|
by ChrisCook
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.
|
Menu
. Home
. About . Contact . New User Guide . FAQ . ET Editorial Guidelines . Search . Search (Google) Login
|
||
|
A Metaphysics of Value | 19 comments (19 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)
A Metaphysics of Value | 19 comments (19 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)
| ||||
| ||||