No matter how we feel, think, or believe, there is unity in our diversity.  We just have to find that one thing that bonds us together.  Finding that one thing we all have in common is the first step to solving any problem.  No matter how far apart we are in our feelings, thinking or beliefs, finding that common ground enables us to come together and find a solution that we all can live with.  This is true in our personal lives as well as in politics.

Some years back I took classes in Family and Divorce Mediation.  I was planning on hanging out my shingle and helping people find solutions to their obstacles.  Learning and doing are not the same thing and I found it difficult to remain unbiased during the process.  My hat is off to those who can do it without having the training and skills of a lawyer.

What I learned, however, has not left me and it has served me well at times.  Mediation is not a win/lose process.  The mediator must find common ground that will enable the parties to eventually come to some agreement that they can both live with.  The mediator must take two parties who are angry, hurt, and suffering and guide them gently to a compromise.  This is not easy.

Having said this, I feel that the same process can be applied to almost any situation.  I have heard about neighbors who don’t get along.  This is so sad, since both have to live where they do and moving is sometimes not possible.   A lot of the time we are “right fighters”, as I’ve heard Dr. Phil say time and time again.  We decided that we have to be right and we will do anything to prove it.  In order to do that we have to go to any length to either prove the other person wrong or sway them around to our point of view.  Either way, the problems are bound to escalate.

Why am I bringing this up?  Every problem starts somewhere.  If we can go back to that first moment and understand the dynamics of the problem from the very first moment, we have a chance of stopping the problem before it becomes unfixable.

Both people often feel like victims.  At that point the problem solving goes out the window.  It takes two to fight.  Therefore, there are two victims and two perpetrators.  No one is at fault all the time.  Each person usually takes turns by making very bad choices which take the disagreement to a new level.

We want to feel vindicated.  We want our suffering to be acknowledged.  We want it to stop.  But what are we willing to do to be part of the solution?  If we are not part of the solution then we are part of the problem.  These misunderstandings are usually created when someone feels disrespected, snubbed,  their personal property damaged, or their privacy and autonomy in jeopardy.

So, what steps can we all take to start mending fences?  If you feel your rights have been trampled on in some way, what do you do first?

Step #1          Purchase a journal.  Start documenting those things that you find offensive.  Don’t just write down what happened, include details of how it made you feel and any expense that was incurred as a result.  Try to explain in as much detail as you can what you are objecting to.  Make it as precise as possible.  If you can’t explain it so you understand it, no one else will understand it and communication is important.   Make sure you write down dates, names, places, and everything you can think of.  Were there any witnesses?

Step #2        Sit down and go over your journal entries regularly.  Try to figure out why you are so angry.  Is it something from your past that you are reacting to in the present or is it a real problem that needs to be addressed.  Try to find the root of the problem and why you may be reacting so badly to the situation.  Sometimes it is simply that the other person is not taking responsibility for their actions or the actions of friends or family members, not to mention pets.  Knowing these things helps clarify it. But do your homework before you snap.

Step #3        If this is an ongoing situation that can’t be ignored, it is time to address your concerns to the other person.  Call and set up a time when both of you can sit down in a neutral place like a restaurant or other public place to discuss it.  It might be wise to bring along a friend and urge the other person to do the same.  Be nice about it.  Coming to the table angry will not serve your cause.

Step #4       Write down what you want to say.  Be prepared.  Ask the person to let you say what you need to say and then she can have her turn uninterrupted.  Explain that you want to find a solution to the problem that you both will be happy with.  Then be respectful when she speaks and try to understand her point of view as well.  This is the point when a solution is most likely to be found.  Make sure you look at how she sees the problem from her perspective and try to find some common ground to work from.  Allow her to be part of the solution and do not dictate the solution.  There are two sides to every story.  Ask questions about what is going on in their life as if they are your best friend.  Share with them those things that they might need to know in order to understand your situation.  Are you a day sleeper?  Have you had a recent illness?  Have you been going through some tough times and might be a little sensitive right now?  Anything that you can share could be potentially helpful.  anything they share can be something to ponder.

Step #5        Assure the other person that they have been heard and impress upon them that you will take what you have heard home and think on it.  Then, really think on it in earnest.  Find the common ground.  Try to put yourself in their place.  Offer your help in some way that may take a burden from their shoulders or offer a solution they may not have thought of. But don’t back them into a wall.  They will come out fighting and that is not what you want.

Everyone’s situation is unique.  But, there will also be commonalities that you can use as a spring board.  What ever you do, have compassion and come at the problem from the point of view that the person may not even be aware there is a problem.  It probably is not a deliberate act against you.  And, there might be a good explanation that you can understand or you might lite on a solution that you can do to solve the problem for yourself.  I have always believed that good fences make for good neighbors.  It may be as simple as a good fence.  Don’t resent the other person for making this problem for you.  Your fence might just ease her burden too.

Chris

Autonomy is a kind of independence through self-governance. Kant was the most famous advocate of autonomy, thinking that it held the key to morality, though scores of other philosophers have thought it to be vitally important. It's one of those essentially contested concepts, though. People mean many different things by it — and this diversity seems not merely to be a product of linguistic dispute, but arguments over what sort of life is most worth living.

My conception of autonomy takes it to consist in being responsive to rationally authoritative norms. In short, we exercise an important sort of independence insofar as we manage to act upon reasons rather than any other contingent motivations we happen to be struck by. Here, what reasons we have are understood widely, and are not limited to the results of reflective inquiry: any rational actions could count, insofar as we've grasped what, if anything, we ought to do.

Constructivism about norms thinks that normative authority comes from correctly following procedures of practical reason. What we should do, ultimately, results from the structure of reason itself. Constructivists, taking their cue from a reading of Kant, also think that autonomy is important. Indeed, they think that autonomy somehow grounds normativity, providing internal criteria which broadly determine what we ought to do. This too involves the claim that freedom involves a kind of responsiveness to norms — those prescribed by the very structure of agents' practical reasoning and thus ones which are not externally imposed on the agent, and thus fit for expressing the agent's own autonomy. This is a sophisticated and ambitious kind of 'bootstrapping' strategy, as it is often called.

On the surface, it can seem that the shared commitment of myself and various constructivists to the idea that freedom is a form of normative responsiveness means that our views are substantively similar. However, my position with respect to normativity is a modest form of realism, whereby there is a kind of irreducibly normative authority of which people can become aware. In contrast, constructivism is a proceduralism which models normativity on the structures of a conception of democratic public reason. This is not what I want.

Instead, my variety of freedom as a kind of normative responsiveness is not one wherein we follow structural rules in order to achieve a legitimate outcome, but rather one in which we have a normative vision. (Ocular imagery is now deeply unfashionable in philosophy, but I think it ought to be reclaimed.) The point of the visual metaphor here is to emphasise that there is something there to be discovered, and its revelation to ourselves provides the backdrop against which we can act freely. So understood, being free requires us to see the world aright — understanding the significance of some situation which we are in, the requirements which it imposes upon us, whether or not we recognise them as ours. Acting upon this basis and within these bounds, with our eyes open and the particulars of the situation clear, including the nature of currents of motivation and the virtue and vices of different responses, provides us with a kind of autonomy. This is an ability to avoid being pushed around by brute forces and act with some purchase over ourselves. We thereby avoid being merely determined — the alternative is being influenced by factors whose significance is unclear, such that we have little basis for orienting ourselves and knowing what to pursue.

