Message 05673 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxenT05584 Message: 40/70 L20 [In index]
[First in Thread] [Last in Thread] [Date Next] [Date Prev]
[Next in Thread] [Prev in Thread] [Next Thread] [Prev Thread]

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



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 <michelsub2004 gmail.com> 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 <marc.fawzi gmail.com> 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 <michelsub2004 gmail.com>
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 <marc.fawzi gmail.com> 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 <michelsub2004 gmail.com> 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 <marc.fawzi gmail.com>
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 <
michelsub2004 gmail.com>
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 <marc.fawzi gmail.com>
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 <marc.fawzi gmail.com>
wrote:
Well, Michel actually corrected my thinking with what I feel is
an
enlightening response, so re-posting here:


from    Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 gmail.com>
to      marc fawzi <marc.fawzi gmail.com>

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 <
marc.fawzi gmail.com>
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 <
agnucius gmail.com

wrote:
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 3:03 PM, marc fawzi <
marc.fawzi gmail.com

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: projekt oekonux.de




--

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: projekt oekonux.de




--
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: projekt oekonux.de




--

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: projekt oekonux.de




--
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: projekt oekonux.de



--

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: projekt oekonux.de




--
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: projekt oekonux.de




--

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: projekt oekonux.de




--
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: projekt oekonux.de




-- 

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: projekt oekonux.de



Thread: oxenT05584 Message: 40/70 L20 [In index]
Message 05673 [Homepage] [Navigation]