Liberal utilitarists have theoretically ground their economy on competion and scarcity and the debate with other economical schools has often reached extremes; for justifying conflicts, speculative extremist interests and so on; justifying it like today as 'creative destruction'. Observe that at other 'extreme' socialist economics have often been established as economics of war, thus not so far from scarcity produced by competition so formally, may be, not so different from the previous. Much of formal economics is circular between causes and effects. What often show the extravaganza of History, out the 'history of History' is that environments, contexts, reactions should not be missed to explain sorts bad determinisms, extremes have really happened. Closer look at histories of History show that overflowings, reversals, migrations of arguments from one side to another and logics of plastic systems try to be comprehensive above complexities of reality.
Out historical dialectical patterns of fights and common acrimony, questions to rise are about the similarities between different ideological perspectives. May be something that has been called freedom has been projected practically more like Petty lived and Smith's suggested, meanwhile marxist planification practically ignored: the many contradictions forcibly contained the making of history with sort of means used to change it. Be Marx theories periodically returning into fashion, because of incoherence of determinisms of bourgeois' economics cyclically re-appear after exhaustion of some more people, as present one which passed from keynesian to neoliberal up to present days.
'Socialist' economics, have had their 'development' or have never really been observed, inflated by biased information after having been based on policies forcing entire peoples to obey the diktats. Extended without fair control, the centrally planned mismanagment disturbed mental hygiene of their dear leader an evidence of determinist wrongdoings; always very sure on the proper way not to behave as revisionists or ennemies of the system. That is very proud to crush any spaces of peaceful changes; uncaring environmental effects and asking for enormous sacrifices of their own people at a level of social cost, hard to understand but also with historical reasons of heroism.
Liberal ethics has to add fairness in its competition. It made superior the need of security of property (when this, better should not be monopoly-minded neither maintained in 'priviledged superior hands' that is kept rigid. Communist contenders, often ruled that their ideal societies were not needing transparent moral justifications and had blind eyes on the means to conduce changes more to maintain their grip on power during decades of 'socialist transition', uncaring that all this time with enough time could have been used for lesser stupids ideological ambitions. Systems of justification have, almost always, been present; pragmatic counter arguments often crushed or marginalized, real politics just cynical, media just obscene, but not all and only with the bad intentions attributed by contenders.
Centrally planned Socialist ethics was so technically dedicated to distort the Message of a Better World and good society for common 'virtual citizen' that they care less many aspects of their social duties, the sense of its economics and the adverse effects of its policies; in the intent to solve or unfold complexities. All that shows, at least, how social determinism in a complex world seems to need to create enormous ideological apparatus, more with results distorting fair information. New communist capitalisms missed some and turned their bureaucraties of past bureaucrats into old kind type of capitalists as well as perfect new capitalist age ones as narcodealers. Populist communists resisting to these evolutions for staying in the anoxic damp marshes, club rubbish 'dump dumb belle democracy'.
The cult of few, if not of one personality may not be so different from leadership culture of beautiful people of leisure high classes entertainments normalized by fiction fans. Producing classes are divided by struggles. Mao's era characterized by huge and dramatic mistakes made by side of economics management, paid by millions of people, started nevertheless: education for all; health for all (barefeet doctors and good health payments); poverty were not let alone (after mentioned disasters); planning of war virtues (we cannot say that the previous China's period of war lords was a paradise); professional training; distributed rural industries (which prepared present capitalism).
Democracies have forgiven the levels of immoral wealth they accumulated along centuries of undemocratic means for pretending now to a selfishness moral virtue, they hardly cared during their glorious past. Anti-"laissez-faire" technocracies rigidly maintained the prity petty rigidities of their systems at the kind service to the petty cash of their 'petits' priviledged. Other invented humble mythologies to hide the minorities they segregate, the immigrants they exhausted and the natives they genocide. Modern days indeed lead up to a 'Brave new World'. Today services of speculation are 'helping' disanchoring local values from their anthropo-ecosystems or from entropospheres of reality, but the moral values they speak about everywhere, including as a business. World class policies force their envious poorer neighbours to behave as them, like 'almost' treated as equals on a stage of global Comedia d'ell arte, kind of a theater's that has also some merits, if it not be looking like abling you to determine a wise opinion on what they should do: the other failed ones.
