The single biggest achievement without external support is the results of thought. Its not a small achievement, but it's not large either. Some thoughts that wished to become actions must interact with one's own environment. You cannot communicate if nobody listens to you. You cannot move if nothing sustains to you. You can't do anything without counting on someone.
Once the interacting becomes external, you can adopt of one two basic strategies: to compete or to cooperate.
As an example, you don't want to beat an opponent, thus you decide to cooperate. You begin the contact with your environment, you display your own interests and necessities, and you contribute to feed your environment's interests and necessities. There occurs a synergy, a symbiosis, a combination made of altruism, solidarity and cooperation. We all win and nobody looses, so we develope as individuals and as a group in a balanced ecosystem.
It's a good idea, and most human beings agree in the ethical evaluation of support and cooperation. Nevertheless, our history and our present show that the human beings possibly form the least cooperative of all species.
What a dissapointment. In front of this reality, you can adopt bassically two strategies: to praise now by competition... or to continue thinking that it have no sense to beate opponents. Then you decide to cooperate honestly.
It sounds risky, but in many occasions you can be competitive just avoiding competition.
The Cooperative systems become corrupted and they cease being operative when some of their components perceive that it's not worth cooperating. This is so because they consider that are not obtaining a profit in it, either because they perceive that will obtain a major gain in competition.
Which factors bears an individual to convert her or his cooperative spirit into a competitive one?
- The survival instinct, that bears us to compete for to achieve the access to limited resources. This supposed strongest law we won't argue over here. Yet, let's consider a group of persons voluntarily bringing know how, skills and time to a project that not aspires to obtain gains neither to acquire market shares. The resources that they manage are potentially unlimited. By the fact of its consumption they aren't depriving nobody from they. ¿It is worth to compete here?
- The power's yearning, that bears us to rise positions by dint of those ones that we are trampling on. In the case that belongs us, it is already difficult to think that, in a volunteers group, someone would let be surrendered by the force. But, if we wish elude any temptation, we only must state a decentralized and horizontal structure, where it wouldn't be reins to grasp neither steps to climb.
- The one's criterions defense in front of the other's criterions. Certainly, there is a risk that persons compete if the they share negociating and decision-making systems that promote competitivity. In return, it's very difficult to compete when these systems promote the search of consensus, the constructive debate, the confidence margins, the pragmatism and the predisposition to learn from the errors.
- The provocation. If a person with a competitive spirit takes advantage of non-competitivity in a cooperative environment, this one can convert in competitor also. This is an almost instinctive answer that make an appeal to our pride. But... what is this person threaten besides our pride? As we have see, under above-mentioned circumstances he or she can't deprive us from resources, surrender us or to convince us by the force. If we answer to tension with our tension, we will destine our energy to a useless effort heading for a tension climbing, and for a fracture. If, in front to greater tension, we show greater flexibility, we will maintain our integrity ant the unilateral competition will have no sense.
We can consider the preceding four points as limitations for action, the kind as "if we don't do this, we don't go trough the other thing". But it would be a shame to see it so, when these factors shape the major oportunities that can offer a platform as Interactors.
Precisely because we outline such projects, we have:
- Possibility of making connections in an environment in which the tensions resolve with calm, relativism and good temper.
- Possibility of debate in an environment in which the good arguments don't refute but integrate.
- Possibility of getting organized in an environment in which you are the boss, and your duties come from the commitments that you voluntarily asume.
- Possibility of working in projects that develop owing to their own resources and cooperating with their environment. Don't by dint of their environment resources.
But we haven't treated a basic point, for the whole cooperative system function in a balanced mode:
Every cooperator must perceive that his or her cooperative participation satisfy his or her interests and necessities, and that he or she obtains a gain by it.
We can make an appeal to the altruism in exceptional and temporary situations, but we can't hope a sustained and durable impulse from the disinterested aupport. A cooperative project that intend to trust their own existence and evolution must consolidate in a more firm base.
This base can perfectly be the economy of hapiness.
RETURN TO THE INTERACTORS METANODE