Subject: Re: Organis design submission

From: Gerry Gleason <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 16:18:49 -0600

Carl Vilbrandt wrote:

>
>Gerry Gleason wrote:
>
>>Carl Vilbrandt wrote:
>>
>
>I coined the name "organis" for  the mirror I made of George's paper from
>first monday and then proposed to George that we write a book called "organis"
>about this later on at the DALI 20002 conference after I had personaly talked
>to him.  I was completely inspired by George's paper and  the literary trick
>of  changing  the spelling  Organizations to  Organisations which is a main
>subject of the paper..... So I shortened it to "Organis" ..... so the way I
>think of it is George and me coined the word to talk about the idea of
>creating a design for digital busness structures based on GGPL.  :-))
>
Just a small aside to this, the spelling variation is US vs. Brittish 
spelling, which is the case with a number of 's' vs 'z' spellings.  I 
gather the connection of the cognitive connection with organism and such 
is what inspired you.  You may have noticed me unintentionally slipping 
back and forth between Brittish and American spellings, probably an odd 
sort of dislexia on my part.  In any case, I like the result ... a 
series of happy accidents.

>>>The Orgains design
>>>...
I'm going to respond to some of the discussion in this message, then go 
back and attempt another more or less full draft from the original and 
comments and send that in a later email.

>
>I like all of the  rewrite above with two mabe three exceptions and the
>inclusion of two more basic ideas:
>
I'm glad you are basically happing with the direction I took.  I'll try 
to put this and take into account your comments in the draft.

>
>1.  maybe the negative "rather than to just provide profits to owners and
>investors."  mabe we don't want to bring in the comparsion to owners and
>investors, but stated by implication with a more postive approach
>
>"providing for self ownership and  investment and investment in others and in
>a future for all."
>or
> "providing the nessessary  investment in human growth and technical
>develompment to be shared by all."
>
Hmmm, I'll have to look at this more closely.  With the phrasing "rather 
than just ..." I was tring to get the idea of adding these new concerns, 
not replacing the monitary ones.

>
>2.   To me Cellular Automata as related to  Wolf Ram's work  "a new kind of
>sicence" is very timely,  ( Its the largest book I have ever purchased )...
>and critical under pinings to the concept.
>
Got it!  I've looked over the Wolfram website and material about the 
book, etc.  After reading the James Gliek book (Chaos), I went sort-of 
nuts exploring whatever I could find in this area and in a number of 
related directions.  I'm sure I must have come across some of his early 
material as explained in other books, but his book was so long in the 
making ...  The material that I could get too wasn't that impressive, 
and there was a self-promotional tone that sort of turned me off, but 
that is in part because of my background in these ideas.  I was looking 
for something that susinctly summarized the deepest insights, and all I 
found was basic chaos/complexity theory background (which certainly 
isn't unique to Wolfram).

I'll take your word that the book is worthwhile and represents something 
very new and innovative, and I'm having Debbie stop by the bookstore and 
get it.  I semi-consciously dropped this out of the intro text because 
I'm not sure how to tie it in, and I think the theory and its 
application to Organis needs more background to effectively introduce.

>
>Wolf Ram does a good job of proving that only simple rules create complex
>behaviours that can not be prodicted and only can be understood by
>simulation.   He proves that for the most part sicence as avoided dealing with
>systems that produce complex behaviours, because they do not produce ( with
>out computers ) any type of predictions ( one of the basic rules of sicence )
>
And he gets to making predictions with the new theory, or not?  Seems to 
me that there are a lot of results here that amount to "solving the 
halting problem", which is to say maybe you can classify systems into 
predictable and non-predictable, and characterise some of the 
regualities of the non-predictable ...  It ends up being more like 
exploring space than traditional science.

