Yesterday's perusal of ideas of the present, in combination with the sum total of all other collected ideas from prior yesterdays, sparked a mind storm of synthesis for me. I've yet to make anything coherent from it in the way of transferable ideation, but rather than let it go to waste I want to share the bits in case they might similarly inspire others, which is the entire idea.
Have fun! (I can suggest that each of these links is well worth pursuing.)
(Note: The ideas of Jane Jacobs have stirred the deeper reaches of my soul since I ran across them many years ago. I cannot recommend her more highly. There are profound truths displayed in her words. Same with Butler Shaffer's "Calculated Chaos".
"Innovation is completely non-linear. It is very rare, if you think of the idea of inventions and discoveries building on one another... it's very rare that one person will have an idea and then have a follow on idea and then have the breakthrough idea as to how you take that into completely new territory. And so it's very rare in fact that companies can do that either - it's non-linear. One person has idea A and then someone completely different brings that idea together with something else that they know and it creates idea B and then somebody completely different comes up with idea C. So the real stimulant of innovation is disclosure." - Mark Shuttleworth
"It makes increasingly less sense even to talk about a publishing industry, because the core problem publishing solves — the incredible difficulty, complexity, and expense of making something available to the public — has stopped being a problem." - Clay Shirkey (emphasis mine)
"That is what real revolutions are like. The old stuff gets broken faster than the new stuff is put in its place. The importance of any given experiment isn't apparent at the moment it appears; big changes stall, small changes spread. Even the revolutionaries can't predict what will happen." - Shirkey again
"Jacobs emphasizes, in Systems of Survival, that the Law created by the merchant classes to insure fair dealing encouraged new freedoms. ... She shows that commercial law is the basis of the later legal systems that grew upon the metropolitan economies. Importantly, because the city law was meant to serve commerce, rather than the State, it was infrequently used for oppressive purpose. A person's freedom and rights did not arise in the countryside at Runnymede, but in the City of London..." - Thomas Schmidt (emphasis mine)
[NonE edited Jane Jacobs link... I hope this one works better!]
[NonE added the following information...]
I just read this interesting article on the Future of Freedom Foundation's site, How FDR Promoted Racial Segregation, by Jim Powell, and it adds depth to the above cited article by Thomas Schmidt. I recommend it in that context. By the way, Schmidt replied to my email to him by stating that he was going to have a follow up article on Jacobs at Lew's site: I'll be writing and finishing "happy Birthday, Jane" to be published at LRC shortly before what would have been her 93rd birthday in May.
I am looking forward to it.
Barter
Let me point out here that the "survivalist" mentality, and the idea of "barter" as a solution to anything, simply does not compute for me. I can't tell you why, but there is something deep within me that knows that this kind of thinking is pointed in the wrong direction. It's like when all of the pundits are talking about how we NEED the "stimulus package" to help us survive... I know in my GUT that they are looking down a tunnel which has no light at the end. I don't want to live in a tunnel that has no light at the end. What's the point?
So (the reason I mention this here), I was stirred deeply when I read and listened to those things I pointed to in the post above. There is a core issue there which is vitally important, even if I can't speak it with clarity at the moment (or perhaps ever). The city life that Jane Jacobs described in her books contains that truth. The voices of Shirkey and Shuttleworth do as well. There is a core issue there which holds the future of humanity. It deserves to be grasped and nurtured and celebrated and honored. It is the core of life itself.
- NonE
Guts
Here's an article that might provide some insights:
http://is.gd/nNJr
Sometimes people with the guts to extend a concept beyond what *your* gut thinks it "knows" (?) can provide compelling evidence that will lead you to recompute your ideas about what is possible.
Monetizing value
Interesting article, Saint.
I'm not sure how I'd use it to buy a book from someone in Paris, but they are doing a good job, it appears, at creating a new form of monetization and trade. You DO see that they are just creating another form of money, don't you? (Like Berk Shares.) And while doing so they are also supporting the state against the people, sadly. What would you expect? :-[
You know, there has been a great move toward using base-10 math in measurements, and it seems to really be a step in the right direction. We still use feet and yards (base-3) and dozen (base-12) and so on in the U.S. for many things, but metric measurements make the language of measure international and facilitate ease of communication. Since we've (the BIG we) already determined that gold and silver are the most stable and safe forms of monetary storage and trade, perhaps what we need now is to create a metric form of precious metals. Instead of having (pre-1965) dimes and quarters, French franc gold coins and various other denominations which do not easily translate in the minds and pockets of those involved in commerce, think how easily trade would be if it was all done in coins denominated in base-10 divisions. Any trade with anyone in the world would be simple. No trying to figure out how a shilling and a lira and a dollar and so on relate to each other, you just trade. Bingo.
Perhaps the barter that will provide the greatest freedom may end up being coinage which is based upon "the metric system." Once each person got his head wrapped around the value of a given metric quantity of silver or gold there would no longer be any confusion in international trade. A gram or a decagram or a kilo - these would represent the same thing worldwide, no translation or calculation required. No money changers. No third parties to shave off a fee and report transactions.
Just a thought...
Rather than forming yet another private form of currency, it would be a step towards universality in commerce, just as English is the universal language in aviation. (And, I'm guessing, all mathematicians can speak with each other regardless of their national language.)
- NonE
While it might be an
While it might be an interesting exercise in Discordian thought, tell me you meant the author and not the singer.
