Thoughts On The Current Culture of Separateness and The Establishment of a Holistic Economic Culture of Oneness
Holism refers to a range of ideas based upon an integrated understanding of the whole psycho-spiritual-bio-social ecological environment. Various authors have contributed to our understanding of what this new field of study may be like, from the standpoint of specific areas of human experience. An alternative paradigm does exist, which marks a complete change in our usual way of thinking about the world and society. Kurt Dopfer points out that such a change is more fundamental than a change represented by hypothesis testing and rejection. It refers "to the question considered relevant for science; the qualification to its answers; the body of methods and techniques for testing of theories; the commonly consented degree of rigour required when accepting or rejecting ideas; the institutional setting in which the researchers operate..." (Dopfer, 1976, p. 4)
This essay will, first of all, look at the present mainstream neoclassical paradigm, particularly some of the arguments as to why this mode of analysis is no longer adequate to cope with the problems that now face humankind. Secondly, an overview of an alternative paradigm based on a holistic worldview will be considered. Finally, an attempt will be made to present a picture of some of the more practical issues this new paradigm brings to light.
Introduction
The present-day world situation involves many social and environmental problems. From whichever angle these are viewed, it is hard to deny that specific, severe problems face humanity. Mainstream economics has desisted from ever making grandiose claims to having the solution to all society’s problems. However, economics, as a subject and profession, has become essential in its political, social, and ecological implications. For all the central governments, pursuing a particular economic policy has become a priority. Thus, theories expounded have significant importance in the 'real' world, on all levels of human activity. Whether economics has any solutions or not, therefore, it remains an essential discipline.
This fact was predicted in 1820 by Nassau Senior, who felt that the new science, as it was then, "will rank in public estimation among the first of the moral sciences in interest and utility.” It can hardly be the case that all the world's problems rest on the shoulders of economists, and yet when the subject becomes so influential, there is a tendency among some to claim more than the discipline can offer. Even Milton Friedman writing in 1972, stated, "I believe that we economists in recent years have done vast harm to society at large and our profession in particular - by claiming more than we can deliver." (Friedman, 1972, p. 12)
Nevertheless, there is a positive attribute to being so influential insofar as the pressure on economists to find solutions has often been far more significant than that in other social sciences. Thus, there has been a primary motivation to explore new areas, and economists may be the one social science that can suggest and affect possible solutions. In light of this, economic theory has brought many new developments. Outside of mainstream neoclassical analysis, some of these developments have come to reflect an ecological, social, psychological, and even spiritual awareness based on holistic notions of the world. By its nature, holism is challenging to define. Holistic economics cannot be defined as the relationship between ends and scarce means. Ultimately holistic economics ceases to be economics in the usual understanding of the term. It becomes an all-embracing philosophy.
Mainstream thought in economics has concentrated on specific relationships, such as between money supply and inflation or aggregate demand and unemployment. However, it is rare to find any discussion on man's fundamental relationship to money and how this may affect individual and societal demand patterns. Mainstream economics has succeeded to date in largely ignoring man's relationship with the physical planet on which he lives. But even more fundamentally, economic thought still needs to consider the nature of man's relationship with the Universe as a whole. Understanding these deeper relationships is the context for holistic economics.
Galbraith has pointed out that "familiarity may breed contempt in some areas of human behaviour, but in social ideas, it is the touchstone of acceptability.” (Galbraith, 1962) However, this view may cause psychological disturbances within the minds of economists. Having become an incredibly specialised branch of people, having a language all of their own, economists have personal interests at stake here, not least their jobs! Economists' power has been gained by their claims to be scientific. In our scientific-orientated society, the claim has become the key to acceptability. Consequently, in two hundred years of economics, change has been slow.
Galbraith introduces the notion of conventional wisdom to describe this process. As time passes, conventional wisdom, aided by debate, becomes increasingly elaborate and attains, what Galbraith calls, an almost mystical quality. This forms the ultimate line of defence for conventional wisdom. Defenders of conventional wisdom can refute attackers by arguing that they have not mastered their intricacies. Insofar as they have failed to do so, they could be better scholars. So conventional wisdom becomes the yardstick of what is to be recognised.
