Me: The future evolution of capitalist and socialist economics lies with the thirdness greater oneness known as the profit making system of Direct and Reciprocal Monetary Distributism.
My complaint against both capitalism and socialism is that they fail the thirdness greater oneness synthesis aspect of the Hegelian dialectic. As I have posted here before I will not dispute that certain social democracies accomplish a more democratic distribution of money and are more humane than capitalist economies, but as I have also posted before when an actual resolution of the deepest problems of both capitalism and socialism and the thirdness greater oneness of a genuine paradigm change are available the palliatives of socialism and capitalism, both of which are reside squarely within the old monetary and economic paradigm, are not justifiable.
KZ: Craig, most of the homegrown American socialists I saw all around the nation in the 1950s and 1960s with whom I continue to work today would not understand your comment. Nor would they want to. For them socialism is about taking care of themselves and their neighbors. Sometimes in opposition to some unfriendly, or worse folks like banks, agribusiness, etc.
Me: Yes, they’re “into” conflict theory instead of the thirdness greater oneness/synthesis of the dialectic they’ve glommed onto. And while I share most of their critiques of capitalism I see scant evidence that they are even progressing let alone winning the day. And the reason for that is, again, being unwilling/habitually unable to integrate truths etc. by merely and reactively fighting it. Discerning thirdness is the signature of wisdom which is more valuable and a deeper understanding than data-knowledge.
Discerning actual thirdness enables us to see through the counterfeit thirdness of the populism of Trump that we see looming up before us in America and elsewhere around the world. I suggest we act with post haste to avoid its disintegrative character.
KZ: Craig, again they would dismiss your statement immediately as irrelevant and of little use.
Me: Yes, I’m confident they would. And therein is their problem.
Ken, is there only ever reform and incremental change and consequently no such thing as a permanently progressive paradigm change?
KZ: Craig, I don’t see the problem with coop. staff and members dismissing your statements. They’re alien to their world. And they see them providing no guidance for them.
The evolutionary and cultural history of humans suggests there is both reform and incremental change, as well as radical (sometimes violent) change. And, no permanently progressive change. Or, permanently regressive change.
Me: My point is that integration of truths/realities is wisdom and its process, and the Hegelian/Marxian dialectic is an integrative process….which they would not be practicing in rejecting my integration of the truths, workabilities, applicabilities and highest ethical considerations of capitalism and socialism. In essence they would be acting in a reactionary and ideological fashion. When in doubt integrate…and keep on integrating. The integrative process is the lesson.
The problem with both finance capitalism and soviet style socialism is that economically, monetarily and politically, they are driven by the paradigms of dominating power and enforced control as opposed to a paradigm of freedom and free flowingness. An insightful and intelligently crafted program of policies based on the latter would enable an inversion of the former into the latter in rather short order….because economic, monetary and political freedom and free flowingness is in everyone’s self interest, and any laggards and/or recalcitrants would face the uphill battle of trying to re-implement mere power and control.
KZ: Craig, looking at human history human cultures oscillate between searching for peace and good feeling, usually after the end of a war, and power/force when humans feel threatened by “outsiders.” No one suggests these are fully or even particularly explicitly controllable. If you mean by “everyone’s interest” species interest, then we’re on the same page. Otherwise we are decidedly not on the same page.
Me: What I am saying is that knowing grace as in graciousness, that is sensitivity to both self and others, grace as in a benevolent and abundant monetary system, graceful as in a free flowing economic system and being aware of and attuned to grace as in the continually flowing, interactive, integrative reality of the temporal universe on the planet we live on and of the entire cosmos….is in everyone’s interests….and, as we are self aware, the more we align our thinking and acting with that reality the more real will be the reality of ourselves, our systems and the cosmos.
And finally, grace as in the complete integration of opposites includes….opposites and every reality in between….then grace the pinnacle concept of wisdom which is the best integration of the ideal and the practical….is not just airy-fairy philosophy-ing but the deeper integrative understanding.
And that’s why Wisdomics-Gracenomics and its aligned policies and regulations makes sense as opposed to some lesser integrative concept.
The bain of economic theorizing, and for that matter of human history and psychology is obsessive dualism. The third integrative/synthesizing alternative is always wisdom. So if we were to cognite on a concept that was quintessentially integrative/synthesizing wouldn’t that be a good concept to accomplish such in economics and also in human psychology?
That is what Wisdomics-Gracenomics is based on.
Science like food is necessary, intellectually delicious and occasionally wonderful…and it resides entirely within the digestive tract of Wisdom.
Science, although a trinitarian process itself of a hypothesis and the dualistic true/false comparing of data to it is nonetheless objectifying and fragmenting, and habituating oneself to only that process at best atrophies one’s awareness of their own consciousness and at worse is invalidative of same.
Wisdom on the other hand includes and integrates with the scientific method and is an integrative trinity-unity-oneness-process that results in a more wholly truthful perspective and also a more deeply considered way of acting and/or applying policy.