Regaining the Power of Community Recently, the electrical power crisis in California has drawn national and world attention to a shortage of crude oil and natural gas. These fossil fuels are currently the primary source of the cheap energy that powers our modern Industrial Civilization. If we are running out of crude oil and natural gas as some of the best scientists and engineers in the Energy field are telling us, we have big problems. As our human population has tripled in the last 100 years, the Earth’s finite fossil fuel resources have been significantly reduced and are becoming evermore difficult and expensive to find. As they say, “The hand writing is on the wall.” Community offers powerful benefits to those humans who understand they are an INTERdependent form of life. Most of us in modern society believe we are independent. Our short supply of cheap fossil fuel energy has given us the “wealth” to make this belief seem valid. However, there is a price to pay in that we must spend much of our lives earning our livings. Modern culture tells me I don’t need community, I just need a job.

INTERdependence Synergy means working together. The goal of synergic union is to accomplish a larger or more difficult task by working together than can be accomplished by working separately. If we humans are going to work together, we must have powerful and easy to use tools for communication, consensus and exchange. This is what I think is the real promise of the two way web. Napster showed us that millions of individuals could have their lives enriched by simply sharing music. I would suggest that there are many other things we might share that could be just as enriching. Today, most humans solve their problems as individuals or at best as nuclear families. They meet their individual needs with individual actions. Our belief in our independence is so strong, it is almost beyond challenge. Stop reading … Please take a moment to examine the contents of your pockets or purse. … Can you find any item there, that you obtained without the help of someone else? Look around you. What do you see? Did you make the clothes you wear? Did you grow the food you eat or the tools you use. Look around your home or workplace. Can you find anything that you made. Do you know the names of those who did make all these things? Do you ever know upon whom you depend. Can you find anything in your environment that was obtained without the help of someone else? I am not talking about ownership here. I will grant that you own your possessions. But would you have them if they had not been for sale. I would argue that nearly everything modern humans possess was obtained with the help of others. As my associate Arthur Noll asks his students when making this point, “Lets start with your naked body. Can you manage to clothe and feed and shelter this body, with no hands touching any article except your own hands?” … As I examine my own world I discover that I depend on others to grow and produce my food. I depend on others to design and build my home. I depend on others to generate my electricity. I depend on others to supply my water. I depend on others to deliver my mail. I depend on others to educate my children. I depend on others to entertain my family. I depend on others to manufacture my automobile. I depend on others to refine the gasoline for my car. I depend on others to care for my family when we are sick. I depend on others to protect us from crime and war. I depend on others to …. I depend on others. I depend. Our human INTERdependence is made less visible by our present economic exchange system. I go to work and help my employer. He depends on me. At the end of the month he pays me for my help. I depend on him. I can then take some of the money from my paycheck to pay my house rent. While I depend on my landlord for the roof over my head, he depends on me to pay the rent promptly. Sometimes I depend on others and sometimes others depend on me. When we buy and sell in the economic marketplace we are really exchanging help. When I help others they owe me. When others help me I owe them. Money is just the present accounting mechanism we use to settle up. If you understand that humans are an INTERdependent form of life, then they must have help to meet their needs. If this is true then we would expect to see exchange economies established to facilitate the exchange of help . Three Ways of Getting Help Our human history reveals only three possible exchange economies: 1) Adversary Help — We can force others to help us. This is help obtained with coercion — force or fraud. Those providing the help are losing. When you force others to help you, they do the least they possibly can. Because the helper is hurt, adversary help is low quality help. (1+1)<2 Slavery, indentured service, tenant farming, and child labor are examples of adversary help. The criminal makes you help him, when he steals your money. The government makes you help it, when it forces you to pay taxes. You are forced to help others anytime you are given an ultimatum. Adversary relationships are hurting and negative experiences. The helper experiences a loss. He is less after helping you than before. When you force others to help you, they do the least they possibly can. 2) Neutral Help — We can purchase help through the fair market place. This is help purchased from others. This is the way most of us living in the free world get help today. We hire it or we buy it in the market place. When I go to McDonald’s, I pay them five dollars to feed me. The meal McDonalds offers is worth five dollars. Actually a little less since McDonalds is entitled to make a profit. My five dollars is worth five dollars. We exchange equal amounts. This is a neutral exchange. The focus in the neutral market place is on a fair price. Because the helper is ignored, neutral help is average quality help. (1+1)=2 Macy’s, Sears, Mervyn’s, Penny’s, Costco, K-Mart, Circuit City, etc., etc. — malls, stores, markets, shops, and restaurants — are all examples of neutral help. The yellow pages in the telephone book are lists of places where you can purchase help. The open market of free enterprise generates a zone of neutrality which markedly reduces adversary relations. Neutral systems gain a marked production advantage over adversary systems. They are significantly more productive. However, this is primarily because they are not adversary. Neutral relationships are marked by indifference with fair effectiveness and only average productivity. Neutrality is that place where I work just hard enough to avoid getting fired, and, my employer pays me just enough to keep me from quitting. Or, 3) Synergic Help — We can attract help by helping others. This help attracted by helping others. When other individuals understand that by helping you, they will in turn be helped, they will automatically help you. When others understand that when you win, they will win, they will support and celebrate your success. This is the power of the win-win relationship. Show those who can help you, how they will win by doing so. Show them how they will be helped by helping you. Because the helper is helped, synergic help is high quality help. (1+1)>>2 I was helped for helping him. Synergy is a new concept to humanity. Examples of synergic help in today’s world are much less common. We do find them in family businesses and within some partnerships and small business groups. Synergic relationships more often exist in start up businesses, where the originators work together sharing in the risks and the rewards equally. Another recent example is the “Open Source Software Projects” as used to create Linux. This is well described by Eric Steven Raymond in his seminal paper The Cathedral and the Bazaar. Raymond goes on to describe the “open source community” as a “gift” culture in his article Homesteading. What Raymond calls a “gift” culture, I call a synergic help exchange. If you wish to attract synergic help you must insure that when individuals invest their help with yours, they are also helped. Then they will automatically reinvest with you. When others understand that when you win, they win, they will support and celebrate your success. Synergic reorganization doesn’t eliminate exchange. It just changes the rules. Both parties have to win. No freedom is lost. We will actually have more freedom. Now lets take a quick look how things are done in our present world. Bird’s Eye View Let us imagine an aerial view of our community on an average evening at 10:00pm. Looking down we notice that within one square mile there are several small convenience stores open from seven to eleven. These small stores are all competing with each other as well as with larger supermarkets now staying open 24 hours in order to compete with them. At this hour of night there are only a few available customers to be divided up among all these providers. Each store is paying one or more clerks to staff the store, plus the costs for lighting and heating each store. From our view above our community, it is obvious that most of the clerks could be sent home and most of the stores closed and still allow every customer seeking products and services at that hour to get what they needed. This would also produce enormous savings for this group of providers. To all stay open, the providers must pass the costs of doing business on to their customers, so this means that the prices in all of these stores is higher to subsidize this inefficiency. Why is this happening? In today’s world we mostly ignore each other. After all, we are all independent. Each individual is supposed to look out for himself. So there is little communication between provider and consumer. The providers are keeping the stores open in hopes that someone will need something. If they were communicating with their customers, they would know when to be open and when they could close. They could then operate much more efficiently. Now imagine that this same inefficient process is going on with many different kinds of products in every community in our nation and you start to sense the enormous amount of wasted time and energy. Let’s return for a moment to our bird’s eye view of our community. Only this time let us imagine a time lapse video camera above our neighborhood. Imagine a family of four, two adults and two older teenagers in local college, having four automobiles. If we focus the video camera on the garage and parking area next to their home we would discover that there are times when there are no cars at home. This means that the family has four cars in use. Sometimes there is one car parked, so three cars are in use. Sometimes there are two cars parked, so two cars are in use. Sometimes there are three cars parked so only one car is in use. And sometimes we will find all four cars parked, so on these occasions this family has no cars in use. Now careful analysis of our time lapse photography will reveal that this family is, on average, making use of only only 1.8 cars. This means that on average 2.2 cars are parked and not in use. Yet this family is making payments on four cars, paying insurance and taxes on four cars, and experiencing depreciation on the value of four cars whether the cars are in use or not. And, this is without considering the expense of operating the cars. Since most modern humans solve all their problems as individuals, they have chosen the most expensive solution possible. Now if we move our time lapse camera higher, we discovery that this same phenomenon is occurring at every home in the neighborhood. If we examine all the homes within just a few blocks we discover that there are always cars in the neighborhood that are not in use. Now, as we continue to watch from above, we see that often times the members of this neighborhood are going to the same place. They all go to the same supermarket. They all rent from the same video store. They use the same post office and drug store. As we watch we discover that often one individual will make the same trip to the same place maybe only a few minutes earlier or later than a neighbor. Again, we see that solving our problems individually means that we have chosen the most expensive option. We are doing this because in our neutral culture we don’t even know our neighbors let alone what their transportation needs are. Now, if we move our aerial time lapse camera high enough to see the entire community, we can now see the parking lots at stores, supermarkets, shopping centers, places of work and schools. And again at any one time most of the cars are parked. We also discover that one individual living at the north edge of the community is driving to the south edge of the community to his work in a retail store, while another individual is passes him going in the opposite direction, this individual lives on the south edge of the community and is driving to work on the north edge of the community to a similar job. Of course neither individual knows the other, or even how similar and paradoxical their situation is. We could also analyze these same neighborhoods and discover that each garage contains a lawn mower and numerous tools that are only being used once every two weeks and all of these tools are expensive and require maintenance. I would imagine that in the neighborhood I live in, that on any given moment, ninety five percent of the tools in our garages are not in use. Co-Operative Neighborhood Garages Imagine purchasing a membership in a modern community garage within easy walking distance of your home. This garage could have a variety of automobiles that would be available for your use anytime day or night. The garage would be clean, well lighted, and safe. It would be staffed 24 hours a day, the automobiles would always be clean, serviced and full of gas. Using either computer or telephone you could reserve a car for your own personal use. The garage could easily have many different types of vehicles available to serve your particular needs. You could reserve a station wagon, sports car, utility vehicle, or limousine. The garage could also run shuttle services to those destinations that were commonly and frequently requested. The number of automobiles needed to meet the needs of the members co-Operatively would be much fewer than the number needed for the same members individually. Total costs would be much reduced and the secondary advantages would be tremendous. On those occasions when all the cars happened to be in use, transportation needs could be supplemented by taxies or rental cars arranged by the garage. What would the cost of such a service be. Well first, realize that “attached garage” now a part of almost every home could be eliminated or turned into additional living space. Your cost of membership would be reflective of you use of automobiles. I would expect most families would experience major savings. Those very heavy needs for an automobile would find the costs to approach the same costs as owning their own automobile. Now there is no reason the Co-Operative Garage should just offer automobiles. It could also provide garden tractors, lawn mowers, and tools of all kinds. The extent and value of co-Operative action is limited only by your imagination. Co-Operative Videotape Rentals Currently, the providers of videotape rentals operates much as do all small stores in our communities. They select those available tapes which they feel will be popular and then make them available for rental. They keep their stores open long hours for the convenience of his customers, which travel on a regular basis to pick-up and drop-off tapes. This of course, results in lots of travel time and expense for the consumer, and when the consumer fails to find time to view the tape before the rental period expires, they are charged significant late fees. Statistics show that one third of Blockbuster’s revenues come from these late fees. Now imagine this alternative scenario: Instead of going to the video store you connect to the store via a web page on the internet. The available video tapes are listed with images from the movies, a list of actors, and even reviews. You select the tapes you want to rent. And they are delivered to your home. You have a locked delivery box outside your home in which you can retrieve new tapes when you order, and return for pick up when you are finished. Co-Operative Consumption means that in addition to this scale of convenience, the provider and consumer now have a synergic and intelligent relationship. Using the same internet web page technology, the provider would query their customers as to which of the new releases of tapes they would be interested in renting. These choices could again be provided to the customer along with images from the videos, lists of actors, and reviews. You could select one of three choices: Yes, Maybe or No. This information would allow the provider to order an appropriate number of new tapes to fill the expected needs of their customers. This is what is meant by an intelligent relationship with the provider. The implications of this alternative are great in reducing the cost of rentals, increasing the likelihood that those tapes you are interested in are available, and with all the loss in time and inconvenience, let alone cost of picking up and dropping off tapes eliminated. If this becomes the primary mechanism of videotape rental, the provider can close the retail Video Store in the high rent district and operate out of a low cost warehouse with delivery vans reducing the costs even more. Now imagine, how this same process could be be applied to many other products or groups of products. Co-Operative grocery shopping Recently a new company has created a prototype for what I am recommending. Peapod is an online virtual grocery store now available on the internet. In the San Francisco Bay Area there is a recent competitor called WebVan. Now these new internet grocery stores are a step in the right direction, but they are only going part of the way. They are just a typical business seeking to make money, but they have stumbled in the right direction. Individual Actions are Expensive Our current reality requires that we meet our needs as individuals. This guarantees that we will pay the highest prices for the products and services we need, and with the greatest waste of time and energy. In any average week, if we total the time and expense involved in making multiple trips to the grocery store, pharmacy, hardware store, nursery, dry cleaners, video shop, post office, etc. etc. etc…, remembering to include the cost of individual transportation with each of us acquiring, maintaining, insuring, and operating our own cars, it would be hard to imagine a system that could be more expensive and inconvenient than our present reality. Co-Operative Consumption Society’s first response to our current Fossil Fuel Energy Crisis has been to seek more gas and oil. I think this is the wrong direction in which to seek a solution. We humans don’t need more gas and oil. We need less gas and oil. In order to maintain our quality of life with less gas and oil, we need to use the power of community and synergically reorganize ourselves to meet of our common needs with much greater efficiency and economy. There is nothing very difficult about community. In fact, human survival for the first 99.99% of our history required community. Only in last 100 years have we been rich enough (fossil fuel energy) for modern humans to individually survive without community. And, in that 100 years (three generations)we have forgot about the power of community. Some of our best energy scientists warn that we will soon be out of cheap energy. As earning our livings becomes much more difficult, we may discover we again need the Power of Community. With the advent of the internet and the development of new tools of communication, consensus and exchange, we now have the opportunity to regain community. All we have to do is change our minds. Timothy

