Erez Elul’s “ComCom” Alternative Business Model 11/05/2008

Image via Wikipedia

Erez Elul

Common Companies (abbreviated as “ComCom”) is Erez Elul’s new business model, providing several new ways of producing benefit for shareholders. The shareholders of ComCom may be customers and power producers, such as artists, developers and researchers. Such Common Companies may also be integrated or combined together in ComCom structures that take into consideration the functions of all the common shareholders in these companies. As such, they can be constructed in multiple layers, for producing a complex bottom-top network of ComComs. (For more information about ComCom: http://iswith.info/-/forums/just-ask/comcomizing)

We assume that when common shareholders of a ComCom are also its customers, then they are more loyal, more likely to bring in their friends, more informative as regards their possible requests. This is because they have already contributed, investing in their own ComCom.

Therefore, the cycle of many businesses is promoted, each one giving its services and/or products in return for income to spread out in certain levels of ComCom, were one ComCom is (among) the private shareholders of the other, from the most delicate production till the final service/product, in which (layer of ComCom) the common shareholders of the ComCom are also its clients; where in all other layers of the ComCom, common shareholders are artists, developers of and/or researchers for the products/services delivered to their clients.

NOTE 1: this was an adaptation of Erez Elul’s unpublished original text

(to be continued)

(click to see how alternative creativity can be appreciated elsewhere)

FURTHER NOTES:

• This is the first of a new series of posts about Alternative Economics and Alternative Business Organisation
• Erez Elul (namzezam@su) is also the inventor of “Pile” (a revolutionary new system for reformulating Data as Relations)
• Another post in this blog about Erez Elul and “Pile” was “An open public letter to the “Pile Systems” team“

Related articles

• MONDRAGÓN CORPORACIÓN COOPERATIVA (MCC): an international People’s Cooperative Corporation [in this blog]
  

• LinkedIn Close To Its ‘Nuclear Winter’ Round? [via Zemanta]
• The Defensibility of Business Models [via Zemanta]

.

“PILE” – Ένα καινοτομικό Σχεσιακό Σύστημα για Βάσεις Δεδομένων χωρίς ανάγκη για… Δεδομένα! 04/10/2007

To “Pile” είναι ένα ριζοσπαστικό Πληροφορικό Σύστημα, όπου αποθηκεύονται Σχέσεις Δεδομένων, αλλά χωρίς τα ίδια τα δεδομένα, τα οποία καθίστανται περιττά, αφού αναπαράγονται όλα, αποκλειστικά και μόνο από τις σχέσεις ανάμεσά τους.

English Summary: Mr Lazaridis, a blog-visitor, asked me to write a very simple Greek summary of “Pile”, so here it is:

The constructivist definition of “1″ in Multiple Form Logic also exists in Odysseus Elytis’ poetry 21/05/2007

Odysseas Elytis

Summary in Greek: Αυτό το άρθρο για τη “Λογική των Πολλαπλών Μορφών” παρουσιάζει το “ψευδο-αξίωμα ” (“Έν το Παν“) που ορίζεται “κατασκευαστικά” (παρομοίως με τον… Οδυσσέα Ελύτη) μέσω συνένωσης όλων των Σχετικών Μορφών.

Summary in English: This article about “Multiple Form Logic” presents the “Pseudo-axiom 1″ (“All is One”), defined constructively (in a similar way as by Odysseus Elytis) as the result of unifying all Relative Forms.

The Greek poet Odysseas Elytis (1913-1986, Nobel-prize 1979) once wrote a forgotten aphorism:

• “The One and the Absolute constructed by our Minds, is a result of the Many and Multiple (things) unified by our Perception”.

This statement, quite reasonable for anyone with… common sense, has been (conveniently) forgotten by many modern Greek admirers of Elytis’ poetry. The reason for this forgetfulness is simple: -A “national poet”, supposedly also a Christian believer in “the One” or the “Absolute”, cannot be reasonably or honourably imagined (in certain people’s minds) as a constructivist (constructivism being regarded as an evil “globalist” philosophy by certain Greek conservative Christian intellectuals).

However, this aphorism was not the only one, by Elytis; some of his poems contained lines with similar “heretical” (constructivist) meanings.

E.g. in his tribute to the Muse, “Maria Nefeli“ (Greek edition, page 106). The translation is mine:

My pale face -yes- and longish hair, magicians know too well;

About these they talk; the virgin, the one whom heavens sent

About she who said in Peace to us; she who was so blessed:

Beware be aware and bear in mind

The Many forge The One…

(“Maria Nefeli”, Greek edition, page 107)

Listen to the word of The Virgin

The One forges the Many…

These poems are not mere coincidences: There is more evidence proving that Odysseus Elytis was quite different than the “National Christian” stereotype, often projected onto him by many modern Greek readers; on the contrary, he was a self-styled heretic, whose beliefs were expressed in many other poems too, e.g. “The Primal Paradise” (English translation here; streaming recorded recitation in English here).

