The Future of Economics: A Pyramid that “Must” be Reversed
Ylli Përmeti*
We continue to live in a world where governments, politics and universities base their life on “borrowing”, “belief” and “advertisements”; and No on “needs” and “rationality”. Governments around the world continue to keep their policies based on past philosophy; and such philosophy has in its core the “universalisation” of politics; and therefore such politics base their existence on monies that are produced through different sources. The first source therefore of creating money is a preliminary budget produced by a government; fiat monies that come from nowhere. Politicians around the world do not understand such an art and they are trapped in their monetary policies and in their desire to produce wealth through money. Such an art has a long history. For fiat money started to be considered commodities only then, when authorities pushed their people to use such a paper as commodity. I do not intend to give data in this text about the creation of money; such data has been illustrated in my second chapter of economics. In it, one can find, in detail, the creation of money; the detriment that the bankster’s monies are causing to our human consciousness; and the huge implications that our societies will confront in the future.
For it is not a simple game; it is a dangerous game that will push our governments to fight each-other in order to survive in an internationalised domain. Such domain is full in “money discussions” but not on proper economies; just as our money-whispers in our families. There is sure therefore that we confront two different domains in our effort to accumulate money: The domestic one and the internationalised one. The domestic one is characterised historically an organic economy; organic in the sense of being demythologised ― in some respects; and the internationalised is characterised inorganic; in the sense of becoming a very, very dangerous myth. It becomes a myth in human mind (consciousness) because no one can predict the progress of a country, government or of a company when an investment takes place. All these three domains operate the same: A country through its government issues bonds in order to stimulate the consumption; whereas, a company, issues shares in order to stimulate the people to buy their shares, so that, to invest somewhere in the economy. But no one of the buyers knows if such an investment would bring more money in their pocket. When someone find him/her self in such circumstances, such human being, becomes very nervous and self-destructive.
But politics, despite these conclusions, carries on keeping such beings in its web; nay, they even keep themselves in such circumstances! At first, it gives us the impression that humans are becoming more and more masochistic; in the sense of liking such pains, uncertainty and unsustainability. And at second, such phenomenon pushes our societies towards a “global government”, in which will be installed people that their practical wisdom will be inexistent and the “free power” of other human beings would be characterised as a substitute without any essential importance. Indeed, the last decade, our world has become accustomed to watch on TV-s news, our super-class that allegedly regulate the economy of the world, as if our economy were the wisdom of our super-class and not of our householding and of our own natural power. Such super-class discusses the establishment of a global currency as a compulsion that pushes our sovereign states ― which have been up to their neck in debt ― to become a tiny point on the surface of the planet earth. Consequently, if such an event occurs, as has been laid down by pseudo-philosophers of universal institutions, then, at this point, our world will become for the first time in human history a global dictatorship in which oligarchs will have all the power of humans on their shoulders and will start to play more dangerous games. Such games could be even mass extermination; of a species which could be considered by the super-class undesirable. Our world history has too many lessons to teach us about such powers; especially when it gets accumulated to a few or even to one hand. But despite this fact, there is a tendency to go towards a global currency which for such scholars is the ultimate solution of our economies of the world! Again, if such an event occurs, then the implications of applying such philosophy, which is grounded on three main blocks ― that is, transnational corporations, the transnational capitalist class and the culture-ideology of consumerism [1], will be too many.
First, ideologies and social theories are not possible to be realised in the social domain. Such evidence could be inferred easily by our traditional states which in order to keep the masses ― in order ― produced and applied different theories and ideologies. Second, if we acknowledge that the “traditional state” has failed then we can equally infer that the “global state” will surely fail with unpredictable results, since it will be based on money and not on proper commodities. Third, if we ignore ethnomethodolgies as a mean of producing wealth and sustainability then we can equally ignore the above main blocks.
On which bases then could one justify such a development? Unfortunately, there are not sound bases. This is because, our economies have been reversed and the pyramid of our global economy goes like this: (a) Money; (b) retail trading and (c) householding. In ancient societies, such pyramid was the opposite: Householding and retail trading were the means of producing wealth and the money (gold) used to be a mean of exchange not commodity. In time, because of the king’s manipulations such a precious metal started to be considered a commodity; and today we have our fiat money which is subject of two different schools ― Keynesian and Austrian ― who cannot offer anything sustainable in our economy: Both these economies are based on pure money and scholars of such schools are pre-determined to fail when they try to rationalise the system. Thus, the means of productions are the government’s fiat money not the labour class, as has been considered such a case in classical economics.
However, if we really want to change our world ― that world has to reverse the pyramid of our economics: (a) Housekeeping, which must establish its counterpart: The indispensible economy; (b) retail trading, which must establish a full rationality in order to know a priory the end of the production; and (c) getting rid of money [2].
[1]See, The Transnational Capitalist Class and the Discourse of Globalization, By Dr Leslie Sklair, Oxford University. Or, Governance of Supernationalism: Backing Multinationals Companies in Order to “Loot” Countries, from the second chapter: Beyond an Autonomic Democracy: Economics vs. Phronesis, p 80, on which you’ll find in detail our economics and e new plan of economics. www.phroneticanddemocracy.blogspot.com
[2]See for example, the Second Chapter of Phronetic and Demotic Manifesto, on which I elaborate in detail the impasses of the present economy and the steps of how to go from an economy based on money to an economy based on pure commodities.
Ylli Përmeti, is the author of the book “Demotic and Phronetic Manifesto”.
http://phroneticanddemocracy.blogspot.com/
Friday, August 27, 2010
Sunday, August 1, 2010
Ecology, Demography & “Rationality”: Tech-Human vs. Value-Human
Ecology, Demography & “Rationality”: Tech-Human vs. Value-Human
Ylli Permeti
Abstract
If nature has a practical wisdom it would have started...either to kill human being by using epidemic extermination or it would have started to sow the seeds on its surface to re-create a human-sapiens-sapiens. Until then we are determined to “wake up” our politics and to claim a “universal revolution”.
We live in a world of dramatic changes; however, yet we do not have learn how to rationalise our births in relation to our environment. Wars and fears have their portion in this story: Powers, may it be ecclesiastic or popular governments have reshaped their societies in all its history of human being ― by wars. Thus, this mystery of regimes (that could be called without any reserve ― totalitarian), lies in heart of each society, which deal with monotheistic abstractions ― converted nowadays into a global government, (see today the President of America that is represented in the rest of the world by the Congress of America like a Gospel, or the New World Order, for which we discuss in the course of this book); have their roots in our historical mis-interpretation of human being; misleading thus our human nature, which have been interpreted by past philosophy as a “segregation” or “isolation” of our societies; and “that” mystery is explained plainly in Hegel’s words: ‘[I]n order not to let them get rooted and settled in this isolation and thus break up the whole into fragments and let the common spirit evaporate, government has from time to time to shake them to the very centre by War’. (Emphasis added)
Yet, there are politicians in our world’s government today that “believe” in using war in order to keep their population in “cohesion” and consequently to be dependent on government’s power. In addi-tion, there are modern states, such as the U.S.A ― that in order to loot the wealth of the world ― its politics carries on continuous tensions between different countries in a global scale. However, I don’t know how Hegel convinced himself to believe that a society needs “war”, so that, to not get “settled in isolation” by the time to time governments; and therefore his observation is totally wrong, arbitrary and anti-human. But since then, when Hegel drew his conclusions on human behaviour, things have changed and our societies now are governed by virtue of multi-national corporations. As a result, we are today under the threat of huge-co-operations that treat the growth of the population as a benefit rather than as a problem, by stimulating large families, so that, to have more children, in order to fight the ageing of our population and keeping in this way the balance with the labour force.
Further, these “mind’s traps” might be explained under the following muse: According to different analysts of our world politics, if there is an out-number of the ageing population, then, this will cost to our politics economically because of the two “heaps”, that is, the working age vs. elderly ― which have been seen as the “tug of war” by our economics ― could overlap and the collapse of our monetary policy will come sooner than expected. These are the two major reasons that our western politics today induce new families by assisting them economically so that to have children as many as they can. But what kind of children they want to their society? How could a human being grow up and expand its consciousness when in a society has been established a universal system, that is, “conscience-restricted”? Could a child grow up as a human being when in our cities ― previous generations ― have established the isolation of our consciousness into only technical sciences ― excluding thus our values sciences? How could we pretend as societies that we are building “progress” and “human development” when we as humans exclude our natural environment as being part of our life? Do our global universities teach human values in comparison with technical values? We have already outlined our human values in the previous sections of this chapter, which could be more than I emphasised, on which our universities do not deliberate. This is because, deliberating about such values is not “profitable” for our universities and we witness today a human that is being seen as a “tech-human” rather than as a “value-human”. For tech-humans have been perceived by our politicians and global politics as the right tool that can offer to our cities the right technicians in order to build up progress based on plastic food, cyclical consumption and consequently human being has been disintegrated from our nature and natural environment. In this way, the “well-fare” states have established the tech-humans without its counterpart, that is, value-humans. This can be seen even when we read analysis, studies and didactics from our ‘present press’ compara-bly with the past didactics, that is, the ancient fathers of knowledge, starting from Aristotle to Fotopoulos and Flyvbjerg, in our present days. However, economists that sees such a phenomenon as a benefit rather than as a problem are nothing else than a sort of “anthropoc-tonous” that want to benefit from the established economics. But why we constitute a “threat” to the environment? Is it the “out-number” of the population that create all the trouble in our cities or environment?
Since the fall of former communist bloc in countries such as Russia and its allies ― our demography has changed dramatically: The population, as stated in previous sections, has moved from one direction to the other, that is, from small cities to, in the words of Nietzsche ― “cyclopean” cities. And this is because, of the established trade, which enforce the population to be concentrated to huge cities, so that, to ensure the demand for sufficient “customers”. Such customers when concentrate themselves into these cities tend to be “pure consumers” and as long as there are consumers our cities grow up in population . In addition, this population grows up because of the following reasons: First, as said above, when encouraging new births by politicians who are forced up by our co-operations, banks and organisations that treat the growing of the population as a profit; and second, because there is a continuous dislocation by new waves of people from around the world towards cities, so that, to ensure “consumption”. Thus, because of this irrational dislocation the demand for energy and for food becomes complex. In this way, emerges the need for other sciences, that is, ecology, as in the case of western civilizations. The term ecology was coined in 1869 by the German biologist Ernst Haeckel from the Greek roots oikos (“house” or “dwelling”) and logos (“word” or “study of”). Ecology is the study of how organisms interact with one another and their surroundings. It flourished at the beginning of the 20th century. (Emphasis in original) Such sciences come into the surface of our civilizations just because of our problems that we cause continuously to our environment. By the same corollary, if there are more sciences to come out they will come for one simple reason: Because we created the conditions for such needs. Ecology thus, precisely for these reasons, came into existence, just because of the problems we have created to our environment.
However, as regards the concentration or the threat of our population, a resent publication of the world population shows an “Ageing World”: Within 10 years older people will outnumber children for the first time. It forecasts that over the next 30 years the number of over-65s is expected to almost double, from 506 million in 2008 to 1.3 billion – a leap from 7% of the world's population to 14%. Already, the number of people in the world 65 and over is increasing at an average of 870,000 each month. And a separate UN forecasts predict that the global population will top 9 billion by 2050. In addition of what has been previously said: In Britain, “Baby Boomers” of the 1960s, are a real threat for the British politics. According to studies they have been transformed by the politics of Britain, “selfish” and “powerful” at the expense of younger generations . Indeed, is gets even worst, when the following illustration shows our “mountain which laboured and brought forth a mouse”: There are in a worldwide scale 267 people being born every minute and 108 dying, and the world's population will top 7 billion next year. Lower birthrates and longer life spans will also lead to a precipitous decline in the ratio of working age adults to the elderly in developed countries .
So according to this publication there is another reason that the system that our societies created “consciously” or “unconsciously” or “selfishly” will collapse without any doubt. The question is then — when? Going back in our history of the world expansion as regard the population and demography, it reveals us that past civilizations have disappeared from the surface of the mother earth just because of a continually demand for food and energy. Thus, from the ancient years, human needs have adopted five strategies for capturing increasing amount of energy in order to accomplish the need for commodities:
Takeover;
Tool use;
Specialization;
Scope enlargement, and
Drawdown,...[which] have permitted societies to grow in size, scope and complexity. In fact, in days like ours, “takeover” has been par-tially excluded as a natural phenomenon; because our planet has been inhabited already from one corner to the other. When we say “par-tially” ― we say it because U.S.A has not stopped its demarche through taking-over the world. What have been left to our dispositions are our tools, specialization and scope enlargement which when reach to a sufficient degree of development they will fail or will drawdown for further analysis. Such phenomenon happens precisely because we take first decisions and afterwards, we look for technical rationalizations. All these “uniform” accelerations and decision-taking are part of our social politics expressed with pure irrationality. As will be shown in the second chapter, in the heart of this kind of “irrationality” lies our monetarism. Many civilizations have expanded their scope and complexity dramatically, only to dissolve back into simpler forms of social organization. Everyone today, can judge and perhaps can conclude that our civilizations have collapsed for the “sake of appearances”.
From the Egyptian’s pyramids, to Babylonian temples, Greek and Rome Empire, Illyrian civilization, and other civilizations have all of them collapsed. If one goes to explore them in order to give answers to why these civilizations have collapsed, I would say, without any doubt, that human being, despite the fact that some people have outshined with their wisdom, they have been under the pressure of a power that excluded our practical wisdom. For even Aristotle did not excel in maximum with his wisdom as regards the complexity of Athens or Acropolis. The old men of the Greek Empire known as the seven, three hundred or three thousands wise men did not “scent” that a society when becomes complex as regards its population, monetary organization, buildings, roads, temples and so on, becomes more fragile to collapse. Archaeologist’s pickaxes tell us that everything is covered under our feet. Erosion of our mountains has its part in our nature’s game. The melted ices in the arctic contribute to a continually changing environment. Recently we understood that our earth is a “Vivian” organism and its crust is like our own skin. But despite this fact, no politics, university or society today, asks: If we cover or uncover earth’s crust, what would happen to our earth? And this muse could be answered straightforward: If our skin does not accept covering then earth’s crust is the same. This is because it is a living creature. We cannot cover or uncover it in order to satisfy our own desire, by building new houses, surfacing new roads with asphalts, buildings, bridges, wind mills, mines and so on, and considering them as an “economic growth”. As said above, the welfare states have established to our global politics “specializations” but not continuous learning. As Flyvbjerg pointed out:
[W]e live in time when the ability for constant learning is considered crucial to the welfare of individuals, organisations and nations. This is the age of the ‘learning society’. However, in environmental impact assessment (EIA), which is the main methodology used by decision makers to predict environmental effects of megaprojects, surprisingly little learning is taking place. Or, to put the manner more positively, learning is only now beginning. This is true for megaprojects as well as for other types of project. The reason for the lack of learning is that projects and their environment impacts are rarely audited ex post, and without post-auditing learning is impossible . (Emphasis in original) I would like to add another component and probably the most important element to our social knowledge, that is, our irrational economics, that in order to rationalise itself it becomes problematic and unreflective for other sciences. Moreover, it cannot be constant when the whole politics or social actions are concentrated around one subject, that is, Money! Social humans’ today work for money not for proper work. For money is the basic conception in our societies, not the work. Through money we search for further knowledge and for happiness. But money does not bring happiness because money is not a virtue. Virtue has to do with human values and actions not with money.
However, on the other hand, we cannot uncover it by deforesta-tion. In the year 400 AD central and Western Europe was covered from horizon to horizon by dense forest, with only occasional clearings; the population of Europe probably ― exact figures are not known ― did not exceed 25 million (compared to 600 million today, if European Russia is included) . The massive demand for food which is result of the energy used has become the main cause that causes instability and the fall of the time to time “powers”. For social powers today ― following Montesquieu’s contemplation ― have established the “exclusion” of human natural power, that is, a practical contemplation on social development, so that, to assuage as much as we can any error when taking any decision. Unfortunately, instead of it, our social powers have been transformed a quasi-instrumentalist power-rationality when this power covers or uncovers the “skin” of our earth whenever and with whatever means ― in order to fulfil the desire of human beings.
Thus, without any doubt, covering and uncovering must be under the measurement of a full power and “value-rationality”. But as said in our previous sections the value-rationality of human beings is not part of our politics, social structures or organizations. The problems therefore that we will confront in the future ― if we do not change global politics ― are too many and unfortunately we cannot realise them, because of the established power, which is concentrated around our monetary policy. The established power is not simply detrimental to our consciousness, but to our environment, too. And this is, because, power occupy itself with more power. When our world has only one party-government in its eastern part and the established power wanted to keep its population in control we were on the one hand, under a tyrannical power, and on the other, under competitiveness and accuracy of our social actions. Now, we live in world that this power has changed; there are many powers: Visible and invisible. When these powers change, our behaviour changes as well. But if change is for the better of our world then we have to prove it. How could someone then prove that our world is changing for the better, since our world today has established a global power? Or how could a simple consciousness today expand itself when it is under huge global powers? How many myths would be infused to such consciousness? How, how, could we manage these powers when value-rationality and human consciousness have become inexistent?
Lastly, as noted above, from a society that needs from time to time war by its government, so that, to not let them to be “isolated”, we are today in front of a new phenomenon: The rapidly ever, ever growth of the population. This phenomenon in the social life or international affairs ― on which play a crucial role our big co-operations ― will be accompanied by more wars, more lust for power, and more curtailment of the commodities of our world; creating monsters cities in which, definitely we will see a “global clash” of human interests. This will be not clash of civilizations, as other scholars put it, but the clash of interests. Further, this linkage goes like this: As long as our global politics use the maxim “grow or die” it would be applied in the further course of its development, that is, in the internationalised domain, dealing with defaulters states and cities, as nowadays with Greece et.al. In practise, it means that sovereign cities or countries will be more fragile and will oftener lose their sustainability, if not, disappear from the surface of our globe. This happens precisely because, when a country lose its autonomy, then its counterpart, that is, its citizens, have lost it prior to their city. It is sure then, that we will march on these domains without any doubt. For this is because of the power given without its counter-power ― to the present politicians who cannot realise the massive destruction that they are causing in our nature; and because, they consider themselves as a source of news, competence or conventional wisdom rather than reading studies or contemplating about social phenomena. Unfortunately, the “burden of proof” for such development lies on and will lie ahead to our “history” which has created a “hierarchical society”. But could we realise a society to be not hierarchical, that is, horizontal? How were ancient societies ar-ranged as regards its population? How they used their wisdom as re-gards the commodities of their environment? Were they, a hierarchy? Certainly, not! Hierarchy tends to accumulate power on one point, that is, on one or few people. For practical purposes they were cer-tainly not a hierarchical. On the other side, for theoretical purposes they started to be transformed a hierarchy. But since theory is not possible or have not reached a sufficient degree in the social domain, then, how could we justify a hierarchical society? ― On which basis? How could we link value-rationality as regards its counter-part, that is, instrumental-rationality, to a hierarchical society?
Then, comparatively with the ancient humans, whom we use to call them as less rational, we are certainly irrational. This is because we use less our own wisdom, reflective or pure conciseness. For in-stance, according to Heinberg ‘...[i]n ancient Australia, over a period of tens of thousands of years, human beings and their adopted envi-ronment achieved a relative balance. The Aboriginals developed myths, rites, and taboos: overhunting was forbidden, and burning was permitted only in certain seasons of the year. Meanwhile, na-tive species adjusted themselves to the presence of humans. All of the surviving species — humans, animals, and plants — co-evolved. By the time European colonizers arrived, once again upsetting the bal-ance, Australia — people and all — had the characteristics of a climax ecosystem. Many native Australian trees and shrubs had so adjusted themselves to the Aboriginals’ “fire-farming” practices that they could no longer reproduce property in the absence of deliberate burning. Moreover, the Aboriginals had learned the necessity of limiting their own population levels through extended lactation, the use of contraceptive herbs, or, if necessary, infanticide. (Emphasis added).
