'Common-Sense Commons' as a guiding vision for a Self-Caring System & Thrivable World

 

Our World is in crisis as its systems have been pushed toward exceeding their limits of resilience. Much of what we care for and need in the various aspects of our lives is under threat. We need a whole system approach, one that enables all parts to thrive while addressing the threats that endanger the whole.

But we all have different visions and views about the crisis and how it should be met. We are driven by different interests and moved by different types of stories, even if ultimately, we all seek a more viable, sustainable, thrivable and mindful world. So we need a practical vision for our sustainability efforts to converge.

For a while I have been playing with the idea of bringing together some guiding principles that could help us coalesce streams of engagement and passion... Guiding principles that can help the system take care of itself - the physical dimension- and underpined by an archetypal vision or aspiration - the metaphysical dimension- with a power to attract and catalyze potential for action and engagement to seed and amplify emerging change and  the positive feedback of the system.

After two years of discussions with many groups involved in social change, I believe the approach of the commons as complex living system and embodiment of the change we want to see could constitute the guiding vision we need to face the challenges ahead and generate the driving force for the system to heal itself. In short, we would need to think sustainability in terms of commons, to coalesce in a self-organizing way disparate sustainability efforts.

This article is inspired from a group discussion addressing the question from UN Secretary General on an Economic Model for survival, in discussion since Feb 2011 on the LinkedIn "Systems Thinking World" forum. 7200+ posts, and many other discussions around the Commons, P2P, collaboration and technology. 

It is a work in progress written with the collaboration of Jessie Henshaw. I welcome your comments and suggestions. Here is a tool where any of us can make suggestions and additions to this text. We are also working with the Commons Action group at the UN to develop a People's Sustainability Treaty based on these ideas. 

 

                                                              ------

The Vision and Principles

The commons are vital for our sustenance, our social cohesion and our well-being [ An archetype?]

 

The commons is what serves mankind as a whole. We think of it as our shared environment and resources, and as a medium for interactions. It includes the natural environment we humans are all a part of, and all what we inherit and create, use and change, and then pass on to future generations.  It connects us and nurtures much of what we produce and accomplish. It is vital for our sustenance and livelihood, our individual expression  and purpose, our social cohesion and well-being.  The  commons also embody the  relationships we build between people and with the earth, our  communities and the knowledge they may share. It's an inheritance, one that all humans now need a living vision of and a feeling of common responsibility for.

The commons take various shapes [At the same time object - process - result]

The commons can be described in many different ways and along various dimensions. It is at the same time object, process and result operating at various levels and scales, from the most global -the whole system, to various nested or fractal 'local' levels -the parts.

• As objects, the commons embody the Common Wealth, the 'Assets' that are inherited or created, shared in  common, and serve a livelihood (natural, social &   cultural  resources,  genetic and biologic diversity, knowledge, etc),  that people  can take care of, nurture, replenish, grow.                        
• As a process,  the commons embody the Common Ethos, a  Culture, the ways of being and doing in common that epitomizes in commoning (caring,  sharing, nurturing, governing the assets in relationship with others with  empathy, equity, justice, mindfulness...)                        
• As a Result: - the commons embody the Common Good, the outcome of the process  (well being, quality of life, prosperity, abundance) which is the life blood of the process and a condition for the growth of the assets.

The commons is both an input to the dynamic interactions between people and their contexts, and an output thereof.  All these dimensions need each other for the world to thrive. For  progress to  materialize, output must be greater than input. Commons in all their diversity and all the types of value they create must grow. And ideally each of our sustainability initiatives would be geared to grow a part of it. 

On all dimensions, levels and scales it is a tangible condition that serves as a medium for economic and political  cooperation, development of common social and cultural values, and the  establishment  of a shared  stewardship of the  earth that can be deployed at multiple levels and scales; with a goal of satisfying needs and enabling self realization along all its various  dimensions.

The commons as guiding image for a socio-cultural shift

The crisis that threatens the survival of humanity as a whole needs a vision that can help transition to a sustainable and thriving world. One that can not only encourage desired behaviors but also inspire us all to work towards it, as we articulate and develop our own designs of who we want to be -- as individuals and as community.

 
In 1973, a team of researchers from Stanford university established that cultural  transformations occured with the presence of a strong image to embody change and crystallize imagination and action toward new visions of the world:

Images of humankind that are dominant in a culture are of fundamental importance because they underlie the ways in which the society shapes its institutions, educates its young, and goes about whatever it perceives its business to be. Changes in these images are of particular concern at the present time because our industrial society may be on the threshold of a transformation as profound as that which came to Europewhen the Medieval Age gave way to the rise of science and the Industrial Revolution. - Changing Image of man -Stanford research institute

The survey sugested a provisional list of six characteristics for transition informing image necessary to guide the current transition:

• provide a holistic sense and perspective on life
• entail an ecological ethic 
• entail a self-realization ethic 
• be multileveled, multifaceted, and integrative 
• lead to a balancing and coordinating of satisfactions along many dimensions 
• be experiential, experimental and open-ended

The image of the commons encompasses much of these characteristics. It adds to sustainability and resilience a common purpose or interest, the dimension of mutuality -the networks of things we can do with and for each other-, and a vision of the whole where humanity is meant to realize our potential and thrive. It can speak to our logic and reason as much as to our intuitions and emotions. As it speaks many languages, it can be conveyed in many different forms to many of the worldviews, aspirations and streams of initiatives that strive to create a better world, so that people from where ever they are located can learn and do what they feel the urge to do, and the system itself will put things together.

Think of the various sensitivities or movements that can coalesce under a commons sense banner (gaian, ancient tradition, legalist/human rights and expression, ecology, socio-political, risk/precaution, cooperative ownership and management, craddle2craddle/regenerative economy, conservation/malthusian, thrivability/prosperity/abundance, P2P/hacker/localist, peace/love) that are moved by different narratives and passion, all an expression of the same aspiration...

The commons as complex living system

The world, as a complex living system, operates along principles that help the system take care of itself. That's the actual invisible hand. The ultimate commons?:

• The nature of the system is a multiplicity of parts in partnership working individually as whole local parts, and operating at various integrative levels and scales, forming emergent wholes. What connects any part with a whole is most often hidden from any local viewpoint. Each whole self-organizes and self-realizes while being conscious of and responsive to each other's behaviors and locally responsive to its changing environment, not controlled by external forces, only shaped and limited them. 

