[GJM] Holonomics

[chris cook]

Following from Marguerite's 3 dimensional view, which is an interesting 
approach, there are a couple of analogies I like use to illustrate the 
qualities of "Open" Capital.

Firstly, the use of the Mobius strip. Our conventional world of "absolute" / 
permanent and "Absolute" temporary eg Freehold and Lesehold land: Equity and 
Debt finance, can be envisaged as two sides of a loop of (say) ribbon.  
There is a  "discontinuity" between them which cannot be breached - that 
between the Infinite and the Finite.

The concept of "Equity Shares" in a "Capital Partnership", however is 
different. For as long as you use the Capital you share the revenues, or the 
production.  ie an INDEFINITE period. This is in the same space as the 
Scottish "Not Proven" verdict between "Guilty" and "Not Guilty".

"Open" Capital is therefore CONTINUOUS :if you pay this "Capital Rental" 
ahead of time you automatically become an Investor.

Hence the Mobius strip, which has only ONE side and is continuous 
topologically The Arrow on the Open Capital logo is the Arrow of Time. And 
as Mary Fee, my co-Founder - points out - members of an Open Corporate are 
"both on the same side".

The other analogy I like is that of characterising individuals as magnets.

In the current paradigm we are bringing them together economically North 
Pole to North Pole and South to South.  To do this we have to "bind" them 
legally with adversarially negotiated contracts - what the French call 
"contrats de mandat" essentially imposed by force of (external) law.

In an "Open Corporate" however, we are aligning the magnets the other way, 
and they bind of their own volition. The consensual legal protocols of 
"partnerships" are known by the French as "contrats de societe" and, 
interestingly enough for those of legal bent, the origins of the first ever 
"Open" Corporate - the LLP - are in Jersey law, which has considerable 
French input.

Finally, and to Marguerite in particular, I would say that true 
understanding of "Holonomics"  - or maybe "Eco"- Nomics - requires 
consideration of the metaphysical assumptions which underpin it.

There are two papers on

www.opencapital.net/papers.htm

considering the nature of Value, among other things.

The key realisation is that Value cannot be defined except in Relative 
terms.  It follows that neither of the cornerstones of Economics - "Money" 
and "Property" - are in fact "Objects" but are both in fact "relationships" 
which can therefore be defined semantically when designing the necessary 
generic clearing software.

Best Regards

Chris Cook