For The Love Of Money
It is said that if you want to know what a person loves, watch where their money goes. After a few years working in a bank, I have gotten a chance to see an interesting cross section of America's spending habits. The vast majority of peoples' money seems to be spent on the basics; pay the rent, put food on the table. What's left after the fundamentals have been covered (and often more than what was actually left) is generally spent on trivial things to make life more bearable; movies, porn, alcohol, gambling, religion.
We all have our own relationship with money, but seldom do we as individuals stop to think about the meaning behind the money we spend. Most seem to grasp the basic concept of money as a medium of value used to facilitate trade, however I have been thinking about it over the last few years and I think it represents more than that. Money is the symbolic representation of the Will of Society. Used as a medium for exchange, money is the method through which the collective group portions out to individuals a share in control of the combined labor capacity of the collected whole. The use of money is the expression of economic control in the same way that voting is the exercise of political control.
Now, there are two ways in which this control is expressed, control over how labor is assigned and control over how resources are portioned out. In a bottom up system (a market economy), the individual's share of control is determined by their value to the group as a whole. Your personal "inclinations" (ability, knowledge and choice) determine the type of labor you produce and the need for your type of labor determines how large of a share of control you receive. Ideally, those who can produce a type of labor for which supply is short and demand is high are granted a greater share of economic control (ex. more job options, greater pay and benefits, more political power within their field).
Within a purely top down economic model, the Group, or a governing body thereof, determines how economic power will be exercised. Ideally, the governing authority would determine the best allocation of labor assets, the best allocation of productive power, and the best allocation of resources. For a moment, let's assume that it is possible to create a functioning top down economic system that could produce exactly the same productive output as a bottom up economic system. If we remove raw productive power as a factor, then the primary difference between a top down and a bottom up economic system becomes the direction from which power is exercised.
In a top down model (authoritative/totalitarian), control over the collected productive power of the group is vested in a centralized authority. That authority would then have the responsibility of collecting the necessary information and making the necessary decisions to provide for the best possible allocation of labor, production and resources. The obvious economic danger here is that the authority's information will be incorrect or biased, leading to a less than ideal allocation of resources. As I am sure we are all aware, consolidation of power has a tendency to lead to bias with regard to information gathering and reasoning. This is not to suggest that bias doesn't exist in other situations, but when power has been consolidated, the necessity to pursue the most economically functional doctrine can more easily be sidetracked by personal or group bias.
However, the real point at which such a system would break down would be the assumption that people can operate in the same capacity as ants. A top down economic model is perhaps best expressed in a colony of ants. Each unit in the colony, each ant, has a genetically determined "job" that it does from birth to death. The individual ant does not question why it has a given job, just performs its function for the continued survival of the whole. Now, with regard to actual numbers, we estimate that human beings account for 100 million tons of the biomass on Earth, while ants account for between 900 million and 9 billion tons of total biomass. Yet we have created "hives" that drastically outpace ants in productive power. I would argue that one of the main reasons we are able to reach such heights of productive capacity is the fundamentally "flawed" manner in which we organize power within our societies.
An ant colony is extremely good at providing for its own survival. So good, in fact, that it has no reason to evolve into anything more complex. There are estimated to be upwards of 14,000 different species of ants, and while there are wide variations in size and shape, the general "theme" of ants remains pretty common throughout. While I would not dream of arguing that human beings have "ceased to evolve biologically", I would certainly argue that after a point in our evolution as a species, the evolutionary process shifted much of its focus from a biological to a socio-cultural evolution.
Once we hit a certain population density, we began to operate effectively as larger "social organisms", evolving through a self-referential feedback related to information storage. Instead of individual units evolving new biological traits which passed to their genetic offspring, the evolution occurring became that of a quasi-immortal, super-organism that was able to collect and utilize drastically higher amounts of information than any individual unit could gather during his or her lifetime. More information meant more tools with which to affect the world. But, in order for evolution to occur, there must be a condition such that different participants in a system compete for survival. This is as true for ideas as it is for mockingbirds on the Galapagos Islands.
