Message 05679 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxenT05679 Message: 1/6 L0 [In index]
[First in Thread] [Last in Thread] [Date Next] [Date Prev]
[Next in Thread] [Prev in Thread] [Next Thread] [Prev Thread]

[ox-en] Integral Calculus Modeling - You Can Too!

I don't generally disagree, but "transcending and including" does not
mean everyone is instantly enlightened; nor   Assymetric communication
still happens.  Meeting in the middle is still needed.

For those who require a meta-framework because they seek some clarity,
this is far easier and more efficient than a lot of other options.

It goes without saying that any descriptive framework comes with a
load of rationalizations and other detritus, but, this one is quite a
razor when used for a specific purpose.

On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 5:04 AM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004> wrote:
Hi Alex,

I have seen Fuhs works, but to my mind it also indicates that this integral
calculus is problematic, due to its very complexity

The paper is only 25 pages long.  I'm struggling for opportunities to
sit with people to understand how to better describe the use of it.
Recommendations are welcome!  Please!  They are much more useful than
saying that it is hard to use.

And it also misses something: when we move to a more complex system, we
actually re-simplify it under new encompassing rules ... in other words, we
escape from the complexity crisis of the previous system

Again, the old systems do not disappear.  Sometimes they become less
nasty or dangerous,but everyone still touches each level of complexity
on their way up the ladder.

It seems that the reasoning here would miss that important effect

Not really.  It simply demonstrates what 'inclusiveness' really means.
 This is not a 'system for everyone.'  It touches everyone, in a
descriptive way, but not everyone has the power to use it as a
constructive or analytical system.

When you have a bunch of self-proclaimed systems people in a room,
though, one must ask about the conditions under which that group would
succeed in building something.  Surely talking about the same thing
would be a useful thing.  That's what this is for.

More important, and I'm not sure how to express this,but judging people on
their level of complexity doesn't really work in the practice of cooperation

It's tacit component of collaboration...self-declaration or judgement
in process of approriate work, for example.
... you have to take each person from their highest potential, and use group
rules and norms to get there ... This is what Jorge Ferrer calls the
equipotential approach .. .

nobody said you couldn't do that.  This isn't about fixing people at a
certain place.  It is about operational complexity.  They are not
unrelated, but they are not the same thing.

it doesn't matter who is better, since we are all
better at something, and we design the social system so that it can be
expressed and become useful to the whole ...

it does mater who is better because that person teachers, often times.
 that's how things reach the whole.

It helps to talk about the same thing.  People have a deep,
multi-faceted, multi-reasoned set of needs for knowing and being a
part of something TOGETHER.  This is a descriptive framework, much
like planning out a software system, or any other system, so that a
group of people can have a static accounting for perspectives present
in a system.

Most of your critique has to do with the legacy of pigeon holing
people developmentally.  That is not really what this is about.  At

However, no doubt you have been in a room sharing a brilliant idea and
nobody gets it.  Like, say, the theory or relativity?  You know, and
people are saying "so what does that have to dow ith anything?"  This
is a way ofunderstanding how to take the theory of relativity and tell
a story that people CAN understand.  By whittling down te big concepts
into bite size pieces, and still not losing sight of the whole.

This is often done by an elder.  Maybe you know this story.  There's
the elder who holds on to a concept for a decade or more.  He answers
questions.  He tells people "Oh, you are on the right track" or "Oh,
that is not it, and I see where you are coming from.  This, over here,
is a piece, very similar to what you mentioned...see the similarity?"

Those are examples of how a HUGE and complex UBER system like commons
based peer production gets whittled down into all manner of incomplete
reductionist doomed attempts that are, say, nonetheless pieces of the
whole, however incomplete and imperfect.

Integral Calculus is a tool that can be used to model how those
aspects fit together and how the pieces are related, expose
redundancies, and help a group to stay on track with big ambitions
when details matter.

Does that sound pigeon holing, or like some attempt to force people
into a process, in any way?

It's a tool, and yes it comes with integral baggage, but this tool is
more powerful than any other systemic descriptive framework available
for modeling.  And, it's SUPER content values, no 'peace and
justice' or 'family dynamics' claptrap in it.


On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Alex Rollin <alex.rollin> wrote:

Such a way with words you have Michel!

I've been thinking about writing more about levels of complexity in

Yesterday I was doing some reading and thinking about the Fisk
references you sent.

Personally I have become a huge fan of integral calculus for the
representation of perspectives.
When I sat and thought about Fisk I came up with the following notations.

The commons or any 'thing' or 'place' is third person.

