irrelevance and the square root of minus one

It seems to be little appreciated that much of what goes on in the lives of "spiritual people", from the common church goer to Jesus himself, is much more rational, even calculative, than is given credit for. I was musing over this and happened to reflect on the possibility that the term for the square root of minus one, imaginary, is not as linguistically appropriate as the term "irrelevant". In the complex number plane, where real and imaginary values are graphed orthogonally, an imaginary value is quite plainly irrelevant to values on the real axis--it does not add in and can be componentally disassociated from the real values. Imaginary is not a measurable concept. Irrelevant is.

What if all the considerations present in a life viewed as irrelevant were actually just as calculative as the considerations present in a life viewed as relevant. When would we notice the effects of multiplication of two values that are irrelevant to get a product that is negative and relevant? There never having been a ledger sheet for irrelevance, all the calculations involving irrelevance are out of control except for the traditional lessons of spirituality, a largely trial and error process. it is easy to see how negatives to relevance, as well as negatives to irrelevance, could develop quite naturally. Jesus, and all prophets, have a hell of a time with the establishment. They're always considered negative by a great number of people. I am not saying this is incorrect. It is correct, but I am proposing that it's more understandable than has been thought.

It may very well be that we are missing a lot of economically important information in the economy by not incorporating irrelevance on ledgers and in our money system.

The creation of a profit from manufacture of a product occurs because the total spent on materials and processes is exceeded by the saleable value of the manufactured good. This is called a synergy. The sum is greater than the parts. But what I take it is happening is that addition of the inputs is not where the synergy comes from. It comes from their multiplication.

So anytime a product is profitable we can pretty much expect that there is a multiplication of relevant values involved in its manufacture, somewhere on a ledger. But if just one irrelevant value gets mixed in with all the relevant values in the multiplication, the net result becomes irrelevant. And if two irrelevant values get involved, the net result is negative. For this reason companies watch very carefully to weed out irrelevance from the workplace. But if irrelevance were monetized, it could be ledgered and the size of the economy would be doubled, on first principles. There would no longer be any fear of irrelevance because it would be steered by accounting into net positive relevant values.

Somewhat murky, I'm afraid, but perhaps you get the picture.