National Security Alert #2___The Epistemology of Ecolo-Techno-Political-Economic Morality…

“We have not adopted another possible feature of banking by which you have capital, subscribed capital, which you can lend out… It is perplexing to some people at first that that should not be necessary. In the first days of banking great stress was laid on the possession of capital but we have learned as time goes on that that is of insignificant importance. You need the capital if you are not in a closed system and have to meet liabilities for credit outside your system, but in a closed system you can reach your conclusion simply by offsetting the deposits of some members against the overdrafts of others… As there is no liability to pay outside the system it requires no risk therefore requires no capital.” John Maynard Keynes

“The scientifically grounded universal soul sees a moral path to our future ideal states…” me

New Hope for Financial Economics: Interview with Bill Janeway, by Chris Whalen

“Noesis”___The science of the exact sciences of the mind, world and universe, first clearly advanced by Plato, some 2400 years ago, is the most important explication of thought, ever, yet the most mis-interpreted of ideas, about it, ever put forward by the global community. Understanding, thoroughly, any epistemology of morality must first start here, and give a new and clear meaning to this most fundamental area of scientific thought, as it is the basis of all modern thinking, and no one has properly understood Plato’s simplicity of clear thought. Not Aristotle, not Descartes nor Leibniz, not Kant nor Hegel, and not even my favorite Charles Sanders Peirce, though he came close, with his architectonic system, expanded from Kant’s architectonic reasoning, which were both instinctively founded in Plato’s `Archetypes of Forms’…

Why is it, a simple line diagram, A, D, C, E, B, representing the `forms’ of thought, has confused the world so? AD equates to `Eikasia’(The lowest stage of knowing___images), DC equates to `Pistis’(objects of sense and opinion, plus the senses and sentiments, and less a priority of thought than `Dianoia and `Noesis’), CE equates to `Dianoia’(mind, thoughts, reason, imagination and understanding, yet knowledge of a kind, falling short of the highest knowledge, `Noesis’), and EB equates to `Noesis’(pure thought___the highest type of knowledge and wisdom beyond mathematical knowledge, and attainable only by those who understand the nature of the `Forms’ of knowledge). Now, it seems everyone’s confusion comes from what `Form’ or `forms’ actually meant to Plato, as the hundreds of philosophers, physicists and other scientists writing, or having written about the `Form/forms’, have entirely missed its complex simplicity. Some have come close, such as Kant and Peirce, and even more recent writers like W.W. Tait, yet all missed what Plato truly meant by the `Forms’, and how some, such as Husserl and Jung got it so wrong is beyond me, but I intend to set the record straight, and your own reasoning will see I’m steering you correctly.

Now, think about the above for a while, and see what is really being thought about___and you will notice it consists of four major ways(Forms) of thinking, plus a deeper combination of these four ways, which multiplies to quite a high number of thought (Forms), yet realizable to us all. To make it simpler, let’s assign Plato’s other meanings to the four `Forms’, 1.Images, 2.Emotions, 3.Reason, and 4.Logic/Logos. Watch what happens when we think primarily from any one of these four positions___Often, even in our own minds, any one way of thought can be incompatible with any one of the other ways of thinking. Everyone, if they be honest, has experienced this and tried resolving it by themselves, and more often than not, just left the idea un-resolved___I have and you have. It’s just the way the mind works, but Plato was trying to show these problems are resolvable by temporarily transcending the lower orders of our own mind’s states, to the state of pure thought, or the universal manifold of clear thought, of all thought concepts, systems and `Forms’ of, and not just to a higher conceptualization, but what is the true universal continuum of pure knowing abilities, the space we manipulate thoughts from, from which many come, as intuitions, metaphors and abductions, or retroductions, as per Godel and Peirce. This could also be considered the “architectonic without an architecture”, or pure forms of unbounded thought, as was described by Kant(thing in itself), Hegel(his idea of `the notion’, and its relationship to his rational historical evolution, and their deeper related inner space ideas), Peirce(abduction, and his inter-relational algebras’ deeper reasoning ideas about the continuum of knowing, major mathematicians are so familiar with.), Whitehead(his 9 categorial necessities of quantum motion), Wittgenstein(That of which we can not state, we must not speak…), Godel(Math can not prove the truth of itself, within its own math), Tarski(Statements in English, can not be proved within English), Gerry Garcia(Those who talk, don’t know. Those who know, don’t talk, most likely from the East), and Dylan(…ya want the truth, I’ll tell ya the truth, there ain’t no truth), who extensively studied Kant(little wonder…).

