"Totaliter Aliter" Structural Holonic Economics

Two German monks enjoyed a great friendship over their years in the monastery. Their favorite topic of conversation was heaven.

One, a gardener, believed that the most beautiful flowers would constantly bloom.

The other, the organist, thought that heaven would be filled with the most beautiful melodies.

They decided that the first to die would return a year after his death and tell the other what heaven was really like with a single word. If it was as he imagined he would say taliter (“exactly”); if it was as the other thought, he would say aliter (“the other one”). The organist died suddenly, and his friend sent many prayers to heaven in the year that followed. On his death anniversary, he appeared to the gardener in his cell.

“Taliter?” the gardener asked. After a moment of silence, he tried the other response. “Aliter?” The organist breathed forth two words: “Totaliter Aliter! ”

Adapted from Fr. Rainero Cantalamessa, Contemplating the Trinity, p.117-118 found at https://truthbeautygoodnessincatechetics.blogspot.com/2013/04/totaliter-aliter.html posted by Sister Anna Joseph

To compare Structural Economic Holonics to any existing economic approach, school or set of rubrics would be an error of misplaced validity. Structural Economic Holonics is, in my opinion at least, “Totaliter Aliter” .

Much of the present day economics is being applied and used to justify the continuation of the drift of wealth in economies to the smattering of insatiably avaricious members of the elite upper crust of society. A large segment of that perplexing policy is based on an interpretation of John Maynard Keynes' phrase "the economy as a whole".

The interpretation by Simon Kuznets of this one phase has skewered all possible understanding of the economy and its functioning to the detriment of us all. Although the understanding of this comment has rigidly been equated to the "Aggregation of All Markets" and the cloud of intellectual activity forming a whirlwind of "experts" divining the entrails of market Bulls and Bears and providing little useful direction, it has as John Kenneth Galbraith pointed out, provided employment for economists and economic commentators but little else for those not thusly gainfully employed.

But there is another understanding of the phrase "the economy as a whole" and that is that it is a word that was available to understand and put Keynes' comment in an entirely different understanding. The word "Holon" or, in other words, a whole from its inception and that whole is composed of other wholes and contributes itself to being a part of another whole even as it is itself a whole which is what a Holon is.

Going beyond the diction or choice of words describing the phenomenon its meaning needs clarification as applied to economics. Within each and every Holon are four structures comprised of its "currency" or the factor that is of value in it and is the energy form of the holon. In an economy it is wealth measured in the fiat exchange units; dollars, pounds, pesos, lira, francs, euros, shekels, yen.

To manage this one needs an approach that gives insight into its workings and this is provided by the three forms of transaction modes conceived of by Karl Polanyi that are involved in the movement of wealth internally within and externally to each and every holon.

Polanyi described three such Transaction Modes but there are a great deal more of them. In fact, any device that alters the amount or distribution of the stock and flow of wealth internally or externally is a Transaction Mode Regulating this process is policy and this is the foundational principle that is defined the the value mix that can be inherited, created or imposed from within or without the holon.

Inside the economy holon, all economic policy results in success or failure based solely on how and when it changes the Structure of an Economy which is defined as the distribution of wealth in any economy through the distributions of the economy's stock (capital stocks) and flow (income). All economic policy has an effect on these two influences.

Orthodox economics does not consider these effects and is therefore limited in its effectiveness.

When only markets and their aggregates are considered a very large part of the economy is left without consideration. These other dynamics that result in the transfer of either the stock (capital) or flow (income) of wealth are Transaction Modes or Transaction Forms recognized by Karl Polanyi.

In all of this mix there is one more ingredient that underlies each and every holon and is replicated in each and every one of the holonic structures from the most fundamental to the entire mega structure and that it is one of the Biblical Parables of Jesus known as The Parable of the builders.

With the slightest bit of probing one discovers that it is not simply a story of common sense but is an ethical or moral tale with implications in the very system and body of jurisprudence that is fundamental to any and all holons. One builder hurried the job of building and cut corners and thereby treated all who would inhabit or visit the building immorally, unethically and illegally. The first storm brought the shady work and its structure down whereas the second prudent builder's structure survived the storm and lived up to his moral-ethical-legal obligations to himself and all who entered the structure and society.

These moral/ethical determinants can be imposed on the holon from a limited number of members of the holon above, developed from below by widespread participants or adopted from outside the holon through cross cultural sharing as was the case with liberalism and its tenets.

Fundamental to all holon's functioning is at least one of these value producing principles or more and likely all three.

Without a firm foundation not only does the holon not become stable but eventually evaporates but not before polluting the adjoining holons larger of which it is a part and smaller which comprise its body.

In economics the functional holon has wealth in either its stock or flow or intellectual or human capital states but most importantly the wealth or lack of it that is foundational to the holon; the ethics/moral stance that defines the holon through its content, process and structure. These underlying influences shape two of the four distributions that interact producing predictable and measurable results or outcomes.

