Me: @NR, What specific economic and monetary policies do you suggest in your book Telos & Technos?
NR: Please reference FRANK SALTER
Me: If you’re not going to disclose any policies advocated in Telos & Technos all I can assume is that it is only a philosophical work. That’s fine of course, and as Telos (purpose) and Technos (action in the temporal universe) are conceptually oppositional it tells me that it may be about the integration of their separate truths which as I have posted here numerous times is the very process of wisdom. However, as I have also posted philosophy is an order of magnitude below paradigm perception. A new paradigm is a singular concept that enlightens and is thoroughly applicable via aligned policies to an entire new pattern. It’s Agriculture. It’s Helio-Centrism. It’s Machine Printing of Information….and in the case of economics and the money system and their current paradigm of Debt Only it is Monetary Gifting.
FS: Addendum: I would suggest that the valid paradigm is: Classical Transient Analysis
Me: Transience and process are valid aspects of the new ethic/zeitgeist of economics namely the natural philosophical concept of grace as in continuous free flow as well as the new paradigm of grace as in Monetary Gifting. The natural philosophical concept of grace is also characterized by abundance as opposed to scarcity/austerity and dynamically integrative disequilibrium as opposed to static equilibrium. These two latter aspects are particularly relevant to the economy of course as capitalist economies are demand constrained as Steve Keen has said, the current paradigm of Debt Only enforces scarcity/austerity via debt deflation and the much debunked DSGE enforces the fallacious static equilibrium. The new paradigm accomplishes the requisite signature of paradigm change, that is fundamental inversions, in this case inverting monetary scarcity and equilibrium with what I refer to as “the higher free flowing macro-economic disequilibrium ratio of abundance of total demand in ratio to total retail prices.”
FS: I believe that Craig and I are using paradigm with totally different semantics. Craig appears to be using the word at a metaphysical level. My use is consistent with the Wikipedia entry “Scientific paradigm”.
Me: Yes we are. I’m using it in the NATURAL and EXISTENTIAL metaphysical sense which are the signatures not only of good inclusive science, but of scientific breakthrough. Science ONLY has been the paradigm of inquiry for the last 400-500 years and unfortunately has become rather rigid and orthodox. Science like food is good, delicious, necessary and resides entirely within the digestive tract of Wisdom…..which is the new paradigm of inquiry.
It is not only time for economics to be guided by the new paradigm of Gifting it’s time that mankind learns to more broadly utilize the integrative process that better enables a leap in epistemological experience.
ER: I find all of the above very interesting because they relate to how real people think and function in the real world and I think without this understanding dare I say it no amount of theorizing will change economic thinking
Me: Correct ER. Because theorizing is reform not paradigm perception which is mind clearing progress. There are a thousand nudges forward (or backward) from one “advance” to another with reforms. It takes paradigm perception to truly move forward. Sadly, even genuine scientific discoveries are mere “epicycles” compared to the insights and leaps forward of paradigm changes.
FS: I take it that you are not a practising scientist. The scientific method is merely to test theory against empirical evidence. If they conflict then discard the theory. I do not see rigidity or orthodoxy entering into such a simple concept.
Me: If you re-read my posts you’ll see that I am four square for science. Science has been the paradigm for knowledge and inquiry for the last 400-500 years. Unfortunately it has become the orthodoxy of Science ONLY. I believe this has been recognized here by Lars Syll and Asad Zamon. Orthodoxy kills and/or infects inquiry. Wisdom is inclusive of Science. We need a Wisdomics not its subset economics.
YS: It seems that nobody is against the dictum that it take theory to beat a theory. Although we cannot find this dictum in the Thomas Kuhn’s famous book: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, he thought that a scientific revolution was a change of paradigm theory.
Economics is now in a great crisis. Many people, not learned economists in particular, but many common people, now acknowledge it. We are now in the age of scientific revolution for economics. It comes from replacement of paradigm theory by a new one. The strategy that we should take is almost evident.
