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

[Converted from multipart/alternative]

[1 text/plain]
marc,

for the integrative/integral tradition to which I belong, (w)holism has a
negative connotation, because it denotes subsumption oto the whole ...

it's really different but that would require a whole discussion ...

Michel
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 7:36 AM, marc fawzi <[email protected]> wrote:

> It feels like we're discussing the cure to cancer...
>
> If you're willing to use the word holistic instead of integrative then
> I'll readily sign on to your vision for change!
>
> :)
>
> Marc
>
> On 5/7/09, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> wrote:
> > [Converted from multipart/alternative]
> >
> > [1 text/plain]
> > Hi Marc,
> >
> > I essentially agree with your point here below, about the crucial
> importance
> > of awareness. Nevertheless, your solution resembles the attempts of
> > traditional spirituality and the eastern enlightenment program, neither
> of
> > which has been very successfull in achieving a really human society.
> >
> > The reason in my opinion is that consiociusness/awareness is itself a
> social
> > production ...
> >
> > The answer for social change therfore must be that integrative approaches
> > are necessary that work on all aspects of reality concurrently, and that
> do
> > not rely on mere awareness alone.
> >
> > Or in other words, both eastern enlightenment (trans-mental), western
> > (reason), both Buddha and Marx if you like
> >
> > Michel
> >
> > <<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.
> >
> > On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 3:23 PM, marc fawzi <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> 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]
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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]
>



-- 
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]