My understanding of business

Business is about the exchange of ‘Products/Goods and Services’.
Products are made (with time/energy/effort/some overheads or investments) and sold for a profit. The same holds true for services too.

The insight I had was that money is actually only a signifier.
Money has no value in and of itself.
Its value is only its potential to acquire products and services of value.

Supposing someone buys something for 100 and sells it for 200,
He makes a profit of 100.
But what can he do with this 100, it is only once again used to buy other products and services made or offered by other people.
So the money is simply fed back into the same system.
This system I would guess is what is referred to as the ‘world economic engine’.

Imo it bears a close resemblance to the circulatory system of blood we have in our bodies.
Money is the blood, and is used as the MEDIUM for exchange of resources (products and services).
The system is self contained, and the resources it transports are:
# Services: Direct human effort
# Products which are transformations of the resources of the earth (also created by human effort).
# Certain other living creatures on the earth that are owned in some way by individuals or governments, and some of the earth’s natural resources (esp. the rare ones).

Also, ultimately speaking,
‘All business is about the enhancement or maintenance of human well-being’ (inspired from Sadhguru).

Money is the formalization of recognition

Recognition of something is the primary element.
That is, recognition of value/importance and so on.
Once there is a shared recognition of a certain quality/thing,
It is then formalized in society by assigning a monetary value to it.
This creates an ontology/taxonomy/hierarchy/system of “objective” value assignment.
Here objective means the concretization of the subjective-common-agreement.

Alternatively, there is also ‘informal recognition’.
Informal recognition is like when you help your neighbors/relatives/friends etc.
That is also valued/recognized,
And it may give you other rewards like good-will, rapport etc.,
But it may not involve money-exchange.

The things in society that are assigned the highest monetary value,
Are the things that form the “backbone” of society.
They are a reflection of what society(the formalized agreement) prioritizes,
And what society deems as the most important or least important.
Money is literally the measurement of this formalized-value assignment,
Just like how we measure length in terms of feet, inches, and so on.

Money is the life-blood of society,
And just like real blood,
It basically is the carrier that distributes resources,
To every part of the various societal-systems working together.

Some people before starting any activity would always ask,
“Where is the money in this?” or “How much money would this make?”.
Such people are essentially looking for “Formalized Social-Recognition”.
In other words, they have fused their value-system with societal-values.

If you have a value system very different from the society you live in,
Then money would only be a means to an end,
And not a direct measure of your value/contribution itself.
If what you value deeply, is not recognized by society at all,
Then you fall off the map of “formalized valuation”.
The value of your contribution then would be left to subjective evaluation.

Society is a reflection of collective consciousness.
Collective consciousness can be seen as sort of like a bell curve,
With the majority-80% falling close to center line.
The majority have a value-system that is fused with the societal-value system.
It could also be said that it is the commonality of the majority,
That even enables and empowers a structure like society to thrive in the first place.
Money seen as a direct measure of contribution and value,
Is relevant to mainly this set of people.

If you value-system is too far out,
Too regressive or too progressive,
Then you would fall on the ends of this bell curve.
And money would thus become less and less relevant here,
Except as more of a means to an end.

Love and Positive Vision are the same thing

To really see something is to see the “source inspiration and beauty” behind that which is seen.
It is to see its place in a larger context, in a larger framework of meaning.
Otherwise, it is only surface/superficial seeing.
Seeing/Vision is a lot more about context than the content of the sensory-appearance of what is seen.
The following concepts are closely related to each other = the concept of seeing/vision, value, and beauty.
When you see something from love, you see the creation as the creator would see it.
There is no upper ceiling to perceiving source inspiration/love/positive vision/value/beauty.
The deeper your positive seeing, the more your capacity for the above qualities.

Please refer to my earlier blog post to learn about what I mean by positive vs. negative vision:
https://perceptionflow.com/2018/10/16/the-concept-of-negative-vision/

The connection between IDENTIFICATION and LOVE:
******************************************************
This is an extremely deep topic, but I’ll try to give a few pointer examples.
* For example, say, you look at your personal laptop that has all your life’s work = personal photos, videos, files, documents, music, playlists etc.
All that gamut of context is tied into your seeing of the laptop.
So seeing = both context and content.
Its not possible to quantify, but to give an idea, the content is just 1% or less while 99% or more is context.
The sensory impression is only a pointer to the tree of knowledge that resides in the mind.

Let’s say, you have a dog, and that dog too sees your laptop.
How would he see it? The 99% of context, memories, attachment, associations, information you connect with the laptop would not be present for the dog.
So he would see it as just “content” mostly.
* It is like looking at a stranger’s smartphone of an unknown make/model (so very little associative connections as such).
Imagine how different would that be from seeing your own smartphone.
* Imagine the difference between looking at your children vs. looking at a random person’s children.

When an artist creates a work from source inspiration, he is seeing from positive vision.
He sees the value/worth/significance/importance/beauty of his work, because it came forth from his channeling of source inspiration itself.
If he puts it up in an exhibition, and if various art critics come and start critiquing it, then the critics are seeing from negative vision here.
They are not seeing it the way the artist sees his own work which is from positive vision.
Both positive and negative vision are kinds of vision.
The distinction is that, positive vision connects what is seen to the source of creation (which is the potential/love/inspiration), while negative vision does not do that.
Negative vision does not see what the art piece is, rather it sees what it is not by comparing it to something else that is loved.
That is the fundamental difference.
Positive vision is to see from the point of view of the creator.