Time for Humanity to Grow Up!

 Socialism and the Gift Tensegrity

Thinking Outloud

Timothy Wilken

A number of readers have written with concerns about the terminology I chose to describe the “Gift Tensegrity” (GT).  Some have suggested changes. First, I want to state that all of the suggestions I have received have been valid, and pointed out some problem with my original explanation. 

As preamble to discussing this in more depth, I think that the problem of terminology for the GT is really a problem that every shifting paradigm faces. The words that were defined and developed to describe the old paradigm, don’t work easily in the new paradigm.

I suppose the cleanest way to explain something new would be to develop totally new words. However, that said, I think using totally new terms would be just as confusing and put off more people that they would attract. And, you would still find that your definitions were full of old words from the prevailing paradigm.

So I have stuck with using old terms, but in a new way. I have come to my choice of terms after lots of thinking and I would like to share my thinking with you. That doesn’t mean that there isn’t room for improvement, but rather that changes need to be made carefully and only for good reasons. Let me begin by quoting some of the suggested changes and then respond to them point by point.

James North wrote: “Timothy, I would drop use of the word “help” and “helping” and adopt instead the word “assist” and “assisting”.  This stems from the basis of personal power, and empowerment, where “I can do it….” AND your assistance I could use, rather than “I’m broken, useless, need fixing……” please help me.

James, I think that the word “help” is fundamental to understanding INTERdependence. I believe that your concern reveals a mistaken belief that is presently held by most of humanity. That is the belief that we humans are independent. Most of humanity is presently unaware that we are members of an INTERdependent life form. Since they mistakenly believe they are INdependent, they look upon needing help as a sign of weakness or deficiency.

 

We are not independent of each other. All humans need help. I think we must be quick to explain how the terms “help” and “helping” are natural and appropriate to use for an INTERdependent species. So I think we should continue using the terms “help” and “helping”, but carefully.  We should expect some of our readers to misunderstand and use their misunderstanding as an opportunity to teach about INTERdependence.

On a similar vein, Chris Lucas writes: “James’ point about ‘help’ implying ‘something wrong’, i.e. a ‘failure’ is also valid, all these words are tricky and have inherent values of which we need to be aware, we need perhaps metaphors that emphasize webs rather than linear chains of control or action. Spiral Dynamics uses the term ‘meshworks’ which mimics tensegrity. Their Don Beck describes it thus:  “The term “mesh” in MeshWORKs suggests a different way  to connect entities, be they individuals, or structures, or interests, or functions, or people groupings of virtually any size.” “

Chris, I think your suggestion to consider the term meshworks, is basically suggesting the use of a new term. Yes this is one way to go but makes more problems than is solves.

Wayne Perg writes: “I believe that the word “gifting” raises an image of giving material goods in the minds of most people.  My belief regarding the popular perception of gifting has been reinforced by the words that I have been reading in this dialogue.

“Therefore, I suggest a name change.  Possibilities that occur to me include “Giving Tensegrity” and “Sharing Tensegrity.”  I have no energy on the choice of the name, but I do believe that, based on my reading of the dialogue to date, a change in name would be desirable.”

Wayne, I understand your point about “gifting” being associated with material gifts. However, I don’t see how the terms “giving” or  “sharing” solve this problem. Don’t the terms “giving” and  “sharing” also raise the image of giving and/ or sharing material goods in the minds of most people.

Again, I would suggest that our real problem here is not so much one of terminology. All of our terms are going to be flawed. All of our terms were defined in the old paradigm. I think we need to assume that the disclosure of this new idea is going to encounter much misunderstanding. Rather than dance around trying to find better terms. I think we simply need to take the time to explain what we mean by the terms we are choosing to use.

Wayne continues: “I also have another problem with the word gift and that is that it means poison in German.  Because this will be an international network, I believe that it is important to consider the meanings that the name will take on when seen through the eyes of those who speak other languages.”