What are we to morally think of the above? If my intellect is in collisional dis-agreement with my moral soul, am I to choose or resolve? If my reason is in collision with my logic, am I to choose or resolve? If any of my emotions are in conflict with my reasoning, logic or images, am I to choose or resolve? And, how does one resolve over having to choose the lesser of two evils, or the better of two goods? Plato gave the simplest, yet truest answer ever offered___”The best order of things”___True scientific ground___The good. There is no more profound and fundamental a solution to all the minds possible ways of thinking. It pre-exists our minds, in the perfect order of the cosmological universe, and nature’s perfect natural order of species, long before the evil fallacies of man, dug his way into Earth’s crust. “The universal best order of things” not only solves all the higher order thinking problems, it also solves all lower order thinking problems, and unites them, just by realizing such problems as compassion and empathy, may cause headaches to mathmatize now, but can easily be seen as `responsibility to act’, which conveniently converts to ‘the numerical best order of things’, through its natural ethical correspondence of the true, good and beautiful, when using simple magnitudes math, and model comparisons___the grounding copula, and high-cupola of universal understanding. When you take a thorough look at all emotional and lower order moral problems, they can all be correspondingly boosted, i.e., higher compared to our higher mind’s understandings, as a simple numerical best orders of things. Just look at any problem you may see, and ask, “Can the best order of things be applied?”, and you’ll quickly see it can, once you finally understand Plato’s `Forms’ are no more than temporarily transcending the many `forms’ of lower order thinking. Higher order `Forms’, continuums, manifolds, frames, super-concepts of concepts, inner and outer spaces, and their connectors/copulas can resolve all the doubts and conflicts of lower and higher order thought.

Still, what are the `Forms’ Plato, so long ago, unintentionally confused the world with? Kant accidentally gave this answer, when he was talking about lines in one’s imagination, without even realizing it. Just think about his thought experiment, two lines in inner space, the mind, and now start manipulating them in open inner space, and ask, what’s that space between the lines, I am actually manipulating? That’s your `Form/forms’ of pure thought, your own mind is moving, i.e., you are actually moving the photons of inner space to move those lines, or set up any mental experiment, say a steel basketball, in an empty auditorium of say 1000 seats. Now, mentally pick up the steel ball and pass it from corner to corner, and to all corner seats, then pass it to all the other seats, bounce or levitate it in the air, and simply ask, “How am I doing this?” You see, the only way imagination works is to manipulate the copula of the continuum, and the only scientific copula existing in imagination, that allows the merging of wave/particles, or the morphing of concepts, metaphors and wave/particles, is photons, the only wave/particle allowed by the laws of physics to totally and permanently super-position, or clone, as Einstein first stated. Electrons can not fill this bill, as this is against the laws of physics, so it’s photons we are manipulating, photons of the inner-space-continuum/manifold, or the pure `Form/forms’ of thought___Plato’s mystery exposed…

The New Epistemological Morality of Economic Decisions…

Moving on to a larger view of morality that is, at this very moment, affecting all our lives, and will for some time to come, “Where does morality fit into the major economic puzzle?” If you’ve noticed, economics is called `Political Economy’, and the reason is sensible economists have always known economics is at base political, i.e., emotional desires, thus the moral aspect. No matter what economists may fundamentally know, and try to institute, it is the political realities of human desires which will rule the day, and all of history. Years past, these issues were settled by wars and plunder, but as we became more civilized, moral/immoral/a-moral politics became more involved in the year to year decisions of peoples and governments, as Machiavelli clearly showed, yet still quite inter-dispersed with the occasional wars, until the major wars of the last century, and now, there’s only the policing wars, and a few rogue wars, such as Iraq. My point is that, for the first time in history major human, moral and political decisions played the major role in WW I and WW II finances and policies, teaching some of the world’s economists more about economics, than ever before in history, as is well recorded in many books, and government records, and none better than Robert Skidelski’s 3rd volume about John Maynard Keynes. This one volume is where you could see Plato’s `Forms’ of thought being applied, at near the highest level possible, by the minds of the world’s wisest. You can be introduced to three of the highest `Forms of Thought’ man ever dreamed, in Hjalmar Schacht, John Maynard Keynes, and Harry Dexter White, and much of it with the founding help of Thorstein Veblen and Irving Fisher, the first a student of Charles Sanders Peirce, and the second a student of Josiah Willard Gibbs, the inventors of 2nd order logic, inter-relational algebras and pragmatism; and vector math and mechanics, along with modern statistical mechanics. To say the least, it was a period of genius, by more than a few…

