Jivan Vatayan first introduced me to Alfie Kohn’s work on cooperation in his article The Primacy of Cooperation.  This morning a google search for essay and cooperation unearthed another gem by an educator in Texas.

The Subtle Texture of Cooperation

John H. Lienhard

I’ll begin by adding a forbidden word — a word that does not mean what you first might think. I want to begin with a word that puts a special spin on cooperation and generosity. That word is anarchy.

The person who did most to define anarchy as a positive social force was Petr Kropotkin. Kropotkin was born a Russian Prince in 1842. His father trained him for the Tsar’s court. But young Kropotkin had read Darwin’s new book, Origin of the Species. He wanted to be a scientist. He hated court politics. So he quit and joined a Cossack regiment in Siberia.

Petr Kropotkin, from Memoirs of a Revolutionist, 1899

There he was free to study life in a natural environment. For five years he served as a geographer and naturalist. The Siberian wilds gave him far better lessons in social organization than the Russian court had. He joined the Imperial Geographical Society in 1868 and made more trips. In 1870 he turned down the cushy post of Society secretary and left St. Petersburg again. This time he went to Europe to study anarchy. When you and I hear the word anarchy we think of malicious chaos. But what anarchists point out is that individuals organize society by working together cooperatively and voluntarily.

Imperial Europe didn’t like the idea that imperial rule is unnecessary. So Kropotkin spent time in jails. He finally found a haven working in England as a science writer. Meanwhile, Darwin’s influence grew. Tennyson called nature “red in tooth and claw.” In 1888 Huxley wrote a harsh essay on the survival of the fittest: The Struggle for Existence. We started seeing our lot through distorted Darwinian lenses. We started believing that life is nothing but a blood sport.

Both capitalists and the new Marxists bent Darwin to fit their ends. Kropotkin reacted with articles. He showed that cooperation is our primary survival strategy. He wrote:

Life in societies enables the feeblest animals, the feeblest birds, and the feeblest mammals to resist, or protect themselves from the most terrible birds and beasts of prey;

Kropotkin showed how acts of mercy and mutual support were part of all insect, animal, and human societies. In 1902 he wove his studies into a powerful lucid book. He called it Mutual Aid.

Photo by John Lienhard

Kropotkin had supported the Russian revolution. But, as Marxists turned up their own Darwinian rhetoric, he withdrew. Before his death in 1921 he wrote to Lenin, “Vladimir Ilych, your actions are [unworthy of your ideals].” And today we’re learning that Kropotkin’s modes of cooperation are far more subtly active in our ecology than we’d once thought. We find new hope in his words,

It really is you and I who shape our world and who will save our world. Our cooperation and interaction have far more to say than any form of leadership does. We form our world simply by working together and by cherishing one another.

I believe with all my heart that leadership is an illusion. We choose leaders and hold them up as banners — reflecting our mutual aspirations. But it is not they; it is you and I who determine our future. I once had a violist friend who took over a youth orchestra. One day at lunch I asked him how it was to be a conductor. “Oh, John,” he answered,

It’s wonderful. It doesn’t take long. When you lower your baton in a downbeat a wonderful sound comes at you. Very soon you begin to believe that it’s you who’s making that glorious sound.

It is you and I who have always made that glorious sound. It is you and I who always will. Make no mistake about that.

And below the communal nature of any enterprise that we create together, there must ride a kind of generosity. That generosity must bind us in the enterprise. The animals tell us about that kind of generosity. Remember Edgar Allan Poe’s poem, The Raven? Poe says,

Then this ebony bird beguiling my sad fancy into smiling,
By the grave and stern decorum of the countenance it wore,

I find it very interesting that Poe seems to see a dimension of charity in his sinister bird. And there is such a dimension. A recent American Scientist article talked about ravens trying to survive a cold northern winter. Carrion is rare and precious. What does a raven do when he finds a carcass? Hoard the treasure for himself? Eat his fill and fly away? What really happens is a surprise. The raven circles the find without landing. Then he flies away. A few days later he’s back with forty companions and they fall upon the meal. By the time the carcass is finished, over a hundred ravens have shared it. Biologists move into the New England forests to study this action. It’s completely reproducible. They’re not sure how ravens communicate their find, but their generosity in the midst of hardship is absolute.

