Archive for ownership
On Feb 6th Lori Gotlieb wrote a article for NYTimes called “does more equal marriage mean less sex?” inspired by life experiences and a correlation study titles “egalitarianism, housework and sexual frequency in marriage“. Note: correlations are not the same causality, and these articles identify correlation. A psychologist friend of mine raised Lori’s question to a group of our friends in a discussion forum that week, to explore what society is actually ready for as women and men become more equal i with regard to the types of work we all do.
Here is vlogger Greg Jacobsen with a quick vlog on ownership in relationships. Lori’s article and Greg’s comments inspire me to consider ownership in sexual relationships and how it relates to Integrationalism.
From an economic standpoint it is necessary to establish separation between the varied ownerships of things and space (whether temporary or permanent) by individuals and institutions. As I elaborated on previously our portable value is derived from our ownership. Its good capitalistic practice to identify all participants when ever possible, as the pool of value is directly connected to the actual monetary values (wealth) measured by economists. Ensuring that separation of roles and responsibilities in any methodological structure is crucial to the expansion of our capitalistic system of value. Intimate and sexual relationships are not safe from this exploration.
Its necessary to understand a few definitions first:
- sexuality is a primal phenomena that occurs in all animals, even the asexuals and gender changing species (e.g. amphibians and now mammals via humans).
- relationships (including marriages) are methodological systems that have benefited human evolution from a political, sociological, and economic standpoint.
- methodologies are a kind of technology. All tech are either: methodological, hardware, or software.
- Technologies are about capturing potential, and control. Our survival is dependent on them until they are rendered obsolete by new designs.
- methodologies are a kind of technology. All tech are either: methodological, hardware, or software.
The correlations that we see in the NYTimes article and corresponding study are results of a breakdown in the modern method of relationships, per the ideal of a successful relationship involving some variance of sexual passion or emotion. In our modern era, which succeeds the hunting-gathering era women have been deemed less equal because of their inability to produce at the same capacity. As we’ve evolved form hunters and gatherers our early tools (hardware tech) required some of the brawn that only sufficient testosterone can create. Methodologically, cultures developed around the work that brought us what we consider modern civilizations, feudalism, the industrial revolution, and women were more or less auxiliary. We’ve come a long way with our tech, so far that women are back in the driver seat as they once were when hunting and gathering was the equalizer of production between genders. Our tech infrastructure is increasingly precious to human-rights.
The frequency of sex in a relationship is not specific to the sexuality (primal), but is specific to the relationship (tech). Our technology is deterministic in how it is dictating our ability 9or inability) to live comfortably within antiquated relationship methods. More plainly I mean to state that, the methodological work of relationships take away from the primal sexual emotional “systems” (as Helen Fisher would call them) and divert our attention to more collaborative efforts with our partner(s). Of course there are anomalies and extraordinary couples out there; however, sex is not about tech, or social norms, or rights/wrongs, or scientific understanding even, its about sight and smells and tastes and sounds and stuff we can touch.
Finally, where is the tech taking us? I’m extrapolating towards polyamory: which allows for relatively uninhibited multi-partnered non-ownership of others. Polyamory, also acknowledges individual’s ability fall in love (and abstraction defined as a system of brain activities by Helen Fisher) with many other individuals. Love, per Fisher’s explanation renders monogamy ill-equipped to accommodate modern (more egalitarian) relationship structures. more to come………
Today, the Supreme Court decided it would “decline” to uphold Proposition 8, an opinion expected in the tea leaves that doesn’t allow as many same-sex couples as it could have to get married — or, based on the Court’s ruling the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional, to be recognized by the federal government.
The 3rd book from Integrationalism will be specific to the distribution of value via ownership. We are looking to start editing in the Summer of 2013
General Theory of Value:
Per integrationalism, entities in existence are connected at the sub-atomic scale. The growth or retraction of entities in existence directly affects that of the broader group of entities, with variances of affect based on degrees-of-separation. Variances of shared stakeholder value exist across the connected group of entities, regardless of its distribution.
James Felton Keith
The difference between the modern American political debates is almost null, when put into a broader philosophical context. Politics remains interesting, especially in a version of democracy because of its incremental changes over time. Transitions remain active.
Specific to Integrationalism the argument over, “how we build” and “who builds” is so necessary at this time in human history. The debate, under different rhetoric, is actually about ownership and who should have a stake in a society, nation, culture, world that has been (even through a coined “recession”) growing.