The Blind Men and the Elephant

I long ago realized that synergic organization is so different from how things are done today that it involves a new way of thinking. Because I am describing a unique and novel system, there is always more to explain. And, no matter where I start there is more to hear and understand. In some ways its like the six blind men describing an elephant. They are all correct in their descriptions and yet all wrong.
     
     “It was six men of Indostan
     To learning much inclined,
     Who went to see the Elephant
     Though all of them were blind,
     That each by observation
     Might satisfy his mind.

     “The First approached the Elephant
     And, happening to fall
     Against his broad and sturdy side,
     At once began to bawl:
     “God bless me, but the Elephant
     Is very like a wall!”

     “The Second, feeling the tusk,
     Cried, “Ho! what have we here
     So very round and smooth and sharp?
     To me ’tis very clear
     This wonder of an Elephant
     Is very like a spear!”

     “The Third approached the animal
     And, happening to take
     The squirming trunk within his hands,
     Thus boldly up he spake:
     “I see,” quoth he, “The Elephant
     Is very like a snake!”

     “The Fourth reached out an eager hand,
     And felt about the knee:
     “What most the wondrous beast is like
     Is very plain,” quoth he;
     “Tis clear enough the Elephant
     Is very like a tree!”

     “The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
     Said, “Even the blindest man
     Can tell what this resembles most;
     Deny the fact who can:
     This marvel of an elephant
     Is very like a fan!”

     “The Sixth no sooner had begun
     About the beast to grope
     Than, seizing on the swinging tail
     That fell within his scope,
     “I see,” quoth he, “the Elephant
     Is very like a rope!”

     “And so these men of Indostan
     Disputed loud and long,
     Each in his own opinion
     Exceeding stiff and strong.
     Though each was partly in the right,
     They all were in the wrong!”

The Parable of the Blind Men and the Elephant by John Godfrey Saxe

Dr. Win Wenger is a human intelligence scientist whose work can be seen at Project Renaissance. He has written in response to the thread on Unanimous Rule Concensus:

As this very fine discussion unfolds, even if we are all still at the level of verbal discussion and haven’t yet asked our ImageStreaming faculties to show us what’s REALLY what’s what in this topical area: it begins to look to me as if our various respective positions aren’t all that different. I’m beginning to think that Tim is suggesting, not that we all move immediately and move everything to “Choice # 3.” Rather, there are advantages to such mutually cooperative and consultative (Socratic?) arrangements, and we want to move to take advantage of them when and where possible. Like, it’s desirable to move northward “we can’t all live at the North Pole, but there is some value to moving northward when occasion so permits.

Timothy-> Yes I agree. A synergic culture will not spring up fully grown. It will start with first two, then three, then four humans discovering that they are powerful, safer, and happier by grouping together in synergic organization. They will begin by using the tools of synergy. Unanimous Rule Consensus, The Synergic Veto, Bindings, and many more to be revealed.

As these early synegic groups develop and mature, they will discover that they prefer to deal with other similarly minded groups and individuals. Soon synergic groups will being to ally with each other. The details of how this will be done will be developed by those doing the the doing…

One quibble: not all adversarial relations are harmful. Back when the stakes were more sensible and the U.S. Senate was smaller, there arose the tradition of “Senatorial courtesy.” A very high degree of mutual civility and respect and consultative interaction. It came about this way: each Senator’s objective was to be able to find enough allies on the issues he was concerned over to win a majority. He had to attract allies, and he had to be a respected ally sought out by others. This didn’t mean he didn’t fight hard on the issues — no one wants a wimp as an ally! But by fighting WELL and with the highest courtesies and respect, he was likeliest to find allies when he needed them, so for a
time at least, that became the model and the most frequent practice.

Similar phenomena have been reported for similarly sized legislative bodies or political “courts” (”courtly behavior”) which continued over some sustained period of time and so had over time to deal with a succession of different issues. Some issues cut one way, others another way; your opponents on one CAN be your allies on another if you play it “right.” This seems very close in some regards to what Tim was suggesting for cooperative living via respect and (democratically) consulting whenever possible….. (Yes, here too “you get more of what
you reinforce!”) –win

Timothy-> As a synergic scientist, I define Adversity very carefully using an operational definition.

Adversity is the natural law of animals. It is fighting and fleeing.

Adversary relationship originates on earth in the animal world. Earth supplies limited space for the animals. Space is finite. Good space is even more finite. Thus, it is very limited. There is only so much good water, so much good grazing land, so much good shelter, and so much good potential food. There is not enough to go around. The space-binders must compete for this limited amount of good space. They compete adversarily. They compete by fighting and flighting. They compete by attacking and killing other space-binders. They compete by devouring the energy-binders.

Animal survival depends entirely on finding others to eat. The herbivores depend on finding plants to eat. The carnivores depend on finding other animals to eat. The animals inability must eat. Animals survive by eating either plants or animals. Animals are completely dependent on other for survival. This fact makes animals the dependent class of life – dependent on other.

Imagine a fox chasing a rabbit, if the fox is quick enough, it will win a meal, at the expense of the rabbit who loses its life. On the other hand, if the rabbit is quicker, the fox loses a meal, and the rabbit wins its life.

The adversary world of animals is a game of with losers and winners. This is a world of fighting and flighting – of pain and dying. To win in this game someone must lose. Winning is always at the cost of another.

All animals, from the smallest insect to the largest whale are struggling to avoid losing – struggling to avoid being hurt.

CONFLICT -def-> The struggle to avoid loss – the struggle to avoid being hurt.

The animals must fight and flee to stay alive, and they do. Always ready at a moments notice to go tooth and nail to avoid losing – to avoid death. Losers/winners is the harshest of games. Winning is always at the cost of another’s life. The loser tends to resist with all of its might occasionally prevailing by killing or wounding its attacker. So both parties can lose, turning the game – losers/winners into losers/losers. If we analyze adversary relationships, we discover that individuals are less after the relationship. (1+1)<2. In the animal world where the loser forfeits its life (1+1)=1. Or in the end game of losers/losers, both adversaries may die in battle, then (1+1)=0.

* * *

However, with this said it is important to understand that there will still be disagreement, discussion, dialogue and debate. But the goal will not be to prevail or beat the other party it will be to find concensus. What is the third alternative where we both win and no one loses. And if wecan’t find a win.

Synergic science realizes and accepts there will be times and situations where loss is unavoidable. When this occurs synergic mechanism dictates that the group accept reality and focus on minimizing the loss, and then share the loss equally. In synergy, we are one. In synergy are equal. In synergy we strive to win together. But if we are forced to lose, then we will lose together?this means we will share equally in the loss.

1) In synergy, I am ONE with my associates.

2) In synergy, I am MORE with my asscociates than by myself.

3) In synergy, I am EQUAL to all my associates.

4) In synergy when we WIN, I will win MORE with my associates than by myself and I will share equally in the GAINS.

5) In synergy, when we LOSE, I will lose LESS with my associates than by myself and I will share equally in the LOSSES.

6) In synergy, we will win together or lose together, but we are TOGETHER.

