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

Well, I'm personally buying into the whole holism thing, for now at
least... as it feels just right for a world view.

But I'd be interested in learning more about integralism.... or any
other *isms for that matter ... i spend too much time with *ologies

I think isms capture beliefs while ologies capture logic

Marc

On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 5:44 PM, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> wrote:
> [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]
>



-- 

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]