There remains, however, one 'enemy' that even conventional wisdom cannot withstand. "The enemy of conventional wisdom is not ideas but the march of events." (Galbraith, 1962) Thus, when reality unkindly contradicts our notion of what is right, we are forced eventually to change our attitudes. There can be little doubt that economics now faces such a crisis. Problems of mass poverty, unbalanced disposition of non-renewable resources and pollution have slowly forced economists into a corner. It is this crisis in economics which will be dealt with in the first chapter.
The Mainstream Neoclassical Paradigm of Economic Separateness
"One reason modern life is so uncomfortable is that we have grown self-conscious about things that used to be taken for granted." (Robinson, 1962, p. 7) The major world problems such as global inflation, unemployment, mass poverty, regional disparity in wealth and environmental problems can no longer be ignored and are painfully visible to everyone. Present-day economists need help with the solution.
A growing body of authors feels the need for a new approach to economics. But what is wrong with the present paradigm? The current paradigm must be analysed from its historical, social, and cultural context to answer that. The Newtonian mechanics of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries set the pattern for all sciences at the time. It established the concept of 'hard' science - a body of doctrine capable of producing 'facts'. Economists adopted the fundamental paradigmatic elements of this new science. What probably characterises this approach more than anything is its fragmentary reductionist methods.
Mainstream Neoclassical economic theory concerns the logic of choice and the purely instrumental allocation of scarce resources. In addition, the axiom of 'positive' has been established whereby any discussion of values is theoretically avoided. However, economists are pursuing the impossible to prevent the discussion of values. They lay open to the Marxist critique that all social sciences are disguised ideologies. Kenneth Boulding has called this "a monumentally unsuccessful exercise...which has preoccupied a whole generation of economists with a dead end, to the almost total neglect of the major problems of our age." (Kenneth, 1966)
Neither the scope nor the ideology can explain the complex interdependencies at the heart of social, psychological, and environmental problems. William K Kapp (Kapp, 1970) gives several examples of these intricate, interdependent qualities of economic activity. Agriculture gives us a spectacular example of what Kapp calls cumulative causation. The use of chemicals that cows ingest from plants affected by chemical pesticides leads to the contamination of milk products and, thus, human tissue. P.R. Ehrlich and A.M. Ehrlich (Ehrlich, 1971) have surveyed that most mothers' milk in the United States contains so much DDT that it would be declared illegal in interstate commerce if it were sold as cow's milk.
The complex interdependent nature of the world will be explored later, but for now, let us return to looking at the heart of the mainstream neoclassical paradigm in terms of its scientific origins. This can be traced back to Sir William Petty, Professor of Anatomy at Oxford and Music at London. In his 'Political Arithmetic', his method was to replace words and arguments with numbers, weights, and measures and 'to use only Arguments of Sense and to consider only such causes as having a visible foundation in nature.' (Fritjof, 1982)
Petty introduced the notion of a labour theory of value and described the advantages of the division of labour. He also defined monopoly and discussed the 'Newtonian' concept of money and the velocity of circulation (still discussed by monetarists today) - public works were suggested as a remedy for unemployment. "Today's economic policies, as they are debated in Washington, Bonn and London, would not be any surprise to Petty, except for the fact that they have changed so little." (Fritjof, 1982)
Along with Petty, John Locke and his ideas about psychological, sociological, and economic phenomena strongly influenced eighteenth-century thought. As far as economics was concerned, Locke introduced an exchange theory of value. This accorded with the new differential calculus of Newton and Leibniz. Thus, economics began on its road to a mathematical explanation of external reality like Newton had explained the laws of nature.
The essence of this paradigm is the belief that there is a separation between man and his environment. Indeed, this fundamental proposition runs throughout western thought. "Despite Copernicus, all the cosmos rotates around our little globe. Despite Darwin, we are not part of the natural process in our hearts. We are superior to nature, willing to use it for our slightest whim.” (Lynn White, 1967)
In his thesis 'On the Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis', (Lynn White, 1967), Lynn White Junior traces these roots to the Judeo-Christian tradition in western culture. In these beliefs, he feels, lies the essence of the deep psychological division between man and his environment. At this early development of western science, the interconnection between religion and science is transparent. From the 13th Century, every prominent scientist, including Leibnitz and Newton, explained his motivation in religious terms. It was not until the 18th Century that many scientists dropped the concept of God. However, modern western science was cast in the matrix of Christian theology.