This is the era where economists learned the moral desires of the populace would be the most controlling aspect of actual economics, the economists could not overcome. No matter the great systems put forward, the exchange trade barter clearing system of Schacht, which most countries had to use during the war, or the other two competing systems of White and Keynes, the people’s wishes of organized labor played the deciding hand, even in Hitler’s Germany. So, not as many think, `economists run the world’, no they don’t. They’d like to, but the people’s desires trump all the knowledge of the economists, academics and intellectual elites, by the shear demands of organized and un-organized labor’s real hand of power, and corporations brute financial desires. You can’t starve the populace or the corporations, by either bad or good policy, and you often can’t put good policy in place, if labor, corporate and political elites can’t understand such ideas as “Labor Wage Banks” to store their stocks of wages, through taxes, when societies inflation rates soar, even though they will be returned in times of recession and deflation to re-inflate the economy back to more normal states. Keynes found this out during the war, when he wanted to do just this, and labor shot down the idea cold, thus forcing England to Semi-Schachtian barter, wage and price controls, with its attending major international capital controls. The U.S. was also forced to similar methods of war finance, due to one nation, Germany, having the upper hand, and if we and others hadn’t copied, as it was the highest efficiency war finance system, we’d have been on the losing financial end, and possibly losing the war effort, outright. On the other hand, Keynes moral bancor’ international exchange clearing banking system would have worked with the same valor, for all the people of England, and most of the greater world, although it was never tried due to labor’s and many commercial interests’ ignorance of the “Labor Wage Taxing and Banking” system proposal, and it’s entire banking and international exchange clearing mechanisms. So, higher morality, at the largest stages of thought, was trumped by labor’s and commercialism’s lesser moral positions, of “money in hand” and “no trust” of a government sponsored “Labor Wage Bank” to later repay, nor the major system’s mechanics reform feared by the commercial interests to relieve national debts, when in fact, it would have greatly benefited, not only England, but the greater world at large___What a loss___What a shame…

Can the world now awake, and institute a newly updated scientific version of Plato/Keynes/Davidson IMCU(international money clearing unit) system…?

And now we arrive at the present moral epistemological stage, of a world held in checkmate by the personal desires of a many competing interest groups, for the future safety and sovereignty of all the nations, perched on the cliff of global depression, unless we make the correct moral decisions, of the highest and `best order of things’, and take the actionable intelligence the dire situation requires. We must draw from the mental states of temporary transcendence, over our petty ideologies, beliefs and fears, to reach that higher truth state, offered by understanding the “Forms of Thought” of which Plato, long ago laid the groundwork. What shall we choose? The most for the few? The most for the middle? Or, the most for all, the middle way, of “the best order of all things?” I’ll easily choose Plato’s, Veblen’s, Keynes’s and Davidson’s higher `Forms’ of clear thought, but that doesn’t mean we can educate the lower order thinkers, to the higher order thinker’s “Forms of Thought” necessary, to achieve the success required. This is nothing but a moral question of the highest order, of our very survival as a nation, and the greater world at large, yet can we mathmatize the world of economics into simple enough idea presentations, to the lower order thinker’s acceptance, or will we fail to do the simple, and wade into the needless complexities, of special interest arguments, and no intelligent action? This is the real question…

The Scientific `Forms’ of Present, Probable and Possible Evolution, to The Sovereignty and Autonomy of Scientific Exchange Clearing, Banking and Trade Systems, to Provide for A Safe Future For All Earth’s Citizens…

`Noesis’ has had a long journey, sometimes on top of world thinking, but all too often lost in the deep woods of incorrect thinking. If we are going to truly think about solving the world’s massive moral financial problems, we are going to have to scientifically, epistemologically investigate, and plum the depth’s of Plato’s `Forms’, and realize he was talking about nothing but the actual, probable and possible absolute truths, just as Aristotle stated, “Forms are the absolute truth.” It is only in these `Forms of Absolutely True Thought of Systems Evolution’ we have any chance of a path, and survival, out of the mess we’ve created. We have simply ignored the scientific, for the un-scientific organization of moral and crude money and trade systems, far too long. It’s time for change from this un-scientific method, to the purely and absolute truth of the absolutely moral scientific method.

Above, and in the past posts on this blog, plus the posts on MacroMouse, I’ve listed several alternative and scientific `Forms’ of evolutionary money systems, from Plato’s own(bottom of post), to Benjamin Franklin’s, Hjalmar Schacht’s, John Maynard Keynes’s, Harry Dexter White’s, Jane D’Arista’s, Paul Davidson’s and even my own. I’ve also mentioned Egypt’s tally-board system, and several computerizable facsimile systems, and the matching law systems, needed for implementation. The choice is ours, to stay stuck in the mud, and end in the `Mad Max’ world of collapse, chaos and global WW III, or take the path of enlightenment offered, by myself and others___What choice…?

If need be, and to make this information the simplest possible, we can go to any one of the systems mentioned, or a combination of, as they are all scientific `Forms’ of sovereign autonomous systems, but I’ll first talk about the three already known paths___Schachtianism, Keynesianism and Whiteianism, which are clearly laid out in Robert Skidelski’s 3rd volume of J.M.Keynes, along with Paul Davidson’s newest book on J.M. Keynes. The present world of derivatives’ excess system debt costs may force us to a temporary Schachtianism, so first if this be the course of present evolution, we can go to his war-time finance and barter-trade system of closed foreign exchanges, multi-lateral trade agreements, and strict capital, wage, price and market controls. This is the least favorable system, but we scientifically already know it works, as it’s the system most of the world resorted to, to finance and barter WW II to its conclusion___Care must be taken to use `Slow Sliding Time Scale Change Laws’, for this system as well as any other, as more damage can be done with too fast a change, than slow.

