Re: [P2P-F] [NetworkedLabour] The class structure of the "solidarity economy" or any alternative community
I find this discussion very interesting, though haven't had time yet to respond.
"I think your basic traits were formed early and evolved through all of your experiences."
The traits you are describing run deeper than class, though they do have something to do with how we judge some classes better than others. So eg working class is more honest, more down to earth, more on the same level, upper class more arrogant, more rigid, more bigoted. But we also know these are caricatures, and easily reversed in practice. I think what is here being described has to do with 'morality', something we rarely talk about because it borders on religion. Peer to peer attracts us because it is nearer to 'all of us being equal in the eyes of God'. This has nothing to do with a belief in God, but something to do with what Peter describes as "a dialectical and holistic disposition toward global social emancipation". This also connects with Orsan's concern that people who appear to be 'on our side' are being used/funded by people with different intentions. I've recently been reading neurobiologist Darcia Narvaez book 'Neurobiology and the Development of Morality'. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18378036-neurobiology-and-the-developmen... What is clear from her research is that if a baby's needs are not met, eg if it is left to cry itself to sleep, which is a common practice in many western cultures, it is imprinted with the experience of a hostile world, which can affect its development and produce mental problems such as anxiety and depression later in life. The importance of the parent child bond in mitigating such experiences, and the resources that a baby brings with it, inherited and its own personality, all blend to produce a person's identity, which as you say, may be changed with difficulty. There is a growing movement which sees the necessity of welcoming the newborn with positive experiences, to counteract what appears to be the 'natural' tendency towards aggression and insecurity in our culture. Narvaez makes it clear that this needs to be a community effort, it cannot be done alone. See the 20 presenters at the upcoming conference at Findhorn, Healthy Birth, Healthy Earth. https://hbhe.co/presenters/ Anna
On 13 Aug 2016, at 10:44, Bob Haugen <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 12:51 AM, peter waterman <[email protected]> wrote:
Are these classes a cause of their behaviour or a result thereof?
At least related, I think.
And, in any case, are these 'classes' or 'identities'? I mean in any conventional definition of classes.
Yeah, it's more complicated. If you believe in intersectionality in the bell hooks sense (and I do) and in relationships of domination vs relationships of partnership as described recently in this list (and I do), then in the capitalist system you got polarities of domination and subordination around gender, wealth and relations of production, and culture/race.
People's individual personalities are formed in some interacting combination of whichever positions in the two or three of those poles they were enculturated in.
And it gets even more complicated than that.
I'm just trying to account for some phenomena in some way that is discussable without writing a book.
Secondly, what DO you do?
Maybe I would either belong to or become a member of the preferred class.
I'm not pointing fingers.
I think your basic traits were formed early and evolved through all of your experiences. You can consciously change some of them through struggle from and social practice with your comrades, but it ain't easy.
On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 12:44 AM, Bob Haugen <[email protected]> wrote:
I'm trying to connect to what I think I perceive in some of Orsan's posts. This is a different angle on what Orsan has been talking about, but I think it is connected and I think the subject line might be closer to the essence.
We have recent experience with very different groups that we have worked with in our "solidarity economy" software experiments. None of which shall be named. Yet.
Some people in some groups have this sense of entitlement, as if we are their employees or they are our customer, rather than us all being peers in an open source project.
They complain a lot. Occasionally they offer helpful suggestions, but mostly they like to complain. Sometimes when they do make suggestions, they are way beyond anything that could be implemented, and if implemented, they would not be able to use the results because the results would be beyond their competence.
They are arrogant. They assume they our intellectual superiors. They claim to have abilities that in subsequent events they fail miserably to demonstrate.
We meet other groups where people claim to want to collaborate but fail to do so. Often they are credentialed academics, and we are not. (I don't even have a college degree. The horror!) They want to publish papers in proprietary journals which will advance their careers. We are not helpful in that pursuit. They also assume they are our intellectual superiors.
We work with other groups who do not feel so entitled. Who are eager to collaborate. Who jump in and work on the software. Who not only suggest improvements to the software, they jump in and make the improvements themselves! What a concept! Like a real open source project!
It is so nice. Really.
I think we have class differences at work here. What do you think? _______________________________________________ NetworkedLabour mailing list [email protected] http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour
-- Click here for Peter's recent writings
NetworkedLabour mailing list [email protected] http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour
Anna, do you mean as from lower classes there can be individual ones becoming to those who are showing ruling class qualities, and vice versa for example among ruling class agency there can be people who can become someone prefer moral - norm - character wise qualities associated with someone emancipatory; because of the way they were treated during the early ages of their life? One would agree with such hypothesis, yet how these characters out play in relation to social structures, how much influential they could become in terms of social emancipatory collective action, what would you think of these sort of issues? And Bob, did you mean only as class-individual behaving or do you think these people you identify are may be linked to some conscious and collective efforts; infiltration, intelligence and information gathering reasons for example? Orsan
On 13 Aug 2016, at 21:12, Anna Harris <[email protected]> wrote:
I find this discussion very interesting, though haven't had time yet to respond.
"I think your basic traits were formed early and evolved through all of your experiences."
The traits you are describing run deeper than class, though they do have something to do with how we judge some classes better than others. So eg working class is more honest, more down to earth, more on the same level, upper class more arrogant, more rigid, more bigoted. But we also know these are caricatures, and easily reversed in practice.
I think what is here being described has to do with 'morality', something we rarely talk about because it borders on religion. Peer to peer attracts us because it is nearer to 'all of us being equal in the eyes of God'. This has nothing to do with a belief in God, but something to do with what Peter describes as "a dialectical and holistic disposition toward global social emancipation".
This also connects with Orsan's concern that people who appear to be 'on our side' are being used/funded by people with different intentions.
I've recently been reading neurobiologist Darcia Narvaez book 'Neurobiology and the Development of Morality'. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18378036-neurobiology-and-the-developmen...
What is clear from her research is that if a baby's needs are not met, eg if it is left to cry itself to sleep, which is a common practice in many western cultures, it is imprinted with the experience of a hostile world, which can affect its development and produce mental problems such as anxiety and depression later in life. The importance of the parent child bond in mitigating such experiences, and the resources that a baby brings with it, inherited and its own personality, all blend to produce a person's identity, which as you say, may be changed with difficulty.
There is a growing movement which sees the necessity of welcoming the newborn with positive experiences, to counteract what appears to be the 'natural' tendency towards aggression and insecurity in our culture. Narvaez makes it clear that this needs to be a community effort, it cannot be done alone.
See the 20 presenters at the upcoming conference at Findhorn, Healthy Birth, Healthy Earth. https://hbhe.co/presenters/
Anna
On 13 Aug 2016, at 10:44, Bob Haugen <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 12:51 AM, peter waterman <[email protected]> wrote:
Are these classes a cause of their behaviour or a result thereof?
At least related, I think.
And, in any case, are these 'classes' or 'identities'? I mean in any conventional definition of classes.
Yeah, it's more complicated. If you believe in intersectionality in the bell hooks sense (and I do) and in relationships of domination vs relationships of partnership as described recently in this list (and I do), then in the capitalist system you got polarities of domination and subordination around gender, wealth and relations of production, and culture/race.
People's individual personalities are formed in some interacting combination of whichever positions in the two or three of those poles they were enculturated in.
And it gets even more complicated than that.
I'm just trying to account for some phenomena in some way that is discussable without writing a book.
Secondly, what DO you do?
Maybe I would either belong to or become a member of the preferred class.
I'm not pointing fingers.
I think your basic traits were formed early and evolved through all of your experiences. You can consciously change some of them through struggle from and social practice with your comrades, but it ain't easy.
On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 12:44 AM, Bob Haugen <[email protected]> wrote:
I'm trying to connect to what I think I perceive in some of Orsan's posts. This is a different angle on what Orsan has been talking about, but I think it is connected and I think the subject line might be closer to the essence.
We have recent experience with very different groups that we have worked with in our "solidarity economy" software experiments. None of which shall be named. Yet.
Some people in some groups have this sense of entitlement, as if we are their employees or they are our customer, rather than us all being peers in an open source project.
They complain a lot. Occasionally they offer helpful suggestions, but mostly they like to complain. Sometimes when they do make suggestions, they are way beyond anything that could be implemented, and if implemented, they would not be able to use the results because the results would be beyond their competence.
They are arrogant. They assume they our intellectual superiors. They claim to have abilities that in subsequent events they fail miserably to demonstrate.
We meet other groups where people claim to want to collaborate but fail to do so. Often they are credentialed academics, and we are not. (I don't even have a college degree. The horror!) They want to publish papers in proprietary journals which will advance their careers. We are not helpful in that pursuit. They also assume they are our intellectual superiors.
We work with other groups who do not feel so entitled. Who are eager to collaborate. Who jump in and work on the software. Who not only suggest improvements to the software, they jump in and make the improvements themselves! What a concept! Like a real open source project!
It is so nice. Really.
