Dec

14

The Botany of Desire, from Jim Sogi

December 14, 2009 |

7 Comments so far

1. MikeOlds on December 14, 2009 9:21 am

   Hello Mr. Sogi,

   You ask:

   “…whether the market controls the humans, or do the humans control the markets for their gains?”

   Your question touches on what I believe is going to be the make or break issue in world economics in the very near future: the fact that throuoghout Asia and India value is contemplated in terms of kamma (Sanskrit: karma) and kamma is a subject that will just not be listened to seriously by anyone but ‘kooks’ in the west.

   The issue of whether or not there is such a thing as kamma is irrelevant; what is relevant is that a whole mass of people activly engaged in competition with the west believe in it’s existance. Economies, policies, companies, transactions, contracts and persons are all being evaluated according to terms that are not even subject to discussion in the west. And this is being made worse by the breakdown of the badly conceived theories of how markets work that have been the basis for action to this point in the west.

   So… to respond to your question from the point of view of one theory of kamma (there are many differing theories) (the one put forth by Gotama the Buddha):

   It is not that the individual is in control of the outcome of any of his acts (whether of thought, word, or deed), nor is it that another is in control of the outcome of events for others; it is that the outcome to an individual accords with the intent of his action. An act performed with the intent to create pleasure, creates pleasure for the actor; an act performed with the intent to create pain for others creates pain for the actor. It is intent that is understood to be the conroller of kamma.

   Substitute wealth for pleasure, loss for pain; benefit to society versus selfish greed and so forth.

   You asked a question. This is not an appeal for belief, it is an offer of information. Whether or not one believes, the reality is that the majority of people in the countries emerging as the driving force of world economic activity believe and will act accordingly and if one does not understand the motives for their actions one will be at a considerable loss.

2. Jeff Watson on December 14, 2009 4:22 pm

   Mike, You make very interesting points, but Adam Smith will still prevail. Plus, the markets work just fine, it’s the people who are wrong who are doing the complaining.

3. MikeOlds on December 15, 2009 10:05 am

   Hello Jeff,

   Please understand that I know I do not know you at all. I will take your comment as a friendly effort at stimulating discussion. But take a look!

   If our conversation had been a negotiation, it would be over already.

   The point of view of one who operates from the assumption that kamma is at work does not see things in terms of ‘prevailing.’ Kamma is a personal phenomena, there is no enemy but ignorance of how it works in combination with our greed. To negotiate with the idea of prevailing and defeating is to operate within two boundries of an unskilled act of kamma: the intent is to inflict unhappyness on the defeated. The theory of kamma ‘prevailing,’ the outcome of such will be unsatisfactory.

   Next, the discussion was initiated by Mr. Sogi. He asked a question. In a proper negotiation, the discussion should focus on the question asked and the relevance of the answer to the question. That the discussion has been directed away from the point is in fact a symptom of the very problem I am attempting to point out: an emotionally colored inattention and bias in the best of our thinkers which distorts both view and dialog.

   Then, to say that Adam Smith will prevail is to say that the ‘Invisible Hand’ will prevail. This is to say absolutely nothing. What is the difference between an invisible hand we do not understand and kamma which we do not understand? Or that God does it all? Or simply chance? Any one of which views forces resignation from the field in that there is no scope for individual action. Investing becomes what I believe it is here today: an act of faith.

   Further, if one determines that the issue is too complicated to understand and throws up one’s hands, there is still the business of covering one’s … bets. The safe position here is to behave as though the law of kamma were in operation. If it isn’t in operation one has not done more than the normal hocus pocus that accompanies an act of faith; if the law of kamma is in operation, one’s acts will be harmless and if not profitable at least will allow one to reflect on one’s behavior without fear or guilt and possibly with some satisfaction.

   But to say ‘Adam Smith will prevail’ without providing either arguments as to why his ideas should prevail in this context or as to why the theory of kamma would be defeated is to make an argument that asks one to have faith in the speaker’s understanding of both theories. I am afraid that is asking too much.

   All this is not the sort of reasoning or attitude to negotiation that would be seen as reasonable; but it would be seen as typically American …

4. Jeff Watson on December 15, 2009 11:29 am

   Mike, you make an eloquent argument, but leave out one small element. The invisible hand and its effects can and has been scientifically tested, whereas there is no method for testing Kamma, just as there is no method for scientifically testing the existence of G-D. The metaphysical is a realm that adherents use the concept of faith to justify and bolster their beliefs. Adding to that the fact that the invisible hand is a worldwide phenomenon, even in countries where you would expect it the least. The invisible hand, along with compound interest are very powerful forces, the most powerful forces in the universe. If you’re interested, I have a download of Smith’s “Wealth of Nations” over on my blog, or to save you time, offer it here. http://tinyurl.com/ya6nvkn

   As far as this being a negotiation, and the fact of it being over, that would be far from reality if I so desired. In 1980, I picked up a most excellent book by Herb Cohen, “You Can Negotiate Anything”
   http://tinyurl.com/yegp57e I have practiced his methods extensively over the years and found them to be quite effective. However, in order to keep this from descending into an argument of tit for tat, in the Spirit of Franklin I will concede that you have your belief system and I have mine. And the next time you’re in New York, I’ll buy the beer. Jeff

5. MikeOlds on December 15, 2009 4:15 pm

   Hello again Jeff,

   Thank you for the download link to Wealth of Nations. I have an old copy of the book.

