———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Dante-Gabryell Monson
Date: Fri, Dec 7, 2007 at 3:07 PM
Institution as part of Commons , and not Commons as part of Institution
in relation to our conversation of
” Institution ” versus ” Social Network ”
( or more exactly , I mean ” Commons of the Social Network ” )
me arguing that the ” Institution ” can potentially be part of a Social Network Commons , and feed it when there are shared ” Intentions ” ( and not ” Expectations ” )
The problem is that very often “Social Network Commons” and “Institutions” are being confused , and the Institution ( consciously or not ) often tries to reap the benefits of a Social Network in its own advantage , vampirizing the social network commons into the realm of its control ,
and imposing its own conditions and expectations to the social network commons.
Hence , the understanding of where ” The Institution ” lies is important , as to avoid the Intentions shared by the Intentional Commons Social Network to be taken over by an Institution.
Understanding of where the ” Institution ” lies , and where the ” Commons of the Intentional Movement of Social Networks ” lie , is not always easy.
But you can understand it from the moment you notice where there lies a specific expectation , and not an intention , and from the moment that you realize there is a consciousness of specific need for control …
A Social Network is more flexible , and rests on the intentions shared by individuals , and not on the expectations of Institutions.
Yet , Institutions may support a commons by opening up resources for it.
But again , lets stay aware of the consciousness.
By the way , also see this short text recently edited on the p2p foundation wiki :
” Iron Law of Institutions ”
http://p2pfoundation.net/Iron_Law_of_Institutions
“The Iron Law of Institutions is: the people who control institutions care first and foremost about their power within the institution rather than the power of the institution itself. Thus, they would rather the institution “fail” while they remain in power within the institution than for the institution to “succeed” if that requires them to lose power within the institution.” (http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/001705.html)