We may be unable, or just plainly fail, to resist unfavourable motivations or influences upon us. Even when fully aware of them and their true significance, this may still be so — the lure of the seedy desire, the satisfactions of high-handed moralism, may be too great — but this points to another sort of freedom: autocracy. This is the strength, favourable make-up, acuity or psychological agility to manage one’s psychology so as to execute a sense of what ought to be done. Autonomy and autocracy form a distinction but not a dualism: often knowing what to do is best conceived as a hands-on practical activity, where we are not guided by a clear intention nor criteria reflectively arrived at.

Autonomous agency, especially when put forward as an ideal, has often seemed retrograde though. It seems to hark back to the patriarchal ideals of the eighteenth century bourgeois: the rugged individual, independent and beholden to no-one who he does not choose to contract with in his own self-interest. Obviously, this is an ideological fiction: as a description of the conditions of any recognisably human life, which are ineliminably social, and always contain some moments of radical dependence, such as in childhood, sickness and infirmity; and as an ideal, with its autistic disregard for genuine communication, non-self-interested openness to the needs of others, and so on.

In implicitly endorsing autonomy then, it must be recalled that this is balanced through its entwinement with a conception of normative vision. So, we are not faced with egoism, and certainly not as an ideal. All sorts of things, people and situations make demands upon us and otherwise bend normative space in ways that we ought to respond to beyond our self-interest. On my conception of autonomy, failure to see this is a paradigmatic abrogation of freedom: fully free acts are those taken in as much awareness of their significance as possible.

Still, isn’t autonomy taken as an ideal in a problematic way? Egoism may fall by the wayside, but don’t other types of independence enter here as putatively valuable without justification? For example, it can seem that the influence of institutions, traditions and our peers are hastily too disdained, whereby it is ourselves who must pronounce upon right and wrong, whereby they are treated as mere interference. However, this charge would neglect two further features of my view.

Firstly, there is a role for second nature, as the training and conditioning which we all acquire in our development. In other words, we need to understand normativity in the context of the educative formation of people. This will involve acquiring and then being able to refine the skills of language use, empirical perception, coalescing of an emotional character and cognitive inquiry which are vital to being able to make the kinds of discriminations necessary to see the world in its full normative significance. Fully formed human agents are not possible without the nurtured and guided development which social forms such as institutions and traditions enable.

Secondly, often it will be difficult or impossible to exercise such skills without the concrete help or input of others. There may be more or less empirical cases of this. For example, there are inquiries so big as to be impractical if undertaken alone, as with many scientific projects. Or else, loneliness may retard our emotional health, leaving us unable to calibrate and hone our reactions. There are also cases where dialogical interaction seems integral. For example: intervening in an academic debate, in the humanities, say, where it is important that you are responding to ways of looking at the world which conflict with your own conception, going beyond your own horizons and ‘prejudices’. So, there may be various kinds of prompting from others which the social world affords us, and which enable us to get a better grip on the world, including its normative significance. This helps realise and sustain the skills which socially-mediated Bildung endows.

So, I think it is possible to advocate autonomy without falling into the ideological traps which have doubtless motivated many of its champions. We can accomodate varieties of dependence within the normative landscape which autonomy, as I conceive it, must be parasitic on. In this way, dependence becomes a condition of independence. The lesson here is that any attempt to think of autonomy as an ‘inner citadel’, an existentialist leap of willing, or an egoistic rugged individualism, ought to be challenged by the advocate of autonomy themselves.

Over at Poetix Dominic has an interesting post up responding to Pete’s recent discussion of normativity over at Speculative Heresy. Dominic writes:

The crux here seems to be that “man” is not in himself a normal animal: normative accounts of human being are best taken as descriptions of the commitments we make to ourselves and others as preconditions for various kinds of social being, and the capacity to bear such norms is rather haphazardly instantiated in our animal selfhood.

This split between the normed human being and the ab-normal human animal plays out in Badiou, for example, as a tension between the “de-subjectivising” pull of egoic self-interest and the possibility of constructing a political “subject” which affirms (or “verifies”) egalitarian norms. But there’s a problem here: egoic self-interest is arguably also a normed expression of human being – neo-liberalism explicitly affirms it as a norm, as a precondition for higher forms of social organisation (e.g. those based on competitive markets). The conflict between Badiou’s ethical “good” (tenacity in the construction of truths) and “evil” (de-subjectivation, the saggy victory of the flesh) can be seen as a conflict between rival normative commitments rather than between committed and uncommitted being as such. What Rowan Williams calls the “false anthropology” of neo-liberalism does not merely declare, in social Darwinist fashion, that human beings are intrinsically self-seeking creatures: it also goes to considerable lengths to modify the “soul” of society (its basic normative commitments and symbolic co-ordinates) so that individuals will perceive this to be their true nature and act accordingly.

There’s a good deal more in Dominic’s post, especially with respect to heteronormativity and discussions of heterosexuality coming out of the Christian Right, but I wanted to draw attention to this passage in particular as I think it represents something that is truncated or underdetermined within the framework of critiques of neo-liberal capitalism. While I do not disagree with Rowan William’s thesis that the picture of the human as an intrinsically self-seeking creature constitutes a false anthropology, I have noticed that there is a tendency to treat the core of neo-liberal capitalist ideology as consisting almost entirely of this false anthropology.

read on!

What is missing in this conception of neo-liberal ideology is the legal and normative framework that underlies this way of relating to the world and others. On the one hand, in order for neo-liberal capitalist ideology to get off the ground it requires what what might be called a “pure subject” or a “subject-without-qualities”, not unlike Descartes’ cogito or Kant’s transcendental unity of apperception. At the heart of neo-liberal capitalist ideology (NLCI) is not so much a subject pursuing self-interest, as a legal subject functioning as the substrate of property, commercial obligations and debts, and divorced from social context and conditions of production. If this subject must necessarily be a pure subject or subject without content or particularity of any form, then this is because NLCI must establish the equivalence or identity of all subjects populating the social field. In other words, for this social system to present itself as just– and I am not suggesting that this social system is just, far from it –it must be able to hold 1) that the lowest subject is equivalent to the most privileged and successful subject in both the eyes of the law and how the system functions (i.e., that the lowliness of the low is the result of her failure and is her responsibility), and 2) that distributions of wealth are not systematic effects of social structure and how it is organized, but rather is an effect of the individual industry of agents within the social field. These claims are dependent on the positing of a pure subject or subject-without-qualities as the essence of what social subjects are, ignoring any discourse about fields or milieus of individuation (in Deleuze and Simondon’s sense) out of which subjects emerge or are produced.

Second, for NLCI to function it is necessary that the law have a particular form that governs social relations among agents. While the self-interested or self-seeking nature of neo-liberal subjects is certainly one of the key notes of NLCI, this false anthropology is not, in and of itself, sufficient to establish the NLCI as a (dis)functioning system. Were the system composed only of agents pursuing their self-interest we would not have the NLCI, but rather the state of nature so vividly described by Hobbes and Spinoza. More fundamental than agents pursuing their own self-interest is the normative and legal system that mediates relations between agents in pursuing this self-interest. In its minimal form, this normative and legal system is one that revolves primarily around the attribution of duties and debts. That is, it is a normative and legal system that is particularly focused on the grounds under which contracts are maintained. Just as the subject-without-qualities of NLCI is a subject divorced from milieus of individuation, transcendentalized, and universalized in a false transcendental anthropology, the form of the law as the grounds of contractual obligation and debt is a normative system divorced from any milieu of individuation and premised on a subject-without-qualities whereby the equivalence of all subjects is guaranteed so that the law might effect itself despite the inequality inherent in the functioning of the law at the level of concrete social relations. Likewise, such a structure of legality also underlies the structure of private property. These two features, the form of the law and the subject-without-qualities, are, I believe, the fundamental notes of NLCI, not the picture of social relations defined by the pursuit of self-interest.

