Hi Flawer, Hi All,<div><br></div><div>I totally get you flawer.</div><div>Somehow, I see a variety of contracts, with shareable being one type of license / contract that could be used , amongst other ontologies many seem to be taking for granted , of which perhaps certain could overlap ?</div>
<div><br></div><div>Sometimes, and I do not mean this for this list in particular,</div><div>but generally speaking,</div><div><br></div><div>I have the feeling that its not easy to communicate such views,</div><div>except for examples related to collaborative consumption.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Most people seem to understand the idea of a library of objects.</div><div>Or the idea of renting some object or place from / to someone.</div><div><br></div><div>Moving one step further, into the realm of currency, and metadata , is often a stage which seems to be more difficult to bridge.</div>
<div><br></div><div>My impression is that very often people understand currency as an object, as in the case of a book in a library. � And not in terms of data and metadata, created out of specific contracts.</div><div><br>
</div><div>I liked Etienne's approach of explaining it as a "game"...�</div><div><b>A game other people need to agree to play with, for the currency to have any value.</b></div><div><br></div><div>Hence, I would hope that granular and modulable metadata assembled into contextualized descriptions,</div>
<div>enables<b> all games to be taken into account, and provide a framework for "game 2 game" transactions.�</b></div><div><br></div><div>Actually, before even the stage of facilitating transactions, such "meta game" enables its users to provide each other with context to support choice making, become aware of the current, or potential effects of interdependencies , opening up a <b>"meta-game of emergent contextualized collective intelligence".</b></div>
<div><br></div><div>I realize that once I start talking about an emergent system , it seems to become difficult ( too abstract ? ) for many to grasp ?</div><div><br></div><div>Perhaps at it becomes a 4th order cybernetic order ?</div>
<div><a href="http://attainable-utopias.org/tiki/FourthOrderCybernetics">http://attainable-utopias.org/tiki/FourthOrderCybernetics</a><br><br>I may need to find different ways of explaining it.</div><div><br></div><div>Perhaps conversations on this list can help...</div>
<div><br></div><div>How can one best explain that any transaction can potentially choose its license / conditions , and that such license can not only itself become currency when accepted by others,�</div><div>but that the combined descriptions of conditions by all users, �the contextualized metadata , becomes a type of (meta)currency, as the context and its interdependencies creates a defacto a license to choose from.</div>
<div><br></div><div>In other words, becoming aware of potential economic networks creates a license to choose from, and to contribute from.</div><div><br></div><div>In effect, the context created through emergence, becoming an open capital license...</div>
<div><br></div><div>Related concept :�<a href="http://p2pfoundation.net/Holoptism">http://p2pfoundation.net/Holoptism</a></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 1:43 PM, flawer <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:flawer@shareful.be" target="_blank">flawer@shareful.be</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im"><br>
> a) it decides whether the tools for the project are created and by<br>
> whom they are used.<br>
> b) they decide the price of those tools( through lending).<br>
><br>
> After this analysis, we see that a bank does decide what the economy<br>
> produces. In general, the owner of money controls the economy because<br>
> of those 2 reasons.<br>
><br>
> Any ruleset thus has to find a way to remove those abilities from<br>
> money.<br>
<br>
</div>if you attach a contract that promises the universalization of access<br>
you are giving more responsability and less rights to ownership (what<br>
money could buy), you won't be able to ask for money for the produced<br>
thing, and should let others use it, etc, so investing in my property is<br>
increasing my responsability, so i'd like to share that charge (peer<br>
property) and i'd like not being owner of too many things (i prefer to<br>
be plain user). the "a)" reason you mention is mentioned to be universal<br>
use by default.<br>
<br>
i believe a job agency of workers investing their sales/budgets for the<br>
commons can be bought by a rich in $ (and it's an internal matter of us<br>
whether we know how to spend well the $ and if we still need to 'accept'<br>
them), and this not being a power over from the rich in $ towards us. It<br>
is rather a way we should experiment more, we shouldn't have much<br>
competition in the actual 'market' if we corporate so.<br>
<br>
<br>
also the clausing of community currencies with the shareful producing<br>
condition, whether they choose the shareful project to be just accesible<br>
for their associates or for the whole world, should help defining their<br>
values and even justify the giving of 'basic incomes' for shareful<br>
producers works in this way (who could buy preferent use/access for<br>
those produced shareful things) (who could require to retain the<br>
ownership of the shareful production or give it to the corp)<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
P2P Foundation - Mailing list<br>
<a href="http://www.p2pfoundation.net" target="_blank">http://www.p2pfoundation.net</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation" target="_blank">https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>