Comment 10 on Mindfulness

So nice to see your post Linda. Last night I wrote something but kept getting an error message when I wanted to post, so I saved it, now I guess I'll edit it and try to post.

I think you're a good sport for opening up discussions like this. And especially a good sport to let me ramble on in your discussion threads ;-)

I still haven't gotten around to the links I compiled for my first--and aborted--attempt to respond to your post. I do want to get around to them, but it seems other things come to mind first. There are scholars in numerous fields looking at the ways that the Internet changes things, so the links I want to get around to sharing are to a few well-known people who are looking at the Internet and society. I think somehow they are related to Buddhist Economics, but so far I haven't worked out how:-)

Surely when you are introducing students to doing research papers one of the points you make is that students should be realistic in choosing a manageable topic. The same advice goes at the graduate level as well. Perhaps I'm not really understanding your intentions with this post well enough. I imagine that you are stepping back to look at the big picture of economics and how Buddhist Economics fits within the larger discipline. In other words to get some perspective so as to find ways to conduct research within a Buddhist Economics school that "fits" somehow with the broader discipline.

Now clearly my lack of study makes my perspective distorted. I've often wondered why it is that I act like it's good to have an opinion on everything. Hum, not sure how to solve that puzzle...

In my rambling in previous entries one point that I've tried to make is that I see Economics as part of the not-science side of the bifurcated knowledge system, Sometimes this binary view of knowledge is rendered science/humanities; but the realm of social and behavioral sciences are wedded to empirical study and often are considered on the science side. I think it is useful, however, to make a distinction between the "hard" sciences and other fields because such a distinction reminds that these "other" disciplines lack the unified paradigms of the "hard" sciences. But economist often seem militant in positioning economics in the realm of hard science.

My view is that economic study would benefit from the analytic methods of the humanities. Both inductive reasoning from empirical data and deduction from fundamentals is important. The deduction part gets tricky because of the lack of a unified paradigm in economics. Economics of course has a "dominant" paradigm which is connected to Western culture and and power.

In Western academies, Cultural Studies seem sort of a thorn in the side of "right thinking" scholars. Last night I was reading the Making Sense of Darfur blog. The post was introducing an upcoming series of post discussing David Keen's book Complex Emergencies. Alex de Waal made this observation of Keen's method:

Complex Emergencies is about reading wars actively, by engaging intellectually with data and subjecting it to critical analysis. This is not a technical exercise: the spirit of Michel Foucault is always close to Keen’s writing, and – arguably with some generosity – Keen asserts that Foucault’s florid style is intentional, the aim being to remind the reader not to lay claim to scientific knowledge. The implication is that the knowledge behind the systems of violence explored in the book is constructed and so too is the critique.

Keen's approach seems a bit like what I have in mind for economic study. In any case the observation that economic knowledge is constructed is what I think, and that so many economists pretend otherwise is one of my sore points about the discipline.

Many people easily equate "wealth" and "money." I don't think they are the same. But it's hard to actually define either term in fundamental ways. It doesn't seem that Economics spends much effort in defining either, taking it for granted that we know what both terms mean.

In "Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth"--Chapter VI-- among other places Buckminster Fuller proposed a definition for wealth--he modified the definition in several ways in different places:

"Wealth is our organized capability to cope effectively with the environment in sustaining our healthy regeneration and decreasing both the physical and metaphysical restrictions of the forward days of our lives."

Phil Jones is a British coder living in Brazil and a friend on the Internet. Here's a really smart sentence by Phil Jones:

The more effective the internet and the web are at helping us communicate and co-ordinate, the less money will be involved. Because ultimately the economy is a communication network and money is its protocol

The network is not the means to the end of money.

I like viewing wealth as forward days for human beings and the economy as a communication network. But such views are non-standard to say the least. However, there are scholars in numerous fields looking at the ways that the Internet changes things and their views of wealth and money are not so standard too. So the links I want to get around to sharing are to a few well-known people who are looking at the Internet and society.

I'll get around to talking about these changes eventually. But your story about the Internet Cafe really illustrates the sorts of contradictions that globalization is showing up in Western academics, including economics.