• Patterns of behaviors emerge -or arise- in each part and whole out of a multiplicity of interactions, initially invisible and often coming into sight all at once (tipping points). Emerging behaviors are often the only thing visible from parts or wholes that may be hidden from sight (the unknown). 

• Change is made continuous by successions of interactions and relationships generated by the system. Radical change can occur when emergent patterns of change converge and accumulate into systemic change. Possibilities for convergence and amplification of feedback which shape a system's behavior increase with density and tightness of connections.  

In practical terms it means that a systemic approach would concentrate on:

• Encouraging self-organization and self-realization at the local level for the parts to be resilient and to thrive while learning from and empowering one another through expansion of partnerships and interactions; learning both how to work independently  and together at various integrative levels or scales to empower larger  systems and share responsibilities as a way to assure individual  freedoms.

• Encouraging the understanding of how things work and the awareness of emerging behaviors to be responsive, anticipate potential conflict or collaboration and recognize change as it unfolds; and ultimately enable positive trends to be amplified and new learning to be integrated and made applicable.

• Enabling the parts to be aware of other parts and wholes, and the whole system from discovering their behavior, even when they are hidden from view. Enabling them to be aware of how they use and depend of the whole and how they can contribute to keep the whole viable and thriving. 

As complex living systems themselves, described by Elinor Ostrom as “self-organized” and "polycentric", where the people closely involved help “develop rules for themselves", the commons mimic the conflict-free self-organization observable in natural economic systems and can help materialize the need and possibilities for a systemic change.

There are clear opportunities making a commons approach relevant today. These complementary parts seem ineffective mostly for being disconnected. The commons provide a guiding vision and operating principles for learning how to search for the matching parts as the solution, and the system itself will start putting them all together. It provides a role for everyone to play in making the transition to a sustainable future; it provides opportunities for everyone to contribute to organizing efforts in a self-organized and multi-path yet converging way.

Developing the vision - The conditions & dynamics for thriving commons

We focus both on devising means to grow the commons by acting on the most obvious amplifyers and levers, and on developing a commons vision that will inspire, empower and enable the transition, based on principles that can be easily shared, understood and customized at the various 'operational' levels:

• To amplify emerging change, encourage local organization for local needs, users to become producers or stewards of their own resources. Starting on the short term by testing innovative methods in  coordinated regional emergency interventions.

• To accelerate convergence, expand cooperation at higher levels and wider scales, and foster learning and collaboration processes that enable co-creation, co-governance and conflict resolution on multiple scales, adopting subsidiarity principles to define the boundaries of the commons. 

• To protect the viability of the commons, develop a commons sector alongside the private and  public sectors, conferring rights and responsibilities to communities over resources they create or on which they depend. Embedding the commons approach in local and national sustainable strategies. 

• To replenish and grow the commons, develop circular and [re]generative economic models that ensure the conditions under which profit and growth can be viable and sustainable.

• Use finance to grow the commons and restore the natural generative and replenishing functions of the economy, revalue future value, find KPIs that measure progress and the actual creation of common wealth and abundance.

• Stop growing toxic and harmful practices toward the environment, health, human rights. Fight abuses of power and corruption. Establish basic responsibilities.

• To make sense of emerging change, create assessment and reporting systems for transparency and monitoring of impacts, growth of the commons and compliance with sustanability goals and targets.

• Create frameworks and platforms to support the transition and collaboration, make needs and solutions as well as possible partnerships visible and actionable. 

The building blocks

We focus on the dynamic interactions that help build the social and material resiliency necessary for the development of a thriving economic and social fabric at various levels and scales, allowing at the same time for various unintended consequences of human action, and for recovery from natural disasters, pandemics, etc.. We also look into what enables an economic balance between member communities, ensuring rule of common law and accountability underpinned by monitoring and evaluation systems. A critical element is the establishment of a framework for enabling learning, conversation, evaluation in view of decisions and conflict resolution, in a way that can scale horizontally (P2P) and vertically (subsidiarity).

'We' here is the emergent 'collective', all those who undertake converging actions.

Local organization for local needs [P2P, many to many]

Principle: Communities must be encouraged to cultivate and produce their own livelihoods and co-govern their utilities, services and resources, in relational dynamics that foster self-realization and adaptation.

Emergence: A variety of  innovative, creative small and local initiatives and projects are actively pursuing alternative and more sustainable forms of agriculture, industrial production, social and economic organization,  currencies and credit systems, education, (self-)governance, and ways of life. At the edge we find the collaborative and P2P economy.

Amplificators: Communities, groups and individuals develop a sense of ownership of the process, a sense of immediacy and transparency, of shared destiny and emotional experience that foster trust and resilience, and a shared 'commons sense'. Local collaboration and peer to peer (P2P) dependencies are something graspable and immediate, and also expand awareness of what empowers one another and larger systems, creating channels by which they can discover opportunity and be brought into balance.  

Positive feedback: Continual community learning about how those regional systems work should be encouraged and  supported. This is key to sustaining the complexity of larger scales of  integration, and the specialization of remote services that empowers  them. Then trust, co-creation and co-governance  practice and working skills develop at each scale, and so also spread to the whole in a distributed manner. This encourages conflict resolution and transparency  approaches.  It develops a sense of enduring responsibility for the  commons and roles shared with future generations.

Coordinated Regional Emergency Interventions 

Application: An immediate application would be to promote the use and testing of these innovative methods and initiatives in ‘innovation zones’ established in areas damaged by disasters, or to reverse damage caused by past and current  practice.  Promote the study of how interventions affect each scale of the systems they take place in.  Responding to the threats of disasters, cultural and technological dislocations, as a need to develop resiliency and adaptability, and so also anticipating, avoiding and allowing more effective response, should all be be encouraged and funded, now aimed at making the commons work more smoothly as a whole too.   Projects directly aimed at relieving the growth of crippling debt without continued growth of demands on the earth are inseparable from reducing emissions, reversing desertification, soil erosion, deforestation, overfishing, increased disparity between rich and poor,  corruption, abuse of power. 

