Re: [ox-en] Re: [ox-en] Re: [ox-en] Re: [ox-en] Re: [ox-en] Re: [ox-en] Re:[ox-en] built-ininfinitegrowth (was: Re:Meaning ofmarkets, scarcity, abundance)
- From: Gregers Petersen <gp.ioa cbs.dk>
- Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 17:07:07 +0100
Dmytri Kleiner wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 15:56:29 +0100, Gregers Petersen <gp.ioa cbs.dk> wrote:
If you don't help me I cannot help you.
Sorry if I misunderstand your intentions but it's not clear how what
knowing I have read
will you explain the point you are trying to argue. Assume I have read
But, you have - you keep refering to "Mauss etc.", so why should I
repeat details you already might know .... you need to enter the process
of establishing a common basis for discussion.
Well, if the competition is based on always giving more than received it
Why do you keep making the assumption that competition is only about
'giving more than you have recieved'?
I don't, this is the kind of competition that I used potlatch as an example
I'm not stating that your belief is false (though, I might have doubts
about your argument), but simply stated that you cannot build the
argument on the statement that 'kula' is money.
Kula, IIRC, was used a component of prestige exchange, which "big men" used
as part of
ritualized circulation. Please explain what you think I should know that
goes beyond this and
how this knowledge would change my understanding of the origins of money.
What is the essence of 'the gift' (as stated by Marcel Mauss)? The
essence is 'reciprocity' and the cyclic exchange of "gifts" between
identified 'partners' over time with the intent of creating and
maintaining long-term relationships (here refering to the specific
context in which 'kula' exists, e.g. Melanesia).
You mention "big Men" - what is it being a "Big Man", how is it
different from being a "Great Man" (
I believe it was the ideological project of Mauss to show forms of
social organization which defies/opposes market capitalism - simply by
being based on a different value system. As long as you keep wringing
pieces together in the way your doing you'r killing your argument. I
just end thinking that; 'this person has read a 20 years old
anthropology first semester text-book picked-up at a garagesale, then
grapped a few sentences and now throws them into the air' - and this is
really sad, because you might actually have a point.
On the opther hand, you
seem uninterested in asking the obvious question (which you edited out
in the qoutes from my prior reply).
Trimming repsonses is a good practice and not "editing out," I am not
editing your contributions,
only responding to them.
If I have missed an important question, please feel free to ask it again.
Try to re-read my prior reply - because you did miss the important detail.
You have to do some of the work yourselves - and this could include
looking through 'google', wikipedia or going to your local library.
I see, so the the work that I am doing is obviously not as useful as the
work you think
I should be doing. I wonder how you expect me to know that is true.
I simply trying to help you with making your work better - and to reach
this a common basis is needed, as I've mentioned above.
Knowing what is true does to a large degree rely on listening, and the
asking of questions - playing bulldog is not a good strategy in this
Normally it is expected that _you_ do the work to explain and apply _your_
I'm trying to help you with your argument through comments and
discussion, it is your argument and hence your work - if you don't want
to look critically at your own argument, the terms and the references
used, the whole framing of your idea, it will be so.
If you don't want to trust me in pointing you in a positive direction -
then this cannot continue.
Anthropologist, Ph.d fellow
Department of Organization
Copenhagen Business School
Kilen, Kilevej 14A, 4.
DK - 2000 Frederiksberg
(+45) 3815 2811
Jabber: glp jabber.dk
IRC: Look for 'glp'
Free Software & Ownership
Contact: projekt oekonux.de