It is such a relief and pleasure when such an Unanimous Rule Consensus forms, and you’re part of a self-elected team working effectively on a common goal. However, I see this only in occasional instances (made more feasible by the Net), and for relatively small groups. I don’t see this becoming a way of life for many people, because I don’t yet have a full understanding of the mechanics of how such a system will work. Let me give two examples of where my as-yet imperfect understanding sees or imagines problems–

1) Given our blessed human variety, what if one of those joining such a group gets his kicks from being obstructionist, and/or what if one who joined with a more appropriate set of intentions then changed his mind? What are the mechanics by which the URC could (a) accomplish anything at all; (b) constrain the recalcitrant member, (c) expell the recalcitrant member, since unanimity is required?

Timothy-> Unanimous Rule Consensus is one component of synergic organization. It is the basis for making decisions. A synergic organization is one in which the members view themselves as part of the same team. As individuals on the same side with common goals.

The meaning of equality within UNC is related to: 1) Being equal in responsibilty for the success of the group for the success of making good decisions where all members win and no one loses. 2) Being equal in authority for making the decisions. This means that as a member of a synergic group I not only veto those proposals where I would lose, but I suggest alternative proposals which accomplish the group’s common goal without my loss.  And 3) Being equally at risk for the consequences of the joint action taken by the group.

The purpose of us joining together for Co-Operation is that we are trying to accomplish some task that is beyond our abilities as individuals acting separately. If we fail to come to agreement than we will accomplish nothing. I expect that we will see synergic groups formed by individuals of integrity acting in good faith. I expect it will be quite rare to encounter a recalcitrant member.

Admission to a synergic group is by invitation and voluntary.

In synergic relationship individuals continue negotiating to insure the win, In synergic relationship, all players are focused on winning. Everyone is seeking help. The game calls for only winners, there is no need for loss. Each player is expected and encouraged to veto any suggested plan wherein they would lose. It is of primary importance in synergic relationship to veto all loss positions. Failure to do so instantly shifts the relationship back to adversary, with the immediate return of conflict. In contrast, since there are no losers in synergic relationships, there is also no conflict. And because obtaining help by helping others attracts the highest quality help, real winners seeks synergic help.

Seek always synergic help by making sure that those who help you also win. Be sure they understand how their helping you will also help them. Use the following approach to help you succeed.

Whenever you encounter conflict in a potential helper, they are struggling to avoid loss. This means they believe they will lose by helping you. 1) Analyze the relationship, if your potential helper is really losing, then modify the plan so they will win. To proceed without modifying your plan will only continue conflict and get you only the lowest quality help.

2) If the potential helper simply misunderstands, and in fact he really does win, then explain why he misunderstands, or fill in the information as to how he wins. When he knows he will win by helping you – he will immediately seek co-Operation.

However, if such a situation does arrive where it becomes clear to the remaining members of the group that one member cannot co-Operate, that individual could be released from the group by unanimous vote of all the remaining members. If no unanimity can be reached then the group itself would be dissolved. And the former members allowed to reorganize as they saw fit.

2) The case of eminent public domain, as representative of a much wider range of situations where various personal interests are at stake. Cities Alpha and Omega are five hundred miles apart and their economies different enough to be highly complementary, if they could somehow get their products and services exchanged between them. The only path for a road to carry this exchange, crosses one hundred different farms/land-owners. The prospect for gain to the two cities combined is a billion dollars a year and with the general spread of prosperity, the prospect of increased income and well being averages out per landowner to one hundred thousand dollars a year each. The material cost of building the road would be, say, ten million dollars. The real cost would be the acquisition and use of the strip of land on which the road would run. Average value of the strip of land, per land owner, ten thousand dollars. Worth the while of the consortium of interests to offer twenty thousand dollars per owner for use of the strip. Everyone comes out ahead. Right? Wrong. Most landowners will be happy to get twenty thousand dollars for a ten thousand dollar strip of land, plus increased prosperity of one hundred thousand dollars per year forever.

BUT: As fewer and fewer holdouts remain, the price for those remaining portions of the strip gets higher. The last holdout could ask more than a half billion follars for his ten thousand dollar strip of land, it’d be worth the consortium’s while still. But the previous houldout, for a third of a billion? The previous before that….. SOMEBODY among those landowners would find it compellingly in his speculative interest to hold out. Collectively, the holdouts would drive the cost of the project out of reach. One person can devastate and ruin the chances of all other landowners AND the two cities, unless a mechanism exists which allows responsible collective authority of some sort to seize the holdout’s strip and pay him fair compensation, else everyone loses and nothing is accomplished. That right of eminent public domain is, of course, the normal practice or there would be few if any roads in this country, or waterlines, or power lines, or telephones (the wired kind, at least)…..

Timothy-> Possessions are not necessarily property.

The possession of an object does not mean that the possessor
has a moral or rational claim to ownership of the object. The political, economic, and social structures of our present world are all based on our concept of ‘property’ and property rights. There has been a shifting of human values as humanity evolves from adversary processing to neutral processing to synergic processing.

Adversary wealth is physical force. Neutral wealth is money. And, synergic wealth is mutual life support.

Therefore adversary ‘property’ is property obtained by force or fraud, and then held with physical force. Neutral ‘property’ is property purchased in the fair market, and held by right of law enforced by neutral government.

The Institution of Neutrality was an evolutionary advance from Adversity, at the time of Neutrality’s inception most possessions were adversary. They had been obtained through force or fraud and held with physical force. The new institutions of Neutrality never made any attempt to correct what by the new values of Neutrality would be past injustices. Neutral values would prevail in future, but the past was left alone. This resulted in the legal precedent wherein possession is 9/10 of the law.

In other words, at the time Neutrality was institutionalized, all existing ‘property’ whether adversary or neutral was made legal ‘property’. However, all new ‘property’ was required to be neutral ‘property’?that is ‘property’ acquired by paying a fair price in a free market to the rightful owner, or that ‘property’ which is created directly by the mind and labor of the owner.

Most of the founding fathers of Neutrality were beneficiaries of ‘adversary’ property and in no hurry to give it up. They also believed that in the long run these injustices would slowly be corrected, and all property would eventually come to be ‘neutral’ property. Their belief has proven to be wrong.

While synergic ‘property’ is not yet defined, it would have to be property that was obtained without hurting or ignoring anyone, and even more importantly, it would have to be property that was mutually life supporting – that is it would have to be property that had a beneficial effect for self and others. If humanity is to advance to Synergy, our concept of ‘property’ and property rights must change radically in the future. How this could work will be explained in later essays for those that are interested. Unanimous Rule Consensus is only a small part of Synergic Organization. I will explain more as interest develops.

With apologies, I don’t see how most situations involving many people could function on a URC basis. Perhaps I misunderstand the mechanics. Or perhaps what you’re saying is not that this is how we should try to organize most of our affairs, only that as we move deeper into the Information Age and the Laws of Abundance, that we will have more frequent opportunity to do things on a URC basis even if it failed to become our predominant way of living….? –win wenger

Thank you Win for taking the time to read and think about my posts. I am always willing to entertain questions and answer as best I can. I always have time to disclose more and explain more carefully. For you see synergic organization benefits no single Individual, it only has value when used by Community. As we humans become better at Community, I think synergic organization will become a predominant way of living.

Bound through synergy,

Timothy

More Devil’s Advocates

Well it appears my recent article Beyond Democracy has been quite provocative. A reader of Friday’s article Devil’s Advocate has written with a number of comments. In the dialogue that follows the reader who gives his name as Tom, will have his comments marked in red:

Why should we assume that believers in a Unanimous Rule Democracy are in any way responsible? If I don’t, then I cannot be a member, can I?  Where does this leave 99.99999 percent of the worlds population?  Nice idea for a utopian community, but only that.

Timothy-> Unanimous Rule Consensus is simply a system of decision making for responsible individuals. I claim it has great advantages over:

Rule by the ONE- Dictatorship
Rule by the FEW- Oliarchy
Rule by the MAJORITY.

These three systems control others with force. Rule by the MAJORITY coerces the MINORITY.

Unanimous Rule Consensus does not coerce others. But it does
require that those using be responsible. It is simply a tool. If you
understand and use a tool properly you gain the utility of the tool.

You don’t have to believe in it to use it. Unanimous Rule
Consensus is not a cause. It is not a religion. It is not a movement. It is just a tool.
 
So I propose a Win-Lose action, and you can veto it only if you propose a Win-Win action.  Or you can keep veto-ing it until we all die. This sounds like an ultimatum in disguise to me.  It has the appearance of righteousness but in no way assures a win-win.

Timothy-> Let us assume for a moment that you and I decide to move a heavy couch from one room to another. We form a group of two for the purpose of doing this because it is obvious to us both that we can’t move the couch separately. As we move this heavy object we communicate to be sure we are both winning. If one of us is losing we veto the action by saying put the couch down. Now if either of us keeps vetoing every plan of action then we won’t get the couch moved.

If we have no common goal then there is no basis for us to form a group.

Again, my proposal of Unanimous Rule Consensus is as an alternative to:

Rule by the ONE- Dictatorship
Rule by the FEW- Oliarchy
Rule by the MAJORITY.

If these existing systems work better for you, you are welcome to use them. They are certainly easily found in our present world.
 
Interdependence already exists!  What you are suggesting is actually a society INdependent of variety and diversity of opinion. We are already constrained by the needs and wants of the other, by virtue of the fact that interdependence is a REALITY, not something to be created.

Timothy-> I agree. Humans are an INTERdependent class of life.

The choice is adversary INTERdependence – I will force you to help me. Neutral INTERdependence – I will pay you to help me. Or, Synergic INTERdependence – I will help you and trust you to help me.

I claim Synergic INTERdependence is more powerful and less harmful to children and other small things.
 
Synergy is in the eye of the beholder.  Losses can be percieved as wins in the light of synergy–and you are missing an important factor– ALL synergy is a loss.  It is a loss of thought independence. “I” and “You” are lost in your definition of “US”.

Timothy-> I don’t see it that way. I expect we will have great diversity and individuality within synergic organizations. Reality is a continuum. We are both Humanity as Individuals and Humanity as Community. Synergic organization is designed to take care of both aspects of our identity.

In response to my statement:
 
Individuals within a committee are seeking to gain the majority of support. This takes time – sometimes a lot of time. 

Tom wrote:
 
Majority support is the whole point of democracy as it exists… the example of japanese companies does not hold water because I cannot believe that any decision is unanimous among all the parties affected, much less the committee.

Timothy-> Perhaps you have never experienced unanimous agreement. It does occur and when it does it is very powerful. Because all members of the Unanimity are allied. They can act as one. We see this in a championship basketball team.

I am suggesting that if we use a system that seeks unanimity as an explicit goal we can harness that power.

In response to my statement:

If you honestly don’t know the best answer then the group must decide whether they should seek more information or accept the risk of deciding without the right answer. In a synergic group you are equally at risk for the consequences of the joint action. If you are wrong then you and your children may die.