I chose the term “gift” and “gifting” without any awareness of this German definition. But rather than try to accommodate the German dictionary. I would again suggest that when we translate our papers into German, we take extra care not to miscommunicate on this level.

 

I am sure that German parents do not give their children poison for Christmas and on their birthdays. What term do the Germans use describe those “gifts” to their children? Perhaps that is the term we need to use in our German translations.

Chris Lucas raises a slightly different point when he writes: ” ‘Sharing Tensegrity’ would be better, after all ‘sharing’ implies a two way process, as does ‘synergy’ whereas ‘giving’ tends to be seen as one-directional, not what we intend here I think. Sharing also tends to do away with the other connotation of ‘gift’ which is ownership, and that is also a negative concept that implies division and the opposite of what I assume we intend. The word that comes closest to my mind is perhaps ‘participatory’, but it is a clumsy word compared to ‘gift’. “

Chris, I would have to say yes and no. I agree that in our present paradigm, “sharing” implies shared control and shared ownership. Conditional gifting is an important feature of the GT. When I gift the use of a tool to another member of the GT, I am sharing control, but not ownership. So “sharing”  is the case when I conditionally gift. But, much of the gifting within the GT is not conditional. This unconditional gifting  is part of the GT’s strength and magic. When I unconditionally gift, I am transfering ownership to the giftee.

 

I would suggest we make broad use of term “sharing” when describing the GT, and especially the conditional gifting part of the GT. But, I don’t think the term “share” works better than the term “gift”. Again, I would suggest that all of our terms are flawed. I think we need to choose the best we can and then take the time to explain what we mean when we use these terms. All terms carry semantic garbage from the old paradigm. Ask any child what they like better “sharing” or “gifting” and I think their answer will make my point.

 

The creation of a new system for the exhange of goods and services is an enormous challenge. The design of the Gift Tensegrity must therefore be a work in progress. As I present ideas of how it might work, my readers are letting me know when they think I am missing some of their concerns. This is the very essence of co-Laboration — working together. If you have opinions, comments, or questions, please write me.

 

Read about:

Gift Tensegrity   (a brief description of the idea)

 

Gift Tensegrity*  (a more complete description of the idea)

Understanding Exchange Systems

Gary Alexander

In our economic ecosystem the first two sets of sub-system boundary issues to consider are:

• that the major producing organisations’ boundaries separate them from their clients/customers
• that their boundaries separate them from other similar organisations, with which they compete.

In an economy that is dominated by exchange through money, the personal relationship between giver and receiver, and the trust and support that goes with it, are marginalised. “…the shift away from self-reliance has led to the dismantling of the social ties and values that unite communities, or even whole cultures. The market values of competitiveness and individualism have replaced the community values of solidarity and cooperation.”[29]

As discussed in the previous section, the control variables are the needs of the producer, not a ‘best match’ criterion. The result is that the desires of those people who have money are manipulated so that they will want more, while those people without money are ignored.

The resulting social fragmentation leaves significant numbers of people outside of or at the edges of the economic system. Their sense of exclusion encourages crime, vandalism, social and emotional problems, drug taking and general poor health. All of these add to the costs of keeping society functioning.

Transactions can become highly contentious and a source of conflict with people feeling exploited over the wages they are being paid or the prices they are being offered. The results of this are major overheads to transactions of various forms, in wage bargaining, strikes and other disruptions. Much productive effort is absorbed by the financial system itself: handling cash and credit, banks, insurance companies, financial security systems.

The boundaries between competing organisations lead to much duplication of effort in research and development. Significant innovations are kept in commercial confidence, and protected by patents and lawsuits so that best practice cannot be shared by all. To increase or maintain market shares, goods may be shipped around the world to compete with near-identical goods produced locally. Organisations devote significant proportions of their productive effort to competition that might otherwise be devoted to the satisfying the needs of their clients.