In practise, no one can afford today having more children than they can and if there is a “rational social policy” then individuals will keep the population in low or a constant level. But because there is the incentive of the governments ― who according to their “belief” and persuasion tend to practise theories or ideologies, such as capital-ism, in the way it is realised, so that, to have more children than one can afford; and because no one can deliberate when at a given con-text, we, sub-consciously tend to rely on “supra-power’s” decisions, then we have the today’s results. For, without extending our analysis in the problems caused by our global politics and by the time to time governments we will turn back to our subject, that is, our city. Then our lessons according to our analysis are as follows:
Our city to be rational as regards its population must learn to keep its population in balance towards itself and other beings ― otherwise a city will collapse in time. This can be done by posing and answering the following question: How many people can sustain a society according to its environmental resources? If this question is answered meticulously then a society has to develop a “horizontal democracy”. Thus, in order to happen such a development we have to develop a “horizontal democracy”, if we justify it on the grounds of a natural social development. For our ecosystem need rational mind and therefore it has to be measured ― as Protagoras observed long time ago, by the axiom: ‘Of all things the measure is man, of the things that are, that [or "how"] they are, and of things that are not, that [or "how"] they are not’. As it is clear, Protagoras here is talking about value-humans not tech-humans. But what is a tech-human? Tech-human is by nature hierarchical, because it has to do with techne, whereas, value-human is by nature horizontal, because it has to do with values; and values defer from one another depending on consciousness’s expansion. If we tend to exclude one “value” from our decisions in our city, we will find ourselves in big troubles, because human values tend to be part of our value-rationality, and if there is to be taken a decision it is useful to use full-value-rationality. How could we therefore justify our global politics today when politics tend to rely on “belief” rather than on reason? What do our politics destroy when instead of “reason” it uses the politics of “belief”? For in the next section we will challenge the kind of politics which rely on “beliefs” rather than on pure consciousness, by addressing the following question: What destroys “mind’s belief” and what builds up our “historical mind”, in a psychological approach.
Ylli Permeti
Abstract
If nature has a practical wisdom it would have started...either to kill human being by using epidemic extermination or it would have started to sow the seeds on its surface to re-create a human-sapiens-sapiens. Until then we are determined to “wake up” our politics and to claim a “universal revolution”.
We live in a world of dramatic changes; however, yet we do not have learn how to rationalise our births in relation to our environment. Wars and fears have their portion in this story: Powers, may it be ecclesiastic or popular governments have reshaped their societies in all its history of human being ― by wars. Thus, this mystery of regimes (that could be called without any reserve ― totalitarian), lies in heart of each society, which deal with monotheistic abstractions ― converted nowadays into a global government, (see today the President of America that is represented in the rest of the world by the Congress of America like a Gospel, or the New World Order, for which we discuss in the course of this book); have their roots in our historical mis-interpretation of human being; misleading thus our human nature, which have been interpreted by past philosophy as a “segregation” or “isolation” of our societies; and “that” mystery is explained plainly in Hegel’s words: ‘[I]n order not to let them get rooted and settled in this isolation and thus break up the whole into fragments and let the common spirit evaporate, government has from time to time to shake them to the very centre by War’. (Emphasis added)
Yet, there are politicians in our world’s government today that “believe” in using war in order to keep their population in “cohesion” and consequently to be dependent on government’s power. In addi-tion, there are modern states, such as the U.S.A ― that in order to loot the wealth of the world ― its politics carries on continuous tensions between different countries in a global scale. However, I don’t know how Hegel convinced himself to believe that a society needs “war”, so that, to not get “settled in isolation” by the time to time governments; and therefore his observation is totally wrong, arbitrary and anti-human. But since then, when Hegel drew his conclusions on human behaviour, things have changed and our societies now are governed by virtue of multi-national corporations. As a result, we are today under the threat of huge-co-operations that treat the growth of the population as a benefit rather than as a problem, by stimulating large families, so that, to have more children, in order to fight the ageing of our population and keeping in this way the balance with the labour force.
Further, these “mind’s traps” might be explained under the following muse: According to different analysts of our world politics, if there is an out-number of the ageing population, then, this will cost to our politics economically because of the two “heaps”, that is, the working age vs. elderly ― which have been seen as the “tug of war” by our economics ― could overlap and the collapse of our monetary policy will come sooner than expected. These are the two major reasons that our western politics today induce new families by assisting them economically so that to have children as many as they can. But what kind of children they want to their society? How could a human being grow up and expand its consciousness when in a society has been established a universal system, that is, “conscience-restricted”? Could a child grow up as a human being when in our cities ― previous generations ― have established the isolation of our consciousness into only technical sciences ― excluding thus our values sciences? How could we pretend as societies that we are building “progress” and “human development” when we as humans exclude our natural environment as being part of our life? Do our global universities teach human values in comparison with technical values? We have already outlined our human values in the previous sections of this chapter, which could be more than I emphasised, on which our universities do not deliberate. This is because, deliberating about such values is not “profitable” for our universities and we witness today a human that is being seen as a “tech-human” rather than as a “value-human”. For tech-humans have been perceived by our politicians and global politics as the right tool that can offer to our cities the right technicians in order to build up progress based on plastic food, cyclical consumption and consequently human being has been disintegrated from our nature and natural environment. In this way, the “well-fare” states have established the tech-humans without its counterpart, that is, value-humans. This can be seen even when we read analysis, studies and didactics from our ‘present press’ compara-bly with the past didactics, that is, the ancient fathers of knowledge, starting from Aristotle to Fotopoulos and Flyvbjerg, in our present days. However, economists that sees such a phenomenon as a benefit rather than as a problem are nothing else than a sort of “anthropoc-tonous” that want to benefit from the established economics. But why we constitute a “threat” to the environment? Is it the “out-number” of the population that create all the trouble in our cities or environment?
Since the fall of former communist bloc in countries such as Russia and its allies ― our demography has changed dramatically: The population, as stated in previous sections, has moved from one direction to the other, that is, from small cities to, in the words of Nietzsche ― “cyclopean” cities. And this is because, of the established trade, which enforce the population to be concentrated to huge cities, so that, to ensure the demand for sufficient “customers”. Such customers when concentrate themselves into these cities tend to be “pure consumers” and as long as there are consumers our cities grow up in population . In addition, this population grows up because of the following reasons: First, as said above, when encouraging new births by politicians who are forced up by our co-operations, banks and organisations that treat the growing of the population as a profit; and second, because there is a continuous dislocation by new waves of people from around the world towards cities, so that, to ensure “consumption”. Thus, because of this irrational dislocation the demand for energy and for food becomes complex. In this way, emerges the need for other sciences, that is, ecology, as in the case of western civilizations. The term ecology was coined in 1869 by the German biologist Ernst Haeckel from the Greek roots oikos (“house” or “dwelling”) and logos (“word” or “study of”). Ecology is the study of how organisms interact with one another and their surroundings. It flourished at the beginning of the 20th century. (Emphasis in original) Such sciences come into the surface of our civilizations just because of our problems that we cause continuously to our environment. By the same corollary, if there are more sciences to come out they will come for one simple reason: Because we created the conditions for such needs. Ecology thus, precisely for these reasons, came into existence, just because of the problems we have created to our environment.
However, as regards the concentration or the threat of our population, a resent publication of the world population shows an “Ageing World”: Within 10 years older people will outnumber children for the first time. It forecasts that over the next 30 years the number of over-65s is expected to almost double, from 506 million in 2008 to 1.3 billion – a leap from 7% of the world's population to 14%. Already, the number of people in the world 65 and over is increasing at an average of 870,000 each month. And a separate UN forecasts predict that the global population will top 9 billion by 2050. In addition of what has been previously said: In Britain, “Baby Boomers” of the 1960s, are a real threat for the British politics. According to studies they have been transformed by the politics of Britain, “selfish” and “powerful” at the expense of younger generations . Indeed, is gets even worst, when the following illustration shows our “mountain which laboured and brought forth a mouse”: There are in a worldwide scale 267 people being born every minute and 108 dying, and the world's population will top 7 billion next year. Lower birthrates and longer life spans will also lead to a precipitous decline in the ratio of working age adults to the elderly in developed countries .
So according to this publication there is another reason that the system that our societies created “consciously” or “unconsciously” or “selfishly” will collapse without any doubt. The question is then — when? Going back in our history of the world expansion as regard the population and demography, it reveals us that past civilizations have disappeared from the surface of the mother earth just because of a continually demand for food and energy. Thus, from the ancient years, human needs have adopted five strategies for capturing increasing amount of energy in order to accomplish the need for commodities:
Takeover;
Tool use;
Specialization;
Scope enlargement, and
Drawdown,...[which] have permitted societies to grow in size, scope and complexity. In fact, in days like ours, “takeover” has been par-tially excluded as a natural phenomenon; because our planet has been inhabited already from one corner to the other. When we say “par-tially” ― we say it because U.S.A has not stopped its demarche through taking-over the world. What have been left to our dispositions are our tools, specialization and scope enlargement which when reach to a sufficient degree of development they will fail or will drawdown for further analysis. Such phenomenon happens precisely because we take first decisions and afterwards, we look for technical rationalizations. All these “uniform” accelerations and decision-taking are part of our social politics expressed with pure irrationality. As will be shown in the second chapter, in the heart of this kind of “irrationality” lies our monetarism. Many civilizations have expanded their scope and complexity dramatically, only to dissolve back into simpler forms of social organization. Everyone today, can judge and perhaps can conclude that our civilizations have collapsed for the “sake of appearances”.
From the Egyptian’s pyramids, to Babylonian temples, Greek and Rome Empire, Illyrian civilization, and other civilizations have all of them collapsed. If one goes to explore them in order to give answers to why these civilizations have collapsed, I would say, without any doubt, that human being, despite the fact that some people have outshined with their wisdom, they have been under the pressure of a power that excluded our practical wisdom. For even Aristotle did not excel in maximum with his wisdom as regards the complexity of Athens or Acropolis. The old men of the Greek Empire known as the seven, three hundred or three thousands wise men did not “scent” that a society when becomes complex as regards its population, monetary organization, buildings, roads, temples and so on, becomes more fragile to collapse. Archaeologist’s pickaxes tell us that everything is covered under our feet. Erosion of our mountains has its part in our nature’s game. The melted ices in the arctic contribute to a continually changing environment. Recently we understood that our earth is a “Vivian” organism and its crust is like our own skin. But despite this fact, no politics, university or society today, asks: If we cover or uncover earth’s crust, what would happen to our earth? And this muse could be answered straightforward: If our skin does not accept covering then earth’s crust is the same. This is because it is a living creature. We cannot cover or uncover it in order to satisfy our own desire, by building new houses, surfacing new roads with asphalts, buildings, bridges, wind mills, mines and so on, and considering them as an “economic growth”. As said above, the welfare states have established to our global politics “specializations” but not continuous learning. As Flyvbjerg pointed out:
[W]e live in time when the ability for constant learning is considered crucial to the welfare of individuals, organisations and nations. This is the age of the ‘learning society’. However, in environmental impact assessment (EIA), which is the main methodology used by decision makers to predict environmental effects of megaprojects, surprisingly little learning is taking place. Or, to put the manner more positively, learning is only now beginning. This is true for megaprojects as well as for other types of project. The reason for the lack of learning is that projects and their environment impacts are rarely audited ex post, and without post-auditing learning is impossible . (Emphasis in original) I would like to add another component and probably the most important element to our social knowledge, that is, our irrational economics, that in order to rationalise itself it becomes problematic and unreflective for other sciences. Moreover, it cannot be constant when the whole politics or social actions are concentrated around one subject, that is, Money! Social humans’ today work for money not for proper work. For money is the basic conception in our societies, not the work. Through money we search for further knowledge and for happiness. But money does not bring happiness because money is not a virtue. Virtue has to do with human values and actions not with money.
However, on the other hand, we cannot uncover it by deforesta-tion. In the year 400 AD central and Western Europe was covered from horizon to horizon by dense forest, with only occasional clearings; the population of Europe probably ― exact figures are not known ― did not exceed 25 million (compared to 600 million today, if European Russia is included) . The massive demand for food which is result of the energy used has become the main cause that causes instability and the fall of the time to time “powers”. For social powers today ― following Montesquieu’s contemplation ― have established the “exclusion” of human natural power, that is, a practical contemplation on social development, so that, to assuage as much as we can any error when taking any decision. Unfortunately, instead of it, our social powers have been transformed a quasi-instrumentalist power-rationality when this power covers or uncovers the “skin” of our earth whenever and with whatever means ― in order to fulfil the desire of human beings.
Thus, without any doubt, covering and uncovering must be under the measurement of a full power and “value-rationality”. But as said in our previous sections the value-rationality of human beings is not part of our politics, social structures or organizations. The problems therefore that we will confront in the future ― if we do not change global politics ― are too many and unfortunately we cannot realise them, because of the established power, which is concentrated around our monetary policy. The established power is not simply detrimental to our consciousness, but to our environment, too. And this is, because, power occupy itself with more power. When our world has only one party-government in its eastern part and the established power wanted to keep its population in control we were on the one hand, under a tyrannical power, and on the other, under competitiveness and accuracy of our social actions. Now, we live in world that this power has changed; there are many powers: Visible and invisible. When these powers change, our behaviour changes as well. But if change is for the better of our world then we have to prove it. How could someone then prove that our world is changing for the better, since our world today has established a global power? Or how could a simple consciousness today expand itself when it is under huge global powers? How many myths would be infused to such consciousness? How, how, could we manage these powers when value-rationality and human consciousness have become inexistent?
Lastly, as noted above, from a society that needs from time to time war by its government, so that, to not let them to be “isolated”, we are today in front of a new phenomenon: The rapidly ever, ever growth of the population. This phenomenon in the social life or international affairs ― on which play a crucial role our big co-operations ― will be accompanied by more wars, more lust for power, and more curtailment of the commodities of our world; creating monsters cities in which, definitely we will see a “global clash” of human interests. This will be not clash of civilizations, as other scholars put it, but the clash of interests. Further, this linkage goes like this: As long as our global politics use the maxim “grow or die” it would be applied in the further course of its development, that is, in the internationalised domain, dealing with defaulters states and cities, as nowadays with Greece et.al. In practise, it means that sovereign cities or countries will be more fragile and will oftener lose their sustainability, if not, disappear from the surface of our globe. This happens precisely because, when a country lose its autonomy, then its counterpart, that is, its citizens, have lost it prior to their city. It is sure then, that we will march on these domains without any doubt. For this is because of the power given without its counter-power ― to the present politicians who cannot realise the massive destruction that they are causing in our nature; and because, they consider themselves as a source of news, competence or conventional wisdom rather than reading studies or contemplating about social phenomena. Unfortunately, the “burden of proof” for such development lies on and will lie ahead to our “history” which has created a “hierarchical society”. But could we realise a society to be not hierarchical, that is, horizontal? How were ancient societies ar-ranged as regards its population? How they used their wisdom as re-gards the commodities of their environment? Were they, a hierarchy? Certainly, not! Hierarchy tends to accumulate power on one point, that is, on one or few people. For practical purposes they were cer-tainly not a hierarchical. On the other side, for theoretical purposes they started to be transformed a hierarchy. But since theory is not possible or have not reached a sufficient degree in the social domain, then, how could we justify a hierarchical society? ― On which basis? How could we link value-rationality as regards its counter-part, that is, instrumental-rationality, to a hierarchical society?
Then, comparatively with the ancient humans, whom we use to call them as less rational, we are certainly irrational. This is because we use less our own wisdom, reflective or pure conciseness. For in-stance, according to Heinberg ‘...[i]n ancient Australia, over a period of tens of thousands of years, human beings and their adopted envi-ronment achieved a relative balance. The Aboriginals developed myths, rites, and taboos: overhunting was forbidden, and burning was permitted only in certain seasons of the year. Meanwhile, na-tive species adjusted themselves to the presence of humans. All of the surviving species — humans, animals, and plants — co-evolved. By the time European colonizers arrived, once again upsetting the bal-ance, Australia — people and all — had the characteristics of a climax ecosystem. Many native Australian trees and shrubs had so adjusted themselves to the Aboriginals’ “fire-farming” practices that they could no longer reproduce property in the absence of deliberate burning. Moreover, the Aboriginals had learned the necessity of limiting their own population levels through extended lactation, the use of contraceptive herbs, or, if necessary, infanticide. (Emphasis added).
In practise, no one can afford today having more children than they can and if there is a “rational social policy” then individuals will keep the population in low or a constant level. But because there is the incentive of the governments ― who according to their “belief” and persuasion tend to practise theories or ideologies, such as capital-ism, in the way it is realised, so that, to have more children than one can afford; and because no one can deliberate when at a given con-text, we, sub-consciously tend to rely on “supra-power’s” decisions, then we have the today’s results. For, without extending our analysis in the problems caused by our global politics and by the time to time governments we will turn back to our subject, that is, our city. Then our lessons according to our analysis are as follows:
Our city to be rational as regards its population must learn to keep its population in balance towards itself and other beings ― otherwise a city will collapse in time. This can be done by posing and answering the following question: How many people can sustain a society according to its environmental resources? If this question is answered meticulously then a society has to develop a “horizontal democracy”. Thus, in order to happen such a development we have to develop a “horizontal democracy”, if we justify it on the grounds of a natural social development. For our ecosystem need rational mind and therefore it has to be measured ― as Protagoras observed long time ago, by the axiom: ‘Of all things the measure is man, of the things that are, that [or "how"] they are, and of things that are not, that [or "how"] they are not’. As it is clear, Protagoras here is talking about value-humans not tech-humans. But what is a tech-human? Tech-human is by nature hierarchical, because it has to do with techne, whereas, value-human is by nature horizontal, because it has to do with values; and values defer from one another depending on consciousness’s expansion. If we tend to exclude one “value” from our decisions in our city, we will find ourselves in big troubles, because human values tend to be part of our value-rationality, and if there is to be taken a decision it is useful to use full-value-rationality. How could we therefore justify our global politics today when politics tend to rely on “belief” rather than on reason? What do our politics destroy when instead of “reason” it uses the politics of “belief”? For in the next section we will challenge the kind of politics which rely on “beliefs” rather than on pure consciousness, by addressing the following question: What destroys “mind’s belief” and what builds up our “historical mind”, in a psychological approach.
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Plato, City & Common Good: Convergence vs. Divergence
Plato, City & Common Good: Convergence vs. Divergence
Ylli Permeti
Abstract
“Honour has a wealth that honour does not know, whereas wealth does not have an honour that honour does not know”.
To divide further the common good would be of a good purpose to compare our two institutions — that is, a family against the city or the polity. In a family everything in it is common for its members: Immovable property and movable property. The only property that is not common for a family, according to the west law is the ground bellow and the airspace which belongs to the crown or to the power. To examine therefore an immovable property we have to go back in time, by posing a question: Earth is our property or we are Her property? Without going further in our analysis, we may conclude that it is sure that we are her property and of course her offspring’s. We are thus, its inhabitants. As it is well-known, we expanded our population gradually onto the surface of our earth in the last three millennium ― which means that we may consider it as common, in the first instance. Common in this context has to do more with human actions than having the right to accrue wealth whenever and whatever from our earth. Thus the genealogy of common good lies on human actions with regard the acquired property. The acquired property therefore lies on the needs of human being with regard with the needs of other beings, such as animals and plants. It should be emphasised that this kind of muse has to do with rationality. Thus property seems according to our corollary to be the same time common and private. This is because human being lives for his own life not for the common. Additionally, human being acts privately with regards to common property. As nomads we were long time ago, we came together for the sake of the existence. Thus, in this way we created our cities. And as it is obvious our cities were first created for the sake of mutual assistance. With such a definition it is quite clear that earth is more common than private. Our actions therefore should be common.
Now, let us consider at this point the people of the city: What were they: Homonomic or heteronomic? Homonomic is the quality of being from a given matrix, i.e. a family. But this matrix in its essence is heteronomic, because parents are not from the same family. They would/will in time exchange their ideas and experiences and will “converge” into one. This is, however, a good point on which we have to think about it and consequently raising another question: The role of our parents towards their children, would it be dualistic? It is the convergence of mental that will give to a child non-dualistic thinking, and on the other hand, if the child is not under the “clash” of divergence ― in the context of a family ― how could/should such a child be irritated positively of what is truth and evidence in order to be ready in the further course of his/her life to talk about truths and logic, so that, to expand its consciousness? Therefore, convergence and divergence are at work when a child grows up.
