OpenOrg IRC Meeting, 13 December 2003
**** BEGIN LOGGING AT Sat Dec 13 12:10:32 2003
Dec 13 12:10:32 --> You are now talking on #openorg
Dec 13 12:10:40 <toni> morning!
Dec 13 12:10:43 <beroul> Hi, Toni!
Dec 13 12:11:02 <richard2> gooday
Dec 13 12:11:54 <richard2> i just posted something to OO list - extract from permaculture book.
Dec 13 12:12:00 <beroul> Toni, I haven't yet read your message about objectives.
Dec 13 12:12:13 <richard2> good read Ben.
Dec 13 12:12:57 <toni> it wasn't my intention to BOMBARD us with such a long message just before the chat .... it followed, like a river. when i started writing, couldn't stop.
Dec 13 12:13:20 <beroul> what should we do -- read both messages first, then come back here?
Dec 13 12:13:23 <toni> richard, are you sleepy, tired? or, ok to chat?
Dec 13 12:13:23 <richard2> it is good though, gets to the crux, and useful for this discussion.
Dec 13 12:13:31 <richard2> i am ok.
Dec 13 12:13:38 <richard2> yes, ben, read, i suggest.
Dec 13 12:13:48 <beroul> OK
Dec 13 12:13:54 <richard2> i can start reply to toni?
Dec 13 12:14:01 <richard2> ok, ben?
Dec 13 12:14:17 <beroul> Maybe it would be better to reply to toni here, so we have more chatting and less reading?
Dec 13 12:14:35 <toni> richard: yes you can. but, do you want me to first permaculture mail you sent last?
Dec 13 12:14:46 <richard2> yes, i meant that, Ben.
Dec 13 12:14:48 <beroul> OK
Dec 13 12:14:54 * beroul goes to read messages
Dec 13 12:15:08 <-- richard has quit (Read error: Connection timed out)
Dec 13 12:15:19 <richard2> test
Dec 13 12:15:43 --- #openorg :You're not channel operator
Dec 13 12:15:51 <richard2> toni, not neccessity, but if you want i will wait.
Dec 13 12:16:01 <richard2> or we can start now.
Dec 13 12:16:01 <toni> i'll be quick.
Dec 13 12:16:17 <richard2> ok.
Dec 13 12:16:58 <toni> ok, i run through it. let's start then.
Dec 13 12:17:03 * toni is listenting to richard
Dec 13 12:18:19 <richard2> ok
Dec 13 12:18:41 <richard2> If we apply that to the original reasons why we became political activists
Dec 13 12:18:41 <richard2> in the first place - wrongs of capitalism - i can only observe so far that
Dec 13 12:18:41 <richard2> processes on micro-level serve the overall fixed state of the system.
Dec 13 12:18:41 <richard2> Don't get me wrong, agents (individuals, corporations, states etc) change,
Dec 13 12:18:41 <richard2> but the position of capital firmly remains in place. So, i'm not convinced
Dec 13 12:18:42 <richard2> that logic of processes is applicable in the larger scope. And if we are
Dec 13 12:18:42 <richard2> discussing OBJECTIVES of OpenOrg project, than our observation has to be
Dec 13 12:18:44 <richard2> as large in scope as possible - since it would be difficult to argue that
Dec 13 12:18:44 <richard2> anything that is alive, that functions as you wrote below, is not
Dec 13 12:18:46 <richard2> affected, negatively in far too many cases, by the rule of capital.
Dec 13 12:18:53 <richard2> you wrote this. . .
Dec 13 12:19:17 <richard2> NOTE: I am replying to what i see key points.
Dec 13 12:19:21 <richard2> . . .
Dec 13 12:19:50 <richard2> i think we are no clear what we are describing with the word process.
Dec 13 12:20:00 <richard2> we are no in sync.
Dec 13 12:20:05 <richard2> no=not.
Dec 13 12:20:06 <richard2> . . .
Dec 13 12:20:43 <richard2> you state actually what i am talking about - "that
Dec 13 12:20:43 <richard2> processes on micro-level serve the overall fixed state of the system
Dec 13 12:20:47 <richard2> "
Dec 13 12:22:08 * toni proposes we use [end] or something similar, otherwise we'll be waiting for each other forever
Dec 13 12:22:26 <richard2> yes, that's it: when you look at it, it appears static, and the end result is in fact static more or less; BUT there are always processes that are giving rise to that fixed state. People having 'mortgages' and paying for land to have a house on is a process, (example).
Dec 13 12:22:38 <richard2> do you follow my use of the word, here?
Dec 13 12:22:43 <toni> yes
Dec 13 12:22:56 <richard2> . . . = i am typing.
Dec 13 12:22:59 <richard2> . . .
Dec 13 12:23:22 <richard2> OK, so i dont follow this:
Dec 13 12:23:23 <richard2> So, i'm not convinced
Dec 13 12:23:23 <richard2> that logic of processes is applicable in the larger scope
Dec 13 12:23:25 <richard2> ?
Dec 13 12:23:54 <richard2> end
Dec 13 12:24:16 <toni> the history is full of examples how change in micro-processe didn't change anything on the large scale.
Dec 13 12:24:22 <richard2> [how do i make a coloured note]
Dec 13 12:24:32 <richard2> example?
Dec 13 12:24:36 <toni> do "/myname some not"
Dec 13 12:24:42 <toni> do "/myname some note"
Dec 13 12:24:42 <richard2> [ok]
Dec 13 12:24:46 <toni> . . .
Dec 13 12:26:57 --- richard2 is now known as richard
Dec 13 12:27:05 <toni> good examples are demand from coloured people in USA for equality. which, to some extent did happen. Or, demands from 68/9 student demand, which were, culturaly, met. Then, they demanded, sexual freedoms, gender equality. a lot of that has been met by the system, to some extent, of course.
Dec 13 12:27:55 <richard> end?
Dec 13 12:28:04 <toni> changes that you are proposing about the land, mortages, working for capitalists are much more fundamental demands, i'm not blind to that. but you didn't much develop how would that be done.
Dec 13 12:28:51 <toni> apart from the refernece that it is a matter of choice. which implies that no ideology is at stake at all i.e. that our will is not affected by the discourse of the capital and its agents.
Dec 13 12:28:53 <toni> end
Dec 13 12:29:08 --- You have new mail (96 messages, 112107 bytes total).
Dec 13 12:29:15 <richard> true. for now i am only trying to establish a common use and understanding of processes creating fixed state.
Dec 13 12:29:53 <richard> [ideology as obstacle is later subject, hold off on that for now please.]
Dec 13 12:30:04 * beroul has read messages and is back
Dec 13 12:30:06 <toni> ok
Dec 13 12:30:45 <richard> for now i am only trying to establish a common use and understanding of processes creating fixed state.
Dec 13 12:31:23 <richard> . . .
Dec 13 12:31:25 <richard> changes that you are proposing about the land, mortages, working for capitalists are much more fundamental demands
Dec 13 12:31:55 <richard> substitue "process" for your use of word "demand".
Dec 13 12:32:36 <richard> Ben, i have a list of subjects to reply to toni; this is first.
Dec 13 12:32:39 <richard> toni, where are we?
Dec 13 12:33:08 <beroul> richard: I'm happy to listen for now :)
Dec 13 12:33:08 <richard> :)
Dec 13 12:33:24 * toni is happy to argue with richard :)
Dec 13 12:33:56 <richard> the history is full of examples how change in micro-processe didn't change anything on the large scale.
Dec 13 12:35:37 --> r2 (richard@sunax5-b126.dialup.optusnet.com.au) has joined #openorg
Dec 13 12:35:52 <r2> bad connection here.
Dec 13 12:36:17 --- You have new mail (97 messages, 122327 bytes total).
Dec 13 12:36:20 <r2> toni? why did micro-changes not affect bigger state?
Dec 13 12:36:27 <r2> in examples you gave?
Dec 13 12:36:41 <r2> [end]
Dec 13 12:37:23 <r2> toni?
Dec 13 12:37:29 <toni> the rule of capital, in examples i gave, was completely unaffected. utterly unaffected. not only then, but it was significantly strengtened because it managed to turn potentialy
Dec 13 12:38:19 <r2> can i say that the processes that create "the rule of capital" were not touched?
Dec 13 12:38:20 <toni> chanllening demands, into cosmetic ones.
Dec 13 12:38:31 <r2> is that accurate?
Dec 13 12:38:38 <toni> yes.
Dec 13 12:38:43 <toni> entirely.
Dec 13 12:38:47 <r2> OK.. .
Dec 13 12:39:01 <toni> relationship between to holders of capital and those who sell their labour is the same.
Dec 13 12:40:04 <toni> and consequences are visible today i.e. world didn't become much better place for that other color of the skin is accepted by white people.
Dec 13 12:40:49 <toni> that doesn't say that race relations are irrelevant, but their demands didn't change a thing on the scale that matters in our case.
Dec 13 12:40:53 <r2> then look: we have the same understanding, i think, that: (1) processes create an (apparently) 'fixed' state; (2) only when the processes at the level of "relationship between to holders of capital and those who sell their labour" are changed does the overall system change.
Dec 13 12:41:00 <toni> end
Dec 13 12:41:22 <r2> [end]?
Dec 13 12:41:45 <r2> yes/no?
Dec 13 12:41:56 <toni> that's a good starting point. YES. definitely.
Dec 13 12:42:08 <r2> Ok. . .