When Marx argues that Hegel must be turned on his head or describes Kant as a priest of the State, it is this which Marx is referring to. It was Kant, of course, who theorized the subject-without-content and who transcendentalized the structure of debt and obligation underlying contractual relations in the social field. If Kantian normativity and conceptions of the subject are priestly relations to the State, then this is because it ignores the manner in which these conceptions of normativity and the subject are themselves contingent products of certain modes of production, instead turning these forms of normativity and subjectivity into fetishes (in Marx’s sense) that have effaced their own milieu of individuation in order to effectuate themselves all the more forcefully, unjustly, and insidiously while undermining the possibility of any critique of these structures of normativity by transcendentalizing them and thereby treating them as universal and essential structures of all social relations. Likewise, if Hegel must be turned on his head, then this is because he treats these social relations as issuing from the domain of the ideal, the subject, thought, or spirit, rather than structures of production. In both cases effective modes of critique and engagement are undermined by virtue of these structures being detached in thought from their real conditions of production. This, I think, is part of the reason that a focus on ideology within political theory is such a danger for actual political praxis as it tends to obscure this material base and render it invisible to the theorist, creating the illusion that social organization is merely a matter of ideas, the ideal, or signifiers. It is also the reason I see great promise in something like Vitale’s “mediology” (what I would call onticology) and his networkology as at least these forms of analysis, focusing as they do on material mediations, have hope of getting at the base through which these ideal forms are individuated or come into being.

Something upset me yesterday at soft play (again – why oh why do we still go there?) – my son’s hair is getting quite long now, which hasn’t escaped anyone’s notice, and people frequently say it needs cutting. That’s just water off a duck’s back. I have asked R several times if he would like me to cut his hair for him, and the answer is always the same – No, he wants to grow it long. So I’ve asked if he would just like me to trim his fringe for him. The answer is still No, he wants to grow that long too. So, that’s the end of the matter as far as I’m concerned. Until such time as he says Yes, he would like it cutting, it will remain uncut. My family have suggested I do it anyway while he is asleep, but I absolutely will not sneak about in the night doing something to his person that he has expressly said he doesn’t want doing. I just won’t. It is dishonest and disrespectful, and aside from anything else would seem very wrong.

So, back to soft play this morning. R’s hair was mentioned several times by several people. We had the usual boring conversation about how he won’t let me cut it, and how he’s said he wants it long, and how neither of us are particularly bothered about it. Still the comments persisted, and at one point it actually felt quite threatening, with one of the women saying she had some scissors in her bag and would do it now for him. I actually had to move away from her. R just looked a bit bewildered by everybody going on about it all the time, and I said something jokey about not coming here anymore if people were going to start threatening us with scissors. But really, I was upset. As I’ve said the bottom line for me is that R has said repeatedly he doesn’t want it cutting, so I won’t cut it. It’s a simple as that. But it seems for most people the idea of actually respecting your 3-year-old’s wishes is absurd, and they think I should ignore what he says and cut it anyway. I really wish it wasn’t even a topic for conversation. I really wish it mattered as little to other people as it does to us; but this letting his hair grow seems to be taken as some kind of sign by people – a sign of otherness, of difference, something that sets us apart, and they’re all desperate to cut it so we can be the same again, and they can feel comfortable with us. It’s bizarre.

Anyway, my point is, our hair – yours, mine, our children’s, is ours and nothing to do with anyone else. Nobody has any business making anybody else (and that includes children, of course) feel pressured to cut it, don’t cut it, dye it, don’t dye it, tie it back, cover it, or anything else. There have even been stories of schools refusing admission to 5 year olds because their hair is ‘too long’. This morning was a vivid illustration of the way people think they can act for and on behalf of children without their consent. People also have no qualms about commenting on the appearance, demeanor, personality and everything else of children, as though it’s any of their business. One of my old friends’ son came home one day at the age of around 11, having been to get his head shaved without telling her what he was doing. She was plainly disgusted with him and told him he looked like a “thug”. What a message to send to the poor child. All that disapproval, along with the brand new label of “thug” on his young shoulders, where it didn’t belong. All he had done was shown a bit of autonomy, a sign that he could think for himself, and look where it got him. I don’t think for a minute that he was seeking her approval by doing that, but wouldn’t it have been nice if she could have reacted more positively? As with my own son, even at the age of just 3; it’s his hair, and his decision.

Congratulations to the City of Richland, Washington.  Their ECM solution deployed earlier this year has earned  two prestigious awards within the past month. 

In early November, the City of Richland won the   ImageSource Customer Partner Award for best return  on investment.  The award was presented to Jon Amundson, Assistant City Manager and Christina Palmer, Project Manager at Nexus 2009 www.nexusecm.com. 

Last week it was announced that the City of Richland was also named to the Info World top 100 list of IT projects.  The solution consisted of Oracle IPM, Cardiff Liquid Office,  a Bundle of ILINX products http://www.imagesourceinc.com/Products/ILINXProducts/index.htm which were used to extend the capabilities of the Off The Shelf Software.

The vision, professionalism and standard of excellence exhibited by the Richland team is to be commended.  Congratulations, City of Richland!

Here’s a passage from On Liberty that I think is really prescient:

Were the duty of enforcing universal education once admitted thee would be an end to the difficulties about what the State should teach, and how it should teach, which now convert the subject into a mere battlefield for sects and parties, causing the time and labor which should have been spent in educating to be wasted in quarreling about education. If the government would make up its mind to require for every child a good education, it might save itself the trouble of providing one. It might leave to parents to obtain the education where and how they pleased, and content itself with helping to pay the schools fees of the poorer classes of children, and defraying the entire school expenses of those who have no one else to pay for them. The objections which are urged with reason against State education do not apply to the enforcement of education by the State, but to the State’s taking upon itself to direct that education; which is a totally different thing. That the whole or any large part of the education of the people should be in State hands, I go as far as anyone in deprecating. All that has been said of the importance of individuality of character, and diversity in opinions and modes of conduct, involves, as of the same unspeakable importance, diversity of education.

This fits with a general line of argumentation in this blog (see here and here) that school choice would be a good idea. As Mill points out, there is significant argument about what should be taught in schools. The correct response to this, Mill thinks, is to enforce mandatory education without having the State provide it. Parents could choose an education for their children. Such choice would allow many controversies about what should be taught in schools to be avoided (sex education, evolution, certain highly critical interpretations of American history, etc.) In many cases, this will mean paying for education on family by family basis, but as Mill suggests, subsidies could be provided to poorer people so that they could choose their schools with respect to quality rather than pure cost.

I like this outline of a school choice program, but Mill also thinks that it should be enforced by standardized tests. A child would have to past each test or the parents would be fined. There are many problems with this, but the largest one is that it doesn’t solve Mill’s concerns about plurality in education. He says that these tests should be confined to “facts and positive science exclusively,” but then what about evolution? What about sex? It seems that families who opted for a type of religious education would again object and claim a right for their viewpoint to be respected.

In other words, Mill was hoping that privately provided (but publicly mandated) education would be neutralist, and allow each group of people to educate their children in their own way. However, it seems that such a neutralist position is impossible to justify. We think: kids should learn certain things, and they should learn them regardless of whether their parents believe they should not. Or at the very least, there is no way to mark what is required learning and what is not. From my perspective, parents do harm to their kids when they don’t teach them about sex, but from the parents’ perspective, their child is harmed when they are taught about sex.

Even the requirement that education provide children a chance at individuality and autonomy is value-laden in a question begging way. Some religions and groups of people believe that obedience or piety or some other value trumps autonomy. So even a test that requires children to demonstrate autonomy and not acquaintance with specific facts would fail at being fully neutralist.