However, it seems to be a difficult question when we discuss about convergence and divergence. But these are two dimensions that do not encounter any problem in our discussion; this is because, as we have said, knowledge is context-dependent and the dependence of the child is dependent on the knowledge of the parents. Though the child starts its life with two different parents in time the goal of our parents is to give independence to their child, the same as could be observed to our animals. Thus, our child does not concern us here, because, we are seeking the power of the parents who represent an extended power to their city, which is however, a power that seeks equilibrium and autonomy in the social domain. Equilibrium thus is the essence of consciousness. Therefore the power of our parents is always at work, so that, to empower their natural convergence. This kind of convergence would offer us the choice to choose between heteronomy and homogeneity. Thus, as the analysis shows, convergence has been part of our life because when we say I belong to that family we mean an entity in which we have grown our identity. Therefore convergence and divergence seems to be in refrain with two other notions of our life: Inductive and deductive, where inductive seems to coincide to convergence and deductive to divergence. But this phenomenon does not impede our investigation regarding the equilibrium of power. Thus homogeneity has an important impact to our property. A property does not belong to many people but to one, which in this context is our family. For if a property belongs to many then convergence does not affirm. The affirmation of convergence therefore is homogeneity. Homogeneity is the quality of the whole into one. Thus, the inhabitants of a city should and would have been homogenous as our nature predetermines but the same time heterogonous because they could not/cannot marry with the same blood — therefore they would have mix their homogeneity with other races (cities) in order to improve their race. Mixing homogeneity means that we will exchange in favour to our city our knowledge, too. But its basic concept has been homogeneity. In short, this is the history of human being as regards the genealogy of our homogeneity and heterogeneity.
Therefore, homogeneity is regarded in our context as a larger family in which has been cultivated the natural law, described above — that is, our family. We favour natural law because it is the most important part in our life. Natural law can be regarded as unwritten laws or laws that are written on the heart of each individual. Natural law therefore is more sustainable when derives from homogeneities’ societies. This is because it converges to cohesion in a society and because consciousness works honourably in its particular interests; and in this way, interests of the people will not intermingle or conflict with other interests. There would be one simple interest: The intrinsic interest of a society, which is the common good.
Thus, when the individuals of a family go to interact with other families in their city they will consider them, their family — which in reality they are their family, because they will share the same values; and the result of it will be the perfect cohesion of the city. This is because our family will have the major impact in the city and as such family is the locus of our ground. In this context, the coveted social cohesion is unavoidable. Providing then in our city the values of our family which are almost the same, except the housekeeping which will differ in details and will not have any negative impact to the city, or will have an impact of emulation and therefore the improvement of the quality of the production and consequently of the real life ― its success thus is unavoidable. This is called today — tradition. Thus, in this way tradition have been [would be] our foundation of our cities. Therefore our city would be better based on our human values mixed with our traditions and not on our money, pure heterogeneity, and Roman doctrines — that is, Divide ut Regnes or whatsoever. On the other hand, heterogeneity was the basic component of ancient cities. Even in Athens cities were not based on homogeneities’ structures. Human being is predetermined by nature to mix its race therefore becoming in time heterogenetic. This can be observed even in our agriculture: “Grafting” it’s the basic proposition in order to improve production and quality. But to consider our city as common has its implications. This is because if we define truth in the whole or in the common certainty is nowhere. For, the “whole” tends to be transformed in a myth, in time, as in the case of kingdoms, as regards the pure consciousness, which gradually will contract. Being in these circumstances a consciousness, it will “oscillate” between the whole/common and the particular common, that is, our family. Thus, we must find out equilibrium in our consciousness. Such equilibrium is necessary in order to preserve and to “use up” our consciousness, during our life. On the other hand, if we find truth in the whole and we reduce our family’s truth then we favour society’s truth, creating the preconditions of diminishing our family; and if we find truth in our own introspection we exclude our city, which again contracts consciousness. Truth of consciousness therefore must be “in-full-measure” between these two domains in order to avoid implications. However, these implications will be scrutinised in the further course of our discussion, especially in economics, laws and regimes.
Now, let us consider at this point the spiritual incentive of the city. In other words, what was [would be] the central core of the city, its activity and its realisation? Of course, some would say Honour, but what is human Honour? Honour seems to be a value of identity. When we say, I honour my family we say it because I belong to that identity and I will protect it. Or when we say I honour myself we say it because we act consciously, which means that we fight for our own values and truths. Therefore honour has to do with complex actions that are the main transformer of our consciousness. In this way Honour is a notion that has to do mainly with feelings and respect toward what has been done in our family or in our own life, and we are the result of it. With this definition, honour can be regarded as the quality of a homonomic lore that has been taken as truth by the offspring’s of a family. “Truth” in this context has to do with our practical lore (science) which sometimes is homonomic and sometimes heteronomic. Or to put it otherwise: In order to improve our science of housekeeping we use our ideas, so that, inventing our little things we do inside our homes, but we copy other ideas from neighbours or from our city in order to accomplish our needs or our desires. Even if someone works completely independent in a given context h/she will be between two different “mental-activities”: The first one is a flashback in order to bring about deeds that have been done by other people, so that, to do the same (and when this phenomenon takes place we “inactivate” at once our own consciousness); and when these deeds does not come around, then we will force our self to invent something, which we called it elsewhere, tacit skills, because “practice has a logic which is not that of logic”, in the words of Bourdieu.
Thus, honour has to do with values and truth that a consciousness percept in its journey, so that, to complete itself. “Wealth”, on the other hand, might be considered equally important to someone who identifies itself with wealth. But when someone has wealth or has been grown up with sufficient wealth this is not the same as honour, because, wealth has to do with material not with human values. Again, in order to rebut it, one might say: In order to be wealthy someone, has to undertake proper actions and thus invention takes place. Invention therefore was a human action, so that, human becomes wealthy. It seems that we clash to a vicious circle in our corollary, but it is not so, because suppose: If we support the idea that we will feel honour because off our wealth that has been done by our parents then what would do their child in order to accomplish itself as a consciousness? It seems again by posing such a question that we are out of our vicious circle. Thus in order to complete itself a being has to be always under the challenges of truth, consciousness and self-realization. This explains plainly the big dilemma of wealthy parents who in order to cause happiness to their children they built up wealth and they destroy their own children’s consciousness or happiness: Their children would never be happy.
Wealth is good therefore, but how much? As we said above, if wealth keels full consciousness which deals with truths and self-realised values then wealth is not our point on which we can base our family or our society. This is why we favour a healthy mind in a healthy body in our second chapter. Honour therefore seems to be according to our analysis the highest spiritual level of human being. And this is in short our real journey of Honour, on which our cities have been based from the inception of life on earth. Thus, using the axiom of Flyvbjerg, as regards power and rationality, “Honour has a wealth that honour does not know, whereas wealth does not have an honour that honour does not know”. This is the finite conclusion of our discussion as regards “honour” and “wealth”. What would have been happen then with the wisest people of the city, which is called today — meritocracy? Again, Honour. And this is because, as we have said and rebutted above, we fulfil each-other in all our actions in the social domain. There is no doubt that this is the highest spiritual level of a being and the citizens that would live or would have lived in such a city would enjoy full consciousness. In addition, history tells us that honour is the finite realisation of human being. This definition therefore constitute our full rationality: If our society deals with respect, cohesion, love, tolerance, reason there will disappear once forever the lust for power, because there would not exist one, except the power of knowledge that will have been possessed by the citizens. With this definition we open a huge gate to social phenomena in order to reach social equilibrium.
This social claim and realisation, in the past, as is well known, has been achieved in part in the Athenian democracy and later on has been proclaimed by the communists’ parties, but they appropriated the notion of democracy, and instead, their main core was a central government. Both ― on the one side ― with the “conventional capitalism” that promotes to citizens “cyclical consumption”; and as have been stressed in the previous sections, underpinned by the “consumption of sensualism”; and on the other side, the allegedly socialist “central economy” (former Soviet Union, China etc,.) who promote regulations from the centre are indications that we have to abandon; because the former failed (and never would...) promote our values and being so they destroyed the planet earth for the sake of selfishness; and the latter failed to promote both our human rationalism and our values.
The consequences of it, is the “contraction” of rationalism or of phronesis in the social domain. Both of them fostered the idea that larger a country more powerful it is. This idea has been perceived profoundly wrong by our passed “knower’s” — and therefore this point will be discussed in another occasion, especially in the second chapter when we “clash” Plato vs. Montesquieu. However, in his dialog about democracy and republic Plato has observed, correctly in my view, that ‘larger democracies fail to permit sufficient voice for their citizens’ but he has not questioned that until now in all western politics or if you like — philosophy, has not been discussed, that is: How long could be the vector of democracy in space?
In other words, what is the geographical extension of rationalism? Or how could we apply rationalism having as basic concept — democracy? As far as my knowledge extend past philosophy has failed to question such a problem. However, rationalism can be applied according to human geographic spectre in space, which is according to our senses, i.e. eyes. How long is it? ― this issue, as well, will be a matter of another discussion. In addition to it, we can suggest the observation of Fotopoulos when he discusses the same question: That could be between 30,000 and 50,000. The question then that comes to my mind is: Why not more? Because more the population of a city less is exposed our rationality and less the population of a city more exposed is our rationality. Compare a large family with a small family.
On the other hand, past philosophy has created cyclopean-cities, larger than one could imagine. To claim democracy in these cities it’s like dreaming life on Mars, and this is because, they are based on the worst conception of human activity, that is, free trade. As I have argued elsewhere , such a system, seeks continues growing of the population, because it is based on growing economy, on which capital depends, and being so capital depends on the number of customers, and in order to secure such customers, such situation imposes to concentrate citizens in big cities with big population, so that, to ensure a considerable number of customers. This is another component that leads us on what we called earlier, “trap of the mind”. Thus, in conclusion, convergence would never succeed in a city if we operate in a huge divergence of interests. Plato’s common good is a basis on which we can deliberate about but it does not offer any solution in today’s big cities.
On the other side, in small cities it could be achieved, but it must be measured with another notion: Human desire. Desire in this context has to do with what someone would like to do for his own home? Common good therefore blocks such a notion and create the conditions of anger and later on of revolution. In order to avoid such conditions a city must consider one option in its operation: Half common/private property. This is after all the least noxious base on which consciousness will not be transformed in a dualistic consensus gentium. In order therefore to preserve our consciousness from such traps in the future our cities have to exclude from their operation the growing economy which is subject of the second chapter, and second, decentralisation of the population and afterwards keeping their population in a constant level. The question that comes to my mind is: If a society excludes the growing of the economy and the population grows again, how could solve a society the problem of the growing population and consequently of the demography? And if demography changes as a result of our trade how could we balance our being with other beings, that is, our ecology? Therefore, these subjects will be discussed in our next section.
Ylli Permeti
Abstract
“Honour has a wealth that honour does not know, whereas wealth does not have an honour that honour does not know”.
To divide further the common good would be of a good purpose to compare our two institutions — that is, a family against the city or the polity. In a family everything in it is common for its members: Immovable property and movable property. The only property that is not common for a family, according to the west law is the ground bellow and the airspace which belongs to the crown or to the power. To examine therefore an immovable property we have to go back in time, by posing a question: Earth is our property or we are Her property? Without going further in our analysis, we may conclude that it is sure that we are her property and of course her offspring’s. We are thus, its inhabitants. As it is well-known, we expanded our population gradually onto the surface of our earth in the last three millennium ― which means that we may consider it as common, in the first instance. Common in this context has to do more with human actions than having the right to accrue wealth whenever and whatever from our earth. Thus the genealogy of common good lies on human actions with regard the acquired property. The acquired property therefore lies on the needs of human being with regard with the needs of other beings, such as animals and plants. It should be emphasised that this kind of muse has to do with rationality. Thus property seems according to our corollary to be the same time common and private. This is because human being lives for his own life not for the common. Additionally, human being acts privately with regards to common property. As nomads we were long time ago, we came together for the sake of the existence. Thus, in this way we created our cities. And as it is obvious our cities were first created for the sake of mutual assistance. With such a definition it is quite clear that earth is more common than private. Our actions therefore should be common.
Now, let us consider at this point the people of the city: What were they: Homonomic or heteronomic? Homonomic is the quality of being from a given matrix, i.e. a family. But this matrix in its essence is heteronomic, because parents are not from the same family. They would/will in time exchange their ideas and experiences and will “converge” into one. This is, however, a good point on which we have to think about it and consequently raising another question: The role of our parents towards their children, would it be dualistic? It is the convergence of mental that will give to a child non-dualistic thinking, and on the other hand, if the child is not under the “clash” of divergence ― in the context of a family ― how could/should such a child be irritated positively of what is truth and evidence in order to be ready in the further course of his/her life to talk about truths and logic, so that, to expand its consciousness? Therefore, convergence and divergence are at work when a child grows up.
However, it seems to be a difficult question when we discuss about convergence and divergence. But these are two dimensions that do not encounter any problem in our discussion; this is because, as we have said, knowledge is context-dependent and the dependence of the child is dependent on the knowledge of the parents. Though the child starts its life with two different parents in time the goal of our parents is to give independence to their child, the same as could be observed to our animals. Thus, our child does not concern us here, because, we are seeking the power of the parents who represent an extended power to their city, which is however, a power that seeks equilibrium and autonomy in the social domain. Equilibrium thus is the essence of consciousness. Therefore the power of our parents is always at work, so that, to empower their natural convergence. This kind of convergence would offer us the choice to choose between heteronomy and homogeneity. Thus, as the analysis shows, convergence has been part of our life because when we say I belong to that family we mean an entity in which we have grown our identity. Therefore convergence and divergence seems to be in refrain with two other notions of our life: Inductive and deductive, where inductive seems to coincide to convergence and deductive to divergence. But this phenomenon does not impede our investigation regarding the equilibrium of power. Thus homogeneity has an important impact to our property. A property does not belong to many people but to one, which in this context is our family. For if a property belongs to many then convergence does not affirm. The affirmation of convergence therefore is homogeneity. Homogeneity is the quality of the whole into one. Thus, the inhabitants of a city should and would have been homogenous as our nature predetermines but the same time heterogonous because they could not/cannot marry with the same blood — therefore they would have mix their homogeneity with other races (cities) in order to improve their race. Mixing homogeneity means that we will exchange in favour to our city our knowledge, too. But its basic concept has been homogeneity. In short, this is the history of human being as regards the genealogy of our homogeneity and heterogeneity.
Therefore, homogeneity is regarded in our context as a larger family in which has been cultivated the natural law, described above — that is, our family. We favour natural law because it is the most important part in our life. Natural law can be regarded as unwritten laws or laws that are written on the heart of each individual. Natural law therefore is more sustainable when derives from homogeneities’ societies. This is because it converges to cohesion in a society and because consciousness works honourably in its particular interests; and in this way, interests of the people will not intermingle or conflict with other interests. There would be one simple interest: The intrinsic interest of a society, which is the common good.
Thus, when the individuals of a family go to interact with other families in their city they will consider them, their family — which in reality they are their family, because they will share the same values; and the result of it will be the perfect cohesion of the city. This is because our family will have the major impact in the city and as such family is the locus of our ground. In this context, the coveted social cohesion is unavoidable. Providing then in our city the values of our family which are almost the same, except the housekeeping which will differ in details and will not have any negative impact to the city, or will have an impact of emulation and therefore the improvement of the quality of the production and consequently of the real life ― its success thus is unavoidable. This is called today — tradition. Thus, in this way tradition have been [would be] our foundation of our cities. Therefore our city would be better based on our human values mixed with our traditions and not on our money, pure heterogeneity, and Roman doctrines — that is, Divide ut Regnes or whatsoever. On the other hand, heterogeneity was the basic component of ancient cities. Even in Athens cities were not based on homogeneities’ structures. Human being is predetermined by nature to mix its race therefore becoming in time heterogenetic. This can be observed even in our agriculture: “Grafting” it’s the basic proposition in order to improve production and quality. But to consider our city as common has its implications. This is because if we define truth in the whole or in the common certainty is nowhere. For, the “whole” tends to be transformed in a myth, in time, as in the case of kingdoms, as regards the pure consciousness, which gradually will contract. Being in these circumstances a consciousness, it will “oscillate” between the whole/common and the particular common, that is, our family. Thus, we must find out equilibrium in our consciousness. Such equilibrium is necessary in order to preserve and to “use up” our consciousness, during our life. On the other hand, if we find truth in the whole and we reduce our family’s truth then we favour society’s truth, creating the preconditions of diminishing our family; and if we find truth in our own introspection we exclude our city, which again contracts consciousness. Truth of consciousness therefore must be “in-full-measure” between these two domains in order to avoid implications. However, these implications will be scrutinised in the further course of our discussion, especially in economics, laws and regimes.
Now, let us consider at this point the spiritual incentive of the city. In other words, what was [would be] the central core of the city, its activity and its realisation? Of course, some would say Honour, but what is human Honour? Honour seems to be a value of identity. When we say, I honour my family we say it because I belong to that identity and I will protect it. Or when we say I honour myself we say it because we act consciously, which means that we fight for our own values and truths. Therefore honour has to do with complex actions that are the main transformer of our consciousness. In this way Honour is a notion that has to do mainly with feelings and respect toward what has been done in our family or in our own life, and we are the result of it. With this definition, honour can be regarded as the quality of a homonomic lore that has been taken as truth by the offspring’s of a family. “Truth” in this context has to do with our practical lore (science) which sometimes is homonomic and sometimes heteronomic. Or to put it otherwise: In order to improve our science of housekeeping we use our ideas, so that, inventing our little things we do inside our homes, but we copy other ideas from neighbours or from our city in order to accomplish our needs or our desires. Even if someone works completely independent in a given context h/she will be between two different “mental-activities”: The first one is a flashback in order to bring about deeds that have been done by other people, so that, to do the same (and when this phenomenon takes place we “inactivate” at once our own consciousness); and when these deeds does not come around, then we will force our self to invent something, which we called it elsewhere, tacit skills, because “practice has a logic which is not that of logic”, in the words of Bourdieu.
Thus, honour has to do with values and truth that a consciousness percept in its journey, so that, to complete itself. “Wealth”, on the other hand, might be considered equally important to someone who identifies itself with wealth. But when someone has wealth or has been grown up with sufficient wealth this is not the same as honour, because, wealth has to do with material not with human values. Again, in order to rebut it, one might say: In order to be wealthy someone, has to undertake proper actions and thus invention takes place. Invention therefore was a human action, so that, human becomes wealthy. It seems that we clash to a vicious circle in our corollary, but it is not so, because suppose: If we support the idea that we will feel honour because off our wealth that has been done by our parents then what would do their child in order to accomplish itself as a consciousness? It seems again by posing such a question that we are out of our vicious circle. Thus in order to complete itself a being has to be always under the challenges of truth, consciousness and self-realization. This explains plainly the big dilemma of wealthy parents who in order to cause happiness to their children they built up wealth and they destroy their own children’s consciousness or happiness: Their children would never be happy.
Wealth is good therefore, but how much? As we said above, if wealth keels full consciousness which deals with truths and self-realised values then wealth is not our point on which we can base our family or our society. This is why we favour a healthy mind in a healthy body in our second chapter. Honour therefore seems to be according to our analysis the highest spiritual level of human being. And this is in short our real journey of Honour, on which our cities have been based from the inception of life on earth. Thus, using the axiom of Flyvbjerg, as regards power and rationality, “Honour has a wealth that honour does not know, whereas wealth does not have an honour that honour does not know”. This is the finite conclusion of our discussion as regards “honour” and “wealth”. What would have been happen then with the wisest people of the city, which is called today — meritocracy? Again, Honour. And this is because, as we have said and rebutted above, we fulfil each-other in all our actions in the social domain. There is no doubt that this is the highest spiritual level of a being and the citizens that would live or would have lived in such a city would enjoy full consciousness. In addition, history tells us that honour is the finite realisation of human being. This definition therefore constitute our full rationality: If our society deals with respect, cohesion, love, tolerance, reason there will disappear once forever the lust for power, because there would not exist one, except the power of knowledge that will have been possessed by the citizens. With this definition we open a huge gate to social phenomena in order to reach social equilibrium.