Dec 13 12:42:54 <r2> so (1) is my 1st answer to the pargraph of yours that has the sentence "So, i'm not convinced
Dec 13 12:42:54 <r2> that logic of processes is applicable in the larger scope
Dec 13 12:42:55 <r2> "
Dec 13 12:43:01 <r2> . . .
Dec 13 12:43:20 <toni> ok
Dec 13 12:43:30 <r2> 2nd part of reply is that what "So, i'm not convinced
Dec 13 12:43:31 <r2> that logic of processes is applicable in the larger scope
Dec 13 12:43:39 <r2> sorry , error. . .
Dec 13 12:45:12 <r2> 2nd part of reply is that what we are describing with a key *example*: "relationship between to holders of capital and those who sell their labour" is the basic level of interactions between people deliberately designed. Until you get to that level nothing on the macro level changes. so far?
Dec 13 12:45:56 <toni> that relationship, needs detalied analysis, but broadly speaking, YES.
Dec 13 12:46:07 <r2> ok. . . [yes] . .
Dec 13 12:46:12 <toni> that is the defining realtionship that keeps the large scale system intact.
Dec 13 12:46:18 <r2> yes, . . .
Dec 13 12:47:32 <toni> and i'm not convinced that we can change that by addressing other kinds of relationships on micro-scale, altough, we must way different, new ways, how to mount our challenge to this fundamental realtionship.
Dec 13 12:47:52 <r2> but look, that is what we arrived at in the overview analysis of Open-Org Intro, top paragraphs. i.e., the terms we use to describe our 'landscape' *does* take inot acocunt the things we are discussing right here. true?
Dec 13 12:48:03 <r2> inot-into
Dec 13 12:48:08 <r2> inot=into
Dec 13 12:48:26 * toni goes to look quickly at openOrg intro
Dec 13 12:48:34 <r2> i.e. our terminology is appropriate; if not 'classical'.
Dec 13 12:49:39 <toni> i don't think we ever mention this fundamental relationship, nor that we are aware that IT has to be changed.
Dec 13 12:49:49 <r2> top section; and Terms section.
Dec 13 12:50:04 <r2> our terminology is appropriate; if not 'classical'.
Dec 13 12:50:21 <r2> that is what i am saying.
Dec 13 12:50:47 <toni> can you tell me exact start of those statements ... i'm not being a pain .. i'm unclear what do you refer to in intro
Dec 13 12:50:50 <r2> we are painting the picture; starting from the skeleton.
Dec 13 12:51:04 <r2> ok, . . . simply . .
Dec 13 12:51:27 <toni> "top section; and Terms section ?" exatly where?
Dec 13 12:51:38 <r2> what relates to : 1st and 2nd part of my reply, above [ i lost in disconnect]
Dec 13 12:52:02 <r2> eg: When people deliberately organize their work together, the processes (tasks) they continually carry out create and maintain their organization. So the term 'organizational structure' refers to a dynamic system, not a static one.
Dec 13 12:52:15 <r2> eg: Politics on any scale means essentially the deliberate organization of interactions between people. Whenever people form a group and deliberately organize their interactions in a certain way it is a political decision.
Dec 13 12:52:15 <r2> Interactions (relationships) between people are active exchanges, not static. That is, they are processes.
Dec 13 12:52:15 <r2> So politics is actually the subject of choices about processes.
Dec 13 12:52:34 <r2> etc.
Dec 13 12:53:24 <r2> I am arguing a narrow point here: that we have the *appropriate* terminology for the structure of the system we are addressing.
Dec 13 12:53:35 <toni> that is extemely vague abstraction. my point i precisely that SOME PROCESSES, like fundamental one we agreed on ARE CRUCIAL.
Dec 13 12:53:43 * toni thinkgin about this .. give me a sec
Dec 13 12:53:47 <r2> which?
Dec 13 12:54:09 <r2> go back to what we said, my replies 1st and 2nd to your paragraph.
Dec 13 12:54:25 <-- richard has quit (Read error: Connection timed out)
Dec 13 12:54:41 <r2> "the deliberate organization of interactions between people"
Dec 13 12:54:48 <r2> means. . .
Dec 13 12:55:25 <r2> ie, encompasses the labour/capital relationship, that i of course know to be a critical one to look at.
Dec 13 12:55:28 <r2> [end]
Dec 13 12:55:34 <toni> only some procsses will have political effect that chanllenges the fundamental relationship that keeps large system intact, hence ->"So politics is actually the subject of choices about processes." isn't correct, at least not if our goal is to challenge the large system.
Dec 13 12:55:52 <toni> "the deliberate organization of interactions between people" - can be understood like that, true.
Dec 13 12:56:05 <toni> but, vaguenes is not a virtue in my book.
Dec 13 12:56:10 <r2> yes. wait please:
Dec 13 12:56:17 * toni waits and listens
Dec 13 12:56:26 <r2> 1
Dec 13 12:56:29 <r2> sorry
Dec 13 12:56:31 <r2> . . .
Dec 13 12:57:08 <r2> a) we agree that processes make up fixed states (even if they have been 'fixed' by processes for hundreds of years)?
Dec 13 12:57:15 <r2> . . .
Dec 13 12:58:21 <toni> not, i don't agree with that. i would say: only some processes, concering material relationship primaraly, make up fixed states.
Dec 13 12:58:27 <r2> b) we see similarly that it is question of depth/level of process that must be dealt with that is crucial - one that is at the level of " organization of interactions between people" or i.e., labour/capital relations
Dec 13 12:58:44 <r2> yes, see b).
Dec 13 12:58:47 <toni> ok, yes
Dec 13 12:58:55 <r2> you didnt wait ;-)
Dec 13 12:59:06 <toni> true
Dec 13 12:59:10 <r2> hehe
Dec 13 12:59:21 * r2 smiling
Dec 13 12:59:33 * toni admits impatience on IRC and would love to be able to talk this through
Dec 13 12:59:58 <toni> ok, waiting until i see 'end'.
Dec 13 13:00:04 <beroul> I think 'organisation of interactions between people' encompasses labour/capital relations, but also many other things like love, parenthood, etc. I.e. that phrase could apply to different levels.
Dec 13 13:00:16 <r2> i know, me too; i am being super super concise for this reason; we have to be like this here.
Dec 13 13:01:01 <r2> ben, yes, i follow that; so we would, if we wanted to keep the scheme of our terminology we have so far to modify that?
Dec 13 13:01:10 --- r2 is now known as richard
Dec 13 13:01:57 <richard> but, Toni, so far that is my reply to you on that point; i think we see this similarly, no? just as far as we have gone, no more just here.
Dec 13 13:02:18 <richard> [end]
Dec 13 13:03:05 <richard> ?
Dec 13 13:03:06 <beroul> I personally found it enlightening to realise that you can see politics as existing on my levels, not just in governments, but also in interpersonal relationships...
Dec 13 13:04:28 <toni> similarly, yes. but the crucial bit is the that i think that labour/capital is relationship, or a process to keep the terminology clear, does affect everything else i.e. IT can affect other processes, while the other way around isn't applicable.
Dec 13 13:04:50 <beroul> But someone who, like Toni, is looking for the part of our text where we talk about labour and capital, might easily get the impression that we're *only* thinking about interpersonal or small-scale interactions. So I think it might help to add something to clarify that what we are saying refers to large-scale economic relationships as well...
Dec 13 13:05:34 <toni> you can love, hate, be friends, whatever feeling towards whoever you like, that won't change a thing on the large scale.
Dec 13 13:06:01 <toni> no, i understand that. i'm saying that i don't believe that all processes are equaly important.
Dec 13 13:06:54 <toni> and that is, in no way, visible from our document. therefore i can't identify with it, nor i believe that change of other processes will affect the labout/capital one.
Dec 13 13:06:55 <toni> end.
Dec 13 13:07:52 <beroul> Toni: OK: some large-scale processes (like capitalism) are intentionally set up in order to establish smaller-scale processes that will benefit certain groups of people in certain ways...
Dec 13 13:07:53 <richard> toni, i follow that. i see the same, so we have to address this process/relationship, yes.
Dec 13 13:09:04 <beroul> ...so the question is, if people, on a large scale, wanted to set up a different large-scale process, how should they go about it? It seems to me that OpenOrg implies...
Dec 13 13:09:42 <beroul> ...that they could do it by consciously agreeing on the large-scale process they want, and then implementing the smaller-scale processes that make up the large-scale process.
Dec 13 13:10:02 <beroul> ...
Dec 13 13:10:22 <toni> richard: ok, if we address this, and make clear that there are some processes more important that the other, and why, in the sense, then it will make much more sense to me i.e. it will have much more potential to be a theoretic foundation on which the strategy for change can be developed. (listening to ben now)
Dec 13 13:10:39 <richard> toni, here's a way maybe we can think about this here , within the work we have done so far: what is the simplest way that you could define this relationship within one or more of our processes/governing rules as part of it by. necessity
Dec 13 13:10:47 <richard> (listening to ben now)
Dec 13 13:11:37 <beroul> in other words, there's an analysis here which says that a large-scale process (capitalism) consists of nothing but smaller-scale processes (capitalism involves processes that organise production and consumption, and control the flow of money from one person to another, and so on).
Dec 13 13:12:13 <beroul> There's a process called 'employment' which involves doing what the boss tells you to do, and getting paid, etc.
Dec 13 13:12:29 * toni is back in 2 minutes, loo break
Dec 13 13:12:44 <richard> yes, definitely what i am talking about.
