16) Economics

Economics is social science, not a science.  It's essentially a study of behavior and its various indicators quantify past data, form graphs and indices etc but cannot predict the future. They merely establish trends.  The human mind can use this data and, if applied in the right context, make a really good guess.  I could make a very good case for this complexity being seen for more than the sum of its parts but I'm not going to do that here.

Instead I'll put forward that from the earliest days of clashing civilizations the way the world has worked has been by defining interests and identity (based on indoctrination or nationalism, perhaps even cultural, religious, racial and socio economic factors) and forming agendas.  These agendas manifest by ambitions to  either own or influence territory, resources, diplomacy, media and establish strategical advantage in order to gain control rather than have these elements fall under the control of competing parties.

The competition is historically undeniable.

This same control establishes who wins and who loses and in my view modern economics, finance and currency were systems more relevant regarding what happened after the victory to quantify the spoils and assimilate them into what you already have.

Allow your economic institutions to fall under predatory influence from within and Introduce your economic practices into the fabric of world affairs as a global market parading as a free market working on your currency and your banking practices and you can instead use economics rather in a precursory fashion instead, as a FORM OF WAR, to sometimes avoid the battles even, and that is what my next post is about and it will make clear where my last few posts have been heading.

Setting the scene

There are rough seas ahead.  

Initially it will not be so apparent, not while I make few connections essential to make clear my intended basic premise, always open to moderation. It will also not be so apparent right now, while I establish principles that can be applied universally, and to which I can refer back to later on if a valid need to reference or challenge them arises.  

As themes develop and interconnect there will likely be increasingly provocative claims made and questions asked.  When emotions run high human beings tend to defend their statements because with the push of a button their words are suddenly cast into existence in the digital realm of cyberspace.  It’s so easy these days to put yourself out there, to put your image and reputation on the line, your public identity.  I don’t like my comments ripped apart by others especially for others to so easily witness. This will interfere with free processing of information because it invites in a sort of ego based agenda, like a vampire into your house that will suck the life blood from the process and leave only a shriveled husk of personal pride lying dead on the floor.

Now before I get into the really contentious stuff we need to set up a M.O. or define with reasonable fairness a few ground rules of engagement.  This will really be the only vaguely closed or defined aspect of the blog and I've designed them to make the content manageable, focused enough, and to remain clear enough so as to understandable by all.  I welcome suggestions are how to improve the method, I initially included the following text in red but have decided due to to feedback that it is not useful:but  I really don’t see the usefulness of long and rambling philosophical utterings involving metaphysical perspectives on themes that achieve precisely nothing useful or practical.

As Carl Sagan so sagely cautions, I don’t want my mind to be so open that my brain falls out.  This kind of intellectual posturing seems by design to be more useful as marketing tool for one’s brilliance and less useful for achieving set goals, especially if they are to be commonly understood.

There is also a very good case to be made about the clear meanings of words.  For example, I don’t think that, if after a long debate when possibly cornered by a sequence of logic, one should make a case about how “To me, when I say that I believe in god, I mean that god is nature, and the laws of physics”.  That is a subjective association and I put forward that it is not a useful connection to make in a shared forum unless clarified upfront. Even then I see it belonging more in the metaphysics realm; I question its communicative usefulness when there is already a very loaded understanding of a word such a “God”.  The phrase “The laws of physics” already exists and the word “nature” can have very general connotations if used incorrectly in specific context, such as in defining the nature of a deity, …. See what I mean?

Even more importantly for my objectives to be realized I think subjective evaluations should only be made in that context, IE as opinions qualified accordingly. The statement “That is wrong” is a useless judgment unless qualified, IE “That would be considered wrong by society/my mother/church/the judge”.  Even better might be “That is currently illegal”.

I think this depersonalized approach will put the focus on the content rather than the agenda’s of the individual.  I will do my best to abide by this code and I would relish being exposed for any conduct contrary to this commitment.  

Introduction

I have this crazy idea that we can solve pretty much all of our biggest problems.  I'm talking globally here, but I wouldn't exclude personal issues either.

If this is true, what the hell is stopping us?  I have a few ideas, others have different ideas.  Sometimes they clash and I want to work out exactly why that is and if it is avoidable and within the means of our biological nature and our currently defined psychology.

This blog will propose ideas that will be shaped by criticism and contribution. When enough themes have been explored, a completed body of work will emerge.  Make no mistake, boundaries will be tested, in some cases severely and there may be strong reactions.  Those reactions may even be the essential clues that I'm looking for.

The issues raised will eventually be (purposefully) highly provocative, but not provocative for the sake of provocation, I need to reasonably clear on that, and policed on that issue to be kept in line. In order to get the desired feedback I obviously require feedback from sources I consider my most valued perspectives, IE those looking to be free from attachment to baggage and sentiment that are not truly their own.  I may be privileged to uncover unexpected perspectives that I couldn't have imagined on my own.  I live in hope I guess I'll do my best to avoid the frauds out there, those who have already decided who they are and which values represent them.  I have little interest in dogma or predictable closed policies from the established social institutions and their political agenda's.  

Not giving them a mouthpiece in this space has less to do with fairness or open-mindedness and more to do with having limited time and scope to shape the material by filtering it through the perspectives I need the most because, rather than going around in closed dogmatic circles of pseudo logic, each of you may likely contribute something I need or do not already have.

In the meantime I want to raise a qualifier by way of an introduction:

Who are you? Who am I?

To be honest I don’t really know. I've never really been encouraged to find out, not beyond a token gesture at least, and I propose that neither have you.  When our parents and teachers tell us to go out there and find ourselves we now know through a myriad of self-help books and pop-psychology catch phrases on social media applied and recited without context, that what they really mean is go out there and choose a label.  The strange thing is that knowing this is not stopping most of us from going out there and doing exactly that.  

My ominous plan involves demonstrating without a shadow of doubt that none of us really knows terribly much about ourselves.  And that’s part of the reason for putting pen to paper in an attempt to explore the themes surrounding what defines us and how we identify ourselves to the world.  Who we think we are fundamentally influences our interactions with the world around us and filters our methods of getting in touch with our perceived values and morals.  Finding out who we really are will require shaking these foundations to their very core, and may even invoke a slight crises of identity along the way.  This crisis, for the truly free, can only open up possibilities that did not previously exist through some or other form of exclusion. Being free and open to new solutions, or solutions that already exist but seem alien to us, may be all that missing from many lives on planet earth.

I want each person reading to this to take my challenge, and when threatened or confronted with logic that doesn't resound, I want to hear your reasoning, justifications and suspicions with what I suggest as barriers to processing information freely.  It will not be easy.     

Exploring these connections has been a profound and awe inspiring journey for me personally, and I cannot complete it alone. That is still not the only reason I feel I have something external to offer the world.  If who we are, what our identity seems to be, truly  imposes limitations on our ability to think about all the important issues facing the world, then we will all agree that it needs to be addressed.  Once we have made a connection with a group, image or identity of any kind, our attachment to this notion of self requires re-enforcement in order to sustain a sense of belonging.  As long that remains important to us we will always need to process information available to us in life, the media, in church, parliament, at work, school or anywhere else, all within the broader description of what is required to sustain our identities.  In other words,...limited.

If it is possible to reject this notion of attachment to an identity that defines our value system  the ramifications are profound.  Help me find out.