Expanding cooperation at higher levels and wider scales [subsidiarity principle]

Subsidiarity is an organizing principle stating that a matter ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest, or least centralized authority capable of addressing that matter effectively, and that a central authority should have a subsidiary function, performing only those tasks which cannot be performed effectively at a more immediate or local level.

Principle:  Learning from grassroots community practices and early adopters, fostering growing awareness in each locality of the nature of local and global integration. This would draw from the people-context-interactions- assets-culture-resultant dynamic that defines and powers local relationships to the commons, and enable scaling vertically from there.

Emergence: Simple  principles for a  more realistic and purposeful science of economics and management for an  animated world, drawing from "systems intervention",  "action learning",  "systems thinking" and "whole system assessment"  practices, among others, to deal with the systemic complexity of the  relationships and the shift required.

Amplificators: Promoting "connections" conversations to help build on interactions and facilitate  integrated shifts in larger and smaller scale practices allowing stakeholders to discover new ways to solve their mutual problems. Adopt  appreciative methods of enquiry and conflict resolution, being open to seeing things as they are, to experiment, learn and adjust.  Encourage questioning, learning, discovery and innovation, and our capacity to bootstrap, to invent seeds of  change, plant and nurture them, and evolve. Find ways to work together and actively engage in learning processes that enable co-creation and  co-governance and conflict resolution on all scales.

Positive feedback: Expanding from the above on the "whole system" approach to learn from example, to mimic the  conflict-free self-organization observable in natural economic systems, and other "exemplars" recognized good design; to observe patterns of behaviors emerging and to recognize change as it unfolds, so that theory is always checked against reality of what is observed and emerges, and new learning can be integrated and made applicable. 
Application:  This includes finding the boundaries and governance principles best suited to the needs of the commons at local levels (subsidiarity), acknowledging multiple logically or physically overlapping or intersecting commons, and devising more practical means of enforcement for laws, treaties, and agreements at all levels by making them confirmations of nested and/or fractal common needs.

A Commons Sector, alongside the Private and public sectors

Principle: Reinforcing and developing a sector of the commons alongside the private and public sectors, conferring  rights and responsibilities to communities over resources on which they depend. There is no question here of ending private property or the role of the state. Rather it is to establish a provision for 'sanctuarizing' within appropriately governed institutions a certain number of commons from public or private overexploitation and enclosure to ensure access when exploitation and enclosure for the pursuit of profit impinges on the rights or livelihoods of the users of the commons or the viability of the common. The most obvious examples are the air we breathe or the human or natural genome, the internet is another. Defining modalities would be in the political realm.

Emergence:  New forms of cooperatively or mutually governed organizations to steward the commons at various levels, starting with the enforcement of existing common law.  

Amplificators: The commons must be acknowledged as the foundation of the collaborative free markets needed for the health of competitive free markets, enabled by effective education systems, research and development programs, and universal telecommunications infrastructure that enable distributed networks to operate mutual sense making and exchanges of all kinds.

Positive feedback: This would prevent the double risk of 'Tragedy of the  commons' either from overexploitation by individual parts detrimental to  the whole or from private enclosure and appropriation for the benefit  of the few. This would ensure that the people who have a long-term stake  in the preservation of these resources (natural, physical,  intellectual, social, cultural; from local to global) would protect  them while enabling the development of a flourishing commons-based  economy around them. 

Application: This may include linking and embedding the commons in existing systems  such as the international  commons of Outer Space, Antarctica and the  Law of the Sea.>  See approaches here: Blueprint for P2P society by Michel Bauwens, 'Stewardship Corporations' by Jack Harich; Commons Trusts and Social Charters developped by James Quilligan and the Global Commons Trust.

Transition to a circular economy

      

Our  economy's current purpose is to maximize flows (of goods, capital). It is a machine for perpetual growth that uses its profits and its  knowledge to continually escalate its demands on  humanity and on the  earth and to constantly multiply its capacity to  inflate itself as  private wealth and power. As such, it is brittle and  prone to breakdown,  undermining productive activity as well as leading  to the abuse of the  commons in a never ending spiral.

Principle: The challenge we are facing is to ensure the conditions under which profit and growth can be viable and sustainable, and improve at the same time the material and non-material (intellectual, emotional, spiritual...) wellbeing of the people, and the viability of the commons that enables it. 

Emergence: The "circular economy" model focuses on optimizing the flow of goods and services over time in relation to the size of capital and resources (stocks). It is a replenishing and regenerative model based on closed loops and systems resilience, and the rebuilding of natural and social capital. Products are designed for more complex cycles of disassembly and reuse, the out-design of waste and toxic emissions.
Amplificators: Introducing clarity between consumables and durables, it puts the responsibility of the performance of the product and its becoming as a new resource at the end of its life on the producers, leading to a whole new approach of production, consumption and ownership as it  encourages leasing, renting and sharing while giving way to new approaches of business co-evolution and integration of the commons.

Positive feedback: The circular economy can contribute to create a positive entrainment effect. In the economic sphere there is an acknowledgement that as externalised costs become internalised benefits prices will increasingly reveal full costs. This entails a natural shift towards renewables and internalization of externalities.  In systems terms the system will be exhibiting increased interdependence and the use of different scales, niches and possibiities. See The circular Economy and the Compression Institute.

Application: In the spirit of circular economy closed loop urbanization and community utility & production systems and projects and initiatives that have multiple effects, and serve several different objectives, such as co-generation, closed water/energy/food production systems or solutions such as developed by the Blue Economy or systemic approaches around buildings/energy/transport should be encouraged. 

More generally, sustainability as "circular economy", also involves that whatever available resource or asset businesses or other economic actors don't use, other parts of their environment can, with mutual benefits. This includes local policies to make use of idle resources to strengthen local economies.

Use finance to grow the commons.

Principle: The transition to a circular economy for the investment and financial commons must start at natural limits to profitable growth and for vitality and balance, sustaining investment profitability and guiding investors to higher purposes for their profits than putting money into the productive economy to take growing amounts out of it.  The world economy doesn’t yet have a "purpose" to live better, only to grow and grow even as it becomes unprofitable, brittle and toxic; ignoring a natural need for "maturation", time to turn our attention from inward to outward.