Preceding the US major political conventions, The President remarked that business owners don’t build businesses on their own and Mitt Romney arguing that the President is against the individual success of business owners based on the rhetorical interpretation of these few words “you didn’t build that”.
This makes me of a signed copy of a book that I had the privilege to get while in Toronto at the World Future Society annual conference titled Networked. It’s centered on this ideal that authors Rainie & Wellman call networked-individualism, a very similar ideal to Integrationalism itself. They are pointing out a phenomenon more modernly recognizable than the more fundamental physiological network that I elaborate on here. Through our technological extensions of social networks and device usage, human-kind is evolving into a species that can rapidly recognize the impact of the individual on the group.
From a policy standpoint, it has been difficult for governments of the past to regulate the distribution of tangible values to its individuals, furthermore, incentivizing them to participate well in the society. In 19th century Europe and 20th century America we witnessed a boom of distribution through the jobs and a short lived protection of those through organized labor (unions). As elaborated on here and so many other places, the change in technological use which provoked an expanded (cheaper) global workforce has rendered the job-engine inadequate.
The debate on jobs and workers’ rights is misleading and per the arguments presented by the two presidential candidates last week, the debate would be more valuable with a focus on how we distribute ownership. Realizing this is difficult, we have to use our tangible networked-individualism for identifying the opportunities to compensate individuals for their value-add to the group. These are policy issues that private institutions cannot coordinate on their own.
In April of 2010 the Library of Congress announced that it will acquire all of the public tweets for future generations to review. It’s quite the ambitious effort from a technological standpoint, considering all of the data migration and storage as the micro-blogging social network grows. The initiative also has some uncovered ethical and democratic potential that are currently being overlooked.
Twitter as a platform is empowering the creators of the world to understand how their co-conspirers and consumers are affecting the discovery, development, and delivery of new goods & services to be brought to market. For instance, Marketing and other R&D departments across the globe at the enterprise scale are using social networks like Twitter to monitor and improve their CRM (Customer Relationship Management) processes. These aren’t rigid customer service initiatives, but also customer discovery initiatives. Social networking is giving new meaning to the idea that supply & demand are never ending sphere of interaction; further, confusing the philosophical ideal of who might our creators and consumers be.
This is important because ownership is allocated to creators of sorts, regardless of initial or latter impact.
At current, the world is enduring a series of spiking economic crisis, and as the engineers and economists try and root-cause to remedy our problems, the political conservatism that we all possess at some extent is making it difficult to justify spreading the wealth. Moral and Political arguments haven’t been working over the millennia or most recently. The books/rants/calls for gifting larger amounts to working-poor, nor distributing wealth at high rates to compensate the lesser valued have yielded a change in the gap between those with an immense value and those without. This crisis is not one of lost value, or population growth, or technological change. It is (and has always been) one of poorly allocated ownership. Those causes can be debated separately.
Ownership is paramount in distributing value to individuals and institutions, outside of charity. I don’t think it necessary to elaborate on how miniscule charity is in the known world. It’s legally defensible and mathematically quantifiable. One of the missions of the Library of Congress is to log intellectual property; further, so that it may (if necessary) be defended on the behalf of stakeholders. The initiative to capture tweets for the future generations should not only be technologically charged, but it should be economically charged to assign ownership to authors. This effort would assist greatly in identifying the degrees of separation between the various stakeholders in the discovery, development, and delivery of things.
Below is an excerpt from a scenario I was emailed about a real-time situation at a secondary school in Michigan.
I included James on this email because I want his input on this matter. There are two co-workers. One of them is Jewish and she takes off every Jewish holiday no matter what. Then there is the other worker who takes off one afternoon a week for the month because work is stressing her out. The religious woman makes a comment to the other worker about the amount of time she’s taking off and the other worker says “it’s no different than you taking off time for your religion to rest”. The religious lady is like “they are SO TOTALLY different because my religion requires it.” Should people who are not religious be shunned for taking the same actions as those who are? Are these women comparing apples to oranges?
My opinion: people should not be shunned for their incentives to relax and these two women are arguing about the same phenomenon.
