[p2p-research] newsweek on The Creativity Crisis
Michel Bauwens
michelsub2004 at gmail.com
Thu Jul 22 10:36:19 CEST 2010
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 2:59 PM, Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Michel...answers in line. Thanks for your patience with my outlier
> views on the list. I appreciate that outliers can be frustrating...even
> enraging at times. Dialogue is best. I think the recent heat will give way
> to various forms of light for all of us...
>
Hi Ryan,
I must concede you have a hard time here, but consider that in many other
forums its' the other way around <g>
>
> R.
>
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 2:38 AM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi Ryan,
>>
>> this is actually a good example you use, because I think it proves my
>> point .... "efficiency" is not biological, nature is not efficient and
>> mostly consist of waste and redundant processes, efficiency being only a
>> very small part of this ... so efficiency, which you think is biological, is
>> actually a ideology and a metaphysics, based on a belief that everything
>> should consist of minimal input to create maximal output (in other words a
>> capitalist ideology 'par excellence')... biologists have actually calculated
>> why too much efficiency is detrimental to systems (such as a document by
>> bernard lietaer), and I'm sure Paul Hartzog could enlighten us on that ...
>> This is why as a system, we are now "Nine meals away from anarchy" (NEF
>> report on the food reserves available in western cities)
>>
>
> Yes, I concede that efficiency is a sort of metaphysics in a traditional
> usage. I am not a technocrat in the 1930s sense, though I had a period of
> fascination with the whole idea of energy economics, etc. In the end, I
> think it is unworkable...as I think most currencies are unworkable outside
> of cash money. I think they can be useful, beautiful...even
> enlightening...but they are not realistic and are not a big part of the
> future. I also agree with Bernard Lietaer on some things and Paul Hartzog
> on more... Creativity, for instance, almost demands minimal efficiency.
>
> But efficiency in a social sense is not efficiency in an individual sense.
> Efficiency in a social sense is optimizing what people want as individuals
> and as groups by resolving difficult tensions between social and individual
> desires. That resolution is governance. It is hard. But the objective
> should be to minimize the imposition of social demands coming from the
> metaphysical views of the few (political control) and should opt instead for
> maximizing the desires of the many...with minimal large scale externalities
> based on those desires. In other words, government ought to be a
> governor...not a decider.
>
I can see your point in this broad view of social efficiency, and that
governance comes, not just markets. And I agree that the stronger a
government with metaphysics, the more dififcult it is for people holding
different ones. This is why it is so hard for some people to live in
venezuela or cuba, or the other way around, why progressive left the U.S. in
droves during the Bush years .. So, it seems a good idea to me that the
state is a partner state, that helps people achieve their own individual and
social desires, rather than telling them what they should be. I think we are
in agreement on this.
>
>
>
>>
>> Evidence-based medicine is the same, an ideology, it is directed at
>> alternative medicines which are supported by the people (and the smartest
>> amongst them, as complementary medicine is correlated according to education
>> levels), and does not look at falsification of results through
>> pharmaceutical corruption .. in other words, the kinds of 'evidence' you are
>> looking for are predetermined by your metaphysics,
>>
>>
>
> Here we disagree fundamentally. Evidence is simply truth. Truth is not
> metaphysical. It is an approximation of our best techniques and
> understanding. Alternatives may be efficacious at times...but they are not
> truthful unless they are based on evidence. People who deny evidence opt
> for a sort of intellectual darkness I find hard to argue with...if someone
> tells me their god is causing this flood or that plague...I really have
> nothing to say to them. If they say their chi is misaligned or their
> shakra is radiating...still nothing to say. If they say faith healed
> them...I can measure and explore it. If they talk in terms of outcomes that
> are reality based, I am good with it. If it becomes a discussion of play
> words and concepts that have no real sense of meaning...not discoverable
> concord as to what is intended by curious and skeptical people, then I have
> nothing to say. Instead, my response is pity. That may be condescending,
> but that's what I feel. If I encountered someone who held views common in
> 1305, I'd also feel pity. Progress exists. Old ideas are just
> that...communism, shamanism, tribal medicine...each may have elements of
> truthiness...but are really false in any logical world of progress and
> expectation of serious discourse.
>
We disagree. Evidence is not every simply truth, there is always a context,
about what kind of evidence you want to collect.
