IRC log started Thu Feb 12 14:05
*** Current channel #openorg
*** You are on the following channels:
***    #openorg +nt (irc.indymedia.org): richard toni 

<richard> ok, please give me very simple basic explanation of what you mean by material
relationship etc 
<richard> as that is the crux of what you are saying(?)
<richard> end

<toni> you need a book. someone has to produce that book. when you give money to acquire
a book, you need to have that money first. therefore, in most cases
<toni> you exchange your labour for the money
<toni> so that someone else can produce
<toni> some other material goods
<toni> that other people will want, or need, or both.
<toni> those relationships we enter, are material relationships of production.
<toni> even simpler, you need to eat. you have no land.
<toni> you need to buy food. therefore, you enter the relationship.
<toni> end.
<richard> let me examine how works with organism - to see if parallels, ok?
<toni> important: it is NO relationship of CHOICE.
<toni> ok, listening.

<richard> [yes- the point you made about the free will being subject (in part)
 to the environment, is good point]
<richard> . . 
<richard> different parts of an organism have different functions - egs, produce blood,
 tissue, etc etc. different parts share those 'products'. . . 
<richard> each part contributes to the maintainance of the whole ('society').. .
<richard> .. this must happen, it is not choice, all parts & functions are necessary.
<richard> this is an 'exchange' in many senses. main difference i see is that all 'parts'
 work for whole [there is a principle that explains this - but save that point for later].
<richard> end.
<toni> hmm
<toni> we have to be careful when

<richard> [money is only medium of exchange]
<richard> one minute please.

<toni> drawing parallels between "an open organization", "any human organization" and society at 
large, which is not so clear in what you just wrote. not me.
<toni> not to me, i meant.
<toni> ah, i got it.
<toni> so, organs are open organizations. let's say.
<toni> so, they all contribute to the whole, society.
<toni> right?

<richard> yes.
<richard> bio-functions are also O-Os.
<richard> non-organ local ones.
<toni> what bio-functions? example?
* toni is not being picky, i have to ask you everything, to be able to enange fully with it
<richard> body is exchange of functions, beyond what can be seen by anatomical disection. . .. 
<richard> :)
<richard> .. .
<toni> ah, ok. yes, i thought you might have though of that. make sense.
<toni> how about mind?
<richard> the skin is an organ too.
<toni> what is the function of the mind?
<richard> long discussion.
<toni> btw. skin is biggest organ of all. crucial too. i know that.
<toni> yes, but that long discussion will have to happen

<richard> respiration takes place between cells, in blood, skin/environment etc.
<richard> what mind is is very complex discussion, not crucially relevant now(?)
<richard> lets go back to comparison?

<toni> but, if we compare the body to a system, system that's defined by
<toni> parameters that you use in systemsView text, then
<toni> we have to take into account that a human being
<toni> can not fit into that system, without resolving
<toni> this issue of the mind. otherwise,
<toni> we're talking of human being as if it's a machine.
<toni> which is the opposite of what you want.
<toni> i.e. man = machine is very mechanistic view.
<toni> end.

<richard> ok, working definition, mind is the function that creates identity, maintains this even 
though system grows (by continual division), holds together system, responsible/creates overall 
awareness for the system as being what it is - like an objective of whole org.
<richard> end
<richard> like functional implementer of whole charter for whole org.
<richard> end

<toni> hm, interesting. although i am as sceptical as it gets towards system theory ...
<toni> you are pulling good responses :)
<toni> ok, we can continue with what comparison from the beginning. end.

<richard> as above.
<richard> go.
<richard> do you see what i am saying?
<richard> that maybe not (such) a fundamental difference?
<richard> end
<richard> i make blood, you make cell tissue, ben transports antibodies, we all need each other's 
product to survive together, we exchange output of work.
<richard> end
<richard> ?

<toni> i see that clearly
* toni is re-reading the beginning of this chat
<richard> "On the other hand, structure, functionality and efficiency of human organizations
depends on, apart from its participants itself, material objects - and is thus linked to 
relationships in  society that govern production and later life of material those.". ..
<toni> ok. i'm back. listening.
<richard> blood, cell tissue etc are material objects. Purpose of this discussion, as i see it, 
<richard> is to identify a basic difference, if there is one. end

<toni> ah. ok. good purpose.
* richard not sure either way - need to examine.
<toni> blood, cell tissue need just input of energy into system they're part of.
<toni> no more, no less.
<toni> to be produced, i meant.
<toni> while, those material objects that i'm talking about need labour.
<toni> human labour, or machine labour (human needs to produce machines first), so human labour
 in any case.