Pedagogy of Social Models
Observe that a prediction should not be made of only on one lone hypothesis but be a conjonction of some few "norm-logic" hypothesis or options and pertinent auxiliary proposals. Stochastic processes are aleatory functions which argument is time (irreversible and unescapable) so influencing the practical problems. Essentially prediction (or extrapolation) often use modern techniques. If prediction is verified, it is not possible to conclude that its truth is definitive. Only, if not confirmed, that the prediction can be said false. This sort of precautions in social practice are, essential to transparency and should more often be recalled and managed so. Now, observing the trends, are, our paradigmatic questions, still ethical and question modern societal contradictions still standing, like knowing if:
- Our Golem-like creation 'progress' will turn into the Leviathan (a concept book of Thomas Hobbes an English philosopher) of our ruin, or will it return to mud and clay it was made of (the Golem is a Yiddish mythical monster from Prague, made of mud and given life by a local rabbi , to defend his community; but so clumsy ... so returned to mud),
- Panen and circenses (bread and circus games of decadent ancient Rome) will be just are for looking like privileged (for leisure business), meanwhile others in the arena make the show; letting most without the luck to live their dream meanwhile the development of their communities stay uncared.
- We will succeed to base our human moral difference in hard free work for our sake and Gaia or Pachamama (respectivelly Arthur Lovecraft’s and Andes’ mountains mothers' Earth), doing the best we can at caring Nature, without pretending to find truth in everything we say or fate explanations in weird spiritual simplifications.
Balances toward human interest make settlements biasing environmental system, ask on how find more intensities of uses, more recyclings and how to find effects of scale, if that can overall, limit environmental inconveniencies. For example developing a city where people could be better organized (allowing indirectly environmental care). Allowing also more healthy processes and safe conservations. Take better advantages of renewable and non renewable stocks is a core question with today's developments. Local relative effects of scale may be negative or positivelly seek to help concentrate environments, safe processes, and infrastructures or public works; so as to consider trends designed by the technological evolutions related to globalization like: "rooted in a triad of solid trends: miniaturization, decentralization and the greening of power generation. Combined effects of technological progress, growing environmental consciousness, the advent of a digital economy and the opening of markets to competition".
What to care in anthropization of transformations of physical world, meanwhile this exists because of heterogeneities, dysperfections, mixtures, combinations of matters and energies forms as well as show weird but rigorous informative energetic equivalencies. On side there are a series of relative balances as well as non equilibrium to maintain: go on living, working, not exhausting and other looking like immediate balances (comparing cons and pros, matching ambitions and possibilities, seek 'optimum' point(s), where the things could be 'stabilized' and the changes consolidated and the appraisal (anticipated) can be made. Many problems of democratic 'management' have also to do with unessarilly fixed cognitive rigidities, mistaken as essential; meanwhile the real involvment, fairness in involvement, sincerity put in evidence that it is possible to work together when previously anticipated representations on how things should turned without regard on the indeterminism of anticipations. This may be more characteristics of some cultures, but any has rigidities and if more dynamical ones may look like more pragmatic, like not taking working hypothesis for thesis. They can also by their narrowsighted pragmatism miss to cover enough consensus and when facing social reactions they seem to be surprised to discover.
It is clear that more care must be taken to assess prevently adverse effects, care better social involments, extend the conceptual covers of elements included in the assessment of projects. So to stop to consider the backyard of any project a land of automatic renewal and open land a storage of waste. Meanwhile it is also to manage more cleverly complexities. There are of course plenty of democratic forced pilot experiences that often have failed and many of principles of precaution that can produce huge waste, are unsustainable and bear counterproductive costs but still much need for coping and grow stronger. About pedagogy of projects, it should be essential to investigate knowledge of difficulties, rather than going on inflating abstract concepts of cartesian's rational management. In the environment and its high degrees of organization, thanks to biodiversity; it is nowadays to care in most cases, in those new environments somehow stable, if they keep:
- Enough natural biodiversity,
- Respect of renewable ressources,
- Not too long term degrading anthropologic adverse effects or,
- Let too unanageable waste, and so on.
That are places with space but still enough benefit to every life's environment. Probably also, sort of gains in artificial complexities that human transformations can reach, will stay poorer than "Nature's laissez faire". Popular transmissions and shaping of model(s) (with togetherness) if you can substitute 'formal formulas" by simple enunciates, there is too that needs be explicit with quantification, managements of amounts, including money and commitments. As interpretations are multiple there is the need not to avoid reasonable means of simplification and quantifications are relevant ones to put consistancy in conceptions. Byside of real sciences quantifications provide information on what is 'reasonable'. Discourse should not abruptly cut by deciders, especially when things are complex but, at the reverse, speeches more suit elusive theaters.
