Paradigms vs Reforms

Y:  Economy is not so simple entity that a monetary reform idea of a dreamer can solve 99.99% of problems of the economy. We must study the economy with much humbler mind. Learn first from history of the economy and then form history of economics as one of sciences.

Me:  @Yoshinori

Genuine paradigms are single concepts that create an entirely new pluralism, that is a new pattern. A paradigm is hence the second most integrative human concept, second only to the NATURAL (got that?) philosophical concept of grace which is the ultimate integrative and unitary concept of wisdom itself. Considering that the defining characteristics of every historical paradigm change has been an aspect or aspects of the concept of grace…this is entirely logical, that is, unless you ascribe to the religion of scientism.

Paradigms are not reforms. They are pattern changes. Reforms exist only WITHIN the old paradigm and hence must conform to it and consider its complexities. They are “epicycles and perturbations of Mars”.

A new paradigm fits into any of the legitimate and aligned existing structures and complexities in the body of knowledge/area of human endeavor, but its concept being integrative, unitary and transformational is still a new pattern altogether.

Political analogy:

The Mueller Investigation was reform-like in that it was emasculated by complexity and got easily nulled by an operative.

Trump’s soliciting of a foreign government to benefit him in his coming political campaign by smearing his likely opponent is paradigm-like in that it is a singularly defining and impeachable act that lies and bold obs-curation cannot deny or undo.

Me:   @Frank and John

“One can not repair a system which is incapable of answering the questions which need to be answered.”

Correct. Except that “Considering that Occam’s razor reveals the analysis to introduce a minimum of entities — definitions of productivity and technical progress — I do not understand why apparently all this is considered to be of no account.” …is just another reform that misses the mark of the real problem, that is….the monetary and financial and hence the economic paradigm.

Economics needs a NEW concept, a new monetary concept that transforms and creates an entirely new TEMPORAL UNIVERSE PATTERN/paradigm in economics.

All of the leading reforms affirm this. Minsky’s FINANCIAL instability hypothesis, Modern MONETARY Theory, Public BANKING, Hudson’s FINANCIAL parasitism…except they’re piecemeal, reductionistic instead of integrative, problem focused, overly abstract unconscious dancing around the SOLUTION….which is the necessity for a new monetary and financial paradigm. They all fail to rise to the integrative level of the paradigm.


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 )

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