Equilibrium, stasis and death

[bcox@xxxxxxx (Brad Cox @ GMU/PSOL)]

>In reply to Brad Cox of why "stability/equilibrium stuff has such appeal"
>is a question post keynesians and I would also add some Austrian economists
>also ask.
>...So this appeal
>to look at the world in a model of stability and equilibrium is a tradition
>that dominants out profession.

That much I've picked up by osmosis from the Austrians I hang out with at
George Mason. But this answer leads directly to another question. Why has
this particular profession allowed itself to become so thoroughly dominated
by this particular tradition?

FYI: my background is in physical sciences (quantum physics,
neurophysiology and software engineering at various times), not economics.
As I understand my philosophy of science (Kuhn et al), these fields escaped
tradition to undergo paradigm shifts that we think back on as being the
major achievements of these fields.

The notable exception to date is software engineering, my specialty. And,
of course, economics, which is why I find the attachment to stasis and
equilibrium so mystifying.

Like trying to explain the dynamics of walking or bicycle riding by
studying the dynamics of corpses.

>immediately at work to get things moving is, it seems to me, that the
>temporary rest position can be pinned down and looked at. It would be nice,
>of course, if matters could be studied equally effectively while in motion,
>but I would think that many would agree that this is not so easy.

No doubt corpses are far more mathemtatically tractible. But do they have
much to contribute towards a deeper understanding of living systems like
people and economies?

--
Brad Cox; bcox@xxxxxxx; 703 968 8229 Voice 703 968 8798 Fax
George Mason Program on Social and Organizational Learning