본 시리즈 기사는 필자 故차주학 님께서 2014년 9월 2일 지병으로 작고 하심에 따라 아쉽게도 연재가 중단됨을 알려드립니다.
We offer our sincere sympathy for the loss of Mr. Cha Joo-hak. He passed away on Sept 2, 2014 by a chronic illness. We regret that we discontinue his column as of the 15th article.... ed
The 15th article of the concrete methodology for building social capital
……The right, or what we ought to do, and the good, or what has value in itself……
The Catallaxy is a marvel of complexity
The kind of conclusion we reached is financial solution to the problem. Is morality in interpersonal relations and interactions in the absence of any shared independent criterion People see more clearly which is the best option, it is the responsibility of citizens to order their personal convictions and the public principles of justice in a rational and reflective way, to place them in reflective equilibrium through the use of public reason so that they acquire the required stability. Justice is not only a vague open-extured and “contested” concept that constantly needs interpreting, even negotiating; it also features very different motivational bases. Without justice as a mutually beneficial cooperative scheme, societies cannot flourish and, still less, survive, and the interests of the self are thus harmed. Justice represents a rational and prudential sacrifice of part of our good for the sake of a greater good: more security and stability
Impartiality or fairness as the requirement that we “treat like cases alike and different cases differently” is a motivational basis for justice, as we know that the laws are not biased or arbitrary. In a well-ordered society, there is agreement on a “common point of view from which…claims may be adjudicated,” whereas justice as mutual advantage is concerned with individual interactions, and justice as impartiality with the moral treatment of persons as equal in dignity, justice as reciprocity focuses on the social aspect of human nature and on the reasonableness of social links. The difference between mutual advantage and reciprocity is much clearer if we contrast mutual benefits as the results of inter-individual interactions with reciprocity as a feature of the social world itself. Reciprocity is built into the system of rules and practices that regulate social institutions and create social cohesion, and it is not left to individual decisions. It is, in other words, a structural feature of the well-ordered society.
In contrast, citizens of a well-ordered democratic society may affirm the same conception of justice, not however as the result of dominant shared values, which would contradict their political and moral autonomy, but as the “mutual adjustment of principles and considered judgments. Rawls insists that the mediation of a public conception of justice is the main feature of a well-ordered society, whereas a society may be ordered by a dominant religious or philosophical ideology and still be unjust because it does not appeal to people’s public reason. “A society is well-ordered when it is not only designed to advance the good of its members but when it is also effectively regulated by a public conception of justice.” Justice is a necessary price to pay and a rational constraint on our pursuits, in order to gain social peace and order. The idea of reciprocity lies between the idea of impartiality, which is altruistic (being moved by the general good), and the idea of mutual advantage understood as everyone’s being advantaged with respect to each person’s present or expected future situation as things are. Justice is defined as fairness because it is the result of a fair procedure, respecting persons’ equality and autonomy, and unbiased by social circumstances and natural contingencies. “Acting from this precedence of the sense of justice expresses our freedom from contingency and happenstance.”
Our Genes Might Be Selfish, But We Don't Have To Be!
It is possible that yet another unique quality of man is a capacity for genuine, desinterested, true altruism. I hope so, but I am not going to argue the case one way or another, nor to speculate over its possible memic evolution. The point I am making now is that, even if we look on the dark side and assume that individual man is fundamentally selfish, our conscious foresight - our capacity to simulate the future in imagination - could save us from the worst selfish excesses of the blind replicators. We have at least the mental equipment to foster our long-term selfish interests rather than merely our short-term selfish interests. We can see the long-term benefits of participating in a `conspiracy of doves', and we can sit down together to discuss ways of making the conspiracy work. We have the power to defy the selfish genes of our birth and, if necessary, the selfish memes of our indoctrination. We can even discuss ways of deliberately cultivating and nurturing pure, disinterested altruism -- something that has no place in nature, something that has never existed before in the whole history of the world. We are built as gene machines and cultured as meme machines, but we have the power to turn against our own creators. We, alone on earth, can rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators.
The phrase "conspiracy of doves" is explained in Dawkins' chapter "Aggression: Stability and the Selfish Machine," in which he describes J. Maynard Smith's application of Game Theory to a hypothetical population of any species comprised of two fighting strategies, hawk and dove. As Dawkins points out, "If only everybody would agree to be a dove, every single individual would benefit" (p.72). The constant danger to the conspiracy of doves comes from the temptation of individuals to pursue their short-term interest at the expense of the general welfare. This is the dilemma faced by those who advocate disarmament. What if one country cheats and takes advantage of the defencelessness of other states But at the very least, as Dawkins says, "We can sit down together to discuss ways of making the conspiracy work."