Dec 13 13:13:08 <richard> it is a clear process; note that we never mentioned it.
Dec 13 13:13:43 <beroul> If, on a large scale, people were able to organise other economic processes, e.g. carrying out production using a process other than employment, and organising consumption using a process other than purchase...
Dec 13 13:14:22 <beroul> ...then capitalism would evaporate, because the processes that compose it would no longer exist.
Dec 13 13:14:25 <beroul> [end]
Dec 13 13:15:38 <richard> yes, exactly; only correction i owuld make is that large scale process = apparant fixed state made up of smaller process.
Dec 13 13:15:45 <beroul> Yes
Dec 13 13:15:55 * beroul going to get a bit of food while toni's in the loo, back in 1 min
Dec 13 13:17:14 * toni is back
Dec 13 13:17:34 <richard> Let me ask the question i asked Toni just above again better: how could we, if we had to, incorporate/fit in, the labour/capital relationship we are dsicussing, into our *existing* framework of processes and 'governing rules' without disturbing it, and with as much coherence and logic as possible?
Dec 13 13:17:51 <richard> toni, for you^
Dec 13 13:18:20 <richard> [end]
Dec 13 13:19:25 <toni> " exactly; only correction i owuld make is that large scale process = apparant fixed state made up of smaller process" - i agree about aparent fixed state, definitely aparent! but it is not fixed of ANY smaller processes, which is the definition you seem to be stuck too.
Dec 13 13:19:51 <richard> didn't understand?
Dec 13 13:19:56 <toni> i thought that you agreed that some processe are at the hearth of the aparent fixed state?
Dec 13 13:20:02 <richard> yes.
Dec 13 13:20:25 <toni> ok, then generic saying "apparant fixed state made up of smaller process" still misses that point.
Dec 13 13:20:25 <beroul> Toni: I don't understand -- do you disagree with what I wrote above, about how capitalism is made up of processes such as employment, purchase of goods, etc.?
Dec 13 13:20:55 <richard> no; it does not go into that detail yet; it does not miss it though.
Dec 13 13:21:14 <toni> no, i don't disagree with that, i'm clarifying richards use of language, which confuses me.
Dec 13 13:21:20 <richard> can i reiterate?
Dec 13 13:21:24 <richard> and clarify?
Dec 13 13:21:38 <toni> richard: ok, if explanation is near enough in the text that it makes sense. no hold on.
Dec 13 13:22:00 <richard> ?confused?
Dec 13 13:22:14 <toni> all i'm asking for is that if we do manage to agree on something, that it should be explained in language that means precisely that.
Dec 13 13:22:34 <richard> what does "that" refer to?
Dec 13 13:22:41 <richard> last one?
Dec 13 13:23:02 * richard sorry but not following
Dec 13 13:23:43 <toni> yes, sorry, that WHAT WE AGREE ON should be explained in language that means precisely that. hence, i'm making a point that generic sayings like " large scale process = apparant fixed state made up of smaller process" is not precise enough.
Dec 13 13:24:08 <toni> end. i'm a geting my point across?
Dec 13 13:24:39 <richard> i think i follow; but i am breaking down our agreement into two parts.
Dec 13 13:24:41 <richard> yes.
Dec 13 13:24:45 <richard> ok,..
Dec 13 13:26:12 --> r2 (richard@sunax5-b126.dialup.optusnet.com.au) has joined #openorg
Dec 13 13:26:12 <-- richard has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
Dec 13 13:26:20 <r2> test
Dec 13 13:26:27 --- r2 is now known as richard
Dec 13 13:26:35 <richard> 1) large fixed state made from smaller processes. . .2) some processes more fundamental than others - labour/capital being key one of these.
Dec 13 13:26:44 <richard> ok?
Dec 13 13:27:00 * toni would say, to be more precise: " large scale process = apparant fixed state made up of smaller process, whereby some of the smaller processes have the constitutional power over the large scale i.e. they determine the outcome of the large scale, while others simply follow from those."
Dec 13 13:27:29 <toni> yes, much better, what you wrote i mean :)
Dec 13 13:27:29 <richard> yes, too wordy as final sum-up i think; but yes.
Dec 13 13:27:38 <toni> :)
Dec 13 13:27:42 <richard> mine simpler?
Dec 13 13:27:45 <richard> ok?
Dec 13 13:28:27 <richard> we are splitting hairs now. so far so good; lets move on?
Dec 13 13:28:30 * toni throws his virtual hat in the air in the name of first agreement of the day
Dec 13 13:28:30 <beroul> I think a synthesis of the two would be good... I like 'some of the smaller ones determine the outcome of the large scale, while others simply follow from these'. It's more precise than saying that some are 'more fundamental'.
Dec 13 13:28:50 <toni> yes, let's move on, as far as i'm concerened.
Dec 13 13:28:54 <beroul> Toni:
Dec 13 13:29:02 <beroul> You wrote: " labour/capital is relationship, or a process to keep the terminology clear, does affect
Dec 13 13:29:02 <beroul> everything else i.e. IT can affect other processes, while the other way around isn't applicable
Dec 13 13:29:03 * toni listeniing
Dec 13 13:29:07 <beroul> labour/capital is relationship, or a process to keep the terminology clear, does affect
Dec 13 13:29:07 <beroul> everything else i.e. IT can affect other processes, while the other way around isn't applicable"
Dec 13 13:29:48 <richard> "others simply follow from these" not clear what this means?
Dec 13 13:30:03 <beroul> But what you just said contradicts that, because just now you acknowledged that other (smaller) processes do determine the outcome of the large-scale process (capitalism). Correct?
Dec 13 13:30:10 * toni can agree that "It's more precise than saying that some are 'more fundamental'" is more precise then using word fundamental.
Dec 13 13:31:04 * richard confuses :)
Dec 13 13:31:15 * richard confused
Dec 13 13:32:40 <toni> ben: only some processe, only some. those that i called fundamental, we can call them labout/capital processes, but that isn't precise enough either. i.e. in my view NOT ALL processs, on the contrary, ONLY SOME determine the outcome of the large scale process (capitalism).
Dec 13 13:32:53 <richard> BTW, there may very well be other key relationships/processes in addition to the labour/capital one that we need to mention and think about - that is one reason i have kept the terms relatively broad.
Dec 13 13:33:16 <beroul> Toni: OK, I just wanted to make sure that we agreed on that much. :)
Dec 13 13:33:55 <richard> can someone summarize that last discussion bit please?
Dec 13 13:34:36 <beroul> Some small or medium-sized processes determine the outcome of large-scale processes. Others do not.
Dec 13 13:34:41 <toni> richard: i don't rule out that there might be other key processes too, we have to open to that, of course. all i'm saying is that no one come up with convincing argument for possible other key relationships/processes. we have to keep the possiblity open, agreed.
Dec 13 13:35:10 <beroul> toni: I think nationalism might be one.
Dec 13 13:35:16 <richard> thank you, ben.
Dec 13 13:35:46 <toni> yes, i agree that nationalism could be the one. but that's another HUGE subject.
Dec 13 13:35:59 <beroul> OK not to discuss now. :)
Dec 13 13:36:01 <richard> can i move on to my next point in reply to Toni's mail?
Dec 13 13:36:15 <toni> personaly, i'm happy that we discussed this. yes, i'm ok to move on. ben?
Dec 13 13:36:22 <beroul> Yes, OK with me too.
Dec 13 13:36:31 <richard> ok. . ..
Dec 13 13:37:06 <richard> re this "i think that our objectives have to aim at lower, more fundamental,
Dec 13 13:37:07 <richard> level, at some kind of principles that you wrote permaculture aspires to.
Dec 13 13:37:15 <richard> . ..
Dec 13 13:37:37 <richard> and this "rganizational principles are just us trying to think "how to
Dec 13 13:37:38 <richard> conduct politics" in a manner consistent with the kind of value system we
Dec 13 13:37:38 <richard> would prefer to live in. It's that value system that should be the subject
Dec 13 13:37:38 <richard> of our discussion on OBJECTIVES of OpenOrg, i believe.
Dec 13 13:37:56 <richard> next subject: value system.
Dec 13 13:38:17 <richard> ok?
Dec 13 13:40:02 <richard> ?
Dec 13 13:40:31 <toni> richard, sorry, my attention slipped. back now.
Dec 13 13:41:10 <richard> I have two threads:
Dec 13 13:41:10 <richard> 1) the most basic level is the level of what i wrote to the list is the permaculture ethics.
Dec 13 13:41:10 <richard> 2) i would like to go over the idea first (not saying that i am stuck on it) that a process can in itself be a valued thing becuase of what it does. eg, SELF-MANANGEMENT
Dec 13 13:41:26 <toni> ok, yes, VALUE SYSTEM.
Dec 13 13:41:39 <richard> lets start with 1), ok?
Dec 13 13:42:08 <toni> i have a problem with 1), as i wrote in email, because it repeates the demand of communism, yet no mention of it.
Dec 13 13:42:11 <toni> yes, start with 1.
Dec 13 13:42:19 <richard> ok. . .
Dec 13 13:43:18 <richard> i have to tie in this too, "Ok, it lacks ecological, and thus sustainable, element, but
Dec 13 13:43:18 <richard> that's surely just a part of the bigger picture,
Dec 13 13:43:19 <richard> "
Dec 13 13:43:32 <richard> i think this is a big error.
Dec 13 13:43:54 <toni> ok, please explain why.
