Toppling Western and Eastern Economics: Chan Economics (Serialization 1)
2006/7/20 21:19:25
One
In any theory, the foundational definitions are ideological. When something is brought within the range of definability, a corresponding perspective has already been presupposed. To be definable implies the existence of a certain isomorphic relationship. The ideological secret of any theory is always buried in its most primitive definitions, then sown like seeds into every bright or dark corner of the theory. Ideology is bias — it is consciousness wearing tinted glasses. The form of consciousness determines the results of conscious observation. So-called objective observation is a joke; a zero-degree angle is often an even greater angle. And human existence itself is the greatest bias of all — therefore bias is not something to be mocked. Rather, it is anyone who pretends to be omniscient, omnipotent, and all-seeing who deserves to be mocked by everyone.
Any theory must first address its domain. If the domain of economic theory is confined to concepts such as events related to economics, it inevitably becomes a process of circular definition — any definition in this mode ultimately falls into the dead end of circularity. For any prior economic theory, simply asking one basic question — "What is economics?" — will inevitably trap any answer in the pit of circular definition. In reality, there is no a priori definition of economics, much less any a priori theoretical domain concerning economics. A theory's domain is actually its most foundational definition, and also its most ideological aspect. When various economic theories each focus their perspectives on production, distribution, demand, supply, institutions, equilibrium, and other such domains, their ideological underwear is thus exposed in a flash of indecency.
Any theory theorized by humans has at least one human perspective. Even a non-human perspective, when it appears in a theory theorized by humans, must wear the underwear of the human perspective. A purely non-human perspective cannot possibly be theorized by humans — this is the ideological foundation shared by all theories that can be theorized by humans. The "human" here is not the so-called economic man or social man, but simply a set that includes all beings who, throughout all of past and present, could be called human in the biological sense — those once-living biological organisms. Standing on this ideological ground, aside from biological characteristics, the only requirement for a human is to have life. Dead people, no matter what they once were, are fertilizer or garbage.
Such a definition of human is essentially an open, ever-growing constructible set in which any person who has ever lived uniquely becomes an element. Of course, anyone with a bit of mathematical knowledge will recognize that this closely resembles the modern definition of natural numbers. Natural numbers are not, as commonly believed, some fixed set, but rather an open system constructed from the empty set. This construction can extend infinitely, but this only constitutes the most basic type of infinity. The set whose elements are subsets of this natural number set corresponds to a higher level of infinity, because the elements of the former cannot be placed in a one-to-one correspondence with the elements of the latter — they are only isomorphic to a subset of the latter.
Understanding this mathematical example should provide a deeper understanding of the definition of "human" here. In any theory that can be theorized by humans, the only possible a priori foundation is the existence of humans. Please note: the existence of humans here means not only the existence of that open constructible set, but also the existence of its elements — that is, the existence of individual humans who once had life.
(To be continued)
Replies
缠中说禅 2006/7/21 16:29:41
Romantic Zen
2006-07-21 14:09:22
To the person above — if the blogger could describe the world with pure mathematical operations, that would be even more impressive, but unfortunately she doesn't have that capability yet. Wait and see what others do!
Hehe......
=======
Describing the world — even old Marx would tell you how laughable that is!
缠中说禅 2006/7/21 16:26:57
This is the main text, no typo. If you think this isn't main text, you've been too deeply poisoned!