This notion of viewing the development of science from the point of view of its underlying value system was most notably adopted by Max Weber. In his thesis on Protestantism and the rise of capitalism, the development of the capitalist mentality came from the religious idea of a 'calling'. Thus, it became the way to achieve God's grace by working hard. Weber showed us how religious attitudes were projected into the secular world. In this vein, much has been written since. Lynn White Junior follows this tradition, as does K. Boulding, O’Riordan, Black, Swift and Harris. (Pollard, 1984) O'Riordan asserts, in this culture, that man and nature are separate entities - the concept revolves around "part of man's seemingly infinite capacity to rationalise in his ability to fix blame, preferably on people or forces beyond his control." (O'Riordan, 1983). This culture of dualism, separating humans from their environment, is at the heart of the ecological crisis today. The language of positive economics has come to reflect this; "Bigger is closer to Better; equal to equitable; goods sound good; disequilibrium sounds uncomfortable; exploitation sounds wicked; and subnormal profits, rather sad." (Robinson, 1962, p. 18)
Economics relies heavily on the tool of measurement, which is predicated on the beliefs already discussed, namely that 'out there' (in the social environment), there are some discernible objective laws of the way people behave, in the same way, that Newton's 'law' of gravity operates, seemingly totally independent of man. However, in the context of society, these laws have been acutely challenging to identify reliably. Here then, is the first crisis of economics, the methodological crisis. Even if it were possible to somehow objectively collect data which could prove or falsify a particular hypothesis, for example, the law of demand, the very subject matter of this testing remains subjective. Even in one of the most advanced theories of the law of demand, Paul Samuelson's revealed preference, it remains an implicit assumption that the choices made in the market are 'good choices' insofar as it is a 'good thing' to let the individual have what he prefers. This reveals a more fundamental crisis in economics still. Once we have ascertained the connection between methodology and ideology, we must ask: is this fundamental dualistic separation between man and his environment a correct assumption? If it is not, then economists, in the main, have been, and still are, barking up the wrong methodological tree. More than that, they are missing the mark.
Meanwhile, the social and environmental problems outside the pages of economic texts continue to pile up. "Economists are beginning to realise that they have built a rather elaborate edifice on rather insubstantial, narrow foundations." (Goldsmith, Sept 1979) The central issue of mainstream neoclassical theory is the investigation of the market. It is assumed that individual behaviour centres around the notion that individuals try to maximise their satisfaction. This notion is what economists have come to accept as rational behaviour. This fundamental assumption has never been specified analytically, nor has it been subject to empirical scrutiny. Thus, economic problems are problems of choice to maximise personal satisfaction amongst given alternatives. This is the limited worldview that economics is based on.
Ecologically, this is disastrous. "A man with a hatchet in the middle of Amazonia can, for a very long time, cherish with impunity that the forest goes on forever, that it is infinite. If he is joined, however, by hordes of people, all of whom are equipped with the latest and most sophisticated bulldozers, it will not be long before his notion of the forest will be found wanting and its fundamental flaw exposed." (Goldsmith, Sept 1979) Kenneth E. Boulding pursues this theme in his essay "The Economics of the Coming Spaceship Earth." (Kenneth, 1966) Boulding makes the distinction between an open and closed system. In a closed system, the outputs are all linked to the system's inputs, with no inputs from or output to the outside. In open systems, inputs are taken from the physical environment and outputs are given back to it with no circularity accounted for. Even Marx commented, "All progress in capitalist agriculture is progress in the art, not only of robbing the labourer but of robbing the soil." (Marx). Boulding argues this cannot continue; in fact, we are living in a closed system. If we continue to live under the illusion of the open system or what Boulding calls the 'cowboy economy,' we will quickly use up the earth's natural resources. Furthermore, our outputs will saturate the planet. This is why he refers to the concept of a spaceship.
Kapp, in his article, is at pains to emphasise that present economic theory needs to be designed to cope with the complex interdependencies that lay at the root of problems. He quotes A. Coddington, saying that "economic growth has rendered many things obsolete, and one of the things is an economic theory." (Coddington, 1982) The main body of economic theory, including welfare economics, has continued to concentrate on the voluntary and mutual exchange relationships between micro-economic units (i.e., firms and consumers). It is not enough to explain environmental disruption due to market failure.