The second least favorable system is Whiteianism, which all the economic and government historians have written most about, as it’s the system we actually had in place, from 1946 to 1973, and we also know this system worked, and worked much better than Schachtianism, or the present fiasco, yet leaders mistakenly threw it away, in favor of de-regulated untrammeled free-trade, and we’ve all seen where that has put us. So, Whiteianism is far better than the present state of free-trade over-debted-extension and total collapse, yet not the most scientific system, or even close to the many other scientific money systems, available to us.

The most favored presently well-know system is the scientific autonomously sovereign ideas’ combinations of Plato’s, Keynes’s and Davidson’s updated international exchange clearing and banking system, that will actually pay down the national debts of all nations, while reviving them through massive jobs expansions, to rebuild markets from the bottom up, as the top-down is dead. In this system, the governments of the world must all now act as `Market Makers’ and install these newest `Forms’ of law, but very carefully, through a system of `Slow Sliding Time Scale Change Laws’, as mentioned above. This will best protect what’s left of the existing markets during the necessary transition stage. And, realize this is not a system to benefit any one country over another, as it only properly functions with the participation policy of “all for one, and one for all”, big and small alike.

Now, do we choose one of these three `Forms of Systems’, or do we choose one of a dozen other possibilities? Egypt lasted almost 5,000 years, by some guesstimates, with a system of `Tally-board economics’ similar to that used in the farming communities or certain piece-meal factories, until she finally went to fiat money systems and the over-extension and collapse of too free-a-free trade, so here’s another system we actually and scientifically absolutely know works. It is crude, but can be computerized to perform all the functions of the present Heinz #57 capitalisms and socialisms/communisms of the entire world, and can be made into many different forms of `Super-Capitalism’, as can any one or combination of the systems mentioned___It’s just some are better ordered than others, and it’s `the best numerical order of things‘, we’re looking for, as that’s the absolutely scientific. Any of you can figure these scientific systems out, to the points of clarity of understanding necessary, just by realizing it’s all and only a numerical progression of evolutions___That’s 1, 2, 3, etc., etc… Just use your mind to it’s given potential, and you’ll know all this scientific stuff. It doesn’t take a genius…

Finally, the moral question___Which is better…? The Plato/Keynes/Davidson scientific international exchange clearing and banking system is the best presently well-know system, but my system of `Internal Exchange Clearing’, can scientifically bail this system out, if the moral hazard issue rears its ugly head, while this system is in use, and moral hazard is nothing more than the special interests’ opposition to `the best numerical order of things’, though they know not their opposition to `the best’___the good. But why would they?___you may ask… Well, that’s the natural human moral nature, no other human being or economist can control. The special interest desires are powerful enough to over-rule most any science we may devise, and that’s why I have developed `Internal Exchange Clearing’ which can thwart the human desires equation of special interests, with a scientifically engineered jobs and wages system of absolute infallibility. Now, of course many of you would dispute this fact, but you must not yet fully understand the logic of Plato’s line of `Form’. No-where on that line will you find the `Form’ Plato was referring to___It’s the absolutely scientifically true present, probable and possible evolutions of the universal all___That is the only place absolute truth exists___The temporarily transcended `Forms of Pure Universal Systems Thoughts’…

“The world’s future rests in the hands of sufficient and efficient necessity of scientifically grounded moral actionable intelligence.” me

P.S.
Please read all this blog’s past posts, and links, to fully understand the above…

Just to give you an example of Plato’s `Archetype Form of Thought___The Scientifically True Middle Way’, some 2400 years old:

"The citizen of the ideal state will require a currency for the purpose of every day expenses; This is practically indispensable for workers of all kinds and for such purposes as the payment of wages to wage earners. To meet these requirements, the citizen will possess a currency which will pass for value among themselves, but will not be accepted outside their own boundaries. But a stock of some currency common to the Hellenic world generally i.e., of international currency, will at all times be kept by the state for military expenditures or official missions abroad such as embassies and for any other necessary purposes of state. If a private citizen has occasion to go abroad, he will make his application to the government and go; and upon his return if he has any foreign currency left over in his possession, he will hand it over to the state receiving in exchange the equivalent in local currency." Plato

