[Oe List ...] IP rights to Social Process Triangles
jlepps at pc.jaring.my
jlepps at pc.jaring.my
Mon Mar 1 23:39:28 CST 2010
Colleagues:
Just to add another dimension to this discussion about SPT IP rights,
Clancy Mann has used the Social Process triangles as the basis for a
chapter in his book Borderless Business, and it's the basis for a
graduate business course he and I are teaching at University of
Maryland University College. The chapter reference is: Clarence Mann,
"Managing Country Risk" in Mann and Goetz, eds, Borderless Business:
Managing the Far-Flung Enterprise (Westport CT: Praeger Publishing,
2006) pp. 166-192. In the chapter, Clancy provides reference to the
ICA as originator of the triangles. He has also done a fine job of
identifying country profile indicators, using the triangles at the
9-level. His work is an excellent job of using and building on our
common wisdom. We're in the process of trying to make the triangles
the standard method for analyzing a country's opportunity for
business -- it's much more comprehensive than the existing models
that come from Michael Porter. Our students are generally quite
receptive to it. (One even commented, "This has made an edible mark
on my soul." English is not always up to par, even in graduate students!)
I hope we will keep our methods and insights open and accessible.
John Epps
At 01:42 PM 2/28/2010, you wrote:
>Jim and all,
>
>I went to the YouTube link you suggested and saw the John Pilgen's
>speech about "Obama and the Empire" and the "hidden government" but
>it was not clear what the connection was to IP rights or the
>questions posed. Your "facilitation questions" are good questions
>but I find them to be a remarkable response to the series of
>questions posed and not an answer to any of them..
>
>The questions put forth to all of us, myself included, arose from
>the dialogue thread on IP rights. In fact, you said, "I just think
>all the people who have made more than $150,000 using the triangles
>should at least report that so we know." Know what? Why?
>
>So, let me clearly state the 10 questions raised that need to be
>answered on the subject of IP rights.
>
> 1. Why is the IP rights question so important?
> 2. What is the point (or value) of getting credit for
> something, like the Social Process Triangles for example?
> 3. Why would we want to object to a person trying to awaken
> consciousness using any "property" we own?
> 4. What is being done by us now that is in any way at risk
> by anyone using anything we own?
> 5. What are we doing with the Social Process Triangles now?
> (by the way, how many of us can explain them?)
> 6. Does anyone (the market), other than ourselves, really
> want these intellectual properties(product)?
> 7. Have we not been trying to give these properties away
> for 50 years?
> 8. Why Is this matter of intellectual property?
> 9. Why is it so important to get credit for these
> intellectual properties?
> 10. Are there more important, urgent matters for us?
>
>The statements made were:
>
> 1. I can assure you that everything we think we own, or
> claim, is folly in the hands of people without a
> Movemental Consciousness (if Movemental
> Consciousness is unclear simply drop the word "Movemental"), and
> everyone of us has seen the reality
> of what I am saying.
> 2. Unless a person has such consciousness the event is a
> silly, abstract, often boring exercise.
> 3. The intelletual properties are a product of
> consciousness, not the other way around.
> 4. It is not our intellectual property that create
> consciousness, but conscious people using methods that
> awaken consciousness.
> 5. Conscious people using our intellectual property expand
> the number of conscious people and they might get more
> done than we have thus far.
>
>Here are 4 more questions to add:
>
> 1. If we think consciousness is awakened by using our
> intellectual properties, what is our justification for wanting to
> "own" them, or get credit for them, or control them?
> 2. Are we trying to justify our past by wanting to be
> recognized for our past accomplishments?
> 3 Why don't we try giving our intellectual properties
> away to the entire world rather than huddling them under our wing?
> 4. Is money at the base of our concern over intellectual
> property rights?
>
>Just asking....and the answers are not "facilitation questions"
>directed back, no matter how good the questions may be.
>
>I just want to say, that for my part, our work is not over. We had
>to go through everything we went through to be here in a position to
>actually begin our work for which that past has prepared us. Only
>now has the term "ECUMENICAL" become that reality upon which the
>future of the planet depends. It is now time for THE ECUMENICAL
>INSTITUTE: comprehensive global care and a profound religious mode
>that quickens and awakens every traditional mode. I'm serious about
>the questions.