---

Well, in Multiple Form Logic, this “constructivist philosophy” (of a poet who was commonly regarded as an idealist, rather than a constructivist) is applied very precisely, by (literally) constructing “Axiom 1″, now called “Pseudo-Axiom 1″ (“pseudo” because it is not given, but constructed) in the following way:

1. Let there be a symbol, e.g. “1″, which stands for the Union of the Totality of All Possible Forms in the universe.

2. Let there be any symbol, e.g. “X”, which denotes any Form inside the universe.

3. Then the Union of “1″ with “X” (bearing in mind that “1″ by definition already contains everything) must be identical to “1″ (itself).

In the Multiple Form Logic site, this construction is explained a little further and it is expressed formally as “1,X=1″ (where the comma signifies “union”; i.e. “OR” in Boolean Algebra).

• Meta-Assumption 1: To perceive is to distinguish; To distinguish is to perceive.

Constructive Side-Effect 1 of Pseudo-Axiom 1, together with Meta-Assumption 1:

1. Suppose that (given “1″) we wish to examine the value of the distinction “1/1″, which distinguishes Everything (i.e. “1″) from itself (i.e. everything, “1″).
2. However, Everything does not (and cannot) differ from- (or be distinguished from-) Everything.
3. Hence, “1/1″, the difference or distinction between Everything (“1″) and (again) Everything (“1″) is necessarily non-existent, or Void (i.e. absence of distinction):

i.e. 1/1 = 0.

(where “0″ stands for void or non-distinction; it is syntactic sugar for nothing written in its place).

Note that the above “side-effect 1″ is based heavily on “Meta-Assumption 1″ ( that “To perceive is to distinguish; To distinguish is to perceive”).

In fact, the “non-distinction between Perception and Distinction”, also leads, quite naturally, to the Second Axiom of Multiple Form Logic (of which, “Side-Effect 1″ can be regarded as a special instance).

In reality, the Second Axiom is not always necessarily valid; Other Boundary Logic systems do exist (and have produced many useful results) where this axiom does not hold and where self-reference or self-application of a distinction to itself is treated as an “infinite regress“, often called an “imaginary truth value“, rather than as a constant result (such as void).

.

Redefining Multiple Form Logic for “PILE” (English text with Greek abstract) 20/05/2007

Summary in Greek: Το Μάϊο του 2006 ο Ralf Barkow έγραψε άρθρα στο blog του για μία πιθανή σχέση μεταξύ της “Λογικής Πολλαπλών Μορφών” και του Σχεσιακού Συστήματος Οργάνωσης Πληροφορίας “PILE”. Ακολουθεί ένας επανορισμός της “Λογικής Πολλαπλών Μορφών“ έτσι ώστε να διευκολυνθεί μία πιθανή ενοποίησή της με το σύστημα “PILE”.
Summary in English: In May 2006, Ralf Barkow wrote articles in his blog about a possible relationship between “Multiple Form Logic” and a “Relationist information system” called “PILE”. In this article, a redefinition of Multiple Form Logic will be attempted, to facilitate the possibility of unification between this Logic and the PILE system.

Multiple Form Logic is an enhanced generαlisation of George Spencer Brown’s “Calculus of Distinctions” (expοunded in his book “Laws of Form”). English readers who are haven’t heard about “Laws of Form” may browse the Laws of Form site (maintained by Dick Shoup). I also wrote a short Greek introduction about Laws of Form and Multiple Form Logic, here. However, the new presentation of Multiple Form Logic in this article, will be attempted differently, based on simplified and radically different principles, which are -perhaps- more appropriate for unification with the Pile system.

Τhe philosophical foundation of Multiple Forms is a simple property of every sentient being’s Inner World, traditionally often identified as the realm of “the imagination”. In this Space, which is traditionally regarded as being “inside ourselves”, the Outer World is introjected by perception. This fundamental activity of introjection or internalisation, which is also the essence of perception, can be illustrated graphically through the following diagram, which depicts Inner Space “before” and “after” a particular internalisation of the Outer through a “Boundary of Perception” B (distinguishing between Inner reality A and Outer object X):

An Open Public Letter to the “Pile Systems” team (Repost) 16/05/2007

Image via Wikipedia

In the last few days, I exchanged creative (private) e-mail with several members of the Pile project, as well with the inventor of Pile, Erez Elul. I decided to make this particular letter public through my blog, for several reasons:

1. Firstly, to share it with Erez Elul (and his team) as well
2. Secondly to invite other possible future participants in our team;
3. Thirdly, to draw a distinction between our scientific or business cooperation (where certain parts must be kept strictly private) and our creative thinking on more general issues, which must be kept public, open to debate.