Darwin originally suggested just the opposite — that self-sacrifice acts against the survival of the fittest. Now survival proves to be more complex. Seeing to the survival of the group assures survival of the species. The individual also knows that, because he shares, he will eat when a companion finds food.

It is a system based on trust. It’s the world we all wish we could live in. These biologists do their work methodically, systematically, measuring a hundred cases with tagged birds. The results come back with unerring consistency. And I go back to read Kropotkin’s radical Mutual Aid, published in 1902.

Out of Kropotkin’s years in Siberia observing animal behavior, he brought stories about birds sharing in exactly the same way. Then he quoted an ancient Greek source: A sparrow comes to tell other sparrows that a slave has dropped a sack of corn. And they all go off to feed upon the grain. Kropotkin was horrified by the violence of Darwin’s early followers. He wrote,

They have made modern literature resound with the war-cry of woe to the vanquished, as if it were the last word of modern biology.

Now biologists are rediscovering what Kropotkin and the ancient Greeks already knew: the fact, obvious once you see it, that generosity is our primal survival strategy.

By the way, Edgar Allan Poe missed the point when he cried to the Raven, “Leave no black plume as a token … Leave my loneliness unbroken.” The poor man could’ve learned how needless his self-made loneliness really was from that remarkable and generous bird.

So you see how it strikes me as impossible to talk about cooperation without bringing in the related matter of generosity. That cooperative generosity defines the human species. Our survival depends upon it. I think you’ll find it helpful if we take a moment to visit an African lake where two anthropologists, Malcom Smith and Robert Layton, have studied a strange kind of fish called cichlids.

The cichlids in the lake come in 200 different species. They’re all pretty similar. Only their lips, jaws, and teeth have evolved differently. Some have evolved into fin eaters, some into worm eaters. Some cichlids eat snails. Each cichlid fish has evolved into a tiny niche of the ecology. That kind of subdividing is pretty common. That’s why we count 40,000 species of fish, birds, and mammals.

So why haven’t we splintered like that? Humankind is only one species. One young hunter can chase down a rabbit. Another can spear a fish. Yet we haven’t specialized into one race of rabbit catchers and another of fish spearers. Why are we alike in all but the most minor features — things like hair diameter and skin color? We’re not like the fish in that African lake. We’ve faced every environment on Earth. We’ve had every chance to divide into specialized subspecies.

The answer lies in the eerie texture of human sharing. We share in complex ways no other animal does. Back in camp, the rabbit chaser and the fish spearer exchange food. We’ve done that as long as we’ve existed. Of course it helps that we’re very omnivorous. We eat almost anything. If it lives, we’ve eaten it at one time or another. More important, we’ve also shared it. But: Our sharing goes far beyond food. For example, most societies have taboos about mating across lines of clan, ethnicity, or race.

Yet the important thing about those taboos is that we break them. Intermarriage is another kind of sharing that holds our species together. Then there’s the most important dimension of sharing of all. We share the techniques for gathering food and fulfilling other needs. One cichlid fish had to develop its own specialized jaw for crushing and eating snails. We share our knowledge of snail catching, of rabbit chasing, of fish spearing.

That’s what technology is. Techni–ology is the lore — the ology, the science — of technique. Technology is our primary act of sharing. Technology shapes us into one body instead of a thousand subspecies. We’re bound in a unique and instinctive tether of generosity with our technologies right at the core of that generosity. We are bound into one system. Kropotkin was right. Generosity and mutual aid is our primal survival mechanism.

Read John H. Lienhard’s full article…

Read more about Petr Kropotkin

Read Petr Kropotkin’s Mutual Ai d  (1902) 

Yesterday, both here and at CommUnity of Minds, my focus was on our present human crisis. This morning, I would like you to think about the following  statements.

