That’s what we live in. Perception has become dulled and deadened and science and technology as useful as they have been and still are have served more to clutter, distract, abstract and inhibit the genuine experience of the moment which is the proper and pure integration point of consciousness itself and the incredibly complex and beautiful physical environment.

Our task must be the conscious re-integration and practice of both science and self awareness/consciousness raising in the present moment.

Steve Hummel 0203/2018

Me:  Liberals and conservatives look at Trump through their respective biases. The unvarnished objective truth is that Trump is an historic demagogue, a 3rd rate populist intellect and terminally orthodox economic “thinker”.  In other words disintegration is the default mode of unconsciousness.

Everyone wants change. The question is do we want integrative change or disintegrative non-change.

JS:  Well, if Trump showed us anything, we can control politicians through exercise of our vote. You seem to think “populism” is a bad thing. What’s better, being controlled by elites that do not have our best interest at heart.

Vote for change. Vote for the politician that both parties hate. Drain the swamp. Get rid of the aristocracy that rules us now.

Me:  As for Populism it’s just another insufficiently integrated with grace political ism, and Trump is all about power and manipulation of his fellow power seekers ONLY. There’s no real insight there politically or economically….let alone individually. There are hints (not established yet) that Devin Nunez, Paul Ryan the speaker of the House and Mitch McConnell the majority leader of the senate are recorded on signal intelligence as agreeing to launder Russian money into the Republican party which would make their failure to call Trump on his caustic demagoguery and his obvious attempts to muddy the waters regarding the Mueller Investigation a lot more clear. In other words they’re all implicated and not only is Trump going down the Republican party itself as an organization is going to go down as well. I really hope this is not the case, but it fits within the craven domination of politics by power.

Me:  @NR,   What specific economic and monetary policies do you suggest in your book Telos & Technos?

NR:  Please reference FRANK SALTER

Me:  If you’re not going to disclose any policies advocated in Telos & Technos all I can assume is that it is only a philosophical work. That’s fine of course, and as Telos (purpose) and Technos (action in the temporal universe) are conceptually oppositional it tells me that it may be about the integration of their separate truths which as I have posted here numerous times is the very process of wisdom. However, as I have also posted philosophy is an order of magnitude below paradigm perception. A new paradigm is a singular concept that enlightens and is thoroughly applicable via aligned policies to an entire new pattern. It’s Agriculture. It’s Helio-Centrism. It’s Machine Printing of Information….and in the case of economics and the money system and their current paradigm of Debt Only it is Monetary Gifting.

FS:  Addendum: I would suggest that the valid paradigm is: Classical Transient Analysis

Me:  Transience and process are valid aspects of the new ethic/zeitgeist of economics namely the natural philosophical concept of grace as in continuous free flow as well as the new paradigm of grace as in Monetary Gifting. The natural philosophical concept of grace is also characterized by abundance as opposed to scarcity/austerity and dynamically integrative disequilibrium as opposed to static equilibrium. These two latter aspects are particularly relevant to the economy of course as capitalist economies are demand constrained as Steve Keen has said, the current paradigm of Debt Only enforces scarcity/austerity via debt deflation and the much debunked DSGE enforces the fallacious static equilibrium. The new paradigm accomplishes the requisite signature of paradigm change, that is fundamental inversions, in this case inverting monetary scarcity and equilibrium with what I refer to as “the higher free flowing macro-economic disequilibrium ratio of abundance of total demand in ratio to total retail prices.”

FS:  I believe that Craig and I are using paradigm with totally different semantics. Craig appears to be using the word at a metaphysical level. My use is consistent with the Wikipedia entry “Scientific paradigm”.

Me:  Yes we are. I’m using it in the NATURAL and EXISTENTIAL metaphysical sense which are the signatures not only of good inclusive science, but of scientific breakthrough. Science ONLY has been the paradigm of inquiry for the last 400-500 years and unfortunately has become rather rigid and orthodox. Science like food is good, delicious, necessary and resides entirely within the digestive tract of Wisdom…..which is the new paradigm of inquiry.

It is not only time for economics to be guided by the new paradigm of Gifting it’s time that mankind learns to more broadly utilize the integrative process that better enables a leap in epistemological experience.

ER:  I find all of the above very interesting because they relate to how real people think and function in the real world and I think without this understanding dare I say it no amount of theorizing will change economic thinking

Me:  Correct ER. Because theorizing is reform not paradigm perception which is mind clearing progress. There are a thousand nudges forward (or backward) from one “advance” to another with reforms. It takes paradigm perception to truly move forward. Sadly, even genuine scientific discoveries are mere “epicycles” compared to the insights and leaps forward of paradigm changes.

