A Metaphysics of Value

by ChrisCook
Sat Nov 25th, 2006 at 07:22:19 AM EST

Last Sunday's Observer printed

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,1951397,00.html

which Robert Pirsig said would be his last interview. Apparently the reason for the interview was the fact that his second book "Lila" is being republished.

Strangely enough, it was through reading this book that I felt that I had to find a copy of "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" - which has ever since been a source of inspiration to me.

I was reasonably good at school, particularly at maths and was brought up with a shock at Sheffield University when I found I actually had to WORK - never really got to grips with that...The first job I had - as an Examiner in Insolvency in the UK's DTI (what a job that was) - required that I be at least part-qualified in Accountancy, and so it was that I found myself taking an Economics paper.

That was the first paper in anything that I have ever failed. I could not connect with the subject at all - it seemed to bear no relationship with Reality. Nevertheless, I knuckled down, memorised all the stuff parrot-fashion, regurgitated it, passed the exam and promptly wiped it from my mind for 25 years.

It is only in the last three years or so I have had cause to revisit the subject, in order to establish, at least in my own mind, what it is that is wrong with the global financial system, and which the warped dominant form of Economics rationalises, to then be thrust down our throats by a compliant Press.

This paper I presented to the Institute of Advanced Studies at Lancaster University

http://www.opencapital.net/papers/Valueknowledge-based.pdf

received some interest, but for the most part incomprehension.

In order to address Economics we must examine the metaphysical assumptions that underpin it, and it is here that Pirsig has - I believe - through thinking an Original Thought - given us the correct metaphysical basis.

However we address our Reality, he is saying, we can  do so only by Analogy.  His Metaphysics is of "Quality" - mine (for addressing Economics) relates to "Value". But it's the same Reality.

The key is that we cannot DEFINE Value - although we can define PRICE - except in Relative terms: "the Relativity of Desire" as E.C. Riegel described it.

X is more "Valuable" than Y by reference to a "Value Unit".

In "Lila" Pirsig developed his initial argument to say that this indefinable and relational "Quality" is either "Static" or "Dynamic" and develops through a hierarchy (cf Maslow) from the Inorganic through Organic, Social and so on - each forming the necessary basis for the next.

I regard "Economics" as the "Physics of Value" and see "Capital" as "Static" Value, while "Money" exists only in motion - ie it is "Dynamic" Value.

Exactly parallel to defining Matter as "Static" Energy.

Our Economics is based upon the concepts of "Money" and "Property" as "Objects" - in the case of Money, this being Bank IOU's which are not IMHO "Value" but its antithesis - a "Claim over Value".

As I argue in my paper, both Money and Property (the bases of what Marx called Fictitious Capital) are not Objects, in fact, but Relationships.

The reason I got thinking about all of this was the appearance on the scene of the "Open" Corporate - of which the UK LLP is the first example.

I knew immediately this was entirely new, and intuited that it is in fact optimal - simply because, if you start from a blank sheet of paper (as is the case with an LLP, where there is no requirement for an agreement even to be in writing), you can come up with any legal protocol that you like and change it organically as you wish.

If you want to "clone" any of the existing conflicted forms, or combinations of them, then go ahead.

It is a "meta" Corporate.

This "Open" Corporate actually allows us to encapsulate the relationships of "Money" and "Property" within a simple and consensual new legal wrapper/protocol and moreover, one with global application - a form of legal XML linking incompatible jurisdictions rather than hardware and software.

One of the consequences of such a Metaphysics is to show up the conventional and Marxist anthropocentric notion - that only the Individual may be productive - as the absolute nonsense that it is.

I have more sympathy with Kelso's thinking behind "Binary" Economics - that Capital is productive as well as the Individual - but even this keeps us within a Newtonian set of Metaphysical assumptions still involving absolutes and a Subject/Object metaphysics.

The truth of it is that it is the RELATIONSHIP between Individual and "Capital" that is "productive".

