These green dots represent value created internally. This may mean the building of some prototype, computer or physical, producing some designs or some music, or growing or cooking food, or providing some tools or advice. It is all about experience. This is not about money or things. It is about experience and what people offer in terms of resources.
The evaluations given above are not a substitute currency. They are subjectively enumerated values. This replaces the need for money. They are a record of how valuable people see their engagement with others. There is no absolute evaluation, no “objective” or authorative enumeration anything close to money.
The maths based on this might be interesting, the distribution pattern of a person’s evaluation over time, the mean and so on. It might be possible to see who is producing most value, in the eyes of others. It might even be possible to apply the value algorithm similar to google page rank. Consider the initial starting position:
(where V is the value of any person i at time 0, with N the total number of people)
And the iterative equation which tends to a relative value of any person to any other person in the entity:
(where V is the value of any person i, d is the “damping factor”, N the total number of people, M is the set of people who evaluate person i, the value of pj at time t)
Such an equation might highlight particularly “valuable people”. It might also be used to root out those individuals or cliques who are gaming the system, producing “fake value”, who are in it purely to take advantage of the doubling protocol at the boundary entry.
This kind of equation is something that will be useful for sure, and will evolve over time, as the entity evolves, just as google’s page rank algorithm has. Nevertheless, it is essential to emphasise that the design of the entity has its own values (mine I guess;), and that is for equality. These are merely number games. What happens in the real world is what matters. Whatever equations we produce that play with subjective value is gameable only in the sense that we use the equation for us to highlight those people whose work, effort, insight, we actually value. It is hoped that gaming induces a positive value.
Play around with this simple mock-up of a relative value system on gdocs. Barny ends up making more than his equal share because of the relative values of everyone else.
Which is why so much effort is being made to design the outer boundary as self-enclosed as possible. If the outer boundary that constitutes scalable invitation, MTTP, has its own sustainable “income”, it means that everyone within the entity has at least the money they brought covered, and if the entity is healthy, then they are guaranteed to double the money they brought. At whatever level of scale, this entry guarantee is a healthy living, individually, in current 2012 prices. It gives those within the entity the best environment for them to produce value, simple, without the need to make it commercially viable, and thus compromising their ideals and ethics and design to “fit” the current organisational situation, the mess of bureaucracy and money-making directives.
[See also this description.]
Having met Alan Raynor through Leon (who wrote this post) on an email engagement only a few days ago, and getting a fortuitous recommendation from John Wood of Metadesign to learn about Alan’s Inclusionality theories, Alan kindly shared his ideas on relativity which, as far as I can tell, is an attempt to include consciousness in the frame of reference.
an aside on alan’s article on “place-time”
As I write this, I have got as far as reading Newton’s famous equation, which Alan uses as a natural culmination of Parmenides’s discrete world view:
F = ma
This time when I came across it, my mind simply translated this to terms of money rates as defined by mttp. That is, acceleration, rate of change of distance over a duration, as rate of change of money over a duration, for example, £100-day per week. Think of a bundle of people who are engaged with these different rates of moneyflow, multiply them by the number of people, and you get some notion of the force of a social movement. A relatively simple translation we might be able to mathematise were we to be conducting such experiments.
(Why movement? Because my mind has just got off the back of engaging Indy with respect to Jeremy’s work with Purpose.com, who happens to be co-founder of avaaz. This video is a rather good example of the level of self-disclosure required for our new global “leaders”.)
Of course, the math of real cases is more complex than F=ma, and so is one where eg 50 people were working at different rates. F, in this case, would still give some idea of the “force” or “momentuum” of the movement. So far, the momentuum for ecological economics is around £10-hour per week, and it ends in a season. That’s barely a pulse. We were almost close to £100-day per week for a season, which starts to become reasonable, and ideally, and healthy, when it is five £100-day’s per week — for one individual.
And this is to talk about money. If we shift to subjective enumeration, where people are giving values for each other’s contributions, what kind of calculations can we derive regarding the “force” or “health” of a movement? Will increases and decreases of subjective enumeration derive patterns that we can study with standard mathematical tools? Will new laws emerge that capture how realistic a movement (or a project) is, the required “energy” to manifest results? Undoubtedly, in my mind.