This social claim and realisation, in the past, as is well known, has been achieved in part in the Athenian democracy and later on has been proclaimed by the communists’ parties, but they appropriated the notion of democracy, and instead, their main core was a central government. Both ― on the one side ― with the “conventional capitalism” that promotes to citizens “cyclical consumption”; and as have been stressed in the previous sections, underpinned by the “consumption of sensualism”; and on the other side, the allegedly socialist “central economy” (former Soviet Union, China etc,.) who promote regulations from the centre are indications that we have to abandon; because the former failed (and never would...) promote our values and being so they destroyed the planet earth for the sake of selfishness; and the latter failed to promote both our human rationalism and our values.
The consequences of it, is the “contraction” of rationalism or of phronesis in the social domain. Both of them fostered the idea that larger a country more powerful it is. This idea has been perceived profoundly wrong by our passed “knower’s” — and therefore this point will be discussed in another occasion, especially in the second chapter when we “clash” Plato vs. Montesquieu. However, in his dialog about democracy and republic Plato has observed, correctly in my view, that ‘larger democracies fail to permit sufficient voice for their citizens’ but he has not questioned that until now in all western politics or if you like — philosophy, has not been discussed, that is: How long could be the vector of democracy in space?
In other words, what is the geographical extension of rationalism? Or how could we apply rationalism having as basic concept — democracy? As far as my knowledge extend past philosophy has failed to question such a problem. However, rationalism can be applied according to human geographic spectre in space, which is according to our senses, i.e. eyes. How long is it? ― this issue, as well, will be a matter of another discussion. In addition to it, we can suggest the observation of Fotopoulos when he discusses the same question: That could be between 30,000 and 50,000. The question then that comes to my mind is: Why not more? Because more the population of a city less is exposed our rationality and less the population of a city more exposed is our rationality. Compare a large family with a small family.
On the other hand, past philosophy has created cyclopean-cities, larger than one could imagine. To claim democracy in these cities it’s like dreaming life on Mars, and this is because, they are based on the worst conception of human activity, that is, free trade. As I have argued elsewhere , such a system, seeks continues growing of the population, because it is based on growing economy, on which capital depends, and being so capital depends on the number of customers, and in order to secure such customers, such situation imposes to concentrate citizens in big cities with big population, so that, to ensure a considerable number of customers. This is another component that leads us on what we called earlier, “trap of the mind”. Thus, in conclusion, convergence would never succeed in a city if we operate in a huge divergence of interests. Plato’s common good is a basis on which we can deliberate about but it does not offer any solution in today’s big cities.
On the other side, in small cities it could be achieved, but it must be measured with another notion: Human desire. Desire in this context has to do with what someone would like to do for his own home? Common good therefore blocks such a notion and create the conditions of anger and later on of revolution. In order to avoid such conditions a city must consider one option in its operation: Half common/private property. This is after all the least noxious base on which consciousness will not be transformed in a dualistic consensus gentium. In order therefore to preserve our consciousness from such traps in the future our cities have to exclude from their operation the growing economy which is subject of the second chapter, and second, decentralisation of the population and afterwards keeping their population in a constant level. The question that comes to my mind is: If a society excludes the growing of the economy and the population grows again, how could solve a society the problem of the growing population and consequently of the demography? And if demography changes as a result of our trade how could we balance our being with other beings, that is, our ecology? Therefore, these subjects will be discussed in our next section.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
The Knowledge of the City & its Rationality: Deconstructing “Elites”
The Knowledge of the City & its Rationality: Deconstructing “Elites”
Ylli Përmeti
Abstract*
You grow up in a family and, thus, with this, you will construct the family knowledge in your mind, by both your parents — this is morals and natural law, therefore true knowledge. You grow up in a family and simultaneously later on in a society; and by this, you can picture in your mind both these domain — this is called city, therefore, this is as well true knowledge, called today — epistemology.
But what is the knowledge of the city? Can a doctor for instance be a doctor without a patient? Can a mother be a mother without a father? Or can a child be educated without parents? Or can a patient heal himself without a doctor? Or can be there a government without its crowd? To deal with all these questions one might cast a glance to “being and otherness” of Sartre or we can answer all of them with one sentence: “Being” is the result of otherness and otherness is the result of being; and as such they constitute the whole beings of the city. Being in this context has to do with the acquired knowledge by each individual not of what has been given by nature. And in order to acquire knowledge one has to use h/her mind. This quality belongs to them who have been endowed by nature with feelings and nous. Feelings and nous are exposed the same time into the consciousness of nature and into the consciousness of otherness. Thus we have to cope with two kinds of consciousnesses: Nature’s one and otherness’s one. These are the first two elements that someone will confront in h/her life, on the surface of the Planet Earth. Thus we are exposed simultaneously to otherness’s consciousness and to nature’s consciousness. We may add of course ― if we wish ― that we are exposed to our own consciousness, as well. This is called self-observation, as in the case of the doctor, who, in order to understand his/her art has to be inductive and deductive the same time. In short: Every art or knowledge is result of self-consciousness and simultaneously other-consciousness. No one can be excluded from this axiom. Thus each one does something for itself by using full-consciousness: Doctor wants to be a doctor just because he wants to heal others or for the maintenance of his family; and patient wants to be healed just because he wants to feel normal and healthy. And if there is something that doesn’t heal, the doctor will force himself to sort it out, just because his mission is to heal or he’s got the other way, to give up.
Thus, up to here, we constructed the figure of the doctor ― that is, his knowledge is because of otherness. If there doesn’t exist the “otherness” then doctor would never be a doctor but instead nothingness. On the other side, we do not have to forget the phrase of Plato, who says: Necessity is the real inventor in our life. (see chapter two when we discuss about virtues) But necessity for the doctor is nothing else than to be healthy and to survive, the same as his/her patient. Thus both have the same goal in their life: To keep each-other healthy. Doctor cannot feed himself with his art because he produces knowledge through his patients’; he does not produce real production or commodities. Commodities are probably part of patient’s life. Therefore they fulfil each-other in an absolutely necessary way of life. Of course we have to acknowledge at this point that a doctor in order to be a doctor has to devote energy and power to his tacit skills, that is, knowledge. At this stage, h/her knowledge it’s axiomatic and self-evident, which means that the goal of being a doctor is to maintain itself in vivo. This would result in problem solving for both the protagonist of the knowledge and for the society, where someone belongs. Therefore this is the first axiom that we have to extract from, that is, each one “fulfils” the other for the sake of the existence.
On the other hand, our doctor has got a wife who at the time the doctor was trying to heal the diseased she is struggling to keep her science in order, which is as I have argued elsewhere — the housekeeping. Therefore, both of them produce knowledge for the sake of the existence. Doctor will be paid therefore according to his needs; his needs are for the maintenance of his family, where in our context he’s got, say, two children and has been paid by money. This money goes to the member of the family for their needs. In his research to find out the remedy — because of a rare disease — that had infected other patients, he was very successful; and started to provide the same remedy to other patients with the aim, first to get some more money and second to heal them. His goal is very successful and he gets more money than he had previously; and therefore becomes richer. What he has done is called in a conventional jargon, epistemology or, science that can be applied in a greater number of beings. But, we don’t forget Derrida’s axiom, at this point, that is: The arbitrariness of the knower; which means, that it could be challenged later on by another doctor under the thinking of not being experimented to other beings and therefore have not been in advance objectivised. Or we do not extend our scenario to the steps taken by the doctor when produced the remedy, which is of course result of contextual and self-motivated actions.
On the other hand, our wife continues to do the same job as previously, i.e. to maintain the members of the family, including of course, our epistemolog. But now he’s famous and he’s very busy; and he’s getting powerful and wants to be a politician. His wife agrees and he suddenly becomes a politician. His goal it’s first to keep his richness in preservation because the monetary system established does not offer certainty; and second, to be famous, as his nature predetermines. Behold, he’s already a politician; and he’s managing the money of the entire city. That’s all the story of the knowledge; and this is called in Derrida’s axiom, the ‘arbitrariness of the knower’. This constitutes our second axiom of our knowledge of the city. In other words, this is called the paradox of the knower. It is called a paradox because this knowledge was not under scrutiny of otherness, i.e. of the inhabitants of the city. Thus this kind of knowledge later on, as said above, could be challenged by another doctor in whose eyes the previous knowledge does not fulfil experimentation, that is to say, knowing a priory the results of the new application in human’s organism.
At this point, we have already forgotten that his knowledge is the result of the otherness or of necessity, as stated previously. Also, we didn’t examine his knowledge regarding the capability to manage the city. Either we examined the comparability with otherness’ rationality that derives from their context-knowledge. But despite this fact, we appreciate him for his arbitrary of knowledge; and we have him the coronation of our city. His wife is either in a corner of the city or she’s enjoying his money in different pubs of the city. But sometimes she’s getting abused by her husband because he has committed adultery many times with other women; and finally they divorced. And this happened because her husband lost his rationality through the possessed power.
Therefore, our third axiom: Power leads to immorality or corruption; or in other words, to irrationality. This is one scenario; there might be a positive one that would offer us a happy end, for the “knower” of the family, but there still remain the question: How could his wife predict a positive end for her family? This is unpredictable; and for this reason we have to operate in another way: Our city must be pure democratic and power-measured in all its operation in order to maintain rationality. And in order to be pure democratic or power-measured — our city — we have to introduce more rationality. Next section therefore will be dedicated on that part.
Thus, we extracted three different axioms in our research of knowledge, which is developed under a system that promote individualism and consumerism, without forgetting sensualism, and these are:
1.first axiom: Each one fulfils the other for the sake of the existence;
2.second axiom: Arbitrariness of the knower’; and
3.third axiom: Power leads to immorality or corruption; or in other words, to irrationality.
This insert proves that though we are born equal and we live together for the sake of the existence in time we change direction: We create a hierarchical society. We exclude therefore the first axiom in our societies, that is, each one fulfils the other. Thus the root of this mis-interpretation in our societies lies on the first axiom. As a conclusion, our universities have been established upside-down, that is, pyramidal institutions. Deans, Rectors, Professors, Philosophers, Presidents etc, sees themselves as a different class and today they call this class as an Elite. They differentiate themselves under the justification that our society is hierarchical and being so, they pose-accept the question: Why shouldn’t we be an Elite, since the whole social structures are based on this proposition? But can they justify themselves when we apply the above scenario? Of course, not! In the second axiom, no one can doubt about the arbitrariness of the knower. We don’t have to refer to adventitious discoveries which have been done in the past by different scientists in different fields, because knowledge, although not contested by Aristotle, is context-dependent, which on the other side, has been highlighted by Aristotle, as an Art, that can be done in one way or in another, or not done at all. Therefore, “knowledge” when is not under the scrutiny of the whole “limbs” of a society can be rejected easier than when produced by one person. On the third axiom of our journey we reached a point on which our societies are based on, that is, power, which starts from the first steps of our life to be mis-interpreted. At this point no one can deliberate about the social structures which have been created perpendicular because they would be considered rational given. And this is because social structures lack the “instigation” of applying value-rationality. This value-rationality has been highlighted by Flyvbjerg, following Aristotle, as phronesis. We will challenge this conception of human being, in order to be sure of what our society lacks and how to empower it. Also, we will challenge it in order to satisfy our wisdom, so that, to counter-measure our rationality.
*This is part of the first chapter of the book: Phronetic and Demotic Manifesto...
Ylli Përmeti
Abstract*
You grow up in a family and, thus, with this, you will construct the family knowledge in your mind, by both your parents — this is morals and natural law, therefore true knowledge. You grow up in a family and simultaneously later on in a society; and by this, you can picture in your mind both these domain — this is called city, therefore, this is as well true knowledge, called today — epistemology.
But what is the knowledge of the city? Can a doctor for instance be a doctor without a patient? Can a mother be a mother without a father? Or can a child be educated without parents? Or can a patient heal himself without a doctor? Or can be there a government without its crowd? To deal with all these questions one might cast a glance to “being and otherness” of Sartre or we can answer all of them with one sentence: “Being” is the result of otherness and otherness is the result of being; and as such they constitute the whole beings of the city. Being in this context has to do with the acquired knowledge by each individual not of what has been given by nature. And in order to acquire knowledge one has to use h/her mind. This quality belongs to them who have been endowed by nature with feelings and nous. Feelings and nous are exposed the same time into the consciousness of nature and into the consciousness of otherness. Thus we have to cope with two kinds of consciousnesses: Nature’s one and otherness’s one. These are the first two elements that someone will confront in h/her life, on the surface of the Planet Earth. Thus we are exposed simultaneously to otherness’s consciousness and to nature’s consciousness. We may add of course ― if we wish ― that we are exposed to our own consciousness, as well. This is called self-observation, as in the case of the doctor, who, in order to understand his/her art has to be inductive and deductive the same time. In short: Every art or knowledge is result of self-consciousness and simultaneously other-consciousness. No one can be excluded from this axiom. Thus each one does something for itself by using full-consciousness: Doctor wants to be a doctor just because he wants to heal others or for the maintenance of his family; and patient wants to be healed just because he wants to feel normal and healthy. And if there is something that doesn’t heal, the doctor will force himself to sort it out, just because his mission is to heal or he’s got the other way, to give up.
Thus, up to here, we constructed the figure of the doctor ― that is, his knowledge is because of otherness. If there doesn’t exist the “otherness” then doctor would never be a doctor but instead nothingness. On the other side, we do not have to forget the phrase of Plato, who says: Necessity is the real inventor in our life. (see chapter two when we discuss about virtues) But necessity for the doctor is nothing else than to be healthy and to survive, the same as his/her patient. Thus both have the same goal in their life: To keep each-other healthy. Doctor cannot feed himself with his art because he produces knowledge through his patients’; he does not produce real production or commodities. Commodities are probably part of patient’s life. Therefore they fulfil each-other in an absolutely necessary way of life. Of course we have to acknowledge at this point that a doctor in order to be a doctor has to devote energy and power to his tacit skills, that is, knowledge. At this stage, h/her knowledge it’s axiomatic and self-evident, which means that the goal of being a doctor is to maintain itself in vivo. This would result in problem solving for both the protagonist of the knowledge and for the society, where someone belongs. Therefore this is the first axiom that we have to extract from, that is, each one “fulfils” the other for the sake of the existence.
On the other hand, our doctor has got a wife who at the time the doctor was trying to heal the diseased she is struggling to keep her science in order, which is as I have argued elsewhere — the housekeeping. Therefore, both of them produce knowledge for the sake of the existence. Doctor will be paid therefore according to his needs; his needs are for the maintenance of his family, where in our context he’s got, say, two children and has been paid by money. This money goes to the member of the family for their needs. In his research to find out the remedy — because of a rare disease — that had infected other patients, he was very successful; and started to provide the same remedy to other patients with the aim, first to get some more money and second to heal them. His goal is very successful and he gets more money than he had previously; and therefore becomes richer. What he has done is called in a conventional jargon, epistemology or, science that can be applied in a greater number of beings. But, we don’t forget Derrida’s axiom, at this point, that is: The arbitrariness of the knower; which means, that it could be challenged later on by another doctor under the thinking of not being experimented to other beings and therefore have not been in advance objectivised. Or we do not extend our scenario to the steps taken by the doctor when produced the remedy, which is of course result of contextual and self-motivated actions.
On the other hand, our wife continues to do the same job as previously, i.e. to maintain the members of the family, including of course, our epistemolog. But now he’s famous and he’s very busy; and he’s getting powerful and wants to be a politician. His wife agrees and he suddenly becomes a politician. His goal it’s first to keep his richness in preservation because the monetary system established does not offer certainty; and second, to be famous, as his nature predetermines. Behold, he’s already a politician; and he’s managing the money of the entire city. That’s all the story of the knowledge; and this is called in Derrida’s axiom, the ‘arbitrariness of the knower’. This constitutes our second axiom of our knowledge of the city. In other words, this is called the paradox of the knower. It is called a paradox because this knowledge was not under scrutiny of otherness, i.e. of the inhabitants of the city. Thus this kind of knowledge later on, as said above, could be challenged by another doctor in whose eyes the previous knowledge does not fulfil experimentation, that is to say, knowing a priory the results of the new application in human’s organism.
At this point, we have already forgotten that his knowledge is the result of the otherness or of necessity, as stated previously. Also, we didn’t examine his knowledge regarding the capability to manage the city. Either we examined the comparability with otherness’ rationality that derives from their context-knowledge. But despite this fact, we appreciate him for his arbitrary of knowledge; and we have him the coronation of our city. His wife is either in a corner of the city or she’s enjoying his money in different pubs of the city. But sometimes she’s getting abused by her husband because he has committed adultery many times with other women; and finally they divorced. And this happened because her husband lost his rationality through the possessed power.
Therefore, our third axiom: Power leads to immorality or corruption; or in other words, to irrationality. This is one scenario; there might be a positive one that would offer us a happy end, for the “knower” of the family, but there still remain the question: How could his wife predict a positive end for her family? This is unpredictable; and for this reason we have to operate in another way: Our city must be pure democratic and power-measured in all its operation in order to maintain rationality. And in order to be pure democratic or power-measured — our city — we have to introduce more rationality. Next section therefore will be dedicated on that part.
Thus, we extracted three different axioms in our research of knowledge, which is developed under a system that promote individualism and consumerism, without forgetting sensualism, and these are:
1.first axiom: Each one fulfils the other for the sake of the existence;
2.second axiom: Arbitrariness of the knower’; and
3.third axiom: Power leads to immorality or corruption; or in other words, to irrationality.
This insert proves that though we are born equal and we live together for the sake of the existence in time we change direction: We create a hierarchical society. We exclude therefore the first axiom in our societies, that is, each one fulfils the other. Thus the root of this mis-interpretation in our societies lies on the first axiom. As a conclusion, our universities have been established upside-down, that is, pyramidal institutions. Deans, Rectors, Professors, Philosophers, Presidents etc, sees themselves as a different class and today they call this class as an Elite. They differentiate themselves under the justification that our society is hierarchical and being so, they pose-accept the question: Why shouldn’t we be an Elite, since the whole social structures are based on this proposition? But can they justify themselves when we apply the above scenario? Of course, not! In the second axiom, no one can doubt about the arbitrariness of the knower. We don’t have to refer to adventitious discoveries which have been done in the past by different scientists in different fields, because knowledge, although not contested by Aristotle, is context-dependent, which on the other side, has been highlighted by Aristotle, as an Art, that can be done in one way or in another, or not done at all. Therefore, “knowledge” when is not under the scrutiny of the whole “limbs” of a society can be rejected easier than when produced by one person. On the third axiom of our journey we reached a point on which our societies are based on, that is, power, which starts from the first steps of our life to be mis-interpreted. At this point no one can deliberate about the social structures which have been created perpendicular because they would be considered rational given. And this is because social structures lack the “instigation” of applying value-rationality. This value-rationality has been highlighted by Flyvbjerg, following Aristotle, as phronesis. We will challenge this conception of human being, in order to be sure of what our society lacks and how to empower it. Also, we will challenge it in order to satisfy our wisdom, so that, to counter-measure our rationality.
*This is part of the first chapter of the book: Phronetic and Demotic Manifesto...
Sunday, June 20, 2010
The “Trap” of the Mind vs. ''Consciousness''
The “Trap” of the Mind vs. ''Consciousness''
By Ylli Permeti
Abstract*
Can a society well-function when the whole its social structures are based on its lowest spirit level, that is ― sensualism and consumerism? Of course, cannot. Western politics nowadays are dependent on these two social structures; consequently, without them they will die. The model of “Parliamentarian Democracy” that our politicians, philosophers or “our bracketed mind’ provide to us as successful, is becoming basic foundation for the “undemocratised” countries, in the rest of the world. From 1945 to 1995 the number of “sovereign” States — having a Parliament — has increased seven-fold. The percentage of women MPs worldwide has increased four-fold. More than 1 billion people in the world today, 70 percent of which are women (according to the 2004 AFL-CIO survey), live in unacceptable condition of poverty, mostly in the developing countries. [1] (Emphasis added). And this is merely the beginning of social destruction, demotion and consequently of perversion.