A couple months ago, Gartner released their annual ECM Magic Quadrant (which I looked at).  Sure enough, being an odd year, Forrester released their ECM Wave.  I see the pros of waiting two years as the larger vendors take that long, or longer, for a significant release.  On the other hand, you have longer to wait for new members to show up.

Well not in Forrester’s world.  Only one new vendor (HP) was added and a few were cut, but I’m getting ahead of myself.

The 2009 Wave

Thanks to Oracle (again), you can look at the Q4 2009Forrester Wave for ECM Suites in detail. For those with less patience, here is a copy of the wave…

Before we talk about the individual vendors, let’s talk about the low number of vendors.  If you look at the 2007 report, many vendors are gone. A couple were acquired (Interwoven and Vignette) and some aren’t what I would call ECM (SAP and Xerox) vendors anyway.

The question is, where is Autonomy?  They bought Interwoven and weren’t new to the content space.  They aren’t mentioned anywhere.  Nuxeo got a mention as one of the two open-source vendors in the “reduced footprint” category.  The SaaS focused SpringCM (under “reduced footprint”) and emerging Laserfiche (under “process-focused” and “SMB”) both got a nod as well.

All of those got placed on the Quadrant, as did SAP and Xerox.  I wouldn’t be upset, except I like how Forrester structures the wave more than Gartner’s MQ.  I want to see more vendors in here.

Breaking it Down

Let’s look at some of the vendors…

• Alfresco: Forrester thinks they are losing ground.  They didn’t say as much, but last time they were on the verge of making the Strong Contender  classification.  Now they are just strongly a Contender.  I understand raising the bar as the market evolves, but Alfresco hasn’t been sitting on its laurels.  They lost a lot ground in Strategy according to Forrester. As for the Current Offering, looks like the increased focus on integration in this Wave hurt Alfresco.
• HP: Welcome to the Wave.  Still the only major vendor that I haven’t heard connected to CMIS in any way.  I’ve even heard that Hyland is working on it.  Forrester has noticed and made note.
• Microsoft: Love the realism.  There are gaps, but less this time around than two years ago.  Microsoft  has a vision.  When 2010 comes out, they should push their way into the Leaders.
• Open Text: Getting hit on their Strategy.  Constant acquisition of the competition can do that.  Getting things integrated, as always, remains their biggest hurdle.
• EMC: Not much to say, except they got dinged for their poor WCM.  This is a growing trend.
• IBM/Oracle: Feel the love, especially with IBM.

To be honest, nothing surprising, just reinforcing.  I like how Forrester has the Leaders spread a little and how getting closer to the upper-right corner is rewarded.  You need a strong Strategy and solid Offering to get rated well.  Market Presence is measured by the size of the dot.  It just makes a lot more sense to me.

You know what is missing this year?  The score weighting.  Smart move as I trashed it last year and it gives people something extra when they pay for the full details.

Overall, the scoring had nothing massively off, though I’m not sure why Alfresco took so many hits.  The next couple of years is going to be critical for Alfresco as they start to hit middle-age and strive to be more.

In the biblical account of our fall from God, we were assigned to earn our bread by the sweat of our face. The sweat comes from our own energies, which is all we have left after losing our roots in God’s own life. But we relentlessly try to earn our bread by the sweat of someone else’s face, even when it might be easier to use our own strength. (Dallas Williard, the Divine Conspiracy, 23)

One reason for clutter could be how we feel about our work–or, more precisely, the lack of autonomy, mastery and purpose we feel when we are working. Dan Pink, author of Motivation, The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us (due out December 29, 2009) spoke about his findings at this past summer’s Technology, Entertainment, Design (TED) conference whose theme is cutting-edge, innovative thinking. He gave a glimpse of his new book’s thesis: It’s not money that motivates us to work. It’s our sense of autonomy, mastery and purpose in the workplace, what he calls “intrinsic motivators.”  See U-Tube video “Daniel Pink on the surprising science of motivation.”

Let’s explore the three components Pink cites:

Autonomy, Mastery & Purpose

Autonomy is “the urge to direct your own life” (Pink). In the workplace this could mean the freedom to choose your time, task, team and the way you want to go about doing it. How many of us actually have this kind of freedom at work? For many of us, the room to be as creative or innovative as we would like is limited. We have to be accountable, show up for meetings, and work 40+ hours a week. This lack of autonomy at work can spill into our personal life and show up in a variety of ways at home. For some, it comes in the form of clutter. “Since I don’t have autonomy at work, why should I care about having autonomy at home?” Things begin to pile up and before you know it, clutter has taken over.

Mastery is “the desire to get better and better at something that matters” (Pink).  Does your work matter to you? Is it a subject you want to master? For many, work is a means to an end, rather than a subject that inspires us to be a master of it.  Inability to be masterful  at work can parallel an inability to be masterful at home. While some compensate by creating a home where they feel creative and proud, others slump into lethargy and let the clutter accumulate. Mastery becomes a subliminal subtext: the desire for mastery is always there, but many of us don’t let ourselves be conscious of it.

Purpose is “the yearning to do what we do in service of something larger than ourselves” (Pink). Few of us have taken the time to clarify what our purpose is. We get so caught up in the quick-paced, day-to-day responsibilities at work that after awhile we can’t remember we had a purpose that serves something larger than ourselves. Getting an education and securing a well-paying job are often the benchmarks of success in our society, but what is our purpose? If our purpose were more clearly defined, we may see that much of the stuff we fill our lives with doesn’t matter.

Nurturing Self

By shifting our focus from the conventional demands of work as most of us know it today to a new way of working that honors who we are, we begin to nurture ourselves. The external clutter we possess might well become less alluring, and the internal discovery might actually become riveting.

Consider Dan Pink’s three components of motivation in the workplace. Ask yourself how they factor into your life. Are you filling your life with clutter—unaware that you might want more autonomy, greater mastery and a clearer purpose? More attention to your inner world could mean less attention on filling your life with objects of the external world. Motivated at work could mean more engaged in your personal life, and more engaged in your personal life could lead to clearing your clutter.

Journal of Medical Ethics 2009 (Vol. 35, No. 11) content page

I could write a lot about this, so I’ll just try to provide a brief insight. I should probably put up a poll to see what my regular readers are more interested in: 1) news or 2) apologetics and mentoring.

A word of warning

One thing I’ve noticed about women is that they like it when men treat their mothers nicely and what they mean by that is never judging or disagreeing with their mothers, and never trying to change their mothers. This view of love is, of course, false. I want my mother to go to Heaven and to know and love God, so I have to talk to her about these things and disagree if she is wrong about them. So I think that disagreeing with her about spiritual things is being nice to her. But read on and judge for yourself.

The plan

My plan for my mother is not to begin by convincing her that Christianity is true. Instead, I begin by convincing her to approach religious issues just as she would approach any other area of knowledge, such as investing, or nutrition. If she agrees to treat religion as any other area of of knowledge, then I think that she will eventually conclude that Christianity is true. Currently, she is forming her beliefs about God’s existence, character and what he wants from her, using subjective mechanisms, i.e. – intuitions and experience. I want her to try a different method.

Goals

My goal for my mother, as with anyone else, is to try to get her to accept Christianity as objectively true, based on arguments and evidence. I don’t think that a person can be an authentic Christian if Christianity is just wish-fulfillment. I don’t think that a person will stick with Christianity when it goes against their own self-interest, unless their belief is anchored on arguments and facts. People act on what they really believe is true, when stressed by reality.

So, what I need to do is to argue for a method of discovery that is not dependent on emotions and intuitions, but is more rigorous. I need to offer my mother tools, such as the laws of logic, historical analysis and the scientific method. These tools can be used to investigate whether God exists, and what he is really like, and what he wants from her. By using these tools instead of intuition and experience, my hope is that I will be able to get her to arrive at a view of God as he really is.