<richard> they need, material input from environment, food - air, fibre, protein, minerals, blood 
needs oxygen produced by lung intake etc. all these material objects are gained by the work 
['labour'] of other functional elements [working groups] of the system. 
<richard> pancreas et al must produce bio-machines for digestion, caused enzymes.
<richard> end

<toni> true. but system that systems theory is built on, the nature, is, i claim, quite
 different of the society we live in today.
<toni> there are striking similarities too.
<toni> i'm curious to find out where the line of separations lies.
<toni> ...

<richard> remember agreed aim: to identify a basic difference, if there is one.
<richard> yes.
<richard> Ben and I had long discussion on similar lines previously. conclusion - not so clear.

<toni> so, nature has no mind. or, to be more precise, we can not perceive one.
 maybe there is one actually.
<toni> that's first main possible difference. we can't tell very well which way is it.
<toni> ...

<richard> i think so. but "nature has no mind" implicitly separates you [humans] from
 nature - you betray a separate-from-nature paradigm!;-)
<toni> not a single mind. no.
<toni> humans, as tiny elements of nature, do have a single command center that we
 know of ( that we understand badly too).
<toni> i'm just stating the obvious difference, issue of mind.
<richard> not heard of Gaia Hypothesis? whole planet has a mind.
<richard> as i defined it above.
<toni> how can we speak of "free mind" if we can't put the mind itself in the puzzle first.
<richard> we have digressed? lets get back to point about material etc.
<toni> i've heard. no evidence though. not even a  coherent thought to me (Gaia),
 but i know it very superficially.
<toni> ok. back to that.
<richard> so far from arguments, i don't see basic difference.
<richard> [http://erg.ucd.ie/arupa/references/gaia.html]
<richard> end
<toni> ok, will look at it.

<toni> back to the point ...
<toni> in order to acquire basic elements to survive, and to keep the 
<toni> main functional implementer (human mind) happy,
* richard only has 15 more minutes/ apologies.
<toni> we rent our labour. when we do so, we enter relationships of material production.
<toni> (work is pilling up, gota go sooner) ...
<toni> can we establish that to enter relationship of "labour renting" is necessary
<toni> for vast majority of O-O cells i.e. humans?
<toni> (it's good to move in small steps, it's much easier that way to get somewhere)
<toni> end

<richard> yes, but is this not an exchange of work measured by the tool of money to satisfy
general society needs? Is not the problem, not this exchange, but the definition of 'society's
needs' that everyone is contributing to? and is this not a question of values of a society?
[but mechanisms are not harmful in themselves.]
<richard> end

<toni> yes, and and no.(values of society).
<toni> yes, because it shows what the values are.
<toni> no, because, as i claim, vast majority of humans has no choice in regards to this.
<toni> therefore, something doesn't represent the value for me, because i have no choice.
<toni> you might see it as a value that comes out of labour renting, but actually
<toni> it is about necessity: food, shelter, reproduction. and some fun for the mind.
<toni> can we establish that to enter relationship of "labour renting" is necessary
<toni> for vast majority of O-O cells i.e. humans?

<richard> ok, i agree, but you are giving this reality of exchange by necessity, a negative 
judgement, only because it is a necessity because of the scale of organisation --societies
 we have today.
<toni> or, if you can accept that. why not?
<toni> :) hang on.
<toni> you are doing O-O in a strange way.
<richard> sorry?
<toni> that's because we have no charter
<richard> ;-)

<toni> so we don't know what goals is i.e. we are misunderstanding each other
<toni> because we are working to slightly different goals.
<richard> aha

<toni> for example:
<toni> what you said right now, about "societies we have today"
<toni> is precisely the argument i'm trying to make with material production.
<toni> if O-O is going to stand a chance to be useful in transforming the while (society)
<toni> then we have make it useful in todays conditions. hence, necessity of labour
 has to be part of O-O. i think.
<toni> end

<richard> so i am not sure if we agree or not?
<toni> i.e. i agree that "reality of exchange by necessity" is not bad per se.
<richard> ok, go on?

