This
article would be more an exploration of my ideas and less of a concrete, theme
oriented writing. The basic problems cropped up in a number of
Science/industry/government meetings which were held over the past couple of
years, showing the healthy and unhealthy relationships that can exist between
the spheres. It is not aiming to be a checklist, or a set of do-this and
do-that and all will be fine with the world… but rather trying to tease out, in
whatever way possible, where the real focus must be. What it takes as a
background is an idea of the Threefold Society put forward via Anthroposophy,
where the thinking, feeling and willing spheres are independent, in the form of
spiritual, judicial and economic systems. Ok, here goes… tracing out the
threads.
First
off, the question is of the relationship of these spheres to themselves, as a
coherent whole.
THE
SCIENTIFIC AND SPIRITUAL SPHERE - LIBERTÉ
When
a scientist publishes his results, the main issue is actually the TRUST that
scientists have in one another. The second issue is that of impatience… where
one hurries to publish half-baked results while the other takes his time to
polish his thoughts and conclusions before putting it out in the public. Now,
no one can create a law to encourage trustworthy behavior and impatient
publishing, but what one CAN do is educate them with the laws already existing
in the spiritual world, which, of necessity, will show the futility of all short-cut
approaches in science. Establishing the trust and sufficient caution in coming
to the conclusions, these are by products of a moral education, and also of a
periodic association of the scientists in some form, e.g. in the rituals. If a
sufficient number of scientists come together periodically to align themselves
with the cosmos via a festival, and re-affirm their dedication, it would go a
long way in bringing about the right relationship between them.
Now,
as regards to the idea of a peer-reviewed journal. That whole rating system is
utterly counter-productive, particularly to creativity. First of all, having
peers reviewing your material means that it is a democracy, (shall address this
again) and also that an enormous amount of time and effort is spent nitpicking,
rather than giving it out to the public for the public to decide. The only
meaningful corrective to publications that appears to be feasible is the
principle of “By their fruits ye shall know them…” which means the
identification of the fruits should be given priority over the decision of
whether or not to show those fruits, which is fruitless. It is due to this
faulty idea of giving ratings to journals and ratings to scientists based on
that, that has contributed to their being a lot of citations and papers and
articles and little originality or creativity in the scientific literature of
the past century.
No,
instead, the field of publication is evened out, where ANYONE can publish their
results on a common platform. Today’s age has the internet, and a quick look at
the situation shows that a lot of the creative ideas are gaining ground mainly
due to its presence, as it serves as a common platform without a peer-review.
It can be argued that a lot of trash claims and inaccurate results will be
thrown up by this process… but keep in mind that the real deal is always
identified, as a matter of course. It is similar to the freedom of religion, yes,
naturally you will have a lot more tiny cults forming, but inevitably a true
spiritual person will produce effects that benefit humanity, and that is
essential. This system is a living system, and it shall re-organize itself in
the way we direct it. Liberty in the case of the scientist is simply the
liberty of communicating his ideas to the world, and the scientific world
acknowledging this liberty.
Additionally,
the system of giving Prizes to the scientists is quite thoroughly
counterproductive, or about as productive as trying to go backward in an effort
to go forward. Prizes provide an incentive to the egoism, and when they are
encouraged, hyped up, and promoted, one grows a tremendous amount of egoism in
the community, and the results of that are to inevitably bring politicking into
science. Nobel Prizes and the like, add nothing of scientific value to the
ideas, and simply transpose an economic function, that of seeking profit, into
this sphere. So, if recognition is indeed to be assigned, it will be assigned
by the results of the research… and the wholehearted appreciation from the
public, born of a real use of one’s ideas, is a far more healthy satisfaction
to encourage than the one resulting by bagging a prize.
To
summarize, science’s relation to itself ought to be one of equal opportunity…
to a level that a productive scientist can refer even to a shoddy paper in a
different language as a support for his research, as long as the material is
fruitful, without inviting ridicule from his fellows.