I'll give you an example. I personally like homeopathy, though it is true
its principles make little sense for classic science. I like it because it
saved from two life long chronic ailments which scientific medicine was
unable to solve. But let's take the argument of homeopathy: a medication is
highly individualized, not to the general symptom as with classic medicine,
but to the individual characteristics of the patients. So, homeopathic
associations do studies with that in mind, and have thousands of pages of
'evidence' showing that it works. Note here for example, that double bind
cannot work as a method because it violates the individuality principles.
So, classic science using symptomatic studies involving double bind says
homeopathy doesn't work. There is a lot of other disturbing evidence, for
example, homeopathic doctors live way longer than classic doctors ... a long
range study of therapies in the netherland found 'past regression' to be the
most effective ...acupunture is more effective done with non-medical doctors
than doctors, acupuncture can operate on people without anesthetics, but
there is no scientific explanation for it ...
So it is never about sayig, "you just have to believe us", but almost always
about "what kind of evidence" to collect, note that in the case of
homeopathy, 100% of the practiioners are doctors and scientifically trained,
it is recognized in many countries, not in others ...
in the U.S. midwives were hunted to extinction because of their dangerous
practices (based on evidence of the AMA), yet in the Netherlands, most women
(can't remember the exact percentage) give birth at home with midwifes, with
a very high record of safety ...
there have been studies showing how diseases are closely linked to culture,
for example, in france, many people suffer from their 'liver' and get
medication for it, but in thailand ,they just burst out laughing when you
say you have a weak liver ... they never heard about such a crazy thing ...
do what it boils down to, is that scientific practices are influenced by
cultural contexts, that evidence seeking is contextual, including dependent
on power politics,
this means that "evidence" should also be part of the mix and conditioned by
self-reflexivity, and open to different kinds of evidence representing other
points of view. For example, in France, the aids collectives of Act Up where
instrumental, I read, in advancing the understanding of AIDS, by collecting
different kind of evidence than the medical establishment, which originally
refused patients input, but now accepts it as essential.
30 years ago, there was plenty of "evidence" that black people were
inferior, today this kind of evidence would be problematic, not because
people are against evidence, but because the question why a particular type
of evidence should be researched and not another,
in France now, there is a fight between those wanted to include the
'evidence' of religiosu and cultural makeup in the census, and those that
refuse it ... but the latter are not refusing it because they are against
evidence as such, but because of what it will imply in policy-making and its
inevitable culturalization once the evidence is collected ..
>
>
>> This is inevitable and it is why we should be honest about our
>> metaphysics, rather than deny we have one .. this is why you can confidently
>> think that only other people have metaphysics, while your practice is based
>> on evidence, but of course, it won't fly with the people who disagree with
>> you, as they will want to negotiate on the type of evidence that will be
>> collected, and not take your word for it
>>
>>
>
> I'm sure I have metaphysical elements, but I do deny them because they are
> not helpful. They hurt. They destroy. You feel capitalism is hurtful
> inherently. I am just as committed that metaphysics destroys inherently.
> What then can we do?
>
only one thing, be open about our respective assumptions, and accept that
our inevitable biases creates lenses that makes us see reality differently,
and that to know the truth, we benefit from learning about each others
perspectives
in communities, we negotiate about the types of evidence that can be open
enough so as not to structurally be biased towards one party's assumptions
..
>
>
>> so my question is, how can you be such an exceptional human being that you
>> have no system of morality, and no a priori judgments ? who can really
>> believe that? I'm really surprised that you can believe that about yourself,
>>
>>
>
> I do have these biases and faults. But I see them as faults. I strive
> toward a pragmatic sense of truth and judgment based on evidence, facts,
> measures, and truthiness. Humans have had metaphysics for a long time. It
> has been a crutch. Now we must move away from the crutch toward our
> evolutionary advantage of being reason-based. Reason has made us able to
> understand much of our universe. It is the only thing that has separated us
> from species that merely exist. Metaphysics was a sort of
> proto-reasoning...by there is a version 2.0 called progress. I merely
> advocate moving to the new version.
>
I would phrase that diffently, first we had a partiuclar kind of monological
religious metaphysics, based on a lot of a priori assumptions which went
unexamined; then we had a different type of metaphysics based on the belief
in objectivve reason, but along we learned that even such reason is
contextualized, so now we seek an integrative resaon, that not only honours
phase 2, but also phase 1, so that even the truthiness of shamanism can be
recognized ..
>
>
>
>
>> would you believe it if I said so, or anyone else you disagreed with?
