Downtime, but until the world spins this way here's some old style, mesmerizing, old-time songlines:
original
~~
Lift off:
Rorruwuy from The Mulka Project on Vimeo.
The problem with economic theory is that its founding assumptions or axioms, its methodology, is rooted in developments in intellectual history stretching back to the last quarter of the 19th century, and only modified in the 1930s (Lionel Robbins)-that too in the wrong direction.
The core ideas were narrow and unrealistic then (in the sense that they may not have reflected or thrown much light on the underlying social realities) but they come across as plainly anachronistic now.
For example, scarcity may have made sense in the old days-though that too is highly doubtful since the subsistence ethic results in scarcity being thought of as an event, not as a principle on which to order or explain our decisions/behaviour. But how can we today, in the face of so much affluence, still maintain that there's scarcity (unless we hold that there's a scarcity of meaning or spirituality).
To square the circle-and this always happens when you cling on to a way of thinking that doesn't take into account reality or that merely joins itself with the dominating power-we are forced into all sorts of intellectual somersaults. We must posit something like:
Life is the pursuit of happiness; or we have infinite desires and limited capacities to attain them (finite creatures, etc., etc.; and so we are always thrown back to the fundamental need to maximize or optimize (which in plain language is doing the best with the least)-and who could argue with that?
But the desire (note: not need)to always maximize is not just a mechanical approach to behaviour (where is the freedom in a science of human beings?); it is at the root of some of our most central problems.
Part of the problem arises when we try and equate preferences (desire-satisfaction) with goodness. There is no necessary logical or ethical relation between the two. Utility in economics, for example, is not a substantive notion. But part of the problem lies in they type of beings we are assumed to be: restless, always striving for more (and the associated idea here is that goodness cannot ever be attained but can always be improved upon..axiomatically more is preferred to less). There is no possibility, therefore of some situation being 'good enough' and no idea of determinate concept of human needs or human nature. Instead, what we have is the ridiculous idea that we are nothing but 'constantly moving happiness machines'.
In the end of the day all we have is a formal notion of freedom (Augustine would say an empty freedom). Even that is saying too much given the manipulation of our desires by the desire-merchants.
~~
The relation of thought to life cannot be grasped at its extremities. Neither "pure" abstract thought nor the blind will of faith will get you there. Which begs the question: get you where?
Life was simple and beautiful once; it still is beautiful in many ways, but denser, more opaque; and there's always the chance that it will suddenly change its face, so that poor Jack becomes a Joker. Really is a walk in the half-dark, your footsteps trying to trace some familiar path, your hands still pre-shaped to hold on to what is real.
Stillness: eke out what time you can; make nothing happen or allow it to. That, today, seems like a mighty skill. There is nothing to chase. A wiser man would know what to let go off, what to hold on to-and, crucially, when.
If the world will always be the world you can always tilt your head at a certain number of degrees, find your unique angle, as others have before you; or sleep or dream a little. Seems preferable to all this striving. Walser, again: the art of being small; step away from the mirror, and necessary illusions.













