The establishment of the fact that economy is a subjective organization of reality depending mostly on the correct apprehension of one self may perhaps seem not to have anything to do with all the before mentioned. And though.

The rule of the house (oiko-nomos, in Greek), is not as much how much I get but how I get it, though which internal organization and with which purpose. The related to the house economy, has as minimal reference the maintainance of the given through parameters of survival. If this is translated into inner coordinates, as if the given was the feeling of life and survival the feeling of love and tenderness, the human behaviour does regulate itself on basis of his fundamental inner needs and does not spent so much inner energy in getting and wasting, in appearing and shining. Strangely this does order a society through very sharp criteria of benefit: production is the result of the transformation of wisdom and knowledge into a product that fits into a determined organization. What needs publicity is the wisdom behind and not the product as such. What is good sells, if it knows how to sell itself, which is to say, to hit through the presentation it has the functions of interest in the human, so that he is attracted by the good he will obtain by buying. That extremely conservative ways of thinking comercial activity (the product sells by itself) show weakness because of the agressive concurrence that invade human consciousness  by pretending to give what they do never give (pornography), so that extremely good quality is relegated to a second place, and thus the deriving or inherent knowledge, leads to the thought of a subtle and intelligent publicity in order to allow first quality products to attract more people amd thus allowing the transmission of general schemes inherent to inner logics (computers), to lines and combination of colours (fashion, arts) to a more general public.

The so called ‘Ecole Normale Sorbonne Paris IV’ logic, intelligently combining sober distance with superb touches of vanity and egotism, which I owe, I have to say, to Anne Hélène Nicolas, seems to join the general purpose through a remarkable side effect: this logic creates an environment that is extremely reassuring for people who show affective weakness, is a constant incentive for people working at highest intellectual levels, and seems to prove stabilising effects on general economy. The question is not that you have more, but that you are satisfied with what you have, and be able to consider changes in the parameters determining satisfaction. I was satisfied with little before, because more would have bothered my investigations. Now I need more, because what I have I can certainly say is a more common interest and the benefit resulting should be a measure for the payment given to a certain type of effort. I thus order my behaviour corresponding to the changing needs.

That this has horrible side effects on the way of understanding humour, is Hannah’s fault. For her, publicity was humour. It is not allusion to pleasure that attracts mostly the human mind but the funny association that does move the customer to give away a certain sum of money. Apparently, there are many ways of getting pleasure, and pleasure does disappear if the stimuli are constant, but it is horribly difficult to get intellectual pleasure, which is, the laughter deriving of a joke, that is a logic cracker. Consequently aleatory research did affect slightly and aleatorily the concept of the relationship between a customer and the product.