Emergence: The practical transition is for investors of all kinds to find higher purposes for their profits, such as healing both their world and environment, avoiding direct liability for growing hidden impacts, and in the spirit of the commons and well-being. Developing some responsiveness to the emerging and unexpected needs of their environment, and ready to explore errors and omissions in their own teachings and past conclusions, that
living in a changing world may make important. See articles A biomimicry for self-regulating commons and Self Organization as niche making. The Giving Pledge is a move in this direction, that needs to be adequately channelled...

Amplificators: More trivially, shifts from taxing income to taxing depletion of commons such as non renewable resources and waste will reinforce this, as will real world commodities and energy price rises. The removal of perverse subsidies which promote extraction over regeneration or stock over flow would add impetus.

Positive feddback:  Since money and money as debt is an endogenous variable in the whole game an unaltered financial sector undermines efforts and money will work best as a medium of exchange (issued debt free). Other ideas include the use of negative interest rates to promote long term investment in productive activities (see Bernard Lietaer) as against the compound growth driver which is compound interest that systemically reduces future value to negligeable.

Stop growing toxic and harmful practices

 

Application: This process can be accelerated by identifying and targeting investment practices that systemically undermine productive activity and future prospects, such as speculative manipulation of finance instruments and resource shortages, mechanisms causing systemic credit and asset bubbles, development of addictive appetites of various nature at the cost of public, environmental and financial health, the promotion of faster use of depleting resources serving to increase not decrease the economy's dependence on them, etc.  These are both some of the most profitable investments and increase rapidly as people take the profits from them to inflate their investment in them. This include creating incentives, regulations and taxes and eliminating subsidies and loopholes that encourage these practices.

>> As a leverage point: to remedy the above reinforce and enforce anti-corruption laws and eliminate 'legal' corruption and political manipulation by banning or strongly limiting the use of private funds for political financing and political speach.    See: (Larry Lessig, the founder of creative commons is campaigning against this see Republic Lost, Jack Harich's study of political power.

Methods of assessment and reporting

Promote transparency and reporting for monitoring and evaluation systems.   Create  metrics to measure impacts and outcomes, that measure each part's demand on and contribution to the whole, and not just local visible effects.  Provide open access to knowledge, data, and information to allow comparative studies and the correction of misconceptions. Promote a general knowledge commons, and creative commons, allowing all to see inside the silos of others so their different views of common subjects, their values and ideas, can be understood and connected. Share methods for recognizing irreversible processes and anticipating their tipping points of transformation as well as recognizing seeds of change and anticipation of limits of change. Set up processes to ensure that what follows is right and continues to be right, exploring means of confirmation, and a meta-process of reflection and evaluation of measures. Enable trial and error and the possibilities to readjust.  Respond to the abuse of misleading and selective metrics and evaluation systems, defining subjects with only selective variables, and generally assure the fidelity of information to its subjects and their changes.  Apply rules of fiduciary duty to the speach of corporations and lobbyists,   to be liable for being misleading about the true interests of their   investors, customers, employees and other stakeholders, as having   natural concerns for their own and their society's wellbeing. See Jay Youngdahl's expansion of fiduciary law at Harvard.

Frameworks and platforms [tightening connections - amplifying positive feedback]

These approaches would be well supported with frameworks and platforms to deal with the systemic complexity of the relationships and the shift required.  A platform would help the various problematiques and existing initiatives to be made visible to each other and encouraged in the context of a global sustainability & resilience objective, and to connect the dots in order to help people pull and pool resources and collaborate to grow what works for them and for the common good. It would enable learning, exchange of knowledge and experience, engagement,  coordination of cooperation and action, and evaluation, debate, deliberation, decisions of specific projects or outcomes. Ultimately this could facilitate the first steps and adjustments of the formation of commons governance systems that would where required enable the creation of new institutions. (see A Global Framework)

Ultimately, such frameworks and platforms could be an instrument for the transition. It would provide the support for the embodied characteristics of the transition informing principle listed above and the signs of emerging change to become visible as interconnected in a whole. It would enable the discovery of possibilities and the application of solutions at multiple levels throughout the cycles of the transition:

• setting up sensors for detection and sense-making;
• making initiatives and what emerges visible to the whole and to each other 
• understanding issues and what is at stake across silos; 
• inspiring, empowering, enabling people to collaboration and action; 
• facilitating deliberation and implementation;
  
• providing means for horizontal (P2P sharing) and vertical (subsidiarity principle) scaling of processes
  
• diffusing, applying, improving, sustaining solutions 
• monitoring performance, accountability, early detection of new issues and feedback
  

All this in an emergent manner. (See platform project)

 

Thank you to all who have engaged in a common generative and reflective conversation and provided actionable thoughts and material during this and other discussions. In particular: Jessie Henshaw, David Price,Thoebjoern Mann, Nicolas Stampf, Mary  Saunders, TA Balasubramanian, Ken Webster, Douwe Jan Joustra, Dawna Jones, David Alman, Bill Williams, Bill Smith, Dan Strongin, Nick  Ananin, KK Aw, David Hawk, Vlad Kunko, Eero Hollming, Stephen Scott Wright, Patric Roberts,  Gene Bellinger, George Por, Anna Betz, Jack Harich, James Quilligan, Michel Bauwens, Rob Wheeler, Lisinka Ulatowska, Wolfgang Hoeschele, Irma Wilson, Glistening Deepwater, Bonnitta Roy, Erika Ilves, Alex Lavigne Gagnon, Dante Gabriel Monson, Markus Loponen and all the many participants and contributors to this and other discussions.

These discussions have also inspired the intents of "Commons based economic models" submitted to the 2012 RioDialogues.org process  and the various articles on the commons I have posted here.

The various individual and small group outputs of the discussion is available here. This conversation and the Linkedin group discussion format highlighted how difficult it is to capture and harvest collective intelligence to reiterate and reprocess its content effectively, other than doing it 'by hand' in real time... A new tool has been put very recently at our disposal to search and mine the richness of this discussion. Don't hesitate to contact me if you have suggestions.

Another output in the past months is a pealtree map of the alternatives viwed via wikipedia for a start. Many of the concepts explained here can be found on the 'exploring the alternatives' pearltree I started last month: http://www.pearltrees.com/t/team/id5509379

Comments

[Helene]

Reproducing here an interesting point of discussion about this article from another forum:

> "I'm not really steeped in conversations about the commons, but I've found the conversations are often contentious. It seems to me that one of the fault lines is a division over the relative importance of competition versus cooperation.

