I’m more interested in helping people self actualize grace within themselves and building systems and a society that reflects and encourages its expression than fleshing out and trying to enforce some ism.

Monetarily free people with a strong moral sense, the wisdom of graciousness and the time to pursue their own self determined purposes will be more stable than trying to fit everyone into a single ideology.

Solutions should be simple, but not so simple that they do not resolve problems.

The 50% discount/rebate policy is a perfect example of such a simple and yet resolving solution.

Everything except perhaps a zen meditation on the present time environment is a paradigm-consciousness contemplating and trying to understand itself.

Steve Hummel 10/15/2018

Me:  What if there is a point in time and space where all of the mathematical and empirical systemic complexities and at least several attending orthodoxies that seem to hold the economy’s major problems in suspension….can be cut through and set aside with a simple but deeply insightful understanding of the digital nature of the money system, accounting system and the entire economic/productive process….so that a digital set of policies can resolve them and invert economic and monetary realities from austerity and scarcity to abundance???

And what if economists aren’t looking at that point, its significances and the undeniable temporal universe effects of those policies?

In other words what if there is an Occam’s Razor solution that is right under their noses…and virtually every economist and pundit is either missing it by not looking at it or, because it is contrary to certain orthodoxies, reactively invalidating it?

Play out on paper, in your mind or on a clay demo table the IMMEDIATE and ongoing temporal universe monetary and economic effects (and their “knock on” effects in other systems as well) of the dual policies of a $1000/mo universal dividend distributed to everyone 18 and older and a 50% discount/rebate monetary policy at the point of retail sale. Then align any other policies, regulations and realistic necessities given a flawed world….with an aspect of the PHILOSOPHICAL concept behind those policies, grace as in Monetary Gifting….and take a deep breath and enjoy the integrative new paradigm.

KZ:  Craig, what you describe in a failure of human imagination. Not uncommon. And even more so in times of imagination dulled by taking too much as certain and fixed. For humanity certainty is impossible. Best humans can hope for in durability. And even that is difficult to achieve. Read Toynbee’s “A Study of History.”

Me:  Well yes, but it’s more than just a failure of imagination it’s a failure to understand and embrace Wisdom. It’s true that the temporal universe is process and hence uncertainty…which oddly enough makes uncertainty…the only certainty…..so embracing/fully integrating one’s consciousness with process and the uncertainty of continual change is not only Wisdom it’s a description of the flow state i.e. Wisdom’s pinnacle concept of the state of grace.

But Wisdom/Grace incorporate within them the specificities of science in an integrative way that enables us to acknowledge all realities while transcending any anxiety and need to grasp/unnecessarily conflict with same.

All of the doubt, polarization, increasing contentiousness and disintegration we see looming up around us is a result of moderns either rejecting or forgetting Wisdom and its resolving nature.

We’re stuck in an ever more stressful head butting/pissing contest between thesis and antithesis….and have forgotten the route and thirdness greater oneness purpose of the dialectic….the synthesis that is another definition/aspect of
grace.

KZ: Currently timespans ranging from a few months to a few years determine most formal planning and decision-making – by corporations, governments, non-governmental organizations and international bodies. Quarterly reporting by companies; electoral cycles of 18 months to seven years; planning horizons of one to five years: these are the usual temporal boundaries of our hot, crowded, and flattened little world. In the 1980s, this myopic vision found a name: short-termism. Short-termism has no defenders. Everyone seems to be against it, and yet proponents of alternatives are also in short supply. This is surprising. Everyone involved in any aspect of the humanities but particularly historians should have been opposed strongly to short-termism. The mission of the humanities is to transmit questions about value – and to question values – by testing traditions that build up over centuries and millennia. And within the humanities, it is the discipline of history that provides an antidote to short-termism, by giving pointers to the long future derived from knowledge of the deep past. Yet from the 1970s forward, most professional historians conducted most of their research on timescales of between five and 50 years. Large stories, told across long sweeps of time, became both unfashionable and unfeasible, at least for anyone claiming professional competence as a historian. Short-termism became accepted as usual and normal because the humanities, and particularly historians failed to do their job. Set loose short-termism in business and economics merely followed the path laid out for them by the failure of humanities and historians.