The result of all these effects is an enormous inefficiency. The efforts required for transaction costs, to resolve conflicts, in duplicated efforts, in producing things other than what are wanted, in the cost of crime and ill health, all add up to a gross productive effort far in excess of what would suffice to provide comfortable lives to the population. The converse of this is that in a sustainable economy organised so that producers and consumers were all pulling in the same direction, peoples’ wants and needs could be satisfied with much lower levels of production. And of course much lower levels of production would mean much lower environmental impact.

A third, looser set of system boundaries of relevance is that around trading communities. In ecosystem terms, it is analogous to the food web. Organisations up and down the supply chain are necessary to each other“s survival. In isolated or relatively closed trading communities it is clear that there is a mutual dependence among all.

One means of bounding a trading community is through a shared currency or exchange mechanism. This may be a conventional currency, an international common currency like the Euro, a local currency such as LETS, Time Dollars or WIR[30] [31]. It may be the circulation of necklaces and armbands in the Kula ring of the Trobriand Islanders as described by Malinowski[32] [33] or simply the informal exchange in a suburban baby sitting circle. For the purposes of this paper, the key difference between these forms of trading community is in the nature of the relationship, and in particular in the degree of trust.

The exchange or reciprocity spectrum:

Our use of conventional currencies for transactions is at roughly the mid-point of a spectrum of modes of exchange. Sahlins discusses this spectrum of reciprocities in some depth[34], looking across a range of cultures.

At one end of the spectrum there is ‘generalised exchange’ which includes gift-giving, mutual aid within a family or between friends, and working voluntarily for a common purpose. This characterises a relationship in which all parties give and receive, but with no attempt to seek an exact balance either for a single transaction or overall.

Generalised exchange presumes an ongoing relationship based on trust so that people can expect some return for what they give. Harriss says, “…if these social relationships generate some degree of trust, then transaction costs can be lowered, so making for greater efficiency in the use of resources.”[35] Generalised exchange has lowest overheads, as there is the least need to keep records of what is given and received, and least conflict over the fairness of a given transaction.

In the middle is balanced exchange, either as direct barter or using some token or exchange medium such as money for all transactions. There is no assumption of an ongoing give and take relationship so that balance is sought for each transaction. Balanced exchange has higher transaction costs, because of the need to create and handle the exchange medium, the need for savings, loans, insurance, etc. and because of the various conflicts across system boundaries described above.

The other extreme is negative reciprocity, where there is no agreement on the giving and receiving, such as cheating or stealing. Clearly the relationship is one of opposition, not support.

Conventional economic transactions can vary widely along the reciprocity spectrum. In a small shop with regular customers, the relationship may move towards the generalised end. As people know and trust each other, casual credit may be allowed. On the other hand, firms which use high- pressure marketing and cold calling may have a relationship with their customers more like that of predator and prey.

Transactions in local currency schemes tend to be at the more generalised end of the spectrum. Credit is automatically available to people who would have difficulty obtaining it through conventional financial institutions. There are usually no interest charges, and no legal sanctions for default. Thus balance is approximate and pressure to maintain it is social rather than legal. The schemes tend to be small, so people generally know each other somewhat. There are reports of reverse bargaining, where customers offer more of the local currency than they are asked to pay. This shows a concern for the other“s welfare, rather than an attempt to get the best deal.

Local currencies are generally much less formal than conventional currencies. The forms of exchange they facilitate can be extended to no currency at all, if there is sufficient trust within the group. Certain offerings can be free, or given to a community account. This would be fully generalised exchange.

Harriss talks about the development of trust in cooperative organisations based upon “shared knowledge and expectations”, and that “discussion of problems led to a reframing of them, as the understandings of all those concerned underwent change.”[36]

Exchange at the generalised end of the spectrum is the key to getting out of the competitive trap in which producers cannot take measures to reduce their environmental impact unless their competitors do so also.

So what can we conclude about the desirable sub-system boundaries for sustainable economic activity? From the perspective of the ‘nervous system of an organism’ metaphor, we are looking for:

• a reduction of the producer/consumer divide by mechanisms which move exchange towards the generalised end of the reciprocity spectrum
• a reduction of competition towards a more collaborative, niche-based relationship between similar providers. Each group would have its role in the whole that complements that of the others. If groups are not in competition, there is no problem in sharing information, best practice, and giving mutual assistance.