That is why the "human condition" was ideal to inspire this kind of socio-cultural evolution. Humans are simultaneously highly individualistic and highly cooperative. People cannot survive, or at least cannot flourish as we have, as solo animals. Biologically, we are significantly weaker than many other species. Yet, while we cooperate on a massive scale, each individual maintains a distinct concept of self and an understanding of their own self interest. This concept of self interest within the cooperative superstructure, combined with the capacity of each unit to process information and reason of it's own accord, leads to "splinter points" at which part of the social organism can branch off in new and creative directions, as though it were an asexual organism budding a genetically differentiated offspring. Rather than being trapped in the monotony of a "closed system", a system that functions too well to evolve, the social organism is incapable of reaching a stasis point and is forced by its own nature to continuously evolve by recreating and then destroying itself.
What does this have to do with money? I'm glad you asked. A purely top down economic model asks human beings to act against their natural inclination to exert a personal control on their world. The use of money in a market system symbolizes exerting a measure of economic control, even if the actual extent of that control is extremely limited. As an experiment if you were to give Group A a box of Brand X laundry detergent and say, "This laundry detergent has been proven to be the best detergent, so it is the only one you can use", then give Group B a choice between five laundry detergents, each with user reviews that clearly suggest that Brand X is the best, even the Group B people who chose an "inferior product" will likely report a more positive laundry experience than the Group A people. Even if the functional effect of the detergent for both groups is exactly the same, the group that participates in self-determination will feel more empowered, regardless of how illusory that self-determination may have actually been. This illusion of control provides an abstract component to the experience that is linked to the individuals perception of their own relationship to the world, rather than being linked to the functional outcome of the situation.
That is why democratic republicanism and a market economy is more effective at controlling people than an openly authoritative or totalitarian governmental structure. If you give people the illusion of a choice, their desire to express personal control over their world can be expressed in minor, controllable ways, thereby diverting it from "pooling" in areas that might actually result in significant change. A person who has a vote in a rigged election is significantly less likely to buy an assault rifle or form a union as an option for expressing their political control. A person who believes they can "take their business to another bank" is less likely to demand change from their current financial institution, even if rationally they recognize that the other companies will have the same policies.
Now, there is an oft' misquoted saying that "Money is the root of all evil". In fact, the version of the quote that has proliferated is from the King James bible and is actually, "For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows." It is not money itself that is the root of all "evil", but rather the "love of money". If we assume that money in the abstract represents control of the economic power of humanity, control of the productive capacities of the human cooperative, control of the Will of Society, then the "love of money" is the love of control. In this sense, I use the term love with a different connotation than I normally use it. In this context, I feel that "love" is actually referring to an obsessive desire, a feeling of need beyond that which is healthy. In short, the "love of money" in this sense is to value money beyond all other things.
So, if we take the "love of money" to refer to an obsessive desire for control of power, it becomes a little clearer how the love of money could be the root of all "evil". To take this concept further, it is not simply an obsession with personal control, but rather a desire for super-human control. True avarice is the desire for godlike control over the productive power, the "willpower", of humanity. For the love of money above all else is the desire of the individual to ascend above the ranks of mortal men to a manufactured godhood. In the Christian mythos, this is tantamount to the primary sin, Pride, that of the individualist (Satan) assuming that they are more important than the group identity (God).
For the love of money (the obsessive desire for control) is the root of all evil (has been correlated with consequences deemed negative by societal norms): which while some coveted after (which some pursue beyond the assumed healthy bounds set forth by societal control structures), they have erred from the faith (they have begun to value their own importance above that of the group identity), and pierced themselves through with many sorrows (have created dangerous, destabilizing, or punishable situations deemed negative by societal norms).
"The obsessive desire for control has been correlated with consequences deemed negative by societal norms: some purse this desire beyond the assumed healthy bounds set forth by societal control structures, and by so doing they come to value their own importance above that of the group identity and create dangerous, destabilizing or punishable situations deemed negative by societal norms." - Timothy 6:10
Now, comes the point where I integrate my classic argument. I posit that the obsessive desire for control beyond rational or healthy limits, regardless of how it is expressed, is caused directly by a fear based experience of powerlessness. A person who experiences an extreme feeling of fear due to a situation of powerlessness will often create a negative feedback pattern within their cognitive framework such that they are constantly attempting and constantly failing to assuage that internalized powerless feeling by acting out in extreme and often irrational ways. Rather than being able to reach a feeling of contentment through reasonable achievements, they are perpetually driven by this internalized feeling of powerlessness to assert their control over the world, and by so doing, assert their own power. However, no measure of external control will ever satisfy such a person if they fail to deal with that internalized feeling of powerlessness.
