Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Alain Berranger on February 23, 2012 at 4:13pm

Dear Franz,

Thank you for this masterful and fascinating dissertation!!! Really, more than that,  you have created a conceptual framework, even a template, to guide the development of GKPF processes. I'm proud to be associated with you and this discussion... I'm looking forward to how, all together, we are going to make the next move. Also looking forward to various proposals under preparation by Klaus and other colleagues here... We cannor forget that we need to apply these processes with some focus - in our case the use of ICTs for Development and for Knowledge generation, exchange and SDR (Scaling, Diffusing and Replicating). Franz, your framework and methodology has huge potential. We need people, machines. networks and funding to grow this. It may not have the instant appeal of a Facebook or a Tweeter or a Google+, but it can be much more effective and sustainable... Wish we could amplify this discussion to a larger audience than the current GKPF crowd...not sure all of them actually dig down in our website to reach this... Klaus, maybe we can highlight this discussion on the home page? We also need a few good sponsors for the website! Can our German network find a smart sponsor or two that would benefit from a social investment in GKPF? Modest sponsorship levels would be a good start... not Bill Gates amounts (yet!!! ;-)....

Alain

Permalink Reply by Alain Berranger on February 23, 2012 at 4:23pm

Dear Uri,

Yes, a hundred time Yes!... we need to go to brick and mortar... Hope those busy social investors you mention will see the wiseness but also the benefit to them. We need some early funding to keep improving and growing the website and to "Scale, Diffuse and Replicate" the Village Innovation Talks and its brick & mortar incarnations!!!! How lucky we are to have a broad set of skills in such a small start-up community... we need more people. machines, networks, systems and funding than we currently have... How do we achieve that? This Village to Village global network we envisage is full of potential!

Alain

Ulrich Burkhard said:

Dear Franz,
I like bricks, stones, craftsmanship, building houses, planting trees and doing other things like that.
What about theories? What about your theories?

Now the time has come, to bring the VIT in bricks and stones. We are all happy seeing VIT within an ordinary institution with a clear leadership and ordinary daily work. Therefore many peoples in Austria and Germany have supported the VIT-process volunteerly not only in their spare time. Specially social entrepreneurs with little free time have given full power to make it an institution.

A philosoph behind is needed (this comes exellenty by you and coworkers), but now VIT must give physical innovations we have here in Austria and Germany in hundreds a voice. And of cause including the scope to include other countries. We love you theories behind VIT but we know sufficiantly about.

VIT in brick and stones has started if the phase talking of theory around has passed by. And as we are human beings we must not think of each detail before in theory. If the heart is with us everything is all right now. Toward the VIT we are all heartfelt with the idea behind. So nobody needs a further proof or theory of what could or could not come out.

Lets come again to brick and stones: our region is an innovation hub for incountable physical innovations on the village level, but nobody ever thought in theoretical terms about. We are just doing and then finding out, "OH there is a theory behind" fine! And really often you Franz has had the idea 10, 15 year back in theory. That's live!

I asked a local actor whether he knows about multi sector parntership? "No" was his reply. He didn't need any theory to act in the right direction. Isn't it fantastic? That is what I mean with heartfelt!

And now to sum up – an excerpt out of a film under my direction (Ekopan Media) – giving the many actors in  our region a voice, who know that they are changing our world without ever thought about the theory behind. I love them, and I love this special scene! The film in full is also up in youtube, but only in German.

The man speaking in this piece of film is the CEO of a regional food supplyer (tegut). For the first time it happenes in Germany that a regional not to small food supplyer invests (with others) again into "small grocery shops" interacting within multsectoral partnership on a highly mutifunctional level. I do understand the concept behind but to describe it in words is even for me very difficult. Much easier with the VIT – it is audio-visuell, that what I like!!!

We all see in the example: without thinking there is the horizontal and the vertical world already interwoven, without theory.

Mr. John from tegut is only waiting for your VIT to tell the world about their experiances. ....

http://youtu.be/ipHkjEcNLOk

Permalink Reply by Klaus Stoll on February 23, 2012 at 5:45pm

Dear Friends

With regard to the contribution of Franz all I have to say it is an honor to let the master speak! All I can say is that here is the point where the paradigm change for development has and will come from, it just needs a lot of work and we are starting to do it. 

