lisa arthur & tomas on decent govt
FRAME #2 | Decentralising governance and production – 40 min video – jul 2020 via boundaryless – lisa, arthur (holochain) & tomas (fablab)
notes/quotes:
2 min – l: have tomas .. w ‘fab citizen’ this notion of being able to prototype the future rather than blah blah about it.. and arthur – minister of social cohesions.. can we have convo about how we can be philosophers for a very long time or we can go in and start to create mischief and change the system as we’re learning.. it seems both of you are fans as i am of making mischief and learning on the fly..t
ie: cure ios city
3 min – t: key issue: the necessity to create learning environments in which we can have the freedom to mess around and make things happen differently.. and not try to respond to expectations/dogmas..t
curiosity (offense) over decision making (defense) – of finite set of choices
imagine if we just focused on listening to the itch-in-8b-souls.. first thing.. everyday.. and used that data to augment our interconnectedness.. we might just get to a more antifragile, healthy, thriving world.. the ecosystem we keep longing for..
what the world needs most is the energy of 8b alive people
5 min – t: tech something that can able you to change your everyday life
rev of everyday life ness
6 min – t: was disappointed with focus on architect/space of cities .. i believe cities are made out of the interactions of people.. most of time social contract via econ..
w/fablabs.. what if anyone could make anything.. and around the corner of their house have the means of production
we’d make things like safety/security/money/health/school/ed.. et al irrelevant.. ie: gershenfeld something else law
7 min – t: instead of me going to a boring ed system to get a job i hate to buy the things i believe i need.. what happens if you can jump in straight forward to making the things that you need
even deeper.. supposed to’s.. of school/work are keeping us from even knowing what we need..
t: we’re just at the dawn of that.. we’re at a challenge – we have to prove that we’re useful for something
oi – thinking we have to prove ourselves.. killing us
8 min – t: so yes.. i’m interested in creating the learning environs to make things happen.. and not necessarily a classroom or lab.. but actually how the city becomes that learning environ..t
in the city.. as the day.. with 2 convers as (dogma-less) infra
l: many other questions.. w pandemic and systems and platforms we have at our hands.. we’re at an interesting place to think about that
l: now to arthur and phrase ‘enclosable carriers’.. i think that’s a central aspect in the way you’re thinking of governance..
10 min – a: ‘uneclosable carriers’ is what i’m focusing on.. so.. all communication happens on some sort of carrier..ie: writing, sound, if ftf no one can grab my words out of air and keep others from hearing them.. but if on zoom call.. can shut down or mute et al.. lot of levels of enclosure in this interaction.. that make us subject to other people’s control..
even deeper.. we need a mech/means to undo our hierarchical listening to self/others/nature.. otherwise we have no idea what we really want to be communicating about in the first place
because.. language itself is/has control/enclosure
11 min – a: what i talk about in holochain.. one of the values for us.. is unenclosable carrier.. that as long there are 2 or more people that want to play together.. there’s nobody that can stop that from happening
best route for that ie: gershenfeld something else law.. (all people too busy to be trying to stop others from things)
a: any transport (isp) will do for holochain.. so need to see what we can do about the monopolies of internet carriers..
a: the thing about ‘unenclosable carriers’.. a lot of people use word ‘open’ – ambiguous.. open at what level.. for me.. what it comes down to is being unenclosable.. if any part/layer of your system is subject to enclosure.. basically.. centralized control by a party not of your choosing.. then you no longer have the ability to operate truly as peered structure
again.. even deeper.. need to unenclose individuals too/first
12 min – a: and you mentioned holochain is not bc.. and that’s one of the difference.. holochain is designed to be p2p.. every runs their own mode.. you serve/host yourself.. because it isn’t based on global consensus .. we can actually scale to 1000s or millions of nodes.. we can shard that activity so you can host yourself and not have to host everybody’s everything in the same process like w ie: global ledger – bc
again.. makes no diff if operating on ‘no consensus’.. but individuals are still.. need a detox embed.. or aren’t hearing/speaking legit voice (so actually a voluntary complianced/consensused voice)
ie: maté trump law; brown belonging law; et al
13 min – l: underlining these systems is the notion of trust.. but as we look forward.. esp w last 6 months.. where do you see us moving.. where could we put our attention if we want to use this opp
15 min – a: part of what is happening in a movement toward decent.. it’s more about a breakdown of scale.. we’ve structured a lot of our govt/business/info systems so that it’s production/consumption oriented.. geared toward interacting w everybody as mindless masses.. a shift that is going is a more participatory thing.. when i hear tomas talk about a fab citizen.. i think about that as being very participatory.. the game is providing/sharing value.. and i see that as the direction things are going in ed/tech/econ.. we are moving toward more participation on all layers..
again.. participation matters little if people aren’t alive first.. we’re still mindless masses.. just poked a little.. but not yet woken.. let’s do that first.. esp as lisa says.. what could we put energy toward to use this opp..
all you guys are saying is great.. just missing a detox embed
16 min – a: and some tech.. internet.. unencloseable carriers.. actually makes it possible to have this operate at any scale.. and that hasn’t happened in the past.. so to me that’s the emerging.. not yet mature.. but diff elements fighting to emerge.. and have us be able to do sensemaking on all kinds of scales
not sure it’s (first order of business) so much about sense making.. just about deeper listening
a: when i use word tech.. i mean same way language is a coord tech.. so i don’t just mean computers/electronics.. i mean a whole set of capacities that increase our abilities to coordinate
language is also an enclosure
2 convers as infra via tech (whatever) as it could be..