National Security Alert #1___The Epistemology of Economics…

The US Economy Must Go To Defcon 1, by Fabius Maximus and Link
"Reforming The World's International Money", by Paul Davidson
The Entire Global Market Law System Is Broken___Throwing Good Money After Bad Law Makes No Sense…!
Essay On Paper Currency___Proposing A New Method For Fixing Its Value, by Benjamin Franklin
Franklin D. Roosevelt___First Inaugural Address

“By an architectonic I understand the art of constructing systems. As systemic unity is what first raises ordinary knowledge to the rank of science, that is, makes a system out of a mere aggregate of knowledge, architectonic is the doctrine of the scientific in our knowledge, and necessarily forms part of the doctrine of method.
... By a system I understand the unity of the manifold modes of knowledge under one idea. This idea is a concept provided by reason – of the form of the whole – in so far as the concept determines a priori not only the scope of its manifold content, but also the positions which the parts occupy relatively to one another. The scientific concept of reason contains, therefore, the end and the form of that whole which is congruent with this requirement. The unity of the end to which all the parts relate and the idea of which they all stand in relation to one another, makes it possible for us to determine from our knowledge of the other parts whether any part be missing, and to prevent any arbitrary addition, or in respect to its completeness any indeterminateness that does not conform to the limits which are thus determined a priori. The whole is thus an organised unity (articulatio), and not an aggregate (coacervatio). It may grow from within (per appositionem). It is thus like an animal body, the growth of which is not by addition of a new member, but by the rendering of each member, without change of proportion, stronger and more effective for its purposes.” Charles Sanders Peirce

“Veblen does not mince words: the peaceable type of person with a sense of goodwill toward fellow humans is regarded in highly competitive, Western societies as “good-for-nothing.”On the other hand, “the competitive individual can best achieve his ends if he combines the barbarian’s energy, initiative, self-seeking and disingenuousness with the savage’s lack of loyalty of clannishness.” The peaceable traits that are absolutely essential to the preservation of the family
and society “are disserviceable to the individual” whereas the predatory habits that help the modern barbarian compete simultaneously destroy the very fabric of society.” Thorstein Veblen

“Veblen believes that Western Civilization is fundamentally peaceable as well as barbaric, and that this dualism will never be resolved completely. postmodernists, modernists and positivists cannot digest Veblen’s . . . efforts from the previous fin de siécle to posit a dualism of human nature or homo duplex. Hence, there arise among modernists efforts to obfuscate barbarism in modern cultures, and among postmodernists efforts to deny the very existence of culture, much less “good” versus “bad” culture. Much is at stake here.” Thorstein Veblen

Were it not for Charles Sanders Peirce, and his student Thorstein Veblen, our sciences and knowledge systems would lack clarity. No other person, and student, built system’s knowledge and understanding to such thorough and accurate meanings, yet the modern world seems confused, confounded and less than systematic___Why…? No matter what subject area we choose, there are always oppositions and variations to our ways of stating and knowing our subject matter. Years past, I’d realized there were drastic problems with relaying and understanding information and knowledge, between differently interested parties. It especially shows in such subject areas as, “The one and the many”, “The whole and the parts”, “Breadth and depth”, and subjective and objective. Back in the `70’s, I first heard it well expressed by the `Rock and Roll’ group, `Savoy Brown’, by the lyric, “Outside looking in. Inside looking out”. I then asked the question, “What one word or concept of, or least combination of words/concept of, could represent clearly, every thought possible, on earth?” I only discovered a possible answer just last week.

First, why has it always been so important to me, to maintain this quest all these years…? In a word___Clarity___of meaning. Though Peirce and Veblen accomplished much, they didn’t foresee the explosions of complexities of meanings, the modern world would conjure up. My purpose is to show how `a conceptual contract mechanics’ can simplify and unify what Peirce/Veblen once unified___anew. Let’s start off with `truth and anti-truth’, where an epistemology of the truth contract, can be compared to the epistemological philosophical fallacy of the anti-truth contract. I am here using `contract’ to distinguish something real, of the absolute world.(I’ll get to the epistemology of the absolute later). Since I’ve used contract in both instances, of truth and anti-truth, then I do accept a reality within both, but the first is the reality of usefulness to all, and the second is the reality of existence, lacking extreme utility and usefulness to all. Now, why do we have such a world, of usefulness and near uselessness, when compared to the all? Entertainment? Possibly. But the deeper reasoning is just simply a complex evolution, of a world of learning minds, and the timings of…

Eclectic Universal, Conceptual, Statistical, Contract Mechanics___A Method of How to Unify and Compress Information and Knowledge, Into Wisdom…

This is #1 in a series of posts, to attempt an entirely new method of explicating the complexities of world economic and monetary thought, in a most clear voice, grounded in “Mother Wit” and “Common Sense”, as honors the memories of Charles Sanders Peirce and Thorstein Veblen. Oh, it’s very true, there are many other voices of truth and wisdom whom I am relying upon, such as Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, Josiah Gibbs, Harry Dexter White, John Maynard Keynes, and Paul Davidson, etc., etc., but Peirce and Veblen represent the clearest voices of eclectic universalism, grounded solidly in “Mother Wit” and sound “Common Sense”, as my base... You may wonder what Josiah Gibbs is doing in an economic post, but American economist Irving Fisher was one of his Doctoral students, thus the link of wise men inter-connecting American thought...

