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