THE SPHERE OF RIGHTS, GOVERNMENT- EGALITÉ
The
way the sphere of rights influences the system is predominantly via the issue
of intellectual property rights. Pulling that apart, first of all, products of
the intellect are not property… they cannot be stolen. Once given, they cannot
be taken back, at all. A lot of furor is created nowadays in social networks
over the fact that something posted cannot be deleted… but that is merely a
reflection of the true state of affairs, that an idea, once formulated and expressed,
is a gift to the world as a whole. All attempts to create an idea-property are
a straightforward denial of reality. Now, something of the idea does become a
property, if it is an invention, and as such can be stolen… however, that would
be similar to the laws against theft. An invention is an idea incorporated, but
the ideal part of it is not a property, only the physical part of it is.
The
crux of the issue lies in the laws of patents, which has seen a tremendous tug
of war in our history. Patents are to the scientist what candy is for the
child, an incentive to create something, or do something. While the creations
and actions are very much appreciable, must we continue to think that a mature
being works only for such incentives? The predominant factor is due to the
monetary compensation that it entails, and the second one is the recognition
that comes with it, both of which are out of the sphere of rights. There are,
after all, no rights to demand money or recognition, except to the level of
sustaining the human person. In fact, the right to copy exists, as a
fundamental right. It is only when that right is acknowledged that a general
appreciation for originals will be cultivated.
The
rights sphere is inherently self governed, and works as a balance… with the
underlying theme that anything that threatens the individuality of a person has
to go. One government servant’s attitude to another is mainly to make sure that
the two laws which they are both upholding are mutually consistent, and
compatible with the other two spheres.
THE
SPHERE OF ECONOMICS, INDUSTRY – FRATERNITÉ
This
most-powerful sphere of today has a role of identifying suitable business
ventures, and providing the necessary money for them, and also to keep its nose
out of the formulation of laws or scientific research. In dealing with the
production and distribution of goods, the main issue is that of mutual
competition. This is where a good analogy with the farmer can be made… a
certain amount of food has to enter the body, mainly for its sustenance, and
yet, a farmer can grow his crops based on quite different considerations than
the needs of his own body. If the two coincide, then he offers up to the world
what he himself does not consume. This would be right attitude of the economic
bodies, or companies… the profit motive for them is similar to growing food for
internal consumption, however, a majority of the food/profit is actually for
the outer world, in order to direct to the place it is needed to go.
And
THAT, is the crucial need for an economic body, to have people in it who know
not only what the markets are at a specific point in time, but how the market
is showing the results of the spiritual sphere and the life of rights. It is
most important for an economist, even when dealing within his own sphere, today
to be aware of the other two spheres and their interconnection to his own.
Without this, it would be impossible to obtain any bearing on the issue of
competition. Competition is a result of the failure of the economic system to
sustain the basic needs of a human being, and also a failure of the spiritual
stream in identifying the uniqueness of the individuals and their collaborative
groups. This lack of recognition leads to competition, where people believe
that one’s loss is another’s gain.
THE
INTERRELATIONSHIPS
And
now, to connect these three systems together in thought… the scientific sphere
is related to the governmental sphere mainly to protect the right of every
scientist to publish or not to publish his/her results, without coercion. Now,
the scientist in question, once having decided to share the idea, disavows all
ownership, and responsibility of usage of any products that result from his/her
idea. In other words, no scientist can be held responsible for the mismanagement
of the given idea, but only that any harmful effect of the idea is outlined to
the best of one’s ability.
When
the scientist is interacting with the law, he does so solely as any other
citizen of the respective governing body. There are no additional rights, save
for those that have to do with a waiving of certain hazardous material laws
which every individual scientist has to decide for oneself. This component is
necessary because of the unknown factor which enters into any fresh
investigation, whence the normal laws of safety and restrictions cannot be
applied. There can be no licenses on use of inventions until they have
undergone use for a certain period of time that is decided by a body of
scientists, and this is the only area where democracy can fit into the
scientific pursuits. All forms of voting and democracy on any item of
scientific merit will lead a clogging of the creativity in the long run, so it
is best that they are removed as completely as possible from the whole cycle of
creation, publication, and rebuttals.
