Currency.

Towards the beginning the root of the term is explored, current , currency, from Latin... and then an assertion is made:

When we speak of currencies, we mean "the tools for catalyzing currents."

This leads me to our first question... is there a normative dimension to a "current"... that is, is there not such thing as too much in a context? With regard to neighborhoods, Jane Jacobs introduces the phrase Cataclysmic Capital. There can be too much of something if it is handled ham handedly. Say that three times fast.

A current may only be a current if the turbulence is within certain parameters... beyond which it may be dangerous.

So, while we'd like to see more flow, do we want to assert that more flow is better, always? I think not. Which is why I used the term normative, for want of something better.

Please expound on this issue.

Imperative.

I'm interested in why this term was chosen. How it is to be understood in the context of the model?

Imperative... as command, as drive...

Interesting that you bring the concept of turbulence into the discussion of flow. In fluid dynamics, that is generally what you want to avoid, and lifting surfaces don't function in that mode, but in dynamic systems analysis, all the interesting things start to happen when you move out of the smooth flow regions. Some theorists have suggested that intelligent systems (neural systems, evolutionary processes and more) track the boundary between smooth and turbulent flow.

If this holds true in the analogy to currencies, we want to arrange the feedback loops to track that boundary between smooth flow and turbulence. I wish I could get to the necessary depth with the math to create tests and analysis to help with an analytic theory and practical proceedures to guide the currency design and later evaluate whether the necessary conditions has occured, and isolate the critical controls.

So, I am predicting that there is both a threshold of too much and too little flow for the system to work properly (healthy/unhealthy flows).

Yes. That's what I'd like to see explored.

BTW, the DVD I've been touting (The Upward Spiral by Paul Krafel) is all about healthy/unhealthy flows. Erosive flows feed back on each other multiplying their erosive effect creating a downward spiral antithetical to life. Nourishing flows feed back on each other recycling the nourishment creating an upward spiral which builds even greater possibilities for life.

He illustrates these principles brilliantly in natural systems. And frames them eloquently as two possible solutions/responses to the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

After watching this DVD, Anne-Marie asked for an example of erosive flows in the economic domain. This is an edited transcript of our chat.

Wal-mart often creates erosive flows in a local economy. When a Wal-mart moves into a small/rural community, flows actually increase. People get hired to do construction and to work in the store where there was formerly a vacant lot. Lots of goods get shipped in from all over the world. Customers can buy more stuff for less money, so they go and spend there.

It starts concentrating the flow, like an erosive gully on a hillside. It begins to erode the surrounding "water table" (local economy). The local hardware store loses business and has to shut down. Then the local IGA grocery store follows. Some of the local clothing stores can't compete and shut down. The money that was previously "soaking in" to nourish the local economy by recirculating again and again starts "running off" to Bentonville, Arkansas and to non-local suppliers and shareholders.

The local supply chains of those stores aren't receiving money any more, because Wal-mart has its own supply chain.So as the local retail establishments and their supply chains dry up, employment decreases. The local economy starts to collapse. Until so many people have lost their employment that there's not enough folks who can afford to shop at Wal-mart anymore. Of course this effect is compounded by all the other national operations (not just Wal-mart, but Home Depot, Barnes & Noble, McDonalds, etc.)

Now that they've depleted the local economy/ecosystem and turned it into a desert, they shut the store down and move on.

The negative feedback spiral had to do with money being scarce. So people buy the cheap stuff that Wal-mart is selling. Which puts no real money back into the local economy, so the money gets even scarcer. So more people try to buy cheaper...round and round till it's essentially gone.

I'm not trying to start a fight about the "evils of big business." My request would be to watch the DVD and see how this fits with Krafel's examples of flow in nature.

Michael & Gerry, I agree. It is not just about increasing flow. Our real challenge is to design the circuits of flow to nourish life. That is our power and responsibility - to be creators rather than destroyers of life.

When I read "the tools for catalyzing currents" I assume that actually means "the tools for catalyzing currents where we see them as missing."

From my perspective, its about being intentional about currents. In other words, it may be about increasing flow, or decreasing it or shifting it to a different course, or creating new flows, or stopping old ones. It starts with being aware of them--of all of them.

The Dvd that Arthur talks about, the Upward Spiral, does a very good job of making this visable, concrete.

I don't have a DVD player, so if Ted gets a copy, I'll have to invite myself over for a viewing.

I'm down with the intentional concept here. We can measure flows even without the currencies, but it is more challenging, but the thing you can't do is change economic incentives. As long as the economic system rewards erosive flows such as the type illustrated above, we have an major uphill battle.

As far as whether the flows are missing and created new or existing and needing to be enhanced, I would say both. You probably want to start with flows that are already there and try to enhance them. As we know from other discussions we have to be very careful that we don't harm important flows by monetizing what isn't monetary (day care pick up time for example). An example might be the favors that neighbors do for each other, and it might enable a wider circle of sharing because you have a better expectation of reciprocity in the larger network with the currency system added.

Arthur,

Are you familiar with the Hindu belief of Kali Yuga? When you speak of nourishing the earth rather than destroying, it brings this idea to mind. The Hindu believe that this era in history is a time when the goddess Kali destroys and then rebuilds. The Hindu dieties are all in trinities, if I recall correctly, and so it's really another aspect of Kali who rebuilds. I like the thought that old systems are being torn down and replaced with more nourishing systems.

I'm familiar with Kali... but now just looked up the Yugas. Interesting. I'd like to believe we're moving toward the rebuilding... and I have a whole theory about it in a more western symbol set.

We have both destruction and rebuilding going on, from my vantage point.

I believe we are moving towards rebuilding, too, but we need to be aware of how fragile everything is. Fragile yet simultaneously resilient.

Please tell me about your theory.

We have ways to make you talk.

Why do I have the funny feeling that below the surface is a conversation about semiotics that's dying to be had?

symbiotics? semiotics?

Edited. Chagrined, too. Semiotics.

I'm thinking symbiosis among elements of the system, or aligning elements with the flows - is the goal of identifying and measuring the flows.

Arthur, can you save a copy of the dvd and put my name on it for Chicago?

Linda, I volunteer to bring my copy along with a laptop that plays DVDs. :-) We can watch it there! Not that you don't want a copy, but that it would be great to watch it together.

I'll also bring a stack to Chicago. I've set aside one just for you Linda. :)

Stack up the Stock so it can Flow.

Michael Maranda said:

Imperative.

I'm interested in why this term was chosen. How it is to be understood in the context of the model?

Imperative... as command, as drive...

I just wanted to bring this forward :)

Oh yeah. Thanks for the reminder, Michael.

It's because I'm trying to reference the underlying motivation that drives people in these domains. Does it evoke that sense? Got a suggestion for a better term?

No, not yet, just trying to process/parse.

What first comes to mind are phrases like:

The Categorical Imperative.

a moral imperative is also a fairly common phrasing.

In the sense of drive, we have motivation by values or by instinct, which are not the same.

This leads us to some questions in Philosophy too, and perhaps others here will care to parse the meaning.

Teleology somehow fits into this, as well.

I just watched The Upward Spiral DVD. I think we ought to have at least one more viewing in Chicago before the conference. Gerry, Michael and Debbie, when do you want to do it. This is freaking awesome!

I'd love to. I tried to watch my copy at a friend's house but it wouldn't read. Maybe his playing doesn't support enough formats or something.