Levation of the Objective Construct

The goal of the individual might remain subjective but it seems that the role/goal of society if there could ever be said to be one is to increase the freedoms of the individual (and perhaps eventually increase or expand the scope of “individual” so that animals/plants etc gain more freedom).

That a collective might be able to grant or afford the individual more freedom than the individual could procure without such cooperative gain should be the motivating factor.

We learn through Adam Smith this gain is realized through the optimization and evolution of the division/specialization of labor.

Hayek/Nash further explain, to optimize the use of scarce resources we have available (which is the crux of our social problem) we are to levate Ideal Money or an objective valuation mechanism (which implies “for all time” or long periods of time).

This mechanism would allow for the optimization of all social problems (including for example law) and would be a basis for determining “freedom” etc.

There exists a limitation on our progress in regard to the cooperative effort we have available, given that technology is necessary for the optimization of the efficiency of our efforts, and that technology must also come from such efforts, and at least some or much of the technology or needed effort will be so complex it must come about through natural order.

That is to say significant technological advance comes not from one persons mind and/or efforts but perhaps many different specialized persons and knowledge what's magnitude is far beyond what one person's mind could posses and especially accumulate in a lifetime (also with the current technology etc). *average lifespan etc seems to come into play in some regard here.

Then there is a realization, which many do seem to subscribe to a contrasting “belief” to this point, that progress can only actually happen “so fast”.

From another view, technology that becomes outdated might still have been necessary for its time.

Individuals that do not allow for the 2 preceding truths are somewhat “out of order” from social reality. People complaining about society could equally be grateful for its present day technologies while perhaps also realizing that advancement beyond present day capabilities is not really possible (at this time!).

Being “out of order” in this context is akin to the subjective trying to project its own architecture on the objective perspective. This could be described as a type of insanity. It is also comparable to Hayek's Fatal Conceit and the folly of central planning he warns us of.

That the individual can know better than what propriety presents, and should be agitated because of the discrepancy, is for the individual to be perturbed and ignorant to one's own limitations of one's own perspective.

Propriety is a bigger force than government. Propriety is the strongest, most intelligent force, and is always the greatest consideration. Propriety is today's objective conclusion and is useful as such.

Great strides could be made if sincere individuals entered into (Bohmian) dialogue on the subject of how to bring about such a technology of an objective metric for valuation.

There could be brought about some construct for an objective view, if not also by the use of negation (ie what is NOT objective or what is subjective).

Illuminating this objective perspective should light the optimal direction society should go (and therefore ideally the direction it WILL go).

Levation of the objective view is meditation and is a cure all for psychological disorder which from the objective view is a shared disorder that infects the whole of society.

We should put the “Ideal of society” as 'a collective of objectively minded individuals that have evolved “far” beyond the levation of Ideal Money'.

This comes with a realization or insight that one's own role may be limited yet also then therefore optimized (to this limitation)-it would be waste to strive beyond such a limit even/especially if only psychologically.

In such a future society we can rely on, or strive for, maximum wages (value) for that which one is most passionate about, while assuming or striving for, that which one is most passionate about is how one can best serve the whole. (We should theorize this to be possible and truth, and strive for it as optimally as we can).

The length of our average lives in relation to these problems and their solutions and the change that will come in our life is probably most relevant in regard to time and psychological time.

It is only propriety that can (usefully!?) determine where something lies in space time.

Propriety is the great eye, as if we are collaborating on the construction of a giant magnifying glass. (Perhaps) we can each work on perfectly honing the concentration of light without arguing about where we will point that light when we are finished.

Propriety is the great individual being to be awoken, evolved, optimized.

The subjective individual is a fragment of this whole working either orderly or disorderly in relation to it.