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

[Converted from multipart/alternative]

[1 text/plain]
Hi Marc,

but subjectivity invariant is exactly what integral theory disputes ...

You can do 'as if' scenarios, and use reductionism as a tool, but when you
derive your metaphysics from it, it's doesn't capture life ...

for example, the power law seems subjectivity invariant, yet some
communities have successfully designed against it ...

Michel

On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 4:44 PM, marc fawzi <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi Michel,
>
> Maybe we are better off taking this outside of this list.
>
> But since you asked, my answer is that the model where every part
> captures the whole at a given degree of resolution is also called the
> holographic model and it's fractal in the sense that each part,
> tangible and intangible, replicates the whole at some resolution. This
> I picked up from David Bohm's theory of creativity after being
> introduced to wholism in quantum mechanics via the Aharonov-Bohm
> effect which involves an intangible electromagnetic 'potential' as
> opposed to an electromagnetic field which is tangible.
>
> So in that context, I see the pattern that is reflected in each part
> of the whole or each sub-fractal is subjectivity invariant. In other
> words, the whole, as represented at some resolution in the given part,
> does not change based on the  subjectivity of each "dot" in that part
> and the whole itself separate from the parts does not change based on
> the subjectivity of the parts.
>
> Subjectivity invariant design. That is how I see the whole.
>
> So it is neither wholism nor integralism because I accept subjectivity
> as real and evident yet I don't see it changing the pattern that is
> reflected at each level in various resolutions. I see that pattern as
> being subjectivity invariant.
>
> I also got entangled in critical realism 5 years ago.
>
> Marc
>
> On 5/11/09, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 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/
> >
>
>
> --
>
> Marc Fawzi
> Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/people/Marc-Fawzi/605919256
> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/marcfawzi
>



-- 
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]