[p2p-research] Building Alliances (basic income and entrepreneurship)

Michel Bauwens michelsub2004 at gmail.com
Sat Nov 7 08:52:11 CET 2009

Just to make this clear: I am not confusing, accumulated information, with
increased collective intelligence.

There is both a dynamic in terms of individual adult development, with
increased capacities to handle cognitive complexity, there's a whole field
of psychology dedicated to this, and collective intelligence, which is the
capacity to cooperate as intelligent beings.

Both are not given fixed amounts, but amenable to change, and there is a
case to be made that they have been growing.

I gather you are not aware that there are other modalities of knowing than
math? and that being good at math is a free pass to pass on judgments on all
matters in the universe? For a good case of mathematical madness, take
neoclassical economics. It's pretty clear where that got us. I think that
applying math to social change is a serious category error, and not
'rigorous' at all. Social change can only be examined in a interdisciplinary
and participatory way.

Last, social change must not be proven in theory, but experimented in
practice. Lots of things were impossible in theory, like the Wikipedia and
the Arduino, but happened in practice. In that case, theory must be revised,
but above all, one must be aware of the relativity of theory at all times.


On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 1:35 PM, J. Andrew Rogers <reality.miner at gmail.com>wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 9:19 PM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Another view is that talent is distributed in many ways, and so our
> systems
> > need to be more distributed to capture that innovation and contribution,
> as
> > that is not sufficiently done at present.
> This is true, but you are not understanding why it is true or the
> nature of that system. I take it no one here is a big fan of math?
> > So to challenge Andrew's very clear metaphysics:
> I have metaphysics? Does my mother know?
> > 1) people can get smarter, and in many ways are getting smarter, through
> > smart educational and social policies
> People are not becoming more intelligent. However, they are using
> their intelligence more efficiently, which is consistent with theory.
> > 2) the intelligence we have is increasing in value, the more so if we
> > interconnected people and their contributions in collective intelligence
> > systems; there is a network effect to human intelligence deployed in this
> > social and distributed way
> Intelligence is not a synonym for information. Consequently the above
> does not make sense unless you use correct terminology.
> > 3) intelligence is incredibly addictive, all human knowledge builds on
> > previous one, and recombines in myriad ways to create more and more
> > additional intelligence
> Whatever you are talking about, it is not "intelligence".
> > I also note that in a world where myriad social problems are showing up
> and
> > increasing, the system you propose, in your own words, is incapable of
> > investing in it.
> Sure. I'm not big on reality denial. However, you have not proposed an
> alternative that does not have the same properties.
> > Time to move on then perhaps, and let others take over the work of
> investing
> > in the common good?
> Well that's the problem now, isn't it?  I'm waiting for someone to
> propose a way to do that which passes basic critical muster, but there
> hasn't been much beyond handwaving.  I've been working on this problem
> for years, but from a slightly more rigorous perspective.
> > The good news is that for people who are willing to
> > invest in the social good, it is not actually a hard problem, and
> > opportunities abound. This is why there is now a thriving field of social
> > enterpreneurship, blended capital, and social venture investing, while
> the
> > VC world is in crisis.
> We can't meaningfully solve these problems if we pretend fundamental
> problems with the proposals don't exist. I've heard all these happy
> proposals before, because I used to work with NGOs on designing
> sustainable systems and international protocols of this type. We
> initially made the same naive mistakes then that are being made here
> now.
> plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
> --
>  J. Andrew Rogers
> realityminer.blogspot.com
> _______________________________________________
> p2presearch mailing list
> p2presearch at listcultures.org
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org

Work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University - Research:
http://www.dpu.ac.th/dpuic/info/Research.html - Think thank:

P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net

Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:

Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20091107/5119794b/attachment.html>

More information about the p2presearch mailing list