I'm not authority but like what Noam Chomsky said:

"The “New Spirit of the Age” cannot tolerate the pre-capitalist conception of the Forest as the shared endowment of the community at large, cared for communally for its own use and for future generations, protected from privatization, from transfer to the hands of private power for service to wealth, not needs."

The commons like the economy isn't so much a thing but a doing. It is "the shared endowment of the community at large, cared for communally.""

and

> "What is meant by the term "Commons" in these kinds of discussions? It seems like a lot of people are concerned with this entity, the "Commons", they want to protect its resources, etc.. What is it exactly? Is there anything tangible in this "Commons"?"

My response:

I agree the commons are contentious (and I would suggest they are contentious as a term more than as a concept) because often invoked in politicized terms or contexts. This came out in our LI conversations as well. I like [your] definition of a "shared endowment of the community at large, cared for communally", in line with the definition offered in my article which tries to be as integrative and unpolarized (archetypal?) as possible. The recognition of the need to take care of this endowment can contribute to entrain the system in a virtuous circle... This can arise from love, reason, political or religious stand, conservatism (of resources), good household type management, risk prevention, generosity etc...

The commons can be intangible as well as tangible. The objects (forest, knowledge, gene pool), process/culture (taking care of something as a community), outcomes (livelihood, wellbeing etc...). People see them in different ways depending on their beliefs, sensibilities and cognitive functioning. It goes back to your comment on debategraph, which is not intuitive to you, but is intuitive to others (super intuitive to me for example).

This shows that people must gain access to learning and discovery of possibilities via different points of entry that corresponds to what they would be the most comfortable with 'intuitively'.

I was wondering how the commons 'archetype' could be expressed in different ways to 'speak' to different types..."

[Helene]

Another comment:

"I'm new to the Commons discourse. I'm in the observation phase. Not sure what to make of it. I see the same discussions going on in several different places and the discussion seems to be the same.. I'm instinctively wary when I see that. If I look at an actual discourse, say Sociology, I will see thousands of people, tens of thousands if not more, engaging in a discourse, but every instance will be distinct, unique. I find it extremely unlikely that a discourse is being truly formalized if all the speakers are repeating the same thing. That sounds more like a Metanarrative or Ideology than the actual formalization of a discourse.. However, I'm not ready to come to any conclusions, since I'm still an outsider, an observer from the outside. I'm interested in taking each component, each concept of the conceptual system of Commons-ism and seeing where it came from, who helped develop the concept, including which publishing companies and their parent companies first published the foundational texts. A lot of it sounds a little like a religious discourse, a bizarre strand of Pantheism, or even something from the Catholic Worker Movement, Distributism, Christian anarchism.. Lots of anarcho-communist stuff, it seems, libertarian socialism.. The reason I'm asking for a bibliography is so I can join into the conversation, which I haven't been able to do now consistently for the last several years.."

My response:

Indeed the commons have been around for ever. I am not sure that it is an intentionally developed concept as a basis for an ideology and that there is one commons discourse, but rather multiple commons discourses and multiple 'attractors' to the commons. I rather see it as an archetype - probably the reason why I and others try to attempt an overarching definition of it...- as I suggest in the response above.

A few resources on the commons. Many different feels and venture points...

http://www.onthecommons.org/
http://www.schoolofcommoning.com/content/community-knowledge-garden
http://p2pfoundation.net/commons
http://globalcommonstrust.org/

[Jessie Henshaw]

Helene, Glad I wasn't skipping over things and noticed this link in your STW comments. I've printed it out to read more carefully, but I think it's just what I was hoping you'd do. It seems to read wonderfully. I'll back link it to my "milieu" post that seemed to work for us too.

[Helene]

Thanks Jessie! We need to progress on this.

[Helene]

Here is A comment from Tom Atlee in another discussion thread (https://www.facebook.com/groups/120497731371323/permalink/348583501896077/), who just wrote a book Empowering Public Wisdom to deal with similar issues:

"This discussion and the items we list as our priorities as CEO of the world dance around the possibility of a "pattern language for a healthy civilization". A pattern language articulates design elements (things to keep in mind, guidances for wisely solving common design problems) and the relations between those "patterns".

Three sample pattern languages along those lines are

* a sustainable economy - http://reliableprosperity.net
* good group process - http://groupworksdeck.org
* communities that have "the quality that has no name" (the original pattern language) -
http://www.patternlanguage.com/leveltwo/patternsframegreen.htm?/leveltwo/../apl/twopanelnlb.htm

I've been involved in two pattern language projects. The co-creation of such an intellectual magnum opus is a monumental and evolving task. I love the idea, but don't know where the energy would come from to do it. The reward is a framework that can be used in everything from transformational organizing to sustainability education to inspiration for people's individual missions in life - to say nothing of the pure beauty of a well-crafted pattern language.

Perhaps the greatest challenge is the different perspectives and ways of thinking that each participant in such an undertaking brings to the project. That is also the greatest potential gift. A key factor in co-intelligence is using diversity creatively. It is not easy, but if successful, the result is deeper insight into the whole that we are all part of, and that is trying to emerge among and through us."

[David Bovis]

Hi Helene, as usual, you are one of only a few people with sufficient depth of thought to inspire me to respond these days, I'm genuinely impressed with all the effort you put into these debates and their consolidation, i don't know how you find the time.

The output is phenomenal, your vocabulary and use of the English language makes much of what is incredibly complex and intuitive, explicit clear and understandable. I do wonder however, if the language evolving out of these attempts to identify what is 'Good' for the human race on this planet in the long term (i.e. What works, for the benefit of all, no one-person gaining at another persons expense - 'Kaizen'), isn't too detached from the vocabularies of the masses to make any difference in the real world, if the extensive discussions and comparisons of opinion, provided via the input forums, do ultimately lead to any conclusions.

What good will an answer be if the language in which those answers are presented, scientific, systems oriented or in parables, cannot be understood by others? ... could it be, that the only way to allow another human being (adult mammalian brain) to truly come to an evolved and developed level of understanding is to provide them (it) with sufficient sensory and emotional experience from which meaning and understanding can be assimilated in individual ways.