The later section on ICT-based tools considers ways of furthering these goals. This will include means of easily setting up groups with a cooperative economic function based on local currencies or fully generalised exchange, and ways of furthering trust through discussion, shared experience and tools for building consensus.

Read the full article

Thanksgiving Sale at Mall of the America

Did you get to K-Mart yesterday at 5:00AM for their early  after Thanksgiving Sale? How about JC_Pennys at 6:00AM? Did you make it by SEARS at 7:00AM?

New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani called on all Americans to go out to the stores this weekend and buy, buy, buy.

Is this the best way for people to exchange goods and services? Our present fair market is what synergic science calls a product tensegrity.

Product Tensegrity

When we obtain help from others by payment of money, we are entering into the Product Tensegrity. Now in the Fair Market, products are the actionswe need to purchase to meet our needs. Products include knowingin the form of expertise, consultation, and counseling. Products includeactionin the form of physical labor and services. And products include leverslike tools, appliances, automobiles, computers, homes, food, etc., etc., created by action to meet our needs.

Now if we examine these products, we discover they are continuously made available in the fair market by sellers for sale to buyers who only occasionally purchase them. And so we see the emergence of theProduct Tensegrity. Products are continuously available and pullingon the buyer to enter the fair market, but the buyer is only occasionally interested in making a purchase. Many of our stores are open 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 52 weeks a year — continuously pulling. But, I only shop on Friday afternoons — discontinuously pushinginto the fair market.

Maybe there is a better way for humans to meet their needs. Maybe there is a better way for humans to exchange goods and services.

See what I am talking about:

Gift Tensegrity  (brief draft)

 

Gift Tensegrity  (more complete draft and discussion)

Happy Thanksgiving

“Thanksgiving”

More Dialogue on Gift Tensegrity

James North writes with concerns making the GT work for the poor — for those with less to gift:”I think the ‘urgency’ issue is big factor.  I wonder if that ‘urgency’ might be something created by a third party in the GT, like a Giftor perhaps, so as to offset any claims to urgency where there actually isn’t.  I “need” a Ferrari, for example )

It’s clear to me that an intense focus on the words, descriptions and concept/processes of “wealth”, “gift and give”, “rich”, “poor” are required to establish the solid philosophical basis for the GT.

Timothy, I would drop use of the word “help” and “helping” and adopt instead the word “assist” and “assisting”.  This stems from the basis of personal power, and empowerment, where “I can do it….” AND your assistance I could use, rather than “I’m broken, useless, need fixing……” please help me.”

Chris Lucas raises similar concerns: “One thing I’ve not seen made explicit, either here or anywhere else, is the dynamic effects of successful exchanges on the poor. Whereas our capitalist dogma takes the attitude that having very rich people improves the lot for the poor (i.e. they become richer also by spin-off effects) this neglects
the effects on prices of basics which have the effect of making the poor worst off overall.

To illustrate, the wages in the States are very much higher than in India, but food costs in India are also very much lower, so the poor can afford to buy more food (by far) for the dollar than in the States, we have a balance. But back in the States those equally poor cannot afford the food at the same level, since farmers have raised the prices (following market rules) to what the rich can afford to pay. Thus as the rich get richer (say 10% a year), the average price level rises faster (maybe 5% pA) than the incomes of the poor (which may be no increase) and they become worst off as a result. An example from the U.K. is house prices in London. Here big bonuses paid to financial traders allow them to pay silly prices for property, thus all prices soar leaving locals unable to buy houses in their own area. They have to move further away and suffer further time and money losses by travelling back to work – a decrease in their QOL not due
to their own actions.

Although this isn’t a problem in GT as such, the dynamics of that may have the same negative effects on those who I’m sure we would agree need to benefit the most. Giving to those who have seems a flawed dynamic in principle.