Me: Correct, except a new paradigm is not a theory it is the recognition of a new pattern….which then makes a new theory and its policies a relatively easy and rational/logical process. Focusing on theory first and only generally just slows and/or distorts the process of paradigm perception. This is not to invalidate the scientific process of theorizing of course. Rather it is simply suggesting that we integrate the reductionistic/iconoclastic process of the scientific method and the wholistic/unifying process of Wisdom/paradigm perception. The better to hasten the recognition of the new paradigm/pattern. We don’t need just economic theory we need a Wisdomics.
FS: What is “the orthodoxy of Science”? Science has been developing in many different directions. New applications are being developed continually. I agree wisdom is a very precious characteristic.
Do you think that there are prescriptions by which wisdom might be learned? I do not understand how economics might be a subset unless you are speaking of classification theory.
Philosophy might seek to explain reality, but metaphysics is unlikely to lead to the development of solutions in the real world. They need to be based of a genuine understanding of reality and what alternative courses of action will produce.
Me: Science is Science. Science Only is an orthodoxy. Orthodoxies are mindsets that always exclude, reduce, inhibit looking and eventually degrade into arrogance and invalidation.
Wisdom can be learned by studying the world’s major Wisdom traditions, all the time focusing on the meanings, purposes and experiences related there as opposed to latching onto the dogmas also found there.
As Wisdom is the discernment process of integrating seeming opposed truths you can also habituate yourself to the integrative ethic or what I refer to as The Cosmic Code in this case:
[ (Science x Wisdom) <–> A Greater Thirdness-Wholeness-Oneness of Temporal-Empirical & Self Knowledge in whatever area under observation ]
Science tends to suffer from obsessive reductionism and religion tends to suffer from obsessive wholism both of which cling to dogmas instead of being a trinity-unity-oneness gestalt like the Cosmic Code.
YS: Kuhn used the term “paradigm theory” five times in his book: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
Kuhn defined his key concept “paradigm” primarily as “model or pattern”. (III. The Nature of Normal Science). These words are ambiguous and and we should reflect what a paradigm is or can be in a concrete scientific revolution. At the same time, it would be true that simple pattern of way of thinking has no power to replace the old pattern of thinking. It needs a certain degree of theory. The dictum “It takes a theory to beat a theory” may point this.
Kuhn talks about Copernicus, Newton, Lavoisier and Einstein. In each case, the person who brought a revolution had a well developed theory. In cases like Copernicus or Einstein, it is evident that they could not perform their revolutions without having a theory or a system of a theory that are at least comparable to the old paradigm they had to compete with. Simple change of methodological or methodological attitudes cannot bring a revolution.
A change of perceptional pattern may occur at first in the mind of the revolution bringer, but between that personal inspiration and the revolution a theory making or construction is necessary. For me, Lars is not aware of this phase of paradigm change or ignoring it. His philosophy of economics has a defect.
Me: Well, as I said I’m not trying to invalidate theorizing. I’m simply saying that a paradigm itself is a singularly significant concept that fits within and creates an entire new pattern….and recognizing the concept is a boon to theorizing which may be going in the conceptual direction of the paradigm…but has not fully cognited on the paradigm itself. Paradigm perception is an extremely progressive event that clarifies the path ahead toward its implementation.
And paradigms have signatures like opposition, inversion of present realities and new discoveries/insights from places people aren’t aware of or looking at either because orthodoxy has told them not to look there or they incorrectly decide that an area is not relevant….and so do not look. The paradigm change from H & G to Agriculture was the oppositional change from nomadism to homesteadism, i.e. moving around to staying in place. Helio-Centrism was the inversion of the position of the earth and the sun. For the Church and many believers it was also a psychological inversion from ego-centrism to relativism. Helio-Centrism also was accompanied by the telescope and finally the ellipse. When you mentioned that your books were looking at micro-foundations I thought, “Ah, someone who may cognite on the significance of the aggregative and singular integration point between the micro and macro economies that is retail sale. Being willing to look anywhere and everywhere prevents the blunting and blinding of orthodoxy.