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

[Converted from multipart/alternative]

[1 text/plain]
Hi Marc,

I'm surprised I'm still getting this message.

I'm little versed in complexity/chaos theory.

But here's a good marker:

- integralism is intersubjective/interobjective, always combining the
interior of any 'object' it studies

- wholism can be only interobjective, i.e. not pay attention to the interior
of the object of study

Network theory is a good example. Reed's and the other law are applied to
dead dots, but once you accept these dots have a subjectivity, then perhaps
they don't 'want' to accept your network laws, who then become mere
potentials depending on their subjective realization ...

So, do you fractals have a subjectivity, or not?

Michel

On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 11:23 AM, marc fawzi <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi Michel,
>
> I have a key question to help guide me down the right path for me:
>
> I believe in the fractal nature of existence, i.e. that every single
> thing captures the "whole" at a resolution commensurate to the size or
> significance of the thing,
>
> so does that make me more integral or holistic? or neither?
>
> Marc
>
> On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 8:22 PM, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > [Converted from multipart/alternative]
> >
> > [1 text/plain]
> > Hi Marc,
> >
> > here's a good tag to start exploring:
> >
> > http://delicious.com/mbauwens/Integral-Theory
> >
> > my own super summary:
> >
> >  Beyond Perspectives, Reductionisms and Layers. Integral Review, I ssue
> 1,
> > 2005 (June), pp. 14-15. Retrieved from
> >
> http://integral-review.org/documents/Integral%20Review%20and%20Its%20Editors%201,%202005.pdf
> > a problem with wholism is that it is easy to ignore depth and levels of
> > complexity, for example, it can say we are part of the biosphere (true),
> but
> > cannot easily see how the biosphere is part of us .. (because the
> noosphere
> > includes the biospere and geosphere, but not the other way around)
> > Michel
> > On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 10:07 AM, 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
> >> _________________________________
> >> 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]