Thanks Ximin (first name, right?), I will definitely check both those out. Kropotin’s sounds particularly relevant to the research and I wonder if it also addresses considerations of the collaborative vs. hierarchical systems as discussed in your other post at http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=20455981224&topic=3428.

The Iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma sounds interesting. I haven’t heard of a co-operative/retaliatory strategy before, sounds kind of like a contradiction; I look forward to learning more about it.

Peter Kropotkin’s “Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution” is an interesting read - it argues that co-operation is more beneficial than competition, and that co-operation is what actually causes progress. It also provides historical evidence of different societies from ours, in which property and money don’t exist, and the economy is organised in a mostly communist (free giving/receiving) fashion.

You might also be interested in the Iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma - it provides experimental evidence that co-operative-retaliatory strategies are the most survival-capable.

This premise suggests that fundamental values such as love, caring, nurturing, protection, and respect (et al) for our fellow man exist as part of the human condition but that external influences are often so great that they impose a dominance over those values.

In the context of this research, one of my premises is that if people understood what the Zapatista struggle was really all about, it would be universally supported. Those that do understand but continue to oppose the ideals or values of the Zapatistas, do so because external influences have imposed a dominance over their value system which would otherwise have led them to support, rather than oppose, the movement.

Ok i’m just going to ramble a bit so bear with me. (these thoughts are just off the top of my head)

I’m thinking that to communicate in any regards one has to come to relative grounds with the group that you’re trying to communicate with.

Now communication in syntax is different from understanding; which might also need to be separated by agreeing or disagreeing with a statement. So if one were to break down all the parts on a topic we can see that if I were to speak yiddish for instance and Mr.Smith were to understand the grammar and syntax coming from a non indigenous background, it maybe difficult for him to understand relevance or the importance due to a different system of belief.

This is where relative belief may be the disparity in understanding between systems of thought. If Mr. Smith were to understand my yiddish I have successfully communicated to him, though agreeing on the topic may come down to where the greater value lies in belief systems.

If we approach it from an egocentric view the result will probably be that I value my own beliefs over that of Mr. Smiths even though I may understand him, this may lead to the discussion of co existence and compromise between two groups.

Ok that might have been a lot of mumbo jumbo but it’s an interesting question that i’ll have to think and read about some more