Questions

The first question to ask her is “Does a Creator and Designer of the Universe exist independently of whether anyone thinks so or not?”. And then I ask the immediate follow-up question “How do you know that?”.

The second question to ask her is “What is the Creator/Designer’s character like?”. And again, the immediate follow-up question is “How do you know that?”.

The third question to ask her is “How does the Creator/Designer expect you to act?”. Once again, immediately follow up with “How do you know that?”.

Discussion

And the results of the inquiry were as follows: 1) she thinks that God is exactly like her and approves of everything she does, and more importantly, 2) her method of investigating religion is basically to invent “God” using her own feelings and experiences. Her method of arriving at these conclusions was by using intuition and experience, and she was resistant to the idea of using logic, science and history to find out the truth about God, his existence, his character, and what he wanted.

The next thing I did was to argue that her method of arriving at her religious beliefs was subjective and unreliable, and that she would never use that method of determining truth in any other area of life. I made a list of everything she cares about and started approaching each topic using her subjective method of determining truth, in order to expose the disastrous consequences that would occur if she made decisions in these other areas using intuition and experience.

For example, I explained my theories on how watching TV produces university degrees, how chocolate causes weight loss, how fruits and vegetables cause cancer, etc. All of this to show that subjectivism is not a reliable method of arriving at truth in any area of knowledge, especially in religion. The desire for happiness should not drive the search for religious truth. People need to avoid inventing a self-serving view of God, just because it gives them a feeling of security without any moral demands.

Finally, I introduce a reliable method of arriving at the truth in any area, including religion. I’m sure that you all already know about the concepts of propositional truth, the correspondence theory of truth, and the test for truth (logical consistency, empirical validation, experiential relevance). And you all know about how to use science/history/logic to confirm/disconfirm religious claims, etc. If necessary, I would apply these methods to other areas to show how they produce real knowledge.

A useful thing to do is to show how well-accepted facts like the origin of the universe from nothing and the crucifixion of Jesus falsify various world religions. This helps to make the point that a lot of people believe things that are false. That way, you motivate the question – “am I interested in knowing what is really true or am I interested in engaging in wish-fulfillment and projection in order to make myself feel better about my own selfishness and insecurity?”.

Some things I found out

I found that engaging in these discussions brought out some very interesting data that reminded me of what I see in the church. Each of these is worth a post, so I’ll just throw them out there in point form.

• She viewed my efforts to get her to employ logic and evidence to determine her views as being critical of her
• She felt “constrained” by allowing logic and evidence to override her “freedom” to invent a self-serving God
• She didn’t want to know about the laws of logic, or how religions make conflicting truth claims
• She didn’t want to know about what science and history could confirm/disprove religious truth claims
• She thought that it was better to let everyone believe anything they wanted to believe
• She thought that religion was mostly for making people believe things that made them feel happy and secure
• She didn’t think that God expected her to act morally if it didn’t make her feel happy to do so
• She didn’t care to find out the truth about whether God exists, what he was like, and what he wanted from her

Note: we didn’t get into any fights over this, it was just a friendly discussion, although I could sense her resistance.

My biggest concern about this view is that if it were a common view among Christians, it would increase the incidence of several non-Christian ideas, like moral relativism, inclusivism, postmodernism, pluralistic salvation, the non-reality of Hell, etc. And I think that if a lot of Christians believe Christianity is self-serving, then we will be perceived as being hypocritical by non-Christians when we don’t do the difficult things we are supposed to be doing. Non-Christians want to see some consistency between out actions and what the Bible says.

In a poll of my friends I did a while back, I found that people thought that talking to relatives about Christianity was the most difficult thing to do, higher than talking to people at work. So I’d be curious for readers to share their experiences about who is harder to talk to, and what you found in talking to people.

Mentoring

• the importance of being able to argue both sides of a question
• why does talking about religion make people uncomfortable?
• how to talk to your co-workers about your faith

Apologetics advocacy

• does the Bible teach that faith is opposed to logic and evidence?
• the six enemies of apologetic engagement
• why men flee the feminized church
• why won’t Christians defend their faith in public?

And here are some lectures that got me interested in apologetics.

One of the most common complaints of those who consider themselves to be spiritually superior is that stuff doesn’t matter. By stuff I’m referring to actual physical possessions that people purchase. These spiritual know-it-alls look down on people who want to own things, telling them such canned phrases like “money can’t buy happiness” and “you can’t take it with you.” But these folks overlook the spiritual value of items, of things that we own. “Materialism” is a word that has been used too liberally of late, and many have been unfairly cast under that column. Regardless, is it so bad to love your possessions?

What a lot of people do not consider is the emotional value that things have. When I moved out of a house and put most of my things into storage and moved into another couple’s home, I didn’t think about giving anything up except my privacy. I had temporarily bought into the idea that things were just things–they held no real importance. But as time started to wear on me, and my private space was growing smaller, I began to long for my sofa, my squashy arm chair, my movies, my books, my everything.

Certainly a person is not defined by the amount of the items they own, and it’s of course true that you can’t take it with you, but until that time when God calls us, stuff matters.

Finally I was able to obtain my own little corner of space and I removed everything from storage. When that rolling door slid up with that cranky clackety sound, I ran inside and hugged my couch, lovingly stroked my armoire, and couldn’t wait to lay hands on my Harry Potters (which I’ve still not done!!! But I know they’re with me in a box.)

It all boils down to identity, to privacy, autonomy. My couch doesn’t define who I am, but it’s where I sit, all alone (wonderfully) and relax. The big and comfy chair is where I can ponder my day and read a book. It’s mine and no one else’s. It’s an independence thing, an atmosphere of Courtney that I can retreat into for needed space and solitude when the days get a little crazy.

Many people miss what our items represent. We love our stuff because we love what it represents: freedom, joy, privacy. Would I save my mac computer over a person? Well…that’s a toughie. I’d certainly save a person over my PC. Because of course people matter more than things. But I like my things too.

From choice comes autonomy. Autonomy is the necessary condition for leadership to arise. Without choice, there is no autonomy. Without autonomy, there is no leadership.

Larry Cuban – The managerial imperative and the practice of leadership in schools

I had to go for my injection today. Every twelve weeks the same routine. Down to my local health centre to see the nurse, who warms the precious phial before injecting its contents slowly* into my buttock. Perhaps you wince at the image but it has long since become as ordinary to me as praying five times a day is to a devout Muslim – and, let’s face it, compared to five times a day, once every twelve weeks isn’t onerous.

The injection used to be required more frequently  – once every three weeks – and in those days i used to do it myself at home. This had the advantage of autonomy. I didn’t have to depend on someone else or worry about getting through on the (perpetually jammed) health centre appointment line. On the other hand, it was also nerve-wracking. I never came fully to terms with sticking a needle into my body – it wasn’t the pain, of which there’s very little due to the lack of nerve endings in that part of your body; but more an anxiety, an awareness that if something did go drastically wrong there would be nobody there to help me.

It was also lonely. As a trans man i get by in the world via a mixture of bravado and silence; yet inevitably there are times when i become anxious or depressed. One of the things i appreciated when i switched medications and had to return to attending the health centre for my injection was the chance to chat with the nurse. It’s funny: on the one hand i resent the way in which transitioning has permanently medicalised my life, but on the other i quite enjoy the attention. Nurses, especially the ones attached to health centres, are almost always a joy to talk to. There’s something about the job of nursing which self-selects the most positive, practical and pragmatic individuals; and just being in the company of such people is uplifting.