I think we have class differences at work here. What do you think? _______________________________________________ NetworkedLabour mailing list [email protected] http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour
-- Click here for Peter's recent writings
NetworkedLabour mailing list [email protected] http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour
NetworkedLabour mailing list [email protected] http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour
By the way again I would like to recommend to watch Jason Bourne and James Bond movies from recent years, to compare as, I think part of propaganda work by two distinct global power groupings. On one side there is Gore-Clinton-Soros-CIA-gulen-moon-current Vatican and associated groups (Bourne movie represents) and on the other neo-cons, Wall Street-western oil giants-pentagon, FBI, Zionist Israeli capital sort of constellation (Bond movies represents). Out of clashes between elephants there comes massive intelligence for emancipatory movements: like manning, snowden and assange cases proven; such intelligence can be a source for an effective emancipatory global system hacking. So I don't think 'they' are in total control of everything at all :) Orsan
On 13 Aug 2016, at 23:47, Orsan Senalp <[email protected]> wrote:
Anna, do you mean as from lower classes there can be individual ones becoming to those who are showing ruling class qualities, and vice versa for example among ruling class agency there can be people who can become someone prefer moral - norm - character wise qualities associated with someone emancipatory; because of the way they were treated during the early ages of their life?
One would agree with such hypothesis, yet how these characters out play in relation to social structures, how much influential they could become in terms of social emancipatory collective action, what would you think of these sort of issues?
And Bob, did you mean only as class-individual behaving or do you think these people you identify are may be linked to some conscious and collective efforts; infiltration, intelligence and information gathering reasons for example?
Orsan
On 13 Aug 2016, at 21:12, Anna Harris <[email protected]> wrote:
I find this discussion very interesting, though haven't had time yet to respond.
"I think your basic traits were formed early and evolved through all of your experiences."
The traits you are describing run deeper than class, though they do have something to do with how we judge some classes better than others. So eg working class is more honest, more down to earth, more on the same level, upper class more arrogant, more rigid, more bigoted. But we also know these are caricatures, and easily reversed in practice.
I think what is here being described has to do with 'morality', something we rarely talk about because it borders on religion. Peer to peer attracts us because it is nearer to 'all of us being equal in the eyes of God'. This has nothing to do with a belief in God, but something to do with what Peter describes as "a dialectical and holistic disposition toward global social emancipation".
This also connects with Orsan's concern that people who appear to be 'on our side' are being used/funded by people with different intentions.
I've recently been reading neurobiologist Darcia Narvaez book 'Neurobiology and the Development of Morality'. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18378036-neurobiology-and-the-developmen...
What is clear from her research is that if a baby's needs are not met, eg if it is left to cry itself to sleep, which is a common practice in many western cultures, it is imprinted with the experience of a hostile world, which can affect its development and produce mental problems such as anxiety and depression later in life. The importance of the parent child bond in mitigating such experiences, and the resources that a baby brings with it, inherited and its own personality, all blend to produce a person's identity, which as you say, may be changed with difficulty.
There is a growing movement which sees the necessity of welcoming the newborn with positive experiences, to counteract what appears to be the 'natural' tendency towards aggression and insecurity in our culture. Narvaez makes it clear that this needs to be a community effort, it cannot be done alone.
See the 20 presenters at the upcoming conference at Findhorn, Healthy Birth, Healthy Earth. https://hbhe.co/presenters/
Anna
On 13 Aug 2016, at 10:44, Bob Haugen <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 12:51 AM, peter waterman <[email protected]> wrote:
Are these classes a cause of their behaviour or a result thereof?
At least related, I think.
And, in any case, are these 'classes' or 'identities'? I mean in any conventional definition of classes.
Yeah, it's more complicated. If you believe in intersectionality in the bell hooks sense (and I do) and in relationships of domination vs relationships of partnership as described recently in this list (and I do), then in the capitalist system you got polarities of domination and subordination around gender, wealth and relations of production, and culture/race.
People's individual personalities are formed in some interacting combination of whichever positions in the two or three of those poles they were enculturated in.
And it gets even more complicated than that.
I'm just trying to account for some phenomena in some way that is discussable without writing a book.
Secondly, what DO you do?
Maybe I would either belong to or become a member of the preferred class.
I'm not pointing fingers.
I think your basic traits were formed early and evolved through all of your experiences. You can consciously change some of them through struggle from and social practice with your comrades, but it ain't easy.
On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 12:44 AM, Bob Haugen <[email protected]> wrote:
I'm trying to connect to what I think I perceive in some of Orsan's posts. This is a different angle on what Orsan has been talking about, but I think it is connected and I think the subject line might be closer to the essence.
We have recent experience with very different groups that we have worked with in our "solidarity economy" software experiments. None of which shall be named. Yet.
Some people in some groups have this sense of entitlement, as if we are their employees or they are our customer, rather than us all being peers in an open source project.
They complain a lot. Occasionally they offer helpful suggestions, but mostly they like to complain. Sometimes when they do make suggestions, they are way beyond anything that could be implemented, and if implemented, they would not be able to use the results because the results would be beyond their competence.
They are arrogant. They assume they our intellectual superiors. They claim to have abilities that in subsequent events they fail miserably to demonstrate.
We meet other groups where people claim to want to collaborate but fail to do so. Often they are credentialed academics, and we are not. (I don't even have a college degree. The horror!) They want to publish papers in proprietary journals which will advance their careers. We are not helpful in that pursuit. They also assume they are our intellectual superiors.
We work with other groups who do not feel so entitled. Who are eager to collaborate. Who jump in and work on the software. Who not only suggest improvements to the software, they jump in and make the improvements themselves! What a concept! Like a real open source project!
It is so nice. Really.
I think we have class differences at work here. What do you think? _______________________________________________ NetworkedLabour mailing list [email protected] http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour
-- Click here for Peter's recent writings
NetworkedLabour mailing list [email protected] http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour
NetworkedLabour mailing list [email protected] http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour
On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 5:01 AM, Orsan Senalp <[email protected]> wrote:
On one side there is Gore-Clinton-Soros-CIA-gulen-moon-current Vatican and associated groups (Bourne movie represents) and on the other neo-cons, Wall Street-western oil giants-pentagon, FBI, Zionist Israeli capital sort of constellation (Bond movies represents).
interesting hypothesis that the CIA would back movies that are so devastating of its practices ... and infuse it with so much left-wing themes and left-wing activist actors ... I'm curious to your evidence ? In particular, what is the link between Gulen and the Bourne movies ? -- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://commonstransition.org P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/
The hard evidence for such stuff can come from insiders. May be p2p open intelligence guy (Robert Atllee?), or John Robb, or their contact in special operation units, or intelligence could give better insight about how these things work. In case you have time to go through, such evidence is for long is made public by wikileaks. This is one single example about Turkey and Gulen: https://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/37/379052_fw-ct-former-turk-intel-guy-say... This is Graham Fuller, CIA regional desk director for middle east -based in Turkey for long, on Gulen: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/graham-e-fuller/gulen-movement-not-cult_b_1111... To compare Gulen with the Moon cult: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Myung_Moon Also please google, or search wikileaks files on Gulen, Vatican, and Moon relationships. But I think anyone can try to develop clearer and informed argument, using scattered intelligence on rulers and their global operations. Which would takes a good article; in the end no one would read, or get it, or don't want to get it :) as in Dmytri's article case, articles can not change the world. As for the moment, I can remind and try to compile some of the different posts and links I shared in various context, while they were all inter-related to me. They were linking, in my mind, or mapping the historical inter-related developments of military deception, special operation units, organisational science, TNCs and supply chains, complex systems management, behavioural social-mass-movement management (as in Canvas - Otpor story), and finally today's big data based Minerva projects as complementary operations to PRISM and others. Gulen and Moon is extremely important, since they were 'left projects' of radical democracy: known as long march through the institutions. Rulers, get these left-'radical' reflections and implement them. In 30 years, Gulen occupied all high ranks at state institutions; starting from armed forces, army and police, and jurisdiction and education. Now they have been every where. The guys, both were related to Gladio, and were prominent anti-communists; both become global liberal religious 'movements'. May be historically 'liberal' activists, as you see them as part of the 'left', as in the US mainstream media and commonsense, Gulen and Moon are used for soft-religious movements in Islamic and eastern christian worlds. unification Church of Moon, or 'Dialogue' between Religions project of Gulen, have been part of surrounding China, and Russia since the end of 90s. In a sense, the rock-star left-activism of Bob Geldof, Bono, Angelina Jolie, John Cossack, or Matt Damon for that matter, is very related to the liberalism of Moon and Gulen. Not in terms of radical social system change at all, but liberally conserving or managing the complexities of the change process; so that any change would not dis-allow 'being' famous, or 'being' millioners -in which to them there is nothing wrong; but exactly because of this they fell on the 'right' today, instead of 'left'. I think Peter and you mean well, when you argue, for 'Dialogue', or possibilities that are independent from what is being calculated, choreographed, executed, or screened, as part of any ruling class project or 'plots', as 'UBI' or 'Commmons', or 'Green New Economy', neo-keinesianism so on; since nothing can be totally calculated there can be positive and unexpected outcomes coming about. I think, no one would disagree with this. Yet, both in your arguments one can not hear about the limitations and structural strait-jackets designed and put on such unexpected 'anomalies', or