Mixing the inputs, like all recipes, is what policy is and is done in accordance to goals and priorities set within a political holon in which the currency is influence through support that facilitates and allows assignment of resources.

A great problem is that there isn't enough intellectual wealth in the cloud of economic “experts” to bring this about given the mocking adage that if all economists were lined up end to end they couldn't reach an agreement. This seems to be because economics, as it presently exists, is not a science even though it uses mathematics, the language of science, however sophisticated it may be it isn't any more accurate than astrology and is no more a science than astrology despite the fact that they both use mathematics to churn out reams of advise and predictions.

More recently new contenders for the center stage of economic theorizing and policy development have emerged. One such offering in the online web magazine EVONOMICS that promoted a "Third Way" which it defines as follows from this exert from its July 2020 issue.

David Wilson, in an interview with Tim O'Reilly who promotes the third way, introduces the subject as follows.

The thesis of the Third Way is that when it comes to positive social change, all three ingredients of an evolutionary process—the target of selection, variation oriented around the target, and the identification and replication of best practices–must be managed at a systemic scale. This is in contrast to the two dominant models of social change, laissez-faire and centralized planning. Laissez-faire doesn’t work because it simply is not the case that the lower-level pursuit of self-interest robustly benefits the common good. Centralized planning doesn’t work because the world is too complex for a group of experts to formulate and implement a grand plan.

This evening I am wearing a polo shirt with the name of my Alma Mater printed on the pocket in the school colors below which is its coat of arms. That may have bee what jogged me from my writer's block and focused my attention on an incident that has teased my mind into setting a the record straight of an encounter with one of the last century's most influential men; William Edwards Deming.

What I heard Deming say and what I remembered hearing him say were recently reexamined and understood in a totally different context. The meaning was left with me like an intellectual time bomb ready to explode when it would change my thinking and bring considerably new and different understanding to the conversation. He expressed himself in a way that we wouldn't be able to comprehend given the level of advancement we had achieved.

Originally, before looking at the notes I took, I remembered him saying “What can you tell about a population by the way it is distributed?” but my notes tell a slightly and subtly different story with enormously different meaning.

He, according to my notes from that conversation, whether he spoke deliberately or not, asked “What does a population say about itself by the way it is distributed?” Small difference. BIG significance.

After five decades or so, give or take a year of two, it finally dawned on me that he was telling us something that went right over our heads in the Quantitative Methods that he had dropped into at Sir George Williams University's Drummond Building in Montreal to visit a former student or colleague or maybe he was there to hear his fellow American Economist Michael Hudson who was in Montreal giving a series of lectures at a nearby private club.

So what's the difference between the meaning instilled in memory and that of notes scribbled on a now crumpled and folded multiple times in smudged and barely legible scratching I offer to the world as handwriting.

To answer that we turn to an interview in David Sloan Wilson's Evonomics e-Magazine, an economics newsletter that addresses a variety of current economics discussions.

In the preamble to the discussion Wilson maintains:

The thesis of the Third Way is that when it comes to positive social change, all three ingredients of an evolutionary process—the target of selection, variation oriented around the target, and the identification and replication of best practices–must be managed at a systemic scale. This is in contrast to the two dominant models of social change, laissez-faire and centralized planning. Laissez-faire doesn’t work because it simply is not the case that the lower-level pursuit of self-interest robustly benefits the common good. Centralized planning doesn’t work because the world is too complex for a group of experts to formulate and implement a grand plan.

The article is entitled “The Sweet Spot Between Laissez-Fair and Centralized Planning” and purports to offer a “Third Way” to address the challenges to society normally consigned to economics for solutions.

After an introductory orientation the article takes the form of a back and forth discussion between David Sloan Wilson and Tim O’Reilly.

In the discussion Tim O’Rielly clarifies his position in his statement, “ 'management' suggests an active process in which decisions are made on an ongoing basis by a central actor. 'Design' suggests that someone builds something that operates according to specific rules, and then steps away, with the things that follow being a consequence of that design.”

He goes on to state, “Of course, the two work together – someone designed an airplane, but someone has to manage its flight – it doesn’t fly on its own. But without the right design, it won’t fly no matter how hard you try to manage it.”

This snippet of the discussion is an outgrowth of the acknowledgment that there are two primary competing streams in economics which include Centralized Planning on the one hand and Laissez-Fair on the other.Neither of these neither approaches is now nor has ever been up to the tasked demanded of domestic economies and least of all applicable to the emerging global economy which has its own additional dilemmas that need sorting out.

In the three decades or so of my involvement in pastoral ministry in The United Church of Canada one of the regular duties I was required to discharge was that as officiant at weddings. In the 300 or so that were given me to perform no two were the same even though there were only a few orders of worship or rubric, if you prefer, to draw from as the basis of the vast majority. Music was altered along with colours of adornment of the venue. The bride and bridal party and groom and ushers attire and flowers changed.

The hope was that each and every marriage being launched with a celebration would endure which was not the case.

