SIMULACIÓN ENPRESENCIA DE RUIDO

35

2.4. Conclusion

Neoliberal epistemology accepts only observable facts as the basis for science of human action.

According to Ludwig von Mises, “there is no such thing as a normative science,” because the regularities of nature do not apply on humans. Mises writes that “the distinctive mark of what we call the human sphere or history or, better, the realm of human action is the absence of such a universally prevailing regularity”. The neoliberal conclusion concerning the epistemology of human action is the rejection of the idea of absolute values and norms. It follows that an individual is the highest authority in deciding what is good for him or her. This can be done only in the condition of freedom. This implies freedom to choose in the absence of coercion. (Mises 1957, 4, 24, 36, 55; Hayek 2006, 19; Friedman 1979.)

Neoliberal epistemological system defines the question of the 'first cause' as non-essential. In fact, all systems of thought where the course of history is determined by the actions and by the will of a

‘prime mover’, be it the material productive forces of Marxism, the Geist of Hegel, or God, are seen as attempts of imposing coercive norms upon the rest of society (Mises 1957, 184; Hayek 2006, 64-5). This stand seems to have many antecedents in the history of religions. By defining some doctrines as matter of faith religious people are freed from the intellectual responsibility of considering whether their doctrine is true or not. And by declaring some beliefs as heretical, religions effectively protect their position against competition. In similar manner, by excluding the search of the causes of existence, the reasons for regularities in nature, and the reasons for lack of corresponding regularities in human conduct, the neoliberal epistemology has conveniently defined these issues as not part of any scientific cognitive system. Any attempt at constructing a system based on norms is deemed, not a heresy, but a totalitarian project.

It appears that Swedenborgian cognitive system is much more coherent and inclusive. It accounts for the concept of 'first cause', for the existence of nature, for the concept of eternity, for the regularities in nature, and for the irregularities in human action. This systematicity of Swedenborg's philosophy seem to be without counterpart among the neoliberal theories. Let me now outline the defining features of this system.

Swedenborg's system is based on the existence of Divine Love and Wisdom as the Being Itself and the Creator. This is the first principle. Second principle concerns the creation. The whole universe exists in order to create receptive forms of Life, i.e., of Divine Love and Wisdom. The aspiration in nature for proliferation and procreation of life is the outward manifestation of Divine Love which is Life Itself. The regularities in nature are manifestations of Divine Wisdom. The irregularities of

36

human conduct are manifestations of the irregularities of human will, bound by its tendency to love one-self and bodily pleasures more than good and truth. At the same time, freedom of will liberates men from being slaves to their instincts and gives us the ability of becoming receptive forms of good and truth. Freedom of will from this perspective is the highest gift of humanity.

The third principle is freedom. Freedom relies on the two faculties of will and understanding.

Conceptualization of freedom from the Swedenborgian perspective relies on the nature of the universal system as a process of endless of creation of life caused by Divine Love. Accordingly, the normative framework of defining freedom is set by the necessities and requirements of love.

Freedom, then, is to be bound by this principle. The neoliberal interpretation that imposition of social norms is always a totalitarian project seems to be in accordance with the Swedenborgian systematization. Namely, what else is God in this system as the most totalitarian of all totalitarian rulers? Is not the whole structure of the existence a mere manifestation of the will of one single Supreme Being? And are not the human faculties merely another means of subjecting men to the bonds of Love that emanate from the Lord and chain everyone who so does let happen?

The conceptualization of freedom within the context of love is prevalent in most religions in the form of commandments and principles. In Quran we read the following (sura XCII 1-11):

By the night as it conceals the light; by the day as it appears in glory; by the mystery of the creation of male and female; - verily, the ends ye strive for are diverse. So he who gives in charity and fears God, and in all sincerity testifies to the best, - we will indeed make smooth for him the path to bliss. But he who is a greedy miser and thinks himself self-sufficient, and gives the lie to the best, - we will indeed make smooth for him the path to misery; nor will his wealth profit him when he falls headlong into the pit.