If the words and terminology which emerge as properties of the multiple-variable inputs, required to try to communicate complexity, themselves become so complex they are incomprehensible to anyone other than those who have been involved on the journey (having had the neural 'discovery' experience at a mesolimbic pathway [seeking mechanism] level), then i suspect, any such answer, will be of little use to anyone.

Ultimately, don't we need a solution to this? (I'm convinced we already have the answers - they just haven't been understood to a point they have been understood across generations).

I suspect this solution is to consciously provide considered and constructed 'experience', ideally from the moment a human takes it's first breath .... to consider what is 'Good' experience (a philosophical debate) from the moment of birth, we naturally HAVE to consider Parenting, Pedagogy, Professions and Politics (as impacted by theology, economics, cultural beliefs in what is 'good' as parents / leaders etc.) and this then requires an understanding of the entire world of psychology and now, with advances in technology, neuroscience, as well as 'systems' in socio-technial conditions and how those 'systems' influence outcomes in respect to everything they comprise and touch .. to include conscious consideration of the 'effect' all experience has, all the way down to the detail of stressor hormones, chronic release of cortisol damaging cells (biology / physiology) and the 'learned helplessness' aspect of control (Process, product and people) in all social conditions which add to or detract from the individuals capacity to perform in whichever family or vocation they find themselves in.

This is a good example of 'complex language' not making sense to most, other than those who have been through the journey of discovery to have developed the vocabulary and syntax to assimilate it against their own experience / prior knowledge.

The compound problem with 'understanding' is that those who 'think' they understand another persons words, can ONLY interpret what they think the other person means relative to their own world view (Context / Confirmation Bias etc.) so, many comments and additions to a debate only become antagonistic, with much effort used to overcome the failings of language (accentuated when presented in written form, rather than in conversation F2F). Leading to nearly 7000 comments which require complex analysis systems to draw any value from them.

In my own studies, 'root cause' always becomes down to individual (and subsequently 'group') 'Belief' (as imprinted by emotional environmental experience [my own 'language' in the absence of common language in the sectors i evolved out of]) and what is 'believed' to be 'Good' - shown in my own proprietary models like 'Believe-Think-Feel-Act', developed to try and give the amazingly complex some simplicity.

So the crux of ALL human behaviours / systems / social constructs and models by which we run countries and consume the world, comes down to what we believe (typically in our own self-interest), to be "GOOD". We therefore need to consider what is 'GOOD' in all it's psychological, physiological & philosophical complexity ... and i suggest we don't have to re-invent the wheel. If we strip the 'Religion' away from the history in which these principles have been previously addressed, we find many humans before us who have come to understand (without the evidence of scientific discovery to back it up) what '"GOOD'" is ....

In many parables and principles, we've been told, in relatively simple language (which, we must note, hasn't been readily understood or engendered into everyday life), Do unto others, Love thy neighbour, don't build houses on sand, sow seeds where they can grow ... and in respect to 'Greed' ... (a huge 'psychological driver of reactions) ... we find it doesn't live alone, but comes with other 'Self-defence' based 'passions', also identified as key issues. Pride, Avarice, Wrath, Sloth, Lust, Envy, & Greed .... They were identified as the '7 Deadly sins' and quite rightly. But as i say, we need to strip away the religion, forget about 'Sin' as it is used to 'Blame' and make us 'Bad' (For a religious system based greed driven need to control) and come to understand why individually and socially these issues are at root of many 'human' problems ... and what and how we need to 'be' (behave), as parents and peers to develop future generations who don't suffer, psychologically, socially and materialistically, from prevailing conditions in which these 'Sins' (for want of a better word for now) remain part and parcel of 'life' as we accept it, as 'good'.

I suggest, it's only at this level, that we can consider, at sufficient depth, alternative economic (circular) models and the development of other global 'systems' (that are currently believed to be 'good') which, in their current ignorance, have got 'society' so far, but now detract from the potential of the human race to enjoy a very different existence on this amazing planet.

It ultimately has to come down to the education, of parents, peers and politicians ... at the moment, the demarcated, 'topic' based approach to education perpetuated in our universities and business schools doesn't promote or even allow such inter-connectivity across disciplines to be understood by anyone coming through the system. If you have any aspect of your activities that are campaigning to change the global university approach to education, let me know, I'll so all I can to support you.

[ekanath khatiwada]

Hi Helene,this is really a good stuff!!!! hope un will benifits from this discussion to developing their new development frame work .

[Helene]

Thank you David for this thoughtful comment. I am honored to have inspired this :) -with the help of Jessie. It deserved a thoughtful response, hence a little delay on my end.

I agree the wording may be a bit difficult for mass communication. We have tried to be as clear as possible in a concise way so as to present something flowing and compact focused on building a bigger picture from the ground up. Don't forget this is the response to a question asked in the Systems Thinking World group. I do hope the members of this group have understood it, and saw how most of the streams that have been mentioned along the journey have found their place. The goal was not to reach a conclusion, but provide a continuum of pathways that interwoven together would produce some leveraged effect.

Don't forget as well the title of the piece. Commons sense, related to common sense. There is a lot in there to be developed and elaborated on in simpler terms. Illustration as you mention of how this manifests in 'real life' through sensory and emotional experiences, in particular through stories and examples, and there are many narratives to be derived from there. Several were shared in the discussion. Many people tend to think we are reaching some sort of a tipping point, or at least highlight that there has been tremendous change in conversations over the past two years...

Identifying what is 'good' for the human race -without entering in a 'moral' debate- refers to choices to be made sometimes simply dictated by common sense, knowing what is right, with mechanisms to change course… You are right, religious principles and parables came into existence to inculcate some basics of what was deemed to be 'good' for the system at the time they were laid down into scriptures. Some are more universal/archetypal and common sense than others.

And yes this is something gained through all what you describe, which is actually a chicken and egg question, because how can parenting, pedagogy and politics create the conditions for embodying a sense of ethics (as in ways to solve dilemmas) if they are not themselves conscious of the necessity of doing so. Hence the emerging process is a bootstrapping one…

I am indeed working with people who have different approaches to education, and I will most probably soon be working on projects to diffuse the ideas exposed in the article. I will let you know.

[Helene]

Thanks Ekanath. Don't hesitate to spread it around!

[Swirlingtheuniverse]

Hi Helene

I liked the pattern-language link.