dangerous social complexities tried to be manged. I would recommend you Pasquinelli's writings on 'systemic anomaly' tracing algorithm as a supporting evidence about the size and scope of the modern Panopticon; or clashes of Panopticons. I think what is thought as power of liberal democracy, in political-philosophical sense, also reflects its biggest weakness. In relation to your question Michel: 'how and why would CIA fund or back movies that destroys its image?' this point is essential to grasp (not sure if you watched any of the Bourne or Bond movies): any total or out-come message sent by these movies is not serving to destruct the image of the CIA, at all. In opposite it provide clearing for first 'liberal democracy' in the US (as it remained at all), and then the truly patriotic soul-elements within CIA that are constantly treated by individual free riders, criminals, wrong doers; and blocked by them to serve and save their country. This is not a destruction of the public image of the CIA, opposite it is a part of deceptive image-cleaning operation, imho. As, in the scene, where Bourne meets someone appears in a terrorist outlook, even darker skin, but who clearly represent Assange, wants to expose 'all misdoing and fucked up institutions of the system'; and Bourne clearly accuse him by exploiting the informant girl -just killed by criminals running the 'agency- and he says he is not on 'their side'. Then there is the Google guy, whose owning the Deep Dream, which got allowed by criminal aspects in CIA to be billioner, and in returned asked to create 'Iron Hand' structure, to be able to follow and record all private and public communication. Clearly film represents the reality, as the CEO stands with CIA-gang, and good guys, like the owner of Google, Bourne, and idealist potentially new female candidate for directorship of the agency forms an alliance for the future. There is no place to Assange, so he gets killed by Bourne after he tries to get the files by killing him. At a time internal fighting between the almost equally forces of liberal and conservative ruling class fractions, such in-fights derail the legitimacy of the entire system. Then out of the widening cracks, there emerges right wing and fascist alternatives, in the midst of increasingly delegitimation of the parlimantair liberal democracy; casued by the publication of the darkness of the rulers through their countering accuasations via films, media services, news, public debates so on so forth. This constitute the weakness of the power-balance, that is perceived as 'liberal democracy' to masses. When this balance is broken, to a level, and losing control becomes a real threat for liberals (as for conservatives) then they call for stronger but domesticated 'left' voices, public figures, religious cults... so on. Again look at Fuller's and other CIA linked intellectuals writings for regional or world politics. To me, Matt Damon, Bono, and other left-activists are popularising figures what Graham Fuller was wishing more (left movement in Turkey). I would argue, this is not a call, this is a talk in operational terms, and they make this call globally and in general. People like Fuller, knows that system without alternative is doomed to collapse, and they want to create and manage the emergence of left-alternatives. Weather p2p, commons, new economy,.. they want to be in charge in the creation of The Next System. O. in
thanks for putting time in this ... (though I was asking for evidence of gulen support for jason bourne movies <g>) I have a quite different interpretation of bourne ... the assange and the girl are portrayed sympathetically, the CIA is presented as entirely led by crooks at all levels, with a few ethical lone riders being fought by the system .. but I guess that's a matter of interpretation I retain from your arguments that you see there are two factions in the ruling class, including a more liberal one, which is entirely plausible, but that the evidence for the concrete links you assume have be researched, which is fine, I think the overall strenghts of the arguments would be stronger without these leaps, Michel On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 7:14 PM, Örsan Şenalp <[email protected]> wrote:
The hard evidence for such stuff can come from insiders. May be p2p open intelligence guy (Robert Atllee?), or John Robb, or their contact in special operation units, or intelligence could give better insight about how these things work. In case you have time to go through, such evidence is for long is made public by wikileaks. This is one single example about Turkey and Gulen: https://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/37/379052_fw-ct-former- turk-intel-guy-says-gulen-is-cia-front-in.html
This is Graham Fuller, CIA regional desk director for middle east -based in Turkey for long, on Gulen: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/graham-e-fuller/gulen- movement-not-cult_b_11116858.html
To compare Gulen with the Moon cult: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Myung_Moon
Also please google, or search wikileaks files on Gulen, Vatican, and Moon relationships.
But I think anyone can try to develop clearer and informed argument, using scattered intelligence on rulers and their global operations.
Which would takes a good article; in the end no one would read, or get it, or don't want to get it :) as in Dmytri's article case, articles can not change the world.
As for the moment, I can remind and try to compile some of the different posts and links I shared in various context, while they were all inter-related to me. They were linking, in my mind, or mapping the historical inter-related developments of military deception, special operation units, organisational science, TNCs and supply chains, complex systems management, behavioural social-mass-movement management (as in Canvas - Otpor story), and finally today's big data based Minerva projects as complementary operations to PRISM and others.
Gulen and Moon is extremely important, since they were 'left projects' of radical democracy: known as long march through the institutions. Rulers, get these left-'radical' reflections and implement them. In 30 years, Gulen occupied all high ranks at state institutions; starting from armed forces, army and police, and jurisdiction and education. Now they have been every where. The guys, both were related to Gladio, and were prominent anti-communists; both become global liberal religious 'movements'.
May be historically 'liberal' activists, as you see them as part of the 'left', as in the US mainstream media and commonsense, Gulen and Moon are used for soft-religious movements in Islamic and eastern christian worlds. unification Church of Moon, or 'Dialogue' between Religions project of Gulen, have been part of surrounding China, and Russia since the end of 90s. In a sense, the rock-star left-activism of Bob Geldof, Bono, Angelina Jolie, John Cossack, or Matt Damon for that matter, is very related to the liberalism of Moon and Gulen. Not in terms of radical social system change at all, but liberally conserving or managing the complexities of the change process; so that any change would not dis-allow 'being' famous, or 'being' millioners -in which to them there is nothing wrong; but exactly because of this they fell on the 'right' today, instead of 'left'.
I think Peter and you mean well, when you argue, for 'Dialogue', or possibilities that are independent from what is being calculated, choreographed, executed, or screened, as part of any ruling class project or 'plots', as 'UBI' or 'Commmons', or 'Green New Economy', neo-keinesianism so on; since nothing can be totally calculated there can be positive and unexpected outcomes coming about. I think, no one would disagree with this.
Yet, both in your arguments one can not hear about the limitations and structural strait-jackets designed and put on such unexpected 'anomalies', or dangerous social complexities tried to be manged. I would recommend you Pasquinelli's writings on 'systemic anomaly' tracing algorithm as a supporting evidence about the size and scope of the modern Panopticon; or clashes of Panopticons. I think what is thought as power of liberal democracy, in political-philosophical sense, also reflects its biggest weakness. In relation to your question Michel: 'how and why would CIA fund or back movies that destroys its image?' this point is essential to grasp (not sure if you watched any of the Bourne or Bond movies): any total or out-come message sent by these movies is not serving to destruct the image of the CIA, at all. In opposite it provide clearing for first 'liberal democracy' in the US (as it remained at all), and then the truly patriotic soul-elements within CIA that are constantly treated by individual free riders, criminals, wrong doers; and blocked by them to serve and save their country. This is not a destruction of the public image of the CIA, opposite it is a part of deceptive image-cleaning operation, imho.
As, in the scene, where Bourne meets someone appears in a terrorist outlook, even darker skin, but who clearly represent Assange, wants to expose 'all misdoing and fucked up institutions of the system'; and Bourne clearly accuse him by exploiting the informant girl -just killed by criminals running the 'agency- and he says he is not on 'their side'. Then there is the Google guy, whose owning the Deep Dream, which got allowed by criminal aspects in CIA to be billioner, and in returned asked to create 'Iron Hand' structure, to be able to follow and record all private and public communication. Clearly film represents the reality, as the CEO stands with CIA-gang, and good guys, like the owner of Google, Bourne, and idealist potentially new female candidate for directorship of the agency forms an alliance for the future. There is no place to Assange, so he gets killed by Bourne after he tries to get the files by killing him.
At a time internal fighting between the almost equally forces of liberal and conservative ruling class fractions, such in-fights derail the legitimacy of the entire system. Then out of the widening cracks, there emerges right wing and fascist alternatives, in the midst of increasingly delegitimation of the parlimantair liberal democracy; casued by the publication of the darkness of the rulers through their countering accuasations via films, media services, news, public debates so on so forth. This constitute the weakness of the power-balance, that is perceived as 'liberal democracy' to masses. When this balance is broken, to a level, and losing control becomes a real threat for liberals (as for conservatives) then they call for stronger but domesticated 'left' voices, public figures, religious cults... so on. Again look at Fuller's and other CIA linked intellectuals writings for regional or world politics. To me, Matt Damon, Bono, and other left-activists are popularising figures what Graham Fuller was wishing more (left movement in Turkey). I would argue, this is not a call, this is a talk in operational terms, and they make this call globally and in general.
People like Fuller, knows that system without alternative is doomed to collapse, and they want to create and manage the emergence of left-alternatives. Weather p2p, commons, new economy,.. they want to be in charge in the creation of The Next System.
O.
in
-- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://commonstransition.org P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/
On 14 aug. 2016, at 16:48, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> wrote:
thanks for putting time in this ... (though I was asking for evidence of gulen support for jason bourne movies <g>)
You are welcome Michel, though I didn't say Gulen funded Bourne movies, but associated with the interest of those forces, according to my interpretation (which is an interpretation) of it. There are of course internal and intra-contradictions between such forces and actors to be interpreted to. As of my knowledge best of such interpretations is Kees van der Pijl's third volume of on political economy and modes of foreign relations (2014). Full of empirical evidence backed and informed by string theory.
I have a quite different interpretation of bourne ... the assange and the girl are portrayed sympathetically, the CIA is presented as entirely led by crooks at all levels, with a few ethical lone riders being fought by the system .. but I guess that's a matter of interpretation
Sure..