An important concern of olicognography is that anyone has to reach a minimum degree of knowledge of essential concepts, to not ignore them or avoid any sort of formulation when needed. This is a matter of freedom (and faith if you want): let anyone make up one's own mind on 'rational definitions'; validations come with use and achieved well made results. Enforce rational definitions, especially insensible and un-evident ones, let too much space to meaningless simplistic definitions. The core there is just to know more properly where the places are or of analytical objects, respect to freedom and usefulness of creativity.
It is necessary to learn to resume or redesign rapidly something already explored can help to enhance programming. An olicognograph can ensure people that their suggestions have been taken into account, be in many different ways. So that they are the process and don’t forget what they have done well before. Intuitively, you understand that, even if not engaged in a direct use of thermodynamics, those give a frame of fundamental knowledge to understand your environment. The lack of popular knowledge at this respect allows plenty of esoteric interpretations about flows of energy, coming from nowhere and going nowhere. Perhaps also, because specialists do not want to find expressions that could fit the way common minds think.
Incremental approaches take as their starting point orthodox decision theory and favor piece-meal, step-wise change. The process can be described in the following way:
- Identify normative assumptions or models that are ubiquitously used by economists, such as Bayesian updating, expected utility, and discounted utility.
- Identify anomalies—i.e. demonstrate clear violations of the assumption or model, and painstakingly, rule out alternative explanations, such as subjects’ confusion or transaction costs.
- Use the anomalies as source of inspiration to create alternative theories.
- Step is to construct economic models of behavior using the behavioral assumptions from the third step, derive fresh implications and test them.
Finally here is a need to keep control of defects in participatory methods and be cautious with the technological part of the bias in the development of capital (of knowledge). Many problems of social development are in the difficulty to free social processes from manipulations that have no other purpose than reproduce social structures rigidities. This makes it difficult to establish a sort of capital of knowing how to resolve social problems. Much time can be wasted reinventing and redesigning the same fuzzy principles and sometimes more probability of mistakes.
Ethics in/from Fields' Realities
Reasoning is an imperative rarely practiced efficiently, as a practice of emergence, for social development especially concerning the care and limits to have in mind with concepts and formal issues. Indeed, it is important also not to lose oneself in the labyrinth of fallacies of traditional rhetoric or in the vicious circularities of dialectic. When in some kind of conceptual design, it is essential to know how to get out of that, if goal is not to stay in the circles of circus' stage, neither to use virtual elegances only as a means to gain social status. The great philosophy of philosophers stay an instrument of segregation. Application, in a socially cooperative ways, is a major problem of modern philosophy. We are far from using philosophy for social development of communities. If, since have started modern era many methods were originated in philosophy and established thereafter and selfishly autonomous as disciplines, wanting to ignore most of other registers that could ground more softly their own practice. So, the philosophy of traditional 'western' education systems became residual literacy.
Things would change if, rather than trying to establish disciples of oneself philosophy, enough of such education could have express more concern about articulating reasoning and practices as empowered citizens. Concerned by the feasibility of applied management of concepts and abstractions, olicognography logicy has an implicit goal to make philosophy more precomplete and useful. It tries to incorporate flexible concepts and key words in working frames, clearly based on practical communities goals. It does not means that holistic altruism has to receive exclusive priority. Also, it does not say that the practice of specialized disciplines has no social benefit. It just hope that humanity can reach a better dynamic toward mental wealth that may be called happiness.
Many pseudo-scientific discipline developments are, in fact, dialectical practices of “rhetoric of wellness” diverting honnest complex thinking, thanks to plasticity and complexity to not really confront social issues differently from sectarist means. If those can serve well to find socioeconomical reasons, that may not consume too many resources, humane priorities remain. Of course, it is quite difficult to know and prejudge exactly of the margins of necessary imagination and to establish the 'wild wideness' between false and real prospections in sciences. Moreover, real scientists are no less interested in social manipulations than their soft sciences counterparts. So, tautologically to call for 'enough imagination' and make 'fallacy as minimum as possible' but not null. So there could be some space allowed to imagination. Another prospect is to constrain exuberant qualitative reasoning with measures and quantification. This can imply more democratic ways in the design of quantified models, like doing exercises and calculus stacked to the benefit of real actors.
