Me: The entire issue of uncertainty is basically moot. Change/emergence is an aspect of the temporal universe so….okay.

The real issue is whether progress is palliative reform or paradigm changing. But even a paradigm change eventually becomes orthodoxy and problematic.

Now a mega-paradigm/zeitgeist change, the initiator of which Direct and Reciprocal Monetary Gifting is, THAT is really broad and stable progress. There’s only been two, maybe three of those in the entire history of the human species.

Intellectuals, “Ye must become like little children.” That is, let loose of your burdensome and limiting orthodoxies, even your iconoclasm, and consider the integrative thirdness that emerges out of dualing half truths and falsehoods when a new tool or insight is discovered.

Please.

Dave,

What you and others say is all perfectly correct. The only thing it leaves out is the possibility (and historical evidence for) of a dynamic integrative thirdness greater oneness that both underlies and is the natural impetus for evolutionary change.

In essence everyone here is talking about, not of, the wisdom/paradigmatic level of inquiry and analysis, which being the ultimate integrative phenomenon (a single concept that transforms an entire complexity/pattern, i.e. the integration of the mental and the temporal) ….is precisely what everyone here would like to see happen in economic theory and the economy proper.

I also recognize that this a total conversation-stopping viewpoint for the chattering classes whose habituation to problems (point-counterpoint, obsessive dualism) but sometime one needs to “become like little children” and come into present time about these matters…so we can all get on with the business of better survival.

Sorry.

DT:

Craig, I don’t know what you are sorry about, unless it is my having become disappointed by the “total conversation-stopping view point of the chattering classes” here. I could have used baby talk and spoken of the “dynamic integrative thirdness greater oneness that both underlies and is the natural impetus for evolutionary change” as God, or more explicitly the trinitarian God; but that would have been taken as a conversation-stopper by the self-worshippers that I have been trying not to talk down to. Don’t lump me with the others about being “perfectly correct”: we differ at the philosophical level. I’m prepared to accept the possibility that God exists and the more-or-less historical evidence that confirms this; they have accepted that he can’t and rejected the history as fiction. Trying to stay in the conversation, perhaps I am ” talking about, not of, the wisdom/paradigmatic level of inquiry and analysis … [which] is precisely what everyone here would like to see happen in economic theory and the economy proper”. What I am thinking of, though, is the grace of God the Father expressing his lonely love by his energy evolving into us, his children, the concept transforming this energy being first our absence and then today’s story: the prodigal son’s absence as his lack of due gratitude fails to reflect the love of his Father.

So I’ve failed to deliver the ultimate challenge. It’s me that needs to be sorry. Thanks for the warning, Craig.

Me: My use of sorry was actually lightly sarcastic number one, and was aimed at the apparently scientistic and/or otherwise non-comprehenders of the importance of paradigmatic analysis here, not yourself who is at least open to wisdom. I couldn’t care less whether one attributes wisdom/paradigmatic analysis to God or simply to the most underlying nature of the cosmos….only that they try to think through the implications and recognize how utilizing such a mindset has historically been the route to increased knowledge, REAL progress and better survival.

Of course I’m “Johnny one note”, but at least I’m Johnny one note about what the major heterodox reformers are all in agreement about, that is, that the problem revolves around money, debt and banks. I’m just trying to get the otherwise intelligent posters here to focus on THE PARADIGM OF MONEY, DEBT AND BANKS …..instead of yammering on endlessly about lesser and/or ALREADY AGREED UPON assumption problems in economic theory.

To all of you who do not reply to my posts: A troll can be both a bother to the analyst….and a prophet you know.