Re: Newton Lives !

[Hyman Blumenstock <hystock@xxxxxxxxx>]

James:  Would you recognize the truth if it stared you in the face?
Your remarks indicate that you are yet far removed from doing so.

How about this?

There is only ONE Science, the REAL (as it's name indicates), as is
evident by a constant stream of success after success.  The other so
called Social (UNREAL) "Science" arrogates to itself the term "science,"
meaning, "knowledge"  as a self aggrandizing scam upon us all, and can
point to not one success ever achieved.  If some erstwhile Social
Science finally learned the secret of the Real Sciences, then they
shift over to becoming one of the Real Sciences.  The Social Sciences
qualify only as being the offal that, if applied correctly, will
fertilize the growth of life, but in their aboriginal state, are
totally worthless.

The Real Sciences have a profound secret, a secret only because of
the refusal to see what should be quite evident to any inquring mind.
The Real Sciences have managed to reduce all observations into virtually
irreducible minimums in statement that yet profoundly cover every aspect
of the subject.  In Mechanics, it is F=MA.  In Electronics, it is the
identical equation, E=IR. Each states that "Result is Proportional to
Force, and Inversely Proportional to Reaction."  Quantifying these
relationships is what engineering is all about and the source of our
ever burgeoning technology.

How does this apply to the human race, accepted by so many Social Scientists
as "too complicated to ever understand" so why bother trying?  That is
an obvious arrogance for which we deserve the troubles we suffer, and
"Economics the (alleged) *Science* of Scarcity, the controlling Social
Science, is the chief malefactor in perpetuating Social problems.

What do you think of an identical simple but utterly profoud equation
that moves a human being, an equation that applies equally to every last
one of us.  How about Motivation = Achievement times Frustration?  Or
expressed in a more understandable form, Achievement is Proportional to
Motivation and Inversely Proportional to Frustration.  As human beings
already exist under the control of nature's design, we don't have to
quantify these elements of the equation, unless later on we may want to
create Androids with human characteristics.  But for now, all we need
do is create an environment for all human beings that would most satisfy
the thrust of the elements of this equation.

The key element of truly understanding any human being lies in
understanding Motivation.  The basis for understanding already exists,
but for the deliberately obfuscating, self aggrandizing attempts to
maintain status quo of the various disciplines of the Social Sciences,
these are not expressed in any useful form.  Therefore, only the Security
aspect is foremost, manifested in such errors of conclusion as that one
must be forced to work to "earn a living" or otherwise he would become
a "couch potato."  We fail to recognize that there are already enclaves
in existence, within families and businesses, wherein Supply comes freely
first, and then Achievement results for attainment of Self Esteem.

Motivation consists of two, equally important elements. Each of us has
1) a Drive for Security, a feeling that our foreseeable future is devoid
of any undue risk to our well being, and
2) that we have the opportunity to demonstrate, at least to ourselves,
and more often the rest of the world, our value, our Sense of Worth,
our Self Esteem, a good answer to the question we all ask ourselves,
"What Good Am I?".

Security for every last human being in the world can be achieved easily
by just assuring an adequate Food supply for everyone.  Well Fed People,
(and animals) don't have any propensity to "rock the boat," to impose
any danger on anyone else.  All the world's problems since time began
has been based solely on a deficient Food supply.

Food became abundant, at least in our neck of the woods, a century ago,
and our troubles, at least should have disappeared.  But for the criminal
decision of those of the Economic Profession, which had developed during
the Agrarian era to handle the distribution of Scarce Food, the human
race was diverted into a path that perpetuated the evils of old.  First
there was and is the continuing attempt to destroy Food, and to the
present day, still pay farmers subsidies NOT to produce.  The Economic
fraternity has persuaded us all that an obsession with an imaginary
MONEY supply, originally meant to be only a "ticket of access" to
the Food supply, deliberately kept too scarce, shall replace our
perennial obsession for Food.

So, the most vicious discipline ever contrived, "Economics, the Science
of Scarcity," born in the Agrarian era, has arrogated itself into the
Post-Agrarian era to preserve all the ancient evils of human misery,
crime, violence up to and including WAR, and have managed to attain
a totally undeserved status and respect supported by the creation of
unintelligible rhetoric and nonsensical jargon, and who advise Presidents
and Kings.

So, there we are, on the theshold of an entirely new, unprecedented era
of human life, held back and now moving ever more quickly to total
destruction of our civilization, to maintain the insufferable egos of
those who maintain that "Economics, the Science of Scarcity" has any validity
whatsoever.

The consummate irony of it all is that it is not the ancient conflict of
who does well or not in view of scarcity, because there is now enough for
everyone, including those who now perpetuate this atrocity, were we to
finally return to the correct path.  The only trauma to be suffered, is
the absurdly minimal one of EGOs, that can be almost instantly surmounted
by displaying their obviously great intellectual prowess in other *useful*
pursuits.

James R. Olson, jr. wrote:
>
> I had been thinking about how differences between theory and observation
> generally produce an advantage for those who can detect the gap, and
> wondering if there were any examples of this.  George Soros' thesis is that
> he is one of those people, and his fortune is proof that he has at least
> some effective grasp of that gap.  Perhaps his ideas are a starting point
> for a new perspective.
>
> Side note:  the major advantage that I see physics having over economics is
> that the character and relationship of the important quantities have been
> established, and conversions that produce new insight are possible.  I've
> seen various uses of quantities here that make it obvious that that is not
> yet true in economics, and I would consider that to be the first project.
>
> Of course, such a project cannot be completed all at once, physics has the
> advantage of dealing with simple consistent behaviours, and even so it took
> hundreds of years to establish the various quantities.