Mathematics considers finity within infinity, from nothing to an infinitely variable total; the result is that the total is always a variable feast, so from nothing it is possible to infinitely notion more finity and having notioned more the reverse applies to notionless, so with finity there is more or less an antirelationship.
Realistics considers finity within the boundaries of finity from a specific finite start to a specific finite total. The result is that the total cannot be gone beyond and depending upon finity, at any one time, is a fixed total. The result is that to notion more, must proportionately leave less, and vice versa, so therefore it is impossible to create more without equally creating less. More and less, a relationship.
The implications upon life between mathematics and realistics are clear.
Mathematics and its singular prospect of more carries hidden problems for finity and is totally inadequate. Realistics, however, showing that it is necessary to consider proportionately less with more has implications which cannot be ignored.
In a society based upon the consumption of more it must be leaving proportionately less unconsumed. This means that as time goes on a larger population would have less virgin unity to use, to the point where there was no virgin finity to consume. This means that today's consumerist society with its benefits, in all time, is short-lived.
What must happen is that a well-off society able to consume more for less, reaches a stage when it becomes poor and can only consume less for more. However it is not all doom and gloom. The fact is that life is regenerable, some reality renewable, so the prospects must be one of a possibility towards infinity provided that concentration of effort is placed upon the regenerable and renewable, as opposed to yet more uses for virgin finity, and that man does not consume at a greater rate than can be generated.
"You can't have more without having proportionately less".
In the modern world it is necessary to account for reality in a way that is meaningful, more use of finite reality and in particular non-regenerable reality must call our existing method into question as to whether it is adequate. We have long since known of the inadequacy of sheer numbers when it comes to accounting for finity. Sheer numbers lead on the path of the indefinite more in a one-way process which can only satisfactorily lead to infinity. Learning numeracy leads to the indefinite more that we are in danger of suffering from. Numeracy or sheet numbers lacks any overall logic. Far better to assure a proper logic for finite reality and to work within that logic.
What is proposed is a simple system called realistic accounting which operates logic true to finite reality. Realistic accounting is so simple that it can be taught on the fingers, or with an abacus or coins and later by specific number. Despite its simplicity the serious logic of realistic accounting is true of any subject matter; its implications are as such that modem life needs to take account of it.
The simple maxim of realistic accounting is that it is impossible to have more without having less, that consistently the difference between more and less also less and more is always the same.
1. Within totality a bigger amount of more used leads to small less left.
2. Within totality a smaller amount of more used leads to a bigger less left.
3. Within totality a bigger amount of less used leads to a smaller amount more left.
4. Within totality a smaller amount of less used leads to a bigger amount more left.
which computes to the more used less left and the less used more left.
The above four simple rules show the distributions of more and less within totality. So important are they that they form the very basis of continuing life. It needs to be understood that the indefinite more has no factual basis in finity.
These rules and their application should be taught in primary school prior to and above and beyond numeracy. It is far more important that children understand logic before they become trapped in the indefinite more.
Children must learn that accounting for reality is a two-way process consisting of balance necessary before one can apply numbers. It is learning to talk before learning to write.
LESS OR MORE
INFINITY AND FINITY
In the book it has been that mathematics, or more to the point, the progression of numbers reversal - the inversion of reality.
It is proposed in this chapter to take this further and enlarge upon the theory.
The principal culprit is the progression of numbers, starting at nothing then proceeding through equi-distant units, and multiples of units, progressively seemingly without end or making the end variable, depending on how many numbers include with the possibility of infinity.
If we look back at the origins of numbers, the aim was connecting the individual on earth with distant planets, moons or sun. The line of sight in a straight line built equidistant units measuring distance, starting at a finite point, measuring nothingness and concluding at a finite point in the distance. Two finite points with nothing in between being notated, the result was an inversion of reality with a measure of infinite nothing being trapped between finite points, an inversion of reality. Finity is within totally encompassing nothing or infinity. The inversion of our general understanding of reality with something quantifiable starting at nothing and progressing through finite units and finishing wherever with infinite possibilities.
To quantify with finity our approach has always been to simply transfer our understanding of the progression of numbers with its mathematical implications from infinity to finity, in particular the world and anything on it. This is to belie the truth rather than endorse it and is totally illogical.
Numbers start with nothing, moving up progressive units and multiples, making them a variable feast whilst finity is special. We start with nothing and end with total numbers cut off conveniently wherever it is wanted to finish.
Firstly, nothing is not the starting point with finite reality and proceeding from nothing to an infinitely variable total is not an option. Finity is always specific.