FS:  I take it that you are not a practising scientist. The scientific method is merely to test theory against empirical evidence. If they conflict then discard the theory. I do not see rigidity or orthodoxy entering into such a simple concept.

Me:  If you re-read my posts you’ll see that I am four square for science. Science has been the paradigm for knowledge and inquiry for the last 400-500 years. Unfortunately it has become the orthodoxy of Science ONLY. I believe this has been recognized here by Lars Syll and Asad Zamon. Orthodoxy kills and/or infects inquiry. Wisdom is inclusive of Science. We need a Wisdomics not its subset economics.

YS:  It seems that nobody is against the dictum that it take theory to beat a theory. Although we cannot find this dictum in the Thomas Kuhn’s famous book: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, he thought that a scientific revolution was a change of paradigm theory.

Economics is now in a great crisis. Many people, not learned economists in particular, but many common people, now acknowledge it. We are now in the age of scientific revolution for economics. It comes from replacement of paradigm theory by a new one. The strategy that we should take is almost evident.

Me:  Correct, except a new paradigm is not a theory it is the recognition of a new pattern….which then makes a new theory and its policies a relatively easy and rational/logical process. Focusing on theory first and only generally just slows and/or distorts the process of paradigm perception. This is not to invalidate the scientific process of theorizing of course. Rather it is simply suggesting that we integrate the reductionistic/iconoclastic process of the scientific method and the wholistic/unifying process of Wisdom/paradigm perception. The better to hasten the recognition of the new paradigm/pattern. We don’t need just economic theory we need a Wisdomics.

FS:  What is “the orthodoxy of Science”? Science has been developing in many different directions. New applications are being developed continually. I agree wisdom is a very precious characteristic.
Do you think that there are prescriptions by which wisdom might be learned? I do not understand how economics might be a subset unless you are speaking of classification theory.
Philosophy might seek to explain reality, but metaphysics is unlikely to lead to the development of solutions in the real world. They need to be based of a genuine understanding of reality and what alternative courses of action will produce.

Me:  Science is Science. Science Only is an orthodoxy. Orthodoxies are mindsets that always exclude, reduce, inhibit looking and eventually degrade into arrogance and invalidation.

Wisdom can be learned by studying the world’s major Wisdom traditions, all the time focusing on the meanings, purposes and experiences related there as opposed to latching onto the dogmas also found there.

As Wisdom is the discernment process of integrating seeming opposed truths you can also habituate yourself to the integrative ethic or what I refer to as The Cosmic Code in this case:

[ (Science x Wisdom) <–> A Greater Thirdness-Wholeness-Oneness of Temporal-Empirical & Self Knowledge in whatever area under observation ]

Science tends to suffer from obsessive reductionism and religion tends to suffer from obsessive wholism both of which cling to dogmas instead of being a trinity-unity-oneness gestalt like the Cosmic Code.

YS:  Kuhn used the term “paradigm theory” five times in his book: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

Kuhn defined his key concept “paradigm” primarily as “model or pattern”. (III. The Nature of Normal Science). These words are ambiguous and and we should reflect what a paradigm is or can be in a concrete scientific revolution. At the same time, it would be true that simple pattern of way of thinking has no power to replace the old pattern of thinking. It needs a certain degree of theory. The dictum “It takes a theory to beat a theory” may point this.

Kuhn talks about Copernicus, Newton, Lavoisier and Einstein. In each case, the person who brought a revolution had a well developed theory. In cases like Copernicus or Einstein, it is evident that they could not perform their revolutions without having a theory or a system of a theory that are at least comparable to the old paradigm they had to compete with. Simple change of methodological or methodological attitudes cannot bring a revolution.

A change of perceptional pattern may occur at first in the mind of the revolution bringer, but between that personal inspiration and the revolution a theory making or construction is necessary. For me, Lars is not aware of this phase of paradigm change or ignoring it. His philosophy of economics has a defect.

Me:  Well, as I said I’m not trying to invalidate theorizing. I’m simply saying that a paradigm itself is a singularly significant concept that fits within and creates an entire new pattern….and recognizing the concept is a boon to theorizing which may be going in the conceptual direction of the paradigm…but has not fully cognited on the paradigm itself. Paradigm perception is an extremely progressive event that clarifies the path ahead toward its implementation.