As long as these Parliaments — all over the world — adopt the industry of sexism, sensualism and consumerism — as their basic policy — the crisis will deepen further. And this is — as stated above — because of man’s mind picture; therefore, there have been created undoubtedly a multidimensional crisis, consequently a crisis that confronts: a trap of liquidity; a trap of governance; a trap of democracy; a trap of ecology; a trap of natural sciences; a trap of social sciences; a trap of technology; a trap of epistemology; a trap of freedom and finally a «trap of the mind».
On November 15, of the year 2008, the G20 showed once again that the financial crisis and the debts of the participants in the summit are extremely high and the trap of liquidity is unavoidable. Since, each wants to borrow money from each other and no one has cash. The mountain of debts is going to be a second Babel. The leader of the debts in the summit, was US - with $ 8.4tr public debt. [2] All the pursuers are in an extremely bad condition. Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize in economics, almost a decade ago, in his paper, talks about this trap of liquidity. [3] In addition, Fotopoulos, more than fifteen years ago warns us for this trap of finance. [4] No one heard about them! No governance existed to take into consideration these theses. No international institutions or universities took the effort to take into account these cautions. Now, the trap of the mind is present (!). However, we will examine in the second chapter the causes that create unsustainability in our economics around the world, with an extensive analysis in economics; and proposing thus a new conception of economics and finance. We will apply rational economics in order to avoid such a trap in the future: Rational in the sense of being sustainable in order to “fit as a fiddle” to human nature. We will examine economics in detail ― from the ancient times ― because, economics in our time is the major component than concerns our societies, politicians and human nature.
On the other side, another trap takes place in this pandemic condition: The trap of Governance. No government today can speak with truthfulness on this account. No scientific econometric accuracy can predict the disaster. Governments have lost their confidentiality, their role and finally their mind. No non-cooperative equilibria, (now called Nash equilibria) can stop the “revanchism” of the governance which deals with an unsustainable system that they have created consciously. Nash’s formula in ‘A Beautiful Mind’ was evident: ‘What I am doing is exactly what the others are doing and the opposite’. Ironically, this phenomenon was well-known by the ancient fathers ― who warned us, in all their tales and myths, however and despite their warning, we, do not reflect on it. And this phenomenon gets even worst when it is relied on media propagandistic methods — that is, sexism and consumerism. Therefore, the “theory” ― either we like or not ― of rational human behaviour by Nash is the fundamental sublation of human nature. As Hegel pointed out: Sublation is the situation in which a term or concept is both preserved and changed through its dialectical interplay with another term or concept. Governments, despite the fact that there are too many discoveries in the social sciences regarding human behaviour ― either by our tales or by governments’ bureaucrats’ ― have nothing to show as ‘rational’ — regarding Nash’s discovery. Nash’s axiom will be as well in our attention in our investigation regarding truthfulness and otherness in the social domain. And this, for one simple reason: Human being has not changed at all with the “progress” that our politicians promote to us. Hopefully, we are the same, as in ancient times and we will be the same forever. This “sameness” has its implications in the real life and we witness today an abstruse of human activity. Abysmally, our governance throughout the world suffers accountability and reflectivity in the social realm, regarding our sameness.
Further, since democracy has diffused and invented in Miletus — as a concept (city on the western coast of Anatolia/Turkey), there has been a huge change: Democracy — as Bent Flyvbjerg pointed out in his research, ‘Democracy in Practise’, is exercised nowadays “top to bottom and not bottom to top”. This is well-known by the scholars of law affairs. Despite this fact, they insist on the present model ¬― by furthering it to the European Union. Democracy is supposed to be exercised neither bottom to top nor top to bottom and if we use the axiom of Habermas, then we can determine: Human beings are defined as democratic beings, or in the words of Habermas, as “homo democraticus,”or in the words of Aristotle, as “homo politicus”, and as such, human beings need to take on their hands their fate. On the other side, Habermas’s discourse on ethics and on communicative rationality, leaves us without any established power in his discourse, because he puts his discourse after the event, i.e. after the juridical event, which pre-supposes a rational law. He’s far from the Aristotelian ― followed later on by Foucaultean, Fotopoulean and Flyvbjergean concept, that is, placing power in the decision-making of an affair. However, the notion of “democracy” needs — as it looks — the trap of the mind in an elite level to come up afterwards in its real nature, that is, the axiom of “practical wisdom”. This axiom of human being has been destroyed by our institutions and our pseudo-democracies ― which in order to reach rationality have been established after the event, that is, an event on which “communicative rationality” is excluded. Instead, according to Habermas, in the words of Flyvbjerg, “communicative rationality” must be established in all discourses of ethics after the constitution writing. And this is totally wrong, because consciousness in order to be in full rationality has to use its natural power, that is, self-consciousness.
In addition, since democracy (in its pre-paradigmatic period) doesn’t work, the global problems have extended in its nature: Natural sciences cannot control the catastrophe of the ecology. Both natural sciences and social sciences are creatures of irrational powers, in the words of Foucault and consequently they have lost their mind (!). Natural sciences, as regard the requirement of accountability have nothing to show to us any satisfactory conviction. This is because they are all under the requirement of competitiveness and of individuality. Thus, in spite the fact that they have reached to a satisfactory level as regards the intersubjectivity and communicative ethics, they still suffer full rationality. I will attempt to provide a pre-supposed case in the next section, in order to understand the axiom of Derrida’s, that is, the arbitrariness of the knower, being the knower in the above context, i.e. under competitiveness and individuality. However, natural sciences according to Flyvbjerg, in some points are strong and where they are strong social sciences are weak, and vice versa. The weak point of natural sciences, will be illustrated in the following section, which is actually the absence of power, or to put it otherwise: The lack using power without its counter-power, that is, full rationality. Accordingly, there is another trap. As regards social sciences the world becomes more and more dependent in few hands, who monopolise the whole system into one. This phenomenon except that is not compatible with the notion of democracy and of the autonomy of a state it becomes more and more uncontrollable and dangerous throughout the world, because they will concentrate the whole power of commodities to their discretion.
However, technology and epistemology is another collapse: The automobile industry shows its telos. No politician today knows or has been educated by our global universities on how our global industry will cope with the demand of energy, in a world that is becoming more and more numerous. Obama’s or Cameron’s manifesto does not respond to such problems because our world is becoming more dependent on a consumer society. Thus, according to predictions, our world population is likely to reach 9.4 billion by 2070, and deep ecologists’ accept that these very high levels of production and consumption and therefore of energy use that we have in today's consumer-capitalist society cannot be sustained by renewable sources of energy. [5] Therefore, there is no doubt that even if we accept that our politicians want or desire a sustainable society, reports and serious studies ― as the already mentioned, proof the opposite. Thus, is not a case of the automobile industry that it will cope with very serious problems in the future but of the whole picture of our society. And this is the final trap of human mind!
On the other side, the famous system of “Exchange” in global level comes to an end. Banks in their lust for expansion show their irrational management and the world has become more and more uncertain for everyone. According to recent survey, Europeans feel more unsecured for their future than in the past where Europe has its borders... Europeans are pessimistic about the economic situation, and pessimism is strong…Europeans are more satisfied with the area where they live than with their life in general. [6] And this is not the first time, that our banks are causing such conditions. (see chapter two) These artificial institutions ― legislated by the west-law-makers, are undoubtedly the major causers for every single trap of human being. Economy is the worst dream for all these human structures because they lack the applicability of value-rationality in their attempt to keep social structures in peace and sustainability. In addition, our intuitions have not taken into account the necessity of wisdom ― that is defined by Aristotle and is called phronesis. However, the thesis on this paper is: There is a matter of highest priority — the need of implementing phronetic science, in building social structures — which will provide to us in detail our power of knowledge. We have to accept that knowledge is ― in the words of Rorty, “not like an architectonic structure but like a field of force, and that there are no assertions which are immune from revision.” [7] Thus, to avoid such revision of truth a society has to apply full consciousness otherwise it will cope with an unsustainable-dualistic society, and finally with the trap of the mind in an endless de-magnetised field.
Thus, in conclusion: Trap of the mind, starts with consciousness and otherness. Consciousness therefore starts with autonomy whereas otherness with dependence. Autonomy is result of our parents who try to autonomise them children. Autonomy is preserved when at the concrete place is used full consciousness. Autonomy does not accept dependence except otherness. Human beings have been endowed by nature with consciousness in order to attain autonomy. Autonomy is the virtue of every single animal. Without autonomy animals would not survive. They cannot attain themselves with the dependence to other animals. For this is why they succeed of being autonomous. Otherwise they would die. But animal’s autonomy cannot be compared with the autonomy of humans in a city. Thus, the autonomy of the city must be measured with the being and of the otherness. If autonomy leans on otherness then consciousness will contract. Consciousness is made by nature to be autonomous in order to avoid contraction. If autonomy leans on self-consciousness then self-consciousness will expand. Expansion of consciousness is pure rationality. Or if consciousness leans on autonomy then full rationality is preserved. Preservation of rationality leads to counter-rationality. And counter-rationality deals with equilibrium society.
On questioning therefore of what our societies have done in our social realm we can conclude without any doubt that our institutions have excluded autonomy, and instead of it, have created the pre-conditions of dependence. Dependence of course is otherness and results on contraction of consciousness. In order therefore to expand our consciousness we have to claim autonomy and otherness in proportional quantity. We must be autonomous and otherness the same time. Or we must be autonomous in respect to otherness. Or we must be autonomous in need to otherness. But consciousness defers from consciousness and autonomy is the main element that keeps human being in life and in harmony with other beings. If we approach our matter as being a single consciousness then our society would have the consciousness of animals’ desires. This is why our consciousness defers, because it seeks to equilibrise its being: Its being is result of otherness and otherness is result of being. They fulfil each-other in every single act.
Thus, trap of the mind is the quality of dependence not of the autonomy. Dependence contract consciousness and is detrimental to human being as a whole, and consequently, it is detrimental to our nature. If we wish to pursue the problem further, one has to deliberate, by questioning: Can a society create the pre-conditions of full-consciousness in order to keep full-rationality, i.e. being and otherness? In order to give a picture to our situation of knowledge let us introduce at this point, the knowledge of the city and its rationality. This analysis derives for one simple reason: To understand if full consciousness is practiced in our societies in order to rationalise its actions. And if not, could one today claim universal knowledge either in social sciences as in the case of economics or holistic democracy or in natural sciences, as in the case of medicine?
References:
1. Women’s-Problems and the Feminist Movements. By Ramon T. Ayco 2006. P. 2 and 12; pdf version.
2. The G20: Who is there and how desperate are they? The Guardian Saturday November 15 2008. By Ed Pilkington http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/nov/15/economics-globaleconomy
3. THINKING ABOUT THE LIQUIDITY TRAP by Paul Krugman December 1999.
4. Development Or Democracy? By TAKIS FOTOPOULOS, SOCIETY & NATURE, Vol. 3, No. 1 (issue 7), 1995 http://www.democracynature.org/vol3/fotopoulos_development_PRINTABLE.
5. RENEWABLE ENERGY CANNOT SUSTAIN A CONSUMER SOCIETY by Ted Trainer, Synthesis/Regeneration. An excerpt from the introduction to the book Renewable Energy Cannot Sustain a Consumer Society (Springer 2007)
6. The Social Situation in the European Union, pdf virsion, taken from Eurostat, pp 7-17
7. Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature, by Richard Rorty, p 181
*This is part of the first chapter of the book: Demotic and Phronetic Manifesto
By Ylli Permeti
Abstract*
Can a society well-function when the whole its social structures are based on its lowest spirit level, that is ― sensualism and consumerism? Of course, cannot. Western politics nowadays are dependent on these two social structures; consequently, without them they will die. The model of “Parliamentarian Democracy” that our politicians, philosophers or “our bracketed mind’ provide to us as successful, is becoming basic foundation for the “undemocratised” countries, in the rest of the world. From 1945 to 1995 the number of “sovereign” States — having a Parliament — has increased seven-fold. The percentage of women MPs worldwide has increased four-fold. More than 1 billion people in the world today, 70 percent of which are women (according to the 2004 AFL-CIO survey), live in unacceptable condition of poverty, mostly in the developing countries. [1] (Emphasis added). And this is merely the beginning of social destruction, demotion and consequently of perversion.
As long as these Parliaments — all over the world — adopt the industry of sexism, sensualism and consumerism — as their basic policy — the crisis will deepen further. And this is — as stated above — because of man’s mind picture; therefore, there have been created undoubtedly a multidimensional crisis, consequently a crisis that confronts: a trap of liquidity; a trap of governance; a trap of democracy; a trap of ecology; a trap of natural sciences; a trap of social sciences; a trap of technology; a trap of epistemology; a trap of freedom and finally a «trap of the mind».
On November 15, of the year 2008, the G20 showed once again that the financial crisis and the debts of the participants in the summit are extremely high and the trap of liquidity is unavoidable. Since, each wants to borrow money from each other and no one has cash. The mountain of debts is going to be a second Babel. The leader of the debts in the summit, was US - with $ 8.4tr public debt. [2] All the pursuers are in an extremely bad condition. Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize in economics, almost a decade ago, in his paper, talks about this trap of liquidity. [3] In addition, Fotopoulos, more than fifteen years ago warns us for this trap of finance. [4] No one heard about them! No governance existed to take into consideration these theses. No international institutions or universities took the effort to take into account these cautions. Now, the trap of the mind is present (!). However, we will examine in the second chapter the causes that create unsustainability in our economics around the world, with an extensive analysis in economics; and proposing thus a new conception of economics and finance. We will apply rational economics in order to avoid such a trap in the future: Rational in the sense of being sustainable in order to “fit as a fiddle” to human nature. We will examine economics in detail ― from the ancient times ― because, economics in our time is the major component than concerns our societies, politicians and human nature.
On the other side, another trap takes place in this pandemic condition: The trap of Governance. No government today can speak with truthfulness on this account. No scientific econometric accuracy can predict the disaster. Governments have lost their confidentiality, their role and finally their mind. No non-cooperative equilibria, (now called Nash equilibria) can stop the “revanchism” of the governance which deals with an unsustainable system that they have created consciously. Nash’s formula in ‘A Beautiful Mind’ was evident: ‘What I am doing is exactly what the others are doing and the opposite’. Ironically, this phenomenon was well-known by the ancient fathers ― who warned us, in all their tales and myths, however and despite their warning, we, do not reflect on it. And this phenomenon gets even worst when it is relied on media propagandistic methods — that is, sexism and consumerism. Therefore, the “theory” ― either we like or not ― of rational human behaviour by Nash is the fundamental sublation of human nature. As Hegel pointed out: Sublation is the situation in which a term or concept is both preserved and changed through its dialectical interplay with another term or concept. Governments, despite the fact that there are too many discoveries in the social sciences regarding human behaviour ― either by our tales or by governments’ bureaucrats’ ― have nothing to show as ‘rational’ — regarding Nash’s discovery. Nash’s axiom will be as well in our attention in our investigation regarding truthfulness and otherness in the social domain. And this, for one simple reason: Human being has not changed at all with the “progress” that our politicians promote to us. Hopefully, we are the same, as in ancient times and we will be the same forever. This “sameness” has its implications in the real life and we witness today an abstruse of human activity. Abysmally, our governance throughout the world suffers accountability and reflectivity in the social realm, regarding our sameness.
Further, since democracy has diffused and invented in Miletus — as a concept (city on the western coast of Anatolia/Turkey), there has been a huge change: Democracy — as Bent Flyvbjerg pointed out in his research, ‘Democracy in Practise’, is exercised nowadays “top to bottom and not bottom to top”. This is well-known by the scholars of law affairs. Despite this fact, they insist on the present model ¬― by furthering it to the European Union. Democracy is supposed to be exercised neither bottom to top nor top to bottom and if we use the axiom of Habermas, then we can determine: Human beings are defined as democratic beings, or in the words of Habermas, as “homo democraticus,”or in the words of Aristotle, as “homo politicus”, and as such, human beings need to take on their hands their fate. On the other side, Habermas’s discourse on ethics and on communicative rationality, leaves us without any established power in his discourse, because he puts his discourse after the event, i.e. after the juridical event, which pre-supposes a rational law. He’s far from the Aristotelian ― followed later on by Foucaultean, Fotopoulean and Flyvbjergean concept, that is, placing power in the decision-making of an affair. However, the notion of “democracy” needs — as it looks — the trap of the mind in an elite level to come up afterwards in its real nature, that is, the axiom of “practical wisdom”. This axiom of human being has been destroyed by our institutions and our pseudo-democracies ― which in order to reach rationality have been established after the event, that is, an event on which “communicative rationality” is excluded. Instead, according to Habermas, in the words of Flyvbjerg, “communicative rationality” must be established in all discourses of ethics after the constitution writing. And this is totally wrong, because consciousness in order to be in full rationality has to use its natural power, that is, self-consciousness.
In addition, since democracy (in its pre-paradigmatic period) doesn’t work, the global problems have extended in its nature: Natural sciences cannot control the catastrophe of the ecology. Both natural sciences and social sciences are creatures of irrational powers, in the words of Foucault and consequently they have lost their mind (!). Natural sciences, as regard the requirement of accountability have nothing to show to us any satisfactory conviction. This is because they are all under the requirement of competitiveness and of individuality. Thus, in spite the fact that they have reached to a satisfactory level as regards the intersubjectivity and communicative ethics, they still suffer full rationality. I will attempt to provide a pre-supposed case in the next section, in order to understand the axiom of Derrida’s, that is, the arbitrariness of the knower, being the knower in the above context, i.e. under competitiveness and individuality. However, natural sciences according to Flyvbjerg, in some points are strong and where they are strong social sciences are weak, and vice versa. The weak point of natural sciences, will be illustrated in the following section, which is actually the absence of power, or to put it otherwise: The lack using power without its counter-power, that is, full rationality. Accordingly, there is another trap. As regards social sciences the world becomes more and more dependent in few hands, who monopolise the whole system into one. This phenomenon except that is not compatible with the notion of democracy and of the autonomy of a state it becomes more and more uncontrollable and dangerous throughout the world, because they will concentrate the whole power of commodities to their discretion.
However, technology and epistemology is another collapse: The automobile industry shows its telos. No politician today knows or has been educated by our global universities on how our global industry will cope with the demand of energy, in a world that is becoming more and more numerous. Obama’s or Cameron’s manifesto does not respond to such problems because our world is becoming more dependent on a consumer society. Thus, according to predictions, our world population is likely to reach 9.4 billion by 2070, and deep ecologists’ accept that these very high levels of production and consumption and therefore of energy use that we have in today's consumer-capitalist society cannot be sustained by renewable sources of energy. [5] Therefore, there is no doubt that even if we accept that our politicians want or desire a sustainable society, reports and serious studies ― as the already mentioned, proof the opposite. Thus, is not a case of the automobile industry that it will cope with very serious problems in the future but of the whole picture of our society. And this is the final trap of human mind!
On the other side, the famous system of “Exchange” in global level comes to an end. Banks in their lust for expansion show their irrational management and the world has become more and more uncertain for everyone. According to recent survey, Europeans feel more unsecured for their future than in the past where Europe has its borders... Europeans are pessimistic about the economic situation, and pessimism is strong…Europeans are more satisfied with the area where they live than with their life in general. [6] And this is not the first time, that our banks are causing such conditions. (see chapter two) These artificial institutions ― legislated by the west-law-makers, are undoubtedly the major causers for every single trap of human being. Economy is the worst dream for all these human structures because they lack the applicability of value-rationality in their attempt to keep social structures in peace and sustainability. In addition, our intuitions have not taken into account the necessity of wisdom ― that is defined by Aristotle and is called phronesis. However, the thesis on this paper is: There is a matter of highest priority — the need of implementing phronetic science, in building social structures — which will provide to us in detail our power of knowledge. We have to accept that knowledge is ― in the words of Rorty, “not like an architectonic structure but like a field of force, and that there are no assertions which are immune from revision.” [7] Thus, to avoid such revision of truth a society has to apply full consciousness otherwise it will cope with an unsustainable-dualistic society, and finally with the trap of the mind in an endless de-magnetised field.
