Post To RWER Blog…About The Real Point


Benedict’s study is interesting both in that she came around to seeing growth as possible and in her use of the concept of the triad/trinity which is present in every area of human endeavor and as aspects of the physical/temporal universe as well. However, growth is a scientific euphemism for wisdom and self actualization/ascension. Man is accurately described by the ancients as homo sapiens, wise and discerning man, and he/she is devolving into homo economicus within the culture of homo scientificus ONLY (sp)

Building a culture on doubt is mistaken. Building one on knowingness/wisdom that of course includes unknowingness as an integral part of being able to actually realize knowingness instead of settling for mere data and computation is what we need to work toward.

KZ:  (To another poster) My main point, though, is that shouldn’t those who claim to have this capacity attempt to link it to some logic, hopefully one that I could comprehend? (This would seem to be a huge methodological advance, of potential benefit to both economics and economies.)” The issue your statement raises is the link must be based on a logic created in a particular culture. Which culture’s logic is the one we should choose? First, the cultures must be integrated so a single useful logic for this task is created. And we’re back to our original issue. How to perform the integration.

Me:  @ Ken,

“The issue your statement raises is the link must be based on a logic created in a particular culture. Which culture’s logic is the one we should choose? First, the cultures must be integrated so a single useful logic for this task is created. And we’re back to our original issue. How to perform the integration.”

I couldn’t have said it better. Integration is the very process of wisdom. It’s time for mankind to mature into a culture of wisdom whose pinnacle concept is grace, i.e. love in individual action, bulwark-ed and encouraged by systems whose policies are logically aligned and based on that same concept. For instance monetary grace as in direct and reciprocal gifting at the point of retail sale.

A Wisdomics-Gracenomics, the first mega-universal-paradigm change since that from hunting and gathering to agriculture, homesteading and urbanization.

The way to know that personally is to contemplate grace. The way to acculturate it is to implement policies aligned with it. And the way to miss having its “road to Damascus” type cognition is to abstract and talk around and about it forever instead of coming into present time and knowing its human and temporal universe reality.

KZ:  Craig, Benedict is considered one of the greatest anthropologists of the 20th century because she, like Margaret Mead, Louis Leaky, Clifford Geertz, etc. opened new cultural institutions and artifacts to study, some very controversial. Such as sexual rituals, race, gender, etc. None invented what they wrote. They reported what they were taught through dialogue and observation by the societies they examined. As for cultures built on mistakes, just about every culture ever recorded is founded on one or more mistakes, viewed from the perspective of other cultures. So, if there are things about cultures that you dislike or disturb you, don’t blame the anthropologists. Blame the peoples who invented each culture. But you can only do that from the perspective of the culture in which your life is situated.

Me:  Wisdom/the highest form and method of self knowledge strips away culture and enables and builds consciousness/self awareness. That’s why zen buddhists say you have to remove even the “breath on the mirror” before you are enlightened and why Vedanta declares “Tat Tvam Asi, thou art that, you are it….and I would simply add that it is also you.
DM:  Ken, What do you mean by ‘integrated’ in this context? (It seems to me that its meaning is very culturally dependent, and I don’t presume to ‘get it’.)
Lacking a meaningful global culture how might we collabrate across cultures. It seems to me that we would want some sort of critical debate, which would seem to me to imply some sort of common ‘logic’. If not, how might we proceeed? Or do we need some kind of global culture, and if so how might we characterise it? And achieve it?

Me:  @Dave at 5:02 pm,The only way to transcend culture is to build/self actualize consciousness/self awareness. Then you become free to live in any culture as you choose to. It’s why the zen Buddhists say: “Before one becomes a novitiate they see that mountains are mountains and streams are streams, and after they have attained enlightenment they still see mountains are mountains and streams are streams they just see them wisely.”

That is fully consciously….not just abstractly/intellectually.

KZ:  Craig, as to the highness or lowness of Wisdom, or Buddhism, I cannot speak. Having no access to such knowledge. But the remainder of this sentence is wrong. From all we know of human history and anthropology going back 200,000 years, humans invented culture as a way to live together, build communities, and give stability and purpose to their lives. No human community, no matter how small since the invention of writing by humans lacked a culture. And archaeologists have shown evidence that human communities going back at least 20,000 years before the invention of writing created cultures. Humans simply can’t survive without culture. So, my interpretation of your remarks is that you prefer the culture Wisdom replace all exiting cultures. High ambition. As, I said in another comment, multiculturalism is the biggest problem facing humans today. Your position is multiculturalism’s issues should be settled by having just one culture for all humans, Wisdom. But this doesn’t transcend culture but ends with all humans as members of only one culture. One culture or a thousand, culture remains the central element for organizing human societies.
Me:  Ken, My post to Dave at September 19, 2019 at 6:14 pm answers your question.
KZ:  Very nice, Craig. But just does one “build/self actualize consciousness/self awareness” since what these are and how we get to them are culturally entangled. In the end, each question and answer comes back to culture. Creating a world culture is certainly possible. But it’s mostly hard work and careful listening, and above all respect for the cultures that might be supplanted. This talk of actualization of self-awareness and consciousness is bunk, in my humble view.

Me:   “Creating a world culture is certainly possible. But it’s mostly hard work and careful listening, and above all respect for the cultures that might be supplanted. This talk of actualization of self-awareness and consciousness is bunk, in my humble view.”Every culture already has a concept of grace as in love in ACTION, so as I said there’s no need to supplant any of them, simply contemplate, deepen/self actualize and ACT on that concept. When the devastating human effects of non-functioning economies and climate change begin to become more and more apparent it won’t be those who contemplated and ACTED with aligned systemic policy that will be blamed but rather those who opposed it or merely engaged in endless intellectual chatter round and about it as the catastrophe loomed. That is the real bunk.


