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

[Converted from multipart/alternative]

[1 text/plain]
Hi Alex,

I have seen Fuhs works, but to my mind it also indicates that this integral
calculus is problematic, due to its very complexity

And it also misses something: when we move to a more complex system, we
actually re-simplify it under new encompassing rules ... in other words, we
escape from the complexity crisis of the previous system

It seems that the reasoning here would miss that important effect

More important, and I'm not sure how to express this,but judging people on
their level of complexity doesn't really work in the practice of cooperation
... you have to take each person from their highest potential, and use group
rules and norms to get there ... This is what Jorge Ferrer calls the
equipotential approach .. .it doesn't matter who is better, since we are all
better at something, and we design the social system so that it can be
expressed and become useful to the whole ...

Michel

On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Alex Rollin <[email protected]> wrote:

> Such a way with words you have Michel!
>
> I've been thinking about writing more about levels of complexity in
> relations.
>
> Yesterday I was doing some reading and thinking about the Fisk
> references you sent.
>
> Personally I have become a huge fan of integral calculus for the
> representation of perspectives.
> When I sat and thought about Fisk I came up with the following notations.
>
> The commons or any 'thing' or 'place' is third person.
>
> The motive behind a perspective is referred to as content, and is
> secondary to the perspective itself.
>
> With Fisk the difference is the 'focus' of the perspective...whether
> it is on 'you', the 2nd person, 'me' the 1st person, or 'Us, It' the
> 3rd person. The "/" in an equation represents the 'privileged' or
> 'operating' perspective.
>
> Equality is complex, checking 3rd through 1st and 2nd.
> 3p(3/p)*1p(1p)*2p(1p)
>
> Rank checks 1st through 2nd.
> 1p(1p)*1p(2/p)
>
> Commons checks 3rd through..any.
> 3p(3/p)*__*__
>
> Market checks 3rd through 2nd with 1st as Primary
> My profit is most important when it comes to your perspective or our
> perspective in all space and places
> 1p(1/p)*2p(1p)*3p(3p)
>
> It comes down to which is privelaged.
>
> When you add in more complexity, the equation gets longer.
>
> Peer Production, for example, might be something like:
>
> The value of my contributions from my perspective as viewed through
> the perspective of you my peer and a larger group of peers through the
> space of the commons and the overall project.
>
> Written as an integral calculus 'perspectival object' this is:
>
> 1p(1/p)*2nd(1p)*3rd(1p)*3p(3p)
>
> As you can see, this is a more complex perspective, as the length of
> the notation suggests.
>
> This is teachable as a semantic noticing practice.  As we (3p(1p))
> discuss any of our (3p(1p)) or my (1p(1p)) thoughts we can notice the
> 'way' that we are looking and see how many of these perspectives are
> contained within our perspective.
>
> The discussion previously got into the tribal versions of these
> perspectives.  These perspectives gain in more and more complexity as
> we grow more and more developed.  If you asked a Western child of 8
> years about how the market works you would get a very simple
> perspective.  Ask Franz Nahrada, though, and you will see that it is
> possible to include many, many actors each making contributions
> through the perspective and the system.
>
> Clint Fuhs has documented many thousands of perspectives, but one
> thing to note is that as children we are capable of 15 or so
> perspectives, and that as we grow older most of us are capable of
> exercising 1500 or more.
>
> While some forms of minimalistic expression are still useful, many of
> us are wrestling with ways to create and sustain complex systems, many
> of which require the parallel and simultaneous operation of many
> complex perspectives, some at least twice as complex as this one
> listed about for a simple producer in a commons based peer production
> system.
>
> As a little exercise, let try one of the ones that we are all thinking
> about.
>
> A producer produces of his own free will goods that are destined for
> the commons that also have value through the marketplace to a
> particular consumer and the producer is deriving benefit from the
> rents derived from the value of goods produced for the commons in some
> form of semi-direct proportional shared based on the value of his
> contribution relative to the value of all other contributions.
>
> 1p(1/p)*1p(1p)*3p(3p)*2p(3p)*2p(1p)*3p(1p)*3p(3p)
>
> Weee!
>
> This is a 'content-free' notation system.  The objects themselves
> won't tell you much except the order of magnitude complexity that is
> at play.
>
> However, the real value of this system is not just accuracy in
> description, but in sharing that accuracy with a group!  Looking
> really hard at the SAME level of complexity with a peer group.  This
> allows a GROUP to stabilize a perspective and to exercise that
> perspective and to come up with a Gestalt or deeper knowing of the
> terrain when viewed from that perspective.
>
> This whole integral calculus thing is the invention of Ken Wilber, and
> was originally developed  over the course of the last 6 or 7 years in
> several of his published books.  Clint Fuhs wrote a paper that details
> the basics of the notation system for anyone interested.
>
> After working in complex process design and organizational behavior
> for a decade I have come to rely on this notation system as a last,
> first, and best resort for a very specific type of practice: figuring
> out exactly how complicated the operating perspective is, or can be.
> Once this is established, variation in scope of perspective, which is
> the single greatest threat to stability of perspective, can be
> monitored.  Because outside influences are always coming inside it can
> never be controlled, though.  For this reason, perspectives also need
> to have a sort of 'graceful degradation' like code.  This is why, when
> some people look at p2p, they call it a regression to tribal values or
> an oversimplified gift economy.  After looking a bit more they can
> acknowledge the power and complexity that adding in 'free will'
> allows.  It goes on from there.
>
> In case you were wondering, in my opinion this is the most important
> work we might use integral calculus for.   As Michel mentioned, most
> ages or socities will have a dominant 'mode,' and this is often a
> dominant or privelaged perspective.  In the US, for example, this is
> the "I, Me, Mine" perspective.  Talking about and 2nd or 3rd person
> persective REQUIRES processing THROUGH the 1st person perspective,
> including thoughts, actions, behaviors, and of course, private
> property.  Most systems require this, and, of course, respect for free
> will would have all sophisticated perspectives processed, at least,
> through the 1p(1/p) which is internal thoughts and feelings of the
> individuals.
>
> That being said, the work at hand is to look at p2p systemic solutions
> and, through action learning, create and socialize perspectival
> objects that allow for all interacting levels of development to do
> accurate and meaningful sense-making when encountering p2p class
> complexity.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Alex Rollin
> [email protected]
> http://alexrollin.com
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 9:23 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]
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Alex
> I cannot teach anybody anything, I can only make them think.- Socrates
>



-- 
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]