Something of a change of pace, now. The picture of consciousness I have developed utilises a notion of energy as the medium by which interaction takes place. So far this definition has only consisted in that, nothing more. What else can be derived a priori? Firstly, the conditions placed upon the consciousness outline the potential range of interaction. What limits can there be upon interaction? Any constraints will take the form of a limit to the amount and ways by which the world can be affected by the consciousness. It is necessary that there be conditions, even if they only constitute the manner of interaction. If your every thought changed the world around you, that thought would still be a method of interaction. It is another question as to whether the consciousness is constrained by the amount by which an action affects.
In acting, consciousness has the option of by how much it interacts. If we take a single action, say stamping the foot, then that action has a particular strength determined by consciousness. We thus have two areas of research: the array of actions, and the array of strength. Actions are hetereogenous, and there is no particular a priori reason why any action should be available to a particular consciousness, but since actions are required for the emergence of conciousness, any available actions are so immediately.
Is there an a priori reason why consciousness should not have an infinite amount of strength to carry out interactions? All that is required for consciousness to obtain is an amount of strength, but the quantity of such is not specified. Thus, since humans do not have an infinite amount of strength, the necessity of iEnergy comes into play. Energy is thus the amount by which particular ways of interaction can affect the world.
What implications does this have for economics? The link is quite obscure, but consider that since energy is medium by which we interact, it becomes one of the most vital impeti and an enormous factor in interpersonal relations. However, it cannot be considered in isolation, as energy is the means by which we satisfy the other impeti, even though as an impeti iEnergy can be an end in itself.
The combination of iEnergy, iHarmony and iPurpose with the ability to use language has interesting consequences for the human animal. Language gives a person access to the focus of another, meaning that it becomes possible to recognise shared goals. iEnergy impels the person to satisfy the other impeti while using the least amount of energy possible (note that this is not a manifesto for laziness: empithym can be configured in such a way that taking a route that appears more strenuous is actually more satisfying in terms of other impeti). Recognition of shared goals permits the pooling of energy, which then can be allocated in a more effective manner. To put it another way, tigers do not build houses, but many social animals (chimps, dolphins and so on) can use tools (iEnable) and pass on that knowledge. The additional complexity of human language allows a single goal to be broken down into separate elements which can be performed by individuals with more specialised skills, to a net energy (and time) saving. This net saving is the basis of the human advantage, and is typically taken to be the aim of our economy.
This is not precisely accurate. The aim of our economy is necessarily the satisfaction of the impeti. This is aided by efficient use of energy, but is not achieved by that alone. Magnification of the energy resources of the Greater Self aids in overcoming the universe, so the economy is also vital for iPurpose, alongside the obvious of iEnergy and iPower.
As the above example shows, net saving/ostensible gain is only produced when energy is in action, in some form of combined work. This is why the current consumer-based society is so successful at growth: money (which represents energy/work, although inefficiently in the current system) is encouraged to circulate as much as possible with mutual profit (the manufacturer of a particular product spent less energy producing it then they recieve, and the consumer would have spent more energy producing it than they spend). Therefore, everyone should be happy, from this simple reading.
However, they are not. Although iPurpose can be satisfied by the production of net worth, the net worth thus produced is not channelled towards overcoming the universe for any but a small minority of capitalists. The income disparities produced by this model render iHarmony ineffective; such a wide gap between rich and power precludes harmonic development. The fact that power is intimately linked in this system to income means that iPower for the poor is unsatisfied.
The results, my system predicts, will be that the empithym of the poor will adapt to find new methods of satisfaction outside the common social harmonics, which are no longer effective for them. This is happening. However, as power is concentrated in the hands of those who profit by the system, there is no particular reason why it should not endure forever. Except one. The very thing that makes this system effective - the frequency of shared use of energy - is betrayed by those who control it. Tying up energy in savings and unnecessary property constrains growth. Put simply, the rich are inefficient. For this reason, a system which can defeat it is possible, and in my next post my attention will turn to the possibilities.
