Fwd: Re: Invitation to Conversation/Discussion/Debate
Locked
Fwd: Re: Invitation to Conversation/Discussion/Debate
 
|
-- ----- Forwarded message from [hidden email] ----- Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 11:43:27 -0600 From: Ann Racuya-Robbins <[hidden email]> Reply-To: Ann Racuya-Robbins <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Invitation to Conversation/Discussion/Debate To: "Robert J. Cordingley" <[hidden email]> Thank you for your comment. To begin I would like to direct you to www.wkbank.com/govern, the Constitution, Articles and Founding Principles are a key place to start. Also visit www.wkbank.com/about.htm. Steve Smith mentioned that he had trouble with the site but I haven?t received any notification of it being down and I am on it all the time?but do let me know if you have any difficulties with the links above. I would like to respond in more detail to your comment below as well and will do so. My enterprise the World Knowledge Bank is a bootstrapped operation and I am working as fast as I can to improve it and build it out so a little patience may be required. BW ARR -- Ann Racuya-Robbins Founder and CEO World Knowledge Bank www.wkbank.comQuoting "Robert J. Cordingley" <[hidden email]>: > I agree with glen about the need for some explanation. > > It's possible I would put my own spin on what is right or wrong with > current reward systems based on my own prejudices. (I focus reward > here purely on the financial.) Recently we saw horror at bailout funds > used for bonuses and the resulting crucifiction of the target's > employment/payment contracts - a secondary horror. Different > political/social systems have different reward systems and safety-net > systems. It's in the latter that I'd like to see some discussion. > > The current system attempts to reward productivity while reigning in > excesses, with varying degrees of success in enforcement. Moral and > legal judgments put boundaries on most of us to conform to the local > perceptions. Some get rewarded for unethical but legal activities > (selling credit default swaps). Some get rewarded for illegal but > perhaps ethical activities (selling medical marijuana) and some get > rewarded for illegal and unethical activities (robbing banks). On the > other hand some don't get rewarded for legal and ethical activities > (volunteerism). I don't think anyone gets rewarded for what they know. > They only get rewarded when that knowledge is used in some _process_ > when it is activated and acted on. It is labor that is rewarded. When > the process is valued by society then it or it's members are willing to > pay for it. Society or some subset ultimately sets the value. > > Perhaps this is obvious? > > Robert C. > > glen e. p. ropella wrote: >> Emitted by Ann Racuya-Robbins circa 01/04/09 12:58 PM: >> >>> I have come to the conclusion a number of thoughtful people at Friam, >>> the Santa Fe Institute and the Complex and I may well have a >>> fundamental, important, genuine and sincere philosophical difference of >>> opinion about the future of the information/knowledge culture that is >>> emerging in the world today. This difference includes how and when >>> people should be rewarded for what they know? What is the most equitable >>> way for people to share what they know? What does it mean for something >>> to be ?free?? These are some of the areas of difference. I have spent >>> decades thinking about these things but no one knows everything and I am >>> sure I have more to learn. >>> >> >> This is a bit cryptic. I presume the particulars of any disagreements >> have come to light in face-to-face conversations? How and when you do >> _you_ think people should be rewarded for what they know? How and when >> does your opposition think people should be rewarded for what they know? >> What do you think it means for something to be "free"? And what does >> the opposition think? >> >> Personally, I believe people _should_ do almost precisely what they >> already do. I.e. there are wide distributions for how and when people >> get rewarded for what they know and that's how it "should" be. From >> your using "should" in your question, I infer you think that (at least >> some) people are NOT rewarded in the way or at the time they _should_ be >> rewarded. >> >> Likewise, I tend to think that nothing is ever free. "Free" is a >> delusion we willingly engage in so as to "externalize costs and >> internalize profits". For example, "free software" is free in neither >> sense of the word (free beer or positive freedoms). Like proprietary >> software, the costs and benefits exist, they are just in different >> places and require attention at different times. >> >> If the above discussion is irrelevant to what you intended, then please >> elaborate and clarify! >> >> ----- End forwarded message ----- Thank you for your comment. To begin I would like to direct you to www.wkbank.com/govern, the Constitution, Articles and Founding Principles are a key place to start. Also visit www.wkbank.com/about.htm. Steve Smith mentioned that he had trouble with the site but I haven?t received any notification of it being down and I am on it all the time?but do let me know if you have any difficulties with the links above. I would like to respond in more detail to your comment below as well and will do so. My enterprise the World Knowledge Bank is a bootstrapped operation and I am working as fast as I can to improve it and build it out so a little patience may be required. BW ARR -- > I agree with glen about the need for some explanation. > > It's possible I would put my own spin on what is right or wrong with > current reward systems based on my own prejudices. (I focus reward > here purely on the financial.) Recently we saw horror at bailout funds > used for bonuses and the resulting crucifiction of the target's > employment/payment contracts - a secondary horror. Different > political/social systems have different reward systems and safety-net > systems. It's in the latter that I'd like to see some discussion. > > The current system attempts to reward productivity while reigning in > excesses, with varying degrees of success in enforcement. Moral and > legal judgments put boundaries on most of us to conform to the local > perceptions. Some get rewarded for unethical but legal activities > (selling credit default swaps). Some get rewarded for illegal but > perhaps ethical activities (selling medical marijuana) and some get > rewarded for illegal and unethical activities (robbing banks). On the > other hand some don't get rewarded for legal and ethical activities > (volunteerism). I don't think anyone gets rewarded for what they know. > They only get rewarded when that knowledge is used in some _process_ > when it is activated and acted on. It is labor that is rewarded. When > the process is valued by society then it or it's members are willing to > pay for it. Society or some subset ultimately sets the value. > > Perhaps this is obvious? > > Robert C. > > glen e. p. ropella wrote: >> Emitted by Ann Racuya-Robbins circa 01/04/09 12:58 PM: >> >>> I have come to the conclusion a number of thoughtful people at Friam, >>> the Santa Fe Institute and the Complex and I may well have a >>> fundamental, important, genuine and sincere philosophical difference of >>> opinion about the future of the information/knowledge culture that is >>> emerging in the world today. This difference includes how and when >>> people should be rewarded for what they know? What is the most equitable >>> way for people to share what they know? What does it mean for something >>> to be ?free?? These are some of the areas of difference. I have spent >>> decades thinking about these things but no one knows everything and I am >>> sure I have more to learn. >>> >> >> This is a bit cryptic. I presume the particulars of any disagreements >> have come to light in face-to-face conversations? How and when you do >> _you_ think people should be rewarded for what they know? How and when >> does your opposition think people should be rewarded for what they know? >> What do you think it means for something to be "free"? And what does >> the opposition think? >> >> Personally, I believe people _should_ do almost precisely what they >> already do. I.e. there are wide distributions for how and when people >> get rewarded for what they know and that's how it "should" be. From >> your using "should" in your question, I infer you think that (at least >> some) people are NOT rewarded in the way or at the time they _should_ be >> rewarded. >> >> Likewise, I tend to think that nothing is ever free. "Free" is a >> delusion we willingly engage in so as to "externalize costs and >> internalize profits". For example, "free software" is free in neither >> sense of the word (free beer or positive freedoms). Like proprietary >> software, the costs and benefits exist, they are just in different >> places and require attention at different times. >> >> If the above discussion is irrelevant to what you intended, then please >> elaborate and clarify! >> >> ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |