
to leave this forum.
But for Willi, this is just been systematic practice, so the warnings have been
repeated endlessly in various forums, and it has had no effect,
So I'm requesting the removal of Willi from this list, as he has been removed
recently from the networked labour list, exactly for the same reason,
Kevin, as list manager, I believe this is your job?
personal defamation is not an acceptable practice on this list,
I am not going to get into a debate on this, but if any people would find it
such practices normal, I would propose to disband this list and start a new one
where this rule is made clear from the very beginning, avoiding endless
discussions on it,
Michel Bauwens
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 9:49 PM
Subject: P2P-Foundation Digest, Vol 44, Issue 43
To: [email protected]
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2014 09:49:22 -0500
From: willi uebelherr <[email protected]>
Subject: [P2P-F] Fwd: Book of the Day: Think Like a Commoner
Dear friends,
i love the contributions of hartsellml. You think, David
Bollier is
working for the commons?
No. You see, he want to sell his books only. Try to find a
free access
to his writing. He use the commons resource, our discussion,
our
visions, our doing, our history to make a private buisness
with his
description.
many greetings, willi
-------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht --------
Betreff: Book of the Day: Think Like a Commoner
Datum: Tue, 19 Aug 2014 16:35:36 PDT
Von: hartsellml
Book of the Day: Think Like a Commoner
** Book: Think Like a Commoner
<http://www.newsociety.com/Books/T/Think-Like-a-Commoner>. A Short
Introduction to the Life of the Commons by David Bollier.
New Society, 2014*
_______________________________________________
P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net
https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
________________________________
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus
protection is active.
_______________________________________________
>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_______________________________________________
P2P Foundation - Mailing list
http://www.p2pfoundation.net
https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
