Second, probably my own interests in Economics, which I would used my draft letter that I planned to send it to the head of BE program on my interests in Economics, so that, he may help me to choose the subject that would be a great basics for my interests. Here is where I start,
“Dear Arjarn (…) I’m very exciting with the fact that my SAT and TOEFL scores meet the requirement of Thammasat’s BE program. It’s always my dream to go into BE as you could see in detailed on my essay which I sent wih the BE application. The reason that motivated me to write this letter are of my own excitement and that of my interests in Economics. I want to present what really made me want to be an economist. I do not look at Economics s just one single and seperated subject. I look at Economics as the integration of science, humanity and actual natural resources. Economics cover the area of personal and social life. As I said before in my essay that Economics as a subject does not determine the profession of person but it shapes a person’s way of thinking. In addition to that, the economical theory, I believe, determine the way of lives in society.
The point I want to make is that in order to create or synthesizing a great society, as one may think of Moor’s Utopia. The concepts behind the development of that society can not base on science or humanity concepts alone, but of Economics’ point of view which synthesizes both science and humanity. Science alone is but a warrior without a heart or feelings. Humanity alone is but a artist who turned his back to the reality. Economics is a great synthesis of both aspects of our human’s qualities, as a good doctor may say “both sides of human’s brain.” Science without Humanity could lead the society to some form of totalitarian government but Humanity without Science could also bring society to the doom of chaos and Anarchy.
 In my last paragraph I pointed out basic ideas why I like Economics and my personal definition of it. From here on, I would point out the area in Economics which I am interested in. From my studies on Philosophy, History and the economical events last couple of years ago, it leads me to the interests in the idea of Karl Marx. I believe in democratic-socialism more than democratic-capitalism. What I mean by the word “Socialism” is as that of “England” not totalitarian “Soviet” or other communist nations. Again, in my opinion, I don’t think that those communist nations could even call themselves “communist”. Since the word “Communist” as in Marx’s works does not has the same meaning as “communist” in present day due to the fact that Lenin used “communist” to described his totalitarian government, not the ideal “Marxist Communist”. I agree with most part of Marx’s works except the concept of “violent revolution” because any coin-flipping change such as a revolution which emerge from “Violent” is most likely to end in “Violent” which create the cycle of “Violence”. The violent revolution, as proved by the history, only leads to the replacement of a new form of totalitarian government such as in Soviet, VietNam and south American. I believe in “progressive evolution” of the political economy which I was influenced by Dr. Pridi Pranomyong.
 Another main disagreement is that of his idea of “Historical Materialism” or historicism and also his “Scientific Socialism”.  I do not believe that we could use a pure scientific methods to truly predict the society or to rely on the abstraction in his scientific socialism which he took it for granted. Though I believe that we could use this his methods to predict the probability of the economical or political events but not of its exact. Marx believed that the economical events state the actual states of the society or reality. I have a total disagreement on this because of any economical event, it consists of enormous immeasurable factors such as of those psychological factors. Because Marx thought that since the economical events represent the true state of society, therefore, we could derive the information from that particular event and integrate all the information we have, we then could predict the exact future of economical or political state in the society. This concept is very scientific but more or less in the bounder of Newtonian concept which states that the observer (psychological factors) is in total separation with the events. Unfortunately, this concept was overcome by Quantum logic which states that  there is no separation between the observed and the observer, the observer influence the observed, therefore, reality is relative. In economics, we could not really derive enough information or we could not derive the exactness from the immeasurable factors, therefore, no one could predict the exact economical development or events. One could come closer to this relative reality by consider the immeasurable function more seriously, which, in effect, would add more functions into the original classical economical model. It is sad to accept but the majority (including me) of people could not gain the absolute knowledge in Economics or anything. One can look at the “Tom Yam Kung Crisis” for the great example on the theory which I mentioned above, or as Soros’s theory of reflexivity. The crisis consists of two great major reasons. First, the “actual” which is the way that the flow of money circulation based on the foreign investors and the lack of concentration on the export, or the real section which is the main true income of the country. Another factor is that of psychological motives. It motivated all economical events in a great scale. Even George Soros himself holds the concept that of the market doesn’t represent the factual state but the psychological state that based loosely with its reality. His basic concepts could be understand easily by a person who familiar with Quantum logic and economics which require a great study on the concepts of physics and philosophy. As for the conclusion of this disagreement, I think that to use the information and data to predict or determine the future in its exact is impossible, we could only predict the probability of the future. The history, therefore, does not determine the future but it shapes the big picture of the future. This could refer to the many worlds interpretation of the wave function in Quantum Physics. Since Newtonian physics underline all the main stream intellectual development from 17th century to now, never think that Relativistic Quantum physics would not underline the intellectual development from 20th century again. Since in order to explain the connection of Physics and Political science would take a great length, an interested person could consult Fritjof Capra’s The Turning Point which is the best introduction of the subject.
The last big disagreement of Marx and me is his idea of equality. He wanted to eliminate the economical classes (Capitalist, workers) into only 1 class. Hr thought that the capitalist class would always exploits the workers class. I agree with this concept up to one point. Marx look at this matter based on his materialistic and pessimistic view point. This could trace back to his concept of Utopian equality of mankind. I believe that all humans should receive a same level of opportunities based on his/her interests and performances. But I don’t believe in natural equality of human beings. For all humans are different. Each of us is good for something and bad at other things. Therefore, not a single human is identical in term of psychological interests. Since no one is the same, we are not equally born. We all have the equal rights as human beings, but we are not the same, to say of the Utopian’s equality is just of another imaginary concepts which do not apply to reality. With this great differences, we could created a great society by integrating all differences we have even with Marx’s method of dialectic materialism. I do not believe that in order to have a good society, every has to be equal in every thing except for the equality in opportunity and general welfare.
 With these disagreements with Marx (which in many other things I agree with him), despite the fact that I always think that Marx is the greatest political /economical thinker of the world, I turned my interests in to the social theory works of Sir Karl Popper, especially his concept of “Open Society” which is between capitalism and Marx’s socialism. Which, at this point I do not have enough knowledge even just to discuss it here.
As you could see my Economical understanding development, I believe that I’m lack of knowledge in many points, and now you already knew the field in Economics which I’m interested in, I hope that you would help and guide me to this great path of intellectual.         With great respect, Sunit Shrestha ”
 
III : Of my interests in Psychology.
IV : Of my interests in Occult sciences.
Back to main menu