The Market Metaphor

[keirsey]

The Market metaphor is a useful metaphor in understanding how the world works, and even anti-market (or those who are suspicious of "the market" -- practically everybody that I know) find it useful to rail against "it." However, I have decided that the market metaphor has a major flaw, both misunderstood by capitalists, anti-capitalists, and the "rest" -- the vast majority of ignorant and confused populi.

The problem with the "market" metaphor is that it limited in its focus on "economic" transactions. What is missing in the "market bazaar" model (simplification and abstraction) is the implicit "politics" that undergrid that market in context.

Context.

Now that the United States is more socialistic and probably implicitly as fascistic as mainland China, so the market metaphor argument (capitalism) gets confused.

What needs to be added to the market metaphor is what might be called the "political market." Marx essentially emphasized the political market where Rand emphasized the economic market -- neither was totally correct. The US and China are not considered as markets by either Marx or Rand. Moreover, businesses and organizations (NGO's, unions, associations, governments) are not seen as markets.

If one regards businesses, governments, and human organizations as "markets" -- then we have a "free" global "market" -- governments and businesses, and other organizations are competing and cooperating: in other words -- evolution (or involution and envolution -- in my terms). Businesses and governments are like eucaryotic organisms, they live and die, and innovations (and mistakes) are incorporated into the new or old "organizations" as metaman and hypermetaman evolves.

[jwetmore]

David you are absolutly correct regarding the existence of the political and other marginally "non-economic" markets, and how the particpants including, parties, unions, and other associations interact in those markets. (Read on to see why I put quotes around non-economic.)

I've read topics discussing political markets and the markets for ideas for years and there are several writers and thinkers who address this point of view. (My memory fails me now to give you examples or links, but you are on the right track. I know I've made posts concerning the political market on other blogs or forums.) The main problem, as I see it, is that most people are too narrow in their definitions (market, for example, or economics). Lynn Kiesling, at http://knowledgeproblem.com/, wrote a post several months ago proposing a more general definition of "economic". For my part, I responded that years before in a discussion with a co-worker, I responded to his assertion that, "Economics is the study of maximizing money." with my definition that, "Economics is the study of maximizing happiness (utility in economic terms)." He could not believe that economics could be about anything but money. However if you think about the difference in definitions briefly you can see that the definition is important to the understanding of the economic system.

I think these defintions are like the difference between the Special Theory of Relativity and the General Theory of Relativity, or the Two-body gravitational model and the N-body gravitational model. It's easy to see how complex the general solutions become compared to simplified models. To understand how the world works we absolutely have include political markets, cultural markets, and intellectual markets in addition to the "economic" markets. I'll plug memes again here, as I think understanding memes is vital to understanding the co-evolution of ideas and cultures, with our biological evolution. (I am interested in your definitions of involution and envolution, please elaborate.)

The Market metaphor, as understood by most people, is too simplified to be useful (insert one of my favorite Einstein quotes here - you regular readers should know what it is). The special case of monetary transaction markets is just a necessary step to understanding the more complex interaction between people and their environments (social as well as physical).

[Goodrum]

Jwetmore: The Market metaphor, as understood by most people, is too simplified to be useful (insert one of my favorite Einstein quotes here Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.- you regular readers should know what it is). The special case of monetary transaction markets is just a necessary step to understanding the more complex interaction between people and their environments (social as well as physical).

??

[Goodrum]

Although you read this and have a compulsion to repeat it:

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed."

...and I would marry him for this:

"A human being is a part of a whole, called by us _universe_, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest... a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty."

Albert rocks.

[jwetmore]

@Goodrum, Nice quotes. My favorite (and I'll parphrase becuase I have seen several similar quotes attributed to Albert), "The explanation for a thing should be as simple as possible, but NO simpler."

[keirsey]

(I am interested in your definitions of involution and envolution, please elaborate.)

Here are my definitions out of context -- The word involution, redefined and refined, is used to represent the process and structure of existence which creates this increasing material complexity. The word envolution, created and defined, is used to represent the process and structure of this increasing functional complexity.