Thus, in conclusion: Trap of the mind, starts with consciousness and otherness. Consciousness therefore starts with autonomy whereas otherness with dependence. Autonomy is result of our parents who try to autonomise them children. Autonomy is preserved when at the concrete place is used full consciousness. Autonomy does not accept dependence except otherness. Human beings have been endowed by nature with consciousness in order to attain autonomy. Autonomy is the virtue of every single animal. Without autonomy animals would not survive. They cannot attain themselves with the dependence to other animals. For this is why they succeed of being autonomous. Otherwise they would die. But animal’s autonomy cannot be compared with the autonomy of humans in a city. Thus, the autonomy of the city must be measured with the being and of the otherness. If autonomy leans on otherness then consciousness will contract. Consciousness is made by nature to be autonomous in order to avoid contraction. If autonomy leans on self-consciousness then self-consciousness will expand. Expansion of consciousness is pure rationality. Or if consciousness leans on autonomy then full rationality is preserved. Preservation of rationality leads to counter-rationality. And counter-rationality deals with equilibrium society.
On questioning therefore of what our societies have done in our social realm we can conclude without any doubt that our institutions have excluded autonomy, and instead of it, have created the pre-conditions of dependence. Dependence of course is otherness and results on contraction of consciousness. In order therefore to expand our consciousness we have to claim autonomy and otherness in proportional quantity. We must be autonomous and otherness the same time. Or we must be autonomous in respect to otherness. Or we must be autonomous in need to otherness. But consciousness defers from consciousness and autonomy is the main element that keeps human being in life and in harmony with other beings. If we approach our matter as being a single consciousness then our society would have the consciousness of animals’ desires. This is why our consciousness defers, because it seeks to equilibrise its being: Its being is result of otherness and otherness is result of being. They fulfil each-other in every single act.
Thus, trap of the mind is the quality of dependence not of the autonomy. Dependence contract consciousness and is detrimental to human being as a whole, and consequently, it is detrimental to our nature. If we wish to pursue the problem further, one has to deliberate, by questioning: Can a society create the pre-conditions of full-consciousness in order to keep full-rationality, i.e. being and otherness? In order to give a picture to our situation of knowledge let us introduce at this point, the knowledge of the city and its rationality. This analysis derives for one simple reason: To understand if full consciousness is practiced in our societies in order to rationalise its actions. And if not, could one today claim universal knowledge either in social sciences as in the case of economics or holistic democracy or in natural sciences, as in the case of medicine?
References:
1. Women’s-Problems and the Feminist Movements. By Ramon T. Ayco 2006. P. 2 and 12; pdf version.
2. The G20: Who is there and how desperate are they? The Guardian Saturday November 15 2008. By Ed Pilkington http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/nov/15/economics-globaleconomy
3. THINKING ABOUT THE LIQUIDITY TRAP by Paul Krugman December 1999.
4. Development Or Democracy? By TAKIS FOTOPOULOS, SOCIETY & NATURE, Vol. 3, No. 1 (issue 7), 1995 http://www.democracynature.org/vol3/fotopoulos_development_PRINTABLE.
5. RENEWABLE ENERGY CANNOT SUSTAIN A CONSUMER SOCIETY by Ted Trainer, Synthesis/Regeneration. An excerpt from the introduction to the book Renewable Energy Cannot Sustain a Consumer Society (Springer 2007)
6. The Social Situation in the European Union, pdf virsion, taken from Eurostat, pp 7-17
7. Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature, by Richard Rorty, p 181
*This is part of the first chapter of the book: Demotic and Phronetic Manifesto
Sunday, April 4, 2010
Tally Sticks Economy: A Transition Period from “Freedom” to “Slavery”
Tally Sticks Economy: A Transition Period from “Freedom” to “Slavery”
________________________________________
The following essay will be concentrated into the analysis of the last kingdoms of freedom, of tradition and of particularity. This millennium is the transitional period from freedom to slavery which gave rise to a new conception of a “super state” — which had been experienced in the Roman Empire. For, this millennium has its implication in its journey and practiced one of the most practical ways of exchange — that is, the tally stick economies. But, even this millennium has its “historicism” that spelled out only the little stories of the kings or priests, who ruled the masses through their monetary system. Not with any consensus agreed a priory but with pure repression. Thus, this analysis — as the previous one, will concentrate its focal point to the manipulation of human being and obviously to measure its detriment. However, tallies were a good idea; because tally economies offered an important and stable invention. Its functionality was quite positive. It gave at least one wing to flight instead of two.
Thus, according to Haas [o]ne piece of the tally is called “stock” (from which our terms capital and corporate stock and stockholder derive) and issued to the creditor. The other piece is called “stub” (a term still used as in ‘ticket stub’) or “counterstock” and kept by the debtor. The King kept the stock. The taxed debtor kept the stub, because both halves were a complete record of the credit and debt and the debtor is protected by his stub from the fraudulent imitation of tampering with his tally. The King could buy with paying his “stocks” to sellers of goods and services . (Haas: 50)
As it is obvious from the above description, the King was transformed the basic foundation of the ancient society — replacing thus the priest of the ancient world — who was so, the regulator and the deregulator of the economy, without having wisdom or authoritative knowledge of the economy: The only knowledge he possessed was the minting of coins with a continuous and unavoidable devaluation of the currency. The devaluation of the currency becomes unavoidable in such a system because more minted coins is needed in the market — coins which acquire value from the existent coins in the market; and because of the continuous expansion of the economy, more capital is needed. Thus, more capital in the market — richer becomes the priest, the king or the bankers; because each coin possesses its interest. Power therefore was possessed by incompetent people and the investing strategy was derivative of this incompetence. This incompetence, in time, created the preconditions of introducing for the first time in human history the so called “brokers” of the economy. This phenomenon took place first in France, in 12th century. These brokers were incited by bankers. They started to regulate the agriculture debt of the region by issuing governments “securities”.
The word “security” is a generic term of debt or government’s bonds. In time, this kind of securities took the name of a “share”, in private and government exchanges. In 1602, the Dutch East India Company issued the first share on the Amsterdam’s Stock Exchange. It was the first company to issue stocks and bonds. However, caution must be taken here: There were brokers incited by bankers that took the role of a representative to regulate the debt of the people that were directly indebted to the government. Thus there was Not a democratical decision by the shareholders. The power was left on King’s duty. Therefore it was merely a regulation derived from the bankers or the King. The notion of the word “Government”, at the time was vague. But the most important point that we have to give major attention is that, the debt at the time was backed by real production. In contrast, today’s stockholders or shareholders are not backed by real commodity. For instance: The private stock market in order to raise the capital or the quantity of money has to issue shares or stocks backed by their company, in the first place. Attention, our company wants to raise money or capital through issuing shares not through real commodity. But in order to accomplish its goal it has to create the preconditions to persuade the inhabitants of the city or of the region or in today’s circumstances, of the whole world, as in cases of betting a company’s/government’s authenticity in an international level. These preconditions of persuading people have to be achieved by using the strategy of the so called “marketing”. Marketing is the starting point where businesses back their finances.
But this point has its implications: Let us suppose that a company has achieved its goal of selling its shares to “exterior” citizens. First consideration therefore, is that the shareholders do not know its real production or capability of managing the company with rationality. But they have been persuaded and bought the shares. First note to point out is: They just risk their money because they do not know in advance if a company will succeed in its operation. At this point we have to think that this procedure is backed by law i.e. a law that allows and suggests (through its lawyers) a company to raise money, in this way. This is because law-makers think in one direction — that is, further profit for the company in order to invest further in the trade. But law-makers do not think about rationality and power at this point. Either they think if a company will fail or default. They think merely about on how to raise money in order to extend the power of a company. Second point therefore to emphasize is that, a company for the reasons given above — that is, “its inability to convert each coin or money in real production”, would result in corruption and consequently in failure. This failure would be bail-out by the government “if” a priory a company has backed the people who are in power; which is obviously the common scenario. This linkage makes the system very dangerous and in time, as has been shown elsewhere, will collapse the whole society. Immediately we have to turn back to our starting point: Stocks were backed by real production at the time when they started to be traded; now this is not the case.
Therefore, government or company securities are not backed by any real production in the way they operate but by the so called marketization procedure, in other words: Pure propaganda. This kind of marketization is the basic conception of running an economy in the developed or developing countries. There are now stock markets in virtually every “developed!” country which trade their “guarantee” for their businesses or their countries. At this point is the today’s Greek crisis. (18 March 2010) They trade their stocks or their government’s bonds and they fail because no one buys their government’s bonds, because they are indebted everywhere towards international banks, speculators or themselves. In addition, Greek government, in order to over-come its crisis, is trying these days to trade its seven-year bonds in the internationalised domain. "We have shown that we can issue all sorts of maturities and at more logical rates than previously," says the Greek Finance Minister George Papaconstantinou . “Maturities”, in finance means, an insurance policy that has been previously made by a government to improve its fiscal policy and to allure multi-nationals companies to install their bonds in their country in order to stimulate the economy, which is actually, its consumption not its competence. On the other side, economists of the present schools support the idea of issuing debt with a floating charge. For instance, “investo-pedia” determines: The maturity date is the date in the future on which the investor's principal will be repaid. Maturities can range from as little as one day to as long as 30 years (though terms of 100 years have been issued) . But maturities of government’s bonds have to do with the balance of the real production and the money being in the trade. If a government defaults to provide such a balance then it will bankrupt the whole society. Then if we call the government’s bonds “securities” at this point of our analysis we would be wrong. Why? — Because a government, cannot provide security for its issuing debt. Or, putting it otherwise: If the issuer (government) borrow money to the lender (investor) and the investor’s strategy is to profit for his/her own interest — we added more money in the trade — then, this does not mean that his/her mental capacity is able to maintain the whole amount of money to be transformed into real production. Or the money existed in the trade cannot be “transformed” at any time with real production. For instance, let us suppose here that a government has issued debt through its bonds — which are called sometimes securities, the amount of $1000. For this money is in readiness for ten people. They will work to earn some money from this amount. If they work the same the will have $ 100 each, for their pocket. If they invest this amount then they will produce further production. If they chose not to invest this amount — as has shown our monetary history, in spite the fact that Keynes supported the idea that people who accumulate money will invest their profit — then, the government has to inflate the economy again with new money, called today easing quantity. This would result in inflation of prices. However, this point has been analysed with an extensive analysis in later discussions. Our point here is different — that is, the occurrence of incompetence or ignorance by issuing debt or stocks in the economy. Thus, once again: In the core of this system lies the incompetence of our institutions which is a system that can be manipulated each second of the real life. But the major incompetence lies on law-maker’s one. This is because they are brain-washed by the present system. No one can escape from this kind of system.
However, this strategy of incompetence or ignorance (in spite the fact that the people, who manage it, support the opposite) is adopted today by the International Monetary Fund (IMF); which imposes the same rules to the central national banks or governments — and this last foundation in turn has its negative results to the free initiative of the individuals. This is because its strategy is to create the per-conditions to indebt countries and to destroy the independence or sovereignty of each country — consequently of each individual. Thus, to give an emphasis on the IMF’s operation we will quote some details: The IMF was founded more than 60 years ago toward the end of World War II. The founders aimed to build a framework for economic cooperation that would avoid a repetition of the disastrous economic policies that had contributed to the Great Depression of the 1930s and the global conflict that followed . This global institution started its work with 29 members; and in June 2009, the former Yugoslav republic of Kosovo joined the IMF, becoming the institution's 186th member . The IMF's resources come mainly from the money that countries pay as their capital subscription when they become members . The IMF has established quotas for its members: The larger a country's economy in terms of output and the larger and more variable its trade, the larger its quota tends to be . The IMF also provides low-income countries with loans at a concessional interest rate through the Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility (PRGF) and the Exogenous Shocks Facility (ESF) .
One element should be stressed at this point: When countries become members — they have to pay for it, when they ask for a loan — they have to pay the interest of the loan. This is called double payment. The other element that should be in our contemplation is the dependence of other countries on the money borrowed by the IMF. The outcome of it in time and space will create the pre-conditions of transforming a society in “complex systems” — such as financing services.Or the IMF has traditionally sustained itself by lending money to governments and getting paid back the money plus interest . At this point the IMF operates exactly the same as a bank or the same as our King, Croesus. However, as they appear as if nothing has happened in the financial system they adopted the methodology of issuing government’s bonds which is called according to them, SDR’s. Allocations of SDRs, the IMF's unit of account, is used as an international reserve asset. A member's share of general SDR allocations is established in proportion to its quota. The most recent general allocation of SDRs took place in 2009 . (Emphasis added) we have to remember that the same methodology of issuing and allocating shares is adopted by our companies around the world. Companies allocate shares to its labours for two obvious reasons: First, to be considered the company by its labours as their own company, so that, labours would operate in full consciousness. And second, to amass some money from their proper work. Attention!: There is not any right for the labours for the decision-making of the company. However, these are shares or stocks that are not backed (as said above) by anything in the first place. But they introduced it as a mean that would help them to make money and to control the governments. A government through its policy controls the economy and the IMF through its policy controls the governments. Once again: If the power of a government cannot be controlled through its established institutions, how could one, today, control the IMF? Of course, no one can control this power. On the other side, whenever an individual fails in its operation to make a profit, the government is supposed to help him/her — to get up; and whenever a government fails to manage its economy, is supposed to be helped by the IMF. But in reality this does not happen in both cases. Why? Because this kind of capitalism is to provide cash to consumers, not to reconstruct a failed economy or a failed consumer. Because the present institutions are concerned mainly with making profit without measuring the power possessed by the people — without posing the question, of what rationality is in place when they who use power empower it? Then, if world carries on the same consensus of power or hierarchy, in the future, the IMF or institutions that cooperate with it, such as World Bank (WB) and World Trade Organization (WTO) (which is a weapon against democracy, because it concentrate the whole power on to companies and multi-national companies), therefore world will be transformed a global fiasco; because it tends to control all the economies of the world and to make money out of nothing. Once this is achieved in part, they will introduce the global currency as a necessity that obliges our global institution to use it.
As regards its political achievement according to its commitment, in international economies, it has gone forward too much: Historically, one method of control was violence, the mailed fist, and another was economic pressure, which in the recent period has been exercised through the IMF, the Treasury Department, and the World Bank . In 2007, a group of eminent world citizens was asked to make recommendations about the future, but they steered clear of issues like the IMF voting structure—which gives the United States almost 20 percent of the votes even though it is now no longer a net donor nation, but gives China, the country with the worlds larges reserves, less than 4 percent of the vote . As it is clear from the above indications, as regards the votes, Europe has been complicated too much: People vote once for their candidate or parliament, they vote another time for their euro-MP-s and they have to vote for their international institution. In addition, they have to feed with the rest members of the IMF, 2400 of the IMF’s staff and other international institutions that in reality do not offer anything profitable to our world.
In addition, our global institution in further passages states: The international community recognized that the IMF’s financial resources were as important as ever and were likely to be stretched thin before the crisis was over. With broad support from creditor countries, the Fund’s lending capacity was tripled to around $750 billion. To use those funds effectively, the IMF overhauled its lending policies, including by creating a flexible credit line for countries with strong economic fundamentals and a track record of successful policy implementation. Other reforms, including ones tailored to help low-income countries, enabled the IMF to disburse very large sums quickly, based on the needs of borrowing countries and not tightly constrained by quotas, as in the past . What does it mean when someone says outright that the lending capacity tripled to around $750 billion? Simple: They will be richer with the interest they will receive from their lending. And the story goes on. But remember, this lending is towards our government which paid to be a member of this institution and which has to be paid by us. These are therefore the most flimsy foundations ever seen in human history.
However, we will approach this issue later on with an extensive analysis. (See Democracy and Negative Production) We have not to confuse thus stocks with tally sticks; stocks are backed by nothing whereas sticks always are backed by real production and are very important to be considered here.
________________________________________
The following essay will be concentrated into the analysis of the last kingdoms of freedom, of tradition and of particularity. This millennium is the transitional period from freedom to slavery which gave rise to a new conception of a “super state” — which had been experienced in the Roman Empire. For, this millennium has its implication in its journey and practiced one of the most practical ways of exchange — that is, the tally stick economies. But, even this millennium has its “historicism” that spelled out only the little stories of the kings or priests, who ruled the masses through their monetary system. Not with any consensus agreed a priory but with pure repression. Thus, this analysis — as the previous one, will concentrate its focal point to the manipulation of human being and obviously to measure its detriment. However, tallies were a good idea; because tally economies offered an important and stable invention. Its functionality was quite positive. It gave at least one wing to flight instead of two.
Thus, according to Haas [o]ne piece of the tally is called “stock” (from which our terms capital and corporate stock and stockholder derive) and issued to the creditor. The other piece is called “stub” (a term still used as in ‘ticket stub’) or “counterstock” and kept by the debtor. The King kept the stock. The taxed debtor kept the stub, because both halves were a complete record of the credit and debt and the debtor is protected by his stub from the fraudulent imitation of tampering with his tally. The King could buy with paying his “stocks” to sellers of goods and services . (Haas: 50)
As it is obvious from the above description, the King was transformed the basic foundation of the ancient society — replacing thus the priest of the ancient world — who was so, the regulator and the deregulator of the economy, without having wisdom or authoritative knowledge of the economy: The only knowledge he possessed was the minting of coins with a continuous and unavoidable devaluation of the currency. The devaluation of the currency becomes unavoidable in such a system because more minted coins is needed in the market — coins which acquire value from the existent coins in the market; and because of the continuous expansion of the economy, more capital is needed. Thus, more capital in the market — richer becomes the priest, the king or the bankers; because each coin possesses its interest. Power therefore was possessed by incompetent people and the investing strategy was derivative of this incompetence. This incompetence, in time, created the preconditions of introducing for the first time in human history the so called “brokers” of the economy. This phenomenon took place first in France, in 12th century. These brokers were incited by bankers. They started to regulate the agriculture debt of the region by issuing governments “securities”.
The word “security” is a generic term of debt or government’s bonds. In time, this kind of securities took the name of a “share”, in private and government exchanges. In 1602, the Dutch East India Company issued the first share on the Amsterdam’s Stock Exchange. It was the first company to issue stocks and bonds. However, caution must be taken here: There were brokers incited by bankers that took the role of a representative to regulate the debt of the people that were directly indebted to the government. Thus there was Not a democratical decision by the shareholders. The power was left on King’s duty. Therefore it was merely a regulation derived from the bankers or the King. The notion of the word “Government”, at the time was vague. But the most important point that we have to give major attention is that, the debt at the time was backed by real production. In contrast, today’s stockholders or shareholders are not backed by real commodity. For instance: The private stock market in order to raise the capital or the quantity of money has to issue shares or stocks backed by their company, in the first place. Attention, our company wants to raise money or capital through issuing shares not through real commodity. But in order to accomplish its goal it has to create the preconditions to persuade the inhabitants of the city or of the region or in today’s circumstances, of the whole world, as in cases of betting a company’s/government’s authenticity in an international level. These preconditions of persuading people have to be achieved by using the strategy of the so called “marketing”. Marketing is the starting point where businesses back their finances.
But this point has its implications: Let us suppose that a company has achieved its goal of selling its shares to “exterior” citizens. First consideration therefore, is that the shareholders do not know its real production or capability of managing the company with rationality. But they have been persuaded and bought the shares. First note to point out is: They just risk their money because they do not know in advance if a company will succeed in its operation. At this point we have to think that this procedure is backed by law i.e. a law that allows and suggests (through its lawyers) a company to raise money, in this way. This is because law-makers think in one direction — that is, further profit for the company in order to invest further in the trade. But law-makers do not think about rationality and power at this point. Either they think if a company will fail or default. They think merely about on how to raise money in order to extend the power of a company. Second point therefore to emphasize is that, a company for the reasons given above — that is, “its inability to convert each coin or money in real production”, would result in corruption and consequently in failure. This failure would be bail-out by the government “if” a priory a company has backed the people who are in power; which is obviously the common scenario. This linkage makes the system very dangerous and in time, as has been shown elsewhere, will collapse the whole society. Immediately we have to turn back to our starting point: Stocks were backed by real production at the time when they started to be traded; now this is not the case.