When practicing (olicognography), you have to design structures of concepts not with too few exclusive options but various and complementary possibilities. Also, you have to take complexity into account when reading. Duals, pairs, and higher cardinal structures of reasoning that we have all in mind, explain why contradictions, diversity of options, and flexibility can be adapted positivelly to practical cases—you extend what we call an graph of influence. This is also the reason why we insist that democracy, with everyone’s individual commitments (at each can), and diversity should help to cover better the objective complexities of human issues. What is fundamental is not to develop other ideology based on moral values. As techniques, morals and ethics have existed for centuries The point is to imagine supports that can make them comprehensive, put them into practical evidence and into supports, easy to adapt, manage, and use by local communities.
To shape a community’s human rights values has to be done cautiously to recollect the existing local values, which are really appropriated by members of the community. Disqualifying good traditions (not all are adaptable) means loosing social ground for communities and soils erosion in agriculture; without being sure that you will all have the means to remade properly, not like in agriculture where the Sun globally rarely fails to shine. Appropriated to the community, the result will be a graph of influence that can be applied to practical circumstances as a referal of allowance and community programs as a guide with concepts. Genuine reviews made by the community, should extend to exogenous projects. These projects should first stay at the social margins until all can forsee their profit. The submission of projects to the local community cultural system of values is a minimum requirement (?). It is better to let the projects be managed by consistently moral, but locally recognized (formal or informal) authorities.
Eventually to transfer the local system of values into a practical document of un-determinist management. Concepts here are labels, inspiring of course but, where definitions are to be made and fixed by the community itself. Put yourself, in the secular status keen to incorporate essential moral or religious values. Find jointly acceptable ways for the community to take into account basic human rights. It is to to avoid direct metaphysical or abstract levels so better to target practical applications. Find reasonably the community feasibility of basic human rights. Do not extend concepts too much, nor too abstractly, or so, cut and delegate. Extensions should correspond to actors in the range of their rights and the possibilities of their duties. Moral systems of values and theoretical structures can always make a sympathetic graph: it is made so. The problem is with the consistency of norms and how the margins of social flexibility are used. There is a huge diversity of interpretations: doing this, without cautiousness, like when introducing basic human rights, can create confusion and, paradoxically, promote transgressions. This helps individualistic behavior, to abuse of their leverage and their preventive control is very difficult.
Once having enough cautious doubts about care of systems of criteria, be this the potential 'good economics laws' to deposit onto logical frames of programs of intervention (or as 'framework of positive influence'). Revolution of information, for being really information, rather than just communication, have to consider also a moral economy of information, if you still not share our opinion that economics best laws are moral, despite we are cautious to not define moral qualities clearly. Somehow also societies that maintain over time, by adapting have developed systems of self-justification and 'moral principles' that show many differents patterns, often similar if some efforts of cultural understanding, social cultural and contextual apropriatedness have been made. This includes also values carried by spiritual or religious systems. Community logics and not just considering the the 3 major monotheism have emerged from the same 'holy' (always disputed) land.
We have provided some minimum frames about olicognographic disposal of concepts of moral concepts. To list some points open to questionning especially concerning some 'fair management' or economics communications
- Effectivity: goals' references, degree of fulfilment as linkedto excess or defect,
- Assessment: contradictions, iterations feasibility and possibility according potentials and needs,
- Capability: criteria of assessment, refusal of contradiction, aspiration to permanence,
- Manipulation of information, real social processes or distorsions of communication,
- Informal unfair competition, self selection, managed distorsions,
- Unmanaged complexity, targeted determinist mispesification, undermined wholism (esoterism as a system of will),
- Stigmatisation, dependence, penalized virtue (to maintain bias, lack of justice, undue state of siege,
- Reason of State against State of Rights,
- Diffamation or slandering (too communicating when too misinformed on some abuse)
- Cynicism or hypocrisy (when they have means or influence)
- Rigorist virtue for others or inhumane 'good consciouness' (self-protecting itself by ignorence or speculation)
- Ignoring evidences or doing for doing because they have to be done,
- Fallacies introduced as antagonic tautologies (for undoing or mis to do)
- Acting ignoring potential reaction by lack of cautions (as well as rewriting history for more wonderfull clothes)
- Intention is not powerful, motivations cannot be just self lone interest against other
Finally we cannot and do not pretend that:
- Spirituality could not exist (olicognography expects you will succeed to manage properly knowledge and morally spiritual values),
- The physical World is always commensurable or should be treated better (to the contrary, olicognography takes care of complexity and incommensurability),
- Strange (paranormal) phenomena could not exist (but olicognography is more concerned by practical, common, social issues),
Metaphysical questions cand find simple answers. Olicognography just expects that everyone will be really free and in good conditions to have this quest without losing humane sense.