Community property

In Greek philosophy (Plato, Aristote), the concept of community property indicates the general interest in sight of which controlling direct the company.

In economy, one indicates by community properties (in English " Commons") material or immaterial objects belonging to nobody, and for this reason pertaining to all. Some prefer speech of community properties universels to stress that these goods extend to all the Humanité.

Philosophical community property

“Socrate: . .j' have a marvellous quality, which saves me, it that I is reddened not to learn, I get information, I question and I know much liking to those which answer me, and never my recognition made fault with none of them. ”

What does one understand T by philosophical community properties?

Philosopher comes from the Greek philosophos, “friend of wisdom”. Wisdom and knowledge have the same Latin root: sapere, sapire: “to have savor, taste” and “to have understanding”. In Greek philosophy, the two sources complementary to wisdom are the conscience of its own talents and the recognition of its infinite ignorance.

The following maxims reflect this philosophy founder:

“Know yourself and you will know the universe and the Gods”

“I know only one thing, it is that I do not know anything”. “If you do not have anything in you, you will be less heavy for those which will attend you, and softer, since you will have wisdom not to believe what you do not know. ”

Socrat and Plato opposed thus to the sophists who did not have to receive lessons of anybody but gave some to all.

The philosophical community properties are means accessible to all making it possible each one to increase its own knowledge and to recognize the limits of them.

One distinguishes four types of philosophical community properties:

1. Intellectual Instruments allowing each one to clarify its interests and its knowledge (efficient causality)

2. Supports of writing and software allowing the formalization and the communication of knowledge (material causality)

3. Contracts allowing to recognize software designers or carriers of knowledge (final causality)

4. Testimonys of knowledge, knowledge or competences (formal causality)

Intellectual Instruments allowing to clarify knowledge (efficient causality)

The ancestral theories of knowledge propose intellectual instruments useful to each one to clarify its knowledge. These instruments are composed of logical principles, support with a methodical dash for tending towards a reliable knowledge.

These logical principles appear the first time in a simultaneous way in Timée. Plato exposes to it the four kinds of principles applied by the demiurge to create the world: intellect, unlimited, limiting and being. In Philèbe, Plato includes these principles to conceive the Dialectique, art to work out stable speeches and inébranlables, art which it uses in the majority of his dialogs. These principles support a questioning, composing a framework and a screen, a help with the childbirth of knowledge, an art of weaving called Maïeutique.

Aristote enriches these four principles and works out a powerful ultra intellectual tool: four causalities. One clearly cannot and distinctly to know a thing or a problem without questioning it with these causalities. Four causalities of Aristote are efficient causality (energy), final causality (the goal), material causality (the means) and formal causality (the result). Aristote supplements this tool of the ten categories: substance, quantity, quality, the relation, the place, time, the position, possession, the action and passion. Four causalities make it possible to distinguish a thing or a problem from another, and the ten categories, to describe it without confusion nor mutilation. The concepts of Aristote support a universal system of classification which ensures the agreement of the logical order and the physical order. The things are not separated from the ideas. It there a continuity between modes of perception of the things and their modes of representation; between production of the things and generation of the ideas, between reality and virtual.

The ultra rationality of the metaphysics of Aristote was perpetuated by the theory of the knowledge of Spinoza. For him, an affection is simultaneously thing and idea. An affection is the result of the meeting of a body with another body. An affection is also an idea which affirms a force to exist larger or less than before. A desire can be translated into beneficial action, and an affection can increase our power to act, if one forges clear and distinct ideas of them. Spinoza affirms the existence of common intellectual instruments, together organized principles, component of the remedies to treat our affections in order to suffer from it the least possible. Thanks to these tools, the man can forge a vision clear and distinct from his affections and desires, and thus tend towards his own perfection, i.e. to persevere in his being.