Therefore, government or company securities are not backed by any real production in the way they operate but by the so called marketization procedure, in other words: Pure propaganda. This kind of marketization is the basic conception of running an economy in the developed or developing countries. There are now stock markets in virtually every “developed!” country which trade their “guarantee” for their businesses or their countries. At this point is the today’s Greek crisis. (18 March 2010) They trade their stocks or their government’s bonds and they fail because no one buys their government’s bonds, because they are indebted everywhere towards international banks, speculators or themselves. In addition, Greek government, in order to over-come its crisis, is trying these days to trade its seven-year bonds in the internationalised domain. "We have shown that we can issue all sorts of maturities and at more logical rates than previously," says the Greek Finance Minister George Papaconstantinou . “Maturities”, in finance means, an insurance policy that has been previously made by a government to improve its fiscal policy and to allure multi-nationals companies to install their bonds in their country in order to stimulate the economy, which is actually, its consumption not its competence. On the other side, economists of the present schools support the idea of issuing debt with a floating charge. For instance, “investo-pedia” determines: The maturity date is the date in the future on which the investor's principal will be repaid. Maturities can range from as little as one day to as long as 30 years (though terms of 100 years have been issued) . But maturities of government’s bonds have to do with the balance of the real production and the money being in the trade. If a government defaults to provide such a balance then it will bankrupt the whole society. Then if we call the government’s bonds “securities” at this point of our analysis we would be wrong. Why? — Because a government, cannot provide security for its issuing debt. Or, putting it otherwise: If the issuer (government) borrow money to the lender (investor) and the investor’s strategy is to profit for his/her own interest — we added more money in the trade — then, this does not mean that his/her mental capacity is able to maintain the whole amount of money to be transformed into real production. Or the money existed in the trade cannot be “transformed” at any time with real production. For instance, let us suppose here that a government has issued debt through its bonds — which are called sometimes securities, the amount of $1000. For this money is in readiness for ten people. They will work to earn some money from this amount. If they work the same the will have $ 100 each, for their pocket. If they invest this amount then they will produce further production. If they chose not to invest this amount — as has shown our monetary history, in spite the fact that Keynes supported the idea that people who accumulate money will invest their profit — then, the government has to inflate the economy again with new money, called today easing quantity. This would result in inflation of prices. However, this point has been analysed with an extensive analysis in later discussions. Our point here is different — that is, the occurrence of incompetence or ignorance by issuing debt or stocks in the economy. Thus, once again: In the core of this system lies the incompetence of our institutions which is a system that can be manipulated each second of the real life. But the major incompetence lies on law-maker’s one. This is because they are brain-washed by the present system. No one can escape from this kind of system.
However, this strategy of incompetence or ignorance (in spite the fact that the people, who manage it, support the opposite) is adopted today by the International Monetary Fund (IMF); which imposes the same rules to the central national banks or governments — and this last foundation in turn has its negative results to the free initiative of the individuals. This is because its strategy is to create the per-conditions to indebt countries and to destroy the independence or sovereignty of each country — consequently of each individual. Thus, to give an emphasis on the IMF’s operation we will quote some details: The IMF was founded more than 60 years ago toward the end of World War II. The founders aimed to build a framework for economic cooperation that would avoid a repetition of the disastrous economic policies that had contributed to the Great Depression of the 1930s and the global conflict that followed . This global institution started its work with 29 members; and in June 2009, the former Yugoslav republic of Kosovo joined the IMF, becoming the institution's 186th member . The IMF's resources come mainly from the money that countries pay as their capital subscription when they become members . The IMF has established quotas for its members: The larger a country's economy in terms of output and the larger and more variable its trade, the larger its quota tends to be . The IMF also provides low-income countries with loans at a concessional interest rate through the Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility (PRGF) and the Exogenous Shocks Facility (ESF) .
One element should be stressed at this point: When countries become members — they have to pay for it, when they ask for a loan — they have to pay the interest of the loan. This is called double payment. The other element that should be in our contemplation is the dependence of other countries on the money borrowed by the IMF. The outcome of it in time and space will create the pre-conditions of transforming a society in “complex systems” — such as financing services.Or the IMF has traditionally sustained itself by lending money to governments and getting paid back the money plus interest . At this point the IMF operates exactly the same as a bank or the same as our King, Croesus. However, as they appear as if nothing has happened in the financial system they adopted the methodology of issuing government’s bonds which is called according to them, SDR’s. Allocations of SDRs, the IMF's unit of account, is used as an international reserve asset. A member's share of general SDR allocations is established in proportion to its quota. The most recent general allocation of SDRs took place in 2009 . (Emphasis added) we have to remember that the same methodology of issuing and allocating shares is adopted by our companies around the world. Companies allocate shares to its labours for two obvious reasons: First, to be considered the company by its labours as their own company, so that, labours would operate in full consciousness. And second, to amass some money from their proper work. Attention!: There is not any right for the labours for the decision-making of the company. However, these are shares or stocks that are not backed (as said above) by anything in the first place. But they introduced it as a mean that would help them to make money and to control the governments. A government through its policy controls the economy and the IMF through its policy controls the governments. Once again: If the power of a government cannot be controlled through its established institutions, how could one, today, control the IMF? Of course, no one can control this power. On the other side, whenever an individual fails in its operation to make a profit, the government is supposed to help him/her — to get up; and whenever a government fails to manage its economy, is supposed to be helped by the IMF. But in reality this does not happen in both cases. Why? Because this kind of capitalism is to provide cash to consumers, not to reconstruct a failed economy or a failed consumer. Because the present institutions are concerned mainly with making profit without measuring the power possessed by the people — without posing the question, of what rationality is in place when they who use power empower it? Then, if world carries on the same consensus of power or hierarchy, in the future, the IMF or institutions that cooperate with it, such as World Bank (WB) and World Trade Organization (WTO) (which is a weapon against democracy, because it concentrate the whole power on to companies and multi-national companies), therefore world will be transformed a global fiasco; because it tends to control all the economies of the world and to make money out of nothing. Once this is achieved in part, they will introduce the global currency as a necessity that obliges our global institution to use it.
As regards its political achievement according to its commitment, in international economies, it has gone forward too much: Historically, one method of control was violence, the mailed fist, and another was economic pressure, which in the recent period has been exercised through the IMF, the Treasury Department, and the World Bank . In 2007, a group of eminent world citizens was asked to make recommendations about the future, but they steered clear of issues like the IMF voting structure—which gives the United States almost 20 percent of the votes even though it is now no longer a net donor nation, but gives China, the country with the worlds larges reserves, less than 4 percent of the vote . As it is clear from the above indications, as regards the votes, Europe has been complicated too much: People vote once for their candidate or parliament, they vote another time for their euro-MP-s and they have to vote for their international institution. In addition, they have to feed with the rest members of the IMF, 2400 of the IMF’s staff and other international institutions that in reality do not offer anything profitable to our world.
In addition, our global institution in further passages states: The international community recognized that the IMF’s financial resources were as important as ever and were likely to be stretched thin before the crisis was over. With broad support from creditor countries, the Fund’s lending capacity was tripled to around $750 billion. To use those funds effectively, the IMF overhauled its lending policies, including by creating a flexible credit line for countries with strong economic fundamentals and a track record of successful policy implementation. Other reforms, including ones tailored to help low-income countries, enabled the IMF to disburse very large sums quickly, based on the needs of borrowing countries and not tightly constrained by quotas, as in the past . What does it mean when someone says outright that the lending capacity tripled to around $750 billion? Simple: They will be richer with the interest they will receive from their lending. And the story goes on. But remember, this lending is towards our government which paid to be a member of this institution and which has to be paid by us. These are therefore the most flimsy foundations ever seen in human history.
However, we will approach this issue later on with an extensive analysis. (See Democracy and Negative Production) We have not to confuse thus stocks with tally sticks; stocks are backed by nothing whereas sticks always are backed by real production and are very important to be considered here.
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Hegemony as Theory vs. “Power” and Rationality
IV.Hegemony as Theory vs. “Power” and Rationality
________________________________________
By Ylli Permeti
Absract
Hegemon, a Greek word that means to lead or to guide a group of people into war, regardless of how much people are informed of what for they are fighting. Hegemon, has to do with invasion into other countries not with defense. Thus, a Hegemon, makes his invasion into other countries just by using force or other means to levy the wealth of the already controlled people by his invasion. Such Hegemons, are Alexander the “Great”, Greek Empire, Roman Empire, etc., and later on, Italy, England, Portugal, Spain, Germany, Russia, etc., and today America. All these Hegemons could be called Universalists by claiming universal institutions. Thus, in the same track of universal institutions, this time in the subject of economics is another conspicuous economist — this time, with a new hegemonic theory: Charles Kindleberger, whose analysis of the 1929 depression are widely accepted, as the precursor of a universal monetary theory, who states that…‘[f]or an international system of trade and finance to function smoothly there must be a hegemon. This is so because there is a collective action problem in that regulation and institutionalization of trade and finance is a public good, that is, it benefits the community. To solve the collective action problem, a hegemon takes the lead and is motivated to do so because of the benefit it gains; for example, the United States benefited greatly as the reserve currency under the Bretton Woods system…’ . (Emphasis added)
Kindleberger’s or even Mynsky’s view of hegemon’s does not pose the question of power in relation with the state or with other states, in a contextual or international realm. Therefore he’s not concerned with power and rationality but the opposite: With absolute power. Further, he’s talking about theory not about pure knowledge, as defined in our first chapter. Theory is an abstraction, because it is not attached upon concrete example, rather, it is attached upon the whole society. Theory is by definition an abstraction because we do not know its particularity, we cannot envisage at once its features and we do not percept anything with our senses. Theory and dogmas or sciences that have in their core generalization are nothing else that a new version of theory. Such theories are: Communism; Fascism; Nazism; Socialism; Anarchism; or even Democracy that tries to extend its formula beyond its core of birth. In contrast, phronesis is not theory but practical wisdom. It is features, not abstraction, it is values not dogmas, it is ethics not hegemony. Then accordingly one might ask: If that is not a conquest or slavery, then, what is it? — I am just asking! We know very well from our small governments (compare with the big government that these gentlemen propose to us), that it is not possible to control their power; what to say then for a global power? It is useless then to continue and to analyze these gentlemen — for one reason: Big government equal zero rationality; this is the equation that comes naturally and spontaneously in my mind. But unfortunately, all media around the world believes that this is the final solution of our economy. Therefore, what media believes — believes the population. This new indoctrinistic propaganda will not survive today, because, there are two kinds of media: Internet against conventional media — the first therefore will win, despite the fact that there are efforts to censure the new dictatorship that is coming up. In addition, there is another fundamental reason: Freedom is the ultimate value of human being — and being so, slavery cannot survive upon freedom. If it survived until nowadays it is because human institutions have not been subject of social struggles or subject of power struggles.
What to say then when a society develops its own independent economy: Does the big government offer any solution to their problems? Take, say, the island Samsø in Denmark that has invented and evolved its own technology with zero emission carbon dioxide and is totally independent from centre governments. Further, consider my own village Përmeti, in Albania, or other countries around the world; we have invented our way to develop technologies, values, ethno-methodologies and tradition that has nothing to do with governments and global finance capitalism or hegemon that is assumed to be U.S or the G7, G20, G50.... Hegemony is already obsolete and cannot anymore claim normative rationality in a global scale.
Because, the rationality of capitalism is determined by its own nature — that is, independent; and achieved only in an autonomic society. For, rationality is preserved whenever in a context-given circumstance have not been interweaved huge powers and interests. Whenever these natural rules operate in the opposite side, then power and interests will create conflict and consequently war. For social sciences have to approach phenomena in a context-given circumstance. Because, global rules are out of our human nature and being so, they are and will be — a failed effort. Apparently, in the same track of global institutions is the Hague judiciary. As will be analysed in the third chapter, judicial and global rules are not and could not be part of our actions. [T]he juridical system is utterly incongruous with the new methods of power, says Foucault [in Flybjerg’s words], methods that are employed on all levels and in forms that go beyond the state and its apparatus…Our historical gradient carries us further and further away from a reign of laws . (Emphasis added)
Thus, irrational laws and international “exuberance” or strata that create always social tensions are not and could not be part of our nature. For two main reasons: If Aristotle following Plato with his conception of the particular and universal meant a city, today the whole world has misinterpreted his conception and has permeated it as a globalism — meaning that, as long as there is a possibility of running an economy for the entire city, why therefore, not for the entire globe? And second reason that makes the scholar of universal confused, is the Platonic conception — that is, ‘to avoid relativism one should act the same time rationally and universally’.
Let us therefore pour out some light into this conception. Thus, rationality has to do with power that comes from everywhere and is not a structure or an institution that can embrace its rationality in a huge area. In addition, rationality has to do with real action and actions with real power. Power has to do with the individual and the individual produces rationality dependent in contextual circumstances. Moreover, referring in Flybjerg’s research, power is dynamic and is everywhere, states Foucault, not because it is capable of uniting everything under its insurmountable unity, but because power is produced from one moment to the next in all points and all relations . (Emphasis added) Therefore, in the context of money or of the economy — each one produces power and consequently rationality. But this power is not under meticulous rationality because this power has to do with money. Money carries on power which in today’s circumstances is demonstrated with production. Production has to do with action. Action deals with rationality. Rationality deals with desire and desire with anger. Desire deals with unfulfillness and anger with war or collapse. Collapse deals with uncertainty and uncertainty with chaos. This corollary goes on and the results are always the same — that is, negative.
Regarding the notion of power, John Hoffman and Paul Graham start their research, in political theory, correctly in my view, by defining the concepts of the state, such as freedom, equality, justice, democracy and citizenship; and politics in general, which for them, must be underpinned and defined in relation with power . (Hoffman, Graham: 3) Thus, “What is Power”? — is their basic question. As in every science or action in human life, they start their research by posing simple questions of everyday’s life — always in relation with power: We are always talking about power, they say. Do ordinary people have any? Do prime ministers and presidents have too much? Do people decline to vote because they feel they have no power ? For them, the question of power inevitably merges into the question of authority. And they as in ancient Athens pose again the question: Is might right? Are those who have power entitled to exercise it? When we raise questions such as these we are in fact asking whether power is the same as, or different from, authority . In further passages they deliberate about the power exercised by western powers in the invasion of Iraq, who, correctly in my view, support the idea of lacking authority.
By adopting Max Weber’s definition regarding of what constitute the state, which according to Weber is “an institution claiming a monopoly of legitimate force”, they pose the question: How does the notion of ‘legitimate force’ connect to the notion of power? Is the use of force the same as power? Accordingly, power requires compliance whereas force does not...Does this make the force legitimate and thus, an act blessed by authority? And if the act of state is authoritative, in whose eyes does have it authority? Those who are subject to this force (let us say protesters in a demonstration that is deemed to get out of hand), or those who are not part of the demonstration and approve of the action of the police? These are according to Hoffman and Graham difficult questions but they introduce them in order to show why in a discussion of the state it is important to involve questions of power and its relation to authority. The same did Flyvbjerg following Foucault in his research.
In further passages they consider the question of freedom and liberty. In this question like Fotopoulos, Flyvbjerg following Foucault et.al they consider freedom as the exercise of free power by one person, thus changing the surrounding by exercising free power . (Hoffman, Graham: 4). Whereas according to Flyvbjerg following Aristotle, freedom is a practice, not a result or a state of affairs. And phronesis is the intellectual virtue most relevant to the project of freedom . (Emphasis in original) (Flyvbjerg: 128) Hoffman and Graham in their deliberation divided freedom into two categories — that is, negative and positive. Negative in the sense of someone being left alone and positive in the sense of ‘a person’s capacity to do something’...freedom of speech is concerned with the power of a person to speak his mind, not the restrictions that may be placed on someone’s right to do so. In relation with equality and justice Hoffman and Graham, power has been considered as a state which rest upon ideas of rightness...The state has too much power and the individual too little. (Emphasis in original) This, it is argued, undermines the authority of the state: people pay their taxes because they have to, not because they want to. (Emphasis added) Egalitarians, on the other hand, link equality with justice, and argue that everyone should be treated equally. We should aim to spread power so that one person or group cannot tell another individual or group what to do, and government should implement policies that move in this direction. Indeed, one definition of democracy is the ‘power of the people’. Historically, the objection to democracy was precisely that the wrong kind of person would exercise power, and nineteenth-century liberals such as Lord Macaulay feared that democracy would enable the poor to plunder the rich .
This statement brings us back to the Plato’s and Aristotelian’s concern, who, in my view, have been misinterpreted by western philosophy or politics, because they never stopped to be concerned about the particular feature of the society. Rather, they were more sceptics than Macaulay’s, Kindelbergr’s or Mynsky’s view, when they referred to universal theories. On the other hand, left-wing critics of liberal democracy complain that the right to vote does not in itself give a person power to influence the course of events and that material resources must be available to people if they are to exercise power . This recalls us, the above perception of rationality, that, in its course of voting someone else to do the job that you should do, you lost it, because this is done by another person, who at once “brackets” your natural right to use your rationality.
Thus, according to Hoffman and Graham, the authority of liberal democracy rests upon equal rights rather that equal power so that the notion of power is indissolubly tied to debates about democracy . Thus, closer to phronesis, up to now, looks to be the Egalitarians, with the lack of showing the way on how to accomplish it or on how to replace the present institutions? However, liberal democracy, according to our analysis, it’s a fake notion, because does not empower the power [organically] of each individual that has been endowed by nature to use it, in the course of his/her life. Thus, liberal democracy, as a notion, adopted by Blair, Clinton, WBush or Brown today or in other countries such as France or Germany, or even in Russia, have nothing to show regarding our requirement —that is, empowering the wisdom-rationality — in free will and organically — of each individual in a republic.
However, for Hoffman and Graham, power has to do with the notion of authority. Power, accordingly, involves dominating someone or some group, telling them what to do, whereas authority is concerned with the rightness of an action. A person has to be pressured into complying with power, whereas they will obey authority in a voluntary way . This kind of analysis has to do again with the Aristotelian’s phronesis, who was concerned of what is good and bad for a man, in a given context. After giving a picture of what Rousseau has had contributed to the problem, they conclude of dividing the link between power and authority.
Accordingly, our problem can be presented as shown in the diagram:
Power implies Authority implies
Constrained Consent
Force Morality
Subordination Will
Dependence Autonomy
This is the problem of the ‘two levels’. Power and authority appear to exclude one another, but they are never found apart, they conclude.
In addition, they relate power in its negative and positive sense: Power is negative when it relates to my ability to get you to do things that you would otherwise do. In contrast, power is deemed positive when it is expressed as empowerment. (Emphasis in original) Empowerment, accordingly, occurs when one person helps (‘empower’) themselves or another, or when a group or community enables people to develop. Positive power is seen as the ability to do things by the discovery of our own strength — a capacity — a power to — as opposed to negative power that is seen as a power over — a domination . (Emphasis in original) To distinguish therefore the negative with positive power one has to deliberate about myths and dogmas, in which one can find out easily the negative power. From Priests to Kings-Mystification or From Dogmas to Promotion-Ideologies the negative power has been nourished unstoppably. This conclusion is the same in Hoffman’s and Graham’s view, with the only difference that they do not divide the negative power — which has been nourished by myths and institutions — with the organic power, which I call — the power of our natural father’s. This power has to do with organic power because the relationship between a child and a father is closer to that of the institution or to that, of myths. In this power one can find out the direct link between care and love; whereas the former is just a myth that has been induced oppressively even to our fathers.
Rebutting Lukes’s and Dahl’s view of power Hoffman and Graham point out that both of them do not resolve the problem between power and authority. But even for them it is impossible in some circumstances to resolve the problem of constrain and autonomy. They refer to the case of football supporters who must obey the rule of the police; in contrast with the authority of the doctor towards his/her patient who is authoritative and has shown positive power.