I retain from your arguments that you see there are two factions in the ruling class, including a more liberal one, which is entirely plausible, but that the evidence for the concrete links you assume have be researched, which is fine,
Mainly two global fraction from west engages in systemic struggle, and between the hegemonic forces or block they lead and those forces from peripheral internationalist and nationalist blocks there is a major transnational struggle going on. So more complex network of struggles; then we have labour and other counter forces, challenging these in an inter-class struggle. Identity, environmental, and other fields of struggle intersect and complicate the picture again.
I think the overall strenghts of the arguments would be stronger without these leaps,
I agree, and again it needs a deeper study, yet I believe such studies are exist. Just need reading, and specific adaptation to concrete situations; to make at least a bit better sense of the whole picture. Orsan
Michel
On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 7:14 PM, Örsan Şenalp <[email protected]> wrote: The hard evidence for such stuff can come from insiders. May be p2p open intelligence guy (Robert Atllee?), or John Robb, or their contact in special operation units, or intelligence could give better insight about how these things work. In case you have time to go through, such evidence is for long is made public by wikileaks. This is one single example about Turkey and Gulen: https://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/37/379052_fw-ct-former-turk-intel-guy-say...
This is Graham Fuller, CIA regional desk director for middle east -based in Turkey for long, on Gulen: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/graham-e-fuller/gulen-movement-not-cult_b_1111...
To compare Gulen with the Moon cult: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Myung_Moon
Also please google, or search wikileaks files on Gulen, Vatican, and Moon relationships.
But I think anyone can try to develop clearer and informed argument, using scattered intelligence on rulers and their global operations.
Which would takes a good article; in the end no one would read, or get it, or don't want to get it :) as in Dmytri's article case, articles can not change the world.
As for the moment, I can remind and try to compile some of the different posts and links I shared in various context, while they were all inter-related to me. They were linking, in my mind, or mapping the historical inter-related developments of military deception, special operation units, organisational science, TNCs and supply chains, complex systems management, behavioural social-mass-movement management (as in Canvas - Otpor story), and finally today's big data based Minerva projects as complementary operations to PRISM and others.
Gulen and Moon is extremely important, since they were 'left projects' of radical democracy: known as long march through the institutions. Rulers, get these left-'radical' reflections and implement them. In 30 years, Gulen occupied all high ranks at state institutions; starting from armed forces, army and police, and jurisdiction and education. Now they have been every where. The guys, both were related to Gladio, and were prominent anti-communists; both become global liberal religious 'movements'.
May be historically 'liberal' activists, as you see them as part of the 'left', as in the US mainstream media and commonsense, Gulen and Moon are used for soft-religious movements in Islamic and eastern christian worlds. unification Church of Moon, or 'Dialogue' between Religions project of Gulen, have been part of surrounding China, and Russia since the end of 90s. In a sense, the rock-star left-activism of Bob Geldof, Bono, Angelina Jolie, John Cossack, or Matt Damon for that matter, is very related to the liberalism of Moon and Gulen. Not in terms of radical social system change at all, but liberally conserving or managing the complexities of the change process; so that any change would not dis-allow 'being' famous, or 'being' millioners -in which to them there is nothing wrong; but exactly because of this they fell on the 'right' today, instead of 'left'.
I think Peter and you mean well, when you argue, for 'Dialogue', or possibilities that are independent from what is being calculated, choreographed, executed, or screened, as part of any ruling class project or 'plots', as 'UBI' or 'Commmons', or 'Green New Economy', neo-keinesianism so on; since nothing can be totally calculated there can be positive and unexpected outcomes coming about. I think, no one would disagree with this.
Yet, both in your arguments one can not hear about the limitations and structural strait-jackets designed and put on such unexpected 'anomalies', or dangerous social complexities tried to be manged. I would recommend you Pasquinelli's writings on 'systemic anomaly' tracing algorithm as a supporting evidence about the size and scope of the modern Panopticon; or clashes of Panopticons. I think what is thought as power of liberal democracy, in political-philosophical sense, also reflects its biggest weakness. In relation to your question Michel: 'how and why would CIA fund or back movies that destroys its image?' this point is essential to grasp (not sure if you watched any of the Bourne or Bond movies): any total or out-come message sent by these movies is not serving to destruct the image of the CIA, at all. In opposite it provide clearing for first 'liberal democracy' in the US (as it remained at all), and then the truly patriotic soul-elements within CIA that are constantly treated by individual free riders, criminals, wrong doers; and blocked by them to serve and save their country. This is not a destruction of the public image of the CIA, opposite it is a part of deceptive image-cleaning operation, imho.
As, in the scene, where Bourne meets someone appears in a terrorist outlook, even darker skin, but who clearly represent Assange, wants to expose 'all misdoing and fucked up institutions of the system'; and Bourne clearly accuse him by exploiting the informant girl -just killed by criminals running the 'agency- and he says he is not on 'their side'. Then there is the Google guy, whose owning the Deep Dream, which got allowed by criminal aspects in CIA to be billioner, and in returned asked to create 'Iron Hand' structure, to be able to follow and record all private and public communication. Clearly film represents the reality, as the CEO stands with CIA-gang, and good guys, like the owner of Google, Bourne, and idealist potentially new female candidate for directorship of the agency forms an alliance for the future. There is no place to Assange, so he gets killed by Bourne after he tries to get the files by killing him.
At a time internal fighting between the almost equally forces of liberal and conservative ruling class fractions, such in-fights derail the legitimacy of the entire system. Then out of the widening cracks, there emerges right wing and fascist alternatives, in the midst of increasingly delegitimation of the parlimantair liberal democracy; casued by the publication of the darkness of the rulers through their countering accuasations via films, media services, news, public debates so on so forth. This constitute the weakness of the power-balance, that is perceived as 'liberal democracy' to masses. When this balance is broken, to a level, and losing control becomes a real threat for liberals (as for conservatives) then they call for stronger but domesticated 'left' voices, public figures, religious cults... so on. Again look at Fuller's and other CIA linked intellectuals writings for regional or world politics. To me, Matt Damon, Bono, and other left-activists are popularising figures what Graham Fuller was wishing more (left movement in Turkey). I would argue, this is not a call, this is a talk in operational terms, and they make this call globally and in general.
People like Fuller, knows that system without alternative is doomed to collapse, and they want to create and manage the emergence of left-alternatives. Weather p2p, commons, new economy,.. they want to be in charge in the creation of The Next System.
O.
in
-- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://commonstransition.org
P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
#82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/
thanks Orsan, comments much appreciated, Michel On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 12:49 AM, Orsan <[email protected]> wrote:
On 14 aug. 2016, at 16:48, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> wrote:
thanks for putting time in this ... (though I was asking for evidence of gulen support for jason bourne movies <g>)
You are welcome Michel, though I didn't say Gulen funded Bourne movies, but associated with the interest of those forces, according to my interpretation (which is an interpretation) of it. There are of course internal and intra-contradictions between such forces and actors to be interpreted to. As of my knowledge best of such interpretations is Kees van der Pijl's third volume of on political economy and modes of foreign relations (2014). Full of empirical evidence backed and informed by string theory.
I have a quite different interpretation of bourne ... the assange and the girl are portrayed sympathetically, the CIA is presented as entirely led by crooks at all levels, with a few ethical lone riders being fought by the system .. but I guess that's a matter of interpretation
Sure..
I retain from your arguments that you see there are two factions in the ruling class, including a more liberal one, which is entirely plausible, but that the evidence for the concrete links you assume have be researched, which is fine,
Mainly two global fraction from west engages in systemic struggle, and between the hegemonic forces or block they lead and those forces from peripheral internationalist and nationalist blocks there is a major transnational struggle going on. So more complex network of struggles; then we have labour and other counter forces, challenging these in an inter-class struggle. Identity, environmental, and other fields of struggle intersect and complicate the picture again.
I think the overall strenghts of the arguments would be stronger without these leaps,
I agree, and again it needs a deeper study, yet I believe such studies are exist. Just need reading, and specific adaptation to concrete situations; to make at least a bit better sense of the whole picture.
Orsan
Michel
On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 7:14 PM, Örsan Şenalp <[email protected]> wrote:
The hard evidence for such stuff can come from insiders. May be p2p open intelligence guy (Robert Atllee?), or John Robb, or their contact in special operation units, or intelligence could give better insight about how these things work. In case you have time to go through, such evidence is for long is made public by wikileaks. This is one single example about Turkey and Gulen: https://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/37/379052_fw-ct-former-tu rk-intel-guy-says-gulen-is-cia-front-in.html
This is Graham Fuller, CIA regional desk director for middle east -based in Turkey for long, on Gulen: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/graham-e-fuller/gulen-movement -not-cult_b_11116858.html
To compare Gulen with the Moon cult: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Myung_Moon
Also please google, or search wikileaks files on Gulen, Vatican, and Moon relationships.
But I think anyone can try to develop clearer and informed argument, using scattered intelligence on rulers and their global operations.
Which would takes a good article; in the end no one would read, or get it, or don't want to get it :) as in Dmytri's article case, articles can not change the world.
As for the moment, I can remind and try to compile some of the different posts and links I shared in various context, while they were all inter-related to me. They were linking, in my mind, or mapping the historical inter-related developments of military deception, special operation units, organisational science, TNCs and supply chains, complex systems management, behavioural social-mass-movement management (as in Canvas - Otpor story), and finally today's big data based Minerva projects as complementary operations to PRISM and others.
