Re: Profit and Value, was: Re(2): [ox-en] extrinsic motivation = coercion

[Converted from multipart/alternative]

[1 text/plain]
Hi Marc,

the key is to see humans as complex beings, not as inherently good or bad,
but we can design social systems that nudge the good behaviours not the bad
ones

peer production, and the commons work, when individual and collective
interests can be aligned

this is the domain of http://p2pfoundation.net/Value_Sensitive_Design

An interesting contribution on that topic, from
http://p2pfoundation.net/Primary_vs_Secondary_Individual-Group_Mentality:

A distinction made by Heb Shepard, summarized by Rosa Zubizarreta:


*from the perspective of "primary mentality", 'individual' and 'group' are
experienced as opposite...* in order to have a strong group, it appears that
we need to 'give up' some of our individuality; conversely, to be
'individuals', it appears we need to 'distance' ourselves from the group...

*in contrast, from the perspective of "secondary mentality" 'individual' and
'group' are experienced in a synergistic way*: the MORE room there is for
people to be individual and unique and eccentric, the stronger a group we
will have; conversely, the more real support i can feel from the group, the
more individual and unique and eccentric i can be...



 Rosa Zubizarreta:


"[what's crucial is] whether we are experiencing the 'two sides' [of
individual and collective] as a 'zero-sum game', where the MORE room there
is of one, the LESS room there can be for the other...

OR instead, as a potential synergy, a 'creative tension' where the
well-being of each, enhances the well-being of the other....

Herb Shepard, one of the pioneers of organization development, wrote years
ago about the distinction between what he called "primary mentality" and
"secondary mentality"....

from the perspective of "primary mentality", 'individual' and 'group' are
experienced as opposite... in order to have a strong group, it appears that
we need to 'give up' some of our individuality; conversely, to be
'individuals', it appears we need to 'distance' ourselves from the group...

in contrast, from the perspective of "secondary mentality" 'individual' and
'group' are experienced in a synergistic way: the MORE room there is for
people to be individual and unique and eccentric, the stronger a group we
will have; conversely, the more real support i can feel from the group, the
more individual and unique and eccentric i can be...

i think that what Shepard was referring to as a 'mentality' (whether primary
or secondary) resides not just within each of us, as individuals, but also,
within a group, or culture, or social arrangement...

not just in 'individual consciousness' OR in 'group structures', but in
BOTH...

so we as individuals, we can always discover or create ways to 'resist'
structures that are organized along the lines of 'primary mentality', and,
find ways to create forms of social interaction, that support 'secondary
mentality"....

AND, at the same time, the social forms of organization, _do_ affect us...
making one or another form of mentality, more likely... Our ways of talking
and thinking and organizing ourselves, tend to be rooted in one or the other
mentality.....

i think it's also important to recognize, that these forms or structures,
that embody and support these different kinds of consciousness can be
'habitual' and 'informal', rather than 'explicit/formal'... so even when a
community has rejected the conventional forms of organization which could be
seen as embodying primary mentality (voting, majority rules, bureaucratic
structures, etc...)

it's still the case, that the community will tend to have a particular
'culture', or 'way of doing things'... and that culture will not necessarily
be 'secondary' since as individuals, we still tend to carry the "primary
mentality" within us, even in the absence of conventional forms of
organization...

so the desire to 'belong', to 'get along', to 'not be excluded from the
group', along with the internalized belief, that to do so, we need to 'not
make waves', can tend to silence a lot of potential divergence and encourage
conformity to the prevailing cultural norms... (the 'groupthink'
phenomenon....

i think this may connect in some way, with what Danah Boyd was pointing to,
about her concern with the wikipedia community's adulation of the
media...<http://p2pfoundation.net/Primary_vs_Secondary_Individual-Group_Mentality?title=I_think_this_may_connect_in_some_way,_with_what_Danah_Boyd_was_pointing_to,_about_her_concern_with_the_wikipedia_community%27s_adulation_of_the_media...&action=edit&redlink=1>

so, to whatever degree a community does _not_ have effective ways of
creating containers for divergent perspectives and ways of being, effective
ways in which difference and conflict can transform into greater creativity,


people will _still_, tend to experience an 'either-or', between 'being
themselves', and 'being a part of the community'... even in the absence of
the formal structures that embody primary mentality...

this is _not_ something we can "think ourselves out of", in my view,
although, theory can be helpful...

we need to create, the EXPERIENCE, of "safe places for the fullness of our
individuality to manifest itself, IN THE CONTEXT OF, shared space..."