I will try to highlight he discussion on the front page, but what would even help us more if everybody involved in the discussion would tell their network members that it is taking place and get them to register with the site and the discussion group. Please, in the name of the not so silent revolution, do it, do it now!

Yes we have two Village related proposals in the making at this moment. One overall concept from Dagmar, John and Franz which I have shared with the GKP Foundation trustees and which will be the basis for the work in 2012. I am also awaiting a  proposal from Ulrich. Ulrichs proposal is more centered around a real village and focuses more on concrete development then on conceptual development. Both proposals have great merits and will be discussed at the GKPF trustees meeting in Costa Rica on the 16/17 of Marsh. As this topic is new and complex and something whose importance and significance not everybody can understand easily, I am planning to invite both Franz and Ulrich to join the discussion in Costa Rica via a Skype conference call on the 17th. For logistical and conceptual reasons I will ask Franz and Ulrich to join us separately, we simply can not mix the two proposals up.

With regard to the resources and finances needed. I am the first who is saying that this undertaking needs sound resourcing, not only for the technological aspects and the logistics, but to be absolutely clear the people and organizations involved need to be reimbursed for their efforts and can not be expected to be lifelong volunteers living on warm air and praises. On the other hand, I have not seen for a long time two proposals that are so suitable for funding, simply for the reason that they make so much sense and are based on win/win sound sustainable business concepts. The question now is how to get the securing of resources going the right and most effective way. Here some suggestions.

First of all we need to ring the biggest bell we can find in order to let everybody know what a treasure we have. I suggest that we use the GKPF www site to be the church tower in which to ring the bell. The reason is simply that the page is reaching a large number of the traditional funders and organizations we want to know about what is going on.

Secondly,GKPF has a good reputation and standing with a large number of organizations and GKPF should actively promote the projects to these organizations as part of its daily activities. BTW, the Global Villages Movement has a global potential and value and needs to reach a global stage as quick as possible.

Thirdly, GKPF itself should make resources available, in particular for the start up phase when other resources needs to be developed. Again we have to be very clear about the role and function of GKPF. GKPF is not a funding organization, GKPF's mission and vision is the support of Global Knowledge Exchange. GKPF can and should make resources available based on a  clear business plan, meaning a financial plan that indicates GKPFs "investment" in the project and the goal and way to recuperate this investment at a later stage. I think this is a sound and reasonable way. The times of the big grants without real and realistic sustainability models are long over. The project, even in the way it is funded and sustained has to show the way forward.

Fourth, but not least. The GKPF community should become an active player in the movement. The Global Village Movement have so much to say and tell to all our members and to so many globally, at the same time there is so much the Global Villages Movement can learn and take from GKPF. To use a picture: I would like GKPF and the Global Villages Movement to walk together on this for a while, and during this walk to exchange ideas, concepts, experiences. We will both grow together but separate, we will rub of each other and we both will be the better for it.

Klaus

Dear Franz,

Thank you for this masterful and fascinating dissertation!!! Really, more than that,  you have created a conceptual framework, even a template, to guide the development of GKPF processes. I'm proud to be associated with you and this discussion... I'm looking forward to how, all together, we are going to make the next move. Also looking forward to various proposals under preparation by Klaus and other colleagues here... We cannor forget that we need to apply these processes with some focus - in our case the use of ICTs for Development and for Knowledge generation, exchange and SDR (Scaling, Diffusing and Replicating). Franz, your framework and methodology has huge potential. We need people, machines. networks and funding to grow this. It may not have the instant appeal of a Facebook or a Tweeter or a Google+, but it can be much more effective and sustainable... Wish we could amplify this discussion to a larger audience than the current GKPF crowd...not sure all of them actually dig down in our website to reach this... Klaus, maybe we can highlight this discussion on the home page? We also need a few good sponsors for the website! Can our German network find a smart sponsor or two that would benefit from a social investment in GKPF? Modest sponsorship levels would be a good start... not Bill Gates amounts (yet!!! ;-)....