The motive behind a perspective is referred to as content, and is
secondary to the perspective itself.

With Fisk the difference is the 'focus' of the perspective...whether
it is on 'you', the 2nd person, 'me' the 1st person, or 'Us, It' the
3rd person. The "/" in an equation represents the 'privileged' or
'operating' perspective.

Equality is complex, checking 3rd through 1st and 2nd.

Rank checks 1st through 2nd.

Commons checks 3rd through..any.

Market checks 3rd through 2nd with 1st as Primary
My profit is most important when it comes to your perspective or our
perspective in all space and places

It comes down to which is privelaged.

When you add in more complexity, the equation gets longer.

Peer Production, for example, might be something like:

The value of my contributions from my perspective as viewed through
the perspective of you my peer and a larger group of peers through the
space of the commons and the overall project.

Written as an integral calculus 'perspectival object' this is:


As you can see, this is a more complex perspective, as the length of
the notation suggests.

This is teachable as a semantic noticing practice.  As we (3p(1p))
discuss any of our (3p(1p)) or my (1p(1p)) thoughts we can notice the
'way' that we are looking and see how many of these perspectives are
contained within our perspective.

The discussion previously got into the tribal versions of these
perspectives.  These perspectives gain in more and more complexity as
we grow more and more developed.  If you asked a Western child of 8
years about how the market works you would get a very simple
perspective.  Ask Franz Nahrada, though, and you will see that it is
possible to include many, many actors each making contributions
through the perspective and the system.

Clint Fuhs has documented many thousands of perspectives, but one
thing to note is that as children we are capable of 15 or so
perspectives, and that as we grow older most of us are capable of
exercising 1500 or more.

While some forms of minimalistic expression are still useful, many of
us are wrestling with ways to create and sustain complex systems, many
of which require the parallel and simultaneous operation of many
complex perspectives, some at least twice as complex as this one
listed about for a simple producer in a commons based peer production

As a little exercise, let try one of the ones that we are all thinking

A producer produces of his own free will goods that are destined for
the commons that also have value through the marketplace to a
particular consumer and the producer is deriving benefit from the
rents derived from the value of goods produced for the commons in some
form of semi-direct proportional shared based on the value of his
contribution relative to the value of all other contributions.



This is a 'content-free' notation system.  The objects themselves
won't tell you much except the order of magnitude complexity that is
at play.

However, the real value of this system is not just accuracy in
description, but in sharing that accuracy with a group!  Looking
really hard at the SAME level of complexity with a peer group.  This
allows a GROUP to stabilize a perspective and to exercise that
perspective and to come up with a Gestalt or deeper knowing of the
terrain when viewed from that perspective.

This whole integral calculus thing is the invention of Ken Wilber, and
was originally developed  over the course of the last 6 or 7 years in
several of his published books.  Clint Fuhs wrote a paper that details
the basics of the notation system for anyone interested.

After working in complex process design and organizational behavior
for a decade I have come to rely on this notation system as a last,
first, and best resort for a very specific type of practice: figuring
out exactly how complicated the operating perspective is, or can be.
Once this is established, variation in scope of perspective, which is
the single greatest threat to stability of perspective, can be
monitored.  Because outside influences are always coming inside it can
never be controlled, though.  For this reason, perspectives also need
to have a sort of 'graceful degradation' like code.  This is why, when
some people look at p2p, they call it a regression to tribal values or
an oversimplified gift economy.  After looking a bit more they can
acknowledge the power and complexity that adding in 'free will'
allows.  It goes on from there.

In case you were wondering, in my opinion this is the most important
work we might use integral calculus for.   As Michel mentioned, most
ages or socities will have a dominant 'mode,' and this is often a
dominant or privelaged perspective.  In the US, for example, this is
the "I, Me, Mine" perspective.  Talking about and 2nd or 3rd person
persective REQUIRES processing THROUGH the 1st person perspective,
including thoughts, actions, behaviors, and of course, private
property.  Most systems require this, and, of course, respect for free
will would have all sophisticated perspectives processed, at least,
through the 1p(1/p) which is internal thoughts and feelings of the

That being said, the work at hand is to look at p2p systemic solutions
and, through action learning, create and socialize perspectival
objects that allow for all interacting levels of development to do
accurate and meaningful sense-making when encountering p2p class


Alex Rollin

On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 9:23 AM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004>
[Converted from multipart/alternative]