>
>Bill
>
>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <mailto:jfwiegel at yahoo.com>James Wiegel
>To: <mailto:oe at wedgeblade.net>Order Ecumenical Community
>Sent: Saturday, February 27, 2010 12:04 AM
>Subject: Re: [Oe List ...] IP rights to Social Process Triangles
>
>So, Bill, my grand daughter sent me a link (see below) that raises
>the question of "Where did the movements go?" Talk some more about
>that "movemental consciousness" you mentioned. What are the
>descriptors? How did it get developed in you? How might it be
>developed in others today?
>
><http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXL998q7skI>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXL998q7skI..
>
>
>
>Jim
>
>"If you really want to succeed, then you have to have the big heart,
>heroic will, tenacity, courage, and commitment to fearlessly engage
>with the evolutionary process until something profound, mysterious,
>and extraordinary happens that cannot be undone." Andrew Cohen
>
>
>Jim Wiegel
>401 North Beverly Way, Tolleson, Arizona 85353-2401
>+1 623-936-8671 +1 623-363-3277
>jfwiegel at yahoo.com
><http://www.partnersinparticipation.com>www.partnersinparticipation.com
>
>
>
>From: Bill Parker <bparker175 at cox.net>
>To: Order Ecumenical Community <oe at wedgeblade.net>
>Sent: Fri, February 26, 2010 9:44:06 PM
>Subject: Re: [Oe List ...] IP rights to Social Process Triangles
>
>Paula makes a lot of sense when she says "We can not take it back."
>
>It really is not clear why this seems so important to so many
>people. What is the point of EI/ICA or OE, for that matter, being
>given credit for ....what? The Social Process Triangles? Methods
>that we may have created or clearly took from other sources? I can
>assure you that everything we think we own, or claim, is folly in
>the hands of people without a Movemental Consciousness, and every
>one of us has seen the reality of what I am saying.
>
>Unless the person utilizing such "properties" has a Movemental
>Consciousness, or a Revolutionary Consciousness, or at the very
>least, possess a notion that what they are doing is changing the
>world on behalf of all people, the event is a silly, abstract, often
>boring exercise. The "properties" are a product of this
>consciousness, not the other way around. No, it is not the methods
>that create the consciousness but rather the Movemental
>Consciousness in the person utilizing the methods that make the methods work.
>
>Further, if one using the "properties" has a Movemental
>Consciousness, then why would anyone object to that? They might even
>get more done than we have thus far.
>
>What is being done by this community that is in anyway at risk by
>other people using whatever we "own"? Social Process Triangles?? Let
>me ask, what are we doing with the Social Process Triangles? I
>understand the concern Randy Williams raised about somehow losing
>the rights to our own creation. However, I am not convince we could
>give these "properties" away, even if we tried. Isn't that what we
>have been doing for 50 years?
>
>Is this really an important matter, and if so, isn't there another
>matter, or two, far more urgent for us to be about? .....just asking.
>
>Bill Parker
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <mailto:paula.philbrook at gmail.com>Paula Philbrook
>To: <mailto:oe at wedgeblade.net>Order Ecumenical Community
>Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 12:00 PM
>Subject: Re: [Oe List ...] IP rights to Social Process Triangles
>
>ALL:
>We can not take it back.
>
>When my sister, Deana Henry and her husband, Kenneth were working on
>their PHD's at Texas A&M, they encounter the Social Process
>Triangles in a Community Development Class. They also recognized a
>kindred spirit.
>
>The professor was a visiting professor from Australia. He had never
>directly encountered EI/ICA. He had gained his knowledge of the
>triangles from a fellow colleague working with the Aboriginal community.
>
>I was involved in discussions with Sidley & Austin intellectual
>property specialists. Establishing copyrights and ownerships is not
>a straight-line. The corporate mode, the voluntary nature of OE
>members, the years of use without trademarks or action, etc
>contribute mud to any legal discussion.
>
>My hope is that EI/ICA get the credit in some way-each and everytime.
>
>
>Paula
>
>Happiness is when what you think, what you say, and what you do are
>in harmony.
> Mahatma Gandhi
>
>
>----------
>_______________________________________________
>OE mailing list
>OE at wedgeblade.net
><http://wedgeblade.net/mailman/listinfo/oe_wedgeblade.net>http://wedgeblade.net/mailman/listinfo/oe_wedgeblade.net
>
>
>
>----------
>_______________________________________________
>OE mailing list
>OE at wedgeblade.net
>http://wedgeblade.net/mailman/listinfo/oe_wedgeblade.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>OE mailing list
>OE at wedgeblade.net
>http://wedgeblade.net/mailman/listinfo/oe_wedgeblade.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/oe_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20100301/bd55353e/attachment.html>
More information about the OE
mailing list