The intention of this article is not to offer a counterargument for interdisciplinarity or to argue that a cultural reading of finance does not necessarily amount to doing bad economics. Rather, I want to offer a performance of “bad economics”, informed by the belief that culture and economy have “always already” been fused. From this perspective, thinking about economy outside the context of a conjunctural analysis of cultural knowledge and practices—including popular culture—is not an option and, therefore, collapsing into a reductive “us versus them” default position is ruled out from the outset. In other words, this article brings cultural studies to questions of economics in life and death issues as a means of addressing the present moment and the changing ways in which we now talk about economies. Throughout this essay, therefore, I will argue from the assumption that culture and economy are as inseparable from one another as the sides of a sheet of paper.

Ivy DuRant passed away on December 18th 2011 at 10:15 PM. I am the mentor for her dissertation at Colorado Technical University. I wish to raise a question for ‘Consentology’ an original theory put forth by Krisha Johnson Coppedge, Ivy’s good friend, at the 2011international meetings of Research Methods Division of Academy of Management held in Lyon France. I want in this essay to give some sense of the Heart of Care we her colleagues have about getting Ivy’s writing into print, and interpreting it with genuine understanding of Ivy’s life-path, and her lifetime. This is therefore about ontology of life, her life, Being-here with us, for-a-while, and tarrying-a-while as Martin Heidegger (1962, 2009) puts it.

This is a poem titled "If I Could Do it One More Time".

The claim of the present article is that human mortality makes a case for the discovery of the immortal nature of the person. Based on a clear distinction of the concepts of the human being and the person, human beings and persons are considered immortal insofar as both entities evidently do not qualify for a definition as living systems. On the one hand, human beings are presented as neither lifeless nor living systems. On the other hand, persons are introduced as lifeless systems and, as a result, immortal system. This claim is extended by the statement that, even if supposed to be living systems, persons could be considered at least potentially immortal, which is illustrated by a brief and proxy case of the person of Karl Marx.

This case study aims to discover why and how people tend to conclude that grievers of loved ones, acquaintances, friends, or even pets should remain under concealment. Some non-grievers in our society feel that grievers should conceal their heartfelt pain of those whom they have lost to death and dying. Grandmom, Mom, Matterie, Shabba (my pet), Brenda, and then Ivy were all individuals close to my heart. As the author, I take aim at finding consolation and answers as to why people in society today feel that grieving should remain concealed publically. These behaviors are seemingly constituted by non-grievers with such feelings of not knowing what to say, how to say it, or what to do, or is it simply because they really do not want to experience sorrow first handedly with others? Alternatively, this study seeks to reveal these behaviors or biases which may be imparted because non-grievers are unable to sympathetically or uncaringly, tune into their own intuitive super subconscious minds for grievers with a heart of care earnestly. Who listens, to our pain? This study is not suggesting that people intentionally do not want to show deep heartfelt care and concern for grievers to be mean, but brings to light how nongrievers really may not understand the complete social economical interventions that go along with the grieving process, and what grievers feel in the deepest part of their souls themselves over the loss of a loved one, acquaintance, friend, or pet. This case study hopes to discover the awakening of death and dying ontologically by delving deeper into the sense-making of common sense, and Social Constructivism as it relates to death and dying.