And paradigms have signatures like opposition, inversion of present realities and new discoveries/insights from places people aren’t aware of or looking at either because orthodoxy has told them not to look there or they incorrectly decide that an area is not relevant….and so do not look. The paradigm change from H & G to Agriculture was the oppositional change from nomadism to homesteadism, i.e. moving around to staying in place. Helio-Centrism was the inversion of the position of the earth and the sun. For the Church and many believers it was also a psychological inversion from ego-centrism to relativism. Helio-Centrism also was accompanied by the telescope and finally the ellipse. When you mentioned that your books were looking at micro-foundations I thought, “Ah, someone who may cognite on the significance of the aggregative and singular integration point between the micro and macro economies that is retail sale. Being willing to look anywhere and everywhere prevents the blunting and blinding of orthodoxy.

In the ’92 Clinton presidential campaign they had the saying, “It’s the economy, stupid” as their focusing point. It was their political paradigm and it worked.

The same thing would work with the new monetary and economic paradigm of Monetary Gifting. That’s because once a paradigm is recognized it clarifies, focuses and progresses like no other factor in the area to which it is applied.

It’s the new paradigm of Monetary Gifting, stupid.

Precisely why we require a new monetary and economic paradigm. Paradigm changes are so obviously great leaps forward that they cannot be denied. Everything in the body of knowledge/area of human endeavor adapts to the new paradigm….not the other way around as you correctly observe regarding what occurred with the REFORM of Keynesianism. A paradigm is a focusing, clarifying and utterly progressive single concept that creates an entire new pattern. Let’s have it. It’s only 5000 years overdue.

********************************************************

What’s all this figure-figure about taxes? MMT’s actual greatest insight is that governments don’t need taxation because they can create money….AS money INSTEAD of Debt, and distribute it as they see fit…and if they had an ounce of brains and ethics it would be to make the system serve the general populace first, last and always instead of the populace having to slavishly serve it….like now. Of course the best and quickest way for the government to do that would be to distribute a monthly universal dividend and immediately double everyone’s purchasing power by implementing a 50% discount at the point of retail sale that was rebated back to the enterprise granting the discount to its consumers.

The new paradigm of Monetary Gifting supersedes and progresses all other reforms and theories…just like all of the epicycles of Ptolemaic cosmology got brushed aside by Helio-Centrism and every other new paradigm has done in the area it has been applied to.

MMTers don’t fully grasp the aspect of Gifting their theory aligns with and affirms.

It’s not progressive.

MR. S:  @Steven Hummel

“MMT’s actual greatest insight is that governments don’t need taxation because they can create money”

That’s not what MMT says at all; to disseminate that inaccurate interpretation of MMT is irresponsible, and gives ready ammunition to its mocking critics.

MMT absolutely recognises that governments need taxation. In fact, it’s essential to destroy previously created money, as well as to ensure acceptance of a fiat currency.

Govt doesn’t need the revenue from taxation as funding before it can spend, but that’s a different point entirely.

Me:  “That’s not what MMT says at all; to disseminate that inaccurate interpretation of MMT is irresponsible, and gives ready ammunition to its mocking critics.”

Yes, well that’s always the cry of those who are not fully conscious of a new paradigm…right up until they see that it’s the next new truth. I’m sure there were many tribal chiefs of hunters and gatherers who laughingly mocked the first farmers saying, “Everyone knows you have to move around to gather fruit and hunt game. If you stay in one place…you’re gonna die dummy.”

“In fact, it’s essential to destroy previously created money, as well as to ensure acceptance of a fiat currency.”

To prevent what? Inflation? If you had a 50% discount at retail sale which is the TERMINALLY expressed place and time of consumer price inflation…how are you going to have inflation? As for hyperinflation that’s just another irrational fear because hyperinflations never occur unless there are catastrophic circumstances, priorly enforced indebtedness that a nation’s elite wants to end and the central bank is complicit with speculators who short the currency. And all you need to do to prevent the latter is a government to pass a law that any leveraged shorting of the currency by anyone will be considered “null and void”. And even if you allowed for a manageable 2-3% yearly inflation (which could probably be effectively prevented as well with rather simple and rational regulations) you’re still looking at an immediate increase in everyone’s purchasing power by 47-48%

And if down the road when everyone is a millionaire, maybe you could have International burn $10,000 day…or more intelligently Everybody contribute $10,000 to Burkina Faso day to help them ecologically industrialize and enjoy the wonderful heritage of productive potential that mankind has achieved.

All you really need to make such a system work is legal tender laws, an operational economy and a political elite with a couple of balls and more than three brain cells that cognites on the new paradigm and its aligned policies.