As E. Goldsmith points out, the only view of society that justifies the notion that it can be reorganised with impunity to satisfy economic ends is that the world is randomly organised. It has now broadly been recognised that this isn't the case. There are systems such as ecosystems, but more fundamentally, life itself is a system with a complex causal chain. Economics needs to consider this. Mainstream economics has elevated what is essentially a remarkably unimportant concept - equilibrium within the market - to the apex of social criteria.
To sum up, the essential features of theories based on the current economic paradigm of separation are; first, theories describe the behaviour of economic agents within the marketplace, usually within a short or medium time span. Secondly, behavioural assumptions are that each individual is exclusively self-interested and rational as he seeks to maximise this self-interest. Third, it is usually the case that long-run variables such as population, natural resources and technology are assumed as given in the short run.
This methodology has developed out of the Newtonian-Cartesian world view which may be summarised as follows; firstly, the development and application of the scientific method; secondly, the wedding of scientific and technological advance; thirdly, the intense application of the division of labour; fourthly increasing scientific and educational specialisation; fifthly the dominance in social policy of economic considerations, in the private life of acquisitive materialism and the work ethic.
Based on this overview of the present paradigm, the next chapter will look at an alternative holistic approach to economics that builds on a culture of oneness.
The Characteristics of a Holistic Economic Paradigm Based on Oneness
"Whatever may happen to be the object of knowledge, the highest degree of knowledge is always achieved when the knower, the human subject, becomes completely unified and identified with the object, so much so that there remains no differentiation between the two. Differentiation or distinction means distance, and distance in cognitive relationships means ignorance." (Nandy)
If we look at the origins of holism, then according to Dopfer (Dopfer, 1976), they can be traced back to Smuts and his book "Holism and Evolution" written in 1926. As Smuts says in his opening paragraph: "The acceptance of Evolution as a fact, the origin of life from the inorganic, must mean a complete revolution in our idea of matter. If matter holds the promise and potency of life and mind, it is no longer the old matter of the physical materialists. We have accepted Evolution but have failed to make the fundamental re-adjustment in our views which that acceptance involves." (Smuts, 1926) According to Smuts 19th, century science 'went wrong' because of its narrow concept of causation. Science had narrowed down concepts into hard, definite contours, and what Smuts referred to as their indefinite surrounding 'fields' had been ignored. The word 'field' here refers to the general inextricable
nature of all life and its fluidity. "This narrowing of concepts and processes into hard and rigid outlines, and their rounding off into definite scientific contours temporarily simplified the problems of science and thought, but we have outlived the utility of this procedure, and for further advance, we have now to return to the more difficult but a correct view of the natural plasticity and fluidity of natural things and processes." (Smuts, 1926, p. 1) Einstein undoubtedly played a significant part in overturning the Newtonian worldview, leading to fundamental changes in how physics sees reality.
Rhorlich (Rhorlich, 1976) argues that capitalism is being redefined by economists and by disseminating new scientific ideas. In contrast to the Newtonian view from which conventional mainstream neoclassical theory stems, the new holistic thinking can be summed up in the following quote. In referring to the study of an electron (one of the subatomic elements of an atom), "If I ask a particle question, it will give me a particle answer; if I ask it a wave question, it will give me a wave answer. The electron does not have objective properties independent of my mind. In atomic physics, the sharp cartesian division between mind, and matter, between observer and observed, can no longer be maintained. We can never speak about nature without at the same time speaking about ourselves." (Fritjof, 1982, p. 77) So, even without discussing subatomic physics, the message remains simple. There is no external objective reality separate from what we refer to as the human being. As we live this, we understand the whole and the parts only in the context of the whole process. As Rhorlich says: "Holism asserts that the whole of a thing is separate from its parts, may even define its parts." (Rhorlich, 1976, p. 45) Furthermore, the new physics demonstrates an inextricable link between man and his environment. This is fundamentally important and undermines the ideology and methodology of positive economics. The sooner economists assess the value system that underlies their science, the sooner we can develop economic policies that reflect reality. Based on the understanding that the nature of life comprises interrelated systems, some economists advocate systems analysis as a methodology. In line with this, Dopfer proposes four lines on the development of economics as he feels it ought to be. Firstly, the need for a holistic approach. Secondly the need for a long-run view of economics. Thirdly the need to view economics as an empirical science, giving a more empirical foundation to normative economics. Fourthly the need to consider economics as a political economy.
