Posted To RWER Blog Regarding The New Paradigm and Its Affirmation of Grace As In Scientific Breakthrough

You say: “Macro-economics will never solve the problems it has correctly identified because they aren’t looking in the right places to solve them …”

There is no point any longer in bashing or reinterpreting macro or micro.#1, #2 Orthodoxy, Heterodoxy, and Pluralism are provably false. More specifically, they are axiomatically false, that is, beyond repair.

In this situation, the representative economist has only this options left (i) to work on the paradigm shift or (ii) to throw himself under the bus.

Science is binary true/false with NOTHING in-between.

Me:  I completely agree that orthodoxy, heterodoxy and pluralism are all provably false…because they all still reside within the old monetary paradigm of scarcity/austerity….and ITS incompleteness, blindness…and in fact its non alignment with cutting edge science which tells us that the entire cosmos is in an utterly integrated,integrative and abundant (being cosmic how could it be anything but abundant) flux/process/flow…which are all aspects of the natural philosophical concept of grace.

Science, good science and scientific breakthroughs not only do not conflict with grace….they affirm it.

EKH:  You violate the first rule of science: Do NOT apply religious/spiritual concepts in an economic argument.#1

Scientific truth is well-defined by material/formal consistency. The rest of human communication is just brain-dead blather.

Me:  Egmont

Sorry, you violate the first rule of GOOD NON-orthodox science: Keep your mind open to all existent (no matter who it is attributed to) data and philosophy.

#1 The supreme beingness being the cosmos and you being apart thereof….the associative principle applies

EKH:  Show first your economic axioms or get out of the discussion

Me:  axiom #1: The entire cosmos exists within a continually dynamic, interactive, integrative and yet somewhat disequilibrated/randomized state of gracefulness as in process and flow.

axiom #2: The economy being embedded within the cosmos will reflect this natural and temporal reality.

axiom #3: Economic policies that effect a greater alignment with and duplication of the cosmological-ly defined graceful reality will be more logical and scientifically accurate.

axiom #4: A full exegesis of the aspects of the natural philosophical concept of grace is the scientific route to crafting policies that will align with, duplicate and effect the cosmic reality in economics and in any other human system.

DM:  Craig at 9:02 offers an ‘axiomatization’. What do you think of it?

It reminds me of a lot of psycho-babble that I find superficially unattractive, but which I have given some attention to. It may be an honest attempt to put the ideas of Whitehead into ‘accessible’ language. I certainly read Keynes’ Treatise and his GTE in the light of such ideas, without which underpinning they would seem vague or dangerous – or both.

I am tempted to add an axiom #5, that whatever we think grace is, it is not something that we can safely leave to others. Personally, I think that scientists who lack some kind of grace might reasonably called ‘pseudo-scientist’ (after Keynes) and – if too influential – can ’cause’ or exacerbate some of the problems that some ‘softer’ people complain of. But in practice it seems to be enough to follow Whitehead et al and point out the logical flaws in the (application of) the ‘science’, and avoid the wishy-washy stuff.

Me:  Simply expunge any bias you might have for or against religion/spirituality and its traditional nomenclature and address the most cutting edge scientific description of the cosmos, the various non-religious definitions of the philosophical concept of grace and how economics being embedded within that cosmos would resonate, align with and be a good and accurate way to model same.

There is at least as much orthodox science floating around in people’s minds as there is religious orthodoxy, and way too much of both.

Un-examined/unperceived costs and time and their effects are what afflict macro-economics. As I have said here many times economists ARE NOT LOOKING AT double entry bookkeeping and so are missing extremely relevant economic insights to be derived from doing so. You can’t get any more empirical and grounded in the temporal universe than accounting, and it’s not just “bean counting”. And yet I’m the one that most here probably think is “new age” etc. No! I’m for BOTH enlightened philosophy AND scientifically aligned policy. Integration. Integrating. Looking…everywhere without bias. That’s good open minded science.

Macro-economics’ problem is it does not adequately consider the additional costs of depreciation/the second law of thermo-dynamics and its effects on price considering the cost accounting convention that ALL costs must go into price. It also does not distinguish between total money/credit in the system and total individual incomes the latter of which in ratio to total costs is a scarcity ratio.

DM:  Craig, Are there any sources for “non-religious definitions of the philosophical concept of grace ” and their links to your axiom 1 that a mathematician who thinks he has some understanding of Whitehead, Keynes and Russell might find insightful?

Me:  Dave, There’s lots of references in books on mindfulness/consciousness. As I said above one needs to look at the traditional definitions, de-super nature/de-attribute them and then compare those definitions/aspects to cutting edge quantum physics, human psychology, economics and money systems, whatever body of knowledge/human observation one wants to look at/investigate….and see how they jive. For instance dancing and gymnastics. A dancer or gymnast bodily moves across the mat or dance floor in a dynamic, interactive, and unitary balance, equilibrium process and flow that is described as graceful. It’s what is observed and described. It is simply what IS. And if wisdom is the process of personal integration then integrate what you see with the fact that you as a conscious being….are actually there observing it….and you might have a startling experience. As the zen saying goes, “Wherever you go, there YOU are.

Actually, each of the world’s major wisdom traditions is chock full of such proverbs, insights, and definitions of consciousness -grace.

Personally I couldn’t care less about whether someone wants to attribute everything to god or to science-nature. I’d simply encourage them to be graciously benevolent and open minded about it. That way it reinforces the positive experience and avoids orthodoxy and dogmatism.

JV:  All economists, as far as I know, assume that the present is complete and we live within our economy. Hence, they come up with assumed points of departure like the accounting identity: Y = C + I, blissfully unaware that accounting itself is based on unprovable assumptions.

Heterodoxy, as is, requires a shake up that goes beyond following its heroes… Assumptions are required that we are creators of the economic system we make our living in; which purposeful final output we enjoy outside in the real world wherein we live, as added to an exogenous environment of non-economic utilities and pleasures. And that the economic process of our accomplishments is incomplete at any point in time, with non-linear determinants to follow, so that it’s not depictable endogenously in math equations.

Me:  Macro-economic accounting identities are false/hopelessly inadequate because they do not distinguish between total money and total free and available INDIVIDUAL income, or at the very least economists themselves do not perceive the relevant differences between the two and how to effectively remedy the problems the scarcity of the latter causes.

Double entry bookkeeping itself is probably one of the most empirically scientific disciplines that man has ever developed, but it takes economic examination and evaluation of its data along with calculus and the significances of its (and any other system’s) temporal universe process of start, change and stop to fully understand it and how to therefore craft policies that will resolve modern economic problems.

Beyond these essentials, as we’re almost entirely in agreement that a new paradigm is required, one needs to do an historical study of paradigm changes and so decipher their signatures, inevitable structural and overall effects. For instance the ruling paradigm, its most powerful temporal/structural entity and its effects will always replaced and transformed.

Thus the ruling monetary and economic paradigm of Debt/Burden/Cost Only must be replaced in primacy by Direct and Reciprocal Monetary Gifting, the structural entity of Private Finance/Banking and its money creating powers must give way to a public entity that intelligently, insightfully and ethically is mandated to end the individual monetary scarcity the paradigm enforces and transform it into NOT an equilibrium with total costs/prices, but an abundance ratio of individual incomes to costs/prices. In other words the higher disequilibrium instead of the static, unnatural and un-maintainable stasis which the temporal universe abhors and will not countenance.

Leave a Reply


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

Google photo


Twitter picture


Facebook photo


Connecting to %s