Efficiency:
One of the cool things about reaching middle age, being single, and well past the point of thinking you’re going “make it”, is that it allows you to freely bounce around between the different disciplines that define your life and allows you the free play of experimentation that results in the hybrids that can only result from the overlap of those disciplines. Efficiency, perhaps, was one of the strangest ones in that it was the product of my pursuit of the a-vocational (philosophy, social criticism, etc.) while also being the product of my more vocational efforts (applied and maintenance technologies).
*
As typical as it seems, in market based societies, it’s never enough to talk about more and less. We cannot, for instance, rest on the old adage that workers want more compensation for less work, while their employers pose, against these demands, their own requirement for minimal investment at maximum return. It might seem common sense. But on closer investigation, we might see that the two positions are not so deeply entrenched. If they were, the workplace would hardly be worth any amount of compensation, a perpetual battle with management while struggling to stay afoot in the mass competition toward better paying and easier jobs. And from there, the evidence goes all over the place. How can one be so happy at 10 an hour and another so miserable at 20? The janitor whistles, easily, while mopping his floor. He seems entranced, content, as if in meditation. Another man, sleek and muscular from hauling furniture, makes enough to go to the bar, nightly, and wakes each morning to sweat it off. At quitting time, the cycle repeats. And no random piss tests, thank God. Vagrants, drifters, and welfare recipients continue to scrimp through their hand to mouth lives. Meanwhile, a white collar manager slumps over his computer, grumbles often, and when he can, steals a moment on Monster.com. He’s hardly afraid he’ll get caught and, sometimes, even hopes.
And then there’s us: the intellectually and creatively curious, strange creatures that, in our ass-backwardness, approach the hierarchy of needs from the top down. We neglect basic creature comforts while clinging, often self destructively, to the drug-like addiction of self actualization. And what are we working toward? That is when so many of our heroes, the successful and famous, live public lives of misery, and sometimes kill themselves? Clearly, we need to break it down to individual needs, demands, and desires. We need to penetrate the multiplicity and interrogate the interactions. Furthermore, we need to recognize that it is primarily about expectations and their satisfaction, and that satisfaction only seems binary and digital by virtue of a molar perspective on the issue. We need to consider the molecular multiplicity of efficiencies.
Efficiency, a mechanical term used for equipment such as pumps, boilers, HVACs, etc., concerns the actual output of a system as compared to its theoretical rating and is a product of the differential between what the designer’s mathematics tell them (what something should be able to do) and what actually occurs in practice. But at a more fundamental level, it can also be the differential between the energy or resources put in to a thing (the input) and energy or resource gotten out (the output). And it is in this sense that we use the term. Only, for our purposes, we will define it in the more abstract sense of that which seeks to maximize itself by minimizing the differential between input and output.
But before we go on, there is more we can learn from the boiler room. First of all, we need to understand that there can never be 100% efficiency. Along the way, there is always a loss (heat loss) that can never return to an active or potential form. As any plant-op knows, you can never expect a 100% return on condensate on any boiler system. And like perpetual motion, everywhere we look, we find it equally elusive. Secondly, we must remain mindful that energy can never be created or destroyed, only transformed, eventually ending in its always final form: heat. Therefore, any motion or energy must be taken from something else. The pump must be driven by electricity. The electricity must be created by the turbine that, in turn, derives its energy from steam. And steam is the product of heat (remember heat loss?) taken from coal, its BTUs, that sees its efficiency reduced to ash. And finally, it must be remembered that our boiler room is a complex and dynamic interaction of efficiencies, a coexistence in which any one efficiency making too large a demand can steal energy from other efficiencies, thereby minimizing them and causing a breakdown in the supra-efficiency of coexistence. Furthermore, sub-efficiencies can be supra-efficiencies to their own relevant sub-efficiencies while also being sub efficiency to their own supra efficiencies. The pump, an efficiency in itself, is the product of a lot of sub efficiencies (the windings, the armature, etc.). It, in turn, is a sub-efficiency to the supra-efficiency of the boiler room (the plant) that, in turn, serves the supra-efficiency of the building by either heating or cooling it, thereby maximizing the tenant’s sub-efficiency of being comfortable that, in turn, serves the supra-efficiency of how they function in the building.
And thus we leave the boiler room with new tools to analyze our initial questions. We now see why the janitor can whistle while he meditates on the movement of the mop: time passes quickly in thought, and he has managed to keep his life within his means. For him, it is not matter of more; it is a question of efficiency. Likewise, the furniture hauler maximizes the efficiencies of his desire to drink and smoke pot without interference from the efficiency of job security. Plus he likes the exercise. Even the vagrants, drifters, and welfare recipients make more sense. They’ve balanced their efficiencies by lowering their demands. Meanwhile, the white collar worker struggles daily with the minimized efficiencies of job security, a sense of meaning, and family life due to long hours at the office that do nothing to increase financial efficiency in his salaried position -that is while the demands and expectations that have built up in his personal life (his and those around him) strain those financial resources. We further see the minimization of the supra-efficiency of co-existence that can occur when either the workers or employers make higher demands, and maximize their efficiency by compromising others. If the employer demands higher profit, that efficiency can only be maximized, that is since energy and resources cannot be created out of nothing, by stealing from the efficiencies of the employees and their sub-efficiencies. And should the worker demand more, this can only take from the supra-efficiency of the company that will, in turn, compromise the economy by raising prices thereby lowering the supra-efficiency of the economy as a whole .
Consequently, we now see that the Occupy Wall Street movement may not be a demand for more, but a demand for efficiency. It’s not about hating the rich. It’s about hating wealth at the expense of everyone else: the maximization of the large scale efficiencies of the few at the expense of others, and the minimization of their efficiencies. We can also see, finally, how our desire for self actualization can interact with other sub-efficiencies, and how the minimization of those others can lead one to misery, or even suicide. The applications seem infinite, and may well go beyond the issue of economics. The coexistence between the environment and civilization immediately comes to mind. But given our present focus, we might consider the possibility of a new ethical theory that says (complimenting the utilitarian) that those acts are good that maximize the supra-efficiency of coexistence. We might consider our happiest moments and ask: was it matter of having more? Or was it, rather, a matter of having all needs, demands, and desires, ours and those of others, come together in a state of harmonious co-existence: the coexistence of efficiencies?
*
The individual is an efficiency. Or it would be better to say that the individual is a supra-efficiency to the various sub-efficiencies that constitute it. These sub-efficiencies, in turn, take expression through needs, demands and desires, all which can be grouped together under the general category of expectations.
But before we go on, it would serve us to clarify needs, demands, and desires as attributed to Lacan. And the best way to do this is to describe how they develop in the child and carry on into adulthood. The child starts with needs (food, shelter, water, healthcare, etc.) to which the motherer attends. However, as the child grows more cognitive, it begins to develop more sophisticated expectations that it may think of as needs, but is rather an endless series of demands. And while the demands themselves can be obtained, what cannot be satisfied is the true motive behind the series itself (often a need for attention). Therefore, no matter how many of the demands are obtained, the series will never end because it is never about the thing being demanded. Eventually, due to the frustration of the motherer, who pulls away their attentiveness to those demands, and that of the child as they see less and less of their demands being met, the hope is that the child will eventually turn to what it desires or that which can be obtained but requires an active effort of figuring out what it is. This could be any number of things like self respect, meaning, achievement, or self actualization.
And we can see how these expectations can follow us into adulthood. No matter how old we get, we’ll always need food, water, shelter, and healthcare. And as much as we would like to think we outgrow our demands, they tend to plague us throughout all of our lives. For instance, what is a love relationship (and the underlying source of its volatility) but a long series of demands that two people tend to make on each other. Like the child, we find ourselves demanding the full attention of the other. And the sick (the body being a supra efficiency with its own sub efficiencies) will always demand to be better. The body demands it.
Finding our desire is what defines our maturity. We, the intellectually and creatively curious, define ourselves by what we come to know and create. However, we have to be wary of assuming that because we have found what we desire, we have found some way of keeping our demands forever at bay. Too many great minds have lived otherwise miserable lives to make that assumption. And too often, our desire can draw to it or become the source of other external and demands. We demand to be left alone and given time to practice our craft while demanding to be adored and respected. And once adored and respected, we demand to stay so.
And once we see these aspects of our makeup as different degrees of expectation given different levels of import that determine what level of energy we’re willing to invest in them, we can then translate them into the currency of efficiency and get a better sense of how this multiplicity might interact and emerge into the composite effect of the individual’s well or ill being: the maximization (or minimization) of the always supra-efficiency of the coexistence of efficiencies.
We should first note that basic needs are pretty much low investment efficiencies that, if we focus purely on the need, are generally easy to maximize. We could, for instance, live in a shack and eat rice as many third world people and Zen monks do. However, man does not live by bread and water alone. Not all of us want to live like monks or third world citizens, and we get further from need and closer to demand as we go from a bowl of rice to prime rib. The prime rib may fulfill the need of sustenance, but the enjoyment of that sustenance ultimately constitutes a demand. Still, at most points in between a bowl of rice and a prime rib (say a hot dog), the need for sustenance is an efficiency that is reasonably easy (at least in western industrialized nations -with qualifications in America) to sustain at a maximum level.
Desire, or having reached one’s desire, presupposes a maximization of the always supra coexistence of efficiencies. Take, for instance, creative flow. In this state, the individual always has their individual expectations in a state of coordination in which those that are of less import are absorbing less energy while bulk of energy is being focused on what is most important thereby maximizing that particular efficiency by being able to meet the input resources required to achieve the desired effect. Take, for instance, Einstein’s wardrobe. If Cronenberg’s movie The Fly is accurate, had you of looked in Einstein’s closet, you would have found a rack of exactly the same uniforms. The reason for this is that Einstein did not want to waste any more energy than he had to on deciding which outfit to wear so that he could focus all of it on complex mathematical and physics concepts.
And it was for good reason that he set aside the demand of vanity. Demand, it seems, because it can never be truly satisfied, only obtained, is clearly the least efficient form of expectation. And in its more extreme forms it can act as an all consuming parasite sucking the energy from more efficient forms of expectation and thereby undermine (or minimize) the always supra efficiency of coexistence.
Still, let’s not commit to becoming Zen monks and completely discard demands and the value they contribute to the experience of our point A to point B. We can never be fully rid of them anyway. And those small pleasures (watching TV, having a beer and Jager while typing this and listening to my playlist, and name your desert) can add to the justification of a life. It’s a matter of degree and the extent to which they sap energy from other expectations and efficiencies. It is just important to keep in mind that demands are not needs and always dispensable. Of course, it would seem that desires are equally dispensable. However, more so than with demands, desires are what justify our existence. And as the intellectually and creatively curious know: such a life without justification would be worse than no life at all.
*
Of course, the individual, as supra efficiency of coexistence to their given sub efficiencies, is also a sub efficiency to their given social situation. They always have to interact with their family and social circles, their workplace, and their social and political environment. And these social structures, as well, must take their place in the folds (acting as both supra and sub efficiencies) that expand from social groups and workplaces to communities on to states and political structures up to the world and the earth it inhabits all of which must work under the always supra efficiency of the coexistence of efficiencies.
But at this point, several things need to be cleared up. For one, the always supra efficiency of coexistence is not some over-riding entity that hangs over it all at the top of the hierarchy. It is not a grand narrative. It is rather an ethical, pragmatic, and possibly metaphysical imperative that works at all levels from the sub systems of the individual to their social structures up to the world and possibly the universe itself.
Secondly, I have used the term energy in the engineer’s sense of “the ability to do work” as an all purpose designation to several things that can serve as inputs or outputs. On the input side, it can be effort and resources as well, while on output side it can be any type of positive effect whether purposely desired (such as monetary return) or left to chance (an unexpected move in a work of art) or somewhere in between.
And finally, the previous description has been pretty much vague and abstract. And there is purpose behind that. For one, there is no concrete entity we can think of as an efficiency. There only expressions of them. And in many cases, there is no way of actually measuring the inputs or outputs, much less the differential between them. Consequently, many of our judgments concerning the level of efficiency will be subjective in nature and generally a matter of comparison between different degrees. Furthermore, we have to be careful about talking about the different levels of supra and sub efficiencies as if it were some kind of fixed hierarchy. For instance, to subordinate the individual to their various supra efficiencies could, in matters of social and political discourse, could lead to extreme conclusions that verge on the fascistic and authoritarian. That said, this is not science. Nor can it be expected to be a perfect fit to every possible situation. It is merely a model and tool that can be applied to reality to analyze the interactions of various systems and provide a different perspective along with a unique vocabulary to discuss what we find. And as abstract as it is, if we engage in a kind serious play with it, it can offer some very concrete understandings to very concrete situations and possibly solutions to the problems they present.
*
But as they say in Creative Writing: Show! Don’t tell! Therefore, I will offer a couple of examples that are more small scale then move on to the socio/political and economic where I think it has its most useful applications. I start with a personal experience which, because of reflection and hindsight, was the genesis of the concept:
In the mid 90’s, when the position opened, I gave up my maintenance job, and the higher financial and personal rewards that came with it, to work in a garage booth where I would have more time to read and write. And in that capacity, it served the purpose in that, artistically and intellectually, the 7 years I worked there were some of the most productive I’ve ever had. In other words, by setting aside or de-prioritizing other expectations and efficiencies, I had managed to maximize the efficiency of my desire to learn and create. The problem was, in order to meet the external demands and effciencies on my life, I had to, on top of working 1 1/2 hours of overtime in the booth, work 4 more at a part-time job. This meant 14 to 15 hr. workdays. On top of that, the internal demand or efficiency common to most men my age at the time (getting laid), I had also committed to a 1/2 hr. of working out every night after work. What resulted was me getting 4 or less hrs of sleep, thereby minimizing the efficiency of the basic need of health that was, in turn, influenced by need of sleep. In other words, by delegating most of my energy and resources to my desire to learn and create, I had maximized the efficiency by drawing energy from the efficiency of my health and need to sleep thereby minimizing those to the extent that they began to make demands that minimized the efficiency of my ability to wake up in the morning. This, in turn, drew energy from and minimized the efficiency of my standing at work.
On top of that, despite the long hrs I was working, the financial feedback was never enough to meet the demands being made on me by my financial obligations (or demands) brought into the mix through bills, 3 children of which I was the non-custodial father and the only one with resources, the cost of materials to further my intellectual and creative process, and the assumption of those around me that since I was working so many hrs that my resources were unlimited -an assumption that I had fallen prey to earlier in the process, then found it impossible to get clear to others the falsity of it after I had seen through it myself.
What resulted was a mixed package in which, on one hand, I was happy in that I was maximizing the effiency of my desire to learn and create while being equally miserable because of demands and efficiencies external to that desire that were more and more minimized to the point that they eventually turned on me. Towards the end, even desire to pursue my studies began evolve into an inefficient demand for success, when I found myself attached to an art gallery in which I had sold several art works. Because of this, I found the efficiency of my desire to create in the bounce around fashion I was accustom to minimized the demand for success that compelled to focus my last 3 years in the booth on art.
It was this coexistence of efficiencies that eventually led to my being fired from the job, which in turn led to a 5 year coexistence that focused on the efficiency of padding my resume. But even that got compromised as my desire to create and learn morphed into a demand to get back to my liberal and fine arts roots that sapped energy from, and minimized the efficiency of my pursuit of vocational knowledge. And here I am today.
And before I move on, I would also point out how my experience shines some light on the experience of many, if not all, creative people in that the dynamics of efficiency and needs, demands, and desires prohibit the possibility of a perpetual creative flow. The problem with the coexistence and coordination of efficiencies involved in those moments, regardless of how invulnerable they may make us feel, is that the system never occurs in a vacuum. Even though the experience can set aside and de-prioritize all other needs, demands, and desires, in order to focus energy on the prioritized efficiency; it can never eliminate their expectations. Sooner or later, after enough neglect, those expectations (both internal and external) will amplify to the point of becoming demands and sabotage the current coexistence. As I write this now, even though I have found a tentative flow or maximum efficiency of coexistence, I can feel the demands of my backlog of books creeping up on me. And it is that dynamic that led to Sylvia Plath’s suicide after writing Ariel.
A darker coexistence of efficiencies, at least from the outside, can be seen in the world of the chronic alcoholic or drug addict. First of all, let us admit that when it comes to alcohol or drugs, there is, in terms of pleasure, a minimal effort or input coupled with a maximum effect or output. And it is this maximized efficiency that draws the alcoholic or drug addict into addiction. However, as they focus more and more energy on this particular efficiency in their life, they begin to de-prioritize other efficiencies such as environment and appearance thereby achieving a maximized coexistence of efficiencies. And they achieve this maximization by drifting further and further away from the general symbolic order (another efficiency and expectation) and falling into the psychotic pitfall of the nihilistic perspective: that which, having no solid criteria by which to judge actions creates its own semiotic bubble of signs and values. And it would only be when the internal/external demands begin to show themselves, mainly that of securing more alcohol or drugs, that the coexistence of efficiencies would be disrupted.
Try this thought experiment. Ask yourself: if you took a drug addict, gave them shelter and food, and all the drugs they needed, would they ever sincerely recognize their addiction? I would argue no since that recognition would require a need, demand, or desire external to their addiction. In a sense, they would be in Tennyson’s Land of the Lotus Eaters. They would simply have no way of getting outside of the maximized efficiency of the coexistence of efficiencies in which they were immersed. There would not be any external efficiencies to disrupt it.
And while we’re on the subject, let’s apply our new model to the subject of why artists are so disposed to drug and alcohol addiction. Take, for instance, the writer. First of all, let’s agree that writing is a grueling and tedious venture. It is a process of enduring a lot of minimized efficiencies for the sake of a highly maximized supra efficiency. Plus that, the writer never has the advantage (the maximized efficiency) of seeing their finished work for the first time. Therefore, is it any wonder that they might mix the maximized efficiency (the immediate pleasure) of alcohol or drugs with the often minimized efficiency of the writing process? And doesn’t the artist, because of their position in relation to the general symbolic order, have to recede into a semiotic bubble similar to that of the addict? Van Gogh, for instance? And isn’t that, in a sense, what Einstein was doing with his wardrobe?
*
As we move into the more large scale complexes of the social and political sphere, we can now, in a simpler, more accessible, and clear manner, apply a simple formula that can then be applied in retrospect to our previous examples:
E(pot.)=R/e
Wherein:
E=potential efficiency or efficiency potential which sounds a little more high brow and technical
R=resources
& e=expectations
In order to understand it, and its interaction with other instances of itself, we can apply simple and arbitrary numbers to the variables in the context of a workplace situation. We start with a single instance as applied to Bob the manager with the values:
R=10
& e=2
Therefore if we calculate the results, E=10/2, we get an efficiency potential of 5. However, let’s say that Bob, under pressure from upper management and the stockholders to increase profits, is forced to increase his expectations to a value of 5: E=10/5 therefore E=2. Of course, this loss of efficiency potential results in a great deal of anxiety and frustration for Bob and, in order to restore order in his life, the only thing he can do is increase his resource factor to 20, thereby resulting in 20/5=E, therefore E= an efficiency potential of 4, which is not quite the comfort level he had before but better than the drop he experienced. And this is because of the efficiency of improved conditions.
However, those resources had to come from somewhere. Enter average Joe the employee who starts with the same base values as those of Bob: R=10, e=2, therefore, E=5. But as the adage goes, shit flows downhill, and when Bob begins to put pressure on him, Joe’s expectancy rating goes up to 5, thereby, lowering his efficiency value to 2. Even worse, Bob is also forced to cut back costs by decreasing parts inventory and overtime which reduces Joe’s resource value to 5 thereby resulting in a calculation of 5/5 or an efficiency potential of 1. On top of that, the loss of overtime and extra money reduces the resource value of Joe’s financial efficiancy and, consequently, its efficiency potential leaving Joe no choice but to supplement and bring the resource value back up by taking on a second job which, in turn, affects the values involved in his efficiency potential for time management. And the chain reaction goes on not in the linear fashion our calculations would have us believe, but rather in a multidirectional fractal manner.
Of course most of us don’t need this formula to see how this type of thing can occur in the workplace. We’ve seen it firsthand and have, in a very real way, felt the distress and frustration that can result from having our efficiency potential lowered. A telling example of this can be seen in research done on Boeing employees who had lost their jobs due to cutbacks and those who had survived. What they found was that those who had been laid off were generally healthier than those employees that were still working for Boeing. And given our formula, it is easy to make an educated guess as to why this happened. For the laid off, as pressures increased within the company before their severance, they were probably already experiencing declines in their efficiency potentials. However, when they found themselves unemployed, while their resource values might have dropped drastically, the drop in expectancy values were such that they may have actually experienced an increase in efficiency potential. Meanwhile, those left behind who found themselves with a smaller staff dealing with an increasing workload may have experienced a steady decrease in their potential and actual efficiencies.
*
And this dynamic, as well as the formula, can be applied to the general economy as well. First we would note that Capitalism, as it was articulated by Adam Smith, would have been reasonably efficient in an economy that consisted of craftsmen, artisans, shopkeepers, and family farms. This is because the small populations involved and the expectations that centered around the desire for comfort and sustenance, rather than vast accumulations of wealth (demand), were easily met by the resources available. To put it in Marxist terms: the differential between the natural value of what was produced, and later translated into buying power (a resource), and the exchange value (expectation) was small enough to insure a smooth flow of exchange and, consequently, a maximized coexistence of efficiencies -that is, of course, unless you were a slave. It wasn’t until mass production became necessary, because of growing populations, and those who owned the means of production began to demand higher feedbacks, thereby compromising the coexistence of efficiencies, that a Marx became necessary. And what is Communism, as it was intended, but the final maximized coexistence of efficiencies not by lowering expectations, but by evening them out to the point that efficiency potentials of all individuals were maximized.
However, because of the efforts of those influenced by Marx and the confidence instilled in the oliogopolies of the 50’s and 60’s and even into the 70’s, a workable coexistence was established again -even if it was one that stayed within the perimeters of producer/consumer Capitalism. And once again, it only seemed workable if you were a white middle class laborer.
But the technology developed by the oligopolies and government sowed the seeds of their own destruction, by opening doors for more competition thereby lowering efficiency potentials of the rich through loss of security (a resource) thereby increasing their demand (expectancy) for more wealth in order to secure their standard of living. It was no longer a matter of having wealth; it became a matter of insuring it (another efficiency) by continuing to accumulate superfluous wealth (demand as expectation). This is what resulted in going from the 50’s and 60’s, where the CEO’s of company expected around 20 times the compensation of their lowest paid employee, to the minimized coexistence of today where CEO’s command 3 to 400 times their lowest paid employee. And as was the case with Bob the manager and everyday Joe, the only way these CEO’s can continue to do so is turn their expectancies into maximum efficiency values is by increasing their resource values that, in turn, must steal from the resource values of those below them while forcing increased expectations upon them (through consumer demand and heavier workloads) and thereby minimizing their efficiencies and compromising the coexistence of efficiencies.
However, let’s give the pro-capitalist credit where credit is due in terms of the efficiency formula. For one, they are right in asserting that government, through regulation, can lower efficiency by lowering the resource factor through restrictions on what materials can be used. But this is generally due to environmental or labor and safety concerns that involve other efficiency occurrences that are just as important as the efficiency of profit if a respectable coexistence of efficiencies is to be maintained. At the same time, these disruptions can affect the working class efficiencies through indirect methods. A lot of drug and smoking policies are the results of government policy, but they are also the result corporate lobbying and corporate indifference to the right of individuals to do whatever floats their boats because those activities might compromise the individual’s role as producer/consumer. To give another example, we are coming to a time when the backyard mechanic is coming to an end due to the complex environmental controls that car producers must put into cars. This imposes upon the car owner the inefficiency of depending on the car dealer to keep that car running so they can get to work. But his, once again, only offers the car producer an opportunity to increase the efficiency of the demand for profit by forcing the consumer to depend on the dealer for maintenance of their vehicle thereby increasing their profit.
The less compromised assertion of the pro-Capitalist position comes from their faith in the ability of Capitalism to develop the technology and means of production they have grown addicted to. And this one is hard to question. This is because corporations can afford high expectations (e) because their resources (R) are such as to, because of our formula, to maintain a high efficiency factor (E) –that is if you consider the failures in league with the successes. But then I’m just rehashing Marx here.
The problem with this was pretty much articulated by James Burke in the 90’s series Connections. As he pointed out, technology at the time was progressing at a rate similar to Galileo’s Law of Falling Bodies: at a constant rate of acceleration. And the problem with this was that such a situation tended to evoke in people a taste for novelty –in other words: demand. And as we have already pointed out, demand is the least efficient form of expectation there is because it raises the e value to the point that the resources available to it may not be able to sustain a respectable efficiency potential. It can only sustain E value by raising R value. And this can only happen by stealing from other R values while raising e values to the point of demand and lowering their respective E values.
