Economics is far from an exact science despite its carno-phallogocentric mathematical pretensions. Technologies are historically situated as are cultures and social ideologies and so economics cannot reasonably become divorced from economic history and socially constructed geotemporal legislation. Carno-phallogocentric economic science is furthermore predicated on ignoring tremendous human psychometric diversity in also different human genetic populations having highly divergent average psychometric profiles in varying regards.
Yet merely describing economics as the “false consciousness” of capitalism of the present is simply insufficient as economic science needs become thoroughly reinvented indeed by integrating insights from many other sciences. Economic scientists engage in a sort of magical numerology of carno-phallogocentrism whereby mathematics in (ir)rationalist manner is supposed to be able to explain everything and so are insights of other sciences systematically ignored in the political interest of naturalizing, i.e. discursively legitimizing present economic malpractices.
What we therefore need to do is to move beyond magical numerology of present ethnocratic carno-phallogocentric economic discourse. This means methodologically embracing diversity of many different kinds in not merely descriptively justifying the present but rather engaging in conceptual, social and technological innovation in therefore innovating the future rather than merely projecting the late medieval oppressive present into the future. Economists often conveniently ignore that the economic present was invented in the past as not even beginning with the invention of the wheel and so may we now in the present invent the future as well.
It would be difficult to deny that capitalism was historically socially invented in a particular cultural context of economic history (Ashkenazi Jewish organized trading practices in late medieval Western Europe) and as highly dependent on any technologies as deployed in the present is the global economic system now rapidly transforming into a very different economic system where physical scarcity is increasingly supplanted by digital abundance and where advanced technologies increasingly supplant all professional tasks not requiring emotional intelligence, i.e. individual talent.
The science of economics needs therefore move beyond its late medieval carno-phallogocentrism in embracing conceptual, social and technological innovation as means of ethico-politically innovating the future in the present without as much as possible reactionary projections of contemporary social and economic dysfunctions into the future.
In deconstructing economics need we be conscious of the significant impact of psychometric diversity on economic behaviors. This means that persons of different psychometric profiles display quite different economic behaviors as “the saint” and “the psychopath” certainly do not have identical economic behaviors. The human economy is thus the sum of a tremendous diversity of highly divergent psychometric profiles indeed.
It would be rather difficult to ignore and even more difficult to deny that economic behaviors in monasteries as populated by persons embracing virtue are rather different from economic behaviors in prisons as populated by persons embracing vice. Similar average comparisons could be made between men and women, between rich and poor, between those with relatively high IQs and those with comparatively lower IQs, between the socially privileged and the socially unprivileged, between different age cohorts, between different generations during the same chronological age bracket, between different personality types and so on and so forth.
In moving from ethnocratic apologetics of patriarchal carno-phallogocentrism in embracing conceptual, social and economic innovation may we therefore move beyond prejudice of numerological pseudo-psychology in designing and redesigning social contexts by means of diverse psychometric insights in designing social reality, including but certainly not in any way limited to devising social apps for various physical devices and online platforms. Daring innovative entrepreneurship is precisely about conceptual, social and technological innovation in molding the future by ignoring the prejudice of the present.
Applied economics needs therefore become a critical science of innovative leadership in devising a great diversity of economically functioning social contexts by remaking the future in the present indeed. We thus need not suffice with naturalizing Eurocentrism as premised on usually bizarrely and irrationally secularized Christian metaphysics which in turn arose as a Roman Judeocentric version of Greek ethnocentrism.
In designing the future need we of course be ethical, practical as well as daring and futuristic. “Does it work?” is indeed an essential question to ask and pose and so economic scientists need furthermore delve into understanding the nature of successful conceptual, social and technological innovation. “Why does it work?” and “How does it work?” are other essential questions for economic scientists to pose and indeed ask themselves and each other.
Capitalism is a heterogenous collection of social practices which in hindsight are universally historically recognized as most ineffective and irrational indeed. After all, no successful company would want to use the technologies and administrative systems of the 1940s. While economic and technological practices may seem advanced in the present is that certainly not how the recent economic/technological past is assessed in hindsight.
The main economic arguments in favor of capitalism are simply that “it works” and “is effective” in deploying human psychological strength and sublimating human psychological weakness. If economists however commence to explore the “whys” and “hows” as to its functionality may we shift paradigm in economics in inaugurating a future of economic self-invention where conceptual, social and technological pursuit of innovative entrepreneurship becomes the social norm indeed.
Once economists abandon their late medieval vision of mass servitude where the human masses are trained to become obedient living machines by means of exploiting their psychological weaknesses and desire for pleasure in serving the often exploitative societal elite of successful economic leaders – can we also understand that transforming the system of education into individualizing accelerators is absolutely essential indeed to transforming the economic future in ethico-politically empowering human agency rather than reducing human animals to tools of yet even more intelligent human animals.
In understanding and embracing the psychometric diversity of economic animals can we also invite diversely different and highly functional economic futures indeed.
The Eurolect – Politics of the Para-Christian documentation project