(John, as you can see from his metadesign article based on our event, has been considering the required parameters for synergy to occur, but I feel he is jumping the gun slightly. I need to have more obvious palpable results, like the results that Jeremy has produced. Or, more like action cycles that derive some numbers in terms of moneyflow and subjective enumeration. That is, I would rather base analysis on what works, John having conducted many more social experiments with adults than myself. Nevertheless, may I make my customary call to ensure we have moneyflow while we examine these equations, rather than attempt to derive them sui generis.)
concluding alan’s article
I have now finished reading the article, and it ends with with a rather loud statement:
Space is an intangible presence, with qualities vital to the very possibility of cosmic evolution. SPACE HAS
INFLUENCE, which INDUCES ENERGETIC FORM INTO CIRCULATORY FLOW.
I am looking forward to reading Alan’s rather longer paper written with others, where I hope there are attempts to mathematise his thinking. I expect to find some material which relates to what I have dubbed XQ, observations on how math needs to change to capture the kind of thinking he is demonstrating.
And just in case anyone reading this thinks this is all pie-in-the-sky thinking, Alan has conducted courses at Bath University where the effects on his students have been quite remarkable; here’s a video of some “results”. That is, his engagement with real people is the proof of his thinking, much like my experience with kids has influenced my thinking. It is grounded in inter-subjective reality.
real world application?
The application of this thinking may prove to be substantial in terms of global movements, ala Jeremy’s Avaaz organisation, but I am personally interested in getting proof of process not only in classes (something we have achieved already), but in business. I am specifically interested in getting proof at the bleeding edge of business, in sales, marketing and advertising. I have met with some remarkable people, like Ken Dixon from Newhaven Agency, and if we get proof there, not only will we unlock a source of moneyflow from companies, we will provide companies with a new business methodology which will greatly accelerate all the good work being conducted by theorists, educationalists, entrepreneurs, environmentalists, and everyone attempting to avert the very real ecological disaster we are facing.
If I had a wish in my life, right now I’d use it. I wish that all the players mentioned in this post aligned sufficiently strongly to be able to… if we were mountain climbing, it would be putting in the effort to reach the next camp, higher than any of us have so far been. A stable point which may enable others to reach without too much difficulty. A vantage point that allows a clearer view of the terrain around, the socio-economic and historical-political position we are in. And a point from which we may progress onwards. It is as if this point is the first above the cloud-line. What might this mean in the real world? An algorithm? An operational model which enables a group of people to achieve something remarkable, the first manifestation of the “confluence model”? I do not know. This is what my wish might be.
A few observations which seem to evolve from the money-time-trust-protocol quite naturally: Time Trust, demurrage, the “problem” when two givers meet, and sourcing the origins of giving.
Of course we should not be surprised that someone came up with Time Banks. In fact it was a chap called Dr Edgar Cahn during the 1980’s.
Ecological economics began with the financial handshake that turned out to be called mttp — money-time-trust-protocol, and over the months, awareness reveals some more qualities of its fractal structure. We have already mentioned moneyflow and the powerlaw as money can be decelerated, eg I am looking for about five £100-days per week to be able to make a living. Well, with due consideration, we may also wish to estimate the period of time such a contract may exist, eg for a season. That is, we have a number tagged with three periods of time. Eg, five people contract me for £100-day per week for the duration of a season.
A previous thought has been credits which developed further on ideas I had with Tav when I first engaged the Espian lot back in summer 2007. Back then, I influenced Tav to shift from thinking of personal economic units, that is a currency relative to every individual, to subjective weighting, so that money was distributed through the ratio of values each and every individual allocates. The development in terms of credits was to map it in terms of two dimensions, open-closed and black-red. The safest credit to receive was black-closed, which effectively acts like money: it is money that is guaranteed because the person is in the black and the total allocation of credits is closed so that whatever value one gets is the value one gets.
Tav didn’t see the point in a system that had normal money in it. Now that we have come up with ecological economics, it is a useful way to track how one behaves with one’s credit allocation through life, perhaps promising a lot of open-red credits say, and then phasing into giving out black-closed credits for important things. And more importantly, it allows us to track our collective behaviour, giving us a chance to shift from a money-production culture to a value-creation one — all with the self-similar social contract of mttp. In fact, mttp might be renamed as mutual-time-trust-protocol, and the thing that is formed a Time Trust. This may be the name of the book I am writing about ecological economics.
demurrage, or rusty money
And in case this is too much, too far, one potential point of validation is to recognise 1) the limits of current understanding and 2) demurrage or rusty money is built into mttp.