See what we are talking about:

Gift Tensegrity  (brief draft)

 

Gift Tensegrity  (more complete draft and discussion)

The Evolution of the Gift Tensegrity

The creation of a new system for the exhange of goods and services is an enormous challenge. The design of the Gift Tensegrity must therefore be a work in progress. As I present ideas of how it might work, my readers are letting me know when they think I am missing some of their concerns. This is the very essence of co-Laboration — Working together. If you have opinions, comments, or questions, please write me.

I have had an interesting two days. Good interaction on various lists with lots of comments and so I am learning a great deal while  helping others understand my model.

One thing I have realized is that your status within the Gift Tensegrity (GT) determines your priority in receiving help. Those individuals that give the most to the GT membership gain status that insures them higher ranking in terms of priority to get the resources of the GT.

In the *fair market* all exchange is this for that, tit for tat. Those
who accumulate (KEEP)the most stuff, are the richest. They get the royal treatment by society because they are rich and can spend their wealth with the sellers of services and goods.

In the *gift tensegrity* highest status goes to those who GIFT the most help. There is no need for accumulation of property, all such
accumlation is just dead wealth. Instead the goal is to put all that
wealth in motion serving the needs of the whole. Your wealth comes from the TRUST you earn with your gifting. When those with high priority need things, the GT takes care of them first. It makes sense to support and reward those who most benefit the members of the GT. What do you think?

Arthur Noll responds: “I am still dubious.  We have no way of knowing in this system, what someone has received from the market economy, and whether their gifting is really significant compared to that.  Someone very rich in the market economy can give a lot, gain a lot of status on the gifting network, and get priority to receive, when they really don’t need it.  Someone poor in the market economy may have very little to give, ends up with poor status to receive, and yet is the one who really needs more help.”

Good point. I think we need to be able to sort the Giftee’s needs not only by priority, but by urgency. And, maybe there should be categories of needs. Basic needs like food, clothing, shelter, education, and medical care might well have a higher priority as well.

But my point is a little different. People in our present *fair market* exchange system accumulate wealth (KEEP). That wealth benefits noone. People in the *Gift Tensegrity* exchange system get NO status from KEEPing wealth. Their status comes from GIFTing weatlh. This intantly makes it available to help others. Instead of accumulating wealth, the gift tensegriteer accumulates TRUST and RESPECT. His/her security is in the RELATIONSHIPS with those others he/she has helped.

In another discussion yesterday, I wrote: The GT will value those members who give more over those members that give less. It will reward those members that give more with more gifts than those that give less.

Chris Lucas writes: Will this not prove to be another escalation procedure that will make the poor poorer and the rich richer? After all if I’m rich (from whatever source) I can afford to give more, thus will receive more on average, thus due to synergy my quality of life will get even better. If I’m poor, I have nothing to spare, thus I receive nothing and never improve my life (except from charitable gifts – but they surely are given on the basis of no return expected, so GT doesn’t apply). The dynamic forces driving the system seem to point to a divisive outcome.

In part I refer you to my answer to Arthur, that we need to be able to sort the Giftee’s needs not only by priority, but by urgency. And, maybe there should be categories of needs with basic needs having a higher priority. However, that said the GT will send the message loud and strong that success in a sysergic world results from helping others. As another reader James North writes in response to Chris’s comment:

You (Chris) seem to be thinking of “gifts” as just “things” and “poor” as in “helpless” or completely “worthless”.  Consider that the “wealth” of the “Information Age” or “Knowledge Era” is perhaps an almost immeasurable “amount” more of intangible “stuff”, such as time listening, communication feedback, emotional support, role modelling, and other stuff that “poor people” are already quite capable of abundantly providing.

My initial impression of most of the Gift Tensegrity idea was that it would be quite inclusive, rather than divisive.  I think it’s gonna take quite a leap outside of the current “paradigm/mental box” into a whole new way of thinking to even begin to grasp the New Civilization of which the GT is a “part”.

