[ox-en] Re: Integral Calculus Modeling - You Can Too!

[Converted from multipart/alternative]

[1 text/plain]
yes I did, that's why I said I want to experience it  ... before making any
definite judgment ...

On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 7:41 PM, Alex Rollin <[email protected]> wrote:

> haha,
>
> did you read my email?  sheesh Michel!
>
> A
>
> On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 2:39 PM, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >>>Most of your critique has to do with the legacy of pigeon holing
> > people developmentally.  That is not really what this is about.  At
> > all.
> >
> > well, that is good to hear, as it is indeed my central concern ...
> perhaps I
> > will experience it one day ...
> >
> > Michel
> >
> > On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 2:08 AM, Alex Rollin <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> I don't generally disagree, but "transcending and including" does not
> >> mean everyone is instantly enlightened; nor   Assymetric communication
> >> still happens.  Meeting in the middle is still needed.
> >>
> >> For those who require a meta-framework because they seek some clarity,
> >> this is far easier and more efficient than a lot of other options.
> >>
> >> It goes without saying that any descriptive framework comes with a
> >> load of rationalizations and other detritus, but, this one is quite a
> >> razor when used for a specific purpose.
> >>
> >> On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 5:04 AM, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]
> >
> >> wrote:
> >> > 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
> >>
> >> The paper is only 25 pages long.  I'm struggling for opportunities to
> >> sit with people to understand how to better describe the use of it.
> >> Recommendations are welcome!  Please!  They are much more useful than
> >> saying that it is hard to use.
> >> >
> >> > 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
> >>
> >> Again, the old systems do not disappear.  Sometimes they become less
> >> nasty or dangerous,but everyone still touches each level of complexity
> >> on their way up the ladder.
> >> >
> >> > It seems that the reasoning here would miss that important effect
> >>
> >> Not really.  It simply demonstrates what 'inclusiveness' really means.
> >>  This is not a 'system for everyone.'  It touches everyone, in a
> >> descriptive way, but not everyone has the power to use it as a
> >> constructive or analytical system.
> >>
> >> When you have a bunch of self-proclaimed systems people in a room,
> >> though, one must ask about the conditions under which that group would
> >> succeed in building something.  Surely talking about the same thing
> >> would be a useful thing.  That's what this is for.
> >> >
> >> > 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
> >>
> >> It's tacit component of collaboration...self-declaration or judgement
> >> in process of approriate work, for example.
> >> > ... 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 .. .
> >>
> >> nobody said you couldn't do that.  This isn't about fixing people at a
> >> certain place.  It is about operational complexity.  They are not
> >> unrelated, but they are not the same thing.
> >>
> >> 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 ...
> >>
> >> it does mater who is better because that person teachers, often times.
> >>  that's how things reach the whole.
> >>
> >> It helps to talk about the same thing.  People have a deep,
> >> multi-faceted, multi-reasoned set of needs for knowing and being a
> >> part of something TOGETHER.  This is a descriptive framework, much
> >> like planning out a software system, or any other system, so that a
> >> group of people can have a static accounting for perspectives present
> >> in a system.
> >>
> >> Most of your critique has to do with the legacy of pigeon holing
> >> people developmentally.  That is not really what this is about.  At
> >> all.
> >>
> >> However, no doubt you have been in a room sharing a brilliant idea and
> >> nobody gets it.  Like, say, the theory or relativity?  You know, and
> >> people are saying "so what does that have to dow ith anything?"  This
> >> is a way ofunderstanding how to take the theory of relativity and tell
> >> a story that people CAN understand.  By whittling down te big concepts
> >> into bite size pieces, and still not losing sight of the whole.
> >>
> >> This is often done by an elder.  Maybe you know this story.  There's
> >> the elder who holds on to a concept for a decade or more.  He answers
> >> questions.  He tells people "Oh, you are on the right track" or "Oh,
> >> that is not it, and I see where you are coming from.  This, over here,
> >> is a piece, very similar to what you mentioned...see the similarity?"
> >>
> >> Those are examples of how a HUGE and complex UBER system like commons
> >> based peer production gets whittled down into all manner of incomplete
> >> reductionist doomed attempts that are, say, nonetheless pieces of the
> >> whole, however incomplete and imperfect.
> >>
> >> Integral Calculus is a tool that can be used to model how those
> >> aspects fit together and how the pieces are related, expose
> >> redundancies, and help a group to stay on track with big ambitions
> >> when details matter.
> >>
> >> Does that sound pigeon holing, or like some attempt to force people
> >> into a process, in any way?
> >>
> >> It's a tool, and yes it comes with integral baggage, but this tool is
> >> more powerful than any other systemic descriptive framework available
> >> for modeling.  And, it's SUPER content free...no values, no 'peace and
> >> justice' or 'family dynamics' claptrap in it.
> >>
> >> Alex
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > 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/
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> 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/
> >
>
>
>
> --
>  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]