It really threw me for a loop when the Amazon page opened up to those 4 CDs…
It didn't seem to track with what you were saying.
(Yes, I know that is a terribly bad pun, but hey, it's early yet. I get much worse as the day goes on)
You gotz a problem wit dat?
Whut, you don't like music? Whut kinna person ARE you?
- NonE
(I fixed it, I think. Thanks! ;-)
How is “city” defined?
Actually, irrespective of that, I have problems with what appears to be Jacob’s exaltation of cities (I know nothing of her work beyond the titles I see on the page you direct us to, NonE.). Perhaps she is partly conflating city development with ease of communication.
Watching the Connections series again, as we are with the snolfs, a good deal of what Burke focuses on is communications between individuals with overlapping interests—and sometimes, back then, this comm was of necessity labor intensive and slow, as letters were the only means of exchanging ideas. It did happen, though, proving that “where there’s a will, there’s a way”. Being in a city may make that easier, but it isn’t guaranteed to do so ... what if you’re the only person in a city exploring vulcanization, for example? I don’t think that city life necessarily contains the “truth” you mentioned but did not identify more specifically. And, since I have now dragged your first comment into mine, let us proceed further ...
Not knowing more clearly what you mean by those terms, I may be off base here, but simply living is pursuing survival, yes? We have spoken here before about ants, grasshoppers, and parables ... there will likely always be some people who prepare for the worst and others who seem blissfully unaware that anything bad could happen to them. As long as they don’t attempt to force me (or my money) to support their visions, how do they harm me? They follow their own lights, and I follow mine.
There is no one system or structure that all people alive at any given time will agree is right, or best, or even workable. Hardcore survivalism is not my schtick—but living as best I can through what may be ahead is of great interest to me. Similarly, where you may see unnecessary primitivism in barter, I see just an aggregate label for how humans have accomplished transactions throughout history—it is our term for a fundamental process of non-money-based exchanges, rather than a system.
I have probably said more than is warranted, in response to your inchoate ideas; perhaps something I rambled will help you give your synthesis more shape.
What are Cities?
To make a very quick response here, Sunni, let me suggest that Jacob's vision of the value of cities is similar to the value of the internet as it currently functions. It is a place where a wide variety of ideas can meet and converse to the benefit of all. It is a marketplace of all things, and it is the organic development of the social nature of humanity and the productive and natural traders that we are. She sees where cities have come from, how they are a natural development of the human animal and how they support our natures, and she also sees that the propensity to design and restrict and regulate them is to debase and restrict our humanity.
This is my interpretation, of course. Read her. She is an amazing and unique mind. I put her together with Shirkey and Shuttleworth as I see a common human reality underlying the different perspectives of all three. They are all speaking of the same thing, and it is a core issue of the human experience. I apologize for not being able, at present at least, to present more clarity on this issue. But I did want to make the post lest my recognition of the underlying dynamic get lost in the swirl of my interests.
I see barter and the survivalist mentalities, as I put it, as visions of separation and isolation, and something which is the direct antithesis of that which makes humanity thrive. I'm not saying that there are not times when we must hunker in a hole out of shear desperate need to survive, and that may well be what we are headed for. But nonetheless, this is NOT a philosophy of celebration and advancement of the beauty and wonder of being humans. We are social animals. We do best those things which celebrate each other, not which control and constrict and limit and define.
As the printing press was to thought, so money is to commerce. Barter is like going from the internet as a means of sharing ideas back to having scribes hand make individual books on papyrus. It is not something that is an advancement, even though it may be a temporary survival requirement in extreme conditions.
I just see that clarity on these issues seems to be in order. Survival and thriving are at opposite ends of the spectrum, and I, for one, do not want to lose sight of the possibilities inherent in the human celebration of life just because of some current exigencies.
- NonE
Some clarity gained ...
Thanks for the helpful response, NonE.; I need to be brief but do want to touch on a couple of things.
I find this rather confusing, my friend, because barter requires more social interaction than a simple exchange of money for a particular good or service. When money changes hands, both parties signal faith in it as a medium of exchange; but when barter is engaged, both have to put that faith in themselves and each other. Is that not more liberating, more social, and at an aggregate level, more constructive for thriving humanity?
Don’t get me wrong—I do understand the liberating role of money, and do not mean to denigrate that. But the fiat money filling the world today is not worth exalting; and even if we had honest money, I would likely find it a little stultifying. Here’s my confession, in closing: I have sold candies for around three years now, and have accepted both FRNs and barter. While I have need of FRNs, just as most people here do, I have invariably found barter exchanges much more richly rewarding. I get to talk to interesting people, learn what they consider a worthwhile trade for my caramels or truffles, and work out a deal that leaves us both happy. Among the things I’ve gotten in trade are a wonderful, large country ham, and several intriguing books. The meals we got from the ham still spark pleasant memories for the snolfs, as well as myself; the books will be a more enduring physical and cognitive payment, but likely not more valued than the taste of that delicious pork, and the good company in which it was enjoyed.
Might I suggest to you that they may be, but aren’t necessarily nor always opposite?
Yes, I see.
Your points are well taken, Sunni.
Let me then make this response. Money does not preclude direct exchange barter, it only adds one more option for the participants.
As to the psychology of it all, I wonder if your point may have some profound significance worthy of more thought.
- NonE