...the human system...

“...uma horda de animais; na floresta dos meus próprios signos e nas memórias da minha memória...” (Derrida, L’Animal que donc je suis.)

“...a hoard of animals; in the forest of my own signs and in the memories of my memory...”

The human system is formatted, in terms of fundamental causality, by a pathos of biological entanglement of survival that follows rules/laws of structure that are ontologically radiculated in a cosmos (our cosmos) which conditions the intersystemic game of evolutionary sustainability.

The systems are integrated wholes dynamically enacted by the interdependent relations of the parts. The human system, as any other system, depends upon the self-sustained entanglement of the respective parts.

In this sense, what can be done/what each of us can do is always conditioned by the adequability of what must be done. There is always some “thing” that conditions us: our initial formative conditions, the initial formative conditions of the others, the initial formative conditions of our cosmos, that “originated” us: each individual’s self-determination is permanently played in an atribulated survival patchwork of difficult management.

Thus, the operative use of practices and pragmatics, oriented by criteria of “control” towards strategies of power, are, such as the Laplacian daimon postulate, not very intelligent. That which, in HumanAnimal language, is designated by “power” depends upon an operative dynamics, configured by an entanglement of interactive “forces” systemically enacted, characterized by a non-locality constituted by crossovers of rhythms, conditioned by the stories, the trajects, the unstable and heterogeneous individual/collective techniques and tactics, sustained from the mobile points that orbit in critical systemic frontiers, permanently threatened by the porous rotativity of the points of catastrophe, enacted by the systems in survival interface.

“Control” is an egophagic notion. We can and we must, intelligently, manage and coordinate projectively, but we are insane when we invest in a protoplasm of delirant control, responsible for the practices of desiring egotistical greed that dragged/drag us to the situation of catastrophe in which we, human system, inhabit.

We are prisoners in the technological Doppler effect, formatted by the EgoNarcissic isotopy: I-am-therefore-I am, therefore I am-therefore-am...; we are the inhabitants of an ondulatory of “naked singularity”, in which the system, in a survival despair, seems to have (re)written its initial conditions without having been able to enact the rules/laws of structure, responsible for the sustainability of its integrity.

...we are the prisoners...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/23/Noahs_Ark.jpg/276px-Noahs_Ark.jpg

We are the prisoners in the technological Doppler effect, formatted by the EgoNarcissistic isotopy: I-am-therefore-I-am, therefore I-am-therefore-am…; we are the inhabitants of an ondulatory of “naked singularity”.

Borrowing from Cioran: only suffering is ubiquitous, not God; if Noah possessed the gift of prophecy, he would have to sink the ark.

Economics, Life and The Stubborn Black Swans...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c4/Cygnus_Atratus_Singapore.jpg/320px-Cygnus_Atratus_Singapore.jpg

«Does today's dominant economic and financial thinking violate the laws of physics?»

«low probability high impact risks and unknown unknowns or black swans»

«New Model of Economics based on Physics (...) A new model of economics ought to aim to contribute to the development of the scientific understanding of the way our economic systems work holistically (…)»

http://www.mi2g.com/cgi/mi2g/frameset.php?pageid=http%3A//www.mi2g.com/cgi/mi2g/press/301211.php

“Laws of physics”?!?

There are rules/laws of structure that necessarily follow the evolving dynamics of life/death and that, therefore, necessarily change at the rhythms of the things, in their evolving entanglement in survival interface, from the imminent FutureNow to the sustainability flux of the PresentNow.

The so-called “black swans”, that Taleb worked from Popper, are necessary to the autopoietic/systemic sustainability, there are always “black swans” out there, they are only unexpected to human cognitive schemes that are unreasonably focused upon “monstrative” situations of control, incompatible with the dynamics of survival: control of the others, of other species, control of life, of the differences, control of evolution itself by part of a single species: the human.

The crossing-over of different disciplinary areas is desirable, more, necessary to the general entangled pathos of survival, because of that, not only a dialogue with Physics is needed, but also with the Life Sciences and all the other sciences, which Economics, necessarily, has to deal with/coordinate itself with/relate itself with/dialogue with...

...but, above all, it is necessary to make a cognitive effort to think things beyond the models' conditioning. It is necessary to free ourselves from a certain obsession with control.

Things can only be perceived in their cognitive completeness, if we are able to think ourselves in relation to ourselves and in relation to the things, without disconnecting ourselves from the projective rotative pathos that operates at the level of the dynamics of systemic sustainability.

By pathos one should understand its primitive sense, of some thing that happens, both in reference to what happens as well as in reference to what is affected by what happens.

Revolutionem, Revolutus, Revolvere… Revolution?

Revolution?

The system is us, the institutions are us, the agents are us, the markets are us, the responsibility is ours. The revolution must be in us.

When the altruistic practices become an effective permanence, we can speak of a revolution.

When the dignity ceases to be just a postulate to become a generalized effective practice, we can speak of a revolution.

When the tolerance and cooperation replace the Darwinian competition, we can speak of a revolution…

…until then, any social revolution will only be the replacement of a predatory power by other predatory powers.

..“But what next?”....

http://newsjunkiepost.com/2011/10/05/occupation-nation-ritual-arrests-and-candle-light-vigils-what-next/

“But what next?”

For now, and with some inspiration in Baudrillard’s matrix, what we have is a desperate capitalism sustained by a Moebian Double Bind operationalized in manipulation by anticipation.

The discourses and contra-discourses are programmed and simulated towards effects of banalization and respective integration, idiotically sustained in perspectives of system control by inertia and closing. Inertia because the people cease to react, closing by control by way of normative formatting of discourses and the respective contra-discourses.

The final goal is the zombification by iterative banalization. This is systemically dangerous for all, also for those that, in their pathological delirium of power, think themselves Laplacian daimones.

...on transcendence...

All the systems are conditioned by rules/laws of structure that are determined, in fundamental terms, by their respective formative initial conditions.

But what is a rule/law? What is the nature of a rule/law? What can be the ontological status of a rule/law? How can the rules/laws of structure, determined by initial conditions that the system did not choose, condition all its life? All its choices? Its actions? Its paths? Because even if the system can rewrite its initial conditions, that rewriting will, still, be conditioned by its vital laws of structure responsible for the system’s integrity.

In this context, what pertinence can there have the projection of scenarios, configured by pre-figurated degrees of freedom? Within what parameters would it be possible to consider planes of systemic transcendence?

Transcendence involves the concept of limit, to transcend is the act by which someone, or some thing surpasses or “escapes” the limits imposed by the immanence.

An act of transcendence is an arbitrary act of projective opening that gifts the system with the ability to launch itself, or jump, towards outside of itself, as position of itself in itself, in that which, with pertinence, can be designated by systemic jump, that is, the jump that installs in the systemic identity the ontological rotative dyad, conceptually synthesizable as the other of itself in itself.

Transcendence is the dynamics, in the immanence, for the enacting of a systemic surpassing, still sustained by the immanence: this is about growth, development, evolution...

...reciprocity...

Any system enacts an anomaly when it refuses the vital dynamics of reciprocity: the enacted anomaly is, in the system, the motifeme – the invariant entity without adaptive clinamen – of the tautological narrateme without humus..., without world, without the others in face of oneself and with oneself.

When the human agents refuse a vital dynamics of reciprocity, they are enacting an anomaly of themselves: excluding themselves from that which connects them with the others and with themselves: the “mutuum”. When the agents put themselves as monstrative reifications of dogmatic divine postulates, they are enacting an anomaly of themselves.