To start; All frames of reference of absolute truth, in the real world, are contractual facts, or contractual obligations and outcomes of people’s fundamental ideas of___There exists no other single word frame/concept possible, that covers such a large territory of statistics, ideas and mechanics of___as contracts. We, as a people, absolutely require such an architectonic framework, to even begin to understand the dynamic complexities of this modern world. This is exactly what Peirce was saying in the first quote of this post. Without such a basic fundamental reference, of eclectic universal conceptualism, the mind wanders to far a field of any semblance of knowledge and understanding, as the basic wit and common sense demands the universal concept, first, for any further understanding to function clearly and properly. Truth has been, more often, lost to this very fact, of the improper framing of ideas to fundamental sense, mentioned, known and communicated, than any other reason, a people and nation have ever lost its senses to. I can not stress the importance of proper architectonic understanding and mechanics enough, to explain the reasons for our known truths, evolving to the anti-truths of our own destruction, and the proper way to return America to her good senses, because believe me, she’s lost her reasonable senses, to the anti-truths, of modern nonsense, and I think you all know it...

Contract mechanics is a simple way of replacing the economic complex, with a well known and easily understood word___Contract___and its workings idea__Mechanics. It appeals to the basic wit and common senses of all strata of our society, and elicits easy interpretations and meanings, especially when we start explaining its mechanics from the ground up, by starting with the fact___the dollar bill, or any coin, is a fundamental contract, for anyone’s purchases, guaranteed anywhere in America and the world. There is no place or idea on Earth, contract and contract mechanics can not be applied, by simply relating the concept discussed, i.e., even to all other social, and even spiritual contracts, and the related mechanics of them all. You want or need simplicity of complexity, then think contract mechanics of any and all ideas, on Earth, and you’ll quickly realize, I’ve told you a new, yet so obvious a truth, it seems impossible it’s not been mentioned before___It’s really quite magic at unifying and compressing information and knowledge into more basic understandings of truth and wisdom. Conceptual contract mechanics___Even I could have never dreamed it so possible of simplifying complexity, especially economic complexity.

Of course, I’ve only mentioned it’s first stage of possibilities of explaining a needlessly over-complex world, and now, from the simplest of concepts to the most complex of economic profundities, I’ll demonstrate the simplicity of which the “Shadow Banking System’s” derivatives markets can be understood by all, through this new idea of its “Contract Mechanics”. Derivatives lends itself to contract mechanics the easiest, since all derivatives are actual contracts, traded between contracting parties, but the underlying contract mechanics of these contracts also involves the constitutional contracts of all nations involved. First, we should recognize the fact, that our constitution is the national contract of all America’s contracts, yet derivatives contracts not only operate within the constitutional contract, but also outside it, in the international corporate contract area of law, and non-law areas, except the trust between corporations, and the contracts traded between them, from most all nations on Earth. But realize, it’s still nothing but simple contract mechanics, at its base, and in actual practice, no different than you having credit card leverage(contract leverage) against your home mortgage(another contract) and yourself may be up against your finance(contract) limit, as are many corporations now, with their excess toxic debt derivatives contracts, as many went to bad debt with the global market downturn. So, the entire derivatives contract system is very similar to you, or your neighbor, not being able to meet your excess contract obligations, to your or his creditors/bankers/corporations, or other such market holders of contract obligations. It’s all contract privileges and obligations, and the trading mechanics of. The real problem is, the real underlying trading value of all these toxic derivatives contracts is approximately $50 trillion, and the total contract value of all the world’s economies is about $50+ trillion, while the total market transactions of derivatives turnover was last recorded at some $596 trillion. So, that’s actually about an equal obligation of a partial % of toxic and good contracts, against the privileged contracts of all the world’s citizens___A big problem, and I’ll deal with the actual, in depth, mechanics later…

At this point, I’d ask; “How much can the world’s aggregate balance of payments contracts actually finance, while trying to support this massive amount of derivatives, and other personal and corporate contract debt defaults? What is the limit of our presently evolving contract debt collisions, no matter what financing route we may take? Can we financially survive this tsunami of global depressions, or will we be forced to monetize the national debt contracts, or at the least, some of them, if not all? And, if we must monetize the national debt contracts, of say many nations, whose monetization system shall we use___Schacht’s, Keynes’ or Davidson’s?” These are the $64 thousand dollar questions…?

to be continued...

Eclectic Universal Conceptualism...

