Message 02403 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxenT02282 Message: 10/11 L7 [In index]
[First in Thread] [Last in Thread] [Date Next] [Date Prev]
[Next in Thread] [Prev in Thread] [Next Thread] [Prev Thread]

Re: [ox-en] "The science of persuasion"



* Ref.: »Re: [ox-en] "The science of persuasion"«
*        Per I. Mathisen 	(2004-02-28  00:43)

Hi Per and ernie!

I have to feeling that (reciprocal :-) understanding has
re-entered the scene ;-)

Yes, exactly. Reciprocity means only that you feel an
obligation to give _something_ back, it does not have to mean
an actual obligation to repay in any enumerated amount.

Yes, you are right.  Where private property is a pre-requisite
for caring about one's own well-being and the well-being of one's
family (or clan etc.), the ideological concept of reciprocity in
a wider sense is a positive thing. 

There is an abstract dimension to this concept, that goes beyond
concrete reciprocity, yet make possible concrete interaction with
people / world, that goes beyond the direct implications of
private property: help, aid, sharing, feeling of responsibility
for others... As such, the moral/ideological concept of
reciprocity might even be viewed as the motive to offer
sacrifices to the god(s).

...

I think there are many cases where you can *find* reciprocity
only after the fact, not as their primary motivation,or as
the guiding norm...

Yes. Everything we do we do based on the countless efforts of
countless others, living and dead. To paraphrase Newton - we
see far because we stand on the shoulders of a giant heap of
people :)

:-)

That's a good one!

...

Maybe FS would develop faster if everybody who uses a certain
piece of free SW would be obliged to repay in kind.

Apache developers do not want me hacking on Apache ;) Much
better to let me continue to hack on the project I am familiar
with and love working on (in my case, Freeciv). Sure, it is
possible to imagine a way to enumerate and control that my
contributions somehow match what I consume, but the
administrative overhead and the psychological costs (no longer
being fun) would kill free software.

Exactly. 

I think, with the development of relationships where private
property does not make sense, reciprocity as a concept is not
needed anymore.  It is only needed in a property-focused
ideology, where efficiency of action is measured by it's
potential to preserve or enhance property -- the abstract
reciprocity just says: "well, I don't get anything back right
now, but I might benefit in the future."  When you are hanging
around in an IRC channel, you may be spending time there just
because you want to help people.  If, however, you do that at
work, you might have to justify the time spent on this by saying:
"... but I also learn something from that and I might need some
help at critical times...", and this might convince him.  Purely
for myself, I don't need this justification. I'd much rather help
for my own "unfolding" and rely on other people acting the same
way. Since I don't have to preserve anything here, I don't need
no reciprocity concept anymore.

That is why I prefer the terms of helpfulness, feeling of
responsibility, readyness to share over "reciprocity". The latter
is nothing but a justification for the first in times that are
hostile to them.  FS is quite the opposite: it does directly
encourage positive attitudes and does not need that justification
anymore.

Thinks me.

Cheers,
Casi.
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: projekt oekonux.de



Thread: oxenT02282 Message: 10/11 L7 [In index]
Message 02403 [Homepage] [Navigation]