In short, Fear is the "root of all evil". A person incapable of effectively dealing with fear will forever be driven onward like Io being chased by that gadfly. Only by being empowered to gain control of their own cognitive framework, to gain "control of their life", can an individual learn to act within rational and/or healthy and/or constructive patterns.
We all have our own relationship with money, but seldom do we as individuals stop to think about the meaning behind the money we spend. Most seem to grasp the basic concept of money as a medium of value used to facilitate trade, however I have been thinking about it over the last few years and I think it represents more than that. Money is the symbolic representation of the Will of Society. Used as a medium for exchange, money is the method through which the collective group portions out to individuals a share in control of the combined labor capacity of the collected whole. The use of money is the expression of economic control in the same way that voting is the exercise of political control.
Now, there are two ways in which this control is expressed, control over how labor is assigned and control over how resources are portioned out. In a bottom up system (a market economy), the individual's share of control is determined by their value to the group as a whole. Your personal "inclinations" (ability, knowledge and choice) determine the type of labor you produce and the need for your type of labor determines how large of a share of control you receive. Ideally, those who can produce a type of labor for which supply is short and demand is high are granted a greater share of economic control (ex. more job options, greater pay and benefits, more political power within their field).
Within a purely top down economic model, the Group, or a governing body thereof, determines how economic power will be exercised. Ideally, the governing authority would determine the best allocation of labor assets, the best allocation of productive power, and the best allocation of resources. For a moment, let's assume that it is possible to create a functioning top down economic system that could produce exactly the same productive output as a bottom up economic system. If we remove raw productive power as a factor, then the primary difference between a top down and a bottom up economic system becomes the direction from which power is exercised.
In a top down model (authoritative/totalitarian), control over the collected productive power of the group is vested in a centralized authority. That authority would then have the responsibility of collecting the necessary information and making the necessary decisions to provide for the best possible allocation of labor, production and resources. The obvious economic danger here is that the authority's information will be incorrect or biased, leading to a less than ideal allocation of resources. As I am sure we are all aware, consolidation of power has a tendency to lead to bias with regard to information gathering and reasoning. This is not to suggest that bias doesn't exist in other situations, but when power has been consolidated, the necessity to pursue the most economically functional doctrine can more easily be sidetracked by personal or group bias.
However, the real point at which such a system would break down would be the assumption that people can operate in the same capacity as ants. A top down economic model is perhaps best expressed in a colony of ants. Each unit in the colony, each ant, has a genetically determined "job" that it does from birth to death. The individual ant does not question why it has a given job, just performs its function for the continued survival of the whole. Now, with regard to actual numbers, we estimate that human beings account for 100 million tons of the biomass on Earth, while ants account for between 900 million and 9 billion tons of total biomass. Yet we have created "hives" that drastically outpace ants in productive power. I would argue that one of the main reasons we are able to reach such heights of productive capacity is the fundamentally "flawed" manner in which we organize power within our societies.
An ant colony is extremely good at providing for its own survival. So good, in fact, that it has no reason to evolve into anything more complex. There are estimated to be upwards of 14,000 different species of ants, and while there are wide variations in size and shape, the general "theme" of ants remains pretty common throughout. While I would not dream of arguing that human beings have "ceased to evolve biologically", I would certainly argue that after a point in our evolution as a species, the evolutionary process shifted much of its focus from a biological to a socio-cultural evolution.
Once we hit a certain population density, we began to operate effectively as larger "social organisms", evolving through a self-referential feedback related to information storage. Instead of individual units evolving new biological traits which passed to their genetic offspring, the evolution occurring became that of a quasi-immortal, super-organism that was able to collect and utilize drastically higher amounts of information than any individual unit could gather during his or her lifetime. More information meant more tools with which to affect the world. But, in order for evolution to occur, there must be a condition such that different participants in a system compete for survival. This is as true for ideas as it is for mockingbirds on the Galapagos Islands.
That is why the "human condition" was ideal to inspire this kind of socio-cultural evolution. Humans are simultaneously highly individualistic and highly cooperative. People cannot survive, or at least cannot flourish as we have, as solo animals. Biologically, we are significantly weaker than many other species. Yet, while we cooperate on a massive scale, each individual maintains a distinct concept of self and an understanding of their own self interest. This concept of self interest within the cooperative superstructure, combined with the capacity of each unit to process information and reason of it's own accord, leads to "splinter points" at which part of the social organism can branch off in new and creative directions, as though it were an asexual organism budding a genetically differentiated offspring. Rather than being trapped in the monotony of a "closed system", a system that functions too well to evolve, the social organism is incapable of reaching a stasis point and is forced by its own nature to continuously evolve by recreating and then destroying itself.