Dec 13 13:44:40 <richard> that it lacks "ecological, and thus sustainable, element," is a fatal flaw. without these things, in the "long term" - to use an economic term - we will all die without them.
Dec 13 13:45:47 <richard> [end]
Dec 13 13:46:11 <richard> "Hence the futility of revolutionaries who
Dec 13 13:46:11 <richard> have no gardens
Dec 13 13:46:13 <richard> "
Dec 13 13:46:15 <richard> [end]
Dec 13 13:46:17 <richard> :)
Dec 13 13:46:31 <toni> yes, that's clear today. that's why marxist thought and communist ideas needs improving. i wrote that at then end, nor is marxism fixed, it's the process itself. nor i claim that it wasn't blind to the thing you mention. i fully agree with you.
Dec 13 13:46:51 <richard> ok. so where do we go from this agreement?
Dec 13 13:47:01 <toni> actualy, ben convinced me in private chats and emails, that you are totaly right about that.
Dec 13 13:47:43 <richard> i will push the point:) i am not right: it is a fact about our existence on this world called planet Earth.
Dec 13 13:47:51 <richard> ;-)
Dec 13 13:48:06 <richard> ok. so where do we go from this agreement?
Dec 13 13:48:10 <toni> i will try to read what you recomend to me, and look at how those demands for sustainability can be integrated with original communist/marxist demands (concering those more important processes we talked about earlier).
Dec 13 13:48:23 <richard> great!!!
Dec 13 13:48:32 <richard> i think that's the process we need to do:)
Dec 13 13:48:40 <toni> you, in my view, must stop ignoring 200 years of communist/marxist scienece.
Dec 13 13:49:01 <toni> it's the best science we have, that's concrened with changing those more important processes/relationships.
Dec 13 13:49:08 <richard> i am not. that is for a later subject i want to discuss!
Dec 13 13:49:09 <toni> end.
Dec 13 13:49:13 <toni> ok.
Dec 13 13:49:34 <richard> so on values, what can we do now, if anything; or do we all have to go away and read?
Dec 13 13:49:36 <richard> ben?
Dec 13 13:49:51 <richard> (as well as toni)?
Dec 13 13:50:17 <toni> then, we can move on, i agree that marxists science needs big improvement and dialogoue with findings of those who were concerned primarily with sustainability.
Dec 13 13:50:52 <richard> i am asking, what can we do right now in Open-Org if it is to be based on a value system?
Dec 13 13:51:05 <toni> on values, i can't say before i hearing what you have to say about marxism as science.
Dec 13 13:51:23 <richard> ok, but i want to come back to this question, ok?
Dec 13 13:51:52 <richard> ?
Dec 13 13:51:53 * beroul is still listening
Dec 13 13:51:56 <toni> marxism, as a science, came out of puting certain set of value, very similat to those you wrote permaculture is concerned about, in the front.
Dec 13 13:52:11 <toni> yes, we come back to this question later.
Dec 13 13:52:23 <toni> i.e. some questions/issues are interlinked.
Dec 13 13:52:26 <toni> end.
Dec 13 13:52:44 <richard> re: "If we are about best >>>>>science<<<<<<, then, i claim, marxism is
Dec 13 13:52:45 <richard> the best STARTING POINT we've got, when standing behind values like those
Dec 13 13:52:45 <richard> you cite above
Dec 13 13:52:48 <richard> ".. .
Dec 13 13:52:58 <richard> [my >>><<<] . . .
Dec 13 13:53:32 <richard> i am beind dialectic to get at what i think (formulating as i go what i think). .
Dec 13 13:54:04 <toni> ok, we're listneing, just say end when done, so that we can jump in at the right place.
Dec 13 13:54:10 <richard> . . .
Dec 13 13:54:13 <richard> ok. . .
Dec 13 13:55:20 <richard> can you say what "marxism [] as a process" is in big summary?
Dec 13 13:55:29 <toni> chard: i don't rule out that there might be other key processes too, we have to open to that, of c
Dec 13 13:55:43 <toni> sorry, that was an old buffer in memory ...
Dec 13 13:55:48 <richard> he
Dec 13 13:55:52 <richard> [end]
Dec 13 13:55:54 <toni> disregard that.
Dec 13 13:56:25 <richard> can you say what "marxism [] as a process" is in big summary?
Dec 13 13:56:36 <toni> marxist core though was to move away from "idealism" in phiolosophy and to move from philosopy as such (started with summary)
Dec 13 13:57:40 <toni> and to claim that although human being is a being of thought, it is primarily being that produces. and that thoughts can lead us to abstract idealisms (very rough summary here), but that anlysis
Dec 13 13:57:40 * richard waiting
Dec 13 13:57:52 <toni> of those relationships that are formed in the process of production
Dec 13 13:58:10 <toni> are the key to understanding of our society.
Dec 13 13:58:32 <richard> end?
Dec 13 13:58:50 <toni> also, marx, famously, said that, so far (in his times) phiolosopher were explaining the world, our role is to change it.
Dec 13 13:59:25 <toni> no, not yet. from then on, is you want, marx turned philosophy into a form of direct action. that, i think, can be claimed today.
Dec 13 14:00:54 <toni> that's the kernel though. at he same time he laid out values that he, and many other communists of his age, believed should upheld. not to forget (historical note), communist manifesto was written in london. end.
Dec 13 14:01:09 <richard> ok, . . .
Dec 13 14:01:42 <richard> i am agreeing with what you wrote, "Its core ideas, those you presented here at least, have many common
Dec 13 14:01:42 <richard> places with communist utopia and thus basics from which marxist social
Dec 13 14:01:42 <richard> science grew.
Dec 13 14:01:46 <richard> ". .
Dec 13 14:02:12 <richard> that permaculture, perhaps summed up with "But the greatest change we need to make is from consumption to production,
Dec 13 14:02:13 <richard> even if on a small scale, in our own gardens. If only 10% of us do this,
Dec 13 14:02:13 <richard> there is enough for everyone. >>Hence the futility of revolutionaries who
Dec 13 14:02:13 <richard> have no gardens, who depend on the very system they attack, and who
Dec 13 14:02:13 <richard> produce words and bullets, not food and shelter
Dec 13 14:02:31 <beroul> brb
Dec 13 14:02:31 <richard> " are similar in.... :
Dec 13 14:02:44 <richard> brb?
Dec 13 14:03:20 <richard> ok, understand. . . .: similar in:...
Dec 13 14:03:22 <toni> be righ back, i'm listening, please continue
Dec 13 14:03:52 <richard> 1) that we are "producers";. .
Dec 13 14:04:08 * beroul is back
Dec 13 14:04:20 <richard> 2) that this is the key area to look at "he futility of revolutionaries who
Dec 13 14:04:20 <richard> <richard> have no gardens
Dec 13 14:04:29 <richard> ". .
Dec 13 14:05:50 <richard> ie, 2) is "are the key to understanding of our society."
Dec 13 14:06:05 <beroul> What does this mean: "the greatest change we need to make is from consumption to production"? That everyone must produce everything for themselves? Are we not already producing as well as consuming?
Dec 13 14:07:23 <toni> yes, i would add to that question, isn't that the denial of industrial revolutions, or, of their value in automating production?
Dec 13 14:08:53 --> r2 (richard@sunax6-a199.dialup.optusnet.com.au) has joined #openorg
Dec 13 14:09:00 <r2> ben?
Dec 13 14:09:30 <r2> test
Dec 13 14:09:48 --- r2 is now known as rchard
Dec 13 14:10:16 <rchard> are we here?
Dec 13 14:10:49 <beroul> sorry I was talking to Marie for a second, I'm back.
Dec 13 14:11:05 <rchard> ok:) can you repeat question, please?
Dec 13 14:11:13 <beroul> What does this mean: "the greatest change we need to make is from consumption to production"? That everyone must produce everything for themselves? Are we not already producing as well as consuming?
Dec 13 14:11:19 * toni is here, listening, waiting for richard to reply
Dec 13 14:11:28 <toni> and, yes, i would add to that question, isn't that the denial of industrial revolutions, or, of their value in automating production?
Dec 13 14:12:03 <rchard> ? dont know. ..
Dec 13 14:12:13 <rchard> answer to Ben, "If only 10% of us do this,
Dec 13 14:12:14 <rchard> there is enough for everyone.
Dec 13 14:12:25 <rchard> " BUT that is not my argument. . .
Dec 13 14:12:45 <rchard> [10% grow food i sthe meaning]. ..
Dec 13 14:13:04 <rchard> basically all I am doing is identifying as tight as possible common ground.
Dec 13 14:13:23 <rchard> can you please repost my two points i made above?
Dec 13 14:13:24 <beroul> I mean: I'm confused by the idea of making a 'change from consumption to production'. I just don't see what that means. At least 10% of the people in the world probably already do grow food; I'm sure there are at least that many farmers.
Dec 13 14:13:57 <beroul> Surely in any society there must be both consumption and production. [end]
Dec 13 14:14:04 <rchard> [10% of all those that are not farmers (non-permaculture growers)]
Dec 13 14:14:23 <rchard> [he means shift in balance, is my reading]
Dec 13 14:14:29 <beroul> OK I understand.
Dec 13 14:14:42 <rchard> can you please repost my two points i made above?