Alain

Permalink Reply by Ulrich Burkhard on February 24, 2012 at 6:32pm

Dear Klaus,
what an honour for me to share handsome proposals around the Gertenbach village modelling on the GKPF conferece! I would like to do so, of cause and with much pleasure!

Now coming to your proposals above, – it sounds so natural to me what you say. Only to someone who cannot know what seeds we have in our hands it could sound like propaganda.

I would also remind your 6 points agenda on page 2 of this forum. That is equally natural. Not we can decide what is to do like in former times. There is just a path we have to follow. That's it. There is no alternative but nothing.

TV Film Multimedia daily creates a "fiction world" in many many brains, – therefore less and less people see the real needs of our real world behind the screens.

We are coming here together to look more into the "seeds" (representing innovations in my analogy) and less to the big trees (representing our outer world). Exactly that makes GKPFs task interesting! The real world, – we all know where we are!

GKPS is not one of the big donor organization, which are deminishing. So why not saying GKPF is sort of "social business organisation" and its commodity is the "best practice knowhow/innovation exchange".

I would consider myself inhere for example, being a business partner and thus not feeling in a mere receiving positon. I never liked donations as they easily create an asymetric partnership. We had that in the past in the developping aid, between genders, generations etc. (and still have...). That we are now allowed to abandon. In this context I eager to support our process!

Sending right now a hello to Kubwimana ;-) ! We are learning from you and you from us, wonderful. And I know, that the conversation with us made you stronger and me too. That is symmetric partnership. And how little imput really was needed to make you feel stronger. And more exchange will come, but we need growing time! I am sure!

When the idea of VIT first came up (<> in August 2011) I felt at once the potential in this grain of seed and spent immediately a lot of time and energy in it. At that time I had not a single idea about GKPF and its intentions at all.

Back to the conference in Costa Rica. I could imagine, to use the occation doing marketing for the sake of GKPF which is not much known in the public. Why not inviting, while we we have the Skype contact, the powerful village leaders from Gertenbach along with us and maybe the Major of Witzenhausen as well? Do you think I am to enthusiastic in here? No risk no fun!

But I am definitely sure we will win! The presentation should consider the benefits of all partners, – I feel that should be my job to do!

Permalink Reply by Klaus Stoll on February 24, 2012 at 7:06pm

Dear Uli

Greetings and Thanks for your input. I am in particular interested in your comment: So why not saying GKPF is sort of "social business organisation" and its commodity is the "best practice knowhow/innovation exchange".

I am always amazed how the old Mission and Vision of GKPF from now 14 years ago, the simple idea of Global Knowledge Exchange and the name Global Knowledge Partnership still are completely relevant. This was and is GKPF's business, this is GKPF's role in this world. I had many meetings in the last year with many people and organizations and nearly everybody agreed with me that there is no other organization that takes on this role and that GKPF is very much needed.It's surprising and it is a fact.

The question now is how can and should GKPF fulfill this role. You mentioned the 6 principles I have posted some time ago. I take the liberty to post them here below again, as I was surprised that nobody commented on them. In particular I am interested on all your opinions on the virtual and maybe not so virtual Market of Opportunities concept.

 Yours, Klaus

6 Principles for discussion:

1. We need to do things in multi partnerships! Meaning, we should involve partners from the social, private and state sectors in our project. One sector alone can no longer successful implement sustainable action.

2. We have to be honest and live in the real world! It has to be clear which are the particular interests and need of each partner in the project. There is nothing wrong if one partner wants to make the world a better place, the other wants to develop a market for his product and the next simply wants to make a living. As long as the interests and needs are clear, that's fine.

3.Projects and the partnerships they consist of have to be based on win/win situations! Only if it is clear how every partner in the project wins, the project can be implemented successfully.

4. We have to be inventive! Modern communication technologies offer a lot of new opportunities to raise funds. The GKPF online Donation tool is just one.

5. If the project idea and concept is sound, the resources follow! Good ideas that are based on win/win multi sector partnerships attract money and knowledge because they give people what they want.

6. We are not facing a lack of resources but we are facing a lack of bringing the right ideas, interests, partners and existing resources together! We have a communication problem not a funding problem.

