Timothy Wilken
The creation of a new system for the exchange of goods and services is an enormous challenge. The design of the Gift Tensegrity must therefore be a work in progress. As I present ideas of how it might work, my readers are letting me know when they think I am missing some of their concerns. This is the very essence of co-Laboration—Working together. If you have opinions, comments, or questions, please write me.
I have had an interesting two days. Good interaction on various lists with lots of comments and so I am learning a great deal while helping others understand my model.
One thing I have realized is that your status within the Gift Tensegrity (GT) determines your priority in receiving help. Those individuals that give the most to the GT membership gain status that insures them higher ranking in terms of priority to get the resources of the GT.
In the *fair market* all exchange is this for that, tit for tat. Those
who accumulate (KEEP)the most stuff, are the richest. They get the royal treatment by society because they are rich and can spend their wealth with the sellers of services and goods.
In the *gift tensegrity* highest status goes to those who GIFT the most help. There is no need for accumulation of property, all such
accumulation is just dead wealth. Instead the goal is to put all that
wealth in motion serving the needs of the whole. Your wealth comes from the TRUST you earn with your gifting. When those with high priority need things, the GT takes care of them first. It makes sense to support and reward those who most benefit the members of the GT. What do you think?
Arthur Noll responds: “I am still dubious. We have no way of knowing in this system, what someone has received from the market economy, and whether their gifting is really significant compared to that. Someone very rich in the market economy can give a lot, gain a lot of status on the gifting network, and get priority to receive, when they really don’t need it. Someone poor in the market economy may have very little to give, ends up with poor status to receive, and yet is the one who really needs more help.”
Good point. I think we need to be able to sort the Giftee’s needs not only by priority, but by urgency. And, maybe there should be categories of needs. Basic needs like food, clothing, shelter, education, and medical care might well have a higher priority as well.
But my point is a little different. People in our present *fair market* exchange system accumulate wealth (KEEP). That wealth benefits noone. People in the *Gift Tensegrity* exchange system get NO status from KEEPing wealth. Their status comes from GIFTing wealth. This instantly makes it available to help others. Instead of accumulating wealth, the gift tensegriteer accumulates TRUST and RESPECT. His/her security is in the RELATIONSHIPS with those others he/she has helped.
In another discussion yesterday, I wrote: The GT will value those members who give more over those members that give less. It will reward those members that give more with more gifts than those that give less.
Chris Lucas writes: Will this not prove to be another escalation procedure that will make the poor poorer and the rich richer? After all if I’m rich (from whatever source) I can afford to give more, thus will receive more on average, thus due to synergy my quality of life will get even better. If I’m poor, I have nothing to spare, thus I receive nothing and never improve my life (except from charitable gifts – but they surely are given on the basis of no return expected, so GT doesn’t apply). The dynamic forces driving the system seem to point to a divisive outcome. 😉
In part I refer you to my answer to Arthur, that we need to be able to sort the Giftee’s needs not only by priority, but by urgency. And, maybe there should be categories of needs with basic needs having a higher priority. However, that said the GT will send the message loud and strong that success in a synergic world results from helping others. As another reader James North writes in response to Chris’s comment:
You (Chris) seem to be thinking of “gifts” as just “things” and “poor” as in “helpless” or completely “worthless”. Consider that the “wealth” of the “Information Age” or “Knowledge Era” is perhaps an almost immeasurable “amount” more of intangible “stuff”, such as time listening, communication feedback, emotional support, role modelling, and other stuff that “poor people” are already quite capable of abundantly providing.
My initial impression of most of the Gift Tensegrity idea was that it would be quite inclusive, rather than divisive. I think it’s gonna take quite a leap outside of the current “paradigm/mental box” into a whole new way of thinking to even begin to grasp the New Civilization of which the GT is a “part”.
Again I want to thank all those who are reading and thinking about the Gift Tensegrity. It is not a finished model. If you would like participate in its design, please join us.
Timothy Wilken