Dec 13 14:14:59 <beroul> <richard> 1) that we are "producers";
Dec 13 14:15:06 <beroul> labour/capital is relationship, or a process to keep the terminology clear, does affect
Dec 13 14:15:07 <beroul> everything else i.e. IT can affect other processes, while the other way around isn't applicable
Dec 13 14:15:20 <beroul> sorry accidentally pasted wrong text
Dec 13 14:15:25 <rchard> ok
Dec 13 14:15:27 <beroul> let's try that again:
Dec 13 14:16:06 <beroul> <richard> 1) that we are "producers";. .
Dec 13 14:16:07 <beroul> <richard> 2) that this is the key area to look at "he futility of revolutionaries who
Dec 13 14:16:07 <beroul> <richard> <richard> have no gardens
Dec 13 14:16:08 <beroul> <richard> ie, 2) is "are the key to understanding of our society."
Dec 13 14:16:36 <beroul> Were those the points you wanted?
Dec 13 14:16:42 <rchard> thankk you, yes. . .
Dec 13 14:17:34 <rchard> so (Toni) this matches "relationships that are formed in the process of production [] are the key to understanding of our society [] our role is to change it."
Dec 13 14:17:57 <rchard> . . .
Dec 13 14:18:09 <beroul> OK but if 10% more people had gardens, that would not disturb capitalism, or end exploitation, would it? It might mean that supermarkets would have a bit less business.
Dec 13 14:18:25 <beroul> [end]
Dec 13 14:18:45 <toni> LOL at bens point about supermaktets
Dec 13 14:18:56 <rchard> [if 10% grew food, the point is there would not be a need for a monoply on food supply by a supermarket]
Dec 13 14:19:25 <toni> "relationships that are formed in the process of production [] are the key to understanding of our society [] our role is to change it." <- it plays a role in it, yes. but in a very spefici manner, laying very specific claim, which i'm not sure about.
Dec 13 14:19:50 <beroul> What about the other 90%? Where would they get their food?
Dec 13 14:19:59 <rchard> i have lost the text of the thread from disconnection; what was the question you asked, Toni, about science?
Dec 13 14:20:09 <rchard> [from the 10%]
Dec 13 14:20:14 <beroul> And even those 10% -- would they be able to grow *all* their own food? Wouldn't they need to get some things from others?
Dec 13 14:20:23 <rchard> [yes; sharing]
Dec 13 14:20:33 <toni> i asked - isn't that the denial of industrial revolutions, or, of their value in automating production?
Dec 13 14:21:04 <beroul> So you're saying if everyone grew a few vegetables in their back garden, everyone's food needs on the planet would automatically be met? What about distribution? What about making sure that there's enough nutritional variety in that production? What about more fertile regions vs. less fertile ones?
Dec 13 14:21:06 <rchard> question we might need to return to; but before that, about science?
Dec 13 14:22:04 <toni> i.e. a lot went frong with industrial revolutions, but their idea, about automating surely is positive, and it allows humanity the time to develop.
Dec 13 14:22:06 <beroul> Why wouldn't I people just grow enough food in their gardens to supplement their own diets? Why would they necessarily have a surplus?
Dec 13 14:22:28 <toni> richard: can't remember what point are you referring to.
Dec 13 14:22:32 <rchard> [local communities; permaculture adapts to environment; nutritional needs not a problem; less fertile areas would need to be connected, i think]
Dec 13 14:22:45 <rchard> we were about to talk about values.
Dec 13 14:22:46 <toni> can we talk about the point ben is asking first?
Dec 13 14:22:56 <rchard> wait, please?
Dec 13 14:23:00 <toni> ok
Dec 13 14:23:09 <toni> let's agree what do we talk about right now.
Dec 13 14:23:23 <toni> end
Dec 13 14:23:43 <rchard> [philosophy/process of cooperation, not competition: survival suststainable strategy for us]
Dec 13 14:23:54 <rchard> yes, Toni, back to. .
Dec 13 14:25:04 <rchard> i think i can summarize argument up to now that what you are telling us about Marxism matches a lot if not exactly with what i have been telling about permaculture; except that we have to add in the ecological sustainable element.. .
Dec 13 14:25:25 <toni> this was our thread: values -> core marxist ideas -> core permacultre ideas -> richard's claim that sustainability can not be just integrated in marxism -> we're here discussin core permaculture ideas. that's my understanding.
Dec 13 14:26:09 <-- richard has quit (Read error: Connection timed out)
Dec 13 14:26:16 <rchard> 1) stanislavsky invented the stanislavsky system - the most influential theatre 'theory' is actually: basic principles/processes you have to do to act as an actor.
Dec 13 14:26:32 * rchard making point now
Dec 13 14:27:48 <rchard> why get stuck on one thing, lets take best of everything and make new synthesis. I propose that the ONLY values we can have as our value system are what are described under the name 'Permaculture' ethics/values.
Dec 13 14:27:50 <rchard> [end]
Dec 13 14:28:24 <beroul> So far, so good.
Dec 13 14:28:28 <toni> rchard: if that could be the case, then we made some progress in clarifying at least where do we stand. i definitely agree than marxism without humanity is pointless, hence the need for additional philosophy/politics of sustainability. if some of those ideas challenge marxist core ideas, then maybe marxist core ideas don't stand today, and need changing. all i'm saying is: marxism is the best starting point, but ISN'T DOGMA in any way possible.
Dec 13 14:28:51 <toni> this was in relation to "i think i can summarize argument up to now that what you are telling us about Marxism matches a lot if not exactly with what i have been telling about permaculture; except that we have to add in the ecological sustainable element.. "
Dec 13 14:29:59 <rchard> does " "relationships that are formed in the process of production [] are the key to understanding of our society [] our role is to change it." sum up what you mean by "marxism is best starting point"?
Dec 13 14:30:39 <toni> i agree with "lets take best of everything and make new synthesis.". But when you say " I propose that the ONLY values we can have as our value system are what are described under the name 'Permaculture' ethics/values." you are actualy calling for exclusive start from pemaculture, is that right?
Dec 13 14:30:52 <rchard> . . .
Dec 13 14:31:22 <toni> richard: to your previous question: to a large extent, yes.
Dec 13 14:31:46 <beroul> What would worry me (richard can you clarify this) is if Permaculture was saying: 'if everyone just does their little bit in their garden, the whole society will change'. I.e. there is no overall plan, we're just supposed to hope that a good overall process will emerge from all these micro-processes. Nothing about organising society on a large scale.
Dec 13 14:32:15 * toni is listening
Dec 13 14:32:54 <beroul> [end]
Dec 13 14:33:46 --> richard (richard@sunax7-b079.dialup.optusnet.com.au) has joined #openorg
Dec 13 14:33:55 <richard> i am saying, in other words, that the ethics/values of permaculture, (which are simply common sense about planet earth), are necessary conditions; therefore, yes, we must have them (as well as anything else).
Dec 13 14:34:20 <richard> "<beroul> What would worry me (richard can you clarify this) is if Permaculture was saying: 'if everyone just does their little bit in their garden, the whole society will change'. I.e. there is no overall plan, we're just supposed to hope that a good overall process will emerge from all these micro-processes. Nothing about organising society on a large scale.". . .
Dec 13 14:34:50 <richard> Ben, what is missing in Permaculture, is O-O:)
Dec 13 14:35:00 <beroul> OK :)
Dec 13 14:35:04 <richard> toni, see that?
Dec 13 14:35:27 <richard> "<toni> richard: to your previous question: to a large extent, yes." good.
Dec 13 14:36:07 * richard waiting for Toni, then want to make point
Dec 13 14:37:07 <toni> richard: what is missing in permaculture is to enter dialectic with 200 years of communists puting the same values in front (apart from sustainability which i agree needs to be discussed and intergated in any future progressive thining)
Dec 13 14:37:11 <toni> . . .
Dec 13 14:38:59 * richard and ecology
Dec 13 14:39:03 <toni> since, if you agree with "relationships that are formed in the process of production [] are the key to understanding of our society [] our role is to change it." then, that is the starting point of wast political project, then developed those starting ideas further, both in theory and practice.
Dec 13 14:39:05 <toni> . . .
Dec 13 14:39:50 <toni> it surely made many mistakes. but at least it had the plan, and, as you agree on, good starting points. also, there was practice i.e. direct action element of communism.
Dec 13 14:39:52 <toni> . . .
Dec 13 14:40:53 <richard> [Ben, that's my master plan ;-) "Ben, what is missing in Permaculture, is O-O:)"]
Dec 13 14:41:00 <toni> but i can not see how logic can follow that the history of communist struggle and ideas how to change the large system starting from good staring ideas can be ignored. that is unwise, tu put it mildly.
Dec 13 14:41:04 <toni> . . .
Dec 13 14:41:58 <toni> or, as i wrote in email, you richard might have different, ideological (don't know how to call them otherwise) problem with communist/marxist idea that you aren't ready to discuss :(
Dec 13 14:42:15 <richard> end?
Dec 13 14:42:38 <toni> otherwise, why would you say that we have to start from perlmaculture? why not to start when similar goals where set by commyunists and learn from their experience and mistakes.
Dec 13 14:42:39 <toni> end.
Dec 13 14:43:01 * beroul is listening with great interest
Dec 13 14:43:04 <toni> and work on synthesis, new synthesis, yes, i agree on that. end.
Dec 13 14:43:57 <richard> no, that is not the case, i have no problem as such with communist/marxist idea (though, I imagine/think that the reworking to make a synthesis on the lines we are talking about will be more different than you or I imagine).
Dec 13 14:43:59 <richard> . . . .