Kant played a fundamental role to liquidate the metaphysics of Aristote and its prolongations, by in particular removing the categories of position and passion of the conditions of a reliable knowledge. The Kantian theory tries to separate the ideas from the concrete things and justifies this epistemological rupture by a belief in a single god completely independent of the sensitive world. Its theory of science excludes the implication from the bodies and the desires of the field of true knowledge, and still haunts some of our institutions. For the ancestral theories of knowledge were substituted a theory of the science, for which only the scientific statements are worth. This theory confiscated common intellectual instruments helping each one to raise its experiments with the problems and to reveal its knowledge with the natural light thus, i.e. clearly and distinctly.

1.1.1. Example of a intellectual instrument of analysis of his report/ratio to the others - bound for decision makers and managers

These pages constitute the proposal of a intellectual instrument of autoevaluation of relational competences, bound for managers or of organizers of networks. A user of this instrument can be confined of a clear knowledge of his relations to the others, thanks to a complete questioning on his manner of taking seat in social spaces surrounding it. This instrument allows the user a reflection and self-analysis in its way of giving an opinion as for the others and thus of taking part in the emergence of spaces or social bodies. This instrument helps to make decisions of reinforcement or rebalancings of its practices usual of management or coordination.

This one constitutes a reliable means to describe clearly and distinctly its way of interacting with the others to collaborate and decide. Thanks to this knowledge, the user will be able to possibly choose a reorientation or a reinforcement of his current mode of production of social spaces.

This intellectual instrument include/understand a complete questioning on its relation with the others as well as reference marks to answer each question. With each question are indeed associated two concepts, two polarities, locating two modes to be opposite.

The questioning is composed of the four following questions:

Question 1. : Energy/the driving force of the standpoint (efficient causality):

When I give an order or an opinion, Which is the nature of my standpoint as for others? Position closes /position generous

Question 2. : The finality of the relation? (final causality):

When I give an order or an opinion, Which is the goal of the relation? To give/receive

Question 3. : Environment of the relation (material causality):

When I give an order or an opinion, Which is the climate of the relation? Climate of trust/climate of mistrust

Question 4. : The result of the standpoint (formal causality):

When I give an order or an opinion, Of which kind is the space which emerges from the relation? Open space/partitioned space

Each couple of concepts makes it possible to reflect and moderate an answer. For example, “position closes” and “generous position” characterize two opposite poles as delimiting a field of reflection the question of the nature of its standpoint.

The exclusive and continuous reference to the one of the two poles characterizes a violent behavior, towards oneself or the others.

1. Dimension Energy: nature of the movement towards the other: firmness/generosity

The first question is that of the origin of the movement, i.e. the driving force, the energy, which impels a standpoint as for the other.

Question: When I give an order or an opinion, Which is the nature of my standpoint? Rather “firm position” or “generous position”? Which proportioning enters both?

With firmness, I impose my position in space. I allow myself to occupy one moment a place that another could have taken.

With generosity, I authorize another to intervene in common space, in a place which I could have taken.

The purpose of firmness is the utility of oneself only. The purpose of generosity is the utility too of others.

The extreme of firmness is covetousness. The extreme of generosity is renouncement/abnegation.

The indifference is an attribute common to these two extremes.

2. Dimension finality of the relation to others: to give/receive

The second question relates to the finality of the action. The finality is what directs the movement.

Question: When I give an order or an opinion, which is the finality of my standpoint as for others?

Is the finality rather to give or receive? Which proportioning enters both.

While giving, one saves time with another.

While receiving, one saves time thanks to another.

The extreme of giving is “sacrifice”. The extreme of receiving is “to misuse”.

A happy medium between giving and receiving: to divide, dialog, reciprocal exchange.

3. Dimension relational environment: climate of the relation: confidence/mistrust

The material cause is the condition of the action, of the movement. Without matter, an energy cannot be registered. Concerning a virtual space of relation, the matter is the climate which invites or not with the action.

Question: Which is the climate of the relation?

Rather a climate of trust or a climate of mistrust?

In a state of confidence, I take the other for one to combine possible.

In a state of mistrust, I take the other for a possible attacker.

