Understanding Non Precise Definitions
As subjective expressions "satisfaction" or "wealth" look like carrying common sense and easy definitions but soon turn complicated when you intent to apply a working frame. Frame can mean some try to be scientific within a register. So if today's definitions are something not so difficult in a given register of specialist, since there are many interests formally well diversified; on so common concepts there are many interesting definitions and it is not so simple to choose to work on. Complications come when trying to cross registers to make synthesis. To restore the unity of the person, complex "wholeness" meanwhile in his/her culture. Multidisciplinarity can, for the moment also receive the help, but not always well agreed by anyone, nor as a formal support that can bridge enough diversities of definitions from different registers. Synthesis, probably thanks to the coherence of formalism can look like enough complex for looking like close to reality. This "way of seeing" will also have to coexist with the human defect to summarize and reduce at purpose. So open-minded coherence can be ignored because not looking like enough special and vain arguments prevail over simple policies, when not deserving solutions.
With 'satisfaction' we can have (in short):
- Sense of achievement (of goal),
- Sense of moments or periods (with a feeling of)?
- Like looking oneself involment in retrospect.
For 'wealth' we could have:
- Sense of revenues, some regularity from effective project,
- Safety, or a capacity to face regular needs, especially through power purchase,
- Order as when comparing with other people around.
Trying to match both, will make relevant:
- Satisfaction, since it may turn the goal and the gauge of probability of success,
- Wealth, can turn the goal and satisfaction established by lone wealth gain,
- Satisfaction search and wealth forsee by employed may need both to look at the future, in a positivelly correlated combination (say as positive feedback).
Remind also that one person plays simultaneously different social roles and in different social units, making different social status. The same occurs in economy; but the integration there, is often missed. To find a coherent articulation, between all different social roles is more a qualitative subject of investigation and not a great but one in averaged economics. The study of the dispersion of social activities of one person plays a minor role in mainstream studies. It is somehow relevant in gender studies (essential to household economies). However, it could require more democratic and inductive (socialwise) concern than research. inductive democratic concern means, implies, on one side, to teach practical domestic economy to suggest equilibria between gender, even if social life is quite determined by one main source of income. On the other hand, there can be the purpose to define profiles that could help policies to ease everybody’s adjustment. This implies socio-technical or productive systems and their flexibility. So to develop it in an open mind way, not just with the fake constraints of productivity in mind. It is to consider social and domestic economies too, including psychological ones, such as happyness.
More Complex Social View
Wholism of an olicognograph suggests that we open a sort discussion with a minimum frame of complexity management to cover as far as of what makes enough democratic satisfaction (still you will have to appropriate and/or adapt and fill and is translated into actions):
- Democratic perspective should balanced diversity of perspectives. May be at the end there is the: "least common everyone minimum inconveniency",
- Care balances of satisfaction between local ones, adress focus, care individuals or synthesis (satisfaction like an "optimum after all of many many things taken into account) and enlarged ones; given by social field and progress of potentials (opportunities offered by a given environment),
- Minimum contradictory issues, concerning satisfaction and wealth, as could be provided by a project, a policy or the means given whould include 1) Potential (that are ex-ante expectations and ex-post: sources of renewed interests), 2) Goals (where potentials (or opportunities) have to do with information and material issues (say like objective or consistent results), 3) Benefits in reasonably sensible payback delay (say like in a broad sense of a return on investment) and 4) Effects on environment (as social or ecological impacts ). All related to the processes of change (making a project of transformation).
Complexities managements provide with unsafe assessments of the designs of concepts and should come with managements of risks and pre or post-cautions. Important is the natural (or human) ambivalence of concepts. This makes issue(s) never definitive and definition(s) never perfect. Regrets exists; mind and moods change too. The understanding of the difference between what is said, analyzed, understood, qualified, labelled and the reality of concepts came soon more complicated if in excess over actions. Human minds being analytically vivid, our nature is ambivalent and filled with paradoxes If not so, there would be no human questionning neither reasearch of powerful contradictions. This is to to enhance the understanding of options and the practice of choice.
In the processes of design of logical frameworks, less care is given or should be given to abstract definitions. Especially far from places where real definitions stand. Thus the half bottle's problem of geopolities or policies of aid pretending to cooperate with service quite poor on comprehension. It is not to say that the perfect definitions of social scientists are out any logical system, but very often they can be more for their logical systems than for humanity. Of course there are very reasoned and very "intelligent". But in such a way that they are exposed to unmanageable complexity, cultural biases and stupid shortsighted determinists.
