A Spiritual Basis — Toward the Gift Tensegrity (1)

Timothy Wilken

As children we all taught that it is better to give than to receive. Certainly, that seems likean excellent philosophy for making close relationships and living in the social world. Jesus of Nazareth is credited with saying:

“It is Better To Give Than To Receive.“

Whether you believe Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ foretold in biblical scripture or just another human who lived far ahead of his time, we can all agree he said some remarkable and wise things. His followers were called Christians because most of them believed he was the Christ foretold in the scripture.

“Early Christians lived in a world far different from ours. Lots of people, in and out of the church, suffered on a daily basis without any “safety nets” between them and poverty. But Christians were especially susceptible to deprivation since discipleship took away any last vestiges of help due to the alienation from family and nation. One of the worst financial decisions to be made by anyone could be that of becoming a Christian. Yet it is from this crucible of suffering that Luke draws one of the greatest themes of the Book of Acts: benevolence. New Testament Christianity forever becomes our model of a people who took care of its own, who breathed life into the teaching of Jesus that “it is better to give than to receive” (Acts 20:35).”

Jesus of Nazareth may have been one of the first humans to embrace synergy. His words seem to capture the very essence of synergic morality. Synergic morality is more than not hurting other, it requires helping other. Jesus was one of the first humans to state the fundamental law of synergic relationship. It is known as the Golden Rule:

“So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law.”

What would you have others doto you? The best one word answer I can find for this question is help. “Help others as you would have them help you.”

Confucius 579-471BCis credited as the author of the negative formof the Golden Rule:

“Do not do unto others what you would not want others to do unto you!”

“This negative form of the “golden rule” is next found in the Jewish Book of Tobit 4:15 from the Old Testament Bible (3rd Century BC): “And what you hate, do not do to anyone.” It is also found in the writings of the Jewish scholars Hillel (1st century BC) and Philo of Alexandria (1st centuries BCand AD), It occurs in the 2nd-century documents Didache and the Apology of Aristides. It also appears in the writings of Plato, Aristotle, Isocrates, and Seneca.”

We can restate this a little more clearly as:

“Do not doto others what you would have them not doto you.”

What would you have others not doto you?

Here the best one word answer is hurt. “Donothurt others as you would have them not hurt you.”

The negative form of the Golden Rule is true and correct as far as it goes. In fact, it is the underlying premise for the Neutral Moralityfound in the western world today. But, Synergic Morality requires more of us than simply not hurting. It requires more of us than simply ignoring others. It requires us to helpothers—to helpeach other. Jesus of Nazarethunderstood this on the deepest of levels. He called for more than a prohibition against hurting others. He ask all humans to helpeach other.

Synergic Morality rests then on the premise—that when you help others, you will find yourself helped in return— “As ye sow, so shall ye reap.” Synergic Morality is morethan the absence of hurting. It is the presenceof helping.

World Scripture on The Golden Rule

World Scripture of Giving and Receiving

Synergic Justice

by Reason Wilken

There are many ingredients of a good drama. Among them are tragedy, irony and suspense. Thus, it comes as no surprise that the current legal system provides plenty of fodder for shows like The Practice and Law & Order. In the course of one episode an individual guilty of murder can walk free or an innocent person can be found guilty ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. The testimony of a key witness may be thrown out on a technicality, and a defense attorney may pledge the innocence of their (guilty) client. Things are not always as they seem inside a courtroom, which provides plenty of plot twists for producers and writers. But if one is to look beyond the drama, is our current system of crime and punishment really “just”? It seems like there must be a better system of justice available, one in which a convicted killer could not be absolved of responsibility by pleading insanity. The newly proposed synergic organization called the Life Trust may be one such alternative.

The crux of the Life Trust proposal rests on what is referred to as the “Principle of Non-Allness”. This principle states that all the factors, details and circumstances in a situation can never be known. There is always uncertainty with regards to what will happen next, and all humans are living their lives and choosing courses of action do so without all of the information. In this context, mistakes are viewed in a new light. No longer are mistakes “bad” and worthy of blame and punishment. Instead, mistakes are the result of ignorance. They are an inevitable part of life because no one has all the information, but they do provide an opportunity to learn. Thus, mistakes should be dealt with using education rather than condescension, blame and punishment.

The proposed Life Trust is based upon a biological model: cancer. Cancer cells are continually being created during the process of cellular division and are (usually) destroyed by the immune system. The immune system is able to recognize cancer cells as abnormal and contain their spread by destroying them. In the Life Trust, individuals who take part in adversary events are like cancer cells, and they threaten the well-being of society just as cancer cells threaten the health of the body. Law enforcement officials (referred to as Life Trust Guardians) are akin to the immune system, seeking out adversary individuals and containing them. The process does not stop with containment (as it often does in the current system), but moves on to education and rehabilitation in order to help prevent future adversary events.

Read the full article 

a dialogue on INTERdependence and competition

Chris Lucas

Arthur you wrote: “But wherever resources are abundant, you are going to find competition.” Yet neo-Darwinism says the opposite, only when there is scarcity is there competition, after all if there is enough for all then animals don’t squabble (that is not to say that there are not many ‘sub-animal’ humans that do so for reasons of ‘abstract’ greed !).

Arthur Noll

Yes, I wrote those words, and I still believe them to be true.  The problem, I think, is time frame.   Competition is practically a given.  It seldom takes much time for predators to converge on a lush area, and use it and reproduce on it. In less lush areas, I might travel  long distances before I see other humans, or other large predators.  The scarcity itself becomes competition to my continued living.  But where resources are abundant, it won’t be long before I find serious competition.

The point I was making when I wrote this, was that people are not independent.  It is pretty easy for people to see that they couldn’t live alone in a desolate area, with scattered game and plant life, scattered water.  I was addressing the myth that it was possible to be independent anywhere.  So I wrote, “Where resources are abundant, you will find competition”.  And that is true.  You will. 

Read the full discussion