New debt will probably be needed for a very long time, but proportionally less and less with the new paradigm of Monetary Gifting, and that is why economies will become more and more stabilized. The paradigm of Debt ONLY and the ideology of austerity being the current insanity. Marx almost got it right, but rather than the state it will be Finance that will “wither away.”

Ken, Dave
You’re quiet correct that capitalism is not the answer, but of course neither is socialism. Why not integrate the two to the point where they become Profit Making Direct Distributism? Thirdness has always been the signature of Wisdom and Oneness the signature of Grace. In fact I’m working on a book I’m going to call The Cosmic Code that posits that ultimate reality is contained in the following formula:

[ (A x Z) <–> G/C ] read thusly:

a fully integrated duality within an integrative trinity-unity-conscious oneness where A is a temporal reality, Z is its actual or potential opposite reality, x is the sign for a thorough integration and G/C is the integrative state of Grace Consciousness or substitute G Grace for K kensho/satori, O atonement/Oneness or S samadhi

An integrated duality within an integrative Trinity of course is mirrored all over nature, mathematics, psychology, spirituality and logic when one is attentive to it. For instance:

[ ( 3 + 5) = 8 ] Fibonacci sequence

[ (Thesis x Antithesis) <–> Synthesis ] Hegelian Dialectic

[ (Trunk x Branches) <–> Roots ] Tree

[ (Land x Sea) <–> Sky ]  Earth

[ (Body x Mind) <–> Consciousness ]  Unitary Being

[ (Profit x Sharing) <–> Monetary Gifting ]  New Monetary Paradigm

[ (Capitalism x Socialism) <–> Profit Making Direct Distributism ]  New Integrative Ideology

[ Hypothesis <–>(Dualistic process of comparison of datums) ] Scientific Method

[ (Reality x Opposite or Different Reality) <–> Greater Reality ] The Process of Wisdom

DT:  I thought the problem was that Capitalism and Socialism are the same type, so that at either extreme (as Belloc already saw in 1911) government by large and therefore ill-informed corporations is (in the critical respect of not looking at the facts on the ground) no different from centralised state government. Distributism was about doing your own thing as far as possible so you can see and learn from what you are doing, not who gets the money.

Me:  Capitalism and Socialism ARE alike in that they are ultimately tyrannous…unless you integrate their separate truths while simultaneously deleting their separate or mutual untruths under a greater zeitgeist/ethic than mere power or profit, i.e. the natural philosophical concept of grace/graciousness. Re economics and money systems….that’s why the new paradigm is Monetary Gifting…because Gifts/Gifting is an aspect of grace and the integrative combination of only the truths, workabilities, applicabilities and highest ethical considerations within Capitalism and Socialism. And that fits into The Cosmic Code which is a TOE.

KZ:  I really don’t like the term ontology. In my view it’s just a philosopher’s device to hide things from we ordinary people. But if you like, we’ll begin with ontology. Human ontology consists of two elements – relationships and performances. Humans for with relationships with other humans and nonhumans as well. They are required to perform – to do something – in these relationships. Combined with human imagination, these are the sources of everything – societies, cultures, religions, and of course money. Money is then best described as a performance. And performances always do something. That something is the result of the relationships in which the performances are made. Most of the relationships in which money was part of the performances relate to trading and valuing, according to the history we know. Money is thus always set up in terms of what humans want, what humans need, and what humans can do. Money is useful humans. Otherwise, they would never have invented it. And there many types of money. Depending on the needs of the situations and the humans involved. There you have it. And no “big” words from philosophers needed.

Me:  Ken,

The reason we don’t consciously comprehend paradigms whether old or new has more to do with the fact that we tend to love problems much more than solutions. This is born mostly out of the mostly unconscious fear that if we solve problems then we’ll lose much of the purpose/purposes that prevent us from being terminally bored. Of course there are a zillion worthwhile purposes available to us as well as the wonder and mind blowing conscious experience of a guzillion things in our immediate environment, things one has looked at and immediately abstracted for the last 30-40 years instead of actually directly perceiving it, so there is actually no dearth of purposes or conscious experiences at all.

This is not to belittle philosophy, theorizing, abstraction etc. just the realization that they are undoubtedly the thing that most inhibits us from consciously experiencing things as well as the meanings and purposes behind words. Integrating abstraction and direct conscious looking/experience is in fact the route to paradigm perception because paradigm perception is the process of finding the single philosophical concept that re-defines/re-creates an entire new pattern. In other words its simultaneously a reductionist and wholistic mental process the latter of which is sharpened and honed by dropping the obsessive inner chatter of the former.

KZ:  Craig, you recognize, of course that debt is a distinction made up by humans.