A Note...
Yeah, I wrote a reply earlier, but my machine crashed, so here's something of what I had to say. Sarkar's ideas are generally in line with many new western thinkers, such as Herman Daly and Hazel Henderson, two I've already mentioned to you. This link: http://www.proutist-universal.org/ would actually be better to see how he thinks, as it covers more of the social-economic-political points of views. What struck me was the bottom-up approach, as it relates to Obama's ideas. Also his ideas about other top-down and bottom-up failures, i.e., socialism, communalism, communism, bad forms of capitalism. He's also much in line with Gandhi's thinking. My interpretation is probably different than your's or most, since I've studied so much of this already, but I'd like to point out my central observation, which is; "A New Form of Responsibile Co-operative Capitalism". We've already tried all forms to the right and left. It's about time we tried the middle path___Co-operation to find the essential truths of government and markets, instead of settling for "A concensus of the half-blind". I was just impressed that India had such a philosopher of note, with the pragmatic middle ideas, which blend with the directions I think/know the world must go. It's also in line with a new series of documentary on Link TV, The Planet. They laid out four possible directions of Earth, for the future; 1.Star Trek, where we build "Pig-Sty-Scrapers" to house 90 billion inhabitants, through the expansion of present synthetic technology. 2.Mad Max, where the world ends in terror, wars and total collapse. 3.Eco-Topia, where we start to co-operate through becoming more responsible, to build a sensible and proper world. 4.Big-Government/Big-Brother, what I would call totalitarian egalitarianism. Most don't realize 3. and 4. are the same, as any true utopias must have organized control, yet there's a big difference whether such control is voluntary co-operation or not. As I see it, Sarkar's ideas of individual sovereignty and autonomy, achieved through responsible co-operation, offer our best chance, as this is exactly what I've written about lately. Many have preached inter-dependency, but I see the sovereign autonomous route as much more desirable. It's just a matter of transcending the contradictions of the squash/mush-room, sitting atop all our shoulders. This is where eclectic universal conceptualism comes in, i.e., study to achieve the transcended truth, of all ideas...

You know, the only reason I looked up "Eclectic Universalism" was, it was running through my mind, when I awoke Saturday morning. I said, "Well there's a new combination of words, let me see where this leads". Since finding Sarkar and others about eclectic universalism, I had a new vision. The best way is to just state it, and this isn't being sexist. It's just men have been the dominators of societies, and still are in many nations, whereas women have only in recent history attained power and vote. Here it is; "The great man sees the same great man, in all men". Now, at first glance, this may seem contradictory, but it's actually not, even if one wants to take the extreme example of Hitler, as another great man stated; "The worst of society works the public good." Mandeville, I think. Anyway, just think how much the modern world learns from such monsters as Hitler, or even Bush/Cheney. At the highest transcendence levels of vision, all minds meet in absolute non-contradiction___It's our belief systems, attached to our ideas, that prejudice our views. Now, this isn't to say that Hitler wasn't a true monster, which he was, but when transcended to the total eclectic universal view, the world owns all its own monsters, which are often created by un-intended consequences of society's earlier actions. In the case of Hitler, it would be the "Versailles Treaty", where England and the Rest of Europe starved Germany to the brink of death, after WWI___What'd they expect to get___Mickey Mouse?

I've drifted off my point here, but if we could all see "other" as "great-self-self" we'd have far less trouble understanding how to transcend ourselves, to arrive at the ultimate truth necessity. Just take the Republicans and Democrats___One argues for absolute top-down government-economics-social conditions, and the other argues for bottom-up government-economics-social conditions___When both are always simultaneously required___The middle responsible co-operative position. It matters not if the argument is taken back to Paganism/Science; Paganism/Christianity; Christianity/Science, or any opposing contradictions one chooses___The differences are simply generated by the prejudiced belief systems/ideologies, overly attached to the same humans' higher natures of sameness, and sound analytical truths. You know, something the world seems to not know, is the fact that the exact analytical sciences have only "ONE" truth fact answer, for each case investigated___Beliefs must be dropped off, to achieve any exactness, in the true sciences. This doesn't mean one must give up any personal beliefs. It just means that in order to achieve exact scientific truth, a co-operation and responsibility to hard fact is required. This just simply requires temporarily transcending one's personal feelings, beliefs, meta-mind to achieve one side of the higher nature's mind. The higher nature of the natural feeling, responsible, co-operating mind is still in tact to assure all is guided to the "greater good for all" concerned...