Tom wrote:
 
All this means is that we are at the mercy of psycho-pseudo-scientists and environmental death-prophets…they will emerge and announce a win-lose based on the fear of death, they will not back down.  There is no win-win when a handful of the party members have no handle on reality.

Timothy-> Unanimous Rule Consensus is a voluntary system of organization. One is invited to join the group. All individual loss is prohibited. If the group must sustain loss then the burden of that loss is distributed over the entire group.

There are No BOSSES. No KINGS. No DICTATORS.

If you want that kind of reality you need only return to:

Rule by the ONE- Dictatorship
Rule by the FEW- Oliarchy
Rule by the MAJORITY.

These three systems control others with force. Rule by the MAJORITY coerces the MINORITY. If these existing systems work better for you, you are welcome to use them. They are certainly easily found in our present world.

In response to my definition:

“Co-OPERATION: Operating together to insure that both parties win, and that neither party loses.”

Tom wrote:
 
There are sooo many more than two parties, in every single decision to be made.  Have you taken this into account?

Timothy-> Yes I have. And, this is an excellent question. Synergic organization is best accomplished in small groups. Size is created by the grouping of groups. It would seem that this would require a great deal of complexity, but it does not. The explanation of how this system would work is the subject of another paper.

In response to my statement:

We can’t use a new invention until it is invented. The airplane was always possible. But no one could fly one until it was invented. Synergic organization has always been possible. But no one invented it until recently.

Tom wrote:

I don’t agree here either.  The airplane was not always possible. The situation had to present itself where the propeller engine was possible first. So many other factors before it became a possibility.  Synergic organization will be possible when we have lost all sense of what it is to be human–but not yet. (this is not as derogatory as it sounds–I am saying only that it is not possible while we are still imperfect beings–and of course I do not think it’s necessary to be imperfect.)  Of course, if we were all perfect, this type of organization would emerge on its own.

Timothy-> No! Again Unanimous Rule Consensus is an invention. It is a system for making decisions and planning actions. Just as Robert’s Rules of Order are a system for making decisions.

It has to be invented. Just as we humans invented: the steam engine, the printing press, the electric light bulb, agriculture,
domestication of animals, automobiles, airplanes, computers, etc.. etc., etc..

None of these emerged on their own.

In response to my statement:

This problem is solved because we are dealing with individuals of integrity.

Tom wrote:

> HAHA…so DO you agree this is not possible! 

Timothy-> Yes, I know this is a joke. But yes I do believe there are lots of individuals with integrity.

In response to my statement:

Synergic organizers will carefully invite members to join them. The whole idea is that we can be more together than we can be separately. Those who are not co-Operative will not be invited to join many groups.
 
Tom wrote:

This is a good way to promote tyranny. The whole point of our democracy is that we will not be kicked out if we disagree!!!!!!!

Timothy-> Unanimous Rule Consensus is part of Unanimous Rule Democracy. It is completely voluntary. There is no coercion. There is no force. If you want to use this system you are only required to co-Operate.

No one is required to use this system. You are still free to use the old ways.

Rule by the ONE- Dictatorship
Rule by the FEW- Oliarchy
Rule by the MAJORITY.

In response to my statement:

None of these discussion groups are currently organized with any common goals in mind. We are attracted by common interests not goals. However, even here we see lots of examples where people help each other. Perhaps we should start some groups with some common goals.

Tom wrote:

Where do we find these goals?  Individual goals are supposed to conflict!  Even within ourselves there are conflicting goals.  If there was any truth of a meaningful goal of humanity, we would already have the kind of groups you speak of.  Solid goals adhered to by legions of robots is known as fundamentalist religion–and it’s a scary thing.

Timothy-> In the 1940s, the western world had the common goal to defeat a tyrant named Adolf Hitler. One historian summed up this period of history by describing the accomplishment of this goal as humanity’s ”finest hour”.

I think there are lots of goals that would benefit Humanity as
Community. I would suggest. The end of crime. The cure of mental illness. The elimination of racism. Solving the Fossil Fuel Energy Crisis? These could serve as a starting place.

In response to my statement:

The Pyramids were build with Adversary help.

Tom wrote:
 
Look at the achievements through your 3-step example and see if you recognize anything absurd about it: 

OK, the Great Pyramids were built with adversary help.

A step higher, Neutral help, we have the Eighth Wonder of the world, MacDonalds.

One step higher, Synergic Help, we have….well, no actual examples of this, beyond small family businesses and the example of small start-ups or partnerships which most often fail.  The japanese example is close, but of course the japanese economy is on pins and needles at the moment.  There is the mandatory socializing after work–mandatory socializing is always fun, isn’t it? 

Timothy-> Yes, I agree with you that the examples of synergic organization we find in today’s culture are quite rare, and not yet very impressive. 

However please realize that synergic organization has only occurred spontaneously and sporatically. There has never existed a SYNERGIC “Robert’s Rule of Order“. That is what I am in the process of developing.

In response to my statement:

In 1920, there were only 2 billion humans. If you didn’t like it here you could always go someplace else. The world was a big place. There was lots of room. Today there are 6 billion humans.

Tom wrote:

And there’s still lots of room.

Timothy-> I think that is wishful thinking. At the rate we are destroying and contaminating the Earth, there may be alot of room only if your preferred life style is similar to that of MAD MAX UNDER THUNDERDOME. ;>)

In response to my statement:

Where can you go to escape the actions of others? Today there are no separate solutions. We can either work together or we can die separately. That is our only choice.

Tom wrote:

I would like to choose both, and I don’t see how the two are linked. It seems to me that the whole point of working together is so that we can die separately, as opposed to mass graves.
 
And in response to the following comment made by another reader Arthur Noll  on cancer:

“Those that shrink away at the slightest pain, are basically not ready to give for the overall good, they aren’t healthy.”
 
This is exactly what I mean when I say loss is important as well as gain.  You shrink away from any tiny loss, and I don’t consider it healthy. You shrink away from it by:

Refusing to accept loss in any way (only by your standards of loss). Deciding to oust members of the party who would disagree. By defining an “interdependent” society independent from all who don’t fit in, you have really created an idea with no basis in reality.

Timothy-> Yes, the purpose of synergic organization is to reduce loss for all parties of the organization. But we will still sometimes have to lose. We don’t ourst members of group who disagree. We oust members of the party who don’t or can’t co-Operate. Unanimous Rule Consensus is not a party, not an organization, not a movement. It is simply a method for making group decisions. I claim it is a better system then Majority Rule Coercion.

Synergy is about winning. I want a world where I win, you win, humanity wins, and Earth wins.

In such a world, those who don’t fit in will be taken care of. In such a world the mentally unsound, the criminal psychopaths, the convicted felons, and even prisoners of war will find a safe place to either get well or else live there lives in safety.  

Synergy is about helping people. Synergy is about not hurting people. So those humans who are dangerous will be cared for, but they won’t be allowed to hurt others.

I don’t see an interest in interdependence here.  I only see an interest in special interest and power. This is nothing new…this is what all of the most corrupt governments in history have done.  And they all sounded peachy keen just like this.

Well I guess sounding peachy keen is a start. Thanks for taking the time to read and think about my writings. I clearly need to improve my explanations so that my discoveries can be better understood.

I appreciate your help and the opportunity to respond to your comments.

Bound through synergy,

Timothy

The Devil’s Advocate

In response to my last article Beyond Democracy  reader Jeff Willson writes:

Okay, I’m definitely not going to say I’d like your ideas to fail, but that doesn’t mean I think they can work. Please consider my comments “devil’s advocacy” or “friendly criticism”.

———————

> “All are equal within the heterarchy.”

Children? The mentally unsound? Criminal psychopaths? Convicted felons? Prisoners of war?

Timothy-> We are equal in our responsibility to make our group or organization work. We are equal in authority to make the choices that will optimize our joint action.

Those incapable of acting with responsibility and authority i.e. Children, The mentally unsound, Criminal psychopaths, etc.. are not candidates for synergic organization.

Unanimous Rule Consensus is a decision making system for responsible individuals. My point is simply that the price of admission for participation in the decision making process is the demonstration of responsibility.

I am not recommending any action against children, the mentally unsound, criminal psychopaths, convicted felons, or prisoners of war.

Now as to their future participation in Unanimous Rule Consensus. I expect the children will grow up and become responsible. I expect some of the mentally ill or physically ill may be sucessfully treated and become candidates for inclusion in Unanimous Rule Consensus.

Just like we don’t let the incompetent vote in our majority rule elections today, those incapable of responsibity are not good candidates for participation in Unanimous Rule Consensus.

What do to with them is entirely another question that I have not addressed here.

I would say that a synergic society would not hurt them. But, synergists are also realists, and they will protect themselves and their family from those who are dangerous.

———————

-> “The wholistic focus of the heterarchy is on the needs of the whole organization.”

“Okay, winter’s coming soon. I think the tribe needs to go east from here to get to the good pasture lands, or we’ll all starve.”

“I think the tribe needs to go west from here, over the mountains, and camp at the village. They owe us a favor, and if we go east the barbarians will slaughter us.”

“I think those barbarians are only a myth, and the village is tired of us freeloading. If we go there we’ll starve.”

Right. What do we do? (Let’s assume that “north” and “south” are right out.)

Timothy-> It is not always obvious who is right and who is wrong. There will still be uncertainty and risk is the future even with synergic organization. The goal is to continue the negotiation until a plan of action is agreed to. It is also a decision not to decide. If we stay here arguing will will also perish. Members of the heterarchy can only veto a joint action if they believe that action would cause them to lose, but then they are equally responsible for proposing a different action in which they don’t lose and in which no one else in the group loses.

Ultimatums

Ultimatum is an adversary condition when the stronger forces the weaker to lose. This can occur between two individuals or between two nations. For example, let us assume that two individuals decide to help each other?that is they decide to work together?to form an “us”. These individuals will discover their individual preferences are constrained by their joint life. Because they share resources, they can’t both live in their favorite city, or in their favorite house, or own their favorite automobile, unless by chance they have identical favorites. The “us” is formed to gain the power and advantage of interdependence. Interdependence’s “division of labor” improves the standard of living for both, but the price for the higher standard of living is that the choices of both individuals are constrained by the needs and wants of the other.

In the adversary relationships, we experience this constraint as the ultimatum. The ultimatum is an opportunity to lose. You can lose-a-little or you can lose-a-lot, but you will lose.

Imagine, a husband comes home from work. He says to his wife,

“Well, I lost my job today. I have had it with the bay area. We are going to move to Los Angeles, there are good jobs there.” His wife counters, “But, I don’t like Los Angeles. The kids and I will lose, if we have to move to Los Angeles.” The husband plays the trump card. “Well you can either go to Los Angeles or you can get a divorce. Its up to you, but I’m moving to L.A.”