Confidence is based respect, whereas mistrust, of a fear of the other.

The extreme of confidence is naivety (or innocence?). The extreme of mistrust is paranoia. A happy medium between confidence and mistrust is prudence.

4. Dimension Spaces/body: nature of generated space: opened/partitioned

A form is the result of actions on a matter. For example, the carved form is born from the gestures of the craftsman on the stone. Relations between people in a certain climate is born also a form, a common space.

A social space spontaneous emerges from the relations and does not precede it. For example, when two people speak each other, it generates a space of word, or when two people dance, a space of dance, a collective body.

Question: Of which kind is the space which emerges from the relation?

Is space rather opened or partitioned? An open space is likely to change form or configuration when a novel member intervenes or an existing member changes position.

A partitioned space does not make it possible to a new member to take part and does not change configuration when an existing member does not change a posture.

The extreme of open space is crowd. The extreme of closed space is the clan.

A happy medium between opened and partitioned is “network by co-optation”.

Conclusions:

Applications to develop this instrument are for example:

a help with self-analysis of his report/ratio to the family unit at the time of childhood

At the time of did my childhood, how my father or my mother tend to accompany me within family unit? (Analysis of the effects of a maternal over-protection or abandonment by his/her father for example.)

The user of this instrument to answer these questions is stronger to clarify certain sources of current relational problems and thus to cure it.

a help with self-analysis of his report/ratio to the couple

In my couple, how do I tend to intervene in common space? (Analysis of a relation of couple unbalanced, in term of disproportion between female and male or crystallization of posture dominating/dominated,…).

The user of this instrument will be ready to analyze the possible inscriptions of practices of report/ratio dominating/dominated and to exceed certain oppositions.

a help with self-analysis of his report/ratio to work

In my professional life, how do I tend to intervene in the workspace? (Analysis of the relations of collaboration, crystallization of posture dominating/dominated,…). The user of this instrument will be ready to include/understand the shared interest work in network.

Software of inscription and division of information or knowledge (material causality)

August 1st

Contracts allowing to recognize software designers or carriers of knowledge (final causality)

August 1st

Testimonys of knowledge, knowledge or competences (formal causality)

August 1st

Community property with the economic direction

List community properties

In practice, there exist divergences of opinions on the list of the goods to be classified like community properties.

The Water, the Air, the diversity of the alive species are in general regarded as community properties.

It is often the case for the education, the Santé, the Environnement, even the energy (but there arises the difficulty to avoid the wasting).

The Software S, the Drug S, the Gene S, the agricultural seeds are the subject of a virulent fight between those which would like to make of them community properties Universel S and those which try to adapt them in particular through the extension of the field of the Brevet S (Software patents, patents on alive the…).

Community property and genome

2 quotations of John Sulston, Nobel Prize of medicine 2002 bring a lighting on the relation between community property and Génome:

But the sequence of the genome is a discovery, not an invention. Like a mountain or a torrent, it is a natural object which existed already, not before us, certainly, but before we realize of his presence. For me, the Earth is a community property, and even if we set up barriers there, it is preferable that it does not belong to anybody. If an area takes importance because its landscape is particularly beautiful or because it shelters rare species, then yes, it should be protected as a good commun.

Our Western companies cross one period of intensification of the belief in the private property, with the detriment of the public property. However, all shows our incapacity to make judicious group decisions by basing us on commercial competition. The lure of gain thus almost made a success of with privatiser the genome, our code DNA common and this threat always weighs. In this fight, the tenacity of the public project made sequence of the human genome the base of a biological information system open and free, which will make it possible to increase our knowledge at an incomparable speed. It is the inheritance, inalienable there, of the humanité.

Community property and economy

The community properties were the subject of studies on behalf of the economists. One can quote in particular the economist Carl Menger, founder of the Austrian school of economy, whose thought was inspired by the ethical in Nicomaque of Aristote, by the school of Salamanque (16th century), and by traditional French.

Carl Menger considered the management of the community properties which are the Eau, the Air,…

Random links: