For example, we frequently proclaim "it is a jungle out there." Yet, for the "jungle" metaphor to be meaningful, we ought, at the very least, have some knowledge of "jungles." But our ideas mislead. The dictionary says a "jungle" is. "a confused or chaotic mass of objects." Or "a place of ruthless struggle for survival." Really. It has been my observation that "jungles" are rich, diverse, organic, chaordic ecosystems within which virtuous symbiosis is both norm and necessity. This metaphor views "jungles" as places where systemic survival requires interactive, complex, diverse, self-contained systems. They thrive with no help from humans, or in spite of us. Neither jungles nor money are "either you or me" places. Their synergies enable wealth and its spread.
Of course, jungles contain death and killing, but without this virtuous and eco-systemic connectivity, there is no jungle. Yet, Darwinism continues to proclaim the morality of savagery, apparently justifying the most heinous behaviors. This is not "truth." This is just succumbing to delusions and inept metaphors.
Fractals are as real as corpses and much more instructive. Ecologies and economies reflect organic chaos and systemic flawlessness machines can't match. Mechanistic thinking blocks money's ecological realities. As no jungle species could survive without mutually dependent species, most humans depend in part upon money's circulation, especially in this country.
It may be a "jungle," but if Qwest and United have money troubles, the consequences flow to suppliers, employees, and stockholders. In turn, their effects will spread to other suppliers, employees and stockholders, plus related reliants. That is not "survival of the fittest." That is virtuous interdependency.
So, what do we actually hear in our words? As our world shrinks, as the money forces grow in criticality, as financial realities harden and become parts of our ways of life, our language will enable or obstruct our personal and collective abilities to intelligently respond.
We may eventually invent the words but, for now, linguistic limitations are all too real. Headline language and political speeches consistently reflect Newtonian machinery, math, fixed forms or vectors.
Consider these words and phrases: Assets, frozen, liquidated, leveraged, multiplying, dividing, shrinking, impact, returns, stuck, expanding, contracting, market moved up, down, head, shoulders, floor, ceiling, sideways, light, heavy, top-down, bottom-up, hierarchy, base, pyramidal, structure, top, down, both sides, change, rock solid, hard times, left, right, position, retool, fix, economic machine, fungible, downsizing, function, momentum, union, solidarity, worker, management, counter, constructive, unconstructive, circle, stakes, stakeholders, tools, under, control, economies heat up or cool down, inflation, deflation, depression, sectors, indexes rising or falling, increased, decreased, cracks, stability, instability, balance, leverage, bottom line, in the red, or in the black, controls, instruments, upper class, lower class, middle class and so on.
These are flatland indicators of existing language. And they are as inadequate as thermometers for helping us grasp our financial weather systems. Newtonian words mislead and distort. So many words, so little holism. Unless we can pierce our language sources, it will be impossible to view our current issues through the eyes of current realities.
The "economy" is dysfunctional shorthand implying an impenetrable monolith while obfuscating the living, breathing, teeming, organically chaotic realities of money/market systems. To suggest that the "markets" go "up" or "down" is as conceptually ridiculous as the convention that "north" is "up" and "south" is "down." There is no reason Africa is not "above" Europe. In point of fact, there is no "up" or "down" on the sphere that is planet earth, and there is no "up" or "down" for an "economy." These are merely metaphoric conventions.
Consider Darwin's notions of the "survival of the fittest." It enables the pervasive notion that economic systems ought to reward the strong not the weak; that it is fit and proper for Darwinian natural selection to control the body social. Unfortunately, the metaphor is inept and inapt. Our economies are more like human bodies or natural ecosystems than machines. Human needs do not contain the need for the "strongest" or "biggest" companies.