>
>Hence sicence has been blind to the idea of Gaia because at its base is a
>simple set of rules and independent agents that produced Gaia.... Gaia is a
>basicly a very large Cellular Automata computation  that is evloving .   Gaia
>can not be predicted, but it can be simulated.   Wolf Ram as linked for ever
>complexe biological growth patterns and evolution to under lying sets of rules
>that are responsible for evloution the organs of Gaia's emerging
>personification the VNO ... The Gaia human face of  "a new type of animism /
>sicence"  a basic understanding of non lineal simi-determistic fuctions of
>the animistic sicence brought about by the computational evolution and bio
>evloution as identical.
>
IMHO, the concept of Gaia actually goes beyond what we are likely to 
(fully) explain in scientific terms.  More of a mystery in the spiritual 
sense, but I think complexity theory can help our minds get a grip on 
it.  This is a very fascinating cluster of ideas.

>
>"VNOs which are the organs of Gaia's emerging personification"  is a great
>line and it is  the organic  humanistic spirit side of it.  The new kind of
>sicence base on Cellular Automata is the non-determistic digitalistic
>trans-human simulation side of it.
>
I agree, but this is also where things start getting pretty "thick". 
 I'd prefer to push these ideas down into the details where some 
background can be provided, but you are probably right in trying to 
introduce it early.  Also, some of my reluctance to include this 
up-front is a suspicion that the "cellular automata" analysis is every 
bit as disconnected from reality as the paradigm it seeks to replace. 
 I'll probably feel better about this after I get a good look at 
Wolfram's ideas.

>That I think is critical to the proof of
>and creation of Organis concept leading eventually to the virtural and the
>phisycial simulation of the "Organis" design.
>
Yes, but I think it is probably too early to conclude that the 
theoretical underpinning of Organis can be fully worked out this way. 
 There is a lot of interesting theory to build, and I think there is 
great promise here for analysing the progress and application of Organis 
design, but the concepts have merit that goes beyond whether or not the 
theories work out as we expect.  1) there are other solid foundations to 
build on, and 2) pragmatism wins out in the end in terms of the real 
leaders who join with us to move all of this forward.  In other words, 
we will adapt to be successful reguardless of how the analysis comes out 
in the end.

>
>3. Is that the GGPL and the three provisions that are the common life thread
>for all cells and which adhearance to is by legal agreement is manditory needs
>to be stated better.
>
The GGPL connection was introduced in a later paragraph and I wasn't 
suggesting we de-emphasize this.  The three pillars of the GGPL are 
still there in the last line.

>
>4. and I may have left that out... Growth is by tranformation and replecation
>not by growing larger.  a  Concept proven by Land about 20 to 30 years ago.
>
>5. There are basicly two types of investment one is in physical goods the
>other is in human education as the general level of knolwage of materials and
>processess increases so does the general level of finical stability and
>growth.
>I can't remember the name right now maybe Snow he got a Nobel award in econimy
>on this concept.
>
Can't find any references to Snow right off.  Paul Romer has some good 
stuff relating to achieving continuous growth in income through 
technological progress rather than constantly expanding physical output 
(which obviously can't be sustainable).  This paper 
http://www.stanford.edu/~promer/Mkt-forSE.pdf is one good reference for 
pushing the idea of growing the amount of education as a way to keep 
growing without expanding physical output.

>>>The Virtual Networked Organisations (VNO's) are orgamistic trans-human
>>>digitally networked cellular business structures who's sustainable is
>>>based on the creation of charters for novel non profit Micro
>>>Cooperatives (MicroCo-Ops) business entities geographically grouped in
>>>computational farm grids.   Virtual Network(ed) Organisation (VNO)
>>>allows any number of geographically dispersed MicroCo-Ops of knowledge
>>>workers to virtually collaborate on a project under no central planning
>>>and were for many various central areas of focus, the roles of
>>>co-ordination and management arise from any of the project knowledge
>>>workers based on level of knowledge and  interest.  The definition and
>>>recognition of the operations of  VNOs structures are base on the case
>>>studies of the Linux Project done by George Dafermos.
>>>
>>I like this pretty much as is with e a little cleanup.  The only thing I
>>don't like is the negative idea of "no central planning", but how to
>>restate this positively?  What we really have is "distributed planning
>>based on transparent sharing of goals, ideas, code, etc."
>>
>
>Humm the "central planning" means the less dyanmic and effecent and the more
>complex the rules and the more predicitable.   Gaia has no central planning!
>Wolf Ram proves that the more complex the rules the less dyanmic and less
>complex the results so that its becomes more predictiable......   I might add
>the more corrupt the system becomes over time.
>
I think we agree here, but I'm just trying to find a positive way to 
state it without distortion.  Maybe I can state it in terms of "emerging 
order", but I think it is important not to gloss over the difference 
between the emerging order of chaotic (cellular automata) systems, and 
also harnessing the power of the human capacity for linguistic 
communication.