   You say: … you … leave out one small element. The invisible hand and its effects can and has been scientifically tested, whereas there is no method for testing Kamma, just as there is no method for scientifically testing the existence of G-D.

   If I may ask, can you delineate the ‘proof’ you see for the idea of an Invisible Hand? I wouldn’t say Smith himself came anywhere near to defining it, let alone proving it’s existance or efficacy or even that there is any force at all there. He is speaking metaphorically about unintended consequences and has made no case that they always go a certain way.

   There is a sticky issue here with regard to proof. What is being proven? A metaphore? I strongly suspect that it’s not the existance of an ‘invisible hand’. On the face of it AS is speaking about a force he doesn’t try to explain that answers for him what he cannot himself prove. What is the difference in this construction from that of one (who doesn’t know) who says ‘God did it!’ or ‘it’s a result of kamma’?

   However, however valid the proof you may offer (and I by no means admit that scientific method is the only way to validate a proposition), proof is not the issue in this discussion. Neither is the issue the choice between one theory or another. The fact is that millions … billions of people believe this theory and evaluate their business options in accordance with their understanding of this theory. It is the lack of understanding, the unwillingness to learn of it even that is the danger to this society. The argument here is not that ‘it is’ but that it should be factored into one’s decisions as though it were.

   The discussion begin’s with Mr. Sogi’s question. The suggestion being made by me is that aside from the two alternatives he poses as the answer, there is another possibility that it would be wise to consider.

   And, PS, I would advocate the same safe position with regard to covering one’s bets with concerning the belief in God. Behaving as though there were such, one will have taken a two-sided position.

   I would like to suggest however that there is in fact a certain amount of basic logic to the notion of kamma. We have a law of physics that speaks about reactions to actions. Something like kamma is happening out there in the physical world. And anyone can test the mental side of this on a small scale simply by doing some good deed. Watch both the internal and external reaction. That reaction is called kamma. If you noticed a reaction, you proved the existance and effacacy of kamma. What we don’t have is an understanding that thought is action, speech is action … something I would say was an out-and-out failing of basic observation.

   We can round this back speaking about not provoking angry argument here. Why make nice and avoid provocative argument if there were no consequences? That’s all that is being said. Guaranteed as subtle as I wanted to make it, if I stray from the issue into the personal to put you down, you would recognize the intent and I would feel your reaction and all my eloquence would be profitless.

   The other way around, the study of kamma and it’s mechanisms of action would point out huge gaps in the current understanding of ethical behavior in the US versus the asian countries and India. Ethics count in my book when I am giving someone my money to work with.

   And, insidentally, kamma too advocates that the individual put his own interests first.

   Also thank you for the offer of a beer. I myself did a marathon pub-crawl in 1961, top of the tip of Manhattan to the Brooklyn bridge. Don’t drink at all any more…or visit Madhat’n.

6. Duncan Coker on December 15, 2009 6:03 pm

   I read this book a while back and really enjoyed it. In fact all of Pollan's works are well research and written. Omnivores Dilemma is another great work. I too am interested in the idea that the causation between variables may work the opposite of what we expect or in both directions. I am reading the Palindrome's noted work and he makes a good case for the markets themselves affecting the stocks within them. Two case studies are in the Dot.com fall when lower market prices affected the ability of companies to raise capital and for pay incentives to manage their expansions. And the case last year when the market itself reeked havoc on the business models of individual stocks particularly in the financial sectors. The whole idea of a wealth affect recently noted by the Greenspan is an example for the markets affecting the real economy. Summers talks about this too in an article describing positive feed-back loops, due mainly to trend following behavior that are destabilizing. To whom they destabilize is another question. But, I think it is a two way street with the markets. In theory the stock market is a big discounted stream of earnings. But in reality the market itself can affect those earning and is not strictly dependent.

7. Jeff Watson on December 15, 2009 10:39 pm

   Mike, I just Googled "proof of the invisible hand" and found 327,000 hits, which contained many valid proofs. A similar search of "Proof of Kamma" produced 19,1700 hits, most of the first two pages produced gibberish. As a trained scientist with fairly decent credentials, I submit that you are incorrect in your assumption that there's more than a scientific way to validate a proposition. Science by consensus or belief system is not proof, or science for that matter (just ask the global warming crowd), just ask Copernicus or Galileo. Anyways, it would be of benefit to all to quit quibbling and just share a beer the next time we're in the same time zone. Jeff