Spontaneous Order

Adam, it looks like your exchange with Jeff R. has answered my "global tools" question in post #35. But my other question in #35 -- would you say that that's an accurate way of looking at the Internet and taking the Internet to be analogous to the free market?

Post 41

Friday, September 9, 2005 - 7:49am

Jeff,

Let me step in here a minute. I do not see any problem with attributing the drive of an act of genius to the need for survival. Sumner merely uses the word, "need," but I take it to be survival and survival-related activities.

A man needs to survive. To make it easier, one man uses rational cognition and invents the wheel. That is an act of genius. The idea spreads like wildfire. I can see where this can be considered as spontaneous.

I have a real problem with this spontaneous idea for the invention of a currency, however, as opposed to barter. This needs planning (which could have been by one individual or several), but needs acceptance by more than one to work.

A centralized act of design already. One of the foundations of market.

I also have a problem with the idea of folkways in the manner it is used. Folkways do exist, but so do independent acts of judgment, and they have at the genius level throughout human history much to the benefit of all of us. I see many of those acts of genius occurring at a broader level than the "invention of the wheel" example I gave, including the "centralized design" one where many people in varying degrees of influence are involved at the outset. I do not see one idea (folkways) canceling or contradicting the other (centralized design). Sometimes I see one and sometimes I see the other. Individuals and individual input are always involved, but the social texture is much different depending on the event.

Also, the acceptance process that Sumner gave, the inventor being ignored for a long time and his invention gradually accepted, occurs only when the invention is spontaneous and individual. When the inventor has a bit of power (or public exposure nowadays, instead of power, due to highly efficient immediate communications vehicles), his influence is much greater so he is not ignored.

Michael

Post 42

Friday, September 9, 2005 - 8:07am

Jay,

Yes, the analogy is accurate. The original ARPANET had fewer computers on the whole network than I now have in my home workroom. But once you get rid of a need for central control, then all size limits vanish - the Internet Protocols permit growth to any size without loss of efficiency. Just like the Market.

The glory of the human mind is often in finding the additional functionality of what already exists, and putting it to use. Human use of pre-existing capabilities is just as purposeful and deliberate as deliberately putting new functionality into the design.

Post 43

Friday, September 9, 2005 - 8:27am

Adam -- Thanks. I have learned something from you.

Post 44

Friday, September 9, 2005 - 7:35pm

My opinion (which you didn't pay for):

The way I look at it, this whole issue hangs on the nature of knowledge (knowledge of better ways to do things). For me, the issue boils down to the 'more fundamental issue' of whether knowledge is discovered -- or invented. It sounds to me like Adam is arguing for the latter -- while I'd argue for the former: All knowledge is discovery, none of it is invention.

Now, discovered knowledge can proceed to the invention category (when rational minds move it there), but this fact does NOT supercede the foundation of "better ways to do things" -- which are discovered; ie. which are spontaneous.

Ed

Post 45

Friday, September 9, 2005 - 9:08pm

Ed,

Yes, facts are discovered. But the application of facts to guide human action requires deliberate volitional choice - and "deliberately chosen" is the opposite of "spontaneous". Do you disagree?

(Edited by Adam Reed
on 9/09, 9:09pm)

Post 46

Saturday, September 10, 2005 - 12:20am

Adam,

===========
But the application of facts to guide human action requires deliberate volitional choice - and "deliberately chosen" is the opposite of "spontaneous". Do you disagree?
===========

How can I -- as a being who abhors contradiction -- disagree? The noted 'spontaneous' order always had, and always will, involve rational minds interacting with reality.

This thread strikes me as but a mere quibble -- a veritable storm in a teacup. To all onlookers (I'm falling toward dismay now), how does it matter -- whether I view the market as a priori planned, or merely as an ad hoc heuristic?

Ed
Ad hoc heuristics are cool.

Post 47

Saturday, September 10, 2005 - 2:11am

Ed said
>This thread strikes me as but a mere quibble -- a veritable storm in a teacup.

What Ed said.

- Daniel

Post 48

Saturday, September 10, 2005 - 6:11am