17 min – l: yeah ability to communicate is a tech.. bridge to fab citizen.. the notion of econ of scale.. basically optimized for production side and not the consumption/community/participant.. it’s very much a model driven from production centric value.. pushed to market as opposed to reverse.. i think tomas’s thinking about fab citizen is an antithesis to that.. so how to take this opp with that
18 min – t: this last 4-5 months has been to help us to confront our own idealism.. a lot of things fall apart.. i think we’re getting honesty in a way.. a huge lesson of humbleness.. recognizing.. it’s not about anticipating what’s going to happen.. there are a lot of futurists..
20 min – t: i believe this lesson is more about understanding we really have to behave like ants.. and really work on the future we want.. recognizing it’s not possible to predict it.. but it’s possible to create it.. which is not trying to reconstruct what we are leaving behind
21 min – t: fab citizens is about the recalibration of the way we produce/consume.. i don’t believe micro production can sub every step in production chain we have now.. there are good things about high industriation (and globalization) .. but we have taken them to extreme.. ie: sending waste across the world
22 min – t: this idea of micro production is about understanding that a way to prototype.. is complementary production scales.. ie: capacity in your house/neighborhood/city.. what does it look like.. in home.. then neighborhood fablab.. then city micro factories..
22 min – t: then key question here is where goes where and when.. where do supply chains come and what are they connected to.. so again.. creating prototypes of fab cities is what we want to do esp at neighborhood scale.. how it looks like to produce at home.. food, materials.. but also how you connect w social production spaces like fab labs.. then how to access to larger infra for production that allows you to industrialize but not in mass.. instead of producing stock..
2 convers as infra – mech/tech that listens to the itch-in-8b-souls.. first thing.. everyday.. and used that data to augment our interconnectedness..
23 min – t: and the question is.. how we attach value to that process.. and what that process means.. how that value circulates local and larger scale..
24 min – l: the other thing we want to bring forward is the notion of trust.. how do we know when to move from prototype to micro scaling to stock/backlog/whatever.. is there ever inventory.. is it always on demand
l: one of the things that is really being asked in the background there is.. who decides.. who gets to make those decisions.. what’s the governance models.. that’s one of the areas i think about holochain.. the whole business about consensual connections and social cohesion and trust is really being brought into question when we talk about the shaking/breaking of our existing
shouldn’t be about a decision..should be about listening to curiosity
trust is way deeper than who to trust to make decisions.. it’s about trusting everyone (or it won’t work).. trusting that if people are legit free.. unenclosable.. then whatever their heart is telling them to do.. whatever their itch that day.. is exactly what we all need for the dance to dance .. on the fly
ie: ‘in undisturbed ecosystems ..the average individual, species, or population, left to its own devices, behaves in ways that serve and stabilize the whole..’ –Dana Meadows
25 min – l: what we’re seeing last 5 months.. our vulnerabilities.. institutions breaking themselves.. what would be our intent.. so to the two of you .. declarative non ants..
26 min – l: to arthur .. new ways of thinking about value.. what can we see .. soon
27 min – a: on trust.. the way we’ve designed micro production on holochain is with micro trust.. in bc movement there’s a leaning toward trustlessness.. trying to say.. unencloseable.. but it gets taken to other extremes.. ie: smart contracts to impose something to happen.. but you can’t encode all possible circumstances in real world in a smart contract.. can’t model all the things that might happen
contracts et al
a: so what we do in holochain is structure things in a micro trust basis.. so like in our hosting currency that runs the holo network.. being able to serve holochains applications for people who are not hosting themself.. someone else has to host them.. then that person gets paid for hosting.. the person who pays the provider
dang guys.. i already know this is not going to get called out.. we need to quit talking about urgency.. and then adding irrelevants.. let go of money (any form of measuring/accounting).. we’re wasting time/energy/people
28 min – a: and the hosts only have to take very small risks.. ie: i bill you a dollar.. or each day.. so not sticking neck out very far.. haven’t provided a whole lot of value.. so if don’t get paid.. don’t have to keep hosting.. but there is a little bit of trust happening in the system
holy cow.. how is that trust..? making what you have to trust smaller?.. we’re so messed up.. we have no idea what unconditional means.. we can’t let go of conditions.. and thinking that everything is (will become) lord of flies.. tragedy of non common.. if we let go of that control
29 min – then you can progressively develop that
it’s not trust if it’s incremental.. 10 day cares et al.. we’ll never get there if we keep trying/perpetuating part\ial.. for (blank)’s sake.. there is a nother way (you just can’t hear it/me.. that’s the problem.. enclosed listening)
why talk incremental in this rare pause opp.. we’re going to miss it.. completely miss it.. oi
29 min – a: for me.. the more we can build better feedback loops in a system.. where you can take small risks toward building better relationships.. toward a little bit of trust.. and then build on that.. it gives people the ability to self steer.. and it isn’t about centralized decision making.. about who’s going to host..
