Re: [ox-en] extrinsic motivation = coercion

On 2009-05-04 09:13, CTVN wrote:
> >> non-coercise system is possible because humans are prone to act in
> >> their own interest.
> >
> > True, and this is a good thing. I name this selbstentfaltung.
>
> well, at best its "adjusted selbstentfaltung".

Selbstentfaltung _is_ always adjusted, because it belongs to others who 
are the condition for ones own selbstentfaltung. Of course, this is only 
true in a free society, which structurally supports selbstentfaltung. 
Under capitalists conditions it is only true to some extend (which the 
capital happily welcomes) or in niches to some more extend (free 
software). Don't forget: We are talking about germ forms of the new.

> >> logically, if more than one person is living
> >> together, this causes a conflict of interest situation resulting
> >> in one of them giving in (or adapting their behaviour or adjusting
> >> their self interest) to the others around.
> >
> > The challenge is to find ways of conflict regulation, where one
> > does not prevail on the cost of others.
>
> logically, this is not possible unless you make a distinction between
> original "selbstentfaltung" ( i get 100% what i want)

I re-phrase: In the long run I get 100% what I want, because others get 
100% they want. If I am convinced to reach my selbstentfaltung, then I 
act with motivation. If not, I act under (self-)coercion or I don't act.

> and one
> "environment adjusted" selbstentfaltung " (i get x% what i want
> depending on my skills to convince, my strength, the character of the
> other...). regradless, i really dont think such a system can work
> when x billion people with x billion different interest live
> together. even if it were to work, i think this is an extremely
> inefficient system.

On the contrary, it would be an extremely efficient system, because 
motivated people do and give the best they can. And this is the only way 
the new system can prevail: It must be better (not only more efficient in 
the old narrow output-sense) than the old.

> im fine with switching to such any inefficient
> system when we managed to find effective pills without side effects
> against all diseases.

You want to change efficiency against healthcare? For me, the measure of 
efficiency _is_ having healthcare for all and generally satisfying the 
needs of all people while doing as less as possible.

> > The goal is not, to avoid conflicts. On
> > the contrary, today conflicts are avoided if they are pre-decided
> > due to power-relations. The goal is to foster individual
> > selbstentfaltung, which is the precondition of the selbstentfaltung
> > of all and vice versa. A society based on these principles would be
> > a free society.
>
> again, if two free wills are in conflict, one (or both) have to give
> in or adjust.

You are thinking of isolated non-communicating monades with static 
needs. Neither free will nor needs are isolated things.

> in other words, you are coerced by the other to restrict your will.

No, I have to find ways to satisfy my needs and the needs of the others. 
If there is a conflict, we have to find ways to solve this conflict. And in 
a free society it is a _need_ to do so, because it is good for me.

> generally, morally i support your model to a quite some degree. the
> problem is that we
> are talking about humans and they are - imv - not genetically and
> evolutionary hardcoded for such an ecosystem.

And I feel, that you are simply generalizing peoples behavior you 
observe under given conditions and declare this to be the "nature". Then 
you conclude -- completely logical -- that humans are "hardcoded" like 
that. You turn a social defect into a natural defect.

Ciao,
Stefan

-- 
Start here: www.meretz.de
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: [email protected]