Gulen and Moon is extremely important, since they were 'left projects' of radical democracy: known as long march through the institutions. Rulers, get these left-'radical' reflections and implement them. In 30 years, Gulen occupied all high ranks at state institutions; starting from armed forces, army and police, and jurisdiction and education. Now they have been every where. The guys, both were related to Gladio, and were prominent anti-communists; both become global liberal religious 'movements'.
May be historically 'liberal' activists, as you see them as part of the 'left', as in the US mainstream media and commonsense, Gulen and Moon are used for soft-religious movements in Islamic and eastern christian worlds. unification Church of Moon, or 'Dialogue' between Religions project of Gulen, have been part of surrounding China, and Russia since the end of 90s. In a sense, the rock-star left-activism of Bob Geldof, Bono, Angelina Jolie, John Cossack, or Matt Damon for that matter, is very related to the liberalism of Moon and Gulen. Not in terms of radical social system change at all, but liberally conserving or managing the complexities of the change process; so that any change would not dis-allow 'being' famous, or 'being' millioners -in which to them there is nothing wrong; but exactly because of this they fell on the 'right' today, instead of 'left'.
I think Peter and you mean well, when you argue, for 'Dialogue', or possibilities that are independent from what is being calculated, choreographed, executed, or screened, as part of any ruling class project or 'plots', as 'UBI' or 'Commmons', or 'Green New Economy', neo-keinesianism so on; since nothing can be totally calculated there can be positive and unexpected outcomes coming about. I think, no one would disagree with this.
Yet, both in your arguments one can not hear about the limitations and structural strait-jackets designed and put on such unexpected 'anomalies', or dangerous social complexities tried to be manged. I would recommend you Pasquinelli's writings on 'systemic anomaly' tracing algorithm as a supporting evidence about the size and scope of the modern Panopticon; or clashes of Panopticons. I think what is thought as power of liberal democracy, in political-philosophical sense, also reflects its biggest weakness. In relation to your question Michel: 'how and why would CIA fund or back movies that destroys its image?' this point is essential to grasp (not sure if you watched any of the Bourne or Bond movies): any total or out-come message sent by these movies is not serving to destruct the image of the CIA, at all. In opposite it provide clearing for first 'liberal democracy' in the US (as it remained at all), and then the truly patriotic soul-elements within CIA that are constantly treated by individual free riders, criminals, wrong doers; and blocked by them to serve and save their country. This is not a destruction of the public image of the CIA, opposite it is a part of deceptive image-cleaning operation, imho.
As, in the scene, where Bourne meets someone appears in a terrorist outlook, even darker skin, but who clearly represent Assange, wants to expose 'all misdoing and fucked up institutions of the system'; and Bourne clearly accuse him by exploiting the informant girl -just killed by criminals running the 'agency- and he says he is not on 'their side'. Then there is the Google guy, whose owning the Deep Dream, which got allowed by criminal aspects in CIA to be billioner, and in returned asked to create 'Iron Hand' structure, to be able to follow and record all private and public communication. Clearly film represents the reality, as the CEO stands with CIA-gang, and good guys, like the owner of Google, Bourne, and idealist potentially new female candidate for directorship of the agency forms an alliance for the future. There is no place to Assange, so he gets killed by Bourne after he tries to get the files by killing him.
At a time internal fighting between the almost equally forces of liberal and conservative ruling class fractions, such in-fights derail the legitimacy of the entire system. Then out of the widening cracks, there emerges right wing and fascist alternatives, in the midst of increasingly delegitimation of the parlimantair liberal democracy; casued by the publication of the darkness of the rulers through their countering accuasations via films, media services, news, public debates so on so forth. This constitute the weakness of the power-balance, that is perceived as 'liberal democracy' to masses. When this balance is broken, to a level, and losing control becomes a real threat for liberals (as for conservatives) then they call for stronger but domesticated 'left' voices, public figures, religious cults... so on. Again look at Fuller's and other CIA linked intellectuals writings for regional or world politics. To me, Matt Damon, Bono, and other left-activists are popularising figures what Graham Fuller was wishing more (left movement in Turkey). I would argue, this is not a call, this is a talk in operational terms, and they make this call globally and in general.
People like Fuller, knows that system without alternative is doomed to collapse, and they want to create and manage the emergence of left-alternatives. Weather p2p, commons, new economy,.. they want to be in charge in the creation of The Next System.
O.
in
-- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://commonstransition.org
P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
<http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
#82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/
-- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://commonstransition.org P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/
Dear Anna, are you familiar with the works of Wilhelm Reich at all .. some interesting hypotheses in his work which echo what you are saying and are you familiar with the Institute for Psycho-History ? Their history of child abuse is amazing, but also interesting because it breaks down the dichotomy between, the west is bad and based on domination vs the rest where all is good, see http://www.primal-page.com/psyhis.htm On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 2:12 AM, Anna Harris <[email protected]> wrote:
I find this discussion very interesting, though haven't had time yet to respond.
"I think your basic traits were formed early and evolved through all of your experiences."
The traits you are describing run deeper than class, though they do have something to do with how we judge some classes better than others. So eg working class is more honest, more down to earth, more on the same level, upper class more arrogant, more rigid, more bigoted. But we also know these are caricatures, and easily reversed in practice.
I think what is here being described has to do with 'morality', something we rarely talk about because it borders on religion. Peer to peer attracts us because it is nearer to 'all of us being equal in the eyes of God'. This has nothing to do with a belief in God, but something to do with what Peter describes as "a dialectical and holistic disposition toward global social emancipation".
This also connects with Orsan's concern that people who appear to be 'on our side' are being used/funded by people with different intentions.
I've recently been reading neurobiologist Darcia Narvaez book 'Neurobiology and the Development of Morality'. https://www. goodreads.com/book/show/18378036-neurobiology-and-the- development-of-human-morality
What is clear from her research is that if a baby's needs are not met, eg if it is left to cry itself to sleep, which is a common practice in many western cultures, it is imprinted with the experience of a hostile world, which can affect its development and produce mental problems such as anxiety and depression later in life. The importance of the parent child bond in mitigating such experiences, and the resources that a baby brings with it, inherited and its own personality, all blend to produce a person's identity, which as you say, may be changed with difficulty.
There is a growing movement which sees the necessity of welcoming the newborn with positive experiences, to counteract what appears to be the 'natural' tendency towards aggression and insecurity in our culture. Narvaez makes it clear that this needs to be a community effort, it cannot be done alone.
See the 20 presenters at the upcoming conference at Findhorn, Healthy Birth, Healthy Earth. https://hbhe.co/presenters/
Anna
On 13 Aug 2016, at 10:44, Bob Haugen <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 12:51 AM, peter waterman <[email protected]> wrote:
Are these classes a cause of their behaviour or a result thereof?
At least related, I think.
And, in
any case, are these 'classes' or 'identities'? I mean in any conventional
definition of classes.
Yeah, it's more complicated. If you believe in intersectionality in the bell hooks sense (and I do) and in relationships of domination vs relationships of partnership as described recently in this list (and I do), then in the capitalist system you got polarities of domination and subordination around gender, wealth and relations of production, and culture/race.
People's individual personalities are formed in some interacting combination of whichever positions in the two or three of those poles they were enculturated in.
And it gets even more complicated than that.
I'm just trying to account for some phenomena in some way that is discussable without writing a book.
Secondly, what DO you do?
Maybe I would either belong to or become a member
of the preferred class.
I'm not pointing fingers.
I think your basic traits were formed early and evolved through all of your experiences. You can consciously change some of them through struggle from and social practice with your comrades, but it ain't easy.
On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 12:44 AM, Bob Haugen <[email protected]> wrote:
I'm trying to connect to what I think I perceive in some of Orsan's
posts. This is a different angle on what Orsan has been talking about,
but I think it is connected and I think the subject line might be
closer to the essence.
We have recent experience with very different groups that we have
worked with in our "solidarity economy" software experiments. None of
which shall be named. Yet.
Some people in some groups have this sense of entitlement, as if we
are their employees or they are our customer, rather than us all being
peers in an open source project.
They complain a lot. Occasionally they offer helpful suggestions, but
mostly they like to complain. Sometimes when they do make suggestions,
they are way beyond anything that could be implemented, and if
implemented, they would not be able to use the results because the
results would be beyond their competence.
They are arrogant. They assume they our intellectual superiors. They
claim to have abilities that in subsequent events they fail miserably
to demonstrate.
We meet other groups where people claim to want to collaborate but
fail to do so. Often they are credentialed academics, and we are not.
(I don't even have a college degree. The horror!) They want to publish
papers in proprietary journals which will advance their careers. We
are not helpful in that pursuit. They also assume they are our
intellectual superiors.
We work with other groups who do not feel so entitled. Who are eager
to collaborate. Who jump in and work on the software. Who not only
suggest improvements to the software, they jump in and make the
improvements themselves! What a concept! Like a real open source
project!
It is so nice. Really.
I think we have class differences at work here. What do you think?
_______________________________________________
NetworkedLabour mailing list
http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour
--
Click here for Peter's recent writings
_______________________________________________ NetworkedLabour mailing list [email protected] http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour
_______________________________________________ NetworkedLabour mailing list [email protected] http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour
-- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://commonstransition.org P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/
Yes I didn't mean to imply a dichotomy between west and others, just that west child rearing culture is only one I'm familiar with. On Aug 14, 2016 4:41 AM, "Michel Bauwens" <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Anna,
are you familiar with the works of Wilhelm Reich at all .. some interesting hypotheses in his work which echo what you are saying
and are you familiar with the Institute for Psycho-History ?