Dec 13 14:44:41 <richard> this is one point i would like to make, it reinforces what we have already: that . .:
Dec 13 14:45:21 <richard> re: relationships that are formed in the process of production [] are the key to understanding of our society [] our role is to change it.: <*1*> --> given now the agreement we have on the previous (first) topic, I am arguing that what we discussed and agreed (albeit in our own language) *does* do this.
Dec 13 14:46:11 <richard> [i mean including the point about "Some small or medium-sized processes determine the outcome of large-scale processes. Others do not."]
Dec 13 14:46:21 <richard> i wait.
Dec 13 14:46:53 <richard> do we see this similarly? is the question i am asking.
Dec 13 14:47:47 * toni had to answer call of nature again, and is back now, reading
Dec 13 14:47:55 <beroul> 'some small or medium-sized processes' does not say anything about production specifically.
Dec 13 14:48:29 <beroul> It misses out the key insights of both permaculture and marxism regarding the organisation of society.
Dec 13 14:48:35 <richard> [Toni, " why would you say that we have to start from perlmaculture?" - we have to start from Permaculture ethics as the bottom because they are necessary for survival on planet earth; everything is 'higher' level, so to speak.]
Dec 13 14:48:48 <richard> Ben, i was requoting your summary.
Dec 13 14:48:54 <beroul> Yes I know.
Dec 13 14:49:42 <richard> Please refer to the question I ask, not in those words.
Dec 13 14:50:00 <beroul> But what I mean is that Marxists have spent all this time understanding the ways in which the organisation of production affects everything in life -- not just wealth and poverty, but also culture, education, etc.
Dec 13 14:50:36 <richard> yes.
Dec 13 14:50:49 <beroul> They have identified the organisation of production as the *source* of many of the key processes that determine the quality of life of human beings.
Dec 13 14:51:05 <richard> yes, i am clear on that.
Dec 13 14:51:09 <-- rchard has quit (Read error: Connection timed out)
Dec 13 14:51:13 <beroul> OK, so...
Dec 13 14:52:00 <beroul> I think it's not enough for us to talk about processes and organisation in general...
Dec 13 14:52:14 <beroul> because our values (both permaculture and marxist)...
Dec 13 14:52:37 <beroul> tell us that some processes are crucial and need more of our attention in order to improve society...
Dec 13 14:53:16 <beroul> In other words, there is a kind of contradiction in the approach we have taken so far:
Dec 13 14:53:51 <beroul> On the one hand, we present what looks like a generic analysis and approach to organising *anything*. This is what makes it look (to Toni) as if it might actually be compatible with capitalism, exploitation, etc.
Dec 13 14:53:57 <beroul> On the other hand...
Dec 13 14:56:09 <beroul> if taken to their logical conclusion (in my view), this approach would lead to a radical transformation of production.
Dec 13 14:56:53 <beroul> And it just so happens that we all see fundamental change in production as crucial for improving human life.
Dec 13 14:56:59 <beroul> But we don't say this anywhere in OpenOrg!
Dec 13 14:57:41 <richard> yes. i see.
Dec 13 14:58:08 <beroul> So I don't think OpenOrg is or can be a general-purpose approach to organising anything: it already has values embedded in it. And these same values motivate the special attention that we are all giving to the organisation of production.
Dec 13 14:58:31 <richard> [Toni, [Toni, " why would you say that we have to start from perlmaculture?" - we have to start from Permaculture ethics as the bottom because they are necessary for survival on planet earth; everything is 'higher' level, so to speak.]
Dec 13 14:58:34 <beroul> Self-management is a good goal...
Dec 13 14:58:59 <richard> yes; listening
Dec 13 14:59:00 <beroul> But self-management, if carried out fully, is a recipe for transforming the organisation of production.
Dec 13 14:59:31 <richard> "2) i would like to go over the idea first (not saying that i am stuck on it) that a process can in itself be a valued thing becuase of what it does. eg, SELF-MANANGEMENT"
Dec 13 14:59:33 <beroul> Accountability, if realised, would also have profound affects on what is produced, and for what purposes, etc.
Dec 13 15:00:15 <beroul> So, OK, if a group of people wanted to organise their meditation group according to the OpenOrg framework, that would be fine..
Dec 13 15:00:38 * toni listens until an 'end' comes
Dec 13 15:00:39 <beroul> ...but isn't it much more significant, from an ethical point of view, that we propose something that can change production?
Dec 13 15:00:41 <beroul> [end]
Dec 13 15:00:46 <richard> end
Dec 13 15:01:50 <richard> answer= yes. (but organizing meditation group also a valid application of O-O)
Dec 13 15:02:32 * richard asks toni to look at answer to permaculture as primary ethic reply above
Dec 13 15:02:56 <richard> so, Ben, what do you suggest?
Dec 13 15:03:18 <beroul> I think that we are sitting on the shoulders of giants, and should acknowledge this.
Dec 13 15:03:33 <richard> also, question about "a process can in itself be a valued thing becuase of what it does (or lead to) seems significant.
Dec 13 15:03:54 <toni> i have no problem agreeing with 2. richard's point, that process can in itself be a valued thing. but as ben just pointed out, if we are intersted to influence the change on the large scale, then we need to propose something that has a chance of doing so, which changes in production and hence imply to, at least, seriously engange with two centuries of such effort by communists/marxists. leap towards the permaculture withouth engangement with ma
Dec 13 15:03:54 <toni> rxism is, to me, completly false logic i.e. totaly incosistent thinking.
Dec 13 15:04:57 <beroul> If we ask 'what are our objectives?' and try to answer that question by presenting an analsysis that stands entirely on its own, as if it had appeared out of nothing, defining why a change is needed, and exactly what that change will look like --then we have a huge and maybe impossible task.
Dec 13 15:04:58 <beroul> ...
Dec 13 15:05:40 <beroul> But if we see ourselves as attempting a synthesis (or at least a dialogue) between strands of thought that have been developing since long before we were born, then we *can* say something meaningful.
Dec 13 15:06:09 <toni> "I think that we are sitting on the shoulders of giants, and should acknowledge this" <- that's what would say too. but without dogmas. marxism was taken up by some dogmatic people, so was capitalism, but marxism is a deeply rational approach to the uphold of same values that permaculture puts forwards. so, logicaly, we should start with marxism, and enagange, fully, with ideas of sustainability.
Dec 13 15:06:27 * toni listens until 'end'
Dec 13 15:07:34 <beroul> I think we should see ourselves as continuing a dialectic that takes seriously the work of people who have tried to create something *similar* to what we feel is needed.
Dec 13 15:07:47 * richard adds to Toni that sustainability is not separate from ecology
Dec 13 15:08:15 <beroul> Let's invent as little as possible; let's reuse as much as possible. [end]
Dec 13 15:08:30 <richard> yes, i like that.
Dec 13 15:08:42 <richard> permaculture is as old as time.
Dec 13 15:08:56 * toni considers richards, compared to him, an expert in this (ecology) and is happy to listen on that front, read and learn
Dec 13 15:09:33 * richard learning more about marxism
Dec 13 15:09:57 <richard> we were talking about a value system. ..
Dec 13 15:10:19 <richard> can i tell you the self-summary i have so far from this?
Dec 13 15:10:31 <toni> richard: permaculture, they you presented it, stick to very similar values like communists did, yet, doesn't enter dialectic with all that vast history of communist theory and practice. WHY do they do it. i don't why do you such leap of logic is what bother me?
Dec 13 15:10:44 <toni> can we stick to this, i'm still unclear
Dec 13 15:10:46 <toni> . . .
Dec 13 15:11:48 <richard> wait Toni, i think i can answer enough?
Dec 13 15:11:54 <toni> richard: you said many times that you agree, yet, you then jump onto saying, every time, permaculture is the starting point. CAN you, or CAN YOU NOT, and WHY, engange with communist practive and theory. i can engange with ecology. the question is no on me.
Dec 13 15:11:57 <toni> end.
Dec 13 15:12:19 <richard> ok, i'll be clear as i can...
Dec 13 15:12:29 <toni> please :)
Dec 13 15:12:45 <richard> ill say end when end. .
Dec 13 15:12:48 <toni> ok
Dec 13 15:13:33 <richard> a) permaculture ethics/values are necessarily bottom (basic) level value system because when we are all dead then Marxism analysis/method doesn't mean anything;
Dec 13 15:14:02 * toni says: btw i've been respecting 'end' last hour well, but two of you haven't. just to say that when someone speaks, let's keep quiet. it helps to have more focued discussion.
Dec 13 15:14:09 <beroul> ok
Dec 13 15:14:58 <richard> b) I can engange with communist practive and theory as comfortably as making a stir-fry; you are misinterpreting me;
Dec 13 15:15:25 <richard> but see (a) - not more or less.;
Dec 13 15:17:39 <richard> (c) i like overall descriptions, that is my tendency, but as you describe key ideas arrived at by marxism: "relationships that are formed in the process of production [] are the key to understanding of our society [] our role is to change it is analsis that we hold as key." - i see clearly, and agree with.
Dec 13 15:21:58 <toni> i have simpathy with fundamentalism, i understand where it comes from, but the double blackmail it presents isn't helpful. you are basicaly saying: 1. unless you accept my basic premise we all die. 2. only when you accept it will i be able to engange with marxism, since we obviously need to be alive first. that's a fundametalist position. or, let's not that use that term, it's simply a position that offers no possibility of dialectic, since it
Dec 13 15:21:58 <toni> blackmails. btw, fundamentalist always use some form of blackmail to put their political goals across as the only acceptible solution, hence they get to be called fundametalists. Look at Bush's position: we can only arrive, according to his ideology, to freedom and democarcy through the blind acceptance of his points. that is fundamentalism, and you come across the same here to me. that's sad. fundametalism breeds fundametalism. i want dialiect
Dec 13 15:21:58 <toni> ic.
