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