Profit and Value, was: Re(2): [ox-en] extrinsic motivation = coercion
- From: Alex Rollin <alex.rollin gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 10:25:41 +0200
Such a way with words you have Michel!
I've been thinking about writing more about levels of complexity in relations.
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.
3p(3/p)*1p(1p)*2p(1p)
Rank checks 1st through 2nd.
1p(1p)*1p(2/p)
Commons checks 3rd through..any.
3p(3/p)*__*__
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
1p(1/p)*2p(1p)*3p(3p)
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:
1p(1/p)*2nd(1p)*3rd(1p)*3p(3p)
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
system.
As a little exercise, let try one of the ones that we are all thinking about.
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.
1p(1/p)*1p(1p)*3p(3p)*2p(3p)*2p(1p)*3p(1p)*3p(3p)
Weee!
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
individuals.
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
complexity.
Sincerely,
Alex Rollin
alex.rollin gmail.com
http://alexrollin.com
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 9:23 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.._________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt oekonux.de