Some ancient
seminal ideas from Earth-respecting traditions – in spite of originating in largely
pre-modern stage societies- are still essentially
compatible TODAY with Integral Theory and with other integrative
approaches. These are integral-level ideas embedded across time within the main
cultural-social developmental stages. Apparently, many of these ideas did occur
in agrarian economies like those of the Ancient
Greeks and the Andean pre-Hispanic.
Economist Jorge Alberto Montoya Maquin, knowledgeable
in Andean cosmology and traditions studied the Quechua language and ancient
Greek and wrote a critical translation of “About
Economics,” the first economic “treatise” written in dialogue
style by Xenophon (friend and
disciple of Socrates). Apparently, his perspectives originated in a more
ancient tradition. Like Socrates’ “Maieutic”
(not unlike traditional educational styles in the Andes) Xenophon’s dialogues
don’t tell us what to think but elicit moments of discovery and resonant understanding.
Montoya Maquin wrote Económico de Ksénofon: Traducción Crítica, which includes an original translation into Spanish, notes and an interpretive section trying to revive – unlike other modern translations - the cultural context of ancient Greece. The book also compares Xenophon’s ideas with Andean thinking and was published in 2013 by the School of Economists of Lima. It should definitely be translated into English for scholars to re-discover Xenophon’s foundational economic ideas.
Unlike modern
Economics focusing on concepts like “scarcity,” “greed,” “competition” and an objectifying
“rational” attempt to maximize individual “profit,” Xenophon's thinking represented
a synergistic kind of “utilitarian” administration and protection of the goods and
entities within an “oikos” ( a “house” or “estate”).
“Economy” derives from the word “oikos”
and “nomos.”
The former can be appropriately translated as “house” or as “estate” and the latter
as the “norms” which that house or estate follows to maintain its organization
and objectives. That “house” would essentially have to be a circumscribed land inclusive of all its living entities and this
concept can extend to a country, a village, or to the Earth itself. “Oikos” should also be considered an “autarchy” or self-sustaining organization
in a fractal-like relation with other such elements. This in itself reminds me
of the concept of “holons” as self-organized, self-organizing systems in relation with other
higher level, lower level and same level “holons.”
A
well-administered “oikos” would benefit
all plants and animals within it while being useful in meeting basic and genuine
needs. It would be a “synergistic administration”
in current terms and would correlate well with the Andean concept of “living in
a good, nourishing, relational way” (“Sumaq
Kausay”). The world would also be made of interwoven, functionally independent,
yet related “oikos.”.
If components
of Andean thinking are “integral-level”
and on a par with forgotten Greek foundational concepts in Western
civilization, perhaps (as philosopher Edgar Morin hopes) important contributions
to “complex” (and integral) thinking can also potentially rise from these once culturally
disdained and overlooked components.
Apparently,
Xenophon conceived the world much like Andeans did: As “Alive.” He did not say thus explicitly as Andeans but that conception
is noticeably implicit in his dialogues. In a sense all that changes (not just
animals and plants) is “alive” also because it can actually communicate with
us. Moreover, if (like the Andeans) we disclosed the features of the world
under their subtle aspects they would also be perceived as “alive.” That would
enhance our concepts about “holons” (to include piles and artifacts) and what is
– erroneously - considered as an insentient collection of systems called “Gaia” and would probably concur with current
quantum information holographic theories.
In relation
to Xenophon and the Andeans, since everything changes, in order to live well we
need to demarcate and situate ourselves.
“Episteme” referred to delimiting an
aspect of experience so as to observe it (in stasis) from outside in order for
its inside to reveal meanings at various degrees of depth. It is like relating
to the interior meaning of “holons” and - as in the Andes where everything that changes is considered to be
“alive” – it is relational, surpassing
the simple acquisition of information about something simplistically reduced as
an “object.” Thus all “things” would have
a relational-living aspect.
Xenophon also
uses the idea of “making a chorus” (a concert)
to administer the “oikos” well an “oikos” which must be of benefit to all life
within and to humans if they administer it without greed taking only what is needed
and useful without waste. This attitude is similar to life within an Andean
community or “ayllu” based on the
concept of “making pairs” or of connecting two to make three. Besides,
the “ayllu” is also considered like an
“autarchy” or self-sustaining entity
in which (corresponding to Xenophon’s views) people share each other’s work and
every person plays multiple converging roles.
Poverty in the “ayllu” and the “oikos” essentially means disconnection from others.
If Xenophon had
been less misrepresented under modern biases by authors entrenched in a conceptually incomplete modernity he may have influenced modern economic thinking
in its formative stages and perhaps our current economic systems would have
emphasized more a practical, relational harmony with the life-world while
de-emphasizing resource exploitation, scarcity, greed, unending “growth” and
competition. Let’s reconnect with this wisdom now to nourish a major change.