Tagent: This email was fascinating to me considering the latest Integrationalism book of “value” and how it is distributed to the institutions and individual…I think its important in how we regulate (with laws) a society… and this is a good low end example of how institution’s objectives to establish a presidence benefits them not only materially (monetarily, etc) but also socio-culturally.
Further: All of the religio, politico, socio, economic, etc rhetoric of today in democratic societies is about individualistic virtues, yet it doesn’t pay in this time to be an individual without an institutional affiliation. There is no economic or socio-cultural equity in it.
As the education and post-industrialized society grow more secular, how will we transfer the equity and respect that religious institutions currently own?
I’ve spent some time thinking about what the #Occupy movement is really representing. I’ve tried to attend the camps as I’ve traveled and interview the people in the camps; as well as, their formidable opponents in the ownership positions of the respective societies that Occupiers exist.
I think that I’m comfortable echoing the analysis in that Occupiers have done a good initial job in comparison to similar movements around the world and in the United States in particular. They’ve caught the attention of the masses, in that everyone knows what #Occupy means. Of course the problems of any fledgling movement are that its priorities aren’t hashed (#) out. While everyone knows what #Occupy is; no one has any idea of what it wants, or rather, needs.
Every movement-struggle-jihad, has is a battle of philosophy on how a society should exist versus how it does. Based on the consistent and more frequent collapse in the economic system, it is evident that we are due for some structural change in the modern world. When I listen to the rhetoric of this movement and the defense of its identified opponents, I think the following apply. There is a clash of ideals on whose altruism is not only virtuous but most beneficial. On the one hand we have that of the individuals, formally represented by the #Occupiers. On the other we have that of the institutions, formally represented by their owners/stakeholders. While individuals (humans in this case) can allocate a moral regard to their fellow man/woman based on their acknowledgment of his/her intrinsic or extrinsic value, institutions do not. Yet some individuals can advocate the virtues of an institution because for their holding that the institution’s incentives to take action better the society as a whole.
Institutions were created by individuals to protect the discovery, development, and deployment of technologies (methodologies, hardware, & software) that help individuals control what would otherwise be a chaotic environment. Who wants to live in 3000 B.C.E.? I’d doubt any of us could enjoy limiting our communication to a distances less than 20 feet. While institutions have served individuals well over the millennia their control mechanisms have the potential to run-a-muck. Their primary control mechanisms are related to their extrinsic value, or ability to generate revenues above the costs to exists. Controls validate the existence of each institution (for-profit & not-for-profit alike), but individuals don’t regard themselves as having extrinsic value alone (at least not all of them), per this on-going survey that I’ve been taking with some backlash about the use of language on “value“. Problem comes into play when those who are still benefiting from the existing operations of institutions clashes with those who are no longer benefiting. As institutions trying to sustain existence, they actually have incentives to suppress markets to indemnify stakeholders, per their understanding of who is most valuable.
Regarding the Occupy movement and its potential participants, the progress will occur when and if the most radical of the bunch agree that the contrast of values between individuals and institutions is infringing on their civil or even human rights and is in fact stifling their ability to live productive lives. Regardless of how they derive their understanding of the modern economic situation, they’ll have to hold it as dear and urgent as their more radical predecessors of the last past successful liberal movements. I’m not referring to MLK’s boycotts or the freedom riders, or the Jewish resistance in Europe, or the Mandela‘s political activism. I’m referring to the immediate threat that militant groups like the Black Panthers, or the onslaught of the Allied Forces, or the provocative military growth of Umkhonto we Sizwe and the many like groups respectively per each struggle. The laws of arbitrage are clear and animalistic. Incumbent leadership, ideals, and conservatism can only respect some formidable opposition.
The incumbent power in 1950’s United States and 1980’s South Africa only yielded because they perceived an inevitable destructive threat; any rhetoric that suggests otherwise is misleading. It would take years to list all the martyrs from every movement who gave their lives to inspire the few, and were willing to take other’s lives for their cause. The pathology of pacifism is a failed effort when it does not inspire an aggressive colleague. Occupiers are going to have to figure out what in the world they can do to change the way institutions and individuals agree on human value. Although they were arguing slightly different causes, the incumbent powers decided to oblige Lyndon B Johnson immortalizing Martin Luther King in order to nullify the slogan “black power” and its author Kwame Ture (Stokely Carmichael). It seems as though it takes a guilty old man faced with the passions of an aggressive young man, to make any incremental change.