What does this have to do with money? I'm glad you asked. A purely top down economic model asks human beings to act against their natural inclination to exert a personal control on their world. The use of money in a market system symbolizes exerting a measure of economic control, even if the actual extent of that control is extremely limited. As an experiment if you were to give Group A a box of Brand X laundry detergent and say, "This laundry detergent has been proven to be the best detergent, so it is the only one you can use", then give Group B a choice between five laundry detergents, each with user reviews that clearly suggest that Brand X is the best, even the Group B people who chose an "inferior product" will likely report a more positive laundry experience than the Group A people. Even if the functional effect of the detergent for both groups is exactly the same, the group that participates in self-determination will feel more empowered, regardless of how illusory that self-determination may have actually been. This illusion of control provides an abstract component to the experience that is linked to the individuals perception of their own relationship to the world, rather than being linked to the functional outcome of the situation.
That is why democratic republicanism and a market economy is more effective at controlling people than an openly authoritative or totalitarian governmental structure. If you give people the illusion of a choice, their desire to express personal control over their world can be expressed in minor, controllable ways, thereby diverting it from "pooling" in areas that might actually result in significant change. A person who has a vote in a rigged election is significantly less likely to buy an assault rifle or form a union as an option for expressing their political control. A person who believes they can "take their business to another bank" is less likely to demand change from their current financial institution, even if rationally they recognize that the other companies will have the same policies.
Now, there is an oft' misquoted saying that "Money is the root of all evil". In fact, the version of the quote that has proliferated is from the King James bible and is actually, "For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows." It is not money itself that is the root of all "evil", but rather the "love of money". If we assume that money in the abstract represents control of the economic power of humanity, control of the productive capacities of the human cooperative, control of the Will of Society, then the "love of money" is the love of control. In this sense, I use the term love with a different connotation than I normally use it. In this context, I feel that "love" is actually referring to an obsessive desire, a feeling of need beyond that which is healthy. In short, the "love of money" in this sense is to value money beyond all other things.
So, if we take the "love of money" to refer to an obsessive desire for control of power, it becomes a little clearer how the love of money could be the root of all "evil". To take this concept further, it is not simply an obsession with personal control, but rather a desire for super-human control. True avarice is the desire for godlike control over the productive power, the "willpower", of humanity. For the love of money above all else is the desire of the individual to ascend above the ranks of mortal men to a manufactured godhood. In the Christian mythos, this is tantamount to the primary sin, Pride, that of the individualist (Satan) assuming that they are more important than the group identity (God).
For the love of money (the obsessive desire for control) is the root of all evil (has been correlated with consequences deemed negative by societal norms): which while some coveted after (which some pursue beyond the assumed healthy bounds set forth by societal control structures), they have erred from the faith (they have begun to value their own importance above that of the group identity), and pierced themselves through with many sorrows (have created dangerous, destabilizing, or punishable situations deemed negative by societal norms).
"The obsessive desire for control has been correlated with consequences deemed negative by societal norms: some purse this desire beyond the assumed healthy bounds set forth by societal control structures, and by so doing they come to value their own importance above that of the group identity and create dangerous, destabilizing or punishable situations deemed negative by societal norms." - Timothy 6:10
Now, comes the point where I integrate my classic argument. I posit that the obsessive desire for control beyond rational or healthy limits, regardless of how it is expressed, is caused directly by a fear based experience of powerlessness. A person who experiences an extreme feeling of fear due to a situation of powerlessness will often create a negative feedback pattern within their cognitive framework such that they are constantly attempting and constantly failing to assuage that internalized powerless feeling by acting out in extreme and often irrational ways. Rather than being able to reach a feeling of contentment through reasonable achievements, they are perpetually driven by this internalized feeling of powerlessness to assert their control over the world, and by so doing, assert their own power. However, no measure of external control will ever satisfy such a person if they fail to deal with that internalized feeling of powerlessness.
In short, Fear is the "root of all evil". A person incapable of effectively dealing with fear will forever be driven onward like Io being chased by that gadfly. Only by being empowered to gain control of their own cognitive framework, to gain "control of their life", can an individual learn to act within rational and/or healthy and/or constructive patterns.
posted by Mr. Devon B. | 11:33 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home