Their history of child abuse is amazing, but also interesting because it breaks down the dichotomy between, the west is bad and based on domination vs the rest where all is good,
see http://www.primal-page.com/psyhis.htm
On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 2:12 AM, Anna Harris <[email protected]> wrote:
I find this discussion very interesting, though haven't had time yet to respond.
"I think your basic traits were formed early and evolved through all of your experiences."
The traits you are describing run deeper than class, though they do have something to do with how we judge some classes better than others. So eg working class is more honest, more down to earth, more on the same level, upper class more arrogant, more rigid, more bigoted. But we also know these are caricatures, and easily reversed in practice.
I think what is here being described has to do with 'morality', something we rarely talk about because it borders on religion. Peer to peer attracts us because it is nearer to 'all of us being equal in the eyes of God'. This has nothing to do with a belief in God, but something to do with what Peter describes as "a dialectical and holistic disposition toward global social emancipation".
This also connects with Orsan's concern that people who appear to be 'on our side' are being used/funded by people with different intentions.
I've recently been reading neurobiologist Darcia Narvaez book 'Neurobiology and the Development of Morality'. https://www.goodrea ds.com/book/show/18378036-neurobiology-and-the-developme nt-of-human-morality
What is clear from her research is that if a baby's needs are not met, eg if it is left to cry itself to sleep, which is a common practice in many western cultures, it is imprinted with the experience of a hostile world, which can affect its development and produce mental problems such as anxiety and depression later in life. The importance of the parent child bond in mitigating such experiences, and the resources that a baby brings with it, inherited and its own personality, all blend to produce a person's identity, which as you say, may be changed with difficulty.
There is a growing movement which sees the necessity of welcoming the newborn with positive experiences, to counteract what appears to be the 'natural' tendency towards aggression and insecurity in our culture. Narvaez makes it clear that this needs to be a community effort, it cannot be done alone.
See the 20 presenters at the upcoming conference at Findhorn, Healthy Birth, Healthy Earth. https://hbhe.co/presenters/
Anna
On 13 Aug 2016, at 10:44, Bob Haugen <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 12:51 AM, peter waterman <[email protected]> wrote:
Are these classes a cause of their behaviour or a result thereof?
At least related, I think.
And, in
any case, are these 'classes' or 'identities'? I mean in any conventional
definition of classes.
Yeah, it's more complicated. If you believe in intersectionality in the bell hooks sense (and I do) and in relationships of domination vs relationships of partnership as described recently in this list (and I do), then in the capitalist system you got polarities of domination and subordination around gender, wealth and relations of production, and culture/race.
People's individual personalities are formed in some interacting combination of whichever positions in the two or three of those poles they were enculturated in.
And it gets even more complicated than that.
I'm just trying to account for some phenomena in some way that is discussable without writing a book.
Secondly, what DO you do?
Maybe I would either belong to or become a member
of the preferred class.
I'm not pointing fingers.
I think your basic traits were formed early and evolved through all of your experiences. You can consciously change some of them through struggle from and social practice with your comrades, but it ain't easy.
On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 12:44 AM, Bob Haugen <[email protected]> wrote:
I'm trying to connect to what I think I perceive in some of Orsan's
posts. This is a different angle on what Orsan has been talking about,
but I think it is connected and I think the subject line might be
closer to the essence.
We have recent experience with very different groups that we have
worked with in our "solidarity economy" software experiments. None of
which shall be named. Yet.
Some people in some groups have this sense of entitlement, as if we
are their employees or they are our customer, rather than us all being
peers in an open source project.
They complain a lot. Occasionally they offer helpful suggestions, but
mostly they like to complain. Sometimes when they do make suggestions,
they are way beyond anything that could be implemented, and if
implemented, they would not be able to use the results because the
results would be beyond their competence.
They are arrogant. They assume they our intellectual superiors. They
claim to have abilities that in subsequent events they fail miserably
to demonstrate.
We meet other groups where people claim to want to collaborate but
fail to do so. Often they are credentialed academics, and we are not.
(I don't even have a college degree. The horror!) They want to publish
papers in proprietary journals which will advance their careers. We
are not helpful in that pursuit. They also assume they are our
intellectual superiors.
We work with other groups who do not feel so entitled. Who are eager
to collaborate. Who jump in and work on the software. Who not only
suggest improvements to the software, they jump in and make the
improvements themselves! What a concept! Like a real open source
project!
It is so nice. Really.
I think we have class differences at work here. What do you think?
_______________________________________________
NetworkedLabour mailing list
http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour
--
Click here for Peter's recent writings
_______________________________________________ NetworkedLabour mailing list [email protected] http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour
_______________________________________________ NetworkedLabour mailing list [email protected] http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour
-- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://commonstransition.org
P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
<http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
#82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/
I have experienced this dichotomy 'in the flesh' by rearing my 2nd set of children in thailand's original attachment parenting style, and my first two in the european 'new age re-invention of attachment parenting' style ... in reaction to my own nearly opposite experience <g> On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 12:55 PM, Anna Harris <[email protected]> wrote:
Yes I didn't mean to imply a dichotomy between west and others, just that west child rearing culture is only one I'm familiar with.
On Aug 14, 2016 4:41 AM, "Michel Bauwens" <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Anna,
are you familiar with the works of Wilhelm Reich at all .. some interesting hypotheses in his work which echo what you are saying
and are you familiar with the Institute for Psycho-History ?
Their history of child abuse is amazing, but also interesting because it breaks down the dichotomy between, the west is bad and based on domination vs the rest where all is good,
see http://www.primal-page.com/psyhis.htm
On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 2:12 AM, Anna Harris <[email protected]> wrote:
I find this discussion very interesting, though haven't had time yet to respond.
"I think your basic traits were formed early and evolved through all of your experiences."
The traits you are describing run deeper than class, though they do have something to do with how we judge some classes better than others. So eg working class is more honest, more down to earth, more on the same level, upper class more arrogant, more rigid, more bigoted. But we also know these are caricatures, and easily reversed in practice.
I think what is here being described has to do with 'morality', something we rarely talk about because it borders on religion. Peer to peer attracts us because it is nearer to 'all of us being equal in the eyes of God'. This has nothing to do with a belief in God, but something to do with what Peter describes as "a dialectical and holistic disposition toward global social emancipation".
This also connects with Orsan's concern that people who appear to be 'on our side' are being used/funded by people with different intentions.
I've recently been reading neurobiologist Darcia Narvaez book 'Neurobiology and the Development of Morality'. https://www.goodrea ds.com/book/show/18378036-neurobiology-and-the-development- of-human-morality
What is clear from her research is that if a baby's needs are not met, eg if it is left to cry itself to sleep, which is a common practice in many western cultures, it is imprinted with the experience of a hostile world, which can affect its development and produce mental problems such as anxiety and depression later in life. The importance of the parent child bond in mitigating such experiences, and the resources that a baby brings with it, inherited and its own personality, all blend to produce a person's identity, which as you say, may be changed with difficulty.
There is a growing movement which sees the necessity of welcoming the newborn with positive experiences, to counteract what appears to be the 'natural' tendency towards aggression and insecurity in our culture. Narvaez makes it clear that this needs to be a community effort, it cannot be done alone.
See the 20 presenters at the upcoming conference at Findhorn, Healthy Birth, Healthy Earth. https://hbhe.co/presenters/
Anna
On 13 Aug 2016, at 10:44, Bob Haugen <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 12:51 AM, peter waterman <[email protected]> wrote:
Are these classes a cause of their behaviour or a result thereof?
At least related, I think.
And, in
any case, are these 'classes' or 'identities'? I mean in any conventional
definition of classes.
Yeah, it's more complicated. If you believe in intersectionality in the bell hooks sense (and I do) and in relationships of domination vs relationships of partnership as described recently in this list (and I do), then in the capitalist system you got polarities of domination and subordination around gender, wealth and relations of production, and culture/race.
People's individual personalities are formed in some interacting combination of whichever positions in the two or three of those poles they were enculturated in.
And it gets even more complicated than that.
I'm just trying to account for some phenomena in some way that is discussable without writing a book.
Secondly, what DO you do?
Maybe I would either belong to or become a member
of the preferred class.
I'm not pointing fingers.
I think your basic traits were formed early and evolved through all of your experiences. You can consciously change some of them through struggle from and social practice with your comrades, but it ain't easy.
On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 12:44 AM, Bob Haugen <[email protected]> wrote:
I'm trying to connect to what I think I perceive in some of Orsan's
posts. This is a different angle on what Orsan has been talking about,
but I think it is connected and I think the subject line might be
closer to the essence.
We have recent experience with very different groups that we have
worked with in our "solidarity economy" software experiments. None of
which shall be named. Yet.
Some people in some groups have this sense of entitlement, as if we
are their employees or they are our customer, rather than us all being
peers in an open source project.
They complain a lot. Occasionally they offer helpful suggestions, but
mostly they like to complain. Sometimes when they do make suggestions,
they are way beyond anything that could be implemented, and if
implemented, they would not be able to use the results because the
results would be beyond their competence.
They are arrogant. They assume they our intellectual superiors. They
claim to have abilities that in subsequent events they fail miserably
to demonstrate.