Dec 13 15:22:05 <toni> sorry, couldn't resists any more.
Dec 13 15:23:43 <toni> blackmail kills dialiectic, and demands blind acceptance from participants.
Dec 13 15:23:53 <toni> end.
Dec 13 15:24:32 --> rchard (richard@sunax7-b079.dialup.optusnet.com.au) has joined #openorg
Dec 13 15:24:40 <rchard> sorry that took so long. .
Dec 13 15:24:48 <rchard> (d) my thinking is, that a long term goal of a synthesis between marxism analysis and permaculture/ecology etc is the best we can do (not yet touching - and we need to - on pyschology).
Dec 13 15:24:52 <-- richard has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
Dec 13 15:25:05 <rchard> Toni does that cover it?
Dec 13 15:25:38 <toni> no, not really. let me repeate what i wrote while you were kicked.
Dec 13 15:25:46 <toni> i have simpathy with fundamentalism, i understand where it comes from, but the double blackmail it presents isn't helpful. you are basicaly saying: 1. unless you accept my basic premise we all die. 2. only when you accept it will i be able to engange with marxism, since we obviously need to be alive first. that's a fundametalist position. or, let's not that use that term, it's simply a position that offers no possibility of dialectic, since it
Dec 13 15:25:46 <toni> blackmails. btw, fundamentalist always use some form of blackmail to put their political goals across as the only acceptible solution, hence they get to be called fundametalists. Look at Bush's position: we can only arrive, according to his ideology, to freedom and democarcy through the blind acceptance of his points. that is fundamentalism, and you come across the same here to me. that's sad. fundametalism breeds fundametalism. i want dialiect
Dec 13 15:25:46 <toni> ic.
Dec 13 15:25:56 <toni> blackmail kills dialiectic, and demands blind acceptance from participants.
Dec 13 15:26:18 <toni> communists made the same mistake, i have no desire to repeat it.
Dec 13 15:27:34 <toni> i.e. your demand to accept a) without dialectic, with use of blackmail (and you will probably present as death of humanity as a fact, ideologists always do so, use "facts") is
Dec 13 15:27:52 <rchard> I follow, but it is a hard truth that if we continue to pollute this earth then we will deteriorate into non-existence. Also I am not arguing for exclusivity, but inclusion as necessity.
Dec 13 15:28:26 <toni> can i speak for a minute now?
Dec 13 15:28:47 <rchard> yes :)
Dec 13 15:29:54 <toni> :) .. so .. all ideologies use 'hard truth', 'facts' as a way to escape dialectic. i'm sure i do it too.
Dec 13 15:30:36 * beroul will be back in 5 minutes
Dec 13 15:31:08 <toni> before i continue any further discussion, i must ask a rather unpleasant question:
Dec 13 15:31:48 <toni> richard: are you ready to lift your double blackmail, and discuss premises on which you base point a)
Dec 13 15:32:11 <toni> since, i've you aren't there's no point in continuing any futher this discussion, until you're ready to do so.
Dec 13 15:32:40 <toni> if i need to explain, again, why i'm saying this, no problem, i can repeat
Dec 13 15:32:41 <toni> end.
Dec 13 15:33:17 <rchard> whats point a?
Dec 13 15:33:26 <toni> a) permaculture ethics/values are necessarily bottom (basic) level value system because when we are all dead then Marxism analysis/method doesn't mean anything;
Dec 13 15:34:21 <rchard> yes. and we can if you wish. I think we would need to talk at great length; not doable (for me) now.
Dec 13 15:34:43 <rchard> . . .
Dec 13 15:35:43 * toni understands it's late in Aus and that this is already a LONG chat. why not to continue next time where we stoped here.
Dec 13 15:36:42 <rchard> As you know I think about Western thought as only one way of 'dealing' with planet earth; this description and interpretation of balckmail and dialectic that you give - i understand has long and important historical context involving many many real people; so i understand and respect that; but i think that in this case you are applying it unnecessarily.
Dec 13 15:36:52 * rchard says we can go on for a bit.
Dec 13 15:37:11 <rchard> end
Dec 13 15:38:11 <rchard> toni?
Dec 13 15:38:14 <toni> well, convince me, i showed you how US right wing fundamentalism works similary, in as simple terms as i could.
Dec 13 15:38:15 <toni> . . .
Dec 13 15:38:58 <toni> also, islam fundamentalists use such fundametalism to ask for blind, and total, acceptance of religion.
Dec 13 15:39:33 <rchard> end?
Dec 13 15:39:46 <toni> all those posstions, like yours . . .
Dec 13 15:40:31 <toni> use blackmail. i.e. i say that your position a) might be wrong, but how can i discuss that i you blackmail me with death?
Dec 13 15:40:34 <toni> . . .
Dec 13 15:41:08 <beroul> hello?
Dec 13 15:41:16 <beroul> sorry just testing
Dec 13 15:41:25 <toni> also, if you don't find dialectic, valuable enough ... i'm not going to repeat your position, and backmail you back . . .
Dec 13 15:41:46 <toni> dialiectic, or nothing. i ask you, what do we use instead of dialectic? . . .
Dec 13 15:42:19 <toni> if we avoid this question, that you patronize us, taking the position that we aren't able of anything other, the dialectic. end.
Dec 13 15:42:43 <rchard> end?
Dec 13 15:42:48 * beroul has read everything so far and will be back in another 5 minutes
Dec 13 15:42:53 <toni> yes. end. your turn.
Dec 13 15:43:16 <rchard> i am unsure how to answer. .
Dec 13 15:43:36 * toni asks ben to come back for sure, and as soon as possible, since those as core question about how to proceed futher
Dec 13 15:43:38 <rchard> to me it is simple; and i am not stupid in my simplicity. ..
Dec 13 15:44:19 <rchard> i think you are taking things to far.. .
Dec 13 15:44:41 * toni mentions that richard doesn't haven't to answer right now. we're not going to change the world in those few hours, we can continue some other time. but continue, not avoid the issue! :)
Dec 13 15:44:59 <rchard> even the 'laws' of physics break down before the 'big bang' [according to theory] . .
Dec 13 15:45:24 <rchard> what i am saying is that it is a question of common sense vs attitude;. .
Dec 13 15:45:33 <rchard> and i am not patronizing at all. .
Dec 13 15:45:42 * toni waits for end to respond
Dec 13 15:46:15 <rchard> permaculture is very simple ideas (that have been ignored/neglected for hundreds of years);
Dec 13 15:46:47 <rchard> the attitude that you are holding on to, through that lens, is an obstacle to common sense;. . .
Dec 13 15:46:52 <rchard> that said,.
Dec 13 15:47:44 <rchard> i know and believe and hold to that it is what makes us humans free that we do not accept blindly,
Dec 13 15:48:03 <rchard> but have our own instincts and wills, ..
Dec 13 15:48:26 <rchard> so i respect this. as a matter of course . .
Dec 13 15:49:01 <rchard> so the answer is: we can discuss as much as you wish: i will only ask for efficient discussion as time permits as always, and
Dec 13 15:49:30 <rchard> and i say that without understanding and studying ecology of this planet in its widest sense, the
Dec 13 15:49:49 <rchard> political philosopher is a one legged man who cant walk.
Dec 13 15:49:50 <rchard> end
Dec 13 15:50:58 <toni> you are switching ground now. first you ask, in your original email that proposes permaculture, for use of best science we have, then
Dec 13 15:52:04 <toni> when you are faced with dialectic, usual scientific way of discussion, and when such process leads to conclusions which do no back up your startin point, you then
Dec 13 15:52:57 <toni> swicth ground again, saying that dialectic isn't the only way. fine, i say, and ask you to tell us, what other way we have available, true to your first demand for best science we know of
Dec 13 15:54:05 * beroul is back and reading what has been written
Dec 13 15:54:10 <rchard> end?
Dec 13 15:54:22 <toni> and then you don't offer that other, but divert into usual (usual because it is daily occurance in capitalism which can not afford dialectic) labeling: (not end)
Dec 13 15:55:02 <toni> "common sense", "attitude", "political philosopher as one legged man"
Dec 13 15:55:03 <toni> . . .
Dec 13 15:55:34 * beroul would like to say something when toni is done
Dec 13 15:55:59 <toni> what you did acomplish is, to stop the dialogue: acceptnace of your starting position or nothing. which is the same method activists used
Dec 13 15:56:17 <toni> when we started thinking of organizations structures.
Dec 13 15:57:20 <toni> if we rewind back, you blacmail point a) stands. i believe that point is not consistent, has flawed logic. and am happy to discuss it, but you aren't. my method
Dec 13 15:58:01 <toni> is dialectic. if you offer alternative method, i will look into it. what more can i say. (not end)
Dec 13 15:58:41 <toni> end. sorry.
Dec 13 15:58:49 <rchard> ben?
Dec 13 15:59:06 <toni> i lost something more (i said enough anyway) i wanted to add, hence end.
Dec 13 15:59:08 <toni> ben?