Just surfing it quickly, I found it made my visual cortex pretty pleased, as the key words made me see diversity in the implementation of designs generated from attending to the concepts on pattern-language.

Nodes of diversity will help to re-diversify parts of the planet that are now so devoid of the texture, resiliency, and beauty of places where diversity is actively sought and supported.

[Helene]

Thanks Mary, yes, much of what is described here is going to happen through conversation and sharing experiences and what matters, and pattern language is one way to get people to ask themselves and each other questions that can help them expand the horizon of their sensorial and understanding capabilities... Kind of traveling across cultures and boundaries to explore the unknown... and get another perspective on what you know...

[Poor Richard]

Hi, Helene,

I like your description of commons "as the shared environment and the medium of exchange that all people use and change, inherit and create, and then transmit to future generations." That seems an apt top-level definition at which, from above the atmosphere, the biosphere can be seen as a single commons.

I like the assets-culture-resultant formula. IMO there is not much more to be said at the level of the global biospheric commons. We don't yet know very much about interacting with the workings of the atmosphere or the earths crust from that extra-planetary perspective.

Descending into the atmosphere and flying over the surface at say 10,000 feet we can distinguish land and sea and see some large bioregional commons. Each of these has its own assets-culture-resultant aspects. We can keep heading downward into a recursive (nested) and/or perhaps fractal set of commons (ecosystems) at smaller and smaller scales until we get down to fence-rows and rooftops. Each of these may enclose its own tiny commons.

This recursive metaphor of commons closely parallels the pattern of ecological bioregions and micro-regions for good reason.

Anther set of typical constituents of commons (similar to assets-culture-resultant but perhaps not exactly the same) is people-places-things-relations-rules-results. Or put another way, sets of objects (people-places-things) and associated algorithms which produce results. You might say that almost any arbitrarily chosen set of such objects and algorithms might be called a commons regardless of whether the objects and places were geographically co-located and contiguous or not.

You might also say that any individual object or place might belong to multiple logically or physically overlapping or intersecting commons. I hope this doesn't sound too abstract. It is actually a pretty succinct logical skeliton and once it is embraced one can immediately get to the concrete particulars--particular people, places, and things--the set of ingredients that make up a given commons whether it be a household, a farm, a business, a town, a state or a bioregion.

Then one can define inputs and outputs, feedback loops, processes, and other relations and rules (the algorithms of a particular commons). IMO this is a very tangible approach conducive to empirical metrics and engineering. Of course for this very same reason it may be somewhat antagonistic to or disharmonious with other commons metaphors, idioms, or ontologies such as those which one of your commenters characterized as religious or philosophical in character.

As I've said before, on a very general level ownership can be seen or expressed in terms of governance or control. You say that "Communities develop a sense of ownership of the process," and I would extend that to individuals and groups within each community as well. This is a form of subsidiarity wherein ownership, authority, governance, or management are roughly equivalent things just expressed in different idioms.

All this is fairly compatible with your essay as I read it and in my mind it provides complementary scaffolding for concrete, physical particulars and metrics.

PR

[Helene]

Thanks Richard. I like your insights and how you build upon this synthesis. Especially the recursive-fractal-nested possibilities of the asset-culture-resultant dimensions of the commons. The people-places-things-relations-rules-results perspective you refer to adds the action (who/context/network) dimensions that enable multi-local (in the sense of subsidiarity) stewardship. This is indeed what was implied in my description, but this type of formulation could probably help make it less abstract and more 'applicable'. I will make some changes to the article in these directions. Don't hesitate if you have more insights. The idea is to get to something clear and 'applicable' enough to diffuse on a wider scale.

[Poor Richard]

Thanks, Helene.

A few more words about ownership, which seems to be a central issue in discussions of the commons.

I can imagine a trip to a planet where I have heard that "everything belongs to everyone". As I travel through space I imagine what this planet may be like. Is it an egalitarian paradise? When I arrive I find it is a place of anarchy and chaos where most of the ecosystem has been destroyed in the process of constant disputes and conflicts.

Some version of private property (in effect if not in name) obtains everywhere the world over. "Possession is nine points of the law" is not an arbitrary formula, but the results of thousands of years of common law trial and error aimed at reaching pragmatic rules of thumb. The same common law contains dozens of other rules, doctrines, or principles that place conditions and limitations on private ownership. It is never absolute.

Private property is a form of subsidiarity that says, in effect, that as a general rule, things are best managed by those closest to them. Are there exceptions? As Cenk Uygur says, OF COURSE.

In the past, private owners have generally had the right to destroy their property. Considering the population growth and the carrying capacity of many resources and ecosystems, it may be about time to gradually start retiring that right from the typical bundle of private property rights. In that case, property could remain private as long as the owner kept it in a condition that it can later be passed on to the next person. Obviously such a principle would apply more to some types of things than to others. This is just an example to show how treating private property or public property as monolithic concepts is inapt (or perhaps inept). Neither one is either the root of, nor the solution to, all evil. When the customary understandings of property collide with changing needs and conditions, it is better to operate on them surgically rather than cast them out of the village for being possessed by evil spirits.

Much of the conversation about the commons seems to me to be imbued with this "evil spirits" vs "good spirits" mentality.

PR

"All ownership is conditional"
http://almanac2010.wordpress.com/2011/04/22/all-ownership-is-conditional/

"Disenclosure of the commons"
http://almanac2010.wordpress.com/2010/10/11/disenclosure-of-the-commons/

[Patric Roberts (Mushin)]

As a humble participant in the Flow of Conversations triggered by Bi Ki Moon's humanitarian concerns and passionate desire for revolutionary out of the box solutions to our current creative collapsing opportunities I appreciate the summary of "Common~Sense for Sustainable World." The most impressive outcome for myself has been the free authentic engagement of many brilliant concerned world citizens in the process of appreciative inquire and dialog over the past 20 months. Which leads me to offer this as the emergent outcome as a green fragile shoot in the future.

We human beings are not the problem. The current paradigms in education, religions, politics and commerce are operating in a blind swept along historic drift and the pain point in current human suffering is unsustainable even in the near future. The end of growth without restraint is now upon us and its the consequences of the erroneous assumptions in the blind spot causing the pain point, and opening the splace in our reflective awareness to design a new future together. When perceived in this manner one is freed of living in the constructs of previous institutional systemic systems demanding obedience and negating free will as sovereign world citizens. Simultaneously, one's emotional disposition get's fired up from the belly as a creative expansive intelligence in the design of imagined future beyond problem solving.

