Smith, Krishnamurti, Bohm and Socioeconomics

Abstract:

In the 1770s Adam Smith wrote a seminal collection of books analyzing the global economy in a realistic and pragmatic manner. In his three volumes of “The Nature and Causes of The Wealth of Nations” and two volumes of “Moral Sentiments”, were detailed analyses of global issues; and arguments for how they might be addressed. These works, though centuries old are still astute and useful in modern times; as global, socioeconomic behaviors have remained similar.

In the 1950s, the eastern philosopher Jiddu Krishnamurti wrote his book “The First and Last Freedom”; which aimed to get to the root of suffering, in a pragmatic manner. He argued that thought alone would likely be disordered; if the thinker was not attentive to how they were thinking. He suggested that this attention to the process of thoughts would allow the thinker to order their thoughts; and become a better thinker. As his work matured, he began to suggest that what drives thought is a need for security; which may get to the root of suffering itself.

In 1959, David Bohm read Krishnamurti’s The First and Last Freedom; which appeared to be relevant to his work with The Observer Effect. He contacted Krishnamurti; which led to a long collaboration of getting to the root of disordered thought and suffering. In 1980, Bohm’s book “Wholeness and the Implicate Order” was published. In his book, he contends that disorder in thought results in disorder in behaviors; which results in disorder in what we create. He suggested that addressing the disorder in our thoughts would put order to our behaviors and to what we create; thus helping us to achieve our goals more effectively.

Socioeconomics may be a much more measured and fruitful endeavor; if we consider our impulses along with our intellect. The protectionism that exists in global economics for instance appears to be more impulsive than thoughtful; as Smith very well argued. Security appears to be the root of nation’s policies on economics; as securing the nation’s population with resources and against foreign threats is what it tends to revolve around. This is consistent with krishnamurti’s assertions on human drives in general. Creating coherent processes in our systems would probably, not only increase the successes of our markets and businesses, but also increase the security of not only the nations, but also the whole of humanity and all other species alike. This is Bohm’s contention; and it not only stands to reason, but it holds up to scrutiny, as it is continually demonstrated to be the case.

Adam Smith and Economic Security:

Adam Smith studied the interplay between national security and global economics. He postulated that national security would be better achieved through more cooperation between nations. Economic coordination between the various nations has been shown to promote diplomatic solutions to international tensions. The non-zero sum games have eased such tensions; and allowed more nations to be prosperous in more recent times. The result is of course more prosperity on the global stage; however there is also increased aversion to military conflict as well. The need for national security is thus decreased with global cooperation and diplomacy. Though there is still much work to do, an expectation that conditions would be worse without this approach stands to reason.

The propagation of economic crises correlates to many behaviors that Smith criticized. Deteriorating economic conditions in specific nations often results in protectionist policies; that destabilize relations between nations, and thus create added need for national security. This is in contrast to the desires of nations; and thus is counterproductive and sometimes destructive. The root of this issue appears to be in the difference between short and long term interests. The protectionist behaviors have short term gains and long term risks. This suggests that the policies are both impulsive and desperate. Domestic distress promotes immediate action; and long term consequences are overshadowed by it’s urgency. The long term consequences however exacerbate the issue; and compound domestic distress in the long run.

Smith appeared to be favoring long term stratagem; in the interest of both national security and prosperity. His arguments made clear how global economic cooperation was in the interests of all nations; and in times when there is reasonable cooperation, it appears to be the case. The complexity of the global economy is tractable; to a degree, with an approach that tends to work with specific instances. The main hurdle to implementation appears to be impulsive responses to domestic distress.

Jiddu Krishnamurti and Inner Security:

Krishnamurti suggested that lack of inner security was the root of suffering. It stands to reason that it would exclude barriers to healthy interpersonal relationships, social interaction, foreign relations and even preservation of other species. Inner security is in essence the lack of perceptions of threats. When not perceiving to be threatened, behaviors tend to be more cooperative. People let their guards down and become one of many; so to speak. This is consistent with behavioral studies; and is observed when economic conditions are more favorable.

Under perceptions of favorable economic conditions, funds for national security, fruitful investment in the economy and even a reasonable cost of living exists. These are conditions that promote perceptions of security. Foreign threats seem manageable, economic conditions are favorable and families feel secure in their ability to provide. Even in the hostile political climate of the 1960s there was still a historical civil rights movement. Favorable conditions appear to bring out the more nurturing side of humanity. When there is a perception of economic security and thus also a perception of abundance, the natural will to share and lift others up is expressed. When there are perceptions of scarcity, other’s are likely to be seen as competition and cooperation should be expected to decrease. This all revolves around how secure the individual and/or collective perceives themselves to be.

This perception of course is influenced by self-awareness; in the context of being aware of one’s own impulses. The awareness that one is feeling insecure is a useful addition to one’s thoughts. In that, we not only have thoughts, but we also have an understanding of our thoughts. By internalizing our analyses, we are not just cognitively responding to the conditions that confront us; but we are also trying to understand our own reasoning behind it. This helps to understand our thinking and behaviors as opposed to being more likely to justify them. This is also likely to build inner security.

David Bohm’s Wholeness and The Implicate Order:

The implicate order is in essence the individual being part and parcel of the whole. Like the observer is part and parcel of the observation; we are interpreting what we perceive. It’s not pure knowledge of our environmental conditions that we gain from our perceptions; but rather a "best we can do" to understand it. In realizing this, we gain an understanding of ourselves; in much the way Krishnamurti suggested. It’s however more than that. We appear to be a part of the whole of nature. We appear to have a place within it; and Bohm contended that seeing our perceptions as external is a mistake. The perception itself appears to be external; as we see it as other than us, but understanding the feedback loops of outcomes suggests that it is a false dichotomy. Bohm referred to this view as fragmentation.

Bohm argued that our thoughts are perceived to be fragmented; as we associate our thoughts with ourselves. The appearance is that we ourselves are our thoughts; even though we can perceive our own thoughts. We appear to be short selling the richness and dynamics of our consciousness with this perception. It’s even more than that though. We also perceive our place in the world to be fragmented; when we have the potential to be very influential. What we are expands beyond our bodies and minds in being a part of something greater. From an individual, to a family member, to a member of a community, to a citizen of a country, to a citizen of humanity, and even a large brained animal in the ecology, we have many places to influence our surroundings; and a fragmented perception of our station sells us short there as well.

Wholeness, like striving for perfection, is an unattainable goal; but that isn’t the point. The point rather, is to strive for our potential; with a more clear understanding of our potential. Bohm suggested that this is more likely with a better understanding of ourselves and our place in the world. This is how he interpreted a higher level of coherence. He suggested that by aiming for a higher level of coherence, we would not only be more competent as individuals but also more likely to get the results that we want as a collective.

Fragmentation and Consequences:

By thinking of ourselves as our thoughts we undermine the richness of our consciousness, inhibit our own self awareness, and create a barrier to our own potential.

By thinking of ourselves as sovereign individuals alone we undermine the value of our interpersonal relationships, our value as a member of a community, our value as a citizen and as a living being.

By thinking of our environment as external to our socioeconomic systems we undermine it’s value to the living world; and inhibit it’s ability to see it’s potential, and manage the risks associated with that particular perception.

By thinking of our nations as sovereign nations alone we undermine the value we share with the world; and prevent them from reaching their potential, and from addressing the risks associated with that particular perception.

By thinking of humanity as separate from the natural world we undermine our value as a species to preserve life, promote it’s ability to thrive and our ability to address the risks associated with that particular perception as well.