Most physical and biological systems just don't have this level of 
organization, which makes possible phenomena way beyond what is possible 
with these more basic systems no matter the complexity of the emerging 
behaviors.  No doubt, Wolfram's ideas can say something about the 
emergence and structure of language, but the existence of this level 
brings out a new set of phenomena that cannot be analysed purely in 
terms of the physical systems.

>
>
>>There are some organizational functions that could/should be more
>>centrally controlled.  I'm not sure about exactly where this fits, but I
>>am primarily thinking about financial controls and governance issues.
>>
>
>OOPs may be number 5 .... Global Openness and total tranparance of
>transactions was left out from above.
>that answers the corruption issues.......  centeral governance allways means
>loss of local controls and corruption.
>
Agree.  I was thinking more in terms of guidance and than controls.

The systems of governance can be thought of as part of the genetic 
systems that need to be developed before Organis can fully emerge.  It 
should be clear from how I continued that these structures would 
organically develop from the bottom up with local control.  The benefit 
of having VNOs dedicated to governance and administrative systems is 
that each MicroCo-Op would not need to re-invent the wheel here, but 
just download the templates and systems from the VNO, and even enlist 
the help of MicroCo-Ops that are more specialized in the processes of 
the start-up phases.

>> Without this, corruption can destroy the entire enterprise.
>> Ultimately, a VNO would be controlled by democratic input from its
>>communities, and the Micro Co-ops would be similarly controlled (by a
>>smaller constituency). Common standards and operating principles would
>>be developed and shared between VNOs, and it might be useful to
>>establish one of more VNOs whose mission is to develope and maintain
>>these standards and principles, and provide services to raise and
>>maintain a high standard for organizational governance for all the VNOs.
>> Of course, this wouldn't be dictated from headquarters, but rather
>>emerges from the self-organizing principles and a large network of VNOs
>>all trying to solve these problems in parallel and sharing results and
>>tools.
>>
>>>CompuFarms (CF) the physical equavelence of the VNO type structure is
>>>being envisioned and developed in Japan by Carl Sunburg.  CF  is the
>>>large geo political grouping of  MicroCo-Ops that  form a peer to peer
>>>computational farming grid nodes  for various types of active data
>>>repositories, disaster recovery resources, and for government, finical
>>>and scientific simulations.  The data storage and computational
>>>resources provide one source of income for the MicroCo-Ops.  MicroCo-Ops
>>>would also provide digital services for local government and educational
>>>services.
>>>
>>This is very cool.  Is there more from Carl S. about this plan?
>>
>
>I hope some of carl's advance busness plans could come out under the Organis
>design
>He has three levels in his designs  "gift or volantary comunities--
>educational -- goverment"  "free source non-profit" and "profit".   His
>designs are based on the use of large digital farming grids.  The investment
>is mostly in education and the growth is through transformaion of the level of
>human skills and replecation of nodes of the grids.
>
I'm itching to see more on this, maybe we can encourage him to circulate 
what he has now a bit more widely?  I'd be more than happy to give 
feedback, etc.

>
>
>>I've also been working on ideas to build an Open Source based consulting
>>business using geraldgleason.com (GG.com). ...
>>
>
>agreed
>
>>...
>>
>
>Yep!
> ...
>Yep!
>
>>...
>>
>
>Carl and cArl have been working on many of the above things you have mention.
>Carl again as three interlocked tiers to deal with the above issues..
>
It is gratifying that my direction is in sync with what you guys are up 
to even if we haven't been talking a lot about it. The more you can give 
me about these plans, the more I can keep my business planning and 
marketing strategy in sync as I go forward.  I can imagine how these 
tiers would work to deal with this, but a little more detail would go a 
long way here.