So, what does that all mean for GKPF.I think that GKPF has to be the agent that promotes the above principles and that brings the people and interests together to make things happen. GKPF has to provide the instrument and context in which these things are taking place. The GKPF www site could providing a Virtual Market of Opportunities feature. The feature needs to give members the possibility to demonstrate their projects, articulate their needs, but also their capacities, and “trade” with another.

Ulrich Burkhard said:

Dear Klaus,
what an honour for me to share handsome proposals around the Gertenbach village modelling on the GKPF conferece! I would like to do so, of cause and with much pleasure!

Now coming to your proposals above, – it sounds so natural to me what you say. Only to someone who cannot know what seeds we have in our hands it could sound like propaganda.

I would also remind your 6 points agenda on page 2 of this forum. That is equally natural. Not we can decide what is to do like in former times. There is just a path we have to follow. That's it. There is no alternative but nothing.

TV Film Multimedia daily creates a "fiction world" in many many brains, – therefore less and less people see the real needs of our real world behind the screens.

We are coming here together to look more into the "seeds" (representing innovations in my analogy) and less to the big trees (representing our outer world). Exactly that makes GKPFs task interesting! The real world, – we all know where we are!

GKPS is not one of the big donor organization, which are deminishing. So why not saying GKPF is sort of "social business organisation" and its commodity is the "best practice knowhow/innovation exchange".

I would consider myself inhere for example, being a business partner and thus not feeling in a mere receiving positon. I never liked donations as they easily create an asymetric partnership. We had that in the past in the developping aid, between genders, generations etc. (and still have...). That we are now allowed to abandon. In this context I eager to support our process!

Sending right now a hello to Kubwimana ;-) ! We are learning from you and you from us, wonderful. And I know, that the conversation with us made you stronger and me too. That is symmetric partnership. And how little imput really was needed to make you feel stronger. And more exchange will come, but we need growing time! I am sure!

When the idea of VIT first came up (<> in August 2011) I felt at once the potential in this grain of seed and spent immediately a lot of time and energy in it. At that time I had not a single idea about GKPF and its intentions at all.

Back to the conference in Costa Rica. I could imagine, to use the occation doing marketing for the sake of GKPF which is not much known in the public. Why not inviting, while we we have the Skype contact, the powerful village leaders from Gertenbach along with us and maybe the Major of Witzenhausen as well? Do you think I am to enthusiastic in here? No risk no fun!

But I am definitely sure we will win! The presentation should consider the benefits of all partners, – I feel that should be my job to do!

Permalink Reply by Helmut Leitner on February 25, 2012 at 9:39am

Uli, conceptually a social business is very much like a normal business, especially in offering goods or services on the market to everyone. As a business it is sustainable by not needing any funding. Acting non profit-maximizing, its offers can be designed and optimized to fill the needs of people, e.g. cheaper than the market, or in places or in qualities or to target groups that the commercial business don't have in focus. Compare this with the structure of GKPF, as a membership-organisation, fully depending on funding and/or membership fees, and you'll see that the identification as social business doesn't fit at all. Helmut 

Ulrich Burkhard said:

..... So why not saying GKPF is sort of "social business organisation" and its commodity is the "best practice knowhow/innovation exchange".

Permalink Reply by Franz Nahrada on February 25, 2012 at 3:46pm

Since it was mentioned here, I would like to clarify: I do not consider myself as a theoretician. I think that this role is obsolete. My great gift that In received in 1990 was a very deep personal discussion with computer pioneer  Douglas Engelbart in Stanford Universities Sweet Hall. His words changed my life. He said roughly about this, applied to our context here: (this is my memory and interpretation of Doug, I hope he might doublecheck)

"Theoreticians and practitioners have the same problem in dealing with technological and social change. They simply do not know the answers. Nobody knows exactly. We all know that all these innovations in technology will change the rules of the game, for example the way we learn, think and work, but also how we live, connect and govern ourselves. But we cannot predict beforehand what will make sense and what will not make sense. Theoreticians can speculate and get it wrong. Practical people can continue their habits and get it even dead - wrong. Technology has not yet shown its potential. We are still far away from the goal to  learn better, think better, work in a satisfactory way etc. Rather we often see the opposite. Technology can and does cause us to effectively ruin and exhaust the human potential, much faster sometimes than when we did without. So we need to understand that a totally new community of theoreticians and practicioners is needed - I call it a bootstrap community. Whilst nobody knows the simple answers, we know that a process that invoves many perspectives to reach a common goal, a process of experimentation and inspiration, can do the magic. Society needs to establish small groups of mixed composition, the theoreticians to show the possibilities, the practitioners to grab them and try them out, the practitioners to formulate their needs and the theoreticians to come up with solutions. This process might be the evolutionary tool of society to develop the right "reflex" to technological change which comes with enormous pace"

