...after consulting with some of the economics faculty at Princeton, I learned of the work and publications of Freidrich von Hayek. I must say that my thinking is apparently quite parallel to his thinking in relation to money and particularly with regard to the non-typical viewpoint in relation to the functions of the authorities which in recent times have been the sources of currencies (earlier “coinage”).)~Nash, Ideal Money
I wonder what is your understanding or opinion on the possibility of creating a value measurement mechanism (aka Ideal Money) that is stable over “long periods of time”. I think many who understand the proposal (few seem to) would suggest such a thing is IMpossible.
I think perhaps though there is at least value in the conceptualization of the idea and dialogue on it.
Now I want to make a tangential jump and ask if you believe there is such thing as an objective truth (with some obvious implication that ideal money, and or market price on a free market, is such an objective truth).
But here, rather, I want to point to whether or not reality exists separate from our “subjections” on it.
I think you might agree that as we consider more individual views, or in other words the entirety of the market participants, we begin to tend, trend, and/or limit towards a more objective viewpoint. Perhaps we can say, without an all knowing god, that this limit is the best POSSIBLE innovation for objectivity (ie perhaps in the whole universes or multiverse).
Now if we can quickly agree that thought implies a thinker, and that the individual thinker is always born as/from a subjective state, we might suggest that THOUGHT is (by nature) subjective.
We ask, can there be observation without thought (or in other words can thought arise without the implication of thinker)?
I think in eastern religion, perhaps Buddhism, we talk about meditation, and although there might be subjective mediation, there is certainly discussion about observing our thoughts without “participating” (which also implies without trying to push our thoughts out)-implying some question for an objective viewpoint.
When we do this, and somehow create a(n) (construct for an) objective perspective (free from the conditioning of thought) I think we are able to extrapolate social ideals (perhaps what society will evolve towards with the assumption it gets better over time (which obviously also implies the direction we SHOULD head if we could define it somehow. (We might later show its the direction we WILL (naturally) head).
Of course there is at least some implication here that such change must be done in relationship to others (to optimize the objectivity), and that there is also some implication that dialogue/communication technology should/might evolve to facilitate such and event/process.
The suggestion here is that ultimately the implementation/creation of Ideal Money is to come about as a social revolution through communication/language (dialogue) technology/advance rather than through a currency policy itself.
Nash had this conclusion as well, but I didn't learn it first from him.
Thoughts?