Alan Coddington (Coddington, 1982) distinguishes between 'economic' interdependence and 'direct.' interdependence. The former is expressed inside the market, the latter outside. So, for example, the process of exchange can be counted as economic interdependence. However, the by-product of this exchange, such as noise or air pollution, is direct interdependence. The main feature of economic interdependence is that it is, in theory, mutual and voluntary. However, natural interdependence is neither. Economists, Coddington has argued, flourished by ignoring direct interdependencies. As economic growth occurs, direct interdependencies assume more importance; therefore, as Coddington argues, "economic growth renders many things obsolete, and one of the things is an economic theory." (Coddington, 1982) The concept of externality, he points out, even when the idea is used, is still seen as peripheral to economic thinking. The mainstream economist P. Samuelson, writing in 1937 on the systematisation of existing economic theory, mentions the word externality only once.
Coddington introduces the notion of 'discommodities', that is, anything a person would prefer not to have (as opposed to commodities). To get a commodity, it is necessary to get it from someone but to get rid of a commodity, it is not required to give it to anyone in particular. Thus discommodities, the unwanted possessions of society at large, are such that Coddington points out that we need to reorientate our "social accounting" ideas. That is to say: property rights protect the owner of a commodity, but as yet, there is no similar proviso for society against discommodities. Coddington goes on to say that the conventional accounting system, which includes firms and households, needs to be extended to include the environment: "I am not suggesting that the construction of environmental accounts is a straightforward proposition: the amount of information required would be vast, and the index number problems immense. But this framework is a conceptual antidote to the naivety and short-sightedness of growth mania." (Coddington, 1982)
Similarly, William Kapp argues, "Human action and economic decision relating to production are taking place in continuous open interaction with one another." (Kapp, 1970) Kapp supports a systems approach stipulating that the analysis must include both human and ecological systems: Likewise, K. Boulding points out that GDP needs to be broken down into parts derived from exhaustible resources and renewable sources. Throughput in the spaceman economy must be minimised rather than maximised, and stock maintenance, not throughput, is the priority. Technological progress would be designed to maintain given stocks with less throughput. As Boulding points out, this is a reversal of the traditional emphasis on income flow concepts to a consideration of capital stock concepts.
Boulding applies this thesis to the question of human welfare. He poses the question of whether human welfare is a stock or flow concept. "Does human welfare involve having nice clothes, fine houses, good equipment and so on, or is it to be measured by the depreciation and the wearing of these things?" (Kenneth, 1966, p. 10) Boulding comes down on the side of stock concepts. Being well-fed, he feels, is more important than eating. The Steady State Economy proposed by Daly builds on Boulding's work. Similar in many respects to Boulding's arguments for the minimisation of throughput and the maintenance of 'satisfactory' stock levels, the SSE is based on a 'satisfying' rather than 'maximising' concept.
Undoubtedly one of the most fundamental prerequisites of any new paradigm must be the humanisation of economics. Economists have tended to avoid the issue of human happiness. At present, all orientation in economics is material; there is little or no spiritual aspect taken into consideration. Of course, the implications here start to become far-reaching, calling for a total reorganisation of human material society and fundamental human values. In a sense, this is the main difficulty in introducing any new paradigm of thought. It will remain a basic theory until enough people can put it into practice in their lives. A crucial point implied by the conclusions of the new physics already discussed is that everyone is at one with the whole. Any consciousness movement must pay heed to this fundamental reality if human happiness is to be established.
