Friday, August 17, 2012

Divine Economy Theory Passes The Test Of The Four Kinds Of Proofs.

First of all let me list the four kinds of proofs:
  1. Through sense-perception
  2. Through the reasoning faculty
  3. From traditional or scriptural authority
  4. Through the medium of inspiration

These are the standards that people use as proofs but each one is subject to error. I will give an example of an error for each of these 'proofs' that shows the weakness of relying soley on that kind of proof.
  1. Sense-perception is fooled by a mirage.
  2. Reasoning faculty alone falters because not all logicians come to the same conclusion.
  3. Which tradition or scriptural authority can claim to be the correct one?
  4. Could the promptings of the heart that lead to the inspiration be a vain imagining?

The point that we are getting at is that one or a couple of these 'proofs' is not sufficient and that only if all of these kinds of proofs are satisfied can there be certitude.

Now we will examine and test the divine economy theory using each of these proofs.
  1. Sense Perception: The Divine Economy Model © is a visual graphical representation of the economy.
  2. Reasoning Faculty: The divine economy theory uses logic consistent within the philosophy of classical liberalism to build the theory.
  3. Traditional Or Scriptural Authority: Not only does it stem from the classical liberalism tradition but it ties together the ethical foundations inherent in all religions.
  4. Through The Medium Of Inspiration: The model in its simplest form appeared to me in a dream in the autumn of 2004 and I hurriedly wrote it down so I would not forget it. I then applied my training as a technical economist to unfold it in its various applications (macroeconomics, microeconomics, ethical economics, and economic justice) over the next seven years (2005-2012).


Twitter @DivineEconomy


Check out my new website: http://bruce-koerber.squarespace.com
 


1 comment:

janos said...

Hello Bruce,
I like visual models in you new web site.
In general however your writings seem to be on an abstract level, no practical policies that would tackle unemployment, abject poverty, resource grabbing through power and wars.

As you may remember I tried to engage in discussions but your responses seemed to me to be just more abstract statements, this notwithstanding:
"The model in its simplest form appeared to me in a dream... then... to unfold it in its various applications (macroeconomics, microeconomics, ethical economics, and economic justice) over the next seven years (2005-2012)."
Maybe the idea of "free market" underlying the flamboyant "Divine" epithet is an illusion itself: "Could the promptings of the heart that lead to the inspiration be a vain imagining?"