These definitions are illustrated and explained partially in my essay: Involution and Envolution: On the Structure and Process of Existence, Revisited. And these words serve as foundational concepts in my evolving book: Existence Itself: Towards the Phenomenology of Massive Dissipative/Replicative Structures.

[Quinta]

I find this intriguing, somewhat.

As I understand it, Replication must refer to specific forms being repeated under other circumstances than the original one. Dissipation refers to that particular form apparently disappearing in the surroundings, although it happens through equal distribution in the surroundings. (like gas?)

This is probably an elementary step, but nevertheless, one has to start some place.

I mean, are my assumptions correct?

[keirsey]

I find this intriguing, somewhat.

As I understand it, Replication must refer to specific forms being repeated under other circumstances than the original one. Dissipation refers to that particular form apparently disappearing in the surroundings, although it happens through equal distribution in the surroundings. (like gas?)

This is probably an elementary step, but nevertheless, one has to start some place.

I mean, are my assumptions correct?

Yes, you are essentially on the right track. Replication implies the spreading out of order (the order being - the thing that is getting replicated) and dissipation implies the spreading out of the disorder (relative to the thing that is getting dissipated), the problem is the *meaning* "Replication" and "Dissipation" is context specific in how to visualize the different kinds of Replication and Dissipation --- this is very complicated, and I have not articulated this for others to get the more subtle and concrete (abstract) aspects. There is a lot of work to do to fully articulate this abstract scheme. For example, 1) you can think motion (let's say of a particle) as replicating "itself" through time and space. In the process, dissipation (in the form of 'spontaneous' radiation emission or collision with another particle constitutes dissipation. 2) Normal cell activity includes replication (maintaining the "self" -- part of the metabolism -- anabolism (rebuilding of parts)) and dissipation (energy generating part of the process -- metabolism -- normal destruction of molecules or active catabolism). And sooooo... on...

[Quinta]

Thanks. This is beautiful.

I think I'll omit

although it happens through equal distribution in the surroundings. (like gas?)

as it doesn't contribute to what I understand you are saying.

[keirsey]

Wow!

Out of the mouth of babes... You just crystalized an aspect of the metaphor that I was wrestling with. The issue is what you might call "distributions."

Now don't get me wrong, I am sure you are not hip to "non-equilibrium chemical thermodynamics" but your statement triggered the question to me "why is equal distribution is not a primary (necessary) factor in the "dissipation" and "replication"?

Well, in some contexts (in equilibrium) -- the dominant restricted context that physics was locked into for about a hundred years -- EQUAL distribution of the CONTEXT was ASSUMED (and in many cases NECESSARY). Particularly NO CONTEXT, or essentially, an ISOLATED system was the norm in physics, and often in other sciences. In recent years non-equilibrium contexts have been an area that people have been exploring. -- The problem has been that "they" treat the problem as being in a "far from equilibrium" problem, which ESSENTIALLY looks at the problem in the same old way -- from the almost equally vacuous binary way --- from an "equilibrium" or "non-equilibrium" perspective (I am, of course, simplifying the situation).

Now, I had kind of figured out that on the REPLICATION side, factors such as density was significant (just think of a forest fire, tree density is significant in the progress of the fire), and looked at the various distributions as key to understanding the dynamics.

But now it is clear from our dialog, DISTRIBUTIONS matter in the DISSIPATION context too. OBVIOUS. (Once you see it clearly).

So, in the context of physics, charged particles differ from neutral particles, in a magnetic field -- they are clearly dissipative in terms of energy (evidenced by curvature). The question immediately pops into one's head, what about light in a gravitational field (i.e., in the context of "matter") what is being dissipative and what is being dissipative NOT in a gravitional field -- the problem is "light quanta" are not seen as dissipative (the hammer word in this case is "unitary"). However, string theory does include a kind of model of gravity -- but needs Gauge Fields (discrete connections), Brane Theory (continuums (M-theory)) to make sense of what is happening. But specific predictions are lacking at this point.

Interesting.

Thanks....