What I mean is, most think there are such ideals as true open-ended utopias, ya know, like perfection? Few realize that true perfect liberty is an agreed to, reduced freedom, for the benefit of all concerned___Ya know, like if we all had a radical utopian freedom, we'd all have the liscencious right to do what we pleased, and the law be damned. I mentioned "any true utopias must have organized control" the way I did, to clearify the diffs between open-radical-utopian ideals, that are truly impossible, as verses sensible utopias, of the best possible of worlds, under sensible yet better functioning legal systems, through much higher evolved law systems, and true social justice, than what we presently have. This would be far better organizations of global monetary/law/political and distribution systems, of far less exploitation, subordination and dominance, than now exists. And as to the system I'm relating to, I do not mean one of less freedoms/liberties, we now possess, but one of more, yet most don't realize different organizations of laws/contracts, even more laws in certain areas, while reducing useless laws in other areas, can produce more and better liberty/freedom systems. It's just hard to explain to someone, how you are going to add/change/reduce laws, yet increase freedoms/liberties, yet it's possible. Justice, true global justice, is very hard for most to see, as we've all been brainwashed into the present systems of injustice, yet better freedoms/liberties are achievable, through better organiztions of the very existing systems of contract justice. Remember, even the dollar bill is a contract, and the U.S. Constitution is the "Contract of All Contracts", yet this social contract does not hinder us to change sub-contracts of the major contract, when we realize it's only our false beliefs/ideologies, over-attached to it, now preventing the advancement of better contracts. The real problem enters in the international trade of contracts, where more law would actually create much more freedom, for the local contracts___the money contracts, that benefit the social contract. I could ramble on forever, but I'd have to draw it out for you, to totally understand what I really mean. It's just more international government control over too free a corporate contracts, gives us more local freedom/liberty, automatically. It's just nations have always resisted this concept, because their local allegiance mind tells them, it's more restrictive, when it's truly not. Kinda a paradox, but it's not___It's just a matter of interpretation of understanding the total control/market function of international contracts, as they relate to local social justice contracts, and the expansion of these local justice contracts, as really, they(the local social contracts' freedoms/liberties) expand, by simply reducing the corporate international open-outlaw-contract control, over the entire world's local contracts, by actually increasing government/democracy contract control over them. This can be more easily stated, but I seem to be spinning in circles, trying to explain the simplicity of this complexity, but the truth is that a reduction of nefarious corporate international contract freedoms, is automatically an increase of personal, social contract, and national liberties. The way George Monbiot put it was, "Local democracy is impossible, without international democracy." I guess that's best. We presently have a too free a corporate outlaw international contract system, organized through the corrupt WTO free-trade contract system, related tax havens, and all other foreign exchange near-lawless-contracts, presently controlled by the outlaw corporations' inter-trusts, oppressing the local/national contracts' liberties___This must change. Hope that's clear enough. Let me know if it's not...

To me, the easiest way to understand interdependence is as a social contract concept. I'd just ask the question; "Is the interdependence of global socialist/communist acting, corporate contract dominance/exploitation of local contracts desirable, or is a more sovereign democratic action of local contracts' liberties/freedoms expansion more desirable?" When it comes to the sovereignty/interdependence of persons to persons, in personal relationships, I think that may be one of choice. Myself, I'd always choose sovereignty and independence, i.e., the higher degree of individual freedoms/liberties, as long as they aren't injurious to others, yet others may choose the sefety and soveriegnty of a close interdependent relationship___Still, Choice. At the national/international level, contracts must be re-written in both directions___some decreasing interdependence, where it's actually oppressive/exploitative, and some increasing interdependence, where it's beneficial, if the nation happens to be small and weak. It's kinda like animals and humans, it depends on our Darwinian strenghts/weakeness, which position we choose___sovereignty or interdependence___Again, Choice. Many anchored positions often seem to get one into interpretation troubles, with others, even though we must quite often anchor our positions, even when interpretations wrong them___just the way it is. Clarifications are only reached through successful communications, and grounding our selves in natural "mother wit and common sense". A rock-group I used to listen to stated it this way; "Successful communication, can take you very far". I forget who...

Most are also un-aware there are two dynamically different ethical systems___Manichean and Nicomachean. Manichean is the ethics of the emotions, and Nicomachean is the ethics of reason. Aristotle is the most famous for the Nicomachean ethics, which was actually named after his son, Nicomachus. Manichean ethics was created by the Christian church and philosopers of, some 500 years later, and is as Nietzsche described it; "Morality is one's prejudices, learned by age 18".

I mentioned it because I wasn't aware if you were aware of the fact, about two entirely different systematic ethical systems, functioning in most societies, at once, as well as all the general normally evolved ones, and their related moral systems. I wasn't aware of it myself, until about a month ago, but then again, I haven't studied ethical systems for years, though I knew they both existed, I didn't know one was from Greek philosophy, while the other was from Christian philosophy. I'll take the Greek philosophy one :-)

Hope I haven't run on too much,
Anyway,
Good luck

p.s.
"Good Luck"___The only thing I think I still believe in, but mine's had a long run of not winning the lottery :-)
I'll have all the above better worded later___When it's new, it comes hard...