Me:  Debt is an idea, a concept, a paradigm. These are all things that human beings create…..and make real. Debt ONLY is the current monetary and economic paradigm. Economics and money systems, society, mankind…requires a new paradigm and as new paradigms are always oppositional in some respects to the old paradigm as well as an inversion of the greatest problem of the old paradigm, Relatively Abundant Monetary Gifting is the new paradigm. Debt is burden, relatively abundant money and purchasing power is its opposite. The rate of flow of total costs and so prices in technologically advanced economies always exceeds the rate of flow of total individual incomes simultaneously produced. It’s the most basic disequilibrating reality. That scarcity ratio must be inverted. And that’s what the policies and others that I have suggested here create.

Beyond those things my point is simply that a paradigm, an actual and new paradigm, is a change of concept that applies in all respects to the body of knowledge it is applied to. Once you’ve cognited on that vision, and that’s what really seeing a paradigm is, a vision, a validly applicable vision….then it’s just a straightforward rational process of policy alignment and all of the leading reforms/reformers can then unite and work together to get the paradigm implemented But you have to see it….before it makes sense to you. It’s very difficult to scientifically, reductionistically and/or iconoclastically realize a new paradigm. You realize it much more swiftly if you utilize vision and the other tools of Wisdom.

KZ:  Craig and James, let’s bring this to the level of the participants and users of economies. And get away from theories. Economies are supposed to function to provide the framework for everyone to obtain the resources and services needed for a good quality of life. Or, at least one that allows good chances for survival. Money and markets are devices that can be used to accomplish these goals…..

Me:  KZ, re: your jan. 2 6:43 post

I’m the one here who has been posting about paradigms, philosophy AND specific policies all of which align with each other. My contention is that while research, theorizing and philosophizing is all well and good, the new monetary and economic paradigm which enables economists to clarify, focus and unite their various reforms….is right before their eyes and all they have to do in order to move forward….is cognite on that fact.

I’ve shown that the insights and separate policy suggestions of all of the major heterodox theories align (albeit incompletely) with the new paradigm of Abundant Systemic Monetary Gifting and given insight about the significance of the point of retail sale and then suggested specific policies that would implement that paradigm throughout the entirety of the economy in a way that would benefit virtually all commercial agents, all individuals and the system as a whole.

So what’s the next actual step? After LBJ defeated Goldwater in the ’64 election Lewis Powell wrote what has become known as The Powell Memo which began the process of conservative economic ideology being woven into the social and political systems. We need to begin “The Craig Paradigm Memo” with an integrative mass socio-economic and political movement targeted at large constituencies like students, the small to medium sized business community and for that matter every individual that shows them how the two main policies of a universal dividend and a 50% discount/rebate at the point of retail sale will benefit them and the entire system….like no other policies crafted by either party has every benefited them before. And how with relatively simple regulation will not only prevent inflation, but beneficially implement price deflation into profit making systems.

Everything adapts to a new paradigm. The primacy of the old paradigm is dead! Long live the primacy of the new paradigm!

Every business model has a retail product, that is except Finance which is actually post retail sale and hence anti-economic. That is why Finance as in money creation itself must become a government/public utility. In a monetary economy like we have money is the essence of power, and after over 5000 years of the money creation power being problematic….it’s way past due for the paradigm change that is now necessary.

Now, government control of money creation must also obey the new paradigm in order to avoid its own problematic relationship with power. As the new paradigm is Monetary Gifting that means that there will be no charge for money’s creation or distribution. Government is not an economic institution and so monetary gain is not relevant. And as politics/government is about power which monetary or otherwise has always been problematic it must obey both the new monetary paradigm of Gifting as well as the new zeitgeist/ethic from which both the new monetary and governmental paradigms are derivatives namely Grace as in Benevolent power.

Everyone here is assuming any increase in purchasing power MUST come from employment which would result in a consequent increase in costs and so prices by enterprise. However, if it came from a monetary authority other than Private banks, was a gift and that gifting was peculiarly and strategically implemented at the terminal summation of all costs and so total prices for every item or service in the economy…..hmmmm, paradigm change and its numerous “knock on” benefits for virtually all agents.

…Is at least two orders of magnitude of mental inclusion and applicability higher than theory.  Philosophy is the next step higher as it includes the ideas that are logically aligned and consistent with any theory, and a paradigm and its perception is above that in that it is the single unitary philosophical concept that would seamlessly apply to and deeply change every aspect of the body of knowledge/area of human endeavor it is applied to.

Monetary Gifting is the new economic and monetary paradigm.