The view is that we always start with consideration of a specific total of finite reality, depending upon what is considered; nothing does not enter into any consideration at the beginning. Our consideration of earth or anything on it is as a specific totality of being with definite limitation. When the earth is considered it is as an entirety as a preclusion of other thoughts. In fact totality of anything considered is a preclusion to any other views of it. Whilst we may look at individual elements within the total, this is our primary method of view whether we consider the earth, the universe, or ourselves. Finite totality is a preclusion and subsequent elements are within the specific total.
Nothing does not enter into the equation. Nothing if anything is at the end of the conclusion of finity. To consider anything specific either in our view or minds we start with a totality of experience. Nothing does not enter into the framework until finity is finished with. This truly makes our consideration of finite reality the inversion of the progression of numbers. This is true of all finite reality, a mass being bordered by nothing. The only time that nothing would be the infinite view is if we were in space and we are not naturally in space.
Given that totality of finite being is always a primary notion, anything else is considered by separating it from the primary notion. At any time the foe is totality and at any time elements of totality can be focused upon, the limit being nothing.
With the above, for example, the precluded view of a forest is as a total of many trees. We do not consider one tree, followed by another and another, and so on; our initial concept is of a totality of trees even though we know that the forest started with one or two trees. If we focus on one tree our totality of view is the entire tree as a specific and within that view are the elements of the tree. If we turn our view to the specific elements of the tree, then beyond that view there is nothing.
It is the same with the earth. We consider the total globe and at any date the view may fall upon the individual elements within consideration of the total globe. Elements are within the total of the particular experience, the total always being the preclusion and the framework.
Given that the mathematical progression of number is an inversion of reality there must be dangers in relying upon them solely when accounting for finite reality. The reason is that if nothing is incorrectly placed at the beginning of considerations with the incorrect view of finity as an infinitely variable feast, it is bound to reach nothing which is no place to go. Mathematical notation should be left to infinity where it cannot harm finity.
There is already the danger of this in society with money. Money can be successfully allied to infinity as an artificiality, limitless when laws are limited; they defy the laws of finity; there is always the possibility of more. More can be successfully disassociated from less; there can be the possibility of one or the other. More or less forms an anti-relationship and are independent of one another. Before in the book it was stated that anti-relationships are destructive and only serve to clear grounds to start again, there is no way that more can be separated from less; whilst something is growing, something else is shrinking.
This is why the need for realistics as opposed to mathematics at the heart of managing finity. It should be a major consideration in views about finite realism and always in an overview whatever the activity. The key to realistics is recognising the importance of in-built relationships to finite reality relationships, that it is impossible to do anything about.
Continuing relationships with specific limited finity is the key to the survival of any species. All finite life is related to the earth and cannot survive in the longer term without continuing relationship with the earth and its atmosphere. Even recourse to other planets cannot take place without massive support from earth.
If relationships are key, it must be dangerous to place all of anything on anti-relationship and give strength in the management of life. To allow more to become separated from less is to allow a push for more at the expense of less and the only possible conclusion is nothing of any value. Balance has to be maintained to allow continued life.
Given that we are only ever to deplete natural resources and that natural resources are scarce, we do not want to over-use them to exhaustion or that they become uneconomic to use. Unforeseeable is the use of all that the earth has to offer and leave no earth; there will always be the global framework but what it consists of is largely in the hands of man. Man has to be careful about what is in the, earth at any time from generation to generation and has to keep foremost the relationship between more and less, recognising that constant life is affecting the balance-between the two. Managing the relationship is a priority; it is possible that there is still more than is immediately required but it must be realised that this can only become less and a point could easily be reached where there is less than man needs to support life.
Given that the human experience on earth has infinite possibilities, there will always be a need to maintain a relationship between being and resource for life support. The danger is that in continually going for growth which is more reasonably allied to going for the infinite, more money as the goal, the principal relationship of more and less is being overlooked or worse, ignored. Money can never take the place of reality when it comes to the crunch of meeting need. Fortunately many resources to maintain life are regenerative and when non-regenerative, realism is used for money that appreciates in general.
It is dangerous to get caught up in growth for growth's sake, and try to belie natural relationships that exist and nothing can be done about.
It is wrong to allow principles of infinity to overrun life support as the only possible conclusion in a world of no value. Realistics must be a major requirement in thinking and unless numbers and mathematics are used to help quality it is impossible to escape the truth that they are an inversion of reality and their use can only endanger limited finite consideration.
Realistics suggests that in order to maintain a relationship, management of use over resource must be an overriding principle. Maintaining a constant balance between use and resource has to be achieved so as not to outweigh one against the other. It is necessary to have a good rethink about just what is necessary for economic support for ongoing life. Wealth and reality are in an anti-relationship and a continued push for wealth at the expense of natural reality is a long term crippling factor.