One of the ways of increasing the probability of an enduring relationship then and now was a course in marriage preparation the minimal standard was that the couple was able to develop a relationship of positive synergy using communication and problem solving. Built into such courses was a component that assessed the value system that each of the future spouses brought to the relationship and how compatible the systems were but most of all to be aware of the differences in values of origin. What was now and what is to be in the future the synthesis of values that would act as a foundation for the couple's life together.

Incidentally, the coming together in marriage is described by Jesus as the coming together of two to people to become one person. Translated into holonics Jesus reiterates the Old Testament dictum that two very different people (aka holons) form a new person (aka holon) blending their similarities and differences into a new whole.

Phrased in Structural Economic Holonic terms, consideration of what was the contribution of values that each of the families of the bride and groom was providing as the basis for the new holon of the individuals and how was this being blended by the holon of the couple in each of the areas of their common life which in the light of this work applies to the Transaction Modes being employed in the use of their resources which may include a number of associated holons such as the extended family holon and friends holon of which there may be several holons not attached to one another and colleagues and the local social holons and the political Holons and work and leisure and education and the list is inexhaustible.

These holons are all wholes and are more often than not contributors to larger and are contributed to by smaller holons.

Not only does the idea of a Holon correspond to John Maynard Keynes' notion of “the economy as a whole” but it also has all the characteristics of the ancient notion of a “soul” that flourished among the Jewish tribal confederacy and accounted for the decimation of any person or tribe that would pollute the soul of the nation.

Considering such a concept as soul as an holon begs the question of what dynamics are operational within such an holon. What is or are the dominant transaction mode(s) used as the currency or currencies of the structure? Do these clash or compliment one another? How does the domestic currency relate to external holonic currencies? Is the value system that emerges from the union that is based on ideas of thought or tenets of belief or influence or persuasiveness or training or style or demeanor or a familiarity of propriety in the particular holonic context or is it some other fiat form of money such as facility of the language of the holon or possibly votes that act as the impetus for exchange or accumulation of the currency?

Whatever it is, it is of value and as such is a form of wealth.

Using the Holonic view to study social institutions and their ebbing and flowing provides a different contextual framework, not only for the economy but also for the numerous other overt and unacknowledged politics of institutions such as exist in education in which dynamics such as accumulation drift and accumulation divestments operate abstractly but manifest in concrete ways such as position, privilege and paychecks and can be compared to other theories of wealth adjustment in an economy such as the often touted trickle down theories and the all boats float arguments. All boats may float but there's a heck of a difference between a yacht and a row boat. Status doesn't change only nominal values change.

In a severe storm the row boat sinks while the party continues aboard the yacht.

A yacht is still a yacht and a row boat remains a row boat.

Comparing wealth historically also gives a tremendous false sense of distorted values in any relative comparison of differences as well as absolute differences but in absolute and relative terms the 1% of today and the same strata of other epochs can not withstand comparison. But the outcomes to their societies can hint at the devastatingly disastrous consequences of unbridled and continuous accumulation of wealth and the splendor of the ruins that was created and left behind as dumb witnesses to human arrogance and avarice.

There is evidence in the archaeological and historical records that this same process appears to have been universal appearing on every continent with every great empire of the past being laid to rest in its heyday.

A glance around the world today and our recent history doesn't suggest any different outcome to the process in the near future with the distortion of wealth in every existing society being rationalized by this or that feeble excuse for the exclusion of this or that segment of society.

For a long time it has been very apparent that increased prosperity alongside year in and year out deficits will eventually lead through accumulation drift and divestment crawl to massive debt not only for the 99% but will leave the 1% saddled with a bankrupt economy and social disintegration without the proper understanding of economics and appropriate policies to address the situation.

Structural Holonic Economics begins with the individual or to make it personal, it starts with you and the resources or riches or wealth that you bring to the economy that is you.

Being a holonic and an economy you decide what method you use to allocate your resources which include your physiognomy, your physical component and what you do with it. Most importantly, you choose the holon both individual and aggregate that you will live in by choosing the foundational value system of your individual holon and importing it into all the larger holons of which you incorporate or discover yourself a part. Your value/belief system is of vital importance in the well being and survival of all holons of which you are a part.

Choose wisely.

So how does this seemingly bizarre approach play out in real life one may ask. Four distributions are involved. The answer can be found in the four distributions of Income Recipients and Incomes and the two “If” curves which represent the situation that would exist if the two Income and Income Recipients distributions were normally distributed.

These relate back to William Edwards Deming`s question “What does a population say about itself by the way it is distributed?”

In order to answer that question with a practical applicable response and from a Structural Holonic viewpoint there are the two tool sets, one of which has been referenced above as The Structural Holonic Paradigm that utilizes the “If” curves and related Income Recipient and Income distributions as well as an Algorithm developed for just that purpose. 

In should be noted that the Structural Paradigm that incorporates the two "If" curves and the Income and Income Recipient Distributions reverse Alfred Marshall's switch of the dependent and independent axes in order to better illustrate the process involved in Structural Holonic Economics and that is seen in the illustration at the beginning of this article.