main index

P00: frame around

P01: olicognography

P03: infrastructures




Graph Start

Core n°
Half complex graph








Happyness ? topos

Basic Olicognograph: Balance Individual & Social levels

Diversity of Perspectives and Approaches

Happyness is some concept around which economics has tarted to turn around, because the concept seems to be not directly related to wealth or maximum of financial treasure amassing. Any relative concept looks, as the speed of development of this wealth neither is satisfying. Formally, in our opinion there is that such concept concerns various registers from neurognition and neurobiology of satisfaction up to social issues. Then, since all these registers developed a partition or separated reductionism did not help to approach properly such concept by pieces. There is in happyness a sense of wholeness and cutting of infinite asymptotic methods do not apply well. Partitions of such complex kinds of abstract units somehow subjective speculations reflecting a state of mood, under all other social perspectives, all quite different from one person to another; instrumentalized by economics, politics, but expressing with sense of psychological, emotional and ethical achievment. Without wasting these webpages in demonstrations of thesis, only introducing to tools, lest to bias insights to get into approaches. But it is a concept meaningfull to society since it conditions what people want, seek and do.

J. Harsanyi written on choice if being anyone. L. Robbins established the 'scientific impossibility' of interpersonal comparisons of happyness. According them preference and values are heterogenous:

  • Making Arrow's theorem of impossibility,
  • Questionning the basis of any information [which, out hypothetical common patterns does not qualify easilly collections of parameters],
  • Skepticism or minimalism about range of human intentions comprehension [hypothetically too important unconscious processes],
  • Condorcet & Borda vote's paradox: just more than 3 actors or 3 significant classes of actors make majority's rule does not work [making hard to establish common definition after items of questionnaire],
  • Arrow's theorem on majority: in a process of decision because of theorem of impossibility, dictatorial solution turns better [questionning the operability of a normative concept, may be not imposed against free or critical will but like in mass game issue: are the fan of winning match happy?],
  • Benevolent dictator & memory's extinction [be the first not something we organically can go against with fatalism and memory retaining positive things, could be happy a relief for having had the pathway not as hard as imagined ?],
  • information's imperfection and self-consciouness of vote [questionning how hard or easy was/sill be the trail for having a significant gain of happyness],
  • Common superior abstract value making the dictator: trust in decision within State of Law [the happyness to have had things according the trusted rules].

Briefly: on microeconomics issues you commonly hope that people could change their behaviors and practices for "better" results. But this needs first of all respect of reason and understanding that people do not change their personnality like that, so that you need them to be very willing in their participation. But your concept of program cannot be done without such changes. If we are not interested in immediate practical usefulness, as if some sort of happyness would pretend, testability of our individual assumptions can be avoided and let the burden of testability fall on the entailments of the theory as a whole. For example, the basic behavioural assumptions of traditional consumer theory may be axiomatically represented as follows:

  1. "For every consumer there exists some non-economic criterion such that he or she is able to compare combinations of quantities of goods,
  2. For every consumer there exists an economic criterion such that he or she is able to compare combinations of quantities of goods,
  3. Every consumer when confronted by two combinations which he or she can afford, defined in assumption (2), will buy the one which is ‘better’, defined in assumption(1).
  4. Assumptions (1) and (2) are not testable. They are both incomplete;
  5. The criteria are unspecified and thus none can be ruled out. Furthermore, assumption (3) is untestable because it depends on the other assumptions. The question here is whether the concept of ‘better’ is sufficient to be used to derive a testable statement from this theory. Samuelson specifically argued that it was sufficient to recognize that statement (3) presumes a choice is made and that the consumer is consistent in the application of the two criteria.

Emergence of values may be examined in:

  • Analysis [is happyness ? - something we can analysis, may be on a subjective, short term review, self-sufficient, with a minimum complex overview],
  • Decision [according empirical evidence which sorts of short term between past and future provide the satisfaction of a sense of achieved for a while happyness, on an individual basis and for social entrepreneur as a pattern with wich means to explore, understand and 'deliver', can be happyness providable],
  • Willingness to conform to conventions [which kind of conventions can be made with happyness ? - since types of motivations or needs as explored by Maslow, Herzberg, and many others and since some evidenced that out pathological happyness as maniac personalities during their euphoric periods, happyness is often with 'not too intellectual people' and quite conventionnal personalities],
  • Trust (on the stability of values)[or communicability of happyness, also often related to collective disposal].

