By Nathan L Coppedge Submitted On December 30, 2012
I would like to establish a context of reference which may be more useful than many references to charts and figures.
I take it for granted that economics in the “weak” sense of insolvency is a pawn to statistics—not even statistical formulas, but the kind of entrenched, perhaps opaque, perhaps contingency-prone effigy that appears when statistical systems are used to their utmost degree—degrees which peel on facts and values, making them seem like utterly inevitable things that simultaneously might not exist.
The first figure of reference is the use of words. Words are necessary to explain an environment. People lean on words even when they don’t mean anything. And they end up saying very little of anything. People who use words make meaningful statements. And words work by use of definitions. There are even definitions in economics.
But words / definitions are just statements. Make no assumptions. Statements are definitions. Economics must make economic statements. What does this mean? It means that economics is a form of definition. Even if it relies on facts / values that are themselves real. What does this mean? Value is the only contingency in economics.
But that is still only one context. The second context, by default, is the opposite context. Say, for example, that values are not absolute in nature. We already admit that the opposite is not absolute. And that is a good thing. The opposite of value is not poverty or deprivation. If there is an opposite to value it is like debt, but according to statistics debt is already explained as another (negative) degree of value. Debt is just negative value. So it is already encompassed in the definition of relative value. In other words, debt is NOT an additional statement. So what is an additional statement? Another value that has gone undeclared.
In other words, in this system, which I call dimensional economics, values are duplicitous. How do I explain this? Every value set has a context of value. When one value has an opposite value, the absence of one value proves the other value. Also, when one context has no value amongst two opposite values, the second context may have one or both values. In this way, context is value-prone.
Does traditional economics have a context? I see that it has a “Zen” context. It is busy looking for a set of values that is reducible to one value (money). But in that endeavor, it is failing to realize that the measure of value is multiple values. Some would say that the measure of value is merely the existence of the market. But the market, depicted as a single jagged line, is a value that can still be opposed by negative value. Instead of proposing market value as in a Wu Wei kind of economy (an expression that means negative space), we might propose an economy that is dualistic, and exponential. While some may argue that this is just a matter of the concepts being used, any time that we admit that economics involves concepts there is a choice to accept one of several positions: [1] Economics is inflexible, it only consists of market, therefore it is futilistic, [2] Economics is utterly flexible, but it only consists of concepts, therefore it is meaningless, or [3] Economics concepts may be a real factor, either in reflecting or defining the market. This third concept seems to follow in most cases from my point of view, because it is undeniable that ideas have some, if not always a very great, reality.
So what are the factors in defining an idea-based market? Let’s ignore statistics.
What about categories, such as ‘economics’, ‘market’, and ‘capitalizing’? These are definitions like those mentioned earlier. But they are participles, equivalent with many other concepts of value. If one is highly useful, this is not a sign that it is all-encompassing, but rather that it constitutes one unit of pragma-system.
Secondly, what is context? Context is any two values which are utterly separate in their definition, yet define an exclusive context of economic viability. Such contexts might look like “meaning and matter”, “computers and creativity”, or “capital and virtual”.
Thirdly, based on the necessary existence of one in four parts, such binary sets reflect a capacity for exponential development. Conservative categories like industry and government become standard investments which have secondary properties for constituents of secondary and tertiary “grids”. These grids are themselves industries and governments of their own virtual, computational, or meaningful constituencies. Through support for permanent resource creation, economy scales to a number of things, such as:
[1] The material complexity of economic products, such as technology, systems, and variables.
[2] The number of totalistic systems which have imitated economic reality, in other words, the number of degrees or iterations.
[3] The conservation of industry and government, whether individual, social, or global.
[4] The effectiveness of volition and devolition within these frameworks, in other words, the ability of the system-as-dynamic-agent to reproduce its self-same condition-in-reality. In other words, the economy may be a participle of its own reality.
The investment in government and industry provides an opportunity for leiten-gite (a leadership shelter or strategy), which extends into the modular function of citizens and the very currency itself. Opportunities arise for the multiple-materialism of money, much as real estate has finally been embraced as a form of money. Likewise, jobs and technological items should in some cases have the permanence and token-value of leiten-gite, that is, they should be modules of the same interconnected system. The opportunity for virtual, intellectual, and computational products may certainly serve to extend this idea, maybe even through a notion of the multiple-simultaneous-locatedness of monetary value and technological usefulness.
In other words, it is time for computation to be worth money. And if it is only expressible as free money, this only means that the economy has become free. Likewise concepts which are comparable to computation, such as intellectual products, must be meaningfully integrated with technology and the economy by terms of their parts and composition. It is the era of standardization for all types of devices, and likewise it should be for language and eventually emotions as well. While there is creativity in the design of robots, this is not the creativity of non-standard or bizarre emotions. Psychology has reacted against bizarre emotions in an extreme way. The general trend is for standardization. Where there is a new form of anything, it is because the system has changed and evolved.
When there are new forms of money, it does not mean that the system has disintegrated. Instead it means that there has been an act of itemization. Certainly we are consumer enough to realize that the economy itself could be itemized. This is the vast potential with dimensional economics, according to a strategy that I have already described. Definitions, Context, and Exponents matter. Government and Industry are investments. Based on investments, there is Leiten-Gite, the strategy of modules which extends the concept of money into realizable impressions of government and industry; money becomes an exponent of meaning and matter, capital and virtual, technology and creativity. And every other type of value that might exist for information.
The essential exponent is specialization, but its nature is always divided. It depends on general categories to realize highly contextual “paroxysms” (spasms) of engenesis or realization. Dimensional economics is a form of exceptional economics. Through exceptionism, the specialty of generality becomes the non-specific priority. Economics has always thrived on secrets. Now those secrets will become a general law of something quite simple: currency itself.
Dimensional economics is based on a theory that I have developed in my book, The Dimensional Philosopher’s Toolkit, involving a diagrammatic theory of knowledge. That book will be published in 2013.
More about my books at http://www.nathancoppedge.com
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/expert/Nathan_L_Coppedge/1469029