synergy = energy + exergy; anergy is absence of both.
This is to say that tao = yang + yin. There is no antithesis of tao, but there is lack of it.
Here this is the background of this game of words..
Therefore, synergy transcends energy, but through exergy, if user is a part of system and no external "consumer" ..through "consuming", we produce synergy to ourselves, through producing long-term anergy to a tool (it is in less-synergy state after trashing than the matter was before creating), and anergy to the battery we are using. We must get rid of this paradigm of "consuming" energy through having it to be "created" by producing anergy and "consumed" by producing energy, but through adding exergy we don't need anergy at all. As we always produce more anergy than energy, because of losses on transfer and producing and consuming, this is a way to lower synergy, this means anergy and this means chaos to world, but we must make all matter of Earth to go into higher synergy; thus, as synergy is energy+exergy, it transcends energy and is thus higher form of energy as it's creation does not produce anergy anywhere; producing energy without producing exergy we produce anergy, which is in higher degree than energy produced, and thus we move world to inevitable anergy direction, which is not the direction of evolution and life. We can call love, the creativity, the process which is used to create synergy, and the process itself moves "battery" of brain itself into higher synergy, so using this battery we also charge it as this process itself is exergy process, inside out, and thus we generate only synergy, without polar anergy - anergy is polar of half synergy, an energy.
From greek (energia, sünergia, anergia, eksergia in Estonian are the words, thus -ia ending):
syn prefiks - together
en prefiks - into
ex - out from
erg - work
an - without (almost "apart")
ia suffiks - state, quality, act
Using binary:
00: Anergy - state, quality, condition or act of not working.
01: Exergy - state, quality, condition or act of working for others (serving, as you do).
10: Energy - state, quality, condition or act of working for yourself.
11: Synergy - state, quality, condition or act of working together.
Here the articles (not so common words):
http://en.wikipedia.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/
This means perpetuum mobile is possible in case it's user is part of it, so that nothing comes in and nothing goes out. As this is impossible, it must simply use all natural outside forces for it's own sake and produce responses, which are good for those processes, moving towards global synergy. It's very neutral activity as it produces "competition of higher synergy" and the ones left behind will fall, but neutral as status quo does not need to be aggressively changed in radical ways - everything can grow together, economics can grow (in quality and price, not quantity - workers of quantity should move to jobs on quality, so that they won't produce waste, but do the creation for raising synergy for all). When things built last 100 times more (and some old machines have their 100-year guarantee times passing and still as new, whereas Bernays work made it so that similar things not last for a few years), but constant growth of quality is good for everyone - less money, but as much more value of money, and thus win-win. At Bernays time his job might have been a necessity, but now the polar opposite is new necessity as situation has changed and we have less resources.
Paradigm change needs math to be re-engineered so that the optimums would be synergy optimums, not energy optimums without anergy factors counted. From this new paradigm, "production" and "consumption" of energy as we now know, become a little bit more complex, but raising the synergy becomes simpler and the optimums yield growth, not destruction. Sustainability is actually just the measure of synergy, like GDP is measure of economics, but better (on material - simple to engineer -, emotional - harder to engineer - and intellectual - quite hard to engineer).
Nassir Taleb describes some terms as fragility, antifragility and convexity as such in his works ..trivial things, in a sense, but very well-described (I have read some intros to that). Indeed, a good system should win from all natural forces - good material should attract molecules on correct places after losing some and on use, it should go stronger instead of being weared off; and on production, use and garbaging, the whole process should somehow serve environment. We need not fast computers, but reliable ones, for now - and actually, then, we can choose materials as easily as we can choose them when building house. And I have an idea that any molecule and other field structure has a kind of "experience", for example, if you take some metastructure of brain and use it in building computer, you can actually "build" some feeling or cognitive structure of brain, and it affects well-being of surrounding fields (which are, in sense, compassionate) ..and Earth field might be one of such. Then it's natural to hypothesize that dharma as Indians did use it also means "not being enslaved" for a matter, which is building correct internal synergy (and love), thus making the material stronger and more supported by surrounding fields and luck. With my background, this makes perfect sense :)
Here - theoretically, you can sell thing, which lasts 100 times more, with 100 times higher prices, and build it with (kind of) the same cost. It would be new market, slowly entering, first for the rich(?) ..because this is the actual change we need right now. Those 99% of workers, then, who are released from work, can start science work on different parts of this product or others, and there is actually a lot of work to do. Accumulating, if this is a tool, net value of production of other tools with it will virtually go smaller, as the price can be measured in correlation of this "high market" with old, "low market", even if in absolute terms the price does not change. It's just heading that way, then. People could start to slowly buy the new-quality stuff or move to new-quality markets themselves to be able to buy it. Then it would be correctly seen through GDP. Then, tax system could start taxing for all the anergy produced to nature, with cost of re-creation of synergy, and indeed, the old markets would pay 100 times more of this tax; this can be done on all markets, where growth is occurred (growth in terms of quality, growing mature, not quantity, growing bigger). Tax systems could be altered funnily if people start to get paid for learning - each exam taken gives some money, and exams are indeed in direction, which could make them quality-producers. This is to keep them working, not revolting, as people tend to do if having too much time, and not stopping doing work inside production system - but they would like to do something sensible, not just learn for 8 hours per day, and this sensible thing would be quality and reliability analysis, basically the research job, which tends to grow from educational jobs (and if learning is paid, then teaching is paid, and then people can grow into teachers if this is well-paid). As analytic abilities of people are well-known, they could be solving actual parts of scientific problems, with those parts generated by computers, so that it all would measure as real work. Because generation of synergy is work of creativity and love, and this could start this way. Then, as money is the matter, it would also be pointless to do someone else's schoolwork. Funny growth, but growth - actually there is unlimited amounts of theoretical work and having the "school-system" working as something, where anyone could buy answers, and anyone could get paid by giving acceptable answers, or re-giving so that alternatives could be checked for equality and by other measures ..and system could always just generate questions in complex ways, which do not let the answers be autogenerated ..okay, maybe there are better ways to get people creative, but from information society there inevitably comes the creation society, and evolution takes care of that - as people without brain areas supporting writing and reading died out when writing and reading became common. Didn't exactly die, but just the patterns of birth did change.
No comments:
Post a Comment