“PILE” can be used for better Multiple Form Logic inference engines! 15/05/2007

Recently I sent an e-mail to the “Pile System” site, proposing that their system can be used in more efficient automatic theorem provers for “Multiple Form Logic“. Mr. Ralf Barkow, a Pile researcher, has been exploring intriguing relationships between “Multiple Form Logic” and “Pile“, about a year ago. E.g.

http://ralfbarkow.wordpress.com/2006/05/19/multiple-form-logic

I have not heard from them yet, but fortunately (if they are too busy to reply) their “Pile development system” can be downloaded freely (even though commercial use is prohibited by their patents). So I downloaded it a couple of days ago.

I discovered the existence of the “Pile system” fairly recently. I’d recommend it -as creative reading- to anyone seriously interested in Computer Science innovations. Here are some links I collected about “Pile“, as public bookmarks:

http://del.icio.us/omadeon/Pile

My own work in “Multiple Form Logic” is an enhancement and generalisation of George Spencer Brown‘s “Laws of Form“. Here are some links about Spencer-Brown (GSB) and “Laws of Form” (LoF), as public bookmarks:

Beginning to relate Multiple Form Logic with “PILE objects”… 13/05/2007

This first attempt to investigate (possible) relationships between “Pile” and “Multiple Form Logic” is based on Ralph Westphal‘s paper “Freeing Data From the Silos: A Relationistic Approach to Information Processing” (pdf). Ralph’s abstract is the following:

Abstract
Current data processing is limited by a container-reference dichotomy. Data once stored and connected is hard to rearrange and connect in new ways equired by needs that have changed over time. This paper explains an approach to remove this fundamental limitation. It argues data should no longer be recorded and stored, but assimilated and represented/described. Instead of copying data into data structure for further processing, data should be described by a “system of pure relations” in which the data itself is nowhere to be found anymore, but can be regenerated as needed. The benefits of such a “system of pure relations” are infinite connectability of data at any level of abstraction.

Here is an important part of Ralph Westphal’s paper, which is relevant to Multiple Form Logic (page 10):

Pile: A System of Pure Relations.
To overcome the container-reference dichotomy current data models have to be abandoned, since they are all built on the very notions which are limiting data connectivity. A system of pure relations (SOPR) out of necissity needs to be completely different.

Terminology: Pile – invented by Erez Elul – is such a SOPR.1 It is built solely on the notion of relations. Relations are binary and directed: Pile relations always relate just two “things” (Fig 10).

Pile objects (which are binary relations) can combine to form more complicated relations. Each relation is directed and has two parents, a “Normative parent” and an “Associative parent”.

• The emerging fundamental conceptual difference between Pile Objects and Multiple Forms is that Pile objects are built on spaces which are a priori unique and distinct (the “Terminal Values”, TV’s) and they are described as “directed relations”, whereas Multiple Forms are constructed always on the same (undistinguished) Void Space, and they are described as (multiple) Distinctions, which are -of course- also directed by virtue of their implicit distinction between inside and outside.

To verify that Multiple Form Logic expressions can also be regarded as “directed”, observe that:

The “Multiple Form Logic” system seems to be compatible with “Pile Objects” and Erez Elul’s “Pile System” ! 12/05/2007

Image via Wikipedia

Erez Elul’s “Pile System” ( http://iswith.info ) is a “new, radically relationist approach to data, structures and computing. Instead of representing and storing data, Pile registers only relations between data elements and stores relational patterns in a novel, non-hierarchic layered structure which can be fluidly traversed“.

Well, I had never heard of the “Pile System” till recently (May 2007). Then, one day I used the phrase “Multiple Form Logic” in Google search, just in case there exist web references to it that have escaped my attention.

Well, it appears that Mr. Ralf Barkow, who is a Pile System researcher, has been exploring intriguing new relationships between “Multiple Form Logic” and “Pile-Objects“, since about a year ago. E.g. in the following blog-posting  Ralf deals with my “three axioms of Multiple Form Logic“, finding them compatible with Erez Elul’s “Pile”:

• http://ralfbarkow.wordpress.com/2006/05/19/multiple-form-logic

In another blog-post Ralf talks discusses my “First Axiom” (of Multiple Form Logic), re-expressing it in “Pile_objects” notation:

http://ralfbarkow.wordpress.com/2006/05/20/first-axiom-of-george-alexander-stahis-multiple-form-logic-as-pile_objects/

However, the most intriguing axiom of  “Multiple Form Logic” is -undoubtedly- Axiom 3: