Noetitek™ on Global Economic Development

Economist and management theorist, Peter Drucker, divided modern economic history into “eras,” each spanning about forty years. These eras, said to reflect “organizing principles,” were called: Natural Resources, Industrial Production, Mass Markets, and Information. Although he considered the Information era to have ended in 1995, he was unable to put a name to the organizing principle emerging at that time. Using his “organization by definition” approach to understanding history, the present era might be called the Cyber-Transaction or E-Source era. 

The trouble with perceiving modern economic history in terms of readily observable periods based on their apparent “organizing principles,” is that these are not organizing principles comparable to those found in the field of biology, for example. As much as Drucker’s approach to organizing economic history by analyzing the evolution of commercial ingenuity succeeded in identifying a systematic flow and supplying a better logical framework than broader event-defining terms such as “Industrial Revolution” and “Information Age,” it provides no guiding light for the present and future. 

As has been true since the Dawn of Time, literally, Nature provides one master set of organizing principles that have been present throughout the evolution of everything, including technological developments propelled by human intention. In the arena of commerce, the fundamental intention is to dominate and control. Through using the Noetitek™ system, which is based on the Language of Nature, it is reasonable to conclude that no theory of modern-day economics can enlighten and lead the way unless it parallels the modern-day evolution of human control.

[Visit our store at]


Tags: , , , , , , , ,

5 Responses to “Noetitek™ on Global Economic Development”

  1. PeaceTrainer Says:

    How does your system organize modern economic history? Why is it a better approach? What can it tell us about how the world can move onto a sustainable path?

  2. PluribusOne™ Says:

    Looking at the past three centuries, and with an eye to the future, this evolutionary process can be broken down into a series of ten stages, the first six of which are:

    1. Control of the pursuit of knowledge.
    2. Control of natural (including human) resources.
    3. Control of facts, data.
    4. Control of the shaping of facts into information.
    5. Control of information in order to assert knowledge.
    6. Control of knowledge by limiting access and by other means.

    The progression through these stages parallels Nature’s organizing principles. However, these stages represent a developmental process steered (and hampered) by Cartesian dogmatism. Presently, we are well into Stage Five, and seeds are already being planted for Stage Six. Stages Seven through Ten are identifiable but beyond the scope of my present purpose: advocating a shift away from the limiting Cartesian mindset. The world needs more than an economic paradigm adjustment. Charting a new course in order to meet today’s economic challenge calls first for a transformation of Consciousness.

  3. PeaceTrainer Says:

    Enlightened self-interest seems to me to define the necessary Consciousness. Is this what you’re suggesting?

  4. PluribusOne™ Says:

    “Enlightened self-interest” is a compatible term. The core idea is that we are all part of a larger One, and that the proverbial chain is only as strong as its weakest link. To act in the interest of others is to act in our own interest—selflessness and selfishness converge and neutralize, which is an equilibrium, but not The Nash Equilibrium. The fixing of prices among competitors in order to better fleece a particular market would not be an example of truly enlightened self-interest.

    In my philosophy, which is based on Nature’s teachings and on personal experience, it is important to pursue our dreams of health, wealth, and higher intelligence to the fullest: abundance of every kind. But it is self-sabotaging to pursue any of them for the self alone. To consider cheating, for example, as a way to pursue enlightened self-interest―an idea embraced by ignorant thinking―is equally self-sabotaging, not because it is “immoral,” but because, ultimately, zero-sum games are dead-end streets for all long-term players. Such games are appropriate for entertainment purposes, in gambling casinos, but the world economy needs to be win-win.

    We are in the middle of an essentially endless universe that contains more than we can imagine, and yet the dominant neurological conditioning says that we are threatened by the shortage of one thing after another, which fuels the zero-sum games. Meanwhile, the shortage to be alarmed about is the shortage of use of imagination. In my view, greed is a reactive approach to the fear of not having enough, a mental dis-ease that blocks the functioning of a “higher” part of the self; to be greedy is, in effect, to demean the self. There would be no need for such fear and such widespread self-esteem issues if humankind were working together as a team.

    My challenge to others is to attempt the extreme view that it is possible to prosper not only by giving some of what you receive to charities, but by giving even more than you receive in the course of producing your income. Accept, for the moment, that this is a truth. Now, consider how it may be done. While pondering possibilities, consider how you can give ten times more value than you receive and still exceed your highest goal in terms of your own wealth production. On the surface that sounds impossible, but it is entirely possible when we are drawing on a universe of unlimited resources.

    In my business, for example, if I discover or trigger the solution to a problem, or identify an opportunity that you would not have discovered otherwise, and that solution or opportunity is valued at $100,000, my fee would be $10,000. We have both achieved our goals, and yet it basically cost you nothing to enrich me. Like an oak tree that begins as a seed and grows to become gigantic, the benefits of adopting this kind of thinking can have an enormous effect in a short time.

    For too many years, the dominant thinking has been: How can we profit more and more while giving less and less? How thin can we make this hamburger and still call it a hamburger? How poorly can we perform and still call it service? Thinking needs to turn around to where we are all asking: How can I charge one dollar and provide a ten-dollar experience.

  5. PluribusOne™ Says:

    Over the past twelve months, this post has been our second most visited. Yet, related posts that add to this have logged far fewer visits. So, if this post has been thought-provoking, we suggest that you look at these posts as well: “Global Economic Solution,” “The Flavor of 2010,” “New View ‘Through the Glass Darkly’,” “Noetitek™ and the Law of Attraction,” “The PluribusOne™ Challenge to Change,” “NoetiTaoism™ and the Human Soul,” and “The NoetiTao™ and Morality.”

    Please also take a few minutes to visit our companion blog at:

    If you feel uncomfortable submitting a comment for posting, feel free to email your feedback to: Your interest is appreciated.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s