It is not good enough to continue to deplete stocks of natural reality and simply go for wealth development as a way of managing affairs. The use of numbers and maths in the equation is questionable. It is quite clear that finite reality is being consumed to create an infinitely variable non-natural reality. This must only be possible in the short term and cannot continue indefinitely. Reality and money are in an anti-relationship and until we can find a way to alleviate continuing support of relationship the future is fraught with problems. Humans have infinite possibilities and need strength in continued relationships with the earth's resources to survive.
Renewable resources are economically under-valued including man himself and there is a need to create an environment whereby life can be pursued at the same time recognising that anything on the earth is finite and can only deplete and that pursuit of infinity in support will eventually meet the need of continuing life.
The key to economic success without stressing resources lies in man's ingenuity coupled with energy, the recognition that we need each other and a world in good health. Economic support has to come from increased dependence upon regenerable and renewable resources, more economic strength for things and activities depending on the work done on them, the finished product or service, social growth that can create more economically, based upon what can be done for one another rather than what can be made and used.
It cannot be over stressed the importance of appreciation, the importance of making natural reality last as long as possible and if it can increase in value by raising ownership so much the better. Creation that lasts long without further recourse into natural reality to recreate is to be appreciated. Fashion is limited in real terms and very expensive. It is one thing perhaps to be appreciated, to have fashion in regenerable goods such as clothing and textiles, but fashion in non-regenerable goods is very expensive in real terms and should be avoided as much as possible and just furthers the view that finite reality is infinite. The more that the involvement of work into things can be done to make things better and turn them into long term value creations the better; it can only improve the standard of living too. Of great value too are social functions and gatherings, e.g. sport, theatre, entertainment, whereby people can obtain value and satisfaction without major recourse into reality to create the activity. Health is another area that could gain significant economic support.
It is true that we cannot do everything for ourselves and this is the basis for interdependent economic strength. it is unlikely that one can work and look after and teach children at the same time when the child is learning what we do. There will always be a need for personal support and this has significant economic importance in creating work that relieves the individual or family.
There are areas of social responsibility whereby it is difficult to create the service or input on an individual basis and perhaps where it is necessary for many people to pay a little to service the many, consequently there is a need for centrally or regionally provided service, hence the need for tax.
Often the view is that tax is a necessary evil and would rather not be paid so historically tax has been kept as low as possible and provided as much from things that we do not need and should not have. The result is that the infrastructure of centrally or regionally based provision is not as economically strong as it might be.
The work done in providing services and things that society needs should be of major inter-economic importance and that the people who work in these functions and products used are of the highest standard and generously funded. Education, law and order, health, energies and water, social services including looking after the elderly, transport, housing, farming and food related industries should be of major economic importance whether funded in a pool or privately. The above areas are of major social importance so they need to be of high economic importance in terms of the work and services provided. So it must be right to continually review just how we provide and pay for these things and no longer look at tax as some hell created cost but be prepared to invest for long-term high quality services.
This all comes back to the historic view of money as something to be accounted rather than let go; the incessant view of collecting money has to give way lo seeing that money is our only tool by which things happen and not place so much emphasis upon the retention of wealth in life as being the only prize.
Perhaps we suffer from the remnants of the industrial revolution and the late 19th and early 2Oth century and the mass proliferation of things, poor work conditions and the relative cheapness of human input. As a result things and services are much too cheap. There is a need in general for high prices and greater profits to make better, more durable things that appreciate in reality than depreciate; a need to own fewer things, but what we do buy has to be of the highest quality. Halving profits to afford better wages in order to buy better things and services and better, more prolific services and things paid for regionally and centrally.
The important thing not to lose sight of is the on-going need to maintain relationships with the earth, ourselves, and to provide for the future and for the as yet unborn.
It is time to kick consumerism into touch and to eliminate the accumulation of wealth and things in life in ownership as we are only temporary. Consumerism is -unsatisfying; more to make our inter-social expectations a high priority. We need to earn more for better quality less units, have more work of a socially acceptable nature and to exercise more responsibility towards our only home. The time has come when what is needed is not just to measure life by how much money we can create and the number of things we can buy but by how much we can secure life, by taking what we need rather than what we only desire. There is a need to put more emphasis upon what we can do easily, than what we can make by trying to create as much room for one another as possible without over-stretching resources.
The historic reliance upon consumerism, wealth and ownership and mathematics has to yield to the basis of realistics and the need for on-going relationships with all things.