In relation to the first, I am perpetually making sense of the jumps I have made. It is gratifying to note how credits has become useful after making that leap nearly two years ago (in this dunno book when I started to live in Madeira). I still have no idea about how to square closed credits with third order periods of velocity of money, but I am sure it is doable. This is also an invitation for anyone to contribute to this space. The first financial bods to seriously consider ecosquared and mttp, will be able to bring to light many aspects which will not only make them famous, but will provide us with further understanding and a stable evolution of the eco^2 entity. That is, everyone is welcome.
In relation to the second, it is gratifying to note how rusty money appears in this formulation. We have not had to graft it on, like a scaffolding of categories, but rather it evolves from the same mttp social contract. Namely, when I invite someone for a day, my £100 is fixed and does not change. Even should the entity die that week, they will receive the £100. Because it is fixed, it is useless. It is not reinvested by a bank, and does not pay interest. This may not appear significant at first, but if you consider an invitation for £10m which is for a century, that £100m will not be worth much in a century’s time. That is, it “devalues” — at least in traditional economic terms. That is, it rusts, because of inflation, primarily.
A remarkable observation, which naturally evolves from mttp.
the four directions of mttp
Examining the abstraction of money as a number set to periods of time (duration, rate and period eg £100-day per week over a season), we can re-examine the initial mttp contract. Namely, a decision is made before the period of time which way the money goes. In fact there are three possible contracts when money meets equally as given by the following truth table:
One of the options is your classic money contract: both people want to take, and so they negotiate in the form of a competition. This can take the form of a contest of skill to be determined throughout the period, a random game like throwing a coin, or through some more complex inter-subjective manner which amounts for what we call “business”. Two of the options provide the classic mttp of ecological economics: the person who invites agrees to give the person who is invited the money. Thus, there is confluence in that the giver and the taker align in the vector direction of money.
What has not been accounted for so far in eco^2 thinking is if both people wish to give. This can not be resolved in the manner of a competition, at least not in the same way two takers compete. It is gratifying to note that the money that is derived by two givers could become fluid and pay for those individuals who are taking. That is, it constitutes the second major means by which money flows into the entity; the first was invitation via mttp, the other is attraction. Depending on the decision gate state, this money is either distributed to everyone participating as dmp or it is fed directly into honouring the mttp contracts of individuals coming to the end of their contracts and who are taking as they leave.
sourcing the origins of giving
And further, it is interesting to note that numbers used in sea provide at least two indicators of how we behave:
- the values given to us total up to the total money that comes when there is a surplus payout via dmp
- the total values any one of us gives out, provides us with the style and quality of the way we value (cf credits above) as we grow older
That is, we can sum up the totals of points that are given to tell us something about how valueable we are perceived by others, the object of the vector; and we can also see how the value of a person in their allocation, the origin of the vector.
So, when one meets another person and one invites them to eco^2 and they also decide to give, this act of generosity of giving their money for other people who they may not even know, should be valued. That is, one can look back at the historical giving of a person and see the values they set out with in terms of their pattern of subjective enumeration coupled with the way they dealt with their first eco^2 invitation.
I can not discern it linguistically here and now, but there is a means by which the simple math of subjective enumeration can bring to the fore those individuals who are not only providing greatest value to others, but also those whose eye for value is appreciated. And in terms of social engagement, this may be appreciated as wisdom.
The reaason why I can not discern this clearly is because when I was trying to invent a numerical game for adolescents so that it was the giver who ended up being respected, not those who received, my mind could not do it. I believe it is in the math of the application of number to subjective evaluation. Money can be likened to the number that is given to another person, when I say that a conversation with John was worth 7 out of 10 say. I “gave” him 7. But I have also given 7. What is the maths of the giver?
The social contract instigated by mttp is quite phenomenal. That one can use mttp to replicate employment and investment and direct action, is quite something, and now to recognise the powerlaw and the logic of giving, I am humbled. I look forward to hearing how others explore this as they experience it. I did not misname it when I intuited mttp to be a fractal social contract.