[[this is the purpose of a kind of facilitation which focuses on DIVERGENCE,
not convergence, in a way that allows authentic (emergent) convergence to
take place freely, of its own accord...

my experience of much of conventional facilitation, is that it is on the
"reductionist collectivism" end of the spectrum...:-) ]]

without alternative structures that welcome individual creativity and
divergence within a shared space, all we know is what we DON'T want, and so
we tend to throw out the formal structures that embody primary mentality
(voting, majority rules, bureaucratic structures, etc.) without having
anything to put in their place...

as the critics of consensus and deliberation have pointed out, these
"primary mentality" structures often do give SOME protection to the minority
perspective. However i am NOT arguing here, in 'favor' of them... i am
simply pointing out that, _without_ those formal structure ,AND, _without
anything else_, to take their place, we can become even MORE vulnerable to
the pull of cultural conformity that operates, generally implicitly, often
throughinformal networks, status and influence, 'the way things are done
around here', etc. etc. etc."


On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 12:45 PM, marc fawzi <[email protected]> wrote:

> But still, despite Michel's much appreciated view on the human psyche
> (the layers and all that), the theories that we construct need to work
> with the fact that people are inclined to do very irrational things. I
> feel that idealistic, good meaning theories, including socialism, and
> the commons, don't achieve that.
>
> So we need to work with that irrationality, which sometimes leads to
> things like profit, scarcity enforcing currency, etc, but a good
> model/theory should not amplify our flawed tendencies, just recognize
> them and work with them. That's the point I wanted to make, not the
> human psyche itself, however it may be constructed, and no one really
> knows, even though some views are more enlightened than others.
>
> On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 7:56 PM, marc fawzi <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Well, Michel actually corrected my thinking with what I feel is an
> > enlightening response, so re-posting here:
> >
> >
> > from    Michel Bauwens <[email protected]>
> > to      marc fawzi <[email protected]>
> >
> > Hi Marc,
> >
> > This is a very complex subject, but I think your dichotomy is too
> > simplistic, i.e. irrational natural behaviour vs. rational human
> > civilizational behaviour ...
> >
> > Indeed much that is 'evil' in us, does not come from the animal part,
> > but from the human, and how it activily represses some 'naturality'
> > (of course talking like this is in itself misleading, since the human
> > is of course also natural).
> >
> > So the best ways of seeing it is are for me still the integrative
> > approaches, seeing how different levels of psychic complexitity
> > develop on top of the other, each with a potential to repress in
> > pathological ways, remnants of the earlier layers.
> >
> > This is why any human that wishes to grow, must at some point
> > undertake a regression in the service of the ego in order to become
> > more fully aware of these archaic sediments, and how they influence
> > us.
> >
> > I think  your 'rational' model also fails to see the transrational
> > requirements, which are better developed in the East, i.e. not just to
> > master the irrational with the so-called rational mind (the western
> > enligthenment), but also also to master the so-called rational mind,
> > from a trans-rational, trans-mental (i.e. it looks at the mind itself,
> > from the wordless  'witness' position) (i.e. the eastern
> > enligthenment)
> >
> > I'm not in favour of radical eastern enlightenment per se (in fact,
> > I'm opposed to it), but rather for a balanced 'householder'
> > spirituality that is embodied in real life and social engagement, and
> > recognizes both archaic, rational, and transrational aspects of our
> > selves.
> >
> > Michel
> >
> >
> > On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 3:10 PM, marc fawzi <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Personally, I think it's a subjective issue.
> >>
> >> Let me explain my view.
> >>
> >> I happen to believe that there are two parts to our psyche: the
> >> rational part and the ancient animal or irrational part (greed,
> >> irrational pleasures, temptation, and most importantly 'fear', all
> >> reside there, i.e. our weaknesses)
> >>
> >> Obviously, the purpose of civilization is to tame or minimize or even
> >> eliminate irrational behavior but the irrational part in us is not as