>>
>>
> I have no doubt you believe I am holding to a alternative metaphysics. But
> that is a metaphysical bias. My objective is to avoid metaphysics. Yours
> to embrace it. That is our key difference, I think.
>
> R.
>
>
>
>
>> On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 2:25 PM, Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963 at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> OK. But for me, metaphysics is a belief in some sort of system of
>>> morality that derives from a priori judgments. It is inherently political.
>>> Efficiency is biological. There are optimal systems for human thriving. I
>>> know we need morality in a biological sense, and I am all for systems. But
>>> these must be pragmatic and socially responsive to some means of
>>> governance. Simply arguing this system or that system is best because of
>>> this moral pretext, that religion, or this view...is medieval. It is time
>>> for humanity to move on to evidence-based policies driven by what is optimal
>>> for society as judged by means of governance that expand progress and
>>> value. In the end, progress and value are really one thing. Metaphysics,
>>> in my view, tends to destroy value because it seeks to impose the
>>> politics/morality of a worldview instead of optimizing for human desires and
>>> needs. I can be argued what those desires and needs are, and how they
>>> should be sorted and processed...and I would call that evidence-based
>>> policy. That world relieves us of the metaphysical wanderings about what
>>> justice means, what is equality, etc. Those have wasted good minds for
>>> centuries. Better, in my view, to actually help people get something they
>>> want than to talk about what they should want.
>>>
>>> When universities and public research begin to respond to human need
>>> instead of the selfish research desires and metaphysical interests of
>>> faculty and researchers, we'll start to see them be of real value. In the
>>> interim, they are just consumers and free riders.
>>>
>>> R.
>>>
>>> R.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 3:10 AM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> let's agree to disagree, I am still in favour of public funding of
>>>> research and education, if combined with democratic control, rather than
>>>> private entities beholden to shareholders, who have only their private
>>>> interests at hart,
>>>>
>>>> it can't be avoided, these are your metaphysics, and mine are different,
>>>>
>>>> Michel
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 9:58 PM, Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963 at gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Michel,
>>>>>
>>>>> There is a great deal of good basic science that is privately funded.
>>>>> Personally, I like that model. States waste. It's that simple. Everyone
>>>>> wants a free and easy living. Who gets such a free ride should be really
>>>>> carefully controlled. Personally, I'd prefer to finance a microcredit bank
>>>>> in Haiti to building the CERN accelerator which I seriously doubt will ever
>>>>> give humanity any tangible benefit. That said, if George Soros wanted to
>>>>> build CERN with his billions, I'd be thrilled to read the fascinating
>>>>> results. Politicians and bureaucrats ought not to be the ones who
>>>>> determine where and how societies spend their resources except in issues of
>>>>> national emergency and economic growth--much as Adam Smith advocated.
>>>>> Social safety nets and national healthcare systems are far better
>>>>> investments than research universities...and the research universities can
>>>>> easily self-fund with rich alumni. What we are really discussing is fear of
>>>>> control. People want the state to be their shield against scrutiny outside
>>>>> of their "peers." Nice work if you can get it...especially when someone
>>>>> else is paying the bill.
>>>>>
>>>>> R.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 12:51 AM, Michel Bauwens <
>>>>> michelsub2004 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Ryan, your first statement is about the total contrary of what I would
>>>>>> advocate ... Most analyst and scientist would totally disagree with your
>>>>>> view on knowledge as such, and claim that it is especially disinterested
>>>>>> basic science, that has created the most fundamental breakthroughs, not
>>>>>> shortermist pursuit of profitable spinoffs and the repression of curiosity
>>>>>> in academia for the sake of profit. It is really artificiall to put
>>>>>> theory/action as opposites, they go hand in hand, theory and world vision
>>>>>> nearly always is what is necessary to inspire real world action
>>>>>>
>>>>>> it was precisely public funding of education which guaranteed broader
>>>>>> education for all, and having worked for a private university last year, I
>>>>>> have now seen close by how the profit motive distorts education at all
>>>>>> levels .. the only acceptable way for me is to have educational institutions
>>>>>> run by nonprofit foundations with a public interest, with public funding,
>>>>>> but not necessarily as state institutions, since they are most often
>>>>>> centralized and bureaucratized .. ... And subsuming knowledge to private
>>>>>> interests is for me the absolute nightmare ... You are advocating precisely
>>>>>> the kind of measures that have led to the present educational measure ...
