Re: [ox-en] "Selbstentfaltung", "self-unfolding" or what?
- From: Stefan Meretz <stefan.meretz hbv.org>
- Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 18:15:42 +0100
Hi Graham,
thanx for replying, it helped me to sort some things in my head:-)
Graham Seaman wrote:
> I wrote this rather rambling reply to your last email, then decided
> there was no point in sending it, and now decided I shouldn't just
> leave your mail with no reply. But I don't want to write more about
> this topic (at least not if it's only about the words) so if Marco or
> Florian disagree , they'd better say so :-)
ack
Some thoughts I can't suppress...;-)
> On Sun, 13 Jan 2002, Stefan Meretz wrote:
>>I am not sure if I understand right: Isn't the contast of personal vs.
>>social the same story as egoistic vs. altruistic - in the sense I
>>addressed with egoistic-altrustic "objective form of thinking"?
>
> I don't think it's the same:
> 1. egoistic/altruistic has moral overtones (where altruistic is
> 'good'). I don't think personal/social has any moral overtones.
Well, sometimes "social" is used in moral way in the sense "think of
others..."
> 2. For me, 'altruistic' implies doing something FOR other people;
> 'social' implies doing something WITH other people.
I think in this sense they are orthogonal: I can do something
altruistically in some social relationsships - together with other
people. Like a "subbotnik".
> 3. For me, 'egoistic' implies depriving others of something;
> 'personal' just refers to something I do myself.
ok.
> I think this is why most free software people, whether or not they
> agree with any of the ideas of Oekonux, dislike the term 'altruism'
> applied to free software.
You're right, this term mostly comes from outside people who do not
really understand free software.
> People don't generally write software to do
> good for other people, or as a kind of charity. The debate about
> egotism v altruism is a moral one, while whether it is social or
> personal or both seems to me more of a factual question.
ok.
> Anyway, whether you choose egoistic/altruistic or personal/social,
> your last mail argued that the pair of concepts was something inherent
> to capitalism, and so to describe anything such as free software which
> is not bound by the rules of capitalism, we would need new words.
>
> Well, I would guess that both pairs of words are much older than
> capitalism.
The thinking of an isolated individual as opposed to society is IMHO a
product of capitalism, an "objective thoughtform" of a society based on
the production of good as commodities.
> But even if modern society has assimilated the terms and they have
> become 'Objektive Gedankenformen', these 'objective thoughtforms'
> apply to people as economic beings only.
Disagree. They apply to whole live, each person is an _individual_
(wordly: "undividable" or "can not be divided" - something like that).
> There are many areas of our lives where they are
> irrelevant. For example, today I helped cook a meal with some friends
> and made part of a bookcase. These kind of activities might be useful
> but produce no commodities, no exchange value. And if I cook a meal
> with someone egotism/altruism has no more to do with it than it does
> with free software.
Agree.
The problem here IMHO is to talk about individual behavior in terms of
societal categories. When we talk about the question "what is
historically new in free software" we address the societal level. We
are not talking about a concrete hacker, we are talking about the
"average" hacker, of "doing free software in general" or more generally:
of the new type of development of forces of production.
To takes those categories as they are and apply them to some daily live
situations can sound quite funny:-)
> Now, the problem comes if I need to explain this to
> someone.
>
> questioner: 'did you cook the meal because you were hungry or to help
> your friend?'.
>
> me: (version 1) Both, but mainly I just enjoy cooking.
Everything is said.
> That seems a simple and obvious enough answer. But it seems to be not
> enough in relation to free software, maybe for the reason that people
> want a more theoretical/abstract answer for something as big as free
> software. So we have 'unfolding'. The answer:
>
> me: (version 2): as part of my self-unfolding, which let my friends
> unfold with me.
>
> is obviously silly in a personal context (I mean, it may be true but
> it's unintelligible).
Of course.
> In a more theoretical context, where the meaning
> of 'self-unfolding' has been defined, fine. But it does create an
> apparent deep distinction between 'normal' activities and writing
> programs, which I don't think is really there.
There is a distinction. Enjoy in cooking has nothing to do with a new
type of development of forces of production. Cooking can be a hobby, and
doing free software can be a hobby. However, only free software is
directed to a new type of production.
There is no distinction, if you assume, that we live in a free society
based on self-unfolding. In that society every personal piece of doing
what I want improves the overall ability of me and all at same time.
I a society based on alienated production of commodities we have to make
this distinction on the societal level. And this is the reason why IMO
free software is a germ form of a new society and not cooking.
>>A human being is societal by nature!
>>
> Saying 'A is B' doesn't make A identical to B, it just says that both
> are bound together... (i.e. personal and social) :-)
What if you can't "unbound" B from A? An individual is personal and
social at the same time and always. The "societality" is not an "add-on"
(as bourgois' think), it is a generic "feature" of human beings.
I only want to express, that personal and social are not opposites, they
are both always there. So self-unfolding is personal and social at the
same time. The "self" does not imply, that it is me and not the other,
it is me _and_ the other. However: it comes from _me_, because I am
unique. And this uniqueness is an important source.
> How closely they are bound together could depend on:
> - what someone is doing (eg. sleeping or talking)
> - what kind of society they are in (eg. tribal or capitalism)
> - what kind of personality they have (eg. withdrawn or outgoing)
> etc... No? I think the pair personal/social does have meaning,
> even outside this particular society.
They have meaning, however, we should not take them as opposites.
>>??? Where is the problem ???
>
> Simply that myself, Florian Sampson, and Marco Ermini said that we
> preferred the base term 'unfolding', with 'personal unfolding' as
> a restriction of 'unfolding' to one person, rather than the term
> 'self-unfolding' as the base term, with a long explanation of why
> the 'self' does not have it's everyday meaning when you talk about
> more than one person...
Then in my view better provoking questions (even for us) than having
nice words;-)
> And I understood from your last email that you were arguing strongly
> that we (assuming I understood Florian and Marco correctly) were
> wrong, and that this was important.
Not "wrong". I only want to say why IMHO this "self" is important.
Nothing more. It is at least a clarification for myself.
> If you're happy that 'personal unfolding' is just a synonym for
> 'self-unfolding', that's fine (and even if not I promise not to write
> any more emails on the topic!)
I am not sad, if you nevertheless do, but I don't expect;-)
Ciao,
Stefan
--
Vereinte Dienstleistungsgewerkschaft ver.di
Internetredaktion
Potsdamer Platz 10, 10785 Berlin
--
stefan.meretz verdi.de
maintaining: http://www.verdi.de
private stuff: http://www.meretz.de
--
_______________________
http://www.oekonux.org/