Creating a Culture of Oneness Based on Holistic Economics
"I foresee that the new fashionable, highly abstract analysis of conventional economics will lose out within the next ten or twenty years. Though its logical basis is weak - its decline will be mainly an outcome of the tremendous changes which, with crushing weight, are falling upon us." Gunnar Myrdal (Myrdal)
Lincoln Gordon (Gordon) indicates the overriding attitude to growth issues amongst the authors who associate themselves with a holistic approach. He sees growth as necessary but reassessing the direction of growth is essential. Rhorlich's comment sums up this position: "it should be clear: "Growth versus no growth", is a non-issue." (Rhorlich, 1976) The discussion is therefore concentrated mainly on the direction of future growth. It is accepted that growth is an essential feature of life, deeply embedded in the nature of human society. The Greek word phusis, for example - the root of the modern word physics and the Sanskrit word Brahman (referring to the essential nature of things) are derived from the same Indo-European root bheu - to grow.
However, economic growth has, in many ways, become a panacea; some might even say a god of our culture. In 1976 Nelson Rockefeller asserted that "more growth is essential if all the millions of Americans are to have the opportunity to improve their quality of life." (Rhorlich, 1976, p. 47) Thus, the application of growth is seen by many as the solution to poverty and environmental problems.
To assess this in more detail, it will be helpful to divide this area into three main sections: economic growth, technological growth, and institutional growth. In dealing with economic growth, it is very much couched in terms of materialism. That is to say: the Quality of life that Rockefeller was referring to is equated to the material well-being of the individual.
Kapp points out that the measurement of growth, Gross National Product, is not only materialist but reflects the circular flow of the closed economy of mainstream theory. Kapp, therefore, argues that we need to evaluate the physical flows and effects in real terms. Not an easy task and implies a high degree of interdisciplinary work. "In the past, there has been a tendency to equate the development goal with the more narrowly conceived objective of economic growth as measured by rises in GNP. It is usually recognised today that high growth rates do not guarantee the easing of urgent social and human problems. Indeed, in many countries, high growth rates have been accompanied by increasing unemployment, rising disparities in income between groups and regions, and the deterioration of social and cultural conditions." (Rhorlich, 1976).
The focus on material value when defining economic growth is stripping the natural environment of its resources and exhausting people, producing ever more economic inequality. For however many centuries, there have broadly been two groups of people on planet Earth searching for value. The first group have been mining downwards “quantitatively” into the physical Earth. The second group have been searching up to the Heavens for a source of value “qualitatively”. Up till now, these two groups have, until now, been speaking different languages to each other, not understanding the other party’s source of value and unable to communicate appropriately and find common ground with each other. The former group has managed the economy, and the latter has its spiritual welfare. The materialisation of value has been at the heart of the financial system, which is the economy's lifeblood.
Though economists would have us believe that money is simply a convenient neutral exchange token that replaced a prior cumbersome exchange system based on barter, this is not historically true. As anthropologists like David Graeber have pointed out, the concept of credit and debt that is the core of money have been part of human civilisation for many thousands of years, preceding coinage systems. As a baby instinctively knows how to recognise and suckle on their mother's breast, the concept of credit and debt has always been an intuitive part of the human psyche. Its ability to assist with qualitative and quantitative aspects of life mirrors the nature of consciousness itself. However, for most of money's history, its value has only been measured against material things.
The ongoing legacy of basing money's value only on materialism and ignoring the qualitative aspects of life has been part of an overall culture of the objectification of happiness which has left many with damaged lives. It has become a source of fear for many, often leading to destructive behaviours and detracting from the desire to lead a more conscious life. Materialism is not the inherent fault of money. It is in the hearts and minds of people that this exists. As Krishnamurti pointed out, this is a "crisis of consciousness". This is a global moment of metanoia as we let go of materialism as a definition of wealth. As more and more understand that this crisis has arisen due to a failure to locate our sense of Self in its Universal essence, where there is no fear and resulting egoic behaviour, the prevailing culture will naturally evolve. Such people recognise that a critical determinant of our ability to dance harmoniously with material existence recognises that happiness always comes from within and not from objective experiences, which, though real, are not separate from the underlying reality. They are not separate things but are "made of" the same unifying reality that underpins all existence. Our failure to understand the nature of the Self has led to constant confusion. This leads, in many cases, to a profound alienation from money or greed for money and less ability to respect and manage money's power to help us.
