Response To A Poster Who Slams Me Despite The Fact That We Appear To Agree On Nearly Everything

MC:  The flaw in your geology as an exemplar Geoff is that for decades Alfred Wegner’s theory of Continental Drift was ignored despite the overwhelming evidence in it’s favor. So science alone, facts and even evidence alone, doesn’t even sway the institutional and historical inertia of a given culture’s scientists. Specifically the American response and it’s intransigence compared to European response.
Science cannot solve the value crisis the roots of which are historical and rooted in political power and cultural predjudices and out-right ignorance.
Without a certain degree of moral and ethical (and ethics is philosophy, after all) maturity level within a culture science cannot really flourish. When respect for truth dies, when post-truth alt-fact comes to hold equal footing with sound science, a civilizational decline is inevitable. Another dark ages is a very real possibility.
Just look at the United States right now for proof that decline of culture, historical awareness , morality, and philosophy of ethics.

Me:   What the hell are you always slamming me for. You completely agree with the philosophy I’ve been advocating here for years. Yes, I am evangelical about what I consider the new monetary and financial paradigm, but not without good empirical and philosophical reason. Hence I’m confident, not arrogant, impatient, yes, because there is a rational end to patience especially when survival may be in the balance.

What do you think the concept of a new monetary and financial paradigm might be. I’ve asked this question of the group several times, but no one ever takes up the challenge. They just squirrel off into their palliative reforms, personal agendas, complain about complexities and/or re-iterate the same heterodox critiques we’ve all come to agree upon. Give it a shot. After a while you come to accept the invalidation or unresponsiveness. It doesn’t kill you.

MC:  I am sorry if you feel the comment somehow relates to you. It doesn’t.

Me:  If you’re referring to me it certainly does express much of the same philosophy I advocate. I wasn’t assuming it was even addressed to me. I was just wondering why and how you could have been so aggressively critical of me despite thinking so much in the same terms.

Not willing to take a dive into conjecturing about the new monetary and financial paradigm, huh?

MC:   In my view you are an evangelical with religious zeal. I wish you well, but I don’t agree with your one size fits all solutions. Gerald asked reasonable questions and your response was less than reasonable. So I simply cannot see any value in engaging in dialogue, this is my last comment.
Me:  Well,…thanks for the reply. However, it’s actually everyone else here who has the one size (heterodoxy) fits most everything (except the breakthrough conceptual insight/new tool/monopoly busting phenomenon known as a paradigm change) not me. I’m behind 99% of heterodoxy myself because that is how science ploddingly advances as Kuhn observed. Too bad Kuhn looked only at science instead of paradigms themselves, their actual operations and their accomplished signatures. Paradigms and “Paradigmology” being the quintessential integrative phenomenon and study is exactly what science needs.Reread the thread, Gerald asked me questions designed to invalidate and I gave him solid mathematical and philosophical answers.

We’re right where we need to be, we just have to stand in the light of the obvious. When all of the leading heterodox reforms are about money and finance that’s a glaring indicator that what economics needs is to find the paradigm there.



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 )

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s