Which do you want?–a broken arm or a broken leg?  Your choice is between losing-a-little by moving to a community you don’t like, or losing-a-lot by getting a divorce, but you are going to be compromised–you are going to lose.

Seeking Bindings

The synergic alternative to an Ultimatum is called a binding. Now constraint is placed on any group of individuals who choose to live or work together. This is a law of physics. Constraint does not go away in the synergic relationship. But it remains only a constraint, and not a compromise. In synergic relationship, you are never forced to lose. You, in fact, are encouraged and expected to veto all losses. The only path the two of you agree to walk is one in which you both win. In synergic relationship there is no loss. You may win-a-lot or you may win-a-little, but you will win.

The synergic alternative to the ultimatum is called the binding. It is the contract that results from the negotiation to insure the win?co-Operation. It is the contract establishing a relationship in which you both win in which you both are helped.

Imagine, our husband coming home who enjoys synergic relationship with his wife. “Honey, I got laid off today, I have really had it with the bay area. I just can’t stay here anymore. I feel like I’m losing.” “Well, where do you want to go?” “Los Angeles, I hear there are good jobs down there.” “No, the kids and I would lose in Los Angeles. How about Denver?” “Okay, I could live with that. Let me check the job market tomorrow.”

———————

-> “Anyone who has ever built a house knows the carpenter’s rule: Measure twice, cut once.”

Good rule. Here’s another: “He who hesitates is lost.”
 

Timothy-> My point here is not that there will never be times when you have to decide quickly and act right now. There will be those times.

But rather I am speaking of the many times when it is possible to take the time to get consensus for a plan of action that will in the long run save enormous time and energy in the execution of  that plan.

A Japanese business heterarchy is slower at making decisions than a single manager in an American business hierarcy. It takes longer for a group of individuals to discuss, negotiate, and come to agreement than it takes for a single American manager to decide all by himself. If the speed of making decisions is the only criteria for choosing a mechanism of decision making then the business tyrant?the rule by one is the clear standout.

However, the Japanese have shown us the disadvantages of other directed hierarchies. Majority rule committee is not a rapid decision making process. Individuals within a committee are seeking to gain the majority of support. This takes time?sometimes a lot of time. The focus is on lining up votes?working deals?in a word?politics. This process is anything but rapid. If all decisions in American businesses were made by majority rule, decision making would probably be even slower than in Japanese companies using heterarchical consensus.

“Global warming? It’s a crock!! I recommend we have 75 more years of studies and focus groups, and then decide on the appropriate course of action. And besides, if we cut back on economic activity now, millions of people will be out of work.”

Timothy-> If you honestly don’t know the best answer then the group must decide whether they should seek more information or accept the risk of deciding without the right answer. In a synergic group you are equally at risk for the consequences of the joint action. If you are wrong then you and your children may die.

———————

-> “Co-OPERATION: Operating together to insure that both parties win, and that neither party loses.”

Your child desperately needs a kidney transplant.

My child is killed in a traffic accident, and is a perfect donor.

I belong to the Church of the Great and Powerful Heebie-Jeebie, which mandates that if we “defile” my child’s body in this way, she won’t be able to get into the Big Candyland In The Sky, and I forbid this procedure.

Timothy-> I expect smart individuals will join groups in which they are generally in agreement. If I my group is the Church of the Great and Powerful Heebie-Jeebie then I don’t want may child to have some other child’s kidney. Now if I a member of the Church of the Non-Brain dead, very likely some other parent will gladly offer me their dead child’s kidney.

Again Unanimous Rule Democracy will not make life risk free. It will simply make it much more likely that you will win.

My relatives are willing to go to court to have me declared legally incompetent.

Timothy-> Guess I picked the wrong relatives.

———————

-> “Synergetic consensus occurs when a group of humans sitting in heterarchy negotiate to reach a decision in which they all win and in which no one loses.”

I don’t think this is generally possible. (I think if this WAS possible, we’d all be doing things this way *now*.)

Timothy-> We can’t use a new invention until it is invented. The airplane was always possible. But no one could fly one until it was invented. Synergic organization has always been possible. But no one invented it until recently.

No two people have 100% identical goals. No two people have 100% identical definitions of perfect “win” and perfect “lose”.

Timothy-> That is why each member of a heterarcy represents themselves. They decide when they are losing. But they are equally responsible for finding a alternative plan of action where they don’t lose and that still accomplishes the goals of the group. And of course, we humans have many common goals. We all want good food, safety, fresh water, shelter, etc., etc..

I think the best we can do in the real world is “the greatest good for the greatest number”, and I think that’s what all the existing imperfect systems are trying to achieve.

Timothy-> I agree that is what we are trying to achieve. I just think we would be much more successful if we used synergic consensus.

———————

-> “The proposed action for solving a problem is examined by all members of the heterarchy. Anyone can suggest a modification, or even an alternative action to solve the problem. All members of the heterarchy serve as information sources for each other. The heterarchy continues in discussion until a plan of action is found that will work for everyone. When all are in agreement and only then can the plan be implemented. The plan insures that all members of the synergic heterarchy win. All members are required to veto any plan where they or anyone else would lose. But all vetoes are immediately followed by renegotiation to modify the plan so the loss can be eliminated.”

I don’t see how this could have any other result than continuous negotiation, and no action.

(The Athenian democracy was quite close to what you propose — or at least possibly the closest we’ve had in the real world.)

Timothy-> This problem is solved because we are dealing with individuals of integrity. Making no decision is a decision that will produce bad results. You only veto if you are losing. If you are not losing you cannot veto. The moment I cry veto I will be asked to explain how I am losing. If I am just being abitrary and an obstructionist I run the risk of being vetoed out of the group.

Synergic organizers will carefully invite members to join them. The whole idea is that we can be more together than we can be separately. Those who are co-Operative will not be invited to join many groups.

———————-

-> “When individuals work together in synergic relationship, new abilities, skills, talents, etc., emerge as a part of that relationship, that are not there when the individuals work separately. The individuals working in synergic group are more efficient, more productive, more creative, and more intelligent, than they are when working separately. The result of their synergy is that they create “more” together than they could create apart.”

I’m afraid that this system would very rapidly act to produce bickering, ill-feeling, treachery — look at the discussion groups on the Internet now!

Timothy-> None of these discussion groups are currently organized with any common goals in mind. They are attracted by common interests not goals. However, even here we see lots of examples where people help each other. Perhaps we should start some groups with some common goals.

———————

-> The result of their synergy is that they create “more” together than -> they could create apart.

The Pyramids were built by somebody saying, “Okay, listen up!! We have a Plan here, and you 50,000 guys are going to build it.” I can’t imagine that those 50,000 guys would have mangaged the project any more productively and efficiently by negotiating the whole thing out on a heterarchial basis.
 

Timothy-> The Pyramids were build with Adversary help.

1) Adversary Help – We can make others help us.

This is help obtained with coercion ? force or fraud. Those providing the help are losing. When you force others to help you, they do the least they possibly can. Because the helper is hurt, adversary help is low quality help.

2) Neutral Help -We can purchase help through the fair market place.

This is help purchased from others. This is the way most of us living in the free world get help today. We hire it or we buy it in the market place. When I go to McDonald’s, I pay them five dollars to feed me. The focus in the neutral market place is on a fair price. Because the helper is ignored, neutral help is average quality help.

Or, 3) Synergic Help -We can attract help by helping others.

This help attracted by helping others. When other individuals understand that by helping you, they will in turn be helped, they will automatically help you. When others understand that when you win, they will win, they will support and celebrate your success. This is the power of the win-win relationship. Show those who can help you, how they will win by doing so. Show them how they will be helped by helping you. Because the helper is helped, synergic help is high quality help.

Forced to help Adversary – (1+1)<2

I was forced to help him. Slavery, indentured service, tenant farming, and child labor are examples of adversary help. The criminal makes you help him, when he steals your money. The government makes you help it, when it forces you to pay taxes. You are forced to help others anytime you are given an ultimatum.

Adversary relationships are hurting and negative experiences. The helper experiences a loss. He is less after helping you than before. When you force others to help you, they do the least they possibly can.

Adversary relationships are hurtful. The parties in these relationships experience loss. They struggle to avoid the loss ? conflict. In an adversary relationship, one individual plus another individual are less after the relationship. In other words (1+1)<2, and often much less than two. Adversary relationships are marked by high conflict, low effectiveness and poor productivity.

When you can make others help you, coercing them with force or fraud, the helper loses and will typically give you only the lowest quality help.

Paid to help  Neutral – (1+1)=2

I was paid to help him. Macy’s, Sears, Mervyn’s, Penny’s, Costco, K-Mart, Circuit City, etc., etc. ? malls, stores, markets, shops, and restaurants ? are all examples of neutral help. The yellow pages in the telephone book are lists of places where you can purchase help. Capitalism’s fair market is where you purchase neutral help. You buy help in the open market place at a fair market exchange price. This is the modern free world where help is sold as products and services.

In the fair market, the helper experiences a draw and will typically produce average quality help.

Neutral relationships are ignoring. The parties in these relationships experience no change. They barter to insure that the exchange is fair ? to insure that the price is not too high or too low ? to insure that neither party loses. The open market of free enterprise generates a zone of neutrality which markedly reduces adversary relations. Neutral systems gain a marked production advantage over adversary systems. They are significantly more productive. However, this is primarily because they are not adversary. In a neutral relationship one individual plus another individual are the same after the relationship: (1+1)=2. Neutral relationships are marked by indifference with fair effectiveness and only average productivity.

Neutrality is that place where I work just hard enough to avoid getting fired, and, my employer pays me just enough to keep me from quitting.

How average is my help going to be?

Neutral relationships are ignoring and static experiences. The helper experiences a draw. They are the same after helping as before. When you ignore those who help you, you will get only fair help.

Helped for help Synergic – (1+1)>>2

I was helped for helping him. Examples of synergic help in today’s world are much less common. We do ?nd them in family businesses and within some partnerships and small business groups. Synergic relationships more often exist in start up businesses, where the originators work together sharing in the risks and the rewards equally.

If you wish to attact synergic help you must insure that when individuals invest their help with yours, they are also helped. Then they will automatically reinvest with you. When others understand that when you win, they win, they will support and celebrate your success. Synergic relationships are helping, positive experiences. The helper experiences a win. They are more after helping you than before. When you help those who help you, you get the most help. When you help those who help you, you get excellent help.

Synergic relationships are helpful. The parties in the relationship experience a gain. They operate together to insure that both parties win. They negotiate to insure that both parties are helped. In synergic relationships one individual plus another individual is more after their relationship than before: (1+1)>>2. Synergic relationships are marked by low conflict with high effectiveness and enormous productivity.

