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

Hi Michel,

"People" can be viewed as one, connected complex dynamic system, with
three different possible states: order, edge of chaos, or chaos.

No one can be in the ordered state all of the time, and most people
are at the edge of chaos when under stress, ready to collapse/break
completely with the slightest additional stress/change.

A minority of us are in the chaotic state (unpredictable) rather than
the edge of chaos (volatile but still predictable) or order.

Having said that, we can't completely think in the abstract and our
feelings can be often reduced to feeling 'good' or feeling 'bad' about
ourselves and/or the other. I don't think we can abstract feelings
away from our body and analyze them in our brain. They're feelings not
thoughts.

I can feel completely bad about someone or something or completely
good or anywhere in between. That has nothing to do with anything I
can reason about. It's a bodily feeling, not a thought, and I need to
sit with it and feel it, not try to subdue it with some rational
instrument, however well that instrument is constructed.

It's easy to say that people are not inherently good or bad but are
complex beings. Obviously that is true, rationally speaking, but if I
feel bad about something or someone then that is a feeling and no
rational thought is going to take it way, nor would I want that to
happen. I prefer to sit with my feeling and let it take its course as
long as I am able to maintain awareness and not be driven by it, which
in most cases I am.

This of course applies to anyone who believe in letting their feelings
flow from a state of awareness.

So I argue against mixing the intellectual and the emotional in any
argument, for the latter is not a thought that can be argued about but
a feeling.

And suppressing our feelings with rational instruments, no matter how
well designed, is not very nice to ourselves, IMO. And that is true as
long as we can maintain awareness while expressing and experiencing
those feelings.

So back to the subject of why can't an rational theory work the answer
I have is because rational theories treat feelings as something that
can be abstracted away and dealt with rationally.

Some of those feelings are driven by fears. I argue that people in
general experience enough feelings that come from fear and they act
those feelings out instead of just let them run their course (from a
state of awareness) and then do something rational instead.

That's the reason, IMO, that capitalism, which harvests those
acted-out fears (e.g. injustice, crime, hate, control, greed, etc),
survives where social theories (that try to unseat those fears) fail.

The solution must be that people become more aware and stop acting out
their fears.

Well, I just ended up constructing another rational theory here but
it's one that recognizes irrationality of acted-out feelings (feelings
that are experienced from a sub-aware state) and thus has a better
chance of working than theories that try to abstract away feelings in
their drive to be completely rational.

In other words, awareness is the only answer, but that is like
explaining water with water.

Marc

On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 12:23 AM, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> wrote:
> [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]
>



-- 

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]