Is there a weakness in emotion?

Some people think that the economic system I presented in the previous posts is a dystopia. What these critics ignore is the habitual roles they themselves play in the current system. The current system is mostly hierarchically controlled. It is based on taking contextual representations as separable from oneself and ignoring this fact by having the opposite pretense. However, there is professional research to show that the individuals who are aligned with the old, objectified system can adapt to a new centralized and more efficient system.

My economic system is not a way to force things to change. My system is not to control individuals, but to serve those who adopt it as a motivating means for greater ethical ends. The implications and the resistance to change to the implementation of the content management system (CMS) are well documented in the linked professional article[1]. Besides, my economy will use a similar Web-based CMS. The only difference is the scale and scope of application. With the power and flexibility of the Internet, this is currently the only practical way to completely liberate us from material constraints of the monetary economies and help us build more harmonious relationships of ourselves as well as of our societies.

Some important terms to remember: M for monetary economy, E for emotional economy, T (M+E) for transitional hybrid economy, G for the goal of taxless or not tax-obligated complete economy. G can be a pure E, a different economy, or even a T, where M, leaning toward E, can have taxes voluntarily paid as donations (or as fees, such as in bitcoin).

Defense against weaknesses

There are various psychological issues that people have acquired while in M. For example, self-induced syndromes are fascinating phenomena. They will be great case studies in any society, and further research will help in identifying the factors that help people self-regulate their emotions and become more psychologically resilient. There will be a need for people to develop an ability to consciously control and optimize emotions in the new economy.

We also do not yet know what would be an effect on scans of emotions under the influence of drugs, and whether they would be read at all. The HeartMath technology reads cardiac impulses that are in harmony or disharmony with the brain, but a drug may impinge upon the coherence. In general, we will need to conduct experiments on drug addicts, choleric people, and others to find how they would use this technology.

Paying with emotions will not be as easy as it sounds at first. It is not going to work with your mind turned off. The mind has to actively regulate and direct emotions during the process of payment. Simply showing emotions without an exertion of mental effort would not show the whole body coherence and would not be read as payment. In the worst case scenario it would be read as negative.

But if some particular drug-induced states would work in E, it will be a relief for individuals who struggle with emotions. Not everyone will want to do drugs, and dealings with drug-addicts can hinder the growth of their reputations in the long run, since reputational growth is relationship-centered. So far, very few can control their emotions, but it does not mean that in the future no one will. Thus, getting rich in a drug-induced state is not guaranteed.

Another issue is the sadists. These people are still enthralled by the purely competitive edge to living. What I have to say to these people is so: be who you may, but the ultimate goal is genuine love. The goal is not to protect imbalanced brain chemistry or love to dominate others. This society that I am proposing to build allows people all their freedoms and any way to achieve their happiness, yet it also is much more than a mere market. E motivates a true social cooperation and a spiritual evolution on the personal level to control one’s emotions. It is the evolution from bottom-up, not top-down, like in current globalization, and at least this makes it a better alternative to our current paradigm.

Money changes hands in business and trade relationships. However, a “thanks” will as easily replace those and will be especially appropriate in the areas of friendships, love, and family that are not covered by money and not reflected in M. Besides, if it’s hard for one to generate a positive response in public, one can always get emotional debt and pay it off in the solitary comfort of one’s home. Do not confuse the greed for money and the greed for love. These types of greed conflict in M but not in E. Think like this: love is wealth, and wealth is love. This wealth is also health, and people may convert their possessions into positive emotions–they may sell money for love rather than sell love for money, as most are doing today. So, tell me, what will win in our world: positive or negative, if they are balanced?

Reasons for assent

Love will be freedom, as the ultimate value, only motivated by an increasing standard of living. Remember that being always negative will not increase it, and no payments to one’s own account will be possible. Love is a relationship. Selfishness is the relationship. Therefore, love is selfish, and the relationships are the smallest cells of society. Now apply this to our society as a whole. Societies can be meta- or trans-individuals too, did you know? There are interesting collective results, and more research is on the way. Societies can be viewed as transhuman individuals, composed of human bodies that inhabit artificial environments (e.g., industrial, economic, political, technological).

The current idea of self will have to change and become more epistemological. It is not about physical bodies of self or others anymore. It is about those emotional relationships that connect all bodies in order to properly form the missing parts of our societies–their hearts embodied in the Nebs. This can only start with the self. There is no need to perpetuate the gap between individuals and society, morals and ethics. There is no need to separate the two and have them conflict any longer. Morality should become social ethics. How we judge humans is how we should judge societies.

This economic theory is all about adding a moral and ethical aspect to economics because people believe that an unregulated economy is chaos and anarchy. Let’s ask: Why do we believe that a free economy is chaos? The reason we believe this is that there has never been created a universal set of morals for an economy. Neither Christians nor Marxists provided a moral code for economics. Objectivists provide such a code, but they do not apply it socially. After all, Objectivism is an ideology, not an economy. An ideology is always exclusive, and there will always be people who disagree with it and thus do not give their assent. E is not just an ideology but a system of economy as well. There is no need to accept the ideology by itself. One will be free to choose what philosophy to believe and yet share values with everyone regardless of their individual values or beliefs.

This is not merely a debate for an ideology (which is a losing debate). It is a completely new debate for a completely new economy. People do not have to understand, believe, or even like the economy they are in. People may hate money and still use it. The same applies to E. People will not have to believe, understand, or love the emotional currency. This new currency will become transparent and unquestionable just like the axiom of money is today. Feeling emotions will become natural to people, and our societies will follow moral conduct in their relationships.

[1] You may also read my analysis of the article.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s