Me:  Short-termism only is the antithesis of Wisdom. When you integrate the truths/insights/advantages/strategies to be derived from both the short term and the long term…you’ve plopped your mind down in the deeper insight of Wisdom and the cosmic code:

[ (short term x long term) –> Wisdom ]

KZ:  That was not my intent, Craig. The long-term and short-term make human history. History is the sight of the creation of human cultures. These cultures are crippled without both parts of human history. Which, I guess translates to human history, complete being the source of the grace you mention.

Me:  Ken, Pardon, my response was not intended to be contrary to what you said actually, only to re-affirm the integrative nature of wisdom and its process.

To me grace is really synonymous with consciousness full or otherwise. IMO the original paradigm change was the human species awakening to consciousness. And the final one will be their realization that on an elemental and yet imminently experiential level the basic nature of the cosmos is that very same “thing”.

KZ: Craig, I think it’s the way you use language to express these beliefs that throws me off. My perspective tends not to use such grandiose words as grace and cosmos. The non-specificity of such terms leads me to look at them as ways to impede clear understanding.

Me:  Yes I understand that words/concepts like grace and cosmos are traditionally religious and/or holistic. But that’s why I keep capitalizing the adjectives NATURAL and PHILOSOPHICAL before the word grace. Minds run entirely too much in single and exclusionary modes. Concepts like grace and cosmos are polar opposites to the mindset of science which is unfortunately solely empirical, mentally fragmenting and objectifying and last but not least entirely too culturally habituated.

What?….am I against science? NO! I’m 100% for science itself….just not science as an orthodoxy, as an incomplete and hamstrung mental discipline….especially when Wisdom includes the scientific method.

The sages of the world’s major wisdom traditions were the scientists of their age, and their lore and mental techniques are proof of how disciplined and honest they were…and with a much trickier subject matter than the physical universe.

Viz economics (and I’m not trying to be exclusionary here and recognize that others here have criticized mere mathematical and axiomatic techniques) who is actually advocating a more empirical approach to investigating our economic problems those who are off in some mathematical/abstract quasi-fugue ….or me who wants economists and pundits to look at and analyze the exquisitely empirical tool of double entry bookkeeping so as to decipher its digital nature and what I refer to as its “Triple Power Point” of retail sale in order to see that a digital monetary policy at that point effects every signature of a paradigm change???

Integrate opposite perspectives/tools/mindsets/truths and you’ll be able to see and accomplish an actual thirdness greater oneness that transcends dualistic orthodoxies.

Lord please enter president Trump and make him aware that the unity of grace as in love in action is your nature and requirement not the polarization and ugliness of political demagoguery. Help him to learn that the integration of opposing truths is the process of wisdom and the route to its gifts of discernment not a half baked and deluded idea like “fourth turnings” which is mistaking chaos with positive change. (Help liberals out with this as well) Thanks, and as you ARE grace I know that you will keep pursuing president Trump, as love in action never ends….even for what appear to be lost causes.

…everything…physical, temporal and naturally philosophical.

Its the complete undercut, overview and free flowing mode of action.

….not having a better, more rational and beneficial alternative to commercial decision makers raising their prices in an austere system caused by an inherent scarcity of total  individual income and hence a scarcity of total available business revenue.

And the policies of Wisdomics-Gracenomics are that better paradigm changing alternative for business, the individual and the entire system.

Me:  Bezemer’s accounting perspective is insightful but like Steve Keen’s recognition of the importance of accounting is almost a century late and still not basic enough as C. H. Douglas’s cost accounting analysis of the flow of funds made him the first inherent disequilibrium theorist.