So, with plenty of intuitive cautions (that helps us not to restrict your freedom of ideas) olicognography suggests to root or anchor your frames on consistent systems closer to complex links of programs to whom they are directed. Material ones are important to transform reality. Basic project combining registers should be consistent in material & energetic & informative terms. This triad gives landmarks for sustainable ranges and scopes of management, in the state of the "arts" of comprehension to manage technology - margins. Even so they are also blurred and fuzzy (fuzzyness has turned a formal method for decision and management). This can come with a complementary perspective that gives you social reasons, criteria on how to operate, care for effects around and so on.
So, for projects and means on how to "change the world of your wealth" we have here:
- "Satisfaction" which should becharacterized as a complex function of potential, goals, benefits and other"remains" (more important than "residues"). Because remains are often themargin for up or down turns.
- "Wealth" should also be characterized, pushed, perturbated, simulated and/or made dynamic to be takenby satisfaction. Put in a reality as a "vector of change". Meaning by the way that if wealth could receive a static definition, like a "materialistic amount of accumulated maximum"; as it is traditionnaly seen in the modern world ofconsumption just put together with "satisfaction" and move practically this static definition. Componing eventually a binome where "satisfaction" looks like the step(s) and wealth the dynamic concept on how to make wealth and satisfaction comes from.
- Under the
operation(s) of making wealth(for satisfaction) (despite unclear definition of "what is it"); have been theaim "rats race" of "what we do" or "should do if".
We understand that in any social project (tranforming ones') there are many relations, links and connections, with the places and environments to manage where they are. Now, if the project is about telling what the project is (the start of any project). We have to develop a logical frame, despite it should never be the best one. As it will appear after the small and great transformations happened. Speaking of any project will consist in setting relations between many static and dynamic concepts: wealth, satisfaction, acts, transformations, effects, potential and assessments, goals and average estimations, constraints, growth and progress. And practically to take the best of what can biased thermodynamical transformations toward our interest, affecting the minimum any sort of living neighbors.
Leitmotiv on Motives
To care about many emerging disturbing factors, when project is implemented. Be these : any on the material side: social, environmental, toxical, live beings and formally cared by underterminism, adverse affects informed, externalities fairly treated, risks assumed, probabilities honnestly calculated, tests proceeded, simulations made ... specialists have many troubling techniques and have prepared answers to frequently asked questions (FAQ) but they must care also to be wise with doubts, not disqualify all what you have honnestly tried and cared or wanted to avoid.
Conduct such processes of transformations by recurrent self-questions like:
- Now what ?
- How could I & we have done it better ?
- How to fix that mess ?
- Did it worth that ?
- Did we/they deserve that ?
- Honnestly I am really happy with what have been obtained ?
- Sincerilly whom was right (could I have been wrong) ?
Relating parts would the basis of micro-socio-economics . It requires neutrality, respect of interpretations and transparency in definitions and to be especially flexible. Quite different from the basic assumptions on which have been traditionnally based microeconomics at least for the second and third characteristics. Organized structure or superstructures have also to be flexibleincluding in definitions which are more commonly seen as principles. Making them too rigorous will often make them fall short. Problems must be faced and goals must be met.
Social utility is a quite “basic complex dual”: 1) Have a positive socially appreciated result with the least effort, so as to have more time and more renewable ways to address other social problems; 2) Minimize as much as possible the adverse effects of people, ecology, and sustainability of sources of wealth. - Many positive results of social organization can come from diversity of practices and innovation from individuals as well as in the flexibility of remodeling priorities according to circumstances.
Financial (local) systems are essential to develop communities when they reflect their ability to generate a surplus that can re-enter into the social productive system. This has to be consistent more than the often erratic and inappropriate systems managed when financed from outside, as has been observed with government restructuring by neoliberal policies. Disposing such systems to work well is a first condition as for putting accounting sincerity ahead of business. It is only after caring about the true image of a community’s sustainable economy that you can eventually make inputs, add “extra” resources to support local investments, instead of just pushing programs of “sustainability development” and renew an aid which just maintain perverse systems of biasing local cultures which inconsistent theoretical abstracts made to please the selfish vanity of donors.