intro’d to Stefan via Kevin‘s share here:
Original Tweet: https://twitter.com/KevinCarson1/status/1004430451463901184
Why do without money? The medium of money combines three functions: payment, value, and storage.
This economy would do without money, abolish the storage of value and assets, and replace the functions of value and payment with the algorithmically supported distribution of things and activities.
We need to begin with questions of distribution and allocation and not with markets and their monetary orientation. .t
rather.. we need to begin w questions of curiosity.. otherwise.. we’re distributing and allocating things people don’t really need/want (because they’re not themselves)
Transactions form the foundation of every economy. The simplest of all transactions is a gift. One person (A) gives something (x) to another person (B)—noted as a *tuple (A, B, x). The term “person” here refers to any kind of active agent, not just human beings, but also robots, programs, machines, or other living beings.
*tuple as killer ..ie: of math and men
Measuring and noting gifts in numeric form began not with money, but with systems of inscription that were usually linked to temples. All the stories of money that suggest the economy began with exchange are not just historically incorrect; they also refuse to recognize that an economy before money existed, and thus are not suited to conceive of an economy without money today.
3\ media and networks
i.e., using money—forgiving debts went out of fashion.
i see debts as disturbance to undisturbed ecosystem..
Historically speaking, economic relationships did not begin with exchange and certainly not with payment. What came first was *giving, helping, and lending. **Property was unknown. In small village communities, memory was sufficient to keep track, more or less, of who gave what to whom.
*i would say.. sharing.. rather.. common ing.. again.. if you are giving.. it’s like you’re deciding what another wants/needs.. same w helping.. and lending implies you **own something
Recordings of gifts and debts can be found at many excavation sites of ancient civilizations
recording of gift and debts.. as disturbance to undisturbed ecosystem.. go back further..
let’s record curiosities.. in order to connect us.. as self-talk ..in order that we keep on being/becoming us.. but recording/tallying/measuring.. anything else compromises us..
go back further.. deeper
this reads like people doing bi partially.. or common ing partially.. not going to work.. then we’ll say it’s because ie: we have to have money
Money only came later. In a strictly technical sense, money is not a medium but a technique that uses all sorts of media to make notes transportable—and the process is read-only. For the economy, this meant that money was a fundamental innovation, for it *converted the simple transaction of the gift into a symmetrical exchange. If somebody paid to acquire something, there was nothing left over. Nothing needed to be noted. Money saves data.
again *gift as disturbance to undisturbed ecosystem.. we don’t need money.. but we also never needed gift ing.. in fact.. it’s compromised us
But the fact that money condenses data is no longer of interest, since we are able to process enough data.
we didn’t need to condense data.. (of gift transaction).. we need to get back to us.. ie: self-talk as data.. and process that (ie: use it to connect us.. not to measure the transactions)
The most important thing about peer-to-peer currencies is the architecture in the background, the so-called blockchain. This represents the foundation for a decentralized technique of administration by which *transactions can be communicated anonymously and examined by anyone
see .. i think you are doing the same as ie: bitcoin .. in saying you’re not money.. we shouldn’t need transactions communicated/recorded/examined..
At issue is not a fixed, defined path that follows deterministically set media guidelines. Technological progress opens possibilities for future activities, in terms of the ecology of information affordances. As a rule, these are achieved by way of a chaotic process full of contradictions. What drives transformation are not plans or impact assessments but rather the misuse of possibilities, the counterculture, hacking, and taking advantage of mistakes and gaps. This applies to the non-money economy as well. We will not be able to plan it. It will emerge in the niches and obscure corners of various networks and spread from there.
indeed.. no prep.. no train.. fromm spontaneity law.. but that won’t happen (in an undisturbed ecosystem way – which is vital if we intend to truly let go).. unless people are truly free.. ie: the sync is off if any one of us is not ourselves..
“To match” means to classify, assign, or link.
The process of matching serves to integrate all participants and their desires, needs, possibilities, and abilities. It offers to mediate between transactions, to advise participants in their decisions, to accompany negotiations, and to note the results.
this sounds like school.. aka: great whales in sea world
Elements of the same set may be matched with one another—such as in the case of two people connected by a *dating agency, a team of programmers brought together for the development of a project, or trucks or containers coordinated for shipping purposes.
misses the point that: *most of us are not ourselves.. so trying to match not-us to a date that is not-them.. **projects and shipping et al aren’t the deeper issue.. and until we get to the deeper issue.. we’re just doing more/better/faster.. of the wrong things.. ie: shipping things people don’t really want/need.. just like that date
The factors that go into making a match include comparable transactions, the history of transactions in the participants’ profiles, and the participants’ desires, needs, and capacities.
The function is not that of an auctioneer, but of a mediator
what we need more is a listener .. first.. as it could be..
*It might well be the case that the algorithm becomes active before we even think of wanting something particular. Some suggestive apps already do this, by evaluating our desires and predicting them. Whether we want this influence or not is perhaps a hypothetical question.
*that’s how we got to where we are today.. we need to get back to starting each day w ‘what matters to me.. today’.. ie: self-talk as data
Seen from the users’ perspective, every process of matching begins with a desire or a need.
Most steps in a match are basically familiar to us already. We carry them out all the time, looking for something online or offering and selling something of our own.
exactly.. we’re so messed up we think matching is about looking for something online or offering something to someone else.. this won’t work unless it starts with individual cure ios city.. everyday..
The decisive feature is that matching does not operate with money, but organizes distribution directly.
that’s not the deeper problem.. listening and connecting .. is the deeper problem
In a moneyless economy, there is no guarantee that all will be freed of such concerns.
in a true money less econ.. (which i don’t think you’re describing).. such concerns would be irrelevant.. mostly because the starting place wouldn’t be looking at what’s available.. it would be listening to what you’re curious about.. what matters to you.. today..
There will continue to be unfulfilled—and unfulfillable—wishes.
and if we don’t let go enough.. we’re truly missing an opportunity here..
Even in an economy without money, we won’t be able to possess all that is denied us under a regime of money. Only the conditions and procedures will change, fundamentally, and for the better.
Parallel to the flow of money and payment, there is always a *second current of information that controls how paths of production are organized and goods are distributed. Matching without money would dock directly onto this secondary flow of information.
this *secondary flow you describe.. not-us.. disturbance to undisturbed ecosystem.
ie: norton productivity law.. et al
let’s really let go of money/measure.. as it could be..
at beginning of post from p2p:
At the P2P Foundation, we are watching closely any development which points to post-capitalist coordination of economic production, using tools like open and contributive accounting, open and shared logistics verified by holochains, biocapacity accountability using ‘thresholds and allocations’, and other social and technological innovations being pioneered by advanced peer production communities. It is still a very lonely place to be, even though the space is growing exponentially at the margins of society. So it is with particular interest that we will look at this new German-language book, which examines in depth the technological developments around post-monetary coordination. If you know of other developments in this area, do let us know. We keep track of developments here.
less about coordination.. more about setting people free first.. and listening to that..