so frustrating .. because saying so many good words.. (ie: not about who’s going to host; and so close to hosting life bits.. but still wanting a bit of control.. just like wanting to try a little bit of trust.. incremental is killing us from both angles) but missing the center of the problem (8b alive people in sync)
humanity needs a leap.. to get back/to simultaneous spontaneity (perhaps your mischief) .. simultaneous fittingness.. everyone in sync..
30 min – a: each host can choose.. based on own experiences.. ie: if had bad experiences of payment w somebody.. then pretty soon no hosts will be willing to host them and they will have weeded themselves out of this peer hosting market
oi.. any payment ness.. and weeding out ness.. is going to kill (and has been killing) us..
l: so it’s like a self cleaning reputation loop
a: exactly
l: in fact it really mirrors the way we ideally grant trust anyway.. right.. which is fundamentally.. we grant trust because of referrals.. thru trusted collisions.. t
yeah.. huge red flag guys.. reputation is a killer.. totally enclosable.. keeps us from us big time..
let go
l: all of this discussion is bringing to me this notion of brands.. in old production system brands are a fortifying way of declaring trust
oi.. we have no idea
trust doesn’t work like that..
you’re talking about judgment.. and that’s a killer of human being ness
perhaps we can have tech w/o judgment ie: tech as it could be.. to jump start us back into human being ness.. (disclaimer .. not about incremental trust.. about undoing our hierarchical listening)
31 min – l: but as we look at the future of production/connections/communities.. and the future i mean this.. the decent.. the breaking apart of the centralized models.. *is there a role for brands..? and i also think that cities are brands.. you know cities have kind of build a certain reputation for certain classes of activities/production/values/opps.. **so people move to cities or stay in cities and that reflects on their reputation
*no.. there’s not .. if we want to live.. on the fly.. if we want to be alive.. brands are labels.. and the only labels we should be focusing on .. is 8b daily curiosities.. diff/new everyday..
marsh label law et al
**that’s not on the fly ness.. that’s not mischief
l: as we think about trust in sense of.. you know you can work with me .. t
what we need to focus on is self talk as data (curiosity not decisions/projects) – so that i’m not jumping thru hoops to fit somewhere and you’re not trying to figure out if i fit
such an energy suck
what the world needs most is the energy of 8b alive people .. and we’re missing it
l: and we can work as boundaryless.. we’re an informal group and collection of characters.. trusting and having convos together and presumably creating other kinds of value
in the old model/system of listening/being together.. let go
we need to undo the hierarchical listening you’re modeling/perpetuating just now..
32 min – t: to connect the dots.. a long shot.. what i think in terms of my recent experience and forget what i learned before.. what i read.. what someone else wrote.. we need to recover this ability to learn how to learn
33 min – t: when you talk about brands.. association w something else.. so we connect to brands as aspiration to become what they rep.. and that’s corp culture.. i think cities have become corporations.. ie: barcelona a corp culture.. makes me think.. what’s the role of the public in corp run govt.. when corp wants to own everything.. not just the image.. but wanting to own everything and be associated with that.. that happened in barcelona.. city tries to won all public space.. leaving out public..
35 min – t: talking about creating trust in a platform.. makes me think of bali where i am now.. based on family.. 200 families to ().. then villages.. so decision making goes from family up to entire village.. and each have requirements for (level of) community life.. so i wonder how much of our individual freedom we’re willing to give away in order to live that community/collab/trust/co-production/micro-production.. because that will mean.. leaving behind netflix and a lot of social media hours
? netflix?
36 min – l: i think you put your point just in the right place.. on wanting the world to work for everybody.. esp me.. i think there’s a lot of blah blah blah we give to this idea of collab/coop structures.. but in reality .. are we really willing to do all the things required to be part of a community..t
dang.. (from my experience and forgetting all the reading/history/research).. i’d say these resonate with (counters to) that statement
brown belonging law: the opposite of belonging.. is fitting in.. true belonging doesn’t require you to change who you are.. it requires you to be who you are.. and that’s vulnerable.. –Brené Brown
‘in undisturbed ecosystems ..the average individual, species, or population, left to its own devices, behaves in ways that serve and stabilize the whole..’ –Dana Meadows
et al
37 min – l: there’s no special powers.. (boundaryless group) working across a truly shared form of governance..
not really..
still not listening to every voice.. everyday
38 min – l: do brands have so much baggage as a marketing device.. if that’s true.. then what’s next.. culture.. is culture.. *how do you shape/guide culture.. in a completely emerging network of networks
*you don’t..
you let it emerge/change.. on the fly.. everyday
revolution: instigating utopia everyday
ie: cure ios city
__________
_________
________
_________
be you. 