And in this lies the primary failure of Capitalism in terms of efficiency. And it is why Capitalism must put its emphasis on growth (demand) as compared to efficiency. The night after I had arrived at the formula for efficiency potential, I found myself second guessing in that I began to wonder if, since efficiency is basically about an input/output differential, if the formula should have actually been E=R-e. But then I began to think about how the e variable affects the calculation as a whole. Now say we start with the values R=10 and e=5 therefore E(pot.)=2. Then we drop the e value to 2 and get an efficiency potential of 5: an increase of 3 from our initial point. Now we drop the e value to 1 and we get an E(pot.) of 10 or an increase of 8 from our initial point. And this non proportional increase in the efficiency potential seems perfectly in line with reality in that breathing (with an expectation value of one and oxygen being at a high R value) is the most efficient thing we could do -almost at a 100% actual efficiency. And the only thing that could compromise that is a drastic reduction in the R value as concerns oxygen such as suffocation or lung disease. As compared to actions at higher e value, we hardly put any effort into it. And on top of that, the act is carried out with hardly any effort at all and leaves us a lot of (excuse the pun) breathing room (resources) that can be delegated to other efficiency potentials such as technology that work through the burning of oxygen.
I began to realize that my second guessing was the result of confusing 2 different issues - that of potential efficiency and actual (or actualized) efficiency- and I had forgotten the principle from which the formula had emerged: that the potential for efficiency tends to decrease as expectations increase. Plus that, the simpler calculation of E=R-e gives the impression that as resources increase one can increase their expectations proportionally. And that, to me, seems to play right into the hegemony of Capitalism and neglects the principle of diminishing returns that tend to come from increased expectations. As another principle of mine states:
“The probability of a system breaking down seems to grow in an asymmetrical proportion to the complexity and sophistication of that system.”
And as I also realized, not even the formula for actual efficiency takes the route of simple mathematics, but rather algebraic one of: E(act.)=O/I wherein:
E=actualized efficiency
O=output
and I=Input
But the formula gets more reflective of reality when we consider what happens as we increase the e factor. We start again with an R value of 10 and an e value of 5 which results in an E value of 2. Then we increase the e value to 10 which puts us at an E value of 1. Now in order to get back to our original E value, the R value would have to increase to 20 (or an increase of 10). But when we increase our e value to 15, we have to increase our R value to 30 in order to sustain an E(pot.) value of 2. In other words, for every increase of 5 in e value, there has to be disproportional increase of 10 in R value. This is because as expectations increase, what is expected becomes more complex in nature and therefore more vulnerable to inefficiencies or failures. Plus that, the R value always has a ceiling either in general or, more likely, within a given potential’s horizon. And in this sense, our formula lands us in the principle of diminishing returns as expectation increases. And on top of that, as we already pointed out, the R value can only be increased by stealing from the R value of other efficiency potentials, thereby decreasing their value.
Capitalism, however, and clever creature that it thinks it is, thinks it can overcome this problem by not settling for an E potential of 2. But let’s say it seeks to increase its original state of e=5 and R=10 to an E(pot.)=5. It would either have to lower its e value to 2 (which we know Capitalism is incapable of) or raise its R value to 25 which, once again, means that it has to steal from other E potentials. The problem is the increase in R value requires an increase in e value. This is what defines Demand in Lacanian terms. And it is this privilege given to growth over stability (the maximum efficiency of coexistence), mathematically defined, the underlies the snowball effect that has led to the very rich demanding obscene accumulations of wealth at the expense of everyone else.
*
Anyway, my time has ran out on this project, and I want to make a few brief notes for myself when I return to it:
-
I want to follow this with a return to the Lacanian model and point out how Capitalism’s privilege given to demand undermines the always supra efficiency of the coexistence of efficiencies, then move on to solutions based on government the acts as a facilitator of this coexistence, then finally consider the possible metaphysical implications of efficiency as a kind of strange attractor that can possibly apply to both micro and macro physics.
-
I would like to apply the formula to arguments among the pro-capitalists (for instance, the way the resource of willingness to make the effort is cancelled out by required increases in the e value –in other words: the notion of self determination). And I would like to go after the precarious notion that Exchange value=Buying power.
And, finally, 3. I want to see if I can fuse Spinoza’s (via Deleuze) sad and joyful affects into the text and bring out the import of power relationships in terms of efficiency.
Until then: Love ya, man!