KZ:  Craig, having been involved in hundreds of policy struggles let me say that in each case there were hundreds of dots that had to be connected, negotiations that required patience and listening skills, and more than a few threats. The only contemplation involved was about the law, what was fair for all stakeholders, and dealing with greed and envy. And the actions involved were measured, stop-and-go, and tentative till a final resolution. And even final resolutions are never final, really. And we engaged in little “endless intellectual chatter,” except at times by the judges and other decision makers (elected and appointed). These actions and institutions are what Trump and his minions call the “deep state.” It is they that daily protect American rights and defend American freedoms. Trump’s attacks on these actions and institutions is a direct attack on these rights and freedoms. Craig, I don’t see how what you offer helps achieve any of this. Especially in these times of great threat.

Me:  Well Ken you have the disadvantage of having negotiated within the current paradigm of Debt Only for the sole form and vehicle for the distribution of credit/money….which contradictorily assumes monetary scarcity and price and asset inflation are immutable realities.

Fortunately Abundantly Direct and Reciprocal Monetary Gifting at the point of retail sale mathematically, empirically, immediately, stably, individually and commercially de-bunks those orthodoxies.

When you can offer real and permanently progressive solutions for all stakeholders in a negotiation (except perhaps for one illegitimate business model who everyone already loves to hate because they know in their heart of hearts that it “owns the joint”, read dominates and manipulates with the current paradigm) it makes those negotiations and policy choices a helluva a lot easier.

But then, what are mega paradigm changes for except to change entire cultures/patterns?

KZ:  Craig, I’ve helped to negotiate many win-win-win settlements. So your paradigm change isn’t essential, in my view. But things would be much easier, fairer, and beneficial for all involved if all parties in negotiations knew and followed the rules, negotiated in good faith, and if not in good faith were held to account by elected members of government and ultimately each ordinary person. Since I have no idea of how your direct and reciprocal monetary gifting at the point of retail sale will work out in practice, I can’t say if it will improve this situation. The result depends a lot on how the changes are made and through what institutions. As things stand now neither major political party could champion such changes. Neither could any institution of existing governments. Religious institutions are out. As is the judiciary. Your proposed changes may be stymied by the existing cultural wars, and the coming intensification of those wars. So, sit tight, This is not a good time to be a reformer in America.
Me:  The present institutions cannot be relied upon to see the new paradigm. I recognize that, although it is so obviously beneficial for both the individual, students and the small to medium sized business community that those are the equally obvious very large constituencies that we need to communicate it to. In other words it’s fruitless to try to create change preaching to academia or large elite controlled organizations. What is required is a bottom up individual consumer/worker/student/business community mass movement not unlike Gandhi’s and MLK’s….because it is so beneficial for all of those.
DT:   Craig, the implication of your philosophy being more “naturalistic” is surely that it is less human?The acronym PID stands for the mathematical terms Proportional, Integral and Differential, which if you are not familiar with the differential calculus you can hardly be blamed for not understanding. There is however a subtlety in that numbers can represent directions as well as quantities, as in the direction of a hand on a clock which counts the hours. Fairly obviously, this is the normal form in the mathematics of circuits and circulation; it is highly significant in synchronising multiple processes happening on related timescales like the rotation of the second, minute, hour and day hands on a clock. In this form integration moves the hand forward through a right angle, differentiation moves it back, both together leave its direction unchanged, and two of either leave it pointing in the opposite direction.

Because this is so unlikely to be familiar I have repeatedly used the term PID, hoping to make it so and tempt curious readers to look it up. However, I’ve also repeatedly explained how its concepts work out in the real world context of navigation, which is all about travelling in the intended direction. The captain, off-line, sets the intended course; the steersman corrects momentary errors in direction by adjustments Proportional to the size of the error; the second officer periodically adjusts the course to compensate for the Integral of positional errors due to tides, winds etc accumulated over time, and the look-out may signal a need for a Different course to avoid approaching danger (c.f. an investor moving funds out of a failing business); which however takes one off the intended course. If that happens to be providing for the needs of mankind, it will require a Keynesian Integral (more maintenance, precisely not more money making) to correct it.

And no, I haven’t “accepted the DSGE/”no free lunch” libertarian viewpoint on macro-economics…instead of the inherently cost inflationary and hence monetarily scarce reality of high tech capital intensive macro economics”.

PID, as a little thought about the navigational example I have given will clearly show, is not a “macro” viewpoint but a “logic” one, i.e. a logic of processes rather than words. As such it applies to all and even (as a concept) to none. The logic of navigation applies just as much to sailing a dinghy as steering a ship of state.

Your “DSGE/no free lunch” quibbles are interesting enough to be worth responding to. Yes, the errors the navigator is correcting may for theoretical purposes be thought of as random (though in practice they are only so on a macro weather scale). And in the long term there is no free lunch. If one doesn’t correct errors due to avoidance action one will lose one’s bearings and run out of food or fuel before arriving at one’s destination.

In practical terms my position is much nearer Schumacher’s “Small is Beautiful” (derivative from Ruskin’s “Unto This Last” and “Crown of Wild Olive” and Chesterton’s “Outline of Sanity”) than to Smith’s “money making by mass production”. I would add the need for local PID feedbacks to make possible and therefore reasonable the voluntary control of population. The concern is the making of men, not (in both senses) making the most of them.

Me:  Thanks for the reply Dave. I would assert that the philosophical concept of grace, being the supreme spiritual value of love in action and an all encompassing, integral and unitary mindset provides the guidance and the insight for both the individual and for systemic policies.

My gracious naturalism is an integration of those supposedly opposing concepts. When in doubt integrate….and keep on integrating. Integration is the PID/process of wisdom whose ultimate personal and temporal state is grace/graciousness.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s