'new economy' ontology - working group

Nice points @John Waters , thanks! There seem to be many words for which there are several meanings, some more precise than others. Can we, I wonder, get this together by listening carefully to all the different relevant language communities, trying to discern what their communication needs are? This would be a mutual process, naturally -- we all need to be listening to each other, and that itself would help communication and building shared meanings. I would hope that we can find a set of relatively stable meanings for terms, and then use those in our efforts towards collaboration on important things. It is the governance of these shared meanings which has struck me more and more as the central challenge. No elite-created "Newspeak" designed to silence dissent. Nor the chaos of unlimited private languages. Can we initiate something like a commons of language? We could surely regard language as a commons...

Though I am not optimistic on whether we can "converge on a common unique identification of each term", I would have thought that the task of "an assessment of the usefulness ..." etc. would itself rely on a common language at some level. Can we at least look for that?

A new ontology is definitely needed as the West's fixation on 'growth' and unlimited expansion is rooted in a problematic dimension of Enlightenment era ontology that is fixed, eg 'I think, therefore I am', that aspires for 'man's' domination of nature and elevates private space and private time over public space and public time. I'm interested in developing a new ontology which resurrects self-reflective social struggle in modern public space and time for the objective of social deliberation and direct democracy today. If the group is open to perspectives like this, I'd be interested in trying to contribute.

Very nice, I like that. Naturally, I would also be delighted to work towards a commons ontology, necessarily governed as a commons, of course. A glossary would probably work on the existing wiki, though we should first think about what would fit and how, and what would work well with all of Michel's work. For an ontology, my guess would be that a semantic wiki would be better. Resurrect the commons transition wiki???

I'd be very happy to help if I can in the shaping of an ontology for the 'new' economy, but I confess a bias in hoping to see some early simple, goals and principles. Easier to grasp and spread. Then following with more explicit design principles, making what has to be built a little more tangible: More of an architecture (both a product and a process) rich enough to accommodate diversity, but ordered, and ethical?

I think this is a great idea, and I don’t think it’s too basic – I think we could be surprised where there will be confusion and debate. There could be an introductory section on the need for a new economy for more mainstream, new-economy-curious folks, that the already convinced can skip. After that, even the basic vocabulary might bring up some debates – probably with more general terms rather than specialist ones. For example, new economy might be hard to define. I don’t think new economy is synonymous with the commons – it’s more than that, including co-ops and sole traders (co-ops of one?) – but what about small, non-co-op businesses with employees – extractive at the level of the business, but not extractive from their communities. It’s a tricky one – Franco Manca started as one little stall in Brixton Market, and is now a chain, with branches all over the country, and has been bought by a PLC. If it was new economy as one branch in Brixton, when did it cross the line? When it opened a second branch? When it got its first external shareholder? When it didn’t co-operativise as soon as there was more than one person involved?

And what’s the relationship between the new economy and the state, when the state is so absolutely in bed with banks and corporations? I don’t know whether there will be agreement on that.

I’d be quite interested to see how a pattern language could work, as I’ve never used one (although I’ve read bits of the original book), as long as it doesn’t confuse the uninitiated. But also agree with Simon that it might fit with the P2P wiki. Could both those things happen?

Hi @Nick Meyne -- maybe we haven't met so I invite you to a one-to-one conversation so we can get to know each other's biases! Simplicity is a worthy goal. My own experience is that different people want to simplify in different ways; what seems to work is first for people to listen with care to other people even where that challenges their own simplicity. We can hope that there is simplicity in the common ground, but we cannot take that for granted -- people are complex!

Hi Simon! Delighted to 'meet' - let's have chat next week perhaps? Meanwhile, I agree that simplicity can easily become 'simplistic' when the context is complex, or even chaotic, and that listening is a precious thing in what is too often 'the land of the loud'.

I am a little anxious that the loud and powerful might unleash some very simple 'animal spirits' in the aftermath of covid-19, rather different from the listening and quiet collaboration that we might otherwise hope for. We might need some sharp situational awareness, in an active struggle, rather than relying on an emergent and fragile consensus?

Thanks John for a fantastic comment, it's not often these days that I learn a useful new word in an online discussion.

@Simon Grant (Cetis LLP)

There seem to be many words for which there are several meanings, some more precise than others.

Indeed. I'd say that applies to some degree to every word, and particularly to words that signify relationships or concepts, rather than concrete objects (the way the Nazis identified Marxists by the habits of using the word "concrete" as an adjective seems strangely relevant here).

For me, it's less important to agree on a single, fixed meaning for each term, than to try to understand what a given person means when they use it. To paraphrase @mike_hales , a chorus of voices, rather than a consensus. It's especially helpful if we can see patterns of usage, eg the difference between what metaphysicists and geeks mean by "ontology", or the difference between what marxists mean by "capitalism" and what it refers to for propertarians (the 'ownership is freedom' individualists who like to call themselves "libertarians") .

@Danyl Strype @DaveDarby thanks for all your points here!

@Simon Grant (Cetis LLP) Is it worth someone getting in touch with Michel to ask how and where, if at all, such a video glossary (/pattern language) might plug into P2P wiki/his other work?

Yes, thanks @Danyl Strype -- the difference to me between a chorus and a cacophony is the harmony. And I find it interesting that for a choir to be in harmony they have to listen to each other!