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

and i guess logic boils down to a belief too, just a different kind of belief

On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 8:07 PM, marc fawzi <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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
>



-- 

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]