So,
we have on the one hand, the reach of the government into the Spiritual Sphere
as far as the maintaining of basic human rights, and making a few special
exemptions in the case of unknown research. The unhealthy side of this is where
research is tied up with bureaucratic paperwork, requiring numerous permissions
from the side of the government to operate a research institute, or it prefers
one section of research over the other in this licensing. Any and all forms of
peer-review in the case of scientific publications will in the long run grow
something poisonous, and provide little of true benefit, just as one cannot
create a law of nature by vote. The two systems, in this way, are incompatible.
The
interaction of scientists and industrialists or entrepreneurs, on the other
hand, must be one of free exchange both ways. For a start, spiritual
institutions are best funded by donations from any economic agent, and
correspondingly, the economic body benefits from the free transfer of ideas
from the scientific body. It would be up to the scientists to use the money
provided to them in a healthy fashion, just as it would be up to the
businessmen to manufacture and develop the products suggested by the scientists
and obtain the corresponding profits. The same relationship currently exists in
its corrupt form, where due to mutual mistrust both the scientific and the
economic spheres place demands on one another… with the scientific side
competing for grants via claims and proposals, and the industry demanding
results with the grants they provide. In this system, both sides are engaged in
a deadlock, and this stifling atmosphere kills all free interest-based research
and constrains the scientist to follow the money, and the industrialist to follow
the tall claims. If instead the arrangement of funds is left up to the
enterprise as a whole, where a group of scientists are free to keep or
redistribute the money that is attributed to them by donation, and similarly
the business people are free to put the products into the hands of those
competent to produce and distribute them, both spheres benefit from the
arrangement.
The
arrangement of funds for scientific and educational activities being given up
as a matter of personal liberty, the mutual constraints are gone. The two
spheres are interconnected with the question of personal rights, as they have
to do with the rights of the individuals in each sphere. The right to donate,
and the right to provide the scientific ideas, cannot be subject to coercion in
any form.
As
the relationship of the economic sphere to the rights sphere is mainly with
regard to those functions of the economic body for the good of the whole
system, for example, the areas which are currently designated as public sector
enterprises and supported by the government. Handing things over to the private
companies is a start, however their might be situations where companies cannot
utilize the profit motive for the functioning of those systems. Here is where
the re-distribution of the profits of certain companies would go, to prop up
the transport system, for example, and the logistics for public service. It is
solely in these areas that there could be the entrance of NGO’s, which work for
the benefit of the community alone, and are supervised by the economic body.
The rights of a businessman to borrow money, set up an enterprise, buy land and
resources, and to further sell it shall be protected throughout.
An
unhealthy relationship between the life of rights and that of economists is
that where the laws are made to the fancy of the economists, to support the
profit motive of one or more companies via lobbying. If that economic
organization itself is having a function of distribution instead of
accumulation, then the two can be led independently, with economic decisions
playing little role in the life of a citizen. Similarly, the creation of laws,
as far as they deal with the human individual, would not suppress formation of
new businesses with an endless list of permits and paperwork… the laws do not
change unless they are reformed as a whole, and generating laws to provide
licenses and permits at a corporation level is destructive. When the two
systems are entangled, the economic aims of profiteering infect the lives of
public servants, in the form of corruption, and the artificial increase of the
market is affected by the lobbying.
So
to summarize,
Spiritual <--> Rights
Healthy:
Right to publish and pursue research, Reform of laws as spirituality grows
Unhealthy:
Restrictions on research and publishing, Science warped to support unjust laws
Spiritual <--> Economic
Healthy:
Free donations, free ideas, both ways.
Unhealthy:
Money provided for results alone, Results claimed for money alone.
Economic <--> Rights
Healthy:
Sustenance of every human being, Right to create and operate businesses.
Unhealthy:
Corruption of lawmakers, denial of licenses, support of injurious practices due
to 4 year cycles.