[1 text/plain]
Hi Marc,

the key is to see humans as complex beings, not as inherently good or
but we can design social systems that nudge the good behaviours not the

peer production, and the commons work, when individual and collective
interests can be aligned

this is the domain of

An interesting contribution on that topic, from

A distinction made by Heb Shepard, summarized by Rosa Zubizarreta:

*from the perspective of "primary mentality", 'individual' and 'group'
experienced as opposite...* in order to have a strong group, it appears
we need to 'give up' some of our individuality; conversely, to be
'individuals', it appears we need to 'distance' ourselves from the

*in contrast, from the perspective of "secondary mentality" 'individual'
'group' are experienced in a synergistic way*: the MORE room there is
people to be individual and unique and eccentric, the stronger a group
will have; conversely, the more real support i can feel from the group,
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
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
ago about the distinction between what he called "primary mentality" and
"secondary mentality"....

from the perspective of "primary mentality", 'individual' and 'group'
experienced as opposite... in order to have a strong group, it appears
we need to 'give up' some of our individuality; conversely, to be
'individuals', it appears we need to 'distance' ourselves from the

in contrast, from the perspective of "secondary mentality" 'individual'
'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
will have; conversely, the more real support i can feel from the group,
more individual and unique and eccentric i can be...

i think that what Shepard was referring to as a 'mentality' (whether
or secondary) resides not just within each of us, as individuals, but
within a group, or culture, or social arrangement...

not just in 'individual consciousness' OR in 'group structures', but in

so we as individuals, we can always discover or create ways to 'resist'
structures that are organized along the lines of 'primary mentality',
find ways to create forms of social interaction, that support 'secondary

AND, at the same time, the social forms of organization, _do_ affect
making one or another form of mentality, more likely... Our ways of
and thinking and organizing ourselves, tend to be rooted in one or the

i think it's also important to recognize, that these forms or
that embody and support these different kinds of consciousness can be
'habitual' and 'informal', rather than 'explicit/formal'... so even when
community has rejected the conventional forms of organization which
could be
seen as embodying primary mentality (voting, majority rules,
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
be 'secondary' since as individuals, we still tend to carry the "primary
mentality" within us, even in the absence of conventional forms of

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
make waves', can tend to silence a lot of potential divergence and
conformity to the prevailing cultural norms... (the 'groupthink'

i think this may connect in some way, with what Danah Boyd was pointing
about her concern with the wikipedia community's adulation of the


so, to whatever degree a community does _not_ have effective ways of
creating containers for divergent perspectives and ways of being,
ways in which difference and conflict can transform into greater

people will _still_, tend to experience an 'either-or', between 'being
themselves', and 'being a part of the community'... even in the absence
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
individuality to manifest itself, IN THE CONTEXT OF, shared space..."

[[this is the purpose of a kind of facilitation which focuses on
not convergence, in a way that allows authentic (emergent) convergence
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
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
perspective. However i am NOT arguing here, in 'favor' of them... i am
simply pointing out that, _without_ those formal structure ,AND,
anything else_, to take their place, we can become even MORE vulnerable
the pull of cultural conformity that operates, generally implicitly,
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>

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>
Well, Michel actually corrected my thinking with what I feel is an
enlightening response, so re-posting here:

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

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

I think  your 'rational' model also fails to see the transrational
requirements, which are better developed in the East, i.e. not just
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
from the wordless  'witness' position) (i.e. the eastern

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


On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 3:10 PM, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi>
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
eliminate irrational behavior but the irrational part in us is not
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
demands both egalitarian type cooperation as well as competition,
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
when we are feeling courage and when we are resourced
and physically) but when weakness creeps up (due to irrational fear
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
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
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
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
books, etc)

There has to be a better way, but it can be overlooking the fact
we are, as a civilization, still predominantly driven by fear.


On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 2:29 PM, Patrick Anderson
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 3:03 PM, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi>
in a true equilibrium anyone who wishes to get X number or amount
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
with money/tokens he earned by giving talks, he would pay those
as Wages, but still would not pay profit, for who would he pay it

Contact: projekt


Marc Fawzi


Marc Fawzi


Marc Fawzi
Contact: projekt

Working at - -

Volunteering at the P2P Foundation:  - -

Monitor updates at

The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN,

[2 text/html]
Contact: projekt

I cannot teach anybody anything, I can only make them think.- Socrates

Working at - -

Volunteering at the P2P Foundation:  - -

Monitor updates at

The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN,

I cannot teach anybody anything, I can only make them think.- Socrates
Contact: projekt

Thread: oxenT05679 Message: 1/6 L0 [In index]
Message 05679 [Homepage] [Navigation]