Distributed Commons as Archetype

Discussion on the purplsoc paper

Bringing the systemic (re)generative role of commons to awareness.


Rather than in the vision and values that communities hold and the mission or goal they assign to themselves, such driver may be found in the very existence and generative nature of what brings change agents and communities of practice together. A driver wouldn’t for example be the abstract concept or representation of say, the moon. Rather, it would be the tide itself in its dynamic generative capacity.


Communities that endeavor for change gather around social objects, shared object of care that are embodied ubiquitously in the system in different forms as place, people, resource, structure, process, or outcome.


These social objects are generally oriented towards generating access, equity, caring, livelihood, thrivability, replicability or sustainability. The common thread is in the protection and in the nurturing and reproduction of the distributed factors of opportunity and of ongoing health and thrivability of the system that ensure its ongoing regeneration. These are what I call the distributed commons as archetype, the reproduction of which manifests as system goal in multiple forms and languages, through different action logics, understandings and symbolic representations, emerging into the whole commons.


ar•che•type [ahr-ki-tahyp]
n.
1. the original pattern or model from which all things of the same kind are copied or on which they are based; a model or first form; prototype.
2. (in Jungian psychology) a collectively inherited unconscious idea, pattern of thought, image, etc., universally present in individual psyches.


How can this systemic (re)generative role of the commons as pattern itself be brought to awareness in each of the centers and as a whole? How can it encourage systems driven by generative processes and serve as a vetting system for the ‘sustainability’ of systemic change initiatives?  This is another key objective of the PLAST.

 

On Social Objects:

Kurt Laitner
12:18 AM Nov 5

shared social objects (a reference to the genesis of this concept would be helpful) jyri engstrom had talked about this many moons ago but perhaps not the origin - very powerful concept and also an excellent piece of metadata to locate groups in the field
Helene Finidori
10:11 AM Nov 5

Will dig further. I like that ref: http://www.slideshare.net/jess3/the-world-of-social-objects because it describes how to use social objects as attractors using network dynamics. Something typically that PLAST could illustrate.
Kurt Laitner
8:45 PM Nov 5

I have found the meme very useful "X as shared social object" both describes many successful business models and suggests new ones
Helene Finidori
7:52 AM Yesterday

Yes, business model is typically what can be 'illustrated' with PLAST. One interesting thing in French law, a company has a 'social object' defined in its constitution. It's a description of its area of activity. The choice of the term is interesting. So is the ambiguity on the meaning of object (both the 'thing' and the motive)
Helene Finidori
9:35 AM Yesterday

Talking of business models, here's an excellent article by Simone Cicero (Ouishare) on the dynamics that drive the sharing economy. Typically something that could be 'plasted' too: http://meedabyte.com/2014/11/03/competitioncollaborationanddesign/

On Archetype:

Jessie Lydia Henshaw
2:34 PM Yesterday

Archetypes are also natural forms, not just mental forms. So "commons" are then both, the thing in the world that is the natural archetype we use the word to refer to in our experience, and the idea in our minds which is the conceptual archetype, referred to semantically in conversation.

I've found this quite clear feature of how our mental frames relate to the natural frame remarkably difficult for others to deal with, generally, seeming to indicate it appears absolutely essential that we deal with it both carefully and effectively.
Show less
Helene Finidori
2:46 PM Yesterday

Jessie, are you saying that the fact that commons is at the same time an abstraction and a 'thing' that materializes helps bridge the disconnect? I don't quite understand your second paragraph here though.
Jessie Lydia Henshaw
3:46 PM Yesterday

Yes, the "thing in our minds" has a very different phenomenological form than the "thing in the world". Both are physiological things, one composed of environmental relationships and throughputs and the other semantic and emotional ones.

I find it both very socially dangerous to even mention that (as it confuses so many people and seems to threaten their belief systems), and also absolutely essential to mention it too. I really think it's the heart of humanity's disconnect with life on earth, that we tend to think of our mental worlds as the only environments we live in, and that's incorrect.
Show less
Kurt Laitner
6:41 PM Yesterday

this again reminds me of Alan Watt's essay, "Wealth vs Money" ( http://www.brainpickings.org/2014/05/29/alan-watts-on-money-vs-wealth/ ) where he laments that our facility with symbolic representation has caused us to confuse our symbols with reality - he looks at language structures addressing a content plane (the thing itself) with an expression plane (the structure of the language) with the usual discussion of whether language constrains our thought, he further breaks down each plane into form, substance and continuum - and the content continuum is the most difficult for people to address directly (enlightenment if you will) - I love this quote
" Civilization, comprising all the achievements of art and science, technology and industry, is the result of man's invention and manipulation of symbols - of words, letters, numbers, formulas and concepts, and of such social institutions as universally accepted clocks and rulers, scales and timetables, schedules and laws. By these means, we measure, predict and control the behavior of the human and natural worlds - and with such startling apparent success that the trick goes to our heads. All too easily we confuse the world as we symbolize it with the world as it is."
Show less
Jessie Lydia Henshaw
8:49 PM Yesterday

But don't you lose the careful separation of symbols and natural realities if you "break down each plane" into concepts?

RELATED ARTICLESExplain
An Open Source Pattern Language (re)generative of Commons
First Elaborations of Patterns for Systemic Interpretation
Discussion on the Purplsoc Paper
Distributed Commons as Archetype
Frames - Worldviews - Engagement logics
Generative behavior - Generative Grammar - Centers as essence of life
Grammatization
Key Points
Metadata
Separate variables in smaller segments - Jane Jacobs
The structure of the Language
The syntax
Wicked Problems
Graph of this discussion
Enter the title of your article


Enter a short (max 500 characters) summation of your article
Enter the main body of your article
Lock
+Comments (0)
+Citations (0)
+About
Enter comment

Select article text to quote
welcome text

First name   Last name 

Email

Skip