[Mind's Eye] Re: Economy

No, thank you for sharing your thoughts, contemplative; i'd love to
hear more about your holistic:holonic views as they develop.

On Jun 26, 2:27 pm, Contemplative <wjwiel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Does it serve man?  (I am not disagreeing, just questioning...)  
> I am going to suggest (for arguments sake) that the economy describes a set
> of
> (system of)relationships and behaviors of man.  Those relationships and
> behaviors would
> exist regardless of how we chose to describe them.  That indicates a
> 'natural system' to my
> way of thinking.  From a broad perspective, such systems evolve in the
> interest of the survival
> of the species and therefor serve man.  However, there is a distinction
> between serving man
> at that level and serving man at the level of mans will.(using 'man' as
> mankind here).  I presume
> that your are speaking of it as serving mans will.(?)
>
> Perhaps the problem I have is with the way we talk about the economy.  We
> talk about it as if it is a complex
> machine that we can manipulate as we see fit and as such predict the
> outcome.  That is plainly not
> true as has repeatedly and painfully proven.  I guess I would like to hear
> it talked about and considered more
> as a natural system which is better learned about through observation. In
> other words, something we live in instead
> of a machine that we drive or operate.  I think we could learn a lot more
> about ourselves if we were to view it
> that way.  I also think that we would likely make less drastic mistakes
> regarding this system if we were to
> approach it this way.
>
> We need a way to balance between our holistic 'expert' view and the view  of
> the system as more holonic.
> In other words, I don't trust experts.... :-)
>
> By the way, the source of these wandering rants has been my endeavor to
> consume and digest the contents of
> the FCIC report which I downloaded and have been snacking/gnawing on for a
> couple of months now...  I recommend
> it by the way.  It is not nearly as dry as I would have thought, and
> reasonably informative, though I doubt
> it could be described as comprehensive.  It has been and continues to be a
> source of thought provocation for me.
>
> Once again, thanks for the opportunity...