It is in the interests of financial systems to have a stable base of value. The only long-term stable solution for money is based on enabling the direct experience of consciousness and the consistent life-affirming qualities this gives rise to as much as possible for all people. When we forget this and peg its value based only on its quantitative aspect, money loses its value, and we pay the price as a society. We see this graphically illustrated time and again throughout the financial history of humanity. Pure materialism devalues money, whereas, in reality, it's only the consistent life-affirming qualities of human life that give it value. This was always the only thing that did. We need to recognise it fully and consciously.
Based on thousands of years of philosophical and experiential enquiry, we cannot prove that the qualitative (subjective) aspect of life IS subordinate to the quantitative (objective) aspects in reality. For instance, we do not know that the aware Self we experience is limited to or generated by the brain. The only open-minded position we can take is to acknowledge we have the choice to believe that our self-awareness is universal or personal. We can see the results by choosing to live based on the belief that the self is personal (quantitative) or impersonal and universal (qualitative). We already have a lot of evidence for the effects of the former.
For much of its history, we have based money’s value on the quantifiable aspects of life, and we can see the result all around us in the form of an inevitable stripping of material value from every source possible, depleting the physical environment, human society, and individual psychology in the process. We now can create and experiment to make the primary source of value of money the qualitative aspect of life and precisely the life-affirming qualities that are the essence of the self that we cannot know is limited to the body.
By making our experience of consciousness the primary source of value, we see money in a new light. Its value is to facilitate understanding and experience, and expression of the life-affirming qualities that are intrinsic characteristics of consciousness. These experiments could be focussed on education in three key respects:
1. Widespread education in the financial services industry about consciousness, psychology and ecological sustainability investigating finance's deep purpose to support the direct experience of consciousness.
2. Widespread use of “quality of life” indicators such as those proposed by Dr Hazel Henderson when designing social policy. For example, World Health Organisation and Calvert Henderson Quality Of Life Indicators.
3. Widespread education for citizens about the history of finance and consciousness to overcome fear and limiting beliefs based on a distorted view that objectifies happiness, creating a problematic relationship with money.
All the issues raised so far imply some fundamental changes in attitudes. In line with this, education will be considered an integral part of any holistic economic development. The twin U.N. organisations, UNESCO and UNEP, have supported environmental education to produce a 'bio-ethic'. O’Riordan lists four objectives of environmental education. Firstly, integration of ecological concern, knowledge, and skills into all relevant areas of learning; second, an environmentally literate citizenry; thirdly, the preparation of experts qualified to deal with. specific environmental problems; and fourth, a deeper understanding of environmental matters by many groups politicians, planners, civic leaders, teachers at all school levels. The author suggests that understanding consciousness and life's qualities should also be an intrinsic part of such education.
Bibliography
Coddington, A. (1982). The Economics Of Ecology In New Society.
Dopfer, K. (1976). Economics in the future towards a new paradigm. Macmillan Press Ltd.
Ehrlich, A. &. (1971). Population Research and Environment.
Friedman, M. (1972). Have Monetary Policies Failed? 12.
Fritjof, C. (1982). The Turning Point - Science, Society and the Rising Culture.
Galbraith, J. K. (1962). The Affluent Society. Pelican Books.
Goldsmith, E. (Sept 1979). The Need For A New Economics. The Ecologist Vol 9 No 6.
Gordon, L. (n.d.). Limits To Growth Debate. In O'Riordon.
Kapp, W. K. (1970). Environmental Disruption And Social Costs: A Challenge To Economists, kylos Vol 23 Fasch 4.
Kenneth, B. (1966). The Economics Of The Coming Spaceship Earth. Johns Hopkins University Press.
Lynn White, J. (1967). The Historical Roots Of Our Ecological Crisis. Science Magazine Vol 155 No 3767.
Marx, K. (n.d.). Das Kapital.
Myrdal, G. (n.d.). The Meaning And Validity Of Institutional Economics.
Nandy, A. (n.d.). The Pathology Of Objectivity. The Ecologist Magazine.
O'Riordan, T. (1983). An Annotated Reader In Environmental Planning and Management. Pergamon Press.
Pollard, N. (1984). The Israelites And Their Environment. The Ecologist Vol 14 No. 3.
Rhorlich, G. F. (1976). Environmental Management - Economic and Social Dimensions. Ballinger Press.
Robinson, J. (1962). Economic Philosophy. Pelican Books.
Smuts, J. C. (1926). Holism and Evolution.