Again I want to thank all those who are reading and thinking about the Gift Tensegrity. It is not a finished model. If you would like participate in its design, please join us.

Timothy Wilken

Read what we are talking about:

Gift Tensegrity  (a brief draft of the idea)

 

Gift Tensegrity  (a more complete draft and full discussion)

Keeping Track of Exchanges in the Gift Tensegrity

Some early readers have responded with concerns about keeping track of help exchanges. They say this is an unnecessary burden. We don’t bother to keep track of the times or ways we help our friends or families. In all the small exchanges of help that would occur every day, we would end spending more time in keeping track then in actually helping each other.

 

I don’t see it in that way.  As an INTERdependent life form, humans need help. Today when I go to Ebay. I don’t go there concerned about keeping track of transactions. I go there because I want to buy or sell help.

 

Ebay keeps track of the transactions for me. They keep a history of all articles bought or sold on their network. The keep a log of all comments made by buyers about sellers and by sellers about buyers. All of this is done automatically with little effort on the part of the users. When I find an item for sale, I gain access to the sellers history and all comments made by other buyers that have dealt with that seller. This means I can find out quickly if that particular seller has trustworthy history and comment record. When I make a bid on on an item, the seller gains access to my history on ebay and all comments made about me. The lets the seller know if I have a trustworthy history.

 

As I envision it, The Gift Tensegrity could work in a similar fashion. The value of The Gift Tensegrity (the organization) is to validate gifters and giftees so we can interact with strangers with a large degree of safety. It is a system that will tell us who is trustworthy. This validation of trustworthiness is based on the history of the individuals themselves. It is based on the comments of those who have dealt with these individuals. It doesn’t ask us to take anyone’s word that they are trustworthy, it simply makes their history transparent. We are all free to judge for ourselves and interact with whomever we choose.

 

Timothy

See what readers are talking about:

Gift Tensegrity  (brief)

 

Gift Tensegrity  (complete)

Gift Tensegrity

Economist Wayne F. Perg, Ph. D writes:  “My concept and understanding of the Gift Tensegrity is one of a radical move away from trade-oriented or materialistic sort of exchange.

“In the Gift Tensegrity there is no accounting, there are no prices, there is no barter (no tit for tat), and there is no medium of exchange! For me, it is the road to a post-monetary, post-barter economy.

“Barter and monetary economies both tie together giving and receiving. One cannot be done in the absence of the other. It is this “tying together” that is the ultimate source of “dead resources” and unemployment.

“The Gift Tensegrity frees giving from receiving and receiving from giving and will, as it is implemented, bring all resources to life and eliminate unemployment.

“The Gift Tensegrity does this by creating transparency, i.e., by creating good information on the SEPARATE giving and receiving actions of all members of the Tensegrity. Because there is no trading, only gifts given with no requirment of payment, there are no market prices and no accounting of trades. What there is is an open exchange of information on needs and resources available to fill those needs and ongoing individual negotiations around actions that will meet those needs.

“I see the Gift Tensegrity bringing the exchange relationships of a living organism to human society. As Elizabet Sahtouris has pointed out, the heart does not hold an auction for the supply of oxygenated blood and it does not withhold blood from those organs who are currently unable to pay.”

Read a  description of the Gift Tensegrity  (brief)

 

Read a description of the Gift Tensegrity  (complete)

Beyond Barter

L.W. Nicholson writes: “The national debt  has increased every year for at least the past 30 years.

“This uncontrollable debt simply proves that the monetary system is not working in this technological age.  An entirely new economic control technique is absolutely necessary to avoid another major depression even more devastating than that of the 1930′s.  This is a fact of life as the new millennium gets underway and we will do well to plan accordingly.  The “Barter System” has become fully antiquated by the advance of technology and the growth of extraneous energy consumption. This “system” must, after thousands of years of use, be discarded and replaced with methods more compatible with the age in which we now live.”

Read the full article