More specific norms are found in sura XVII 22-39, which has more or less same content as the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20) in the holy book of both Jews and Christians. Further, in the New Testament (Matthew 22: 35-40), we read:

Then one of them, [which was] a lawyer, asked [him a question,] tempting him, and saying, Master, which [is] the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second [is] like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Thus, the norms that should guide the freedom of people are found in love towards God and neighbor as opposed to love of one-self and love of the world. According to Swedenborg (1961, § 17) this is the significance of the first commandment in the Exodus (20: 2-7). While I do accept the classification of the Swedenborgian normative principles of love as totalitarian, and while I do accept the classification of Swedenborg’s ‘theocracy’ as a strictly totalitarian system of Divine Love

37

and Wisdom, I cannot accept the classification of these forms of totalitarianism as contradictory to individual liberty. It may seem a paradox. But seen from the Swedenborgian perspective, what appears as a paradox is the neoliberal conceptualization of freedom, which breaks men free from the system of regularities and love that is reason for the existence of freedom in the place.

The problem with neoliberalism and freedom has been questioned not only from the perspective of conceptual analysis but also from the perspective of empirical research. The lack of independence in individual economic activity and the relations of dependency for sustenance on Multinational Corporations, have deprived the majorities of the world their freedom to decide and choose for themselves outside the system of neoliberal international political economy and outside the discourses of economic efficiency, economic progress and the culture-ideology of consumerism.

(Wallerstein 1983; George 1995; Sklair 2002; Chossudovsky 2003; Harvey 2007; Carroll 2010; Gill 2011).

From the Swedenborgian perspective the reason for considering the neoliberal conceptualization of freedom a paradox follows from the nature of the universal system. On the outmost level this system is based on the proliferation and procreation of life, which is the outmost manifestation of Divine Love and Wisdom. Anything that sustains and improves forms of life follows the order of nature. Freedom is the necessary means in this process of evolution, because it allows for the ability of nature to multiply the possibilities of new life forms. In the Swedenborgian system the Divine Love is an infinite source of different life forms, and thus, evolution can go on limited only by the limits of space and time. This is another form of totalitarian conceptualization of the framework of freedom. But it is not totalitarian in relation to life. Freedom from the Swedenborgian perspective is freedom in life, for life, and in love. Within these frames freedom becomes the principle of creation with infinite possibilities. The neoliberal conceptualization of freedom, on the contrary, sets self-love as an equal with self-love of life, life of one-self as much as self-love of others, and self-love of nature.

By not providing any principles but the principle of liberty for making choices, neoliberal epistemology invites the Dark Lord, if you excuse this this metaphor, to the system of social organization. Namely, some choices are evil and a system based on self-interest, is evil per se.

Susan George (1995) and Oswaldo de Rivero (2010) have written about environmental and social problems which are directly caused by the neoliberal capitalist system – because of the free rains it gives for large economic actors. In analyzing and evaluating this kind of situations – situations of asymmetric power relations, the Smithian perspective will prove itself useful. Development of the Smithian perspective is the task in the next chapter.

38

In conclusion, the Swedenborgian perspective is that of a theocentric cognitive systematization according to the philosophy of Emanuel Swedenborg. It includes the following principles:

1. Divine Love and Wisdom as the Being Itself and the Creator.

2. Second principle concerns the creation. The whole universe exists in order to create receptive forms of Life, i.e., of Divine Love and Wisdom. The principle of freedom within the confines of love.

3. The evaluation of ‘neoliberal civilization’ from this perspective is about how ‘neoliberal civilization’ relates to the conceptualization of freedom within the framework of the universal system of love.

The evaluation of ‘neoliberal civilization’ from this perspective is about how ‘neoliberal civilization’ relates to the conceptualization of freedom within the framework of the universal system of love.

39