All good stuff in theory eh?

Well, I actually believe that the "Open" Corporate is emerging in best Darwinian tradition - because it simply WORKS better than anything else (because it addresses Reality better?) and that those "Enterprises" (by which I mean any economic entity with two or more individual members) who do not use it will be at a disadvantage to those who do.

So to conclude re Pirsig, a quote by Bill Bryson

Once in a great while, a few times in history, a human mind produces an observation so acute and unexpected, that people can't quite decide which is the more amazing, the Thought, or the Thinking of it

Maybe, when Pirsig is long dead, no doubt, he will receive the Nobel prize he deserves.


Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password

Display:
From the end of your paper which you linked above:

But perhaps the most interesting concept is that a Community Partnership constituted as an "Open Corporate" may create the possibility of a "State" which is not distinct from its Members.

Individual Citizen Members of a "Community Partnership" may consensually agree to a collective responsibility within the framework of a CP agreement but would not have the individual or "several" responsibility for other members of a traditional Partnership.

Alternatively, an Open Corporate is not an organisational form but a framework within which sovereign individuals may collectively and co-operatively "SelfOrganise".

The outcome is the potential for a Society which is based neither upon the existence of a State (ie a Hierarchy) nor the absence of a State (ie an Anarchy) but is instead a "Synarchy" -  a State consisting of a networked myriad "Partnership of Partnerships" in which all individuals are Members.

I find this interesting, very interesting... But, but, but
Replacing the State as an umbrella covering all, by a patchwork of Partnerships, in this do we not risk creating "Unpartnershipped" individuals, who for whatever reason are not seen as capable of delivering (transacting, um, what verbs go with Value now??) "Value" as "Members". Which Partnership will have the Responsibility to ensure the minimum required for a dignified existence for all if not the State, as State of all, not just volunteered and accepted Partnerships? (Those individuals who cannot for one reason or another fulfil obligations of membership in the open corporate structures.) Or, alternatively, what am I misunderstanding?

That being said, I want an LLP now! Just gotta find some other people to partner, and figure out what I'd like this partnership for...

by someone (s0me1smail(a)gmail(d)com) on Sat Nov 25th, 2006 at 09:22:57 AM EST
As I understand it, other organizations and thus other LLPs can be members of different types in an LLP - as investors, operators, producers etc.

What you would get - eventually - is everything linked to everything else in a true, completely distributed self-organizing system, where power is nowhere but everywhere. No one cell can influence the direction of the whole organisim - the beauty (or ugliness) is the process.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Sat Nov 25th, 2006 at 09:32:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No-one will be "unPartnershipped" I think, other than those who opt out of Society altogether on a mountain top somewhere(and good luck to them).

It is the generic function of "clearing" that will be the common denominator that brings us all together, that and the new approach to "property" which gradually brings the Land back into "Common" ownership - NOT state ownership.

We need a new and rational approach to taxation = "Commons" rentals that I have set out recently elsewhere on this site in  turn leading not to a "Redistributive" model but rather a "Pre-distributive" one.

ie everyone would be entitled to a "citizen's income" as of right, derived in fact from two "pooling mecanisms) one in respect of "Commons Rental" and one in respect of Income.

So I see networked  "Community Land Partnerships" as the key building blocks of Society, configured around a generic "transaction engine" and peer to peer "instant monetary messaging" network.

The (consensual) protocol of the CLP would incorporate both revenue-sharing/ tithing and risk sharing through the mutual guarantee of bilateral credit.

No transactional or identity information would be held either by the State or the "Private Sector" but maybe by what is essentially a "Trustee" "Identity Institute".

Modern conservatives engage in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy: the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.Galbraith

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Sat Nov 25th, 2006 at 09:54:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
in a small community, this conscience-raising is done through shame.

adhering to community standards is morally enforced through 'belonging' and a transparent accountability.

if you don't subscribe, you are 'shunned'.

the only way i see this scaling up, is through pooling the watchdog duties across the web, sich as is happening on dkos, where the fbi learned something from a poster that was used to bust abramoff.

we can do it, we just need to smarten up and be vigilant.

all hands on keyboard!

"Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do." Jim Hightower

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Sun Nov 26th, 2006 at 07:50:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It is also the relationship between individuals that is the most 'productive' in knowledge systems. The emphasis on the individual - in rights, responsibilities, productivity and in democracy etc, is the limiting factor.

The Noosphere- or all knowledge/thought - is too huge to comprehend or grasp for any one individual. Even within a small company or organization, an individual can rarely carry around all the knowledge that is relevant to its operation, let alone its relationship with other industries and the society within which it operates.

Competition often (usually?) means the limiting or enclosure of knowledge. Cooperation is the sharing of knowledge for general benefit. Of course cooperation often becomes competition when the 'tribal' bonds between a distributed system get weak enough, or when the system becomes a discrete 'object'. The 'cooperative' cellular network that makes up e.g. a tree, becomes a discrete object at the surfaces of the roots, bark, leaves and buds.

Beyond these boundaries of collaborative discreteness is another world of both competition and cooperation. Competition for sunlight, water, nutrients and anchorage. Symbiosis with other living creatures that may be neutral to the organization or may share in the other great inbuilt life-force = reproduction. And then there is the third force - catastrophe. It can be a man with an axe, a forest fire or a disease.

I don't know if there is any cooperation - on levels that we don't understand - between trees. But the tree, within itself, is a wonderful example of the process of neighourly interaction.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Sat Nov 25th, 2006 at 09:25:32 AM EST
yup, see how trees move over and make room for one another, even though it means they can spread less themselves...

sure some trees are more powerful, and shade out lesser species, but if you can get yer root in, you have a chance like all the rest.

adapt, evolve or migrate!

"Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do." Jim Hightower

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Sun Nov 26th, 2006 at 07:55:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]
"Metaphysics is a restaurant where they give you a 30,000 page menu and no food."

Sorry you have not had more feedback from this diary - to me you add something more each time.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Sat Nov 25th, 2006 at 04:55:00 PM EST
The minute you use the word "Metaphysics" you lose 90% of readers...

This still knocks me out...

And now he began to see for the first time the unbelievable magnitude of what man, when he gained power to understand and rule the world in terms of dialectic truths, had lost.  He had build empires of scientific capability to manipulate the phenomena  of nature into enormous manifestations of his own dreams of power and wealth-- but for this he had exchanged an empire of understanding of equal magnitude: an understanding of what it is to be part of the world, and not an enemy of it

...it sums up our whole human condition.

Modern conservatives engage in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy: the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.Galbraith

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Sat Nov 25th, 2006 at 05:05:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
And a study of Pataphysics would surely lose the other 10%.

I was involved in a production of Alfred Jarry's 'Ubu Roi' in 1967 at the Gulbenkian Hall at London's Rpyal College of Art - which takes us back to the Oil Business ;-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulbenkian.

Jarry is sometimes called the father of the Theatre of the Absurd - something that needs supporting since it also influenced the Who!

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Sat Nov 25th, 2006 at 06:51:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]


"Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do." Jim Hightower
by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Sun Nov 26th, 2006 at 08:14:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Did you achieve your Mastery of Karaoke (Japanese for 'Music as a Martial Art') all in one sitting?

Remember your first mantra in the Music Biz (Oh How Money Makes Me Hum)?  Remember the decades spent in the Studio-of-the-Recording (OK guys!  That was great!  Once more.  And can we all ... at least ... TRY to sing in the same key this time)?  Did you get discouraged when that group you had such high hopes for - The Duds - whose hard hitting rock and roll single I Want to Hold Your Colon only got repeated airtime on a 5 milliwatt station in Outer Mongolia?  (The reports of exploding sheep after that Sidney radio station played it was, I agree, calumny.)  

Not at all!  

You exercised patience and - LO! - it was rewarded.