> >> conditionable as the rational part, which is why war, crime and
> >> injustice continue to this day.
> >>
> >> According to latest game theory research, rational behavior in nature
> >> demands both egalitarian type cooperation as well as competition, not
> >> just competition or cooperation in the context of competition.
> >>
> >> However, when it comes to the irrational part, where fear reigns
> >> supreme (and is the root cause of our weakness), we don't really
> >> follow evolutionary game theory as much as we should. We do follow it
> >> when we are feeling courage and when we are resourced (psychologically
> >> and physically) but when weakness creeps up (due to irrational fear of
> >> something including some of the deepest existential issues) we enter
> >> into a state of temporary irrationality, out of weakness, and with
> >> some people it becomes a homeostasis, i.e. stuck in fear.
> >>
> >> That is why the capitalist systems works (whereas socialist systems
> >> have failed thus far) even when it promotes war, crime and injustice.
> >> It feeds on our weakness. We must resist it, but we cannot defeat it
> >> unless we rise above our weakness. At this time seeing how people are
> >> today the hope I have in my own work is to understand fear and the
> >> process of gaining strength and enable a system that allows people to
> >> gain courage and abandon fear, but that is akin to asking someone to
> >> change their homeostasis to a new one. It's an incredibly difficult
> >> process and there are entire libraries of books written about the
> >> subject (e.g. spiritual books, religions, psychology books, self help
> >> books, etc)
> >>
> >> There has to be a better way, but it can be overlooking the fact that
> >> we are, as a civilization, still predominantly driven by fear.
> >>
> >> Marc
> >>
> >> On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 2:29 PM, Patrick Anderson <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >>> On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 3:03 PM, marc fawzi <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >>>> in a true equilibrium anyone who wishes to get X number or amount of
> some good or service
> >>>> should be able to do so at the median cost of that good or service + a
> fixed profit 'margin'
> >>>
> >>> Why do you and Franz say there *must* there be a profit 'margin'?
> >>>
> >>> If you say "as a return for the investors", then I ask:
> >>>
> >>> But what if the investors (and therefore owners) are the only
> >>> consumers?  For in that case, there would be no profit ... but does
> >>> imply there can be no production when the owner of an apple tree is
> >>> the sole consumer (eats all the apples himself)?
> >>>
> >>> Notice the owner(s) are not required to be the worker(s) for those
> >>> Means of Production.
> >>>
> >>> If a quadriplegic apple tree owner hired some workers to pick apples
> >>> with money/tokens he earned by giving talks, he would pay those costs
> >>> as Wages, but still would not pay profit, for who would he pay it to?
> >>>
> >>> Sincerely,
> >>> Patrick
> >>> _________________________________
> >>> Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
> >>> Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
> >>> Contact: [email protected]
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> Marc Fawzi
> >> Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/people/Marc-Fawzi/605919256
> >> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/marcfawzi
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Marc Fawzi
> > Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/people/Marc-Fawzi/605919256
> > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/marcfawzi
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
> Marc Fawzi
> Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/people/Marc-Fawzi/605919256
> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/marcfawzi
> _________________________________
> Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
> Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
> Contact: [email protected]
>



-- 
Working at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University -
http://www.dpu.ac.th/dpuic/info/Research.html -
http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI

Volunteering at the P2P Foundation:
http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net -
http://p2pfoundation.ning.com

Monitor updates at http://del.icio.us/mbauwens

The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN,
http://www.shiftn.com/


[2 text/html]
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: [email protected]