Virtually all economic historians ignore Douglas despite this fact and despite his Social Credit theory being a world wide movement between the first and second world wars which the reforms of Keynesianism emerged as the fall back position of Finance against the nascent awareness (even amongst social crediters) of Social Credit’s new paradigm of monetary grace as in gifting with its policies of a universal dividend and a compensated retail discount…which also predated by almost one hundred years the emerging popularity of UBI/QE for the individual.

My Wisdomics-Gracenomics is the new paradigm accomplishing theory that arises out of my economic heterodox education by Keen and Michael Hudson and my extensions and innovations of Douglas’s dual policies that in turn arose out of my study of the signatures of imminent and accomplished historic paradigm changes, my philosophical study and eclectic practice of the world’s major wisdom traditions and their reflective relevance to economics, virtually all of humanity’s systems and finally our species conscious evolution itself.

Grace after all is not only the concept behind the new monetary, economic and financial paradigm, it is also the guiding concept behind every historical paradigm change, the most scientifically accurate and insightful description of the physical-temporal universe and with its formulaic description of an integrated duality within an integrative trinity-unity-oneness-process the most basic description of consciousness as well…a la:

[(Space x Time)  <–> Self Awareness ]

YS:  When one is taking about economics, you are talking about politics. Your paradigm is a social reform, or a plan to change economic institutions. Paradigm change we need is the one in economics. It is an epistemic question. It has no direct relation to social or economic reforms. Please do not confuse two different paradigms.

Me:  Yoshi, Not correct. It is clearly an economic, monetary and financial paradigm change by virtue of it being in conceptual opposition to the current paradigm and also policy wise an inversion/transformation of current recognized realities in those fields. Those are signatures, requirements and definitions for paradigm changes.

And yes, it is also an integrative epistemic/natural philosophical breakthrough as well. In fact it (Gracientialism and the formulaic concept of The Cosmic Code stated as: An integrated duality within an integrative trinity-unity-oneness-process) is a TOE (theory of everything) and its conceptual reflectivities with the scientific method, quantum physics and the world’s major wisdom traditions logically align with each other.

I don’t shrink from that or from debate about it in forums other than ones devoted to economics like this one.

DT:  Yoshinori, you may be right about Craig confusing institutions with paradigms, but if you think paradigm change is an epistemic question, that shows you haven’t begun to understand the Tony Lawson and critical realism you so like to criticise. The question is an ONTOLOGICAL one: what is economics? What does economics DO, and what is the system now being labelled ‘economics’ actually doing?

Me:  Paradigms/paradigm changes are the single concept pattern creating occurrences that transform both institutions and people’s understandings of the world. There’s no confusion on my part between a paradigm and an institution.

Dave, However, your identification of ontology as the branch of philosophy necessary to be applied to economics in order to truly understand and humanely craft and apply its policies is correct. There’s human ontology (nature of beingness) and temporal universe ontology, and when the two are “in synch” they reflect the double headed nature of all three of self/awareness, the inductive/deductive integration that is the mental discipline of Wisdom and the integrated dual nature of a paradigm (a single concept that defines, describes and creates an entirely new pattern).

RK:  I would say that in this situation, theoretical paradigm shifts, even full scale intellectual revolution — though essential parts of the picture — shouldn’t be the main thrust. The wealthy elite in the driver’s seat here are swayed by profit, not ideas.

I suggest we can get over this hump only by promoting a popular revolution — going directly to the general population. It is when the great majority of people start getting what has been withheld from them for so long, that the fabric of corruption begins to unravel. Then sensible ideas will have a chance to gain a foothold.

Me:  Excellent analysis especially the need for a grass roots movement that simplifies the messages/drives home the resolving and self interested nature of the paradigm change. We need both, that is, an integrated effort. Trying to change ego involved academics and “authorities” is a fruitless task.

“In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete.”

R. Buckminster Fuller

“If there is one thing that all of the armies of the world cannot resist, it is an idea whose time has come”

Victor Hugo