We meet other groups where people claim to want to collaborate but
fail to do so. Often they are credentialed academics, and we are not.
(I don't even have a college degree. The horror!) They want to publish
papers in proprietary journals which will advance their careers. We
are not helpful in that pursuit. They also assume they are our
intellectual superiors.
We work with other groups who do not feel so entitled. Who are eager
to collaborate. Who jump in and work on the software. Who not only
suggest improvements to the software, they jump in and make the
improvements themselves! What a concept! Like a real open source
project!
It is so nice. Really.
I think we have class differences at work here. What do you think?
_______________________________________________
NetworkedLabour mailing list
http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour
--
Click here for Peter's recent writings
_______________________________________________ NetworkedLabour mailing list [email protected] http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour
_______________________________________________ NetworkedLabour mailing list [email protected] http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour
-- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://commonstransition.org
P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
<http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
#82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/
-- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://commonstransition.org P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/
I would be very interested to hear more about these three different experiences. The personal is political! On Aug 14, 2016 6:58 AM, "Michel Bauwens" <[email protected]> wrote:
I have experienced this dichotomy 'in the flesh' by rearing my 2nd set of children in thailand's original attachment parenting style, and my first two in the european 'new age re-invention of attachment parenting' style ... in reaction to my own nearly opposite experience <g>
On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 12:55 PM, Anna Harris <[email protected]> wrote:
Yes I didn't mean to imply a dichotomy between west and others, just that west child rearing culture is only one I'm familiar with.
On Aug 14, 2016 4:41 AM, "Michel Bauwens" <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Anna,
are you familiar with the works of Wilhelm Reich at all .. some interesting hypotheses in his work which echo what you are saying
and are you familiar with the Institute for Psycho-History ?
Their history of child abuse is amazing, but also interesting because it breaks down the dichotomy between, the west is bad and based on domination vs the rest where all is good,
see http://www.primal-page.com/psyhis.htm
On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 2:12 AM, Anna Harris <[email protected]> wrote:
I find this discussion very interesting, though haven't had time yet to respond.
"I think your basic traits were formed early and evolved through all of your experiences."
The traits you are describing run deeper than class, though they do have something to do with how we judge some classes better than others. So eg working class is more honest, more down to earth, more on the same level, upper class more arrogant, more rigid, more bigoted. But we also know these are caricatures, and easily reversed in practice.
I think what is here being described has to do with 'morality', something we rarely talk about because it borders on religion. Peer to peer attracts us because it is nearer to 'all of us being equal in the eyes of God'. This has nothing to do with a belief in God, but something to do with what Peter describes as "a dialectical and holistic disposition toward global social emancipation".
This also connects with Orsan's concern that people who appear to be 'on our side' are being used/funded by people with different intentions.
I've recently been reading neurobiologist Darcia Narvaez book 'Neurobiology and the Development of Morality'. https://www.goodrea ds.com/book/show/18378036-neurobiology-and-the-development-o f-human-morality
What is clear from her research is that if a baby's needs are not met, eg if it is left to cry itself to sleep, which is a common practice in many western cultures, it is imprinted with the experience of a hostile world, which can affect its development and produce mental problems such as anxiety and depression later in life. The importance of the parent child bond in mitigating such experiences, and the resources that a baby brings with it, inherited and its own personality, all blend to produce a person's identity, which as you say, may be changed with difficulty.
There is a growing movement which sees the necessity of welcoming the newborn with positive experiences, to counteract what appears to be the 'natural' tendency towards aggression and insecurity in our culture. Narvaez makes it clear that this needs to be a community effort, it cannot be done alone.
See the 20 presenters at the upcoming conference at Findhorn, Healthy Birth, Healthy Earth. https://hbhe.co/presenters/
Anna
On 13 Aug 2016, at 10:44, Bob Haugen <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 12:51 AM, peter waterman <[email protected]> wrote:
Are these classes a cause of their behaviour or a result thereof?
At least related, I think.
And, in
any case, are these 'classes' or 'identities'? I mean in any conventional
definition of classes.
Yeah, it's more complicated. If you believe in intersectionality in the bell hooks sense (and I do) and in relationships of domination vs relationships of partnership as described recently in this list (and I do), then in the capitalist system you got polarities of domination and subordination around gender, wealth and relations of production, and culture/race.
People's individual personalities are formed in some interacting combination of whichever positions in the two or three of those poles they were enculturated in.
And it gets even more complicated than that.
I'm just trying to account for some phenomena in some way that is discussable without writing a book.
Secondly, what DO you do?
Maybe I would either belong to or become a member
of the preferred class.
I'm not pointing fingers.
I think your basic traits were formed early and evolved through all of your experiences. You can consciously change some of them through struggle from and social practice with your comrades, but it ain't easy.
On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 12:44 AM, Bob Haugen <[email protected]> wrote:
I'm trying to connect to what I think I perceive in some of Orsan's
posts. This is a different angle on what Orsan has been talking about,
but I think it is connected and I think the subject line might be
closer to the essence.
We have recent experience with very different groups that we have
worked with in our "solidarity economy" software experiments. None of
which shall be named. Yet.
Some people in some groups have this sense of entitlement, as if we
are their employees or they are our customer, rather than us all being
peers in an open source project.
They complain a lot. Occasionally they offer helpful suggestions, but
mostly they like to complain. Sometimes when they do make suggestions,
they are way beyond anything that could be implemented, and if
implemented, they would not be able to use the results because the
results would be beyond their competence.
They are arrogant. They assume they our intellectual superiors. They
claim to have abilities that in subsequent events they fail miserably
to demonstrate.
We meet other groups where people claim to want to collaborate but
fail to do so. Often they are credentialed academics, and we are not.
(I don't even have a college degree. The horror!) They want to publish
papers in proprietary journals which will advance their careers. We
are not helpful in that pursuit. They also assume they are our
intellectual superiors.
We work with other groups who do not feel so entitled. Who are eager
to collaborate. Who jump in and work on the software. Who not only
suggest improvements to the software, they jump in and make the
improvements themselves! What a concept! Like a real open source
project!
It is so nice. Really.
I think we have class differences at work here. What do you think?
_______________________________________________
NetworkedLabour mailing list
http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour
--
Click here for Peter's recent writings
_______________________________________________ NetworkedLabour mailing list [email protected] http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour
_______________________________________________ NetworkedLabour mailing list [email protected] http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour
-- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://commonstransition.org
P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
<http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
#82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/
-- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://commonstransition.org
P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
<http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
#82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/
for when we meet offline again <g> On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 1:05 PM, Anna Harris <[email protected]> wrote:
I would be very interested to hear more about these three different experiences. The personal is political!
On Aug 14, 2016 6:58 AM, "Michel Bauwens" <[email protected]> wrote:
I have experienced this dichotomy 'in the flesh' by rearing my 2nd set of children in thailand's original attachment parenting style, and my first two in the european 'new age re-invention of attachment parenting' style ... in reaction to my own nearly opposite experience <g>
On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 12:55 PM, Anna Harris <[email protected]> wrote:
Yes I didn't mean to imply a dichotomy between west and others, just that west child rearing culture is only one I'm familiar with.
On Aug 14, 2016 4:41 AM, "Michel Bauwens" <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Anna,
are you familiar with the works of Wilhelm Reich at all .. some interesting hypotheses in his work which echo what you are saying
and are you familiar with the Institute for Psycho-History ?
Their history of child abuse is amazing, but also interesting because it breaks down the dichotomy between, the west is bad and based on domination vs the rest where all is good,
see http://www.primal-page.com/psyhis.htm
On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 2:12 AM, Anna Harris <[email protected]> wrote:
I find this discussion very interesting, though haven't had time yet to respond.
"I think your basic traits were formed early and evolved through all of your experiences."
The traits you are describing run deeper than class, though they do have something to do with how we judge some classes better than others. So eg working class is more honest, more down to earth, more on the same level, upper class more arrogant, more rigid, more bigoted. But we also know these are caricatures, and easily reversed in practice.
I think what is here being described has to do with 'morality', something we rarely talk about because it borders on religion. Peer to peer attracts us because it is nearer to 'all of us being equal in the eyes of God'. This has nothing to do with a belief in God, but something to do with what Peter describes as "a dialectical and holistic disposition toward global social emancipation".
This also connects with Orsan's concern that people who appear to be 'on our side' are being used/funded by people with different intentions.
I've recently been reading neurobiologist Darcia Narvaez book 'Neurobiology and the Development of Morality'. https://www.goodrea ds.com/book/show/18378036-neurobiology-and-the-development-o f-human-morality
What is clear from her research is that if a baby's needs are not met, eg if it is left to cry itself to sleep, which is a common practice in many western cultures, it is imprinted with the experience of a hostile world, which can affect its development and produce mental problems such as anxiety and depression later in life. The importance of the parent child bond in mitigating such experiences, and the resources that a baby brings with it, inherited and its own personality, all blend to produce a person's identity, which as you say, may be changed with difficulty.
There is a growing movement which sees the necessity of welcoming the newborn with positive experiences, to counteract what appears to be the 'natural' tendency towards aggression and insecurity in our culture. Narvaez makes it clear that this needs to be a community effort, it cannot be done alone.
