Hans-Florian Hoyer
Deepest value is the truth of:
“Our separation from each other is an optical illusion.” attributed to A.Einstein
because it connects me to all other beings alive and in other forms of existence.
My relation to truth is, that it gives me freedom. The opposite of a truth can be another truth from another perspective on the same. It is not required to see perspectives as negations of other perspectives as long as one is able to leave her/his standpoint.
The expression "absolute truth" has (in my understanding of absolute = detached from, standalone)
a logical difficulty:
If it doesn't relate to me and my existence - what sense does it make?
Is truth an information missing in my consciousness?
Is truth the answer to a question I have? Then it is related to it and not absolute.
(in response to the responses below)
Where is the existence of a truth except in the Logos itself or in the understanding of a being into which the Logos has entered?
What is a truth without it being understood?
How could a context other than the one to which it refers make it untrue, so that it must be independent of any context?
The words with which it is formulated bring with them a different context that seems to limit its wordless existence or even make it dependent.
A truth must be able to be recognized (=understood) and acknowledged.
If all cups bark and every professor is a cup, then every professor will bark. This conclusion has the truth value „True“.
The matter of truth in this context is the fact that conclusion was correctly determined from the premises – regardless of meaning.
The meaning has no truth.
I see five realms of questions to humankind (as e.g. the Convivialists describe in their manifesto)
- 1. peace
- 2. earth
- 3. cooperation
- 4. decisions
- 5. mission
I develop my activities with the humanities in the background, which encourages us to change tracks from the traditional to those that can be built into a future that we can all love.
To do this, it can be helpful to reflect on what a society of individuals is actually about - caring for each other for the preservation of life, having good relationships based on equality, and realizing the goal that lies within each of us.
On the one hand, economists should know the needs and their spatio-temporal occurrence of community members. On the other hand, they should know when and where the gifts of nature are ready to be harvested and prepared for consumption, and thirdly, how the products and services can be distributed from the places of production to the places of consumption.
How this could be achieved before the advent of money and writing can be traced back to a limited number of social interactions: Participation in and contribution to a common good belonging to the community. Contributions according to ability, participation according to need. Acquiring things through one's own ability: weaving a basket from collected shoots. Sharing property with others, exchanging it for the property of another member, giving it as a gift, lending it.
Anthropologists (As the late David Graeber) provide economists with a variety of possibilities, which developed in different regions of earth.
Money and specially coins turned this diversity to the monotheism of currencies in societies built on bilateral exchanges of properties in markets. Obviously the monoculture is crisis-prone and does not deliver, what is promised: Wealth of nations as wealth of citizens.
To increase the resilience of economic activity with money, a second type of money could be effective: the right to participate in the produced goods, which can only be claimed once.
Dual money (orthodox Pacioli Protocol and social dividend) corresponds to a dual economy: For the social dividend, what all citizens will foreseeably need again and again, and for the credit/debit money, the rest. The credit/debit money is created in commercial banks and destroyed according to the repayment plan; the social dividend is issued monthly and, after use, exchanged by the points of sale at the issuing institution for credit/debit money, which was levied from the economy and thus is returned.
A major flaw in the current state of the economy, which is based on the division of labor, is that the macro issue of the distribution of rights of participation in products and services is organized via microeconomic units. Other flaws are added to this, but this part is systemically flawed.
Making money should not be the objective of economists.
Modern economics has as its heritage the development of the last ~10,000 years and in particular the last ~250 years.
In order to get a clear concept, it is necessary, in my opinion, to go back to the social gestures that make living together beneficial for everyone in every respect.
We call a subset of social gestures “economics”. The cause of economic activity is the predictable occurrence of bodily needs, the non-satisfaction of which would have undesirable consequences.
Man does not live from hand to mouth, he makes sure in advance that there is something available when it is needed. He also does not just provide for himself, but for his peer group. They contribute to the pool of things that cover needs according to individual possibilities and participation according to needs that everyone shares.
As a being with needs, the human being begins like all humans (breathing, drinking, eating, warmth). The “individual” differentiation (white wine instead of beer) comes later.
