Monday, May 11, 2015

pointing man in a pointillistic land

Firstly, imagine a large-scale landscape, with rolling hills let’s say, but generally level—except that it has high hills, here and there, and a few that are very, very high: peaks. Now imagine this as a 3-dimensional graph of the flow of liquid, with vectors all over, like a weather map showing winds—concentrations of flows, when lots of vectors from distant points set up flows that tend to converge, and the more the convergence, the higher the hill or peak. Not a chaos of winds, but a higher concentration of flows that creates more serenity. The greater the flow toward one point, the higher the serenity. And the gods create the weather.

Now consider that the flows are capital liquidity. It all gets organized to flow into hills and peaks, rather than around the low-hilly landscape. Are the high hills necessary—are the peaks necessary in order to engineer all flows?

No, of course. It’s just the way of the world—we know so well—that the organization of earnings, say, has been structured—by social evolution, by history, by power, whatever. What weather!

And those who stand where the peaks are high stand where the peaks are high because earnings are designed to flow there.

They will say that they “earned” the high nexus of flow where the aire is serene. They will insist that they rightly own the peaks.

One today had $179 million to spare on Picasso’s “Les femmes d’Alger (version O)”.

Imagine a landscape about capability for imagination or art or scientific exploration, rather than discretion to bid up the price of others’ or claim a peak of pretending.