The theory of Catallaxy of institutions presumes that information is always distributed asymmetrically in advance to every financing transaction imposing an adverse selection problem on the investor. Conceptually, information is the message (utterance or expression) being conveyed. Therefore, in a general sense, information is "Knowledge communicated or received concerning a particular fact or circumstance", or rather, information is an answer to a question.
Information cannot be predicted and resolves uncertainty. The uncertainty of an event is measured by its probability of occurrence and is inversely proportional to that. The more uncertain an event, the more information is required to resolve uncertainty of that event. The concept that information is the message has different meanings in different contexts. Thus the concept of information becomes closely related to notions of constraint, communication, control, data, form, [disambiguation needed] instruction, knowledge, meaning, understanding, mental stimuli, pattern, perception, representation, and entropy. The English word was apparently derived from the Latin stem (information-) of the nominative (informatio): this noun is derived from the verb "informare" (to inform) in the sense of "to give form to the mind", "to discipline", "instruct", "teach": "Men so wise should go and inform their kings." (1330) Inform itself comes (via French informer) from the Latin verb informare, which means to give form, or to form an idea of. Furthermore, Latin itself already contained the word informatio meaning concept or idea, but the extent to which this may have influenced the development of the word information in English is not clear. The ancient Greek word for form was μορφή (morphe; cf. morph) and also εἶδος (eidos) "kind, idea, shape, set", the latter word was famously used in a technical philosophical sense by Plato (and later Aristotle) to denote the ideal identity or essence of something (see Theory of Forms). "Eidos" can also be associated with thought, proposition, or even concept
It is a form of order, but not just any order—it is Fit order. Patterns of catallactic order, in the form of products and services, compete with each other to be needed, desired, and even craved by consumers. We can retrospectively say that patterns of Catallactic order that are successful in the competition to meet our preferences are fit, and the Business Plan modules that contribute to the creation of fit Catallactic order are then amplified over time. And just as species and their environments coevolve, the competitive ecosystem of Business Plans and the preferences of consumers coevolve, Easterly and Levine found that while these factors all mattered to a degree, the most significant factor was the state of a nation's Social Technology. The rule of law, the existence of property rights, a well-organized banking system, economic transparency, a lack of corruption, and other social and institutional factors played a far greater role in determining national economic success than did any other category of factors. Even countries with few resources and incompetent governments did reasonably well if they had strong, well-developed Social Technologies. On the flip side, no countries with poor Social Technologies performed well, no matter how well-endowed they were with resources or how disciplined their macroeconomic policies were.
Economies rely on the existence of two factors: Physical Technologies to enable people to create products and services that are worth trading, and Social Technologies that smooth the way for cooperation in creating and trading those products and services among nonrelatives. Evidence points to the presence of both these factors in the societies of Homo habilis and Homo erectus.
Physical Technologies are methods and designs for transforming matter, energy, and information from one state into another in pursuit of a goal or goals. For example, hominid Larry takes a couple of rocks (matter) and burns some calories smashing them up (energy) to create a hand ax (a design) in order to have a tool for chopping animal bones (a goal). Or a programmer uses calories from vending-machine food to power his or her brain, and electricity running into a computer (energy) to transform software bits (information) from one state to another to create a video game (a design) that people can use for entertainment (a goal). One of the most remarkable things about human Physical Technology is how each new invention creates both the possibility of, and the need for, more inventions.
Businesses are themselves a form of design. The design of a business encompasses its strategy, organizational structure, management processes, culture, and a host of other factors. Business designs evolve over time through a process of differentiation, selection, and amplification, with the market as the ultimate arbiter of fitness. One of the major themes of this book is that it is the three-way coevolution of Physical Technologies, Social Technologies, and business designs that accounts for the patterns of change and growth we see in the economy. While economists were pursuing their vision of the Catallaxy as an equilibrium system, during the latter half of the twentieth century, physicists, chemists, and biologists became increasingly interested in systems that were far from equilibrium, that were dynamic and complex, and that never settled into a state of rest. Scientists refer to parts or particles that have the ability to process information and adapt their behavior as agents and call the systems that agents interact in complex adaptive systems. Other examples of complex adaptive systems include the cells in your body's immune system, interacting organisms in an ecosystem, and users on the Internet. With the advent of inexpensive, high-powered computers in the 1980s, scientists began to make rapid progress in understanding complex adaptive systems in the natural world and to see such systems as forming a universal class, with many common behaviors. In fact, many biologists have come to view evolutionary systems as just one particular type, or subclass, of complex adaptive systems. Rather than portraying the economy as a static equilibrium system, these models presented the economy as a buzzing hive of dynamic activity, with no equilibrium in sight.