Dec 13 16:00:11 * toni is calling ben on his mobile
Dec 13 16:00:39 <beroul> sorry I had to run to the kitchen for a second
Dec 13 16:00:50 <toni> ok
Dec 13 16:00:55 <beroul> OK...
Dec 13 16:01:32 <toni> ben, as you can see above, we're in the deadlock. say something useful, please :)
Dec 13 16:01:33 <beroul> I don't think there's any need for a 'starting position' or a 'fundamental principle'.
Dec 13 16:02:46 <beroul> What I see as useful is to make a synthesis of existing ideas and work, through a process of dialectic, using our brains today to improve on what was done in the past.
Dec 13 16:03:43 <beroul> It seems to me that there are various strands of theory and practice that have something to contribute to this dialectic: Marxism, ecology, non-violence, direct action, and some aspects of religions as well.
Dec 13 16:04:40 <beroul> Many of the ideas we advocate in OpenOrg are indeed ancient and can be found in different movements, different schools of thought.
Dec 13 16:05:09 <beroul> The question is not 'where do we start?' because we have many starting points, not one.
Dec 13 16:05:14 <beroul> The question is 'where do we go from here?'
Dec 13 16:05:26 <beroul> [end]
Dec 13 16:05:33 <toni> richard?
Dec 13 16:06:12 <toni> rchard that is?
Dec 13 16:06:26 * beroul is going to check on the food in the kitchen, will be right back.
Dec 13 16:06:32 * toni assumes richard is writing
Dec 13 16:06:41 <rchard> . . .
Dec 13 16:14:31 <rchard> i) language can be used in many ways; that it can be used in different ways is not to mean that these are either inferior ways or dishonest ways.
Dec 13 16:14:31 <rchard> ii) dialectic is an attitude of apprehension - is my understanding; it has its uses; it has its limits. If you go far enough, my understanding is that all you are actually doing is playing within grammatical/syntax structures within the brain (patterns) of language. In more simple words you go round and round in circles.
Dec 13 16:14:31 <rchard> iii) science to my understanding means observe and explain. political science without ecological science is lame - that is the point i repeat. That is, ecology is science too, and a very important one, so when i have spoken about using best science - i mean that too.
Dec 13 16:14:31 <rchard> iv) Consider, outside of the paradigm of dialactic, that what may be dialectic blackmail might also be how it is. We may not like it, though, and don't have to intellectually/morally accept it.
Dec 13 16:14:31 <rchard> v) my answer is the need to study ecology along with everything else. I repeat what I wrote above - i think we will be surprised (me less than you because i have a small head start in ecology study) that what we will arrive at is very different to what you imagine now. That is my sense.
Dec 13 16:14:31 <rchard> vi) what you mentioned about marxism realizing that we are producers not thinkers (very roughly) is a very important point i think. It is also the principle in Taoism. The Zen master would say, "earth polluted, stop polluting", and go his happy way. He would not analyse too much as we Westerners do.
Dec 13 16:15:55 --> richard (richard@sunax7-b079.dialup.optusnet.com.au) has joined #openorg
Dec 13 16:15:55 <-- rchard has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
Dec 13 16:16:07 <toni> was point vi) end?
Dec 13 16:16:18 <richard> so of course we should continue to discuss. .
Dec 13 16:16:29 * beroul would like to reply re: dialectic
Dec 13 16:16:53 <richard> i think we have to end soon , i must get some sleep. end. lets do this again in a couple of weeks? end
Dec 13 16:17:12 <beroul> I'll be away until 2 January.
Dec 13 16:17:17 * toni will reply after beroul and is happy to challenge dialectic too
Dec 13 16:17:35 <toni> we can stop after two reponses from ben and myself, is that ok?
Dec 13 16:17:47 <richard> y
Dec 13 16:18:01 <toni> ok, ben?
Dec 13 16:18:07 <beroul> OK
Dec 13 16:20:03 <beroul> I mean dialectic in the Hegelian/Marxist sense: you have an idea ('thesis') which is good in some sense, but along comes another idea ('antithesis') that in some way corrects or contradicts the first idea. But instead of completely overturning or replacing it, you get a 'synthesis'. Except I was talking about doing this with several ideas simultaneously. This is a never-ending process. There is no moment in the process where you can point to somet
Dec 13 16:20:17 <beroul> because you never arrive at truth. Truth is eternally emerging from the process. [end]
Dec 13 16:21:10 <toni> i accept that Zen master might be right. (will say end when done)
Dec 13 16:22:39 <toni> yet, we live in times when, as you richard rightly say, system is fixed only in our heads. how is that system fixed in our heads (by ideologies that prevent us from thinking about core principles, including ecology, including relations of production)
Dec 13 16:23:42 <toni> and why did it stay fixed for this long, is the question that Zen master needs to asnwer, and answer effectively i.e. with potential to chage the larger scope, the big picture.
Dec 13 16:24:01 <toni> otherwise, Zen master might be right, yet his teaching not sufficient.
Dec 13 16:25:49 <toni> dialiectic can take ecology on board, and engange with it, while your ecological stance seems unable to think the other way around. since you, in point iv) fix things.
Dec 13 16:26:38 <toni> if they are, indeed fixed, and dialectic is limited to understand that, then you must be able to find other ways to reach our reasoning, ability of comprehension of some kind
Dec 13 16:27:32 <toni> that will enables us to understand. since, if we accept what you're saying without understanding, we will end up blindly following. and we know, didn't history showed enough on this?, where that leades.
Dec 13 16:27:39 <toni> leads, i ment.
Dec 13 16:28:34 <toni> or, do we, shall we blindly follow, is my question to you richard?
Dec 13 16:28:36 <toni> end
Dec 13 16:29:18 <richard> shall i answer, or wait till next time?
Dec 13 16:29:33 <richard> i am happy either way.
Dec 13 16:29:52 <beroul> Richard, I think it's up to you, since it's late for you.
Dec 13 16:30:01 <toni> exactly
Dec 13 16:30:48 <richard> i think i must go to bed a bit - however much i am resisting the urge to reply.
Dec 13 16:31:05 <beroul> OK, I'll be eagerly looking forward to continuing this in a few weeks!
Dec 13 16:31:14 <toni> we can continue next time. no need to push. i won't forget to repeat my question, nor the context in which it emerged. will have the logs anwyay.
Dec 13 16:31:22 <toni> me too.
Dec 13 16:31:24 <richard> it was productive; yes; me too;
Dec 13 16:31:44 <richard> take care then; thinking of you both; good night.
Dec 13 16:31:50 <beroul> good night!
Dec 13 16:31:52 <toni> good night!
Dec 13 16:31:56 <-- richard (richard@sunax7-b079.dialup.optusnet.com.au) has left #openorg
Dec 13 16:32:06 <toni> loging stops here.
Dec 13 16:33:08 <beroul> Toni, I have to go, but I think that was a good discussion.
Dec 13 16:33:12 <toni> wow. what do you think ben? did we make some progress in your view? did we at least opened core points?
Dec 13 16:33:24 <toni> ah. ok.
Dec 13 16:33:26 <beroul> Yes.
Dec 13 16:33:47 <toni> i don't feel like it would be useful that i photocopy any marxist theory on ideology right now, you know enough about it.
Dec 13 16:34:20 <beroul> I think you have to be patient with Richard, because he doesn't have your background in Marxism; he's interested, but it isn't an integral part of the way he sees the world, as it is for you.
Dec 13 16:34:27 <beroul> So some things that may seem obvious to you aren't obvious to him.
Dec 13 16:34:33 <toni> it think, instead, that we should both read something that richard recomends. either we try to understand, or we blindly follow - and i doubt we can blindly follow, hence we better try to understand.
Dec 13 16:35:30 <beroul> I wanted to say to Richard that even if there are truths about physical life on Earth that we simply have to accept, these truths are not fixed for all time; they, too, emerge from a dialectic. Even the laws of physics are like this. Einstein didn't invalidate Newton.
Dec 13 16:35:44 <toni> ok, but is he ready to read some of it? that's the problem. patience, yes, i agree.
Dec 13 16:36:21 <toni> let's eat. our burgoise bodies aren't used to hungry reasoning ;)
Dec 13 16:36:42 <toni> talk another time. hard work today, i'm tired.
Dec 13 16:36:48 <beroul> Also, the idea of a 'fundamental' or 'basic' truth would, I think, be vulnerable to Derrida's critique of 'logocentrism', the myth of the central idea that everything follows from...
Dec 13 16:36:49 <beroul> OK...
Dec 13 16:37:11 <beroul> I was just eating pasta while we were talking, but Marie has been waiting for me all afternoon.
Dec 13 16:37:17 <beroul> We're going to go out to the cinema.
Dec 13 16:37:24 <toni> good point, bloody derrida, makes thing harder!
Dec 13 16:38:02 <toni> ok, say hello to Marie, patience of our partner is crucial too in all this.
Dec 13 16:38:03 <toni> later
Dec 13 16:38:08 <beroul> Keep being patient with Richard; I think the dialogue between you and him is very important in developing a marxist-ecological synthesis.
Dec 13 16:38:13 <beroul> Good night!
Dec 13 16:38:14 <toni> our partners, that was.
Dec 13 16:38:21 <beroul> eat well! :)
Dec 13 16:38:22 <beroul> bye
Dec 13 16:38:24 <toni> bye
Dec 13 16:38:27 <-- beroul (~ben@chaucer.socialtools.net) has left #openorg
**** ENDING LOGGING AT Sat Dec 13 16:39:21 2003
to top