So thats also the way I understood Village Innovation Talk: as a practical experiment in how technology speeds up our learning and adds to its quality. I do agree with Ulrich that VIT is not the physical form ("brick and mortar") of a village center that really meets the need of supplying all of us in all major fields of importance with access to global knowledge. Eventually I think we will have strong local centers that will do exactly that. (BTW: We will then also understand why telecenters largely failed: while and insofar as they were mainly technolgy driven, but not the apt social innovations).

Thats also how I understand the two proposals mentioned by Klaus and the opportunity that comes with their separation: Its not one against the other, its two entirely different tasks. Village Innovation Talks have other target groups, themes, procedures and goals than the attempt to showcase the features of a "Global Village Center" enabling people to access all the services, informations and opportunities that new technologies provide from a place embedded in their real sphere of life, hosting new entrepreneurial cooperations in a much more "loaded" space than ever existed before, the modern equivalent of a vibrant bazaar..even if we do it as a "show" for the time being... Yes I think mobile communication is only part of the answer and we need also to think about the place where we physically meet and interact in our communities. If Gertenbach can showcase the prototype and the qualities of such a place in a creative and tangible way , that would be a meaningful complement to Village Innovation Talks. So the issue is not which proposal "wins". They are simply very, very different, and it will be our job to explain this necessary difference and show its beneficial nature.

Permalink Reply by Alain Berranger on February 25, 2012 at 4:35pm

Helmut,

If you go to "Who we are" and scroll down to "Annual Reports", you will access the 2010 Annual Report of GKP. On page 13, you will see a graphical representation of the GKPF financial sustainability model. I hope it throws some light on how the GKPF network can be a stable place for all its members to exchange and whatever else they want to get out of it.

Best, Alain

Helmut Leitner said:

Uli, conceptually a social business is very much like a normal business, especially in offering goods or services on the market to everyone. As a business it is sustainable by not needing any funding. Acting non profit-maximizing, its offers can be designed and optimized to fill the needs of people, e.g. cheaper than the market, or in places or in qualities or to target groups that the commercial business don't have in focus. Compare this with the structure of GKPF, as a membership-organisation, fully depending on funding and/or membership fees, and you'll see that the identification as social business doesn't fit at all. Helmut 

Ulrich Burkhard said:

..... So why not saying GKPF is sort of "social business organisation" and its commodity is the "best practice knowhow/innovation exchange".

Permalink Reply by Alain Berranger on February 25, 2012 at 4:44pm

Thanks Franz,

Can you perhaps invite Douglas Engelbart to comment on this discussion and maybe offer a few suggestions about the question raised by Klaus? In fact, we have focused this discussion on VIT and that's been really good as we head out to some concrete proposals.

However, Klaus' original question calls for a larger discussion than one set of projects. Maybe new participants like Dougals Engelbart, would kickstart another round of exchanges?

We do need to enlarge the circle of this discussion if we want to go to "new places". I, for one, commit to a new round of invitations to my network (In fact, I have only invited the "A's" in my email list!!!!! up to now). ;-)

Alain

Franz Nahrada said:

Since it was mentioned here, I would like to clarify: I do not consider myself as a theoretician. I think that this role is obsolete. My great gift that In received in 1990 was a very deep personal discussion with computer pioneer  Douglas Engelbart in Stanford Universities Sweet Hall. His words changed my life. He said roughly about this, applied to our context here: (this is my memory and interpretation of Doug, I hope he might doublecheck)