With neurocognition, neurobiologists will easilly link pleasure networks with happyness, fast, untill some consideration, may be more of a moral kind on the effects of addictive behavior with psychotropic drugs, be them licit or illicit. Some considerations have to be consider, in our opinion:

  • First to care with the word, what we call to imagine the best mean of a brain's networks is easilly misinterpreted. Main networks are based on axon-dendrites synaptic communications and one axonal neuromediator, but with some dozen of neuromediators, different networks patterns distributions and so on; as well as networks functionning only recently started to be studied, meanwhile almost experimentally functionning, we at least discover complexity and stay with some hope of patterns taking global sense or what have been already thought since decades,
  • See for example with "reward network" of dopamine (an important neuromediator) is somehow an appropriated qualification if complexity is not missed. One must also see that this seems effectively to induce a large and extended mainstream of neuromediators (catecholamines) with many subproducts also themselves with relevant effects. Be so happyness a complex cascade of chemical reactions fullfilling some wholist achievement (which does not mean that inducing it by artificially means or abusing of it directly would be more sustainable to human and environment fate ...
  • So in a broad sense, pathways' which achievment of a large range of effects, actions, perceptions, judgments can ? - achievment provide a fair feeling of reward. Be such sort significant for happyness, as well as providing a sort of moral achievment of happyness; distinct from the one elicited thanks to the use of drugs articially producing reward. Neuroscientifically support of happyness would take a complex sense by the details and wholeness of a brain functionning implying many different levels, patterns, achievments, ethics and complex ways to reproduce is pleasure.
  • To recall also that most of this reward network is not in the cortex conscious part of the brain (it has some links). Cortex frontal conscious brain of imagination having developed byside another unconscious overall direction: consciousness and happyness would so not be at the top of perfect control ? but what it can be thought if there is time to think, like depending (provocativelly) from stupidity ? - the jester of the brain and not the king of it ... even if Descartes said that we are moved by our passions, more than by our reasons, be these passions more positivelly consistent than our reasons (or our reasons our disgrace ? or the executioner of our last judgment ?
  • Also: dopamine brain's flows is quite basic and appearing soon in the evolution of neurotransmission, stayed as a mainstream shaper of our cognitive processes; will this means that happyness, whatever the beautiful speeches on it is just a primitive feeling ? or the 'reason' the right way to wisdom ?

The values of a socio-behavioral types are something olicognography could prefer to avoid or include only as minimum criteria in its democratic activities because they are open to manipulations, selections, willingly misjudged. Thanks to complexity mental conditionning is not so easy and this helped well expression of freedom. But artificial modern world have created plenty of efficient ways to manipulate minds, almost hardly for good management. It is like to expect that people will, behave properly, carry judgments of values on attitudes and feelings and / or policies of the A. Huxley's type. Could it be better In democracy ? - to assume what people are and expect to find, with the help of the community, the place where they will feel useful and happy. This has more sense than the always repeated intents to create and promote society of classes, segregations of castes, nomenklatura of manipulators, merits of superior smartness; rigorous profiles of viles autocrats servants. Profiles management systematically abusing of genes and normes to invent hereditary status, reproduction of priviledges, transmissions of bias of wrong kinds, disequilibrium of excessive waste, terms of reference and executive summaries at the discretion of few.

Kinds of such personalities of practitioners all around three central values that are more criteria of operation.

  1. Modus operandi” is just the Latin expression for the way it works.
  2. Positive” is the way to behave, an adjective suggesting not to pretend to explain everything but try do things better. Because programs often needs positive assumptions.
  3. Minded,” that is, thought and developed as far as possible,, according the circumstances. Observe that the central disposition of “modus operandi” puts emphasis on induction or on this characteristics to this achieved wholesome enacting empathetic animal: the human.

Approaches by Subjective 'Topoid' Complexities

Observing so many systemic social biases, formal fallacies, individual rewards greed not socially sincere; or either developed by paradigms of domination on social management. This explains why I may have here some radical perspective about the search for equilibrium in human issues and a concern to make democratic efficiency feels free. This can sound utopia if the assumptions and categories were to be seen as achieved determinist concepts. But they are not, and this radical perspective just intends to re-equilibrate in favor of imaginative social and democratic realism against 'rational reductionism'. Now, perhaps, this would be easier with available technological resources, instead of simply pure programs of good intentions.