A Japanese Example

The Japanese reduce conflict by using heterarchy in their systems. In many ways, the basic structure of Japanese business appears no less hierarchical than our own. However, the Japanese have introduced heterarchy into their systems in at least three significant forms.

First of all, the Japanese use “quality circles”. Management and workers all sit at the same level in advisory “heterarchies”. This allows the managers to be very aware of the attitudes of those who will be implementing decisions. Conflict can be discovered and eliminated effectively within the heterarchy. All participants of “quality circles” feel they are on a full and equal basis to discuss problems and recommend changes.

Secondly, while much of the Japanese work day is spent in hierarchical organization not unlike Americans, the Japanese business day does not end at 5 pm. The mandatory socializing which occurs every night after work is structured as heterarchy. This provides another opportunity to reduce conflict and many business decisions are made in this social setting.

And thirdly, while hierarchy prevails in terms of organizational responsibility, the Japanese manager adopts a more open heterarchical style. He welcomes his worker’s inputs, and encourages them to participate in the decision making process.

This is a move away from other-directed management towards more self-directed management. This is accompanied by an almost instantaneous decrease in conflict.

If we are to learn anything from the Japanese, it should be that reduction of conflict always produces a significant increase in efficiency, productivity, and quality of work-life.

As Ezra Vogel, chairman of the Council on East Asian Studies at Harvard University wrote in 1979:

“Today Japan is the world’s foremost economic power. Last year the Japanese manufactured one and a half times as much per capita as Americans. While for the first time in decades our exports of industrial goods fell behind our imports, Japan exported $75 billion more of industrial goods than it imported. Japan’s investment rate, as well as its GNP growth rate, is more than twice that of America and its research and development efforts are growing much more rapidly than our own. Its workers, contrary to our old stereotype, are effectively better paid than our own. And its performance in educating the population, minimizing disparities of income, reducing the crime rate, and increasing the length of human life is substantially ahead of America’s. These differences will have far more profound consequences than we have begun to imagine.”

———————

-> 3) In synergy, I am EQUAL to all my associates.

But I’m NOT equal to all my associates. I’m different from all my associates, and they’re all different from each other.

Timothy-> You are equal to your associates in responsibility for the success of the group. You are equal to your associates in authority to make the joint plan of action. You are equal to your associates in the risk of failure that could injury if the group’s plan of action fails.

———————

-> 4) In synergy when we WIN, I will win MORE with my associates than -> by myself and I will share equally in the GAINS.

-> 5) In synergy, when we LOSE, I will lose LESS with my associates than -> by myself and I will share equally in the LOSSES.

And here we have the “nub of the gist” of why things are the way they are. Both why the human psyche is the way it is, and why politics are the way they are.

Because, in the real world, sometimes I win more when I cooperate with my associates, and sometimes I win more when I don’t.

The entire history of human society is one of individual’s daily gambles on how they expect these “contests” to work out.

Timothy-> In 1920, there were only 2 billion humans. If you didn’t like it here you could always go someplace else. The world was a big place. There was lots of room. Today there are 6 billion humans. Where can you go to escape the actions of others? Today there are no separate solutions. We can either work together or we can die separately. That is our only choice.

———————

-> “Synergetic consensus eliminates conflict.”

I don’t think this is possible in the real world.

Timothy-> That is why we have to change the rules.

———————

-> “If the human body can using unanimous rule democracy and synergic consensus can organize and coordinate the actions of 40,000,000,000 cells so totally that we identify the whole organism as a single idividual, then we humans should be able to use these same mechanisms to organize our species and solve our human problems.”

How many cells die in the human body every day? I suspect, when we understand the picture more fully, we’ll see that there’s a lot of competition going on between cells.

Timothy-> No there is no competition going on in a healthy body, if by competition you mean conflict or behavior that would injure other cells.  In fact the human body is a synergic organization. All cells work together and survive or perish together. And, when a cell forgets it is a part of the body. Usually from damage to its DNA, then it begins to treat the body as a stranger. And the rest of the body begins to fight it. We now know that all biological systems develop cancer cells every day. Most of the time your immnune system detects the stranger in your midst and destroys it. When the immune system fails the cancer cells grow and then become detectable by your physician.

And suppose a cancer, cells whose “goals” are inimical to those of the “society” as a whole? Suppose your goals are declared inimical to those of society as a whole?

Arthur Noll-> a list member answered this one:

    Cancers need to be cut out of the body. How do you determine a cancer? It takes and will not give anything back. It masquerades as part of the body, and yet takes no signals from it. I think we have today a significant problem with cancer in the body of society. I think we need to sift through and test everyone for their desire to live as part of a healthy body of society, and separate the healthy from the malignant. Such a test is very simple, you tell people what a healthy society is, pointing out the fact of our interdependence, the need for honest measure of what we are doing, to live on the sustainable use of renewable resources, reproduce according to this, the need for consensus democracy, and if they are healthy, they will think about it and want to join.

 If they prefer the organization of everyone trying to take as much as possible like a cluster of cancers, then they stay where they are.

 This is a sharp scalpel, it will cut neatly, but sometimes it is going to cause pain. We have relationships with lots of people, this scalpel is going to sometimes cut through friendships, sometimes cut through the relationship between parents and children, sometimes between spouses. Sometimes the pain of surgery has to be accepted for the overall good of the body. Those that can understand that and deal with the pain, belong with the healthy.

 Those that shrink away at the slightest pain, are basically not ready to give for the overall good, they aren’t healthy. This is a moment of extraordinary stress for the survival of humanity, we have to accept the pain of surgery very soon, or the patient is very likely to die, healthy and malignant together.

———————

-> “Unanimous Rule Democracy becomes a viable option for humanity with the creation of the internet. The cells of our bodies are connected through our peripheral and central nervous system. A synergic society needs a similarly powerful system of communication. The internet can serve as that system.”

When all Internet users are angels, sure. In the real world, as I note above, what we see are bickering, bad feelings, treachery.

Timothy-> That is because the rules of our current reality are adversary or at best neutral. Its time we changed the rules.

———————
 

Thanks for your many excellent questions, Jeff. I appreciate the opportunity to answer them.
 

Bound through Synergy,

Timothy

Beyond Democracy

by Timothy Wilken

I am a scientist and biologist. My focus is on finding solutions that work for Humanity as Individuals and for Humanity as Community.

In today’s world, it is assumed without question that majority rule democracy is the best way to organize humanity. To even offer a criticism of majority rule democracy is to invite an immediate and often emotionally charged attack on oneself. We are quickly asked to choose between majority rule democracy or the dictatorships of communism/fascism. We are quickly reminded that if we don’t like it here in a majority ruled democracy, we are free to leave.

And, majority rule democracy which is rule by the most, appears to offer a clear advance over dictatorships which is rule by the one, or oliarchy which is rule by the few.

Majority rule democracy in its purest form was found in the ancient Greek city-states and early Roman Republic, these were direct democracies in which all citizens could speak and vote in assemblies. This was possible because of the small size of the city-states almost never more than 10,000 citizens. However, even these ancient democracies did not presuppose equality of all individuals; the majority of the populace, notably slaves and women, had no political rights at all. So even here the majority really did not rule.

In modern representative democracies we find the majority rule mechanism used to select our representatives, to make decisions within committees and to make decisions within the legislative bodies. In the United States, we elect one president, 100 Senators and 435 Congressman. This is one President for ~276 million Americans. There are two Senators for each state. Senatorial representation would vary from one Senator for ~16 million Californians down to one Senator for ~350,000 Delawarians. The members of the first House of Representatives were elected on the basis of 1 representative for every 30,000 inhabitants, but at least 1 for each state. At present the size of the House is fixed at 435 members, elected on the basis of 1 representative for about 500,000 inhabitants.

Our representatives do not even know us. If any Congressman met with 10 of his constituents every day for 365 days a year, it would take over 137 years for him just to meet all of them. And Congressmen are only elected for two year terms. If our Congressman don’t even know us how can they represent us?

So if we carefully examine modern representative democracy scientifically, we discover it is an oliarchy. In other words, we are ruled by the few. When we go to the poles to elect a President, we are simply electing the leader of the few who rule. Majority rule democracy ends for we the people the moment we exit the voting booth. And, our elected leader will have no need of our opinion for four years.

Its even less representative than it appears!

Both houses of Congress facilitate business by the committee system, and each has a fixed number of permanent committees, called standing committees, the chief function of which is considering and preparing legislation.

As the United States grew in population and in influence in world affairs, the volume and complexity of the matters arising in Congress also increased. Due consideration to all matters submitted to the Congress could not be given in open debate on the floor of the Senate and House. As a result, the standing committees of the Congress became the arbiters of the fate of practically all legislation. There are 22 standing committees in the House and 16 standing committees in the Senate. Even though majority rule is used to make decisions in these committees once the decision is made the results are imposed on ~276,000,000 Americans.

In recent years, the American people have attempted to exert their will by making use of ballot initiatives. Almost always if these initiatives are not popular with the few that rule, they are quickly dismantled. In November of 1996, the majority of Californians voted for Proposition 209, which banned affirmative action, Proposition 215, which legalized medical use of marijuana, and Proposition 187, which denied legal benefits to illegal immigrants. By January of 1997, all three were hung up in the courts or in a jurisdictional squabble with the federal government. None was close to being enforced.

By May of 1998, Proposition 215, the Marijuana for Medical Use Initiative which passed by a 56% majority throughout the state and by an 80% majority in San Francisco has all but been dismantled by the Few who Rule. They had succeeded in closing the majority of the medical marijuana clinics which had opened throughout the state, and were pressing criminal charges against many of those involved in the clinics. Obviously, the majority does not rule in California.

This fact is being increasingly realized by citizens across the nation. Voting in our representative democracy does not make a difference. And we the people appear less and less interested in pretending that our voting has any effect whatever. Voter turnout has been declining steadily since 1960. And as reported in the Wall Street Journal for November 9, 2000:

“Overall voter turnout for this week’s election barely budged despite nearly $1 billion of campaign television advertisements and the closest presidential contest in decades

“About 50.7% of the nation’s 200 million eligible voters cast ballots this week, marginally greater than the rock-bottom level seen in 1996, but significantly lower than the 1992 level, said Curtis Gans, director of the Committee for the Study of the American Electorate. Four years ago, only 49% of those qualified to vote actually did so, the lowest turnout since 1924. By contrast, some 55% of the electorate went to the polls in 1992’s close race between Bill Clinton and President George H.W. Bush.”

Seeking synergic government

However, even if we had direct democracies using majority rule, it would not be a synergic form of government.

Adversary relationships require loss.
Neutral relationships prohibit loss, but do not require winning.
Synergic relationships prohibit loss and require winning.