<toni> bad, because we live today, we have to take into account WHAT KIND OF EXCHANGE
 are we forced to enter
<toni> in todays conditions of "necessary labour rent".
<toni> but, because we live today (i meant)
<toni> exchange that we're forced to enter
<toni> links us with relationships that Marx wrote about.
<toni> material production. 
<toni> does that makes sense?
<toni> i'm trying to argue that if we ignore
<toni> todays TYPE OF EXCHANGE that we're forced to enter,
<toni> O-O will be useless in terms of it potential to transform society.
<toni> end.

<richard> ok, let me see..
* toni thinks that we shouldn't aim for any conclusions right today, there's too little time.
<richard> so theoretically, if overall goal of society was different, eg, one that we liked,
and "reality of exchange by necessity" because of big societies [many people] was part of it,
then we might expect that different kind of exchange would take place. something like that?
and if so is not the definition of the goal the problem?
* richard is just trying to understand a-z of question.
<toni> so, cells in O-O (humans), are, along with functioning within an O-O, functioning within 
todays society. thus, type of exchange they enter influences their ability
to be functional within O-O's.
* toni too
<toni> what you wrote is correct.
<toni> not sure about last sentence?

<richard> understand. yes. so, again, from my last comment, i reason that to change type
of exchange in society generally, need to change society goals.
<toni> precisely!
<richard> ie, goal of society as whole - will create (gradually) new type of exchange.
<toni> i think so.
<toni> although, money is a well designed medium. we might need to design new mediums of exchange.

<richard> so all the way back to beginning of discussion, i think that at least we can say that, 
somehow, we have to have a goal that os changing societies goals. but this contradicts with having 
processes in isolation in an open-org, is that your point?
<toni> i'm not convinced that they will appear just like that.
<richard> os=is
<richard> end
* toni thinking

<richard> because unless we all have lots of money first, type of exchange they enter influences 
their ability to be functional within O-O's."
<richard> end
<toni> exactly ( the last point).
<toni>  >>> "have to have a goal that is changing societies goals"
<richard> its  a problem, then.
<toni> how?
<richard> dont know definite answer, indymedia trying to spread information is one
 theoretically possible way. .. 
<toni> we just take into account that, in order to have O-O that will be able to work on
 changing the society,
<toni> we either need to take a lot of care about the fact that cells
<toni> are not fully functional, because of the forced exchange we enter today.
<toni> and that, ideally, we should work on formulating how such dependence should be replaced
<toni> by different form of exchange.

<richard> only other approach is, that somehow an O-O is open in an way that means that it can
 continually expand its numbers [i quoted a text about how a crowd always 'wants' and does grow in 
numbers, in one mail to the list].
> >>> "have to have a goal that os changing societies goals", i think fully stand in this logic.
<richard> "ideally, we should work on formulating how such dependence should be replaced

<richard> <toni> by different form of exchange.
<richard> " is top-down approach, though
<richard> ?

<toni> no. we keep that question open.
<toni> we, deliberately don't answer it.
<toni> because we know that are not able to answer it well enough.
<toni> end.

<richard> "that somehow an O-O is open in an way that means that it can continually expand its
 numbers " is the only other way i see then.
<richard> end
<richard> maybe reformulate processes to take this into account - ie, formulate
a deliberately TRANSITIONAL model!?
<richard> because we always come back to the problem, HOW to get from a to b.
<richard> end

<toni> yes, expanding number is the only strategy one can have at this very moment.
BUT, with a clear
<toni> view as to WHY, and what issue are we facing.
<toni> deliberately TRANSITIONAL
<toni> +model!?
<toni> is what i always had on my mind
<toni> when working/thinking O-O.

<richard> aha:)
<richard> it is currently not this.
<toni> exactly. and that's what frustrates me.
<toni> i never had anything other then that on my mind. 

<richard> why did you not say so ;-)
<toni> i don't know. i didn't think that you might not be thinking that. 
<toni> that's all coz we have no charter.
<toni> at least we are now a bit closer in knowing what charter should be about.
<toni> agree? end.

<richard> by the way, in latest far-reaching permaculture book, author admits that he can
 describe what we need to achieve, but not how to get to it.
<richard> agree:))
<richard> good productive discussion.
<toni> good! i'm glad permaculture guy is being honest :)
<toni> yes, very productive.
<richard> so, goodnight, will you post log?
<toni> yes, i will.