"Theoreticians and practitioners have the same problem in dealing with technological and social change. They simply do not know the answers. Nobody knows exactly. We all know that all these innovations in technology will change the rules of the game, for example the way we learn, think and work, but also how we live, connect and govern ourselves. But we cannot predict beforehand what will make sense and what will not make sense. Theoreticians can speculate and get it wrong. Practical people can continue their habits and get it even dead - wrong. Technology has not yet shown its potential. We are still far away from the goal to  learn better, think better, work in a satisfactory way etc. Rather we often see the opposite. Technology can and does cause us to effectively ruin and exhaust the human potential, much faster sometimes than when we did without. So we need to understand that a totally new community of theoreticians and practicioners is needed - I call it a bootstrap community. Whilst nobody knows the simple answers, we know that a process that invoves many perspectives to reach a common goal, a process of experimentation and inspiration, can do the magic. Society needs to establish small groups of mixed composition, the theoreticians to show the possibilities, the practitioners to grab them and try them out, the practitioners to formulate their needs and the theoreticians to come up with solutions. This process might be the evolutionary tool of society to develop the right "reflex" to technological change which comes with enormous pace"

So thats also the way I understood Village Innovation Talk: as a practical experiment in how technology speeds up our learning and adds to its quality. I do agree with Ulrich that VIT is not the physical form ("brick and mortar") of a village center that really meets the need of supplying all of us in all major fields of importance with access to global knowledge. Eventually I think we will have strong local centers that will do exactly that. (BTW: We will then also understand why telecenters largely failed: while and insofar as they were mainly technolgy driven, but not the apt social innovations).

Thats also how I understand the two proposals mentioned by Klaus and the opportunity that comes with their separation: Its not one against the other, its two entirely different tasks. Village Innovation Talks have other target groups, themes, procedures and goals than the attempt to showcase the features of a "Global Village Center" enabling people to access all the services, informations and opportunities that new technologies provide from a place embedded in their real sphere of life, hosting new entrepreneurial cooperations in a much more "loaded" space than ever existed before, the modern equivalent of a vibrant bazaar..even if we do it as a "show" for the time being... Yes I think mobile communication is only part of the answer and we need also to think about the place where we physically meet and interact in our communities. If Gertenbach can showcase the prototype and the qualities of such a place in a creative and tangible way , that would be a meaningful complement to Village Innovation Talks. So the issue is not which proposal "wins". They are simply very, very different, and it will be our job to explain this necessary difference and show its beneficial nature.

Permalink Reply by Klaus Stoll on February 25, 2012 at 5:32pm

Dear Helmut

How dangerous it is to define an object through google searches, it takes the human element out of the equation! Yes, GKP was "a membership-organisation, fully depending on funding and/or membership fees", but the heroic decision was made by GKPF 3 years ago was to acknowledge that the old model was obsolete and in order to be relevant GKPF had to reinvent itself. This is what makes GKPF different from a lot of other organizations, the ability to recognize the need for change and to implement it. We are just in that process and I can tell you it is very frustrating being identified with the old model, because this is what stops us to change for the better. I have enough of looking back, our business is to construct he new. What we need is people to help to construct the new house, but we can not do it if we are staring at the plans of the old one. Who is with me constructing the new house?

Klaus

Alain Berranger said:

Helmut,

If you go to "Who we are" and scroll down to "Annual Reports", you will access the 2010 Annual Report of GKP. On page 13, you will see a graphical representation of the GKPF financial sustainability model. I hope it throws some light on how the GKPF network can be a stable place for all its members to exchange and whatever else they want to get out of it.

Best, Alain

Helmut Leitner said:

Uli, conceptually a social business is very much like a normal business, especially in offering goods or services on the market to everyone. As a business it is sustainable by not needing any funding. Acting non profit-maximizing, its offers can be designed and optimized to fill the needs of people, e.g. cheaper than the market, or in places or in qualities or to target groups that the commercial business don't have in focus. Compare this with the structure of GKPF, as a membership-organisation, fully depending on funding and/or membership fees, and you'll see that the identification as social business doesn't fit at all. Helmut 

Ulrich Burkhard said:

..... So why not saying GKPF is sort of "social business organisation" and its commodity is the "best practice knowhow/innovation exchange".

Permalink Reply by Ulrich Burkhard on February 26, 2012 at 11:49am

Amigos, where we are going? I will tell you where I will go!