So in fact, if we use the Neutral criteria of prohibition of loss, majority rule democracy is not even a neutral form of government. In majority rule democracy, the minority often loses. As Andrew J. Galambos wrote:

“The word Democracy comes from the Greek words which mean “rule of the people.” However, the practice of Democracy can be no better than the understanding of the concept of “rule of the people.” Over the past 2,000 years, most people have come to accept without question or reservation the idea that Democracy means the ability of the people to choose their mode of social organization by means of majority vote.

“The political concept of Democracy arose as a consequence of counting yeas and nays on particular issues and than selecting the men who would decide how issues were to be resolved. Whichever man could muster the choice of more persons than his opposition could muster became the dominant person for the society. This was and is nothing more than an application of the old dictum, might makes right.

“This concept of Democracy (which prevails to this day) relies upon the ability of the winning political leaders to count upon the support of more people than their losing opponents. However, this concept does nothing to ensure the protection of the property, hence, the freedom of those who may disagree. Furthermore, those who may be in the majority with respect to a given issue or political candidate will eventually find themselves in the minority with respect to other issues or candidates. In the long run, therefore, everyone loses. This concept of Democracy eventually breaks down and leads to a destruction of freedom.”

Source: Andrew J.Galambos, What is True Democracy, Free Enterprise Institute, 1963

In today’s “FREE” world all political decisions are made using majority rule democracy. The the group deciding may be small, a committee faced with solving some particular problem, or large, the entire voting electorate of a nation choosing a President. Regardless of the size of the group deciding, decision is made when one faction within the group achieves a simple majority. That faction wins, the minority faction loses. Majority rule consensus requires only a simple majority to force the minority, the losing voters to accept the position of the majority, the winning voters. There is no need to gain the agreement of all of the members. There is no need to prevent the minority from losing.

Majority rule democracy of which the committee is the most common example is filled with political intrigue and back room deals to obtain majority consensus and defeat the minority. This often results in the dark art of politics which makes strange bedfellows. Even when the majority wins they are not assured of the cooperation of the minority. Often the minority may only support the elected plan half-heartedly, or even seek to sabotage the plan they didn’t vote for since they feel they are losing anyway.

Compared to the rule by the one of dictatorship, the rule by the most of majority rule democracy, appears to be a much fairer way. And fairness is perhaps the greatest value of our American nation. However, it should now be clear to the reader that while Neutral political-economic systems are better for humanity than Adversary political-economic systems. Majority rule democracy is really an Adversary political-economic system pretending to be a Neutral political-economic system. In reality only lip service is given to rule by the most.

What we really have in America, the “freest nation on Earth”, is rule by the few. And, while rule by the few holds some advantage over rule by the one, its advantage does not imply there is nothing better for Humanity.

If we are to find a synergic form of organization for humanity, we will have to look beyond the representive democracies of today.

Seeking Unanimous Rule Democracy

A better system of organization for humanity by definition must include a system for finding consensus. Such a system will not be hierarchical.

Hierarchy is a vertical system with many levels of organization. Those with greatest responsibility and authority occupy the higher levels. Hierarchy creates a feeling of difference or individuality. Individuals within the system see each other vertically, “He is over me.” “I work under John.” “He is way up in the company” “She is the lowest one on the totem pole.”

Hierarchy is humanity’s oldest organizing strategy. It was born in the jungle, was nurtured in the cave, grew up in the tribe, blossomed with feudalism, and today dominates nearly all the corporations, institutions, governments, and militaries of earth. Hierarchy is often experienced as the chain of command or pecking order. It is most formalized in military combat.

In business organizations, hierarchy is often experienced as an extension of the personalities of those individuals who founded the company. The operating policies of the company are a reflection of the values of the individual founders. Individuals with similar values are often selected to continue the company. So we see the primary concerns of a hierarchy are the goals of those few individuals that control it.

A Unanimous Rule Democracy must utilize synergic consensus. Instead of hierarchy we have heterarchy.

Heterarchy is a very different breed of organizational strategy than hierarchy. It is a horizontal system with only one level of organization. All are equal within the heterarchy. Individuals within the system see each other as  being on the same level. “We are a team.” “Its like a family rather than a job.” “We all respect each other.”

Heterarchy is ideal for communication and discussion, because it  allows for the sharing of responsibility and authority within an informal environment. Task assignments following open discussions, produce more cooperative working relationships.

In a setting where associates feel valued, openness and integrity emerge. Individuals often take much greater roles in the tasks of their departments. In this setting, there is less conflict, and this usually results in improvement in efficiency, productivity, and quality of work-life.

Heterarchy creates a feeling of togetherness – a feeling of community. Members of a heterarchy strongly identify with the whole system. Morale and espirit de corps are optimized. Because heterarchy is highly inclusive, all feel that they are a part of the system. This is in strong counter distinction to hierarchy’s exclusiveness. Individuals within heterarchy tend to protect the system. Individuals within hierarchy often ignore the system, and sometimes even attack it.

The wholistic focus of heterarchy is on the needs of the whole organization. This wholistic focus leads to collective decision making and collective responsibility.

Decision making in heterarchy is slower. It takes time to gain the consensus of all the individuals within the heterarchy. However, implementation is much more rapid because the attitudes of those responsible for implementation have been considered in the decision making process. This not only eliminates conflict, but also encourages all members to feel responsible for the successful implementation of the decision.

Anyone who has ever built a house knows the carpenter’s rule: Measure twice, cut once. It is much less expensive to erase lines on a paper, than to demolish mortar, brick, and stone.

Synergic Relationship

Synergic relationship becomes available to human individuals because of time-binding. Our ability to invent and to understand new ways of doing things creates a new possibility for co-Operation which does not exist in the world of the plants and animals.

Co-OPERATION -def-> Operating together to insure that both parties win, and that neither party loses. The negotiation to insure that both parties are helped, and that neither party is hurt.

Cooperation is an old word with lots of different meanings and feelings attached to it. Similar words are uniting, banding, combining, concurring, conjoining, and leaguing. Individuals who cooperate are affiliates, allies, associates, or confederates.

To some cooperation seems a losing word associated with socialism and communism. This is not what I mean. Co-Operation in synergic relationship means operating together to insure a win-win outcome.

Co-Operation is the mechanism of action necessary whenever an individual desires to accomplish a task beyond his individual abilities.

Imagine, you and a friend are moving a heavy piece of furniture. Neither of you are strong enough to move the furniture by yourself. You decide to co-operate. You decide to operate together during the lifting. You would negotiate to insure that both of you win – to insure that both of you are helped.

The conversation might go like this, “Are you ready?” “OK.” “Ready, 1.. 2.. 3.. lift!”, and if things are going well that is fine, but if one end gets too heavy then synergic co-Operation requires that you also protect each other from loss. “Whoops! Set it down.”

This is the synergic veto.

This is the true meaning of co-Operation. The negotiation to insure that both parties win, and the synergic veto to stop the action if either party is losing.

A very limited form of cooperation exists among some animals. We see it the hunting pride of lions and within the hyena pack. Human co-Operation is a much more powerful mechanism. Animals have no voice with which to negotiate an action in which they win. They have no voice to veto an action in which they lose. Their primitive cooperation is guided by instinct, and it is quick to breakdown into the fighting and flighting of the adversary way.

We humans share the animal body, to survive we must also eat. We are omnivores. We meet our basic needs and survive by eating both plants and animals. Physiologically, we humans are also a dependent class of life. So adversary behavior comes to humans legitimately. But we humans are much more intelligent than the animals and that intelligence gives us the synergic option to avoid fighting or flighting.

True co-Operation – working together, teamwork, joint effort, alliances – these are only possible to a life form with symbolic intelligence – to a life form with a voice and with language – to a life form able to negotiate and veto. On earth, synergic relationships are only available only to humans.

Synergic relationship means sometimes I depend on other and sometimes other depends on me.

Synergic relationship makes humans the interdependent class of life – interdependent on each other. Today, synergic relationship exists only within small groups of humans.

Today, we find synergic relationships within families, occasionally within small businesses. But, there are no examples of institutionalized Synergy. Today, there are no synergic governments.

Co-Operation results when there are no losers and no one is ignored. When humans behave synergically, they seek their goals and needs as allies rather than as competitors. Human intelligence is most useful when we humans think of ways where all parties can win and where there is no need for losers. Synergic relationships can produce all-win scenarios. And when humans begin to co-Operate wonderful things can happen. When we analyze synergic relationships, we find that (1+1) > 2 , frequently it’s much greater (1+1) >>> 2.

Synergic Consensus

Synergic consensus occurs when a group of humans sitting in heterarchy negotiate to reach a decision in which they all win and in which no one loses. In a synergic heterarchy, all members sit on the same level as “equals”. No one has more authority than anyone else. Every one has equal responsibility and equal authority within the heterarchy. The assignment for the heterarchy is to find a plan of action so that all members win. It is the collective responsibility of the entire heterarchy to find this “best” solution. Anyone can propose a plan to accomplish the needs of the group. All problems related to accomplishing the needs would be discussed at length within the heterarchy.

The proposed action for solving a problem is examined by all members of the heterarchy. Anyone can suggest a modification, or even an alternative action to solve the problem. All members of the heterarchy serve as information sources for each other. The heterarchy continues in discussion until a plan of action is found that will work for everyone. When all are in agreement and only then can the plan be implemented. The plan insures that all members of the synergic heterarchy win. All members are required to veto any plan where they or anyone else would lose. But all vetoes are immediately followed by renegotiation to modify the plan so the loss can be eliminated.

Synergic Equality

All members of a synergic heterarchy are equal. By equal, I mean equal in responsibility and authority. They share equal responsibility for the actions chosen by the group. They share equal authority in the process of choosing those actions. When individuals work together in synergic relationship to a accomplish a common goal. They are considered as a single system.

When individuals work together in synergic relationship, new abilities, skills, talents, etc., emerge as a part of that relationship, that are not there when the individuals work separately. The individuals working in synergic group are more efficient, more productive, more creative, and more intelligent, than they are when working separately. The result of their synergy is that they create “more” together than they could create apart.

When individuals work together in synergic relationship, they equally contribute to the synergic emergents, and will share equally in the Co-Operators’ surplus.

What happens in a synergic group when finding a win is impossible?

Synergic science realizes and accepts there will be times and situations where loss is unavoidable. When this occurs synergic mechanism dictates that the group accept reality and focus on minimizing the loss, and then share the loss equally. In synergy, we are one. In synergy are equal. In synergy we strive to win together. But if we are forced to lose, then we will lose together – this means we will share equally in the loss.

1) In synergy, I am ONE with my associates.

2) In synergy, I am MORE with my asscociates than by myself.

3) In synergy, I am EQUAL to all my associates.

4) In synergy when we WIN, I will win MORE with my associates than by myself and I will share equally in the GAINS.

