You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Message to: Everyone New to the Cryptosphere
Upvoted and shared!
But I am left wondering... is paying people to converse a 'real' conversation? And how is pay-for-play a step towards transcending money?
Looking forward to your thoughtful response!
Thanks for the article @worldclassplayer!
It can be. it depends on the people conversing. It always depends upon the participants. Money can be an organized incentive to create a dialog on a particular topic. Encouraging public participation with incentives is a stepping stone to exploring the possibilities. Think: Creative Collaboration. It's a way to create traction and stimulate movement. Anything we participate in is a form of "work"...by "paying" for participation/work/conversation - There's a point of regard for all who are willing to participate.
There's multiple points here.
Community Building. Example - Incentivized participation. A community is only ever as strong as it's participants. In order to have time to participate - funds are needed...by structuring/incentivizing participation - people are able to participate where they would like to participate. If you are not interested in "having a real conversation - sharing for real" than the incentive based support structure isn't for you. The idea here is that many communities are forming with this model where all participations within the group are of an added benefit to the entirety of the ecosystem.
Pay for Play: Understood correctly there is a real balance here as the statement equally means: "Play for Pay". Example: Making a play to participate in discussion on my post here was a real effort/work you put forth. I appreciate such giving's and thus I will reciprocate with a giving which we can call a "pay".
Awareness of Money : By exploring in the creation and participation of alternative ways in which we can distribute money - there's an overall awareness and collective education that takes place. This happens over time as the point is constantly pulsed. Through participation and repetition over time - we learn. Through a process of time and space with playing/working with the various ways in which we structure our movements/participations/money it becomes possible for human expansion. I regard transcending money as a point of human expansion. I see it as an education process. The best education is balanced play work.
Thanks for your questions - this is exactly what I'm after - and what I mean by real conversation. If anything is unclear or you would like me to elaborate - please ask.
One last point of regard here. About, "Real Conversation" - I realize it's a learning curve. I realize it's been a real process for me to open up and go deep within having/sharing really meaningful conversations. So I understand that it's possible for 'real conversations' to be a challenging thing of sorts. I am willing to walk with people and support the opening up of "real conversation". It's possible that what we define as "real conversation" is a varied response. In regarding the possibility of what is "real conversation" to be a varied response - I accept that everyone is at a different point in the process of transcending money and thus what is a "real conversation" will be at different levels of depth here.
If you observe the comments on this post - you can see varied levels of depth in what it means to have a 'real conversation'.
Cool @worldclassplayer, thanks for the response. I like that you point out individual responsibility - where I would add, it is up to those with more understanding/responsibility/money to support those with less understanding/responsibility/money.
The survival point runs deep, and I think is one of the main hurdles to 'transcend money', which is a difficult thing to transcend when 1) it is required to survive, and 2) you don't have any/enough.
I would be interested to hear what your definition of 'transcending money' is. Would it be an internal or external process? Is it how you feel about money and the role money plays in your life, or finding a way to not have to use it?
The last point that I can't wrap my head around is this:
"If you are not interested in "having a real conversation - sharing for real" than the incentive based support structure isn't for you."
Because I think those that are not interested will actually be the ones to come and participate only if there is an incentive, where as those that are interested will participate regardless. Did I understand this statement correctly?
Again, cool response thanks for the time.
will write a post :)
maybe a series of posts on transcending money
"If you are not interested in "having a real conversation - sharing for real" than the incentive based support structure isn't for you."
Maybe I can phrase my sentencing better by removing the K(nots).
"If you are interested in having a real conversation - sharing for real, than the incentive based support structure is for you."