My nurse today was called A. It was the first time I’d had an appointment with her and I had thought from her name that she might be from francophone Africa. As it turned out she is indeed African, but South African – an Afrikaner to be exact – with a lovely, lilting accent which blew all my assumptions about Afrikaans-speakers (harsh, guttural, etc) out of the water. Accents aside, what struck me about A was her warmth, energy and good humour. You would think working at a busy health centre would reduce even the most dedicated nurse to a drone but not so; she was the most enthusiastic person i’ve met in a good while.

After just ten minutes the injection was over and done with and i was on my way to work. The leg on the side where i’d been injected was aching slightly as usual but my tolerance for the rest of the human race was much improved. One person speaking to you kindly, smiling at you when they greet you, asking you how you feel: these things really do make a difference.

* Over a period of one minute to be exact. Apparently, if it goes in too fast it can cause an asthma attack.

“This is the only place in Eureka where people can sleep without being harassed by police.”

Tonight houseless people will, for the 13th consecutive night, be sleeping on the asphalt parking lot of Eureka’s City Hall. There is no other place to sleep in Eureka, free of charge, without being harassed or at high risk of abuse, ticketing, jail, or theft by the police. PEOPLE PROJECT has set up a tarp shelter and has been collecting donations of sleeping bags, mats, and warm gear for people who come through needing warmth and safety. Over the past 12

Spread the word

PEOPLE PROJECT has long acknowledged that the City of Eureka and County of Humboldt have little to no interest in assuring that its poor and/or houseless residents are sheltered and safe despite government rhetoric claiming concern for “affordable housing” and “homeless services” and in spite of government-sought grants to provide such basic life-sustaining resources. Currently, the City of Eureka and the County of Humboldt are defendants in a lawsuit brought by PEOPLE PROJECT participants for civil rights violations against houseless people. [See http://peopleproject.wordpress.com/2008/09/03/people-project-lawsuit-to-end-the-politics-of-cruelty/]

Being that there is a deliberate policy of cruelty and criminalization against houseless people- a policy which includes physical and emotional abuse and deprivation of sleep by police- we know that there are several fronts on which we must continue to struggle:

While we organize together to expose and stop abuse against houseless community members by police, civilians, and businesses;

While we speak out about government plans, policies, and language that perpetuate low-intensity war against poor and houseless people;

While we fight in the courts to end the regular incarceration and other unconstitutional treatment of houseless people;

While we attempt to keep the only long term free meals from being shut down by the gentrifying forces of Humboldt County, and;

While we endure the deception and oppressive actions of agencies and individuals who chase grant money and job positions related to “homeless services”, but only trash and exploit houseless people in the process…
We must keep each other alive and protected, and attempt to restore and keep our dignity intact.

Signs displayed around the tarp shelter : “All Power to the People”, “Houseless People Are Hunted for Sleeping! Speak Out,” “Safe Sleeping Space,” “Dignity and Respect for All”

The PEOPLE PROJECT tarp shelter does not wait for grant money; it does not rely on paid employees and administrative costs; it does not force religion on participants; and it does not dictate what people should or should not be doing with their lives. The PEOPLE PROJECT tarp shelter is a grass roots, cooperative way of meeting an immediate need- shelter from the storm.

Please contact PEOPLE PROJECT either through phone, email, or a night visit to the tarp shelter at City Hall. PEOPLE PROJECT also has daytime meetings every Tuesday at Peoples’ Action for Rights and Community [PARC]. There is an ongoing need for sleeping gear, warm socks, jackets and sweaters, money for duct tape and other supplies, and volunteers to help throughout the nights.

Email: peopleproject@riseup.net

Phone: (707) 442-7465 [number at PARC, Peoples' Action for Rights and Community]

See the PEOPLE PROJECT blog http://peopleproject.wordpress.com/
for more info about weekly meetings

Short quiet videos
Video: from first morning

Video: Safe Sleep Zone

Video: ALL Power To The People

Flier
Tarp Shelter

Freud and Spinoza on Kant’s Freedom

A few days ago I listened to the paper by Michael Mack (Nottingham), “Spinoza and Freud, or how to be mindful of the mind”  from the Spinoza and Bodies conference (audio here), and one quote really stood out, taken from Heine on Spinoza. Mack’s paper argues that Freud subverts the primary aim of Kantian philosophy: the autonomy of the human under and definition of Freedom. That is, the Copernican turn accomplishes a radical autonomy of man which is strictly modern, that the recursively defined categories of thought provide humanity with a kind of fresh space, a topos, upon which to do and be and make whatever they well, a cocoon of freedom. He doesn’t express it in this way, but I do. Freud takes this from Kant and the modern heritage in that he takes from the inside the autonomy that Kant attempted to carve out,  the “self”. I had never really thought if it in these terms, but one can see that it is precisely at the level of freedom that Spinoza’s Freedom and Kant’s Freedom collide, and one can see Mack’s point that Freud and Spinoza are on the same side on this, that the “self” is ever only partially free, and the sense that we are all exposed to causal forces far beyond our control, the ignorance of which deceives us into thinking we are freer than we are.

The paper is a wild ride at times, and Mack has the haltering verbal excitement of someone overly familiar with a history of ideas and some much neglected material that makes his reading engaging, at least to my ear. He exposes some, one wants to say sublimated, or at least seldom acknowledged even by Freud himself, influence of Spinoza on the father of psychoanalysis. Mack’s point falls off in the area of the Death Drive where he doesn’t do a sharp enough job of contrasting the admitted radical difference of Spinoza and Freud on this point, a chasm gap, surely on account of time .  For me, any comparison between Spinoza and Freud must at least start or end there. Where Mack is really strong is how he positions Freud and Spinoza towards Kant’s autonomy, and the subject of the Self.

In making his point about Freud, Spinoza and Jewishness, Mack brings the wonderful quote by Heine on the subject of Spinoza’s charged atheism. In an almost over-statement in response to the Pantheism Controversy, Heine declares, it is not God that is denied by Spinoza, but rather Man:

“Nothing but fear, unreason and malice could bestow on such a doctrine the qualification of atheism. No one has spoken so sublimely of Deity than Spinoza. Instead of saying that he denied God, one might say that he denied Man. All finite things are to him but modes of the Infinite Substance, all finite substances are contained in God, the human mind but the luminous ray of infinite thought, the human body but an atom of infinite extension. God is the infinite cause both of mind and of body, natura naturans.”

The question before us is whether the law should permit doctors to help patients kill themselves, or kill them at their request—that is, the question of the legalisation of physician-assisted suicide or voluntary euthanasia. In the UK, intentional medical killing is currently illegal, as is the case in most jurisdictions. But there are many people who think that the law should be changed, and attempts are frequently made to do so… Read the article in full

Rosa Rojas, La Paz, noviembre. Un paso histórico en el reconocimiento de los derechos de los pueblos indígenas se dará en Bolivia el próximo 6 de diciembre cuando, en el marco del proceso electoral para presidente y vicepresidente de la república y la Asamblea Legislativa Plurinacional (ALP), 12 municipios de cinco departamentos —donde viven unas 200 mil personas de un total de 10 millones de habitantes del país— decidan en referéndum si aceptan o no convertirse en “autonomía indígena originario campesina” (AIOC), primera fase para ejercer la libre determinación que les reconoce la nueva Constitución Política del Estado.

Además de las competencias que actualmente tienen los municipios autónomos, con la AIOC podrán ejercer algunas exclusivas, como su autogobierno con sus propias instituciones, la definición de formas propias de desarrollo económico, social, político, organizativo y cultural; gestión y administración de los recursos naturales renovables; elaboración y ejecución de planes de uso de su territorio; ejercicio de la jurisdicción indígena originaria para la aplicación de justicia y resolución de conflictos.