>
>My only concern is the issues of forming a for proift compay, that has a
>charter that  binds the company to have more than for profit movations to a
>legal agreement, that if broken will cause the disolution of the company.
>
Yes, I can see this too.  On the other hand, maybe the idea is that the 
VNO level organizations should always be non-profit (whether strictly 
charitable or just an association), but that the MicroCo-Ops could go 
either way under local decisions and control.  Since we will always be 
talking about 1-26 person companies, there is little need to consider 
publicly owned corporate structures.  With privately held and controlled 
companies, I think you would be able to avoid charters that are binding 
in this way.  Further, wouldn't it be the agreements that bind the 
MicroCo-Ops with the VNOs that create and maintain the "cellular 
automata rules"?  Any given MicroCo-Op would be able to drop out and 
start to grow "non-Organistically" because they still retain local 
control (while honoring limits of the existing agreements about how and 
when this is allowed).

>
>Again growth can not be by expanding and growing in size, but only by
>replecation.  I will send you some links to Lands books...... Current finical
>systems can only surive if they continue to grow by expanding and investing in
>products and this is the underlying reasons for the enviromental problems.
>Everone in busness knows that you must grow or die....   Sun is dead by the
>way...:-)  micro i mean.
>
But, the VNOs can still "grow", right?  In terms of membership and scale 
of operations, but since they are virtual and non-profit, the rules for 
current financial systems don't really apply.  The MicroCo-Ops remain 
small and agile, and even "cell death" doesn't have to be a big deal. 
 When a MicroCo-Op dissolves, all the assets can be redeployed to 
existing and new cells.

Sun is an interesting case.  The community is not happy with their 
response to the SCO lawsuits either (we have clear IP title to Solaris, 
and we are re-evaluating our stance on Linux), while they are very 
supportive of IBM (go IBM, crush SCO with your legal power and patents). 
 The interesting thing is that it is Dell who is really eating their 
(Sun's) lunch, but if Dell doesn't start getting a clue and actually 
openly supporting OS development and community, I expect them to fade as 
well.  I'm not sure what to think about IBM and their direction.  They 
are certainly doing a lot to legitamize OS in general with the business 
community, but they are hardly (or can I imaging them ever being) a 
virtual company.

>
>>>...
>>>
>>I'm getting confused with this.  Would CF be basically a network of
>>MicroCo-Ops which actually own and operate the physical farms?
>>
>
>Yep!  like a farm co-op that distributes the digital services.
>
But with farm co-ops, they are the equivalent of the VNOs, and the 
MicroCo-Ops are the equivalent of family farms, right?

>>I'm trying to think about how this would evolve from the current situation
>>where the bigger projects are basically non-profit VNOs, managing all
>>their own resources, and large numbers of small projects are hosted by
>>the likes of SourceForge or FreshMeat, etc.  It seems like CompuFarms
>>would compete with these, or would it try to join the smaller
>>competitors of these into a cooperative network?
>>
>
>Welll the name FreshMeat is virtural free and open market place :-)   Where
>the VNO distribute their digital services.
>However this is all done with no fees charged... or ....
>
>CF is a physical form of FreashMeat that VNO roof by which the knolwage worker
>can recive reimbursment for his services.
>
You mean that CF would attract talent into its network of MicroCo-Ops 
because of the way they are structured to capture revenues, and CF would 
grow by building its network of MicroCo-Ops?

I guess what concerns me here is that the existing hosting organizations 
(my examples, and more) are going to be competing with the CF VNO for 
mindshare, marketshare, and we are going to need really compelling 
arguments and motivations to get projects to move over.  The bigger 
projects (e.g. Apache, Perl, Linux kernel, ...) have and maintain their 
own resources in some cases, but probably more often they are hosted by 
a sponsor.  There is a disconnect here because the OS projects are 
naturals to become VNOs, but they owe something (possibly contractually) 
to their sponsors, and what we are proposing here is to sponsor more 
from the bottom up (i.e. the revenue streams of the MicroCo-Ops support 
the VNOs).  Maybe there isn't a real problem, but their could be.

>>Thinking about this from the standpoint of my "GG.com" planning, I could
>>operate a facility in my locality, ...
>>
>
>Roughly that's the idea....
>
Great!  Of course, I'm very interested in more details here, but you 
already know that :-)

>>>MicroCo-Ops growth will be based on transformation of services from
>>>analog to digital
>>>
>>At best this analog to digital concept is unclear, and at worst it is
>>wrong and/or misleading.  To a large extent, the analog to digital
>>transition is complete, at least in communications and information
>>storage and management.
>>
>
>Hummm yeas, but the humand element has not made the change there are very few
>digital people around.   Above I mention transformation as education ..... the
>reason I left it so vague is that each knolwage worked and the local
>envriomental condtions are a source of attachment to the real world and the
>analog to digital conversion takes place at this phsyical level.  So each
>digitl person is a probe that has valuable information that is traded for
>services.
>
Ok, I can get my mind around that, although I find it a little difficult 
to think of people as analog or digital :-)  From the standpoint that 
only a small percentage of the world's people are even connected to the 
Internet, it really makes sense.  Even in my region where people are 
very connected, there is a distinct digital divide, and I'm sure that is 
part of what you are getting at here.

In my environment, I can only reach past the digital divide to the 
extent that I get sponsorship from government and educational programs 
to pay the bills (because I don't think these services are very 
marketable to the digital have-nots except through programs), and the 
market that is ready for this (small businesses to a large extent) have 
often invested already in dead-end technology.  I guess you can't expect 
it to be easy, at least not at first.

>>I claim the transition we are approaching, and
>>this proposal seeks to address is fundamentally about the way the
>>Internet enables and facilitates group formation (ala the Group Forming
>>Networks (GFN) ideas I sent around a while back).  The technology is in
>>place for the most part now, but the social and organizational
>>innovations are just starting to emerge.
>>
>
>The growth for a long time will come from the actual transfromation of the
>analog services and structures to digital.
>
>>>2. The limiting size factor for personal is 1 to 26
>>>
>>Is there some research to base this size factor on?  My experience with
>>small organizations suggests that there is often a serious breakdown in
>>communications that becomes critical somewhere between 50 and 100
>>employees, so I agree completely with the idea, but I'm not sure
>>where/how to draw this line.
>>
>
>I have done much reading and research in may different areas.  Roughly there
>are two break points in the doman and range of human I/O that I base this
>on.....  7 to 8 is flash memory as it were.... I will send you the links is
>strongly connected to the number of commands and the ability to creative
>think....... I limit the number of commands for an processes to 8 to 10 ......
>second is longer term buffers as it were..... rembering the order of a actural
>string of events.... is limited to 26.......... The number of personal
>relationship at work / number of names that can easly be remembered and
>tracked is 25 to 26..   The limit for a class of students were a teacher can
>keep personal track is 25.   and so on....
>
>26 is on the high side.   Only 15 core members of a VNO cell as it were do
>most of the programing and 10 to 11 give support to a cell and thats from what
>I have read is a large cell.
>
Makes sense, I was just looking a a bit more background.  So it is based 
on cognitive limits, and might be subject to tuning (up or down, but 
mostly down) and experimentation.  It probably makes sense that a cell 
would be ready to divide about that time it gets near the limit.

>>>5.  They subdivide in to separate organization
>>>
>>I would base this on divergence of missions as much or more than pure
>>size considerations.  The way I see it, the VNOs are more the visible,
>>marketable face of this, and the MicroCo-ops are where the work actually
>>gets done, and customer/clients interact with workers.  Wouldn't this
>>work sort of like a franchise?
>>
>
>growth must be by reproduction and so size relivitive to local and fuction is
>the most revelent.  The creation of a competor cell must be based on size and
>locality.  competor cells are nessessary to have self governence.
>
Or at least the potential of a competitor.  Some markets may be too 
small to support more than one cell, but the traditional view in 
economic theory is that as long as you keep the barriers to entry low, 
even a single companies prices are constrained by the posibility of 
competition.  Based on the rest of the discussion, I withdraw my 
assertion about it not being size based, although mission divergence 
would be part of it.  In the end, you need there to be no advantage to 
growing larger so that when things get to a natural breaking point there 
isn't any resistence to splitting, and there would be little need to 
enforce rules relative to this.