See the 20 presenters at the upcoming conference at Findhorn, Healthy Birth, Healthy Earth. https://hbhe.co/presenters/
Anna
On 13 Aug 2016, at 10:44, Bob Haugen <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 12:51 AM, peter waterman <[email protected]> wrote:
Are these classes a cause of their behaviour or a result thereof?
At least related, I think.
And, in
any case, are these 'classes' or 'identities'? I mean in any conventional
definition of classes.
Yeah, it's more complicated. If you believe in intersectionality in the bell hooks sense (and I do) and in relationships of domination vs relationships of partnership as described recently in this list (and I do), then in the capitalist system you got polarities of domination and subordination around gender, wealth and relations of production, and culture/race.
People's individual personalities are formed in some interacting combination of whichever positions in the two or three of those poles they were enculturated in.
And it gets even more complicated than that.
I'm just trying to account for some phenomena in some way that is discussable without writing a book.
Secondly, what DO you do?
Maybe I would either belong to or become a member
of the preferred class.
I'm not pointing fingers.
I think your basic traits were formed early and evolved through all of your experiences. You can consciously change some of them through struggle from and social practice with your comrades, but it ain't easy.
On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 12:44 AM, Bob Haugen <[email protected]> wrote:
I'm trying to connect to what I think I perceive in some of Orsan's
posts. This is a different angle on what Orsan has been talking about,
but I think it is connected and I think the subject line might be
closer to the essence.
We have recent experience with very different groups that we have
worked with in our "solidarity economy" software experiments. None of
which shall be named. Yet.
Some people in some groups have this sense of entitlement, as if we
are their employees or they are our customer, rather than us all being
peers in an open source project.
They complain a lot. Occasionally they offer helpful suggestions, but
mostly they like to complain. Sometimes when they do make suggestions,
they are way beyond anything that could be implemented, and if
implemented, they would not be able to use the results because the
results would be beyond their competence.
They are arrogant. They assume they our intellectual superiors. They
claim to have abilities that in subsequent events they fail miserably
to demonstrate.
We meet other groups where people claim to want to collaborate but
fail to do so. Often they are credentialed academics, and we are not.
(I don't even have a college degree. The horror!) They want to publish
papers in proprietary journals which will advance their careers. We
are not helpful in that pursuit. They also assume they are our
intellectual superiors.
We work with other groups who do not feel so entitled. Who are eager
to collaborate. Who jump in and work on the software. Who not only
suggest improvements to the software, they jump in and make the
improvements themselves! What a concept! Like a real open source
project!
It is so nice. Really.
I think we have class differences at work here. What do you think?
_______________________________________________
NetworkedLabour mailing list
http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour
--
Click here for Peter's recent writings
_______________________________________________ NetworkedLabour mailing list [email protected] http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour
_______________________________________________ NetworkedLabour mailing list [email protected] http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour
-- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://commonstransition.org
P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
<http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
#82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/
-- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://commonstransition.org
P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
<http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
#82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/
-- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://commonstransition.org P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/
Hi Michel, On 14/08/16 07:58, Michel Bauwens wrote:
I have experienced this dichotomy 'in the flesh' by rearing my 2nd set of children in thailand's original attachment parenting style, and my first two in the european 'new age re-invention of attachment parenting' style ... in reaction to my own nearly opposite experience <g>
I'd be interested in learning more about that as well. I somewhat informed about modern "attachment parenting", but is there some accessible description of Thailand's original attachment parenting style or about the differences between the two? Thanks and best regards Christian -- |--------- Dr. Christian Siefkes --------- [email protected] --------- | Homepage: http://www.siefkes.net/ | Blog: http://www.keimform.de/ | Wie Produktion zur Nebensache wurde: www.keimform.de/2013/freie-quellen-1/ | Why Production No Longer Worries Us: www.keimform.de/2013/free-sources-1/ |------------------------------------------- OpenPGP Key ID: 0x980FA6ED -- Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has. -- Margaret Mead
A long time ago, I read The Magical Child by Joseph Chilton Pearce, which impressed me a lot. His critique of Western child-rearing practices went as far back as the medical approach to birth, which treats it as it were a disease. I could not forget his description of the effects of anaesthesia, for instance, on the baby itself, and the contrast between children born naturally and those born in hospitals. The Magical Child has since been supplemented for me by the educational insights of John Holt (How Children Learn, How Children Fail). A.S.Neill (Summerhill) and the whole free schools movement. Roberto On Sun, 14 Aug 2016 10:41:23 +0700 Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Anna,
are you familiar with the works of Wilhelm Reich at all .. some interesting hypotheses in his work which echo what you are saying
and are you familiar with the Institute for Psycho-History ?
Their history of child abuse is amazing, but also interesting because it breaks down the dichotomy between, the west is bad and based on domination vs the rest where all is good,
see http://www.primal-page.com/psyhis.htm
On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 2:12 AM, Anna Harris <[email protected]> wrote:
I find this discussion very interesting, though haven't had time yet to respond.
"I think your basic traits were formed early and evolved through all of your experiences."
The traits you are describing run deeper than class, though they do have something to do with how we judge some classes better than others. So eg working class is more honest, more down to earth, more on the same level, upper class more arrogant, more rigid, more bigoted. But we also know these are caricatures, and easily reversed in practice.
I think what is here being described has to do with 'morality', something we rarely talk about because it borders on religion. Peer to peer attracts us because it is nearer to 'all of us being equal in the eyes of God'. This has nothing to do with a belief in God, but something to do with what Peter describes as "a dialectical and holistic disposition toward global social emancipation".
This also connects with Orsan's concern that people who appear to be 'on our side' are being used/funded by people with different intentions.
I've recently been reading neurobiologist Darcia Narvaez book 'Neurobiology and the Development of Morality'. https://www. goodreads.com/book/show/18378036-neurobiology-and-the- development-of-human-morality
What is clear from her research is that if a baby's needs are not met, eg if it is left to cry itself to sleep, which is a common practice in many western cultures, it is imprinted with the experience of a hostile world, which can affect its development and produce mental problems such as anxiety and depression later in life. The importance of the parent child bond in mitigating such experiences, and the resources that a baby brings with it, inherited and its own personality, all blend to produce a person's identity, which as you say, may be changed with difficulty.
There is a growing movement which sees the necessity of welcoming the newborn with positive experiences, to counteract what appears to be the 'natural' tendency towards aggression and insecurity in our culture. Narvaez makes it clear that this needs to be a community effort, it cannot be done alone.
See the 20 presenters at the upcoming conference at Findhorn, Healthy Birth, Healthy Earth. https://hbhe.co/presenters/
Anna
On 13 Aug 2016, at 10:44, Bob Haugen <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 12:51 AM, peter waterman <[email protected]> wrote:
Are these classes a cause of their behaviour or a result thereof?
At least related, I think.
And, in
any case, are these 'classes' or 'identities'? I mean in any conventional
definition of classes.
Yeah, it's more complicated. If you believe in intersectionality in the bell hooks sense (and I do) and in relationships of domination vs relationships of partnership as described recently in this list (and I do), then in the capitalist system you got polarities of domination and subordination around gender, wealth and relations of production, and culture/race.
People's individual personalities are formed in some interacting combination of whichever positions in the two or three of those poles they were enculturated in.
And it gets even more complicated than that.
I'm just trying to account for some phenomena in some way that is discussable without writing a book.
Secondly, what DO you do?
Maybe I would either belong to or become a member
of the preferred class.
I'm not pointing fingers.
I think your basic traits were formed early and evolved through all of your experiences. You can consciously change some of them through struggle from and social practice with your comrades, but it ain't easy.
On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 12:44 AM, Bob Haugen <[email protected]> wrote:
I'm trying to connect to what I think I perceive in some of Orsan's
posts. This is a different angle on what Orsan has been talking about,
but I think it is connected and I think the subject line might be
closer to the essence.
We have recent experience with very different groups that we have
worked with in our "solidarity economy" software experiments. None of
which shall be named. Yet.
Some people in some groups have this sense of entitlement, as if we
are their employees or they are our customer, rather than us all being
peers in an open source project.
They complain a lot. Occasionally they offer helpful suggestions, but
mostly they like to complain. Sometimes when they do make suggestions,
they are way beyond anything that could be implemented, and if
implemented, they would not be able to use the results because the
results would be beyond their competence.
They are arrogant. They assume they our intellectual superiors. They
claim to have abilities that in subsequent events they fail miserably
to demonstrate.
We meet other groups where people claim to want to collaborate but
fail to do so. Often they are credentialed academics, and we are not.
(I don't even have a college degree. The horror!) They want to publish
papers in proprietary journals which will advance their careers. We
are not helpful in that pursuit. They also assume they are our
intellectual superiors.
We work with other groups who do not feel so entitled. Who are eager
to collaborate. Who jump in and work on the software. Who not only
suggest improvements to the software, they jump in and make the
improvements themselves! What a concept! Like a real open source
project!
It is so nice. Really.
I think we have class differences at work here. What do you think?
_______________________________________________
NetworkedLabour mailing list
http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour
--
Click here for Peter's recent writings
_______________________________________________ NetworkedLabour mailing list [email protected] http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour
_______________________________________________ NetworkedLabour mailing list [email protected] http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour
-- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://commonstransition.org
P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
<http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
#82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/
-- Roberto Verzola <[email protected]>
participants (7)
-
Anna Harris -
Christian Siefkes -
Michel Bauwens -
Orsan -
Orsan Senalp
-
Roberto Verzola -
Örsan Şenalp