5) In synergy, when we LOSE, I will lose LESS with my associates than by myself and I will share equally in the LOSSES.

6) In synergy, we will win together or lose together, but we are TOGETHER.

Is Unanimous Rule Democracy Feasible?

Synergic consensus is unanimous consensus. I can hear the objections now. “That’s impossible, you will never get everyone in the group to agree.” “Decisions will never get made.” “It is hard enough to get a majority to agree.”

Consensus requires more of us than the committee systems of majority rule democracy. A Japanese business heterarchy is slower at making decisions than a single manager in an American business hierarcy. It takes longer for a group of individuals to discuss, negotiate, and come to agreement than it takes for a single American manager to decide all by himself. If the speed of making decisions is the only criteria for choosing a mechanism of decision making then the dictatorship – the rule by one is the clear standout.

However, humanity has moved beyond dictatorships for reasons of fairness and justice. Majority rule democracy is not a rapid decision making process. Individuals within a group deciding – whether the group is a small committee or a large nation choosing a President – are seeking to gain the majority of support. This takes time – sometimes a lot of time. Our national elections often take place over an entire year. The focus is on lining up votes – working deals – in a word – politics. This process is anything but rapid. If all decisions in American businesses were made by majority rule, decision making would probably be even slower than in Japanese companies using heterarchical consensus.

Synergic consensus is not availability to humanity today. We do not yet know how fast it will be at making decisions. But, I predict that unanimous rule democracy will prove faster than majority rule democracy. Synergic consensus elimates conflict. Recall conflict is the stuggle to avoid loss. Conflict is at the very heart of majority rule democracy. The focus of synergic consensus is very different. The entire group knows from the outset that they cannot lose. They are focused on choosing a plan of action that serves the needs of all the members in the group – to choose a plan of action that causes no one to lose.  The synergic veto is not invoked capriciously. The only basis for synergic veto is to prevent someone from losing. This is a mechanism to eliminate loss – to choose the very best plan of action for everyone. This may well speed up the process of decison making. In any event regardless of the speed of decision, implimentation will be rapid. There is no conflict. This is a major advantage over majority rule democracy.

Life Utilizes Synergic Consensus

Today, mind and brain scientists have made enormous progress in understanding how the human brain works. There has been many surprises in these recent advances. But the biggest shocker is that the brain doesn’t decide what to do. Decision making is not controlled centrally in the brain. The mind-brain appears to act as a coordination and consensus system for meeting all the needs of the cells, tissues, and organs of the body. The brain doesn’t decide to eat. The cells of the body decide to eat, the brain coordinates their activity and carries out the consensus will.

Our human brain stores the gathered information from the body’s sensing of its environment, the brain presents opportunities for action reflective of both the sensing of environment and the needs and goals of the 40,000,000,000 cells it serves. The brain is not the leader of the body, it is the follower of the body. It is a system that matches needs of the body with its sensing of opportunities to meet these needs by action within the environment. The brain is a ‘synergic government’ that truly serves its constituents – the cells, tissues, and organs that make up the human body. The body is governed by a unanimous rule democracy that has survived millions of years.

The apparent ‘I’ is not real. It is really a ‘we’. We humans have mistaken the self-organization of synergic consensus for the directed organization of an ego decider.

If the human body can using unanimous rule democracy and synergic consensus can organize and coordinate the actions of 40,000,000,000 cells so totally that we identify the whole organism as a single idividual, then we humans should be able to use these same mechanisms to organize our species and solve our human problems.

Unanimous Rule Democracy becomes a viable option for humanity with the creation of the internet. The cells of our bodies are connected through our peripheral and central nervous system. A synergic society needs a similarly powerful system of communication. The internet can serve as that system.

 

Bound through synergy,

Timothy

---

To the best of my knowledge the concepts of Unanimous Rule Democracy and the Synergic Veto are original to me. I created the term Synocracy to refer to these two concepts.

Later I discovered that the term “synocracy” had been coined and used earlier by two other individuals. Barbara Hubbard originally coined the term and first and used it to refer to a not yet defined future system of “rule by the people” in a co-Operative society. Next Barry Carter independently developed and used the term “synocracy” to refer to the win-win mechanism of economics he was developing called Mass Privatization.

See Barbara Hubbard’s writings at: <http://www.peaceroom.org/>
See Barry Carter’s writings at: <http://www.winwinworld.net/>

Manhood of Humanity

In 1921, Alfred Korzybski, a mathematician and scientist published what this scientist considers one of the most important books ever written. That book called Manhood of Humanity is now available online.

Manhood of Humanity was Korzybski’s initial disclosure of his Theory of Time-binding. Korzybski classified Life with precise and accurate operational definitions of plants, animals, and humans. He defined the plants as energy-binders, the animals as space-binders, and we humans as time-binders. Korzybski explained that:

The plants adapt to their environment through their awareness and control of energy. The animals adapt to their environment through their awareness and control of space. And we humans adapt to our environment through our awareness and control of time.

Energy-binding-the power of plants

The power of energy-binding is transformation, growth, and organization.

Energy-binders have the ability to transform solar energy to organic chemical energy. The plant is a solar collector. It spreads its leaves and harvests the ultraviolet rays directly from the sun.

Energy-binders have the power of growth.The plant draws water and minerals from the soil organizes this energy and nutrients into growth through cell division. The growth of the energy-binder and its self-propagation through progeny are the resultant of cell division – if the cells remain together we have growth; if they split off into a separate entity we have progeny. Energy-bindings have the power of organization. Organization possible through the ability to time the release and binding of energy. Timing based on knowledge – energy knowledge.

Space-binding - the power of animals

The power of space-binding is mobility – the ability to move about in space. This is not the simple motion of plants. This is mobility – running, jumping, leaping, swinging, swimming, creeping, stalking, crawling, diving, and flying.

The space-binder moves towards a specific and attainable goal – water, food, a mate, shelter – and in any direction. The mobility of the space-binder is not just motion, it is controlled motion. The space-binder moves in search of food. For grazing animals the quest is continuous; for predators, occasional but more strenuous. And all animals are under constant threat from natural enemies. The animal, therefore, requires sense awareness – awareness of the space in which he lives. The space-binder uses his awareness to find food and to warn him of the approach of enemies. A deer may be motivated by thirst to go to a waterhole, but if it senses a lion, it will refrain. It must continuously evaluate conflicting stimuli and choose between alternatives, alternatives of pleasure or pain, alternatives of good space or bad space. Space-binders are aware of space, they are aware and they think, they think and they decide – constantly making controlled choices as to where and when to move.

Thinking for the space-binder is wholistic. The animals base their decisions on the whole situation. When the rabbit hears a sound in the thicket, he must react instantly, “fight or flight” and the decision must be made now, based on the whole situation. There is no time for analysis. Only wholistic thinking has the rapidity and flexibility to allow survival in the adversary world of space-binders. The power to allow animals move instantly towards good space – space that enables one to survive, and away from bad space – space that produces injury or death.

But the animals are not only space-binders, they also have some of the power of energy-binders. While they cannot transform solar energy directly into organic chemical energy, they can transform the tissues from the plants and animals they eat into organic chemical energy, they can also grow, and they can also organize energy. To the fox who sees the rabbit, success at seizing this opportunity for a meal depends not just on his ability to know when and where to move, but also on his ability to control the energy which he will need to power his movement. He must have adequate energy stored so that he can release it at the proper moment to catch the rabbit. And the rabbit can only escape if it uses its knowledge of both space and energy effectively.

Time-binding-the power of humans

We humans are Time-binders. We possess the power to understand and through that understanding to control and dominate planet Earth.

The power of Time-binding is to understand – to observe and remember change over time. Understanding comes from the awareness of time – an awareness that allows humans to experience time as sequential or linear.

Tomorrow follows today as today followed yesterday. Time always moves from the past to the present, from the present to the future. Change is bound in time. And time-binders understand change in space because they are aware of time.

Time-binding is a new way of thinking – analytical thinking. The Time-binder can make decisions based on understanding changes in his environment over time. Time-binding analysis is sequential analysis – linear analysis – focused on the parts rather than the whole.

Analytical thinking recognizes cause and effect. Time-binders are the masters of cause and effect. When humans understand cause and effect, they make scientific discovery. They make knowledge. When humans make choices based on knowledge, they make inventions. They make technology. Time-binders are the creators of knowledge and technology. When knowledge is incorporated into matter-energy, it becomes a tool. Humans are above all else toolmakers. Most of our knowledge is embedded in our tools. Human knowledge grows continuously and without limit. As we incorporate our evermore powerful knowledge into tools. We produce evermore powerful tools.

Time-binding is also that unique human ability to pass that ‘knowing’ from one generation to the next generation. Both animal and human offspring begin their lives in nearly total ignorance. The differences that exist between them are small, but what advantage in knowing that does exist belongs clearly to the animal. While the animal seems to begin life with a greater store of inherited knowing, it possesses little ability to learn from its parents. The animal is condemned to rediscover over and over, every generation must discover anew the knowings of its parents. The wise old owl may know a great deal, but he has no way to pass what he knows to his offspring and they have no way to receive it. We humans are very different in that respect. We can and do pass our knowing from one generation to the next. Alfred Korzybski explains:

“Human beings possess a most remarkable capacity which is entirely peculiar to them – I mean the capacity to summarise, digest and appropriate the labors and experiences of the past; I mean the capacity to use the fruits of past labors and experiences as intellectual or spiritual capital for developments in the present; I mean the capacity to employ as instruments of increasing power the accumulated achievements of the all-previous lives of the past generations spent in trial and error, trial and success; I mean the capacity of human beings to conduct their lives in the ever increasing light of inherited wisdom; I mean the capacity in virtue of which man is at once the inheritor of the by-gone ages and the trustee of posterity. And because humanity is just this magnificent natural agency by which the past lives in the present and the present for the future, I define HUMANITY, in the universal tongue of mathematics and mechanics, to be the TIME-BINDING CLASS OF LIFE.”

We humans bind time and are bound together in time. The record of our time-binding is everywhere. It is in all that activity that we so innocently call progress. It is the very motor of obsolescence. It is imbedded in just about every thing associated with humans and yet most humans are unaware of the very power that makes them human. We humans catalogue and store our various knowings in libraries, universities, colleges, data banks, and information services. We store our knowing in many formats – books, tapes, films, movies, newspapers, magazines, video, microfilm, photos, computer files, etc., etc., etc. We are time-binders and the mark of human power is everywhere.

But, humans are more than just time-binders with the power to understand. We also have the the power of space-binding – mobility and the ability to think wholistically, and the power of energy-binding – conversion of plant and animal tissue to organic chemical energy, growth and organization of energy.

* * *

Now you can read the original text of Manhood of Humanity on line. Take a look…

Bound through synergy,

Timothy