Crear y administrar sus propios impuestos y elaborar, aprobar y ejecutar sus programas de operaciones y su presupuesto: algo muy apreciado por las autoridades municipales entrevistadas, cuya queja recurrente es que ahora les llegan pocos recursos y siempre etiquetados con imposición externa a sus necesidades. Podrán además desarrollar y ejecutar los mecanismos de consulta previa, libre e informada relativos a la aplicación de medidas legislativas, ejecutivas y administrativas, entre otras competencias.

Llama la atención que de 240 municipios  en los cuales la mayoría absoluta de la población se autoidentifica como indígena —del total de 327 que hay en el país— sólo 19 hayan solicitado esa conversión y apenas 12 hayan cubierto los requisitos legales para que la Corte Nacional Electoral (CNE) organice el referéndum respectivo. Los municipios que decidirán sobre las AIOC en referéndum son: Charagua, (departamento de Santa Cruz); Chara zani y Jesús de Machaca, (La Paz); Chayanta, (Potosí); Huacaya, Tarabuco y Villa Mojocoya (Chuquisaca); Chipaya, Pampa Aullagas, San Pedro de Totora, Curahuara de Carangas y Salinas de Garci Mendoza (Oruro).

Una clave para explicar esto es la premura con que se implementó el mecanismo para ello.

El 2 de agosto pasado, el presidente Evo Morales promulgó el decreto supremo detallando los trámites a cubrir, y la CNE cerró el 7 de septiembre el plazo para la solicitud del referéndum mencionado.
Leodegario Sánchez Villca, comisionado de tierra y territorio de la Confederación de Ayllus y Markas del Quollasuyo (Conamaq), que representa a indígenas del altiplano, explicó que ellos no quieren una autonomía indígena municipal sino una autonomía originaria en base al territorio.

“Lo que nosotros queremos es tener un jacha (‘gran’ en aymara) cabildo originario indígena elegido y no una autoridad que vaya a la alcaldía municipal, ni concejales”, sino la reconstitución del Qullasuyo —la federación de territorios indígenas que funcionó durante el incario, en lo que ahora es Bolivia.
Por su parte, Adolfo Chávez, de la Confederación Nacional de Pueblos Indígenas de Bolivia (CIDOB) —que representa a los pueblos del Oriente—, denunció que partidos políticos (que no identificó) realizan “una contracampaña para que no se puedan convertir a municipios indígenas”.

A finales de octubre, durante una reunión de funcionarios municipales de los citados 12 municipios con el ministro de Autonomías, Carlos Romero (propiciada por la organización no gubernamental Fundación Tierra), quedó claro que uno de los partidos que se opone a dicha conversión a AIOC en Jesús de Machaca, según el alcalde, Adrián Aspi y en Charazani, según el concejal Jorge Chalco, es el gobernante Movimiento al Socialismo (MAS), en tanto que el alcalde de Curahuara de Carangas, Rómulo Alconz, dijo que quienes están por el “no”, “no sólo son de la derecha”.

En Charagua, Carlos Bazán dijo que las presiones para obstaculizar el proceso vinieron de la prefectura de Santa Cruz, de la subprefectura y del Comité Cívico (CC) del distrito Centro, donde están concentrados la mayoría de los no guaraníes. La dirigencia del CC se opone a la conversión e informó que hará campaña por el “no” a la misma. “Están en su derecho”, apuntó Bazán. El alcalde Ángel Vallejos, de Mojocoya, señaló que tienen problemas con el Comité Interinstitucional y la prefectura de Chuquisaca, opositores al gobierno de Morales, que están enviando “a los técnicos de la prefectura para hacer campaña contra la autonomía del municipio”. Agustín Cahuana, de San Pedro de Totora, mencionó que algunos opositores a las AIOC “son partidarios del mas que están haciendo campaña por el ‘no’ porque otra vez quieren ellos el poder de los municipios”. En el consejo están el Movimiento Indígena Pachakuti, el MAS y autoridades originarias, indicó.

Todos pidieron que el presidente Morales acuda a sus municipios a reforzar la campaña por el “sí” a la AIOC, y recursos del Fondo Indígena para solventarla.

First published 2 months before Twitter was publicly launched, Yochai Benkler’s Wealth of Networks hit stores in May of 2006, but still provides a startlingly accurate picture of today’s 2009 world. In a world where Facebook, YouTube, and MySpace receive over 250 million unique visitors every month, where traditional advertising revenue is in double-digit decline, where 95% of all songs downloaded last year weren’t paid for, and where Wikipedia has 13 million articles in 200 hundred different languages—it is clear that old ways of creating and disseminating information are breaking down and being replaced. Wealth of Networks provides a lucid analysis of this upheaval and the competing forces struggling with in it, as well as elucidating the consequences that might result from dominance by just one of these forces.

In Wealth of Networks Yochai Benkler discusses the emergence of a new “networked information economy” that breaks much from earlier industrial modes of production. The rise of technology innovation in creation, distribution, and storage of digital information creates an environment more conducive to the rise of effective non-market, non-proprietary forms of production. Benkler sees the shift provided by the falling marginal costs of creating, distributing, and storing informational goods as an opportunity to rethink the institutional structure by which the information economy is governed. Rather than attempting to harness these changes that fly in the face of conventional economic logic, Benkler advocates opening ourselves to the potential provided by peer production, and a commons based approach to the information economy. He argues that there are both economic and social benefits to the emergence of a significant non-market space in the information economy, but cautions that existing intellectual property laws could serve to retard this growth. Based on his belief that the rise of non-proprietary models will enable greater personal autonomy, personal freedom, expanded political democracy, and more extensive cultural transparency, he advocates for the creation of an institutional structure that will support the emergence of an increasingly non-market informational economy.

Benkler’s argument gains strength by utilizing arguments based on both economic efficiency and on normative social desirability. Benkler demonstrates that a commons based and not proprietary approach to informational goods may result in increased efficiency because it reduces the cost to future innovation. He points out that extensive licensing may limit future advancement because so much of informational technological growth relies upon work that has come before. Moreover, he explains that this commons based approach will result in a more equitable distribution of informational goods in the future. Not only will it encourage future innovation in advanced societies, having low-cost informational products will enable lesser developed nations to access key informational goods enabling them to address issues of specific relevance in their nations. He uses the development of medical treatments for diseases plaguing the 3rd world as an example of this by pointing out that in a proprietary model the economic incentives for 1st world pharmaceutical companies to research these is minimal, and that the cost for 3rd world companies or non-profits to do so on their own is prohibitive. A frequent criticism of an informational commons argument based only on reason of equity is that it would be economically detrimental to the major pharmaceutical companies. Thus, by addressing the economic efficiency component as well as social benefit Benkler provides a much stronger and multi-faceted argument.

Benkler clearly articulates the benefits of the networked information economy, but spends very little time on the costs. His prognosis seems positive when viewed from the light of personal freedom and democracy, but for those of us who do have some concern over money the issue of what will happen to the information based economies of the developed world remains somewhat fuzzy. If the model of non-proprietary production comes to dominate it seems it will result in a tremendous transfer of wealth out of the monetarily based market. Will we reap the benefits of increased democracy, and more ability to function autonomously only at the cost of a downward change in our standard of living? How will we replace the monetary value lost to the non-proprietary market? Benkler basically ignores these questions because he is much more concerned with answering questions about the normative social costs and benefits, as well as refuting claims that information is not efficiently produced in a non-proprietary system. However, it seems that there are very real economic implications in terms of monetary cost that would result in significantly shrinking the industrial information economy, and Benkler could have benefited by acknowledging this problem even if it were just in a brief nod to the wrenching effects they may have.

