Leonardo
Lavanderos You amaze me. Presumably, you
are not writing in the language that you "learned at your mother's
knee", but you write English better than I do. Unfortunately, I don't
understand everything you write. I knew that my remark about religion was wrong
as soon as I had written it, and I think I understand what you mean by “measurements compete with measurements”, namely, that the only
people who will understand my rejection of capitalism on mathematical grounds
are people who think like I do. And, it
is true that I can’t accept anything until I do the math. But, I thought everyone was like that or would
be if they were sufficiently capable. Now,
here comes a string of ideas that have completely escaped me:
For the same reason, we are talking about relationships not
interactions, relationships cannot be measured because there is no ontogeny or
ontology of the relationship, the whole discussion of biodiversity,
sustainability is based on objects, interactions NOT RELATIONSHIPS. That is why
all isms (socialism, syndicalism, Christianity, etc) that come from linear,
barbaric worlds cannot understand relationships.
Can you elaborate on the above? Try to make me understand the last sentence. This is something that has never occurred to
me. It looks like I have a chance to learn something.
Now, let me ask you about my neologism: dechrematisticalism. I wrote:
Dechrematisticalism
What is to be done
with that section of the possessors of specific talents whose talent is for
moneymaking? History and daily experience teach us that if the world does not
devise some plan of ruling them, they will rule the world. Now it is not
desirable that they should rule the world; for the secret of moneymaking is to
care for nothing else and to work at nothing else; and as the world’s welfare
depends on operations by which no individual can make money, whilst its ruin
... is enormously profitable to moneymakers, the supremacy of the moneymaker is
the destruction of the State. A society which depends on the incentive of
private profit is doomed.– George Bernard Shaw, The
Millionairess.
Chrematistics
Here is a case in
which we can do no better than to quote the Wikipedia, which is permissible
under the applicable rules:
“Aristotle established
a difference between economics and chrematistics that would be foundational in
medieval thought. For Aristotle, the accumulation of
money itself is an unnatural activity that dehumanizes those who practice
it. Trade
Exchanges, money for goods, and usury create money from
money, but do not produce useful goods. Hence, Aristotle, like Plato, condemns these actions
from the standpoint of their philosophical ethics.” [snip]
Thus, activities
that are performed to obtain a greater share of the net proceeds of the economy
for the worker or his employer but produce nothing that we need to live and
enjoy life can be distinguished from genuine economic activity by the term
“chrematistics”. Inasmuch as this constitutes a huge overhead on the economy
that we can no longer afford as we approach Peak Oil, we take the liberty of
referring to the elimination of chrematistics as dechrematisticalism, partly
for the pleasure of coining a beautiful large word but mostly because it will
postpone the extinction of the human race for an astronomical period of time.
This analysis was verified in “Energy
in a Natural Economy”. Notice that I had a good notion of the split between
economics, in the sense of Aristotle, and chrematistics, even though I did not
know the word. Notice, as well, that the sort of people who would own the
world, as in the game of monopoly, which likewise is played in a world that
cannot grow, would be stripped of their peculiar power; and, the introduction
of a new monetary system (actually a system of rationing consumption) would
prevent the sort of inequalities that precede violent revolutions.
Can Resource Dominance Be Eliminated?
It will, of course, be said that such a scheme as is set forth here is
quite impractical, and goes against human nature. This is perfectly true.
It is impractical, and it goes against human nature. This is why it
is worth carrying out, and that is why one proposes it. For what is a
practical scheme? A practical scheme is either a scheme that is already
in existence, or a scheme that could be carried out under existing conditions.
But it is exactly the existing conditions that one objects to; and any scheme
that could accept these conditions is wrong and foolish. The conditions
will be done away with, and human nature will change. The only thing that
one really knows about human nature is that it changes. Change is the one
quality we can predicate of it. The systems that fail are those that rely
on the permanency of human nature, and not on its growth and development. — Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man Under Socialism
Let us set aside,
for a moment, the possibility of a benevolent deity the existence of whom would
assure any reasonable person that resource dominance has no permanent place in
human nature (theism); or, what amounts to the same thing, that the true nature
of Man is inherently noble (humanism), so that resource dominance is merely an
example of a temporary corrupting influence that will soon be corrected.
We are left with little more than the choice between Transcendental
Idealism represented by the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics and
Transcendental Realism represented by the global-hidden-variables
interpretation of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen gedankenexperiment as
actualized by the experiments of Alain Aspect and his co-workers. In case
of theism, humanism, or Transcendental Idealism, resource dominance can be
eliminated from human behavior by eliminating the corrupting influence, namely,
materialism, or by the timely intervention of good fortune.
In the case of
Transcendental Realism, we may retain hope for Dematerialism in all but the
last of the following cases:
1. Resource
dominance is not an intrinsic characteristic of human nature.
2. Resource
dominance is an intrinsic characteristic of human nature; however, it can be
subverted by re-directing it toward more realistic ways to achieve reproductive
advantage (i) by manifesting excellence in all of our activities so as to earn
the admiration of members of both genders or (ii) by manifesting greater sex
appeal than other candidates for the affections of members of the opposite sex.
This redirection can be achieved by education, indoctrination,
legislation, or any combination of these.
3. Our knowledge
of human nature is insufficient to make a judgment either way.
We must consider the time at which Wilde wrote the passage I quoted – pre-evolutionary psychology, etc.