Amazingly we have very similar visions without knowing us before. That is again a sign to me, that a strong paradigm change is there. Not a single one of us is bringing about that change.

In 2007 I had for seven weeks a time out on the "Way to St. James", – meeting many  peoples around the globe. It was an absolutely international gathering of all ranks. That was the first time, that I was really wondering how close we all became in our real values toward life.

Our human networking between Austria and Germany started for me  in 2006 coming the first time to Kirchbach in Austria. Here I heard the first time of Franz Nahrada, and his involvement with this particular village. Before that date I was not doing any networking at all, even not in my local context and not in internet.

In Kirchbach I was invited to lecture about my work and the theories that came up doing this work! In the centre of my lecture (I still have) I framed the picture, that we are living in a fragmented world, that villages and cities are equal parts of this fragmentations having different levels of HUMAN energy condensations and with different openness to innovations. I postulated that Kirchbach must form an outstanding village innovation hub with positive and negative consequenses.

Born in 1952 in after war Germany, I mutated many times in my life. Not because I wanted, but maybe I inhereted a radar to feel very early the upcoming of new value systems. Throught these mutations I never had one single job. Being mulitalented I just went into an other talent. I never really reflected that, it just happend with me. So I left already many "old worlds" and entered new worlds. And at the and I always succeeded in the new world, but sometime it became very hard.

The opening of the German inner border in 1989, I was living three km away from it, was again a kick for me to shift over there, helping with a new social business I started up. That almost "killed me", because the many new small businesses over there were first based on credits. In 1993 four year later, the small business often went bancrupt and thus couldn't pay my bills any more. Therefore I learned, doing social business the fincancial bases is important. Many small enterprises from the west got killed helping over there in the first years. Today I can laught about my heroic action over there, being proud to go throught that historic moment.

Now again I do mutate toward something new. What is my personal paradigm change? Could it be an idea for GKPFs paradigm change?

In my old business world I covered a wast area with my energy, watering many places (villages) simultaneouly, like I did in GDR before we became unifyed. I served a really huge area with my sevices and many many households. Since 1994 I never steped back into that area and started the same service in the Westpart around my home city and succeeded for 15 years with the idea that got lost in the east!

2011 the paradigm change caught me again and I steped out to do something crazily new and invested a huge sum in it. Exectly that investment beamed me into that world we are now sharing. So my ticket being here became quite expensive. I know we are doing well, and there is no mistrust in me toward what will come.

Kirchbach became the first place I understood the impact about innovation hub energy outside my home area.

Now in the new business world I do feel into the innovation hup engergy of a place, an organization, a person! Therefore I  am here with GKPF and not anywhere else: I focus to Gertenbach, I concentrate to Kirchbach and other energetically strong places.

Due to my experiences I know that Gertenbach is an extreamly strong village innovation hub. Everybody is extreamly willing and open toward innovations, all physical precondition are ideal forseeing returns in the near future.

In comparison the city Witzenhausen nearby is highly innovative within own new best practice innovations but less open to let in foreign innovations. Of cause that can be changed, and it will change with the help of Gertenbach. (matrix of mutual help!).

And therefore we want to bring Kirchbach (Austria) and Gertenbach (Germany) in an direct innovation exchange within its completely different approaches but almost the same village size.

Permalink Reply by Franz Nahrada on February 26, 2012 at 12:50pm

@Alain - Well, Alain, the discussion here might be already a little bit too confusing for outsiders. Even the ordinary person will find it hard to get a grip of all the different strands of thought here. And someone like Doug Engelbart whose time is really scarce might have even a harder time. (I do wish to re-actualize the contact though, but I would not really like to press him).  

More generally. Group conversations in the internet are sometimes hard to follow if you are not " in it" from the beginning, That is why I became the wiki fan that I am and love condensation of information. If we had an editor and a wiki we could write a "shell page" to this thread condensing the logical strands and linking chuncs of information for easier access. This is exactly what Engelbart imho meant: we think technology does the trick, but it leads us to drown in a self - created sea of information....if we do not create the right social innovations. We must understand that what we win by all these things that save time and increase communication speed, we must give back, for example in terms of good access and documentation....

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• Next ›
• Page