In conclusion I highly recommend Yochai Benkler’s Wealth of Networks because it hits upon the core tensions at the center of the modern informational revolution that is occurring and still rings uncannily true despite the rapid changes that have occurred in the years since its publication. While it lacks acknowledgment of the monetary cost adopting an information commons approach might exact this is largely due to the face that Benkler is more concerned with non-monetary social gain, and in this arena Benkler mounts an impressive, detailed, and incredibly persuasive argument. In many ways this book reads as a call to action with Benkler reminding us to be vigilant because in this moment of transition the choices we make will decide much more than the future of copyright, but the future of our own freedom, and even the future of democracy the world over.

Autonomy of the faculties. Your highly-developed intellect is no guarantee that your emotions will be any less stupid than average.

La JBG de Roberto Barrios denuncia las agresiones del mal gobierno a través de los grupos armados paramilitares en la zona norte

Caracol V que habla para todos Roberto Barrios Chiapas México
Junta de buen gobierno, nueva semilla que va a producir
14 de noviembre del 2009.

Ala sociedad civil nacional e internacional
A los adherentes de la otra campaña
A la Zesta internacional.
A los medios alternativos.
A la prensa nacional e internacional

Denuncia.

La Junta de Buen Gobierno denunciamos publica y enérgicamente las constantes amenazas y agresiones que sufren nuestros compañer@s autoridades, miembros de la Junta de Buen Gobierno que cumplen su función de autoridad civil, asi tambien como los alumn@s que estudian en esta escuela autónoma instalado dentro del Caracol, por grupos de personas adiestrados por las instituciones represivas del mal gobierno, para provocar tenciones y violencias dentro de nuestro territorio zapatista. Principalmente en el Caracol V de la zona norte de Chiapas. Desde 1994 el mal gobierno está aplicando la estrategia de la guerra de baja intensidad en contra de los pueblos zapatistas en resistencia, con el fin de dividirnos, para rendirnos y aniquilarnos.

En los últimos meses el mal gobierno ha intensificado sus acciones de intimidación y provocación de violencia, a traves de los grupos armados paramilitares que operan en la zona norte, responsables de las desapariciones, violencias, asesinatos, desalojos en contra de sus mismos hermanos indígenas, encubiertos y protegidos por el mismo mal gobierno. Ante esta situación denunciamos los hechos ocurridos.

1.- El 20 de Octubre de 2009, a las 6 horas de la tarde llegaron al Caracol, 2 personas, de nombre: Carlos Méndez Méndez, Luciano Méndez Méndez, amenazó a los alumnos cortando cartucho de una pistola escuadra calibre 9 milímetros apuntando a la dirección donde se encontraban los alumnos, estas personas portan uniforme del ejército federal y siempre pasan portando pistolas en la cintura visiblemente, el mismo comandante supremo de las fuerzas armadas manda a sus militares para adiestrar a la misma gente de las comunidades que se dejan engañar y convencer para crear la violencia y la desintegración de la convivencia comunitaria.

2.- El 26 del mismo mes de Octubre de 2009, personas no identificadas entraron a robar en la tienda de artesanía de las compañeras bases de apoyo de la comunidad de Roberto Barrios ubicado frente al portón del Caracol

3.- Meses atrás, del mes de Septiembre de 2009, en algunas noches se a escuchado a grupos de personas marchando a paso corto al estilo militar gritando consignas militares en la oscuridad de la noche a unos 50 metros del Caracol. A habido constantes disparos en las cercanías del Caracol con armas calibre 22 y de grueso calibre.

4.- Otros hechos de antes, el día 8 de Enero del 2007 un grupo de priístas radicales y violentos encabezados por José Méndez Méndez, Adiel Pérez Martínez y Carlos Méndez Hernández tomaron violentamente la escuela autónoma de la comunidad Roberto Barrios, desalojando y asustando a los niñ@s y promotoras de educación que en ese momento estaban recibiendo sus clases en los salones de la escuela, los agresores iban armados con machetes.

5.- El día 27 de Agosto del 2008 a las 9 de la mañana tomaron por segunda ocasión la escuela autónoma de la misma comunidad, encabezado por, José Méndez Méndez, Adiel Pérez Martínez Antonio Pérez Cruz, Comisariado Ejidal priísta, Sebastián Cruz Hernández, Consejo de Vigilancia priísta, Arturo Hernández Cruz, agente rural priísta, con la participación de 3 maestros de la escuela oficial telesecundaria Librado Ríos Santos, Héctor Pérez Nango, y Érica Natividad Coello Trujillo, los que sufrieron directamente estas agresiones fueron los alumnos y las promotoras de educación, aguantando insultos, un sin fin de groserías que lanzaban los agresores en contra de los compañeros padres y madres de l@s alumn@s zapatistas.

Las intenciones del desalojo del centro educativo autónomo es por el proyecto de ecoturismo para poner negocios, ya que el terreno de la escuela se ubica en la entrada a las cascadas del río Bascan, está planeado por el interés económico de las empresas turísticas, y el mismo mal gobierno está metido en todo esto actuando a través de los empleados del mal gobierno, Luis H. Álvarez, Hugo García y Jesús Caridad.

Desde que se instaló la Junta de Buen Gobierno en este Caracol, empezaron las agresiones más constantes en contra de los compañer@s que nos encontramos aquí cumpliendo nuestro deber que nos mandan nuestros pueblos.

También los y las alumnos son agredidos, hostigados constantemente durante sus clases, cuando van a bañarse en el río, en las horas de su alimentación en horas de su educación física en la cancha deportiva, los techos de los salones de la escuela a sido roto por las pedradas que le avientan, igual con los dormitorios.

Los tres niveles del mal gobierno tiene información de todo lo que está sucediendo, ya que tienen informantes pagados y equipado con cámaras fotográficas de video y celular, llega diario a Palenque para dejar las informaciones y traer instrucciones de sus jefes, la persona más visible que hace este trabajo sucio es Humberto Balcázar Mendoza, las oficinas de la Junta de Buen Gobierno, los alumnos autónomos y personales que trabaja en este centro son fotografiados filmados por esta persona.

Por todos estos actos delitos ya mencionados y lo que pueda pasar, responsabilizamos al gobierno federal Felipe Calderón Hinojosa, al gobierno del estado Juan Sabines Guerrero, al Presidente Municipal de Palenque Alfredo Cruz Guzmán, porque la situación está cada vez más peor y están preparando lo que tienen planeado para hacer.

A T E N T A M E N T E
MANDAR OBEDECIENDO
JUNTA DE BUEN GOBIERNO
Semilla que va a Producir
Roberto Barrios, Chiapas, México

Farish Noor of the Malaysian Insider weighs in on the issue of Aceh’s autonomy  which has taken on a new dimension in being granted legal autonomy but limited political and economic independence, which he claims is what the Acehnese really want. In the end however, even the concessions to Islamic law seemed very limited or not agreed upon by wide sections of society, so the question as to the shape of Acehnese autonomy still remains unanswered.He concludes thus -

“The sad story of state-manipulated Islamisation in Aceh is a sound lesson for all. It should remind political elites that real political and economic demands that are articulated by marginalised communities ought to be taken seriously, rather than met with token cosmetic concessions that do not address the causes of revolt and dissatisfaction. Worse of all, by toying about with Islam thus, Jakarta may have created a parallel Islamic bureaucracy in Aceh that has no credibility (as it is seen as a tool of the central government) and may one day get out of control. As the religious authorities in Aceh contemplate more and more laws such as stoning to death and the like, it would appear that the nightmare scenario has become more real than ever; and Aceh is nowhere nearer getting the recognition and respect it demands and deserve.”

]]>