in an ideological way, I could have established a rigorous system, and some formal tautologies mentioned could help in that. I could of course sort of deductive thesis that would have served better academic standards. But we prefer to stay with suggestive tools to practice democratic inductions. We did not provide definitions or complete meanings of democracy because there is a heterogeneousness and many sub-strata of scientific inputs. Actually, democracy is an instrumental utopia with enough variety of practical options or versions to practice voluntarily and not with one exact unique way. Part of the utopia is to see essential ethics as economically meaningful, and not so “formal economic laws,” ideologically imposed, but these may have a common sense, that could be useful, differently. Theoretically, these are more “sophisticated tautologies,” when not just “abstract curiosities,” small pieces in, actually, too specified and reduced economic formalism. It is not to make just one cultural and coherent system of values, like the 'pensée unique of globalization' thought inevitably necessary. Globalization can exist simply by its means and tools and probably should forgive what we could call 'monodoist' policies, transported by too powerful systems of unsustainable and asymmetrical 'leadersheeping-dictatorial' organization. Sustainability is searching the ways to wisdom and happiness for everyone, but this does not make sense when said at the level of global tautologies.

To suggest as working hypothesis and summarized so: to cope with complexity since a comprehensive level of humane communities. The technological means of globalization can have their part in that but they must be understood and appropriated by individual within their communities. At the global level, it does not seem essential that other global suggestions could ask more than the respect of minimum ethical rules of humanity. Illusions and dreams of a global culture have popped like corn so as to get spongy cow brain.

No sense of practical idealism or of pragmatic communism has compensated triumphant global capitalism. At the level of macro systems and macro societies, comprehension is impossible and previous conflictive ideological systems pretending to be scientific have been disqualified.

With our own effort, I intend to prevent significant sources of future conflicts revealed by globalization, since we often lived close to them. Conflicts like fractures between artificial complexity and natural complexities. There is a natural world that we remain part of and we depend on. The virtual global artificial paradigm has been too backed by sophisticated technologies and all forms of worldwide entertainment. Natural complexities are more essentially difficult, ignored, improperly respected, and distractedly managed. To find our path between these problems has also the sense to simplify but at the condition that reductions are circumstantial and each to be found by communities, not too much artificially complicated by exogenous constraints. At least it is to not jeopardize integration of humane values. What is perhaps overall unacceptable is the way simplifications are severely promoted by undemocratic international technocracies. Perhaps those technocracies were justified at the time of reconstruction but at this stage of technological developments they are supporting more global determinist illusions and are even counterproductive to cope with complexity of ecological issues, human development, and democratic practices.

Olicognography should not pretend ...

Olicognographs of a psychological kind of tool should stay ambiguous, as it is when introduced. But an olicognograph addressing to psychologies can have to stay theoretical. They are not to be used for unfair manipulations of people, just the knowledge you may have at the respect, to help them shape their own ideas. This ambiguity is perhaps the best to allows people choose and not alienate the sense of free active democracy. They should not pretend to be deterministically efficient. Nor they should be too superficial like with suggestions on the right psychological profiles to enroll (out very exceptional ones to exclude for safety reasons). They should avoid to manipulate minds. Convinced psychological profiles will often sincerely adjust their practices to their convictions and this is needed. Good phenomenological evidences, that the program is fair and can bring good, meawhile friendly cultural are essential characteristics. Olicognograph program of the psychological sort may better not suggest very determined goals, but try to give some clues on how to care it better.

That does not disqualify knowledge in the register of psychology, but it has to be involved in manipulating management only when required by clinical situations of the person and only for positive issues to the persone. There are some limits represented by the existence of the project or program and social utility. For example, if adaptation to some inadapted profiles the main social utility reasons may have to prevail. There is the need that the authority of a team could be assumed with a fair sense of the group's psychology, to guide persons in what they can do well, and suggest where they can feel good. Care also persons that can transcend their own problems and do well to others. Psychological management not biased by exagerated deterministic positivism will probably coincide with positive mood, ability and social integration and achievment.

Complexity turns self-manageable at the group or community level. Group therapies just do that like in psycho-cognitive methods. they can imagine to structure themselves and, if with some level of authority, to support positive moods. Also a one picture representation of some characterized group, pointed by marked clouds of points and/or trajectories can visually delimit a clinical perspective or an area of psychological management of the group: what you should respect in individual personalities does not mean that collectivelly you should avoid any means of groups management for good social goals.

Indirect behavioral adaptation is to establish something like a system of moral contract, then clearly specified and accepted by all parts. This is no more a manipulative graph of influence but a frame to rule accepted relations of exchange. Some kind of psychological assessments have more of a clinical sense, justified when individual problems are effectively perturbing social integration. Perhaps because modern mediasphere of mass stereotypes press hard on personalities, in an inhumane way to determine homogeneous patterns of values.