Soon.  Soon, my young Sauna-Sitter, a comment will be added that shall reward your patience.  It shall be a comment that, in centuries to come, will be regarded as The Comment From Which All Other Comments Are (as they say) Mere Reflection.


No one could have predicted

by ATinNM on Sat Nov 25th, 2006 at 07:02:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]
was the actual title - and I am a stickler when it comes to titles. Or a stickleback. Maybe it was that fishy red spot that lead me to recording?

And don't try to pull the wool over my eyes with that Sydney radio misdirection - We wuz talkin Arcadia, and the music was Cajun.

<laughing out exclamation point>

Roll me another one, Beulah...

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Sat Nov 25th, 2006 at 07:16:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I just recommended it, but I need to let it simmer before I can say anything cogent about it.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Nov 25th, 2006 at 08:06:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Likewise for me.  

Lila was an interesting but more difficult read than Zen.  You might think from Zen that he will move in the direction of practice--I thought that--but he doesn't.  Despite the narrative line which again is used to carry the mood, Lila is more wordy and abstract.  It really is metaphysics.  Sven, did you mention PNing yet?  Much PN.  Nonetheless--yes, I mean that--it is full of interesting stuff, including a good deal of backstory to the ideas in Zen.  That alone is fascinating.  

His lucid, depressing, and unflattering account of the Victorians is especially relevant for the US as we more or less return to that unhappy age.  

He includes an account of his meeting with Redford that is a great and funny read, as well as being a meditation on the nature of movies, celebrity, and--though he shies from saying it outright--those deities that draw energy from--and interact most directly with--the human world (the wraith energies of human activity).  

The dates mentioned in the article and his age amazed me:  He was doing everything about a decade too soon ;D

Sadly, the entire current of his thought must now be counted as "underground."  Underground, it continues, and perhaps there will again be springs . . .

The Fates are kind.

by Gaianne on Sun Nov 26th, 2006 at 02:36:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I haven't read the book - but I did read Zen and the Art many years ago.

Metaphysics is essentially PN proof.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Sun Nov 26th, 2006 at 03:55:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
or 60% proof by volume.

"Abandon hype, all ye who enter here"

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Sun Nov 26th, 2006 at 03:56:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I was about to say, "Who are you kidding?"  

or 60% proof by volume  

About right.  

The Fates are kind.

by Gaianne on Sun Nov 26th, 2006 at 04:19:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Sadly, the entire current of his thought must now be counted as "underground."  Underground, it continues, and perhaps there will again be springs . . .

When you are going against the grain of accepted philosophical thinking for the last 2000 years you can expect to be "buried", academically at least.

The reason I went right back to metaphysics, and stumbled across Pirsig, was that conventional thinking simply will not account for the phenomenon of the "Open" Corporate and the "Open" Capital which it enables.

Moreover, and this is certainly fighting talk, I think that these new policy tools not only enable the necessary alternative to our existing toxic financial system, but are actually doing so as we speak.

ie I am observing and documenting an "emergent" phenomenon, but do not have the intellectual tools to describe it adequately.

I think that this potentially opens up entire new fields - sorry, "springs" (much more poetic) to academic research.


Modern conservatives engage in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy: the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.Galbraith

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Sun Nov 26th, 2006 at 04:23:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]
well you certainly have the intellectual tools to drop crumbs in the pond and feed us fishies...

i think a couple of months in the tink-tonk will polish up yer powerpoint jes' fine...

besides all you have to do, if it pans out like you infer, will be to lay back and watch it work, hipping us to wherever it emerges,,,

now what about my cottage?

seriously, i'm willing to try this out in da reel world.

it smells so good!

anyone can email me at cosivia (at)libero.it and put cottage in the title if you want to natter offline, though i think it would be funner to do it right here!

chris gots some 'splaining to do, and we'se listenin' up good...

"Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do." Jim Hightower

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Sun Nov 26th, 2006 at 08:10:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]