>>>>>> Please don't misunderstand, I'm not against 'private' initiative and free
>>>>>> schools, just against schools where education is subsumed to private profit
>>>>>> models ... Without giving you names, but this is a real story, if you are a
>>>>>> poor girl on a scholarship, and violated by the son of a rich lawer, you can
>>>>>> pretty much forget due process ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I symphatize with 2 if applied to transhumanist dreamers <g>, but
>>>>>> otherwise would point out that there are just as many people inspired by
>>>>>> their spirituality to advance their life (see the protestant work ethic) as
>>>>>> the other way around, and that a dole is what the excluded most often need
>>>>>> just to become active and productive in their society ..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 9:36 PM, Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963 at gmail.com
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 9:20 AM, Samuel Rose <samuel.rose at gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 2:44 AM, Michael Gurstein <
>>>>>>>> gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This could be right. I recall I believe it was Michel that pointed
>>>>>>>> out
>>>>>>>> on this list a few months back that when the "cold war" ended in the
>>>>>>>> US, government funding for culture also dried up. The government
>>>>>>>> funded culture (public access television, arts, theatre, etc in
>>>>>>>> communities) as part of the "cold war"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> quote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> examples:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/10/17/051017crat_atlarge
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (looking for other that are more objective)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My own view of why creativity is falling is threefold:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. There is a glut of funding for schools and research such that real
>>>>>>> value is mocked and avoided. Somehow the idea of "knowledge" as an end
>>>>>>> became morally acceptable. Such academics strike me as people nearly as
>>>>>>> immoral as some of the worst criminals. They choose to waste their lives
>>>>>>> studying the valueless. Consequently, University funding needs to fall by
>>>>>>> 75% from states. We need huge private sector investment to get actual
>>>>>>> productivity from schools at all levels. Nearly all state schools at all
>>>>>>> levels should be privatized. Fortunately, the UK and several US states are
>>>>>>> moving rapidly in this direction.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2. People remain mired in metaphysical and religious dreams that
>>>>>>> dissuade them from improving life on this planet. Too often this allows
>>>>>>> poor people to accept their lot and seek a dole rather than an active means
>>>>>>> of solving their issues.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 3. And most importantly, we don't have the maker centres and
>>>>>>> technical play centres available to societies to build and explore
>>>>>>> garage-level innovation. Instead, people sit glued to mass consumption
>>>>>>> media and allow themselves to be passively entertained as opposed to
>>>>>>> actively solving problems. This is even worse amongst the
>>>>>>> theorizing/observing set who really produce almost nothing while carrying in
>>>>>>> many cases a decent mind that could actually solve some real world issues.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> p2presearch mailing list
>>>>>>> p2presearch at listcultures.org
>>>>>>> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net -
>>>>>> http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
>>>>>> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
>>>>>> http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Think tank:
>>>>>> http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> p2presearch mailing list
>>>>>> p2presearch at listcultures.org
>>>>>> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Ryan Lanham
>>>>> rlanham1963 at gmail.com
>>>>> Facebook: Ryan_Lanham
>>>>> P.O. Box 633
>>>>> Grand Cayman, KY1-1303
>>>>> Cayman Islands
>>>>> (345) 916-1712
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> p2presearch mailing list
>>>>> p2presearch at listcultures.org
>>>>> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net -
>>>> http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
>>>>
>>>> Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
>>>> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>>>>
>>>> Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
>>>> http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
>>>>
>>>> Think tank:
>>>> http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> p2presearch mailing list
>>>> p2presearch at listcultures.org
>>>> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Ryan Lanham
>>> rlanham1963 at gmail.com
>>> Facebook: Ryan_Lanham
>>> P.O. Box 633
>>> Grand Cayman, KY1-1303
>>> Cayman Islands
>>> (345) 916-1712
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> p2presearch mailing list
>>> p2presearch at listcultures.org
>>> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
>>
>> Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
>> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>>
>> Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
>> http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
>>
>> Think tank: http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> p2presearch mailing list
>> p2presearch at listcultures.org
>> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Ryan Lanham
> rlanham1963 at gmail.com
> Facebook: Ryan_Lanham
> P.O. Box 633
> Grand Cayman, KY1-1303
> Cayman Islands
> (345) 916-1712
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> p2presearch mailing list
> p2presearch at listcultures.org
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>
>
--
P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
Think tank: http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20100722/fb347021/attachment.html>
More information about the p2presearch
mailing list