On the other hand, there is much more to discuss on this matter. As Foucault did in some respect and Flybjerg in full respect, we will extend the view of power a little bit further. Power therefore is everywhere, embedded to human, animals, plant, oxygen and in every single element of our nature. But power has to come up in its full rationality. Rationality is possessed by human mind. Human mind processes into different levels and circumstances. Such levels are primarily organic and secondly inorganic. Organic I shall call here the closest relationship between beings, which is the relationship between parents and child/children. This relation is organic and this relation carries on in its core natural love. This is why, this relation is organic.
If we extend this love into our society, it gets weak. It gets weak because the interests of human have been multiplied — which would conflict further to show their rationality, in a given context. These interests have their point of departure our families. Our journey starts from family to city/society and vice versa. We go into our city to get something that we need to survive at home, being that food, clothes and footwear or other activities that are for our own interest. All these needs are shared at home with the members of our family. This is a power that rest upon our own interest and is organic, because we share it with our family. The other power, which is shared with our society, is not organic, because each one goes there for his/her own interest. Attention! This power is shared in this way because our city is not common but it is a property that belongs to other people — that is, other-citizens.
On the other hand, when we refer to our fathers, who gave birth to our life and we have been grew up by their efforts — we can say that our habits are their results. These habits except that are natural and written on Heart they are authoritative, because they derive form a person that gave birth to our life, life that is a natural phenomenon and result of our genes, that push up our self to give birth to other generations. This power therefore has nothing to do with the ascribed power of the doctor who keeps his patient in full health.
Doctor goes there for his own interest, because he will get paid. His attention is result of a law that has been emphasised in his teaching: If he/she makes a mistake he/she will be punished. This authorization of power has been in the first instance, regulated by law and not by organic interest. This phenomenon persuades us that if our power is exercised through our members of the family, it is more authoritative, because there is a natural duty towards the love of our family.
In contrast, if we go to our city to exercise our authority it is not the same as the former, because it has been reduced already. Therefore, authority is demonstrated with greater results when it is towards your family or the members of your kin tribe. Further, this is called homogeneity and makes us convinced that “the greater the relationship toward someone the greater the result of authority”, because this authority, is natural and interconnected with pure love. For this reason, one cannot love the whole society. We can love only a few people. Love has to do with other notions in human life, therefore love needs to return in its full meaning — that is, consistency and empathy.
In the context of an institution — being that government’s or society’s one, the authority that derive from them, is not an authority that is natural, but law-regulated. Laws of institutions are mainly inherited form previous generations, than natural. This inheritance has in its core the exploitation and manipulation of human being, because these institutions try to keep themselves, in life, by using money. Money thus is in the core of every society. This is why, our institution’s authorities do not respond with devotion towards their duty.
However, our relationship with the authority and power can be shown as follows:
Homogeneity’s Authority/Power implies:
Natural law confronted with virtue
Love
Pure reason
Full consciousness
Morality
Autonomy
Heterogeneity’s Authority/Power implies:
Consensus
Morality reduced
Technical law, expressed with pure self-interested motivation
Manipulation, in its full meaning
Exploitation, in its full meaning
Institution’s and Heterogeneity’s Authority/Power implies:
Coercion, that results into negative consequences
Consensus, that refuses full consciousness
Dependence, that refuses autonomy
Morality, does not exist
Love, is a dream.
For our results show explicitly what a society will confront in its operation. These three-dimensional results can be seen even in today’s societies, especially the last one. Then, once again: What about hegemony, introduced in beginning of this essay? Does hegemony produce love, autonomy, consciousness, virtues or pure reason? Can we embrace it as something that goes? But if it goes, what is the interest of the people that influence it? Do they live in another world? Of course, Not!
Therefore, if we accept this story as it is laid down by mediocre economists or scholars of universalism or normative economy and not of context or particular i.e. reducing the today’s power possessed by few people — then ‘hedge borrower’, ‘speculative borrower’ and ‘Ponzi borrower’ will be our last home…
To understand therefore the ‘Ponzi borrower’ and its nature in the next subchapter will be introduced the origin of money and its implications: The reason is to apprehend, in deep time, its functionality, its damage, its hidden story and its crimes; and if we don’t change now the present system we will get in serious trouble in the future.
________________________________________
By Ylli Permeti
Absract
Hegemon, a Greek word that means to lead or to guide a group of people into war, regardless of how much people are informed of what for they are fighting. Hegemon, has to do with invasion into other countries not with defense. Thus, a Hegemon, makes his invasion into other countries just by using force or other means to levy the wealth of the already controlled people by his invasion. Such Hegemons, are Alexander the “Great”, Greek Empire, Roman Empire, etc., and later on, Italy, England, Portugal, Spain, Germany, Russia, etc., and today America. All these Hegemons could be called Universalists by claiming universal institutions. Thus, in the same track of universal institutions, this time in the subject of economics is another conspicuous economist — this time, with a new hegemonic theory: Charles Kindleberger, whose analysis of the 1929 depression are widely accepted, as the precursor of a universal monetary theory, who states that…‘[f]or an international system of trade and finance to function smoothly there must be a hegemon. This is so because there is a collective action problem in that regulation and institutionalization of trade and finance is a public good, that is, it benefits the community. To solve the collective action problem, a hegemon takes the lead and is motivated to do so because of the benefit it gains; for example, the United States benefited greatly as the reserve currency under the Bretton Woods system…’ . (Emphasis added)
Kindleberger’s or even Mynsky’s view of hegemon’s does not pose the question of power in relation with the state or with other states, in a contextual or international realm. Therefore he’s not concerned with power and rationality but the opposite: With absolute power. Further, he’s talking about theory not about pure knowledge, as defined in our first chapter. Theory is an abstraction, because it is not attached upon concrete example, rather, it is attached upon the whole society. Theory is by definition an abstraction because we do not know its particularity, we cannot envisage at once its features and we do not percept anything with our senses. Theory and dogmas or sciences that have in their core generalization are nothing else that a new version of theory. Such theories are: Communism; Fascism; Nazism; Socialism; Anarchism; or even Democracy that tries to extend its formula beyond its core of birth. In contrast, phronesis is not theory but practical wisdom. It is features, not abstraction, it is values not dogmas, it is ethics not hegemony. Then accordingly one might ask: If that is not a conquest or slavery, then, what is it? — I am just asking! We know very well from our small governments (compare with the big government that these gentlemen propose to us), that it is not possible to control their power; what to say then for a global power? It is useless then to continue and to analyze these gentlemen — for one reason: Big government equal zero rationality; this is the equation that comes naturally and spontaneously in my mind. But unfortunately, all media around the world believes that this is the final solution of our economy. Therefore, what media believes — believes the population. This new indoctrinistic propaganda will not survive today, because, there are two kinds of media: Internet against conventional media — the first therefore will win, despite the fact that there are efforts to censure the new dictatorship that is coming up. In addition, there is another fundamental reason: Freedom is the ultimate value of human being — and being so, slavery cannot survive upon freedom. If it survived until nowadays it is because human institutions have not been subject of social struggles or subject of power struggles.
What to say then when a society develops its own independent economy: Does the big government offer any solution to their problems? Take, say, the island Samsø in Denmark that has invented and evolved its own technology with zero emission carbon dioxide and is totally independent from centre governments. Further, consider my own village Përmeti, in Albania, or other countries around the world; we have invented our way to develop technologies, values, ethno-methodologies and tradition that has nothing to do with governments and global finance capitalism or hegemon that is assumed to be U.S or the G7, G20, G50.... Hegemony is already obsolete and cannot anymore claim normative rationality in a global scale.
Because, the rationality of capitalism is determined by its own nature — that is, independent; and achieved only in an autonomic society. For, rationality is preserved whenever in a context-given circumstance have not been interweaved huge powers and interests. Whenever these natural rules operate in the opposite side, then power and interests will create conflict and consequently war. For social sciences have to approach phenomena in a context-given circumstance. Because, global rules are out of our human nature and being so, they are and will be — a failed effort. Apparently, in the same track of global institutions is the Hague judiciary. As will be analysed in the third chapter, judicial and global rules are not and could not be part of our actions. [T]he juridical system is utterly incongruous with the new methods of power, says Foucault [in Flybjerg’s words], methods that are employed on all levels and in forms that go beyond the state and its apparatus…Our historical gradient carries us further and further away from a reign of laws . (Emphasis added)
Thus, irrational laws and international “exuberance” or strata that create always social tensions are not and could not be part of our nature. For two main reasons: If Aristotle following Plato with his conception of the particular and universal meant a city, today the whole world has misinterpreted his conception and has permeated it as a globalism — meaning that, as long as there is a possibility of running an economy for the entire city, why therefore, not for the entire globe? And second reason that makes the scholar of universal confused, is the Platonic conception — that is, ‘to avoid relativism one should act the same time rationally and universally’.
Let us therefore pour out some light into this conception. Thus, rationality has to do with power that comes from everywhere and is not a structure or an institution that can embrace its rationality in a huge area. In addition, rationality has to do with real action and actions with real power. Power has to do with the individual and the individual produces rationality dependent in contextual circumstances. Moreover, referring in Flybjerg’s research, power is dynamic and is everywhere, states Foucault, not because it is capable of uniting everything under its insurmountable unity, but because power is produced from one moment to the next in all points and all relations . (Emphasis added) Therefore, in the context of money or of the economy — each one produces power and consequently rationality. But this power is not under meticulous rationality because this power has to do with money. Money carries on power which in today’s circumstances is demonstrated with production. Production has to do with action. Action deals with rationality. Rationality deals with desire and desire with anger. Desire deals with unfulfillness and anger with war or collapse. Collapse deals with uncertainty and uncertainty with chaos. This corollary goes on and the results are always the same — that is, negative.
Regarding the notion of power, John Hoffman and Paul Graham start their research, in political theory, correctly in my view, by defining the concepts of the state, such as freedom, equality, justice, democracy and citizenship; and politics in general, which for them, must be underpinned and defined in relation with power . (Hoffman, Graham: 3) Thus, “What is Power”? — is their basic question. As in every science or action in human life, they start their research by posing simple questions of everyday’s life — always in relation with power: We are always talking about power, they say. Do ordinary people have any? Do prime ministers and presidents have too much? Do people decline to vote because they feel they have no power ? For them, the question of power inevitably merges into the question of authority. And they as in ancient Athens pose again the question: Is might right? Are those who have power entitled to exercise it? When we raise questions such as these we are in fact asking whether power is the same as, or different from, authority . In further passages they deliberate about the power exercised by western powers in the invasion of Iraq, who, correctly in my view, support the idea of lacking authority.
By adopting Max Weber’s definition regarding of what constitute the state, which according to Weber is “an institution claiming a monopoly of legitimate force”, they pose the question: How does the notion of ‘legitimate force’ connect to the notion of power? Is the use of force the same as power? Accordingly, power requires compliance whereas force does not...Does this make the force legitimate and thus, an act blessed by authority? And if the act of state is authoritative, in whose eyes does have it authority? Those who are subject to this force (let us say protesters in a demonstration that is deemed to get out of hand), or those who are not part of the demonstration and approve of the action of the police? These are according to Hoffman and Graham difficult questions but they introduce them in order to show why in a discussion of the state it is important to involve questions of power and its relation to authority. The same did Flyvbjerg following Foucault in his research.
In further passages they consider the question of freedom and liberty. In this question like Fotopoulos, Flyvbjerg following Foucault et.al they consider freedom as the exercise of free power by one person, thus changing the surrounding by exercising free power . (Hoffman, Graham: 4). Whereas according to Flyvbjerg following Aristotle, freedom is a practice, not a result or a state of affairs. And phronesis is the intellectual virtue most relevant to the project of freedom . (Emphasis in original) (Flyvbjerg: 128) Hoffman and Graham in their deliberation divided freedom into two categories — that is, negative and positive. Negative in the sense of someone being left alone and positive in the sense of ‘a person’s capacity to do something’...freedom of speech is concerned with the power of a person to speak his mind, not the restrictions that may be placed on someone’s right to do so. In relation with equality and justice Hoffman and Graham, power has been considered as a state which rest upon ideas of rightness...The state has too much power and the individual too little. (Emphasis in original) This, it is argued, undermines the authority of the state: people pay their taxes because they have to, not because they want to. (Emphasis added) Egalitarians, on the other hand, link equality with justice, and argue that everyone should be treated equally. We should aim to spread power so that one person or group cannot tell another individual or group what to do, and government should implement policies that move in this direction. Indeed, one definition of democracy is the ‘power of the people’. Historically, the objection to democracy was precisely that the wrong kind of person would exercise power, and nineteenth-century liberals such as Lord Macaulay feared that democracy would enable the poor to plunder the rich .
This statement brings us back to the Plato’s and Aristotelian’s concern, who, in my view, have been misinterpreted by western philosophy or politics, because they never stopped to be concerned about the particular feature of the society. Rather, they were more sceptics than Macaulay’s, Kindelbergr’s or Mynsky’s view, when they referred to universal theories. On the other hand, left-wing critics of liberal democracy complain that the right to vote does not in itself give a person power to influence the course of events and that material resources must be available to people if they are to exercise power . This recalls us, the above perception of rationality, that, in its course of voting someone else to do the job that you should do, you lost it, because this is done by another person, who at once “brackets” your natural right to use your rationality.
Thus, according to Hoffman and Graham, the authority of liberal democracy rests upon equal rights rather that equal power so that the notion of power is indissolubly tied to debates about democracy . Thus, closer to phronesis, up to now, looks to be the Egalitarians, with the lack of showing the way on how to accomplish it or on how to replace the present institutions? However, liberal democracy, according to our analysis, it’s a fake notion, because does not empower the power [organically] of each individual that has been endowed by nature to use it, in the course of his/her life. Thus, liberal democracy, as a notion, adopted by Blair, Clinton, WBush or Brown today or in other countries such as France or Germany, or even in Russia, have nothing to show regarding our requirement —that is, empowering the wisdom-rationality — in free will and organically — of each individual in a republic.
However, for Hoffman and Graham, power has to do with the notion of authority. Power, accordingly, involves dominating someone or some group, telling them what to do, whereas authority is concerned with the rightness of an action. A person has to be pressured into complying with power, whereas they will obey authority in a voluntary way . This kind of analysis has to do again with the Aristotelian’s phronesis, who was concerned of what is good and bad for a man, in a given context. After giving a picture of what Rousseau has had contributed to the problem, they conclude of dividing the link between power and authority.
Accordingly, our problem can be presented as shown in the diagram:
Power implies Authority implies
Constrained Consent
Force Morality
Subordination Will
Dependence Autonomy
This is the problem of the ‘two levels’. Power and authority appear to exclude one another, but they are never found apart, they conclude.
In addition, they relate power in its negative and positive sense: Power is negative when it relates to my ability to get you to do things that you would otherwise do. In contrast, power is deemed positive when it is expressed as empowerment. (Emphasis in original) Empowerment, accordingly, occurs when one person helps (‘empower’) themselves or another, or when a group or community enables people to develop. Positive power is seen as the ability to do things by the discovery of our own strength — a capacity — a power to — as opposed to negative power that is seen as a power over — a domination . (Emphasis in original) To distinguish therefore the negative with positive power one has to deliberate about myths and dogmas, in which one can find out easily the negative power. From Priests to Kings-Mystification or From Dogmas to Promotion-Ideologies the negative power has been nourished unstoppably. This conclusion is the same in Hoffman’s and Graham’s view, with the only difference that they do not divide the negative power — which has been nourished by myths and institutions — with the organic power, which I call — the power of our natural father’s. This power has to do with organic power because the relationship between a child and a father is closer to that of the institution or to that, of myths. In this power one can find out the direct link between care and love; whereas the former is just a myth that has been induced oppressively even to our fathers.
Rebutting Lukes’s and Dahl’s view of power Hoffman and Graham point out that both of them do not resolve the problem between power and authority. But even for them it is impossible in some circumstances to resolve the problem of constrain and autonomy. They refer to the case of football supporters who must obey the rule of the police; in contrast with the authority of the doctor towards his/her patient who is authoritative and has shown positive power.
On the other hand, there is much more to discuss on this matter. As Foucault did in some respect and Flybjerg in full respect, we will extend the view of power a little bit further. Power therefore is everywhere, embedded to human, animals, plant, oxygen and in every single element of our nature. But power has to come up in its full rationality. Rationality is possessed by human mind. Human mind processes into different levels and circumstances. Such levels are primarily organic and secondly inorganic. Organic I shall call here the closest relationship between beings, which is the relationship between parents and child/children. This relation is organic and this relation carries on in its core natural love. This is why, this relation is organic.
If we extend this love into our society, it gets weak. It gets weak because the interests of human have been multiplied — which would conflict further to show their rationality, in a given context. These interests have their point of departure our families. Our journey starts from family to city/society and vice versa. We go into our city to get something that we need to survive at home, being that food, clothes and footwear or other activities that are for our own interest. All these needs are shared at home with the members of our family. This is a power that rest upon our own interest and is organic, because we share it with our family. The other power, which is shared with our society, is not organic, because each one goes there for his/her own interest. Attention! This power is shared in this way because our city is not common but it is a property that belongs to other people — that is, other-citizens.
On the other hand, when we refer to our fathers, who gave birth to our life and we have been grew up by their efforts — we can say that our habits are their results. These habits except that are natural and written on Heart they are authoritative, because they derive form a person that gave birth to our life, life that is a natural phenomenon and result of our genes, that push up our self to give birth to other generations. This power therefore has nothing to do with the ascribed power of the doctor who keeps his patient in full health.
Doctor goes there for his own interest, because he will get paid. His attention is result of a law that has been emphasised in his teaching: If he/she makes a mistake he/she will be punished. This authorization of power has been in the first instance, regulated by law and not by organic interest. This phenomenon persuades us that if our power is exercised through our members of the family, it is more authoritative, because there is a natural duty towards the love of our family.
In contrast, if we go to our city to exercise our authority it is not the same as the former, because it has been reduced already. Therefore, authority is demonstrated with greater results when it is towards your family or the members of your kin tribe. Further, this is called homogeneity and makes us convinced that “the greater the relationship toward someone the greater the result of authority”, because this authority, is natural and interconnected with pure love. For this reason, one cannot love the whole society. We can love only a few people. Love has to do with other notions in human life, therefore love needs to return in its full meaning — that is, consistency and empathy.
In the context of an institution — being that government’s or society’s one, the authority that derive from them, is not an authority that is natural, but law-regulated. Laws of institutions are mainly inherited form previous generations, than natural. This inheritance has in its core the exploitation and manipulation of human being, because these institutions try to keep themselves, in life, by using money. Money thus is in the core of every society. This is why, our institution’s authorities do not respond with devotion towards their duty.
However, our relationship with the authority and power can be shown as follows:
Homogeneity’s Authority/Power implies:
Natural law confronted with virtue
Love
Pure reason
Full consciousness
Morality
Autonomy
Heterogeneity’s Authority/Power implies:
Consensus
Morality reduced
Technical law, expressed with pure self-interested motivation
Manipulation, in its full meaning
Exploitation, in its full meaning
Institution’s and Heterogeneity’s Authority/Power implies:
Coercion, that results into negative consequences
Consensus, that refuses full consciousness
Dependence, that refuses autonomy
Morality, does not exist
Love, is a dream.
For our results show explicitly what a society will confront in its operation. These three-dimensional results can be seen even in today’s societies, especially the last one. Then, once again: What about hegemony, introduced in beginning of this essay? Does hegemony produce love, autonomy, consciousness, virtues or pure reason? Can we embrace it as something that goes? But if it goes, what is the interest of the people that influence it? Do they live in another world? Of course, Not!
Therefore, if we accept this story as it is laid down by mediocre economists or scholars of universalism or normative economy and not of context or particular i.e. reducing the today’s power possessed by few people — then ‘hedge borrower’, ‘speculative borrower’ and ‘Ponzi borrower’ will be our last home…
To understand therefore the ‘Ponzi borrower’ and its nature in the next subchapter will be introduced the origin of money and its implications: The reason is to apprehend, in deep time, its functionality, its damage, its hidden story and its crimes; and if we don’t change now the present system we will get in serious trouble in the future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)