>
>>>7. As a non profit they must achieve their goals by not growing larger
>>>in size, but by their reproduction. However at the same time they are in
>>>competition with each other to provide services under GGPL at
>>>continually
>>>
>>I don't really see this as based on being non-profit.  Non-profits can
>>grow by building up membership as well, and at the VNO level, I expect
>>some of the organizations will be quite large indeed, based on how
>>universal the need they address is.  Splits are mandated by
>>inefficiencies of scale.
>>
>
>No I don't think so its late and I need to go.... Lets talk more about this.
>
>This has been great.... talking to my self is just not as productive.  I will
>work over the rest of this tommorow
>
Ok, it's been fun so far :-)

Gerry

>
>>Most of the efficiencies of scale that are the
>>basis of increasing size of commercial entities are based on limiting
>>the free exchange of ideas, which ends up being a net cost to the
>>society as a whole.  Name recognition via mass marketing is another big
>>one, but that will be a function of the VNOs, and not the MicroCo-Ops,
>>right?
>>
>>Competition can be good in some contexts, but if you look at the farm
>>analogy, there are problems.  I don't doubt that market competition has
>>made food productions very efficient, but often at the expense of the
>>very things we are interested in protecting.  Of course, competition
>>under the GGPL would factor in some of the externalities, but there are
>>still problems.  In the growth phase, things are ok because price
>>signals are both promoting more production and prividing a good margin
>>for existing producers, but eventually the demand is met and prices
>>start to fall.  In the steady state, demand doesn't change that much
>>either way, but prices are based on current supply, so if there is a
>>good year there is over supply and if there is a bad year, at least some
>>farmers are hurting from low yields.  Your body does not place your
>>cells in competition with one another (in general), but there are a lot
>>of regulatory processes that keep things in balance.  Regulatory
>>processes use signals that are processed by an information system and
>>fed back as control signals to slow down or speed up other body systems.
>> The point of all this is that you have to be careful about when to use
>>pure market competition, and when you need to tweak the market signals
>>or introduce another system of signals altogether.
>>
>>>The proposed rules  attempt to develop computer orgnisational growth
>>>models, that exhibit both continuous sustainable growth through
>>>transformation and replication and complex unpredictable random
>>>behaviors necessary to realize the hyper functional organizational
>>>qualities including decentralize control, self organising, dynamic
>>>response, and efficiency as witnessed in the Linux project and appears
>>>to be occurring with other Libre Source projects.
>>>
>>When you talk about "continuous sustainable growth", I think you must
>>look at the stuff from Paul Romer. The core of his proposals is that
>>continuous growth in wages and GNP is only possible by being smarter and
>>sharing more knowledge or information, and this is good because it is
>>consistent with the Organis conception.  In one paper he talks about why
>>stimulating the demand side of technology is often conterproductive
>>because adding funding for R&D (demand side) might be good for the
>>salaries of scientists and engineers, but this price signal doesn't
>>translate well to an increase in the supply of skilled workers.
>>
>>For effective promotion of Open/Free Source development and deployment,
>>there is both the supply of skilled workers as well as the supply of
>>paying jobs.  The issue here is that many people want to do this sort of
>>development, but also need a paycheck to support themselves and their
>>families, so the question is more one of establishing revenue streams
>>that grow in response to usage of OS software, and feeding some of this
>>back to the development side.  Clearly some organizations like RedHat
>>and IBM are extracting revenues from the sales and services end, and
>>they are feeding back some of it to development, but the scale of this
>>is still very small compared to the demand.  Others like Dell and Sun
>>seem to just be taking away and not giving anything back of note.
>>
>>So, let's go back to my GG.com concept as an example.  If something like
>>it already existed, I wouldn't bother (I'd just apply there for a job),