As a being with abilities, he can breathe, suck, swallow and learn.
At the beginning of Economics there was Ecology: What of the gifts of nature can be “harvested” when, where and how? How can it be processed so that it nourishes and can be stored for later use? In the first peer groups of Homo Sapiens, this was done without money. In our families, it is still done that way. Because it is a private matter, we do not count this behavior as economics, but in a broader sense it is part of it. (The boundary between the private and public is problematic from a social point of view.)
Twin Token in a Clearing Community
Here is a short description of the essence of Twin Token
https://www.e-c-o.net/wiki/uploads/Twin%20Token%20short
and how the quantity equation can be looked at
https://www.e-c-o.net/wiki/uploads/Twin%20Token%20Quantity%20Equation
Metadata
Econaut: Hans-Florian Hoyer
AlphabeticalOrder: Hoyer, Hans-Florian
DeepestValue: Our separation is an illusion
RelationshipWithTruth: Truth as the holism of all perspectives, the source of freedom
InvestigatoryQuestion: What is a suitable community for using the Twin Token system? What are the basic human needs which are independent? What are the things that depend on these basics? How are those dependent things interdependent amongst each other?
MoreInvestigatoryQuestions: What is the Grand Unifying Theory for all the diversity of economic theories?
Commitment: ?
Responses
Marcus Petz shared:
- Maslow made a bastardized version of Blackfoot wisdom
2025.02.21 Andrius: Florian, your thoughts on absolute truth are helpful for me to think about. I looked up the etymology of "absolute" and in English it is taken from Latin absolutus "freed, unrestricted". By absolute truth, I mean a truth that is true regardless of context. Such a truth evidently must not depend on words for their meaning depends on context. So it is certainly a challenge to identify absolute truths. You ask, "If it doesn't relate to me and my existence - what sense does it make?" But if you are growing, learning, then there are many truths beyond your current horizon as to what you think is relevant. And you may ultimately realize that you may care not simply about yourself but about that absolute context, all including context, which is beyond you, which allows you and others to learn forever, grow forever, live forever. You ask, "Is truth an information missing in my consciousness?" I think truth is that which cannot be hidden, which is ultimately obvious, which necessarily reveals itself. Truth is the implicit correspondence between questions and answers which becomes explicit. Absolute truth is the overall correspondence and we can access that when we think most fundamentally. "Is truth the answer to a question I have? Then it is related to it and not absolute." You are right about a particular answer and question. However, absolute truth refers to all questions and answers. It is truth about everything. Everything is an anchor for absolute truth. Thus divisions of everything - the ways that the mind divides everything into perspectives - are fundamental in investigating absolute truth.
2025.02.21 Andrius: Florian, at our meeting on Tuesday, you distinguished between science and faith, preferring science. I wanted to add that science depends on faith but in small doses. Every hypothesis starts out as a matter of faith. We have to believe in the hypothesis not knowing whether it is actually true, and then we have to invest ourselves in the experiment, which may require some time and energy. Only afterwards do we gain knowledge for or against our hypothesis, and this knowledge takes the place of faith. Science accumulates tremendous amounts of knowledge but every investigation still requires that bit of faith. I think this is what Jesus meant when he said, "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." For the martyrs are the rich in spirit, and are willing to give up their lives. Whereas the skeptical scientists are the poor in spirit, they want to believe as little as possible, and only as relevant, but that is the proper attitude for having a language of wisdom.
2025.02.25 Andrius: Thank you, Florian, for your response. I wonder what you mean by Logos. I would translate it as "theory". Thus the King James Bible translates the first sentence of the Gospel of John as: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." I think this means: "In the beginning was theory, and the theory was with God, and the theory was God." To me that sounds less poetic, less mystical, and more practical, relevant and helpful. Jesus is a theory that there can be a perfect person - and this theory has consequences, in practice. Florian, as regards your response, what is the context "in the beginning"? I presume that is the absolute context and that it holds in all times. Otherwise, how could it be relevant? Thank you for your thinking.