Breakdowns become triggers for immediate effective actions within planetary emerge~un~see experiences as world citizenry committed to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as earthlings committed to a household of humanity caring for the children of tomorrow by transforming the denial in the current leadership crisis. We begin to take the bull by horns not in ideological ontological arguments rather the heart to heart manner of trusted interactive manner in human dignity as a specie I call Homo sapiens amans ~ wise-sing up social loving animals, not gods. The ivory positions, titles and declared publications in patriarchal institutions gives way to all people's full employment designing a future together.

Helene is an amazing weaver in networks of conversations and harmonizing the emergent new song arising in the creative commons in the grasses we love on earth while reaching for the stars in systems thinkers dreaming and imagining new possible possibilities. The beauty of a mother's love expressed graciously for the entire family of man. We can not say that our small conclave as explorers is an emergent illusion or reality, its definitely fun to swim together in our imagination. Maybe that is the new island of sanity not just today but forever? Maybe we never meant as Homo sapiens amans to live in certainty and not knowing is the comfort and hospitality being born in this new creative commons. I pray so!

I imagine a bios~homo~sphere like a shooting star arising in this moment where our collective humanness is a new pattern in the flow of interactive relationships operating in a disposition of joyful concern encouraging, adorning and clearing learning for the children of tomorrow as planetary citizens demonstrating dignity throughout the emerging awakening cosmos of the living universe surrounding us. I imagine surprises and beauty beyond our wildest imaginations today and an imperturable knowing love that is enactively embodied in our flesh and humanity.

Thank you for hearing, singing and dancing together. Great party! Let's go to work and do it. In deep appreciation Patric

[john varney]

I like the whole concept here, which seems to me to be a reflection of our true situation whereas much of modern life is a frightening distortion wherein great power begets great power and greed begets greed and growth begets growth (which is actually destruction) to the detriment of all.

I would query your early definition of commons. You say, "It includes the natural environment that is our host on earth, and all what we inherit and create, use and change, and then pass on to future generations." This might be so, but is it not couched in a language that can allow distortion? It already divides mankind from nature. Surely we are one with nature not merely enjoying nature's hospitality? Don't you think this fundamental division is one reason many people think nature is there to be exploited? And nature is life - not a passive environment.

Of course, you know this full well - but why, then, allow yourself to use such careless language? It is likely to be used against you and the commons at some stage.

I have worked with management teams for 30 years and also with community groups. I am very clear that people can identify and then solve their own problems - with some help with process. Top-down solutions do not work but bottom-up needs guidance to soem extent - not in the what but in the how and the why. How would you see the necessary skills being developed and deployed? Who would be able to do this? How can such a process be brought into being?

[Helene]

Thank you Patric! The appreciation is shared. You have been a real inspiration in the Journey!

[Helene]

John, thank you for your feedback. And apologies for 'such careless language'! :) It is obvious that we, humans, the conscious observers, are an integral part of this complex living system called Nature with everything we inherit or create, including what we may 'see' of nature around us. I have invited comments and criticism because many eyes are better than just the eyes of those who produce a text...

This wording is an addition, part of an iteration on an initial wording. It actually needs to be changed. I just changed it to "It includes the natural environment we humans are a part of, and all what we inherit and create, use and change, and then pass on to future generations. Thanks for pointing this out.

As for "How would you see the necessary skills being developed and deployed? Who would be able to do this? How can such a process be brought into being?":

First of all, this approach will probably be included in a People Sustainability Treaty focusing on a systemic approach to the stewardhip of the commons, destined to be 'rolled out' by people who will take execution into their hands, at the 'place' they are at. The goal is once this is out there and widely diffused to identify and try and bring together the people, resources, methodologies that can help the process -this process is actually part of the approach. The ideal being that those who have some answers and can facilitate the process "just do it" and help put the pieces together. That's what the framework and platform would help achieve in an emergent manner, starting with what we may have identified as examples through communities of practice.

If you have ideas to share, you are welcome to share them here, or in the Linked In thread.

[Michelle Holliday]

Helene, I keep wanting to share with you how the commons fits within my take on sustainability, resilience and thrivability. It's related to John's comment above. The way I understand it, life is integral. Parts in any living system are distinct, but they're not truly separate. They exist within an integral, unbroken whole. That goes well beyond interconnectedness, in which I may be connected to another person or to a forest...but I may also elect to disconnect. Integrality implies that we are fundamentally one, even though we are unique expressions of that wholeness. Within this view, the commons makes deep sense. Without recognizing the integrality of life, the commons is still one step removed from me (interconnected, not integral) and I feel a conflict between care of self and care of the commons. This seems a critical point.

I also like John's point about creating experiences to help people grasp integrality. And still, we need words first (even if they're not understood by the masses) so that we can understand clearly enough to create those immersive experiences.

[Helene]

Thanks Michelle.

It's an interesting discussion that I am having with others as well. Because in this endeavor that we have, to generate a 'pull' towards sustainability, resilience & thrivability, you need to reconcile the parts and the whole and indeed express wholeness and the integrality of life.

Several things come to mind here. First, I am not sure the notions of sustainability, resilience and thrivability alone contain an idea of wholeness and integrality and have enough 'attraction' to form the consciousness of that whole… Then, I think wholeness and integrality must be expressed in ways other than words, or at least other than words of wholeness and integrality -hence I like the idea of immersive experiences to help grasp integrality and make sense of it, rather that creating a representation of it-. It's about 'forming' integrality by pointing vectors towards a whole, rather than speaking 'of' integral…

Words or descriptions put people in corners or in tribes. The integral discourse is not different. It is most probably the most evolved one, but to be really integral and whole you must speak to all, and help each part see itself as a critical piece, part of the whole…

The interesting thing about the commons is that it is whole and parts at the same time, so as a part, even if not recognizing the whole from the position it holds, it is still only one step removed from the commons as a whole, and as a commons, it can work itself toward the commons as a whole…

So now how do we create these immersive experiences, and how do we point all the vectors of change -the various pieces of the change…- towards the commons as a whole… We need to get to the integrality of life 'bottom up' and not top down :)