>>and if generating good leads (i.e. ones leading to sales) was as easy as
>>contacting all the Linux distribution vendors, the concept would be a
>>slam dunk.  So, instead, the only viable path is the painful process of
>>generating leads myself and following up, etc., etc. etc.  So, one way
>>to go is to build something like CompuFarms as a VNO, and provide all
>>sorts of community services under a "Virtual Roof" and market the whole
>>thing as a much larger concept, then GG.com is just a MicroCo-Op member
>>of the CompuFarms VNO.  Actually, this could be a viable model, but only
>>if together CF and GG.com generate enough business (in GG.com's geo
>>region) to keep GG.com viable, and the collective revenues from all the
>>MicroCo-Ops under CF generate enough excess revenue to support CF's
>>operations as well as feeding some of this back to development.
>> Microsoft has extracted billions of dollars from its customers over the
>>years, so it shouldn't be that hard to provide free software for the
>>masses with top notch support for a fair price for far less than the
>>going rate.
>>
>>>"the state of nature" The Garden of Eden "that  a set of simple "natural
>>>rules" genitic  code (like programing ) that repsent combintory
>>>solutions worked out over centures stemming from the laws of physics of
>>>matter that express themselves in  complex biological systems with no
>>>centeral control system.  The "natural rules" and resulting self
>>>governing and self replcation of biological structures of gentic code
>>>really have no most no parallel to any other human social strutcture
>>>other than the Linux project.
>>>
>>>The type of  noncentralized control evolution and development of
>>>biological growth base on gentic blueprints and physical law as  that
>>>respectively can not be broken or can not be easly changed because of
>>>the many levels of interactive complex behaviour does not seem to have
>>>any thing in common with anarchy nor libertarianism.  The "natural
>>>rules" are simple, but exibit high level both localy and global of very
>>>controled highly organised codes boundaries and interactions,  that
>>>repesent sets of various solutions for a given set of physical
>>>boundaries and indeed rules that cannot be broken and leave very little
>>>choice for a given life form.
>>>
>>These two paragraphs need a bit of work.  I'll wait for another draft
>>before taking a stab at it.  Maybe a few more ideas from my little
>>anarchy screed (at http://www.geraldgleason.com/projects/anarchy.html)
>>would connect the ideas better.  Another helpful concept that this
>>suggests to me is the idea of "autopoesis" from Maturana and Varella,
>>_The_Tree_of_Knowledge_.  At first glance, it seems you are saying that
>>organisms "cannot be easily changed", but I think you are trying to make
>>a different point in reality.  I would say that these systems are both
>>relilient and adaptable, so that they tend to resist change in most
>>situations and actively try to restore the original state, but finding
>>themselves in a very different state, the "law" is change or die, so
>>change they do.
>>
>>>
>>>We envision the Organis to be a business model by which payment for
>>>development and services can be introduce to the Liber / free source
>>>Projects with out disturbing the above mentioned organisational
>>>qualities.  It is our hope, that a digital based type of "hyper
>>>fictional micro kernel structured" :-) earth operating system can be
>>>created that will have the capabilities to compete with and dissolve the
>>>large inefficient global corporate structures.  NanoCorp or MicroCo-Ops
>>>entities who rather that merely express  a "code of ethics
>>>duty/obligation" for the greater good of the public, actually provide
>>>legal binding agreements as a non-proift entity to provide a real
>>>services locally promoting digital freedom, human rights and a
>>>sustainable future for all.
>>>
>>I think it is important to remember that there are organic aspects to
>>how these "large inefficient global corporate structures" came to be
>>what they are and they will both resist and adapt to the changing
>>landscape, and do so in ways that are as surprising and hard to predict
>>as anything that will emerge from the structures proposed here.
>> Ultimately we need to use both the power of "organis growth" in
>>addition to the power of the markets and other existing systems to put
>>things on the right track.
>>
>>Anyway, hope this helps, and I look forward to the next revision of this.
>>
>>Gerry
>>
>
>
>