Mark Measday wrote:
Did you get enough collaborators?
Re PROPOSED FUTURES PROJECT: (Richard Mochelle)
> > SEEKING COLLABORATORS TO GATHER AND DEVELOP ALTERNATIVE IDEA
> > PACKAGES FOR USE IN FUTURES WORKSHOPS. SPECIFICALLY ON ECONOMIC
> > POSSIBILITIES FLOWING FROM A REJECTION OF THE WORD 'WORK'.
Sadly, only a few nibbles of interest. A despairing prospect for the
future. But, hope springs eternal. Maybe it's possible to crank up a
bit of synergy between the people who favourably responded
Tor Forde responded: (snip)
>This is the task: to build a world where nobody is locked out from the circuits.
If Tor could commit to this task and think about the essential norms
and institutions which would constitute such a world, a practical model
which could be implemented by a network/movement of Theobald-minded of
enthusiasts, this would be a wonderful contribution from Tor. Could he
rise to the occasion? I think he could.
Melanie Milanich responded:
>Bravo Richard, We need to expand our thinking beyond this fraud called "work";
>wage labour, and all its associated baggage; it is not instinctive or
>endemic to our species any more than to birds of the skies or the bees of the fields.
I'd love to see Melanie respond to this need and do some exploratory
thinking about a practical model to add to our options.
Thomas Lunde wrote (snip):
>I think you are right, that we have been hijacked by language and certain
>improper usages have become so commonplace that we cannot readily recognize
>the distortions they introduce into our thinking processes
>...if there is interest, I can suggest books and we can engage in a List dialog on
>>how to remove some of the deletions, distortions and generalizations that occur in
>converting reality into language.
It seems that there hasn't been much interest. But that shouldn't
prevent Thomas from solo developing for presentation a set of new
linguistic terms by which we can construct alternative social models.
Some ground-breaking contributions on this front are certainly needed.
Go for it Thomas.
Robert Needham wrote: (snip)
> Your concerns are of interest to me, and I would be willing to
> participate in your group.
I suspect that my suggestion that the word 'work' be enthusiastically
abandoned received an unfavourable reaction from Robert. I've since
written to him to engage in further dialogue and received no reply.
Mike Hollinshead wrote:
>I am therefore sympathetic to what Richard Mochelle has proposed. We need
>new words for new concepts or we will not break free of the old ideas.
>...I suggest we begin with the hyphenation exercise, to gain a clearer idea of
>the direction in which we ought to be heading, and conclude with coining
>some new words.
The few hybrid word-distinctions (without the hyphen) which I proposed
(6/6/98) as a starting point, while functional, clearly don't have the
kind of musical ring needed to get everyone up and dancing. So what are
we doing? We're all sitting around the edges of the dance hall, waiting
for someone to pick up the flute and produce the magic sounds.
In the (new) beginning was the word, and the word was .... da, da!!!
My not-so-musical proposal involves a set of key distinctions connoted
by a new set of hybrid terms using familiar prefixes and the familiar
generic term 'action'. On 6/6/98, I introduced a couple of terms -
'saction' and 'consaction'. One may not like the words offered, but the
distinctions are important.
To assist the word-sound inventors, here is a more extensive list of
distinctions in need of new words. Until better words are proposed,
perhaps we can begin to crank up our act with the unmusical 'default'
words here proposed.
PLERK - (play-work) - or more seriously, 'productive-leisure'. An
activity or state of mind in which there is no distinction between
work/non-work. In the beginning God plerked. In truth, She never did a
day's work in Her life. Plerk, (not my invention) has been around for a
couple of decades. A great word for the young at heart. We need to
develop a model for a plerker economy.
SACTION, SACTIVE, SACTIVITY: (sac, from sacrifice) = any activity which
an actor is not willing to undertake or persist with, unless coerced,
morally persusaded or compensated; any activity undertaken by an actor
beyond their own (variable) sacrificial threshold. The term is actor
specific, time specific and situation specific. No activity (not even
eg, dish-washing, garbage disposal) is intrinsically sactive. Sactivity
is unrelated to any quality which may be associated with activities -
eg, hard, dirty, dangerous, tedious, etc. An activity regarded by one
actor as 'sactive', may not be regarded as so by another. For every
actor and activity a (time and situation) threshold will inevitably be
reached, when that activity is regarded by the actor as sactive.
(John Galbraith would thank us immensely if we could develop a model of
a minimally-sactive economy. It would clearly resemble a plerk-based
economy)
CONSACTION = saction performed only on condition or promise of future
compensation or reward, where the value of the compensation pursued is
assumed (non-deceptively?)to be equivalent to the measure of sacrifice.
(Consaction is the basis of the familiar market economic model.)
PRIACTION, PRIACTIVE, PRIACT, etc. PRIACTION = any non-sactive,
self-organising action committed to a program, project or task chosen by
the actor in response to self-perceived global priority needs and
challenges, without exacting preconditions, coercions or expectation of
equivalent reward.
There are many ways to arbitrarily divide all of human activity into
two. Work/non-work is one way. Another way is to divide it into
activities which are responsive to global priority need, and those which
have no priority. There is currently no word in the English language
to connote this crucial distinction. Note: the work/non-work
distinction has no relation to ethical priority. (To my mind, an ethics
and economics of priactivism appears to offer the most promising,
economically secure direction forward for the world's people)
PRISACTION = PRIACTION under sactive conditions.
CONPRISACTION = PRISACTION performed on market conditions.
We would have little trouble reaching consensus that these last two
word-distinction provide unsavoury moral-linguistic grounds for economic
modelling.
_______________________________________________________________
Thanks Mark for prodding me. It's a pathetic struggle to lift humanity
out of its ancient semantic bog. How about throwing me a good strong
line.
Richard Mochelle