Examination of the human condition today reveals little to no existence of synergic relationships. The only games in town are adversary or neutral. If we humans are to transcend our adversary and neutral pasts, we must change.

I believe with change a co-Operative human species can solve our human crisis — a co-Operative humans species can solve our human problems — a co-Operative human species can make the world work for everyone.

But we must change. To prepare for that change we humans can learn much by studying all forms of life and how they are related. By studying the history and past developmental paths of other life forms, we can learn to understand our human predicament and plan a safe passage to our future — a safe passage through our human crisis.

If we are successful, we will discover that this is not the end times, but a time of transformation — in fact a new beginning. Transformation is an invention of life. It is a strategy that enables a life form to adapt to difficult realities. 

Caterpillar & Butterfly

Timothy Wilken, MD

Let us examine the evolution of butterfly. When the mature gravid female butterfly deposits her eggs on the underside of a very particular leaf, the life cycle begins for a new butterfly. When an egg hatches a new caterpillar finds itself confronted with a world of green leaves and stems and  only one purpose on its mind — to devour that tasty and delicious world.

The caterpillar begins its seemingly endless task of ingesting all the plant carbohydrate within its reach. It appears as an eating machine, devouring all the leaves in its path. As it does this it bulks up, acquiring the necessary mass to sustain what must come next. The entomologist knows the caterpillar will need its mass to fuel its transformation from caterpillar to pupa and finally into butterflyhood.

The entomologist also knows that the transformation will result in an organism much more effectively adapted for survival. Prior to the transformation the organism as caterpillar is limited to live out its life on a single plant all within the radius of fifteen feet.

After the transformation, the organism as butterfly can range thousands of miles traveling an entire continent. Transformation for the butterfly will result in enormous adaptability. However, the organism as caterpillar is oblivious to the power that awaits it. It spends its days at the mindless task of nonstop eating. The cells within the body of the caterpillar knowing even less.

As the time of transformation approaches, things begin to become more and more difficult for the caterpillar. The world of its birth once so rich with endless green leaves is now bare from the caterpillar’s own non-stop feeding. The plant that was the caterpillar’s whole world is now dying. The future seems bleak indeed.

Then things get even worse. A strange malady strikes the caterpillar. Its body begins to stiffen and slow. And soon the power to crawl is lost and with it even the chance to find a new plant. Then, the caterpillar’s body becomes completely rigid and all power of movement is lost. To the cells within the body of the caterpillar it must certainly seem like the end times.

Of course the entomologist knows better. The cells within the caterpillar are not doomed. Once the transformation within the pupa is complete the cells will serve in new ways. Muscles that powered crawling on a single plant will now power flying over a continent.

The butterfly adapts to its environment much differently than the caterpillar. Future humans must adapt to their environments much differently than we do today.

I propose that the humans of today are like the cells within the caterpillar. That the present human crisis doesn’t mean that we are at the end of human evolution, but instead that we are near our own transformation to a much more co-Operative and powerful form of humanity. I believe that most of our fellow humans living today are oblivious to the power that awaits them in the future. The purpose of this book is to inform the readers of the good news, and to provide a guide for safely navigating safepassage through our human crisis. If I am successful, the reader will discover that this is not the end times for the human species, but in fact a new beginning.

A New Beginning

Life discovered billions of years ago that the best method to escape the old ways, was to transcend them. To transcend means to change the rules. When you change the rules problems can become opportunities. To put away war, to put away conflict and indifference, we must change. We humans can change and United we can change our world.

Humans are Time-binders. Ours is the power to know and that knowledge grows without limits. If we remain in our childhood as a species, our conflict and indifference will continue injuring us until we eventually we produce such unlimited weapons that must by definition destroy us. If we are to enter our adulthood as a species we must put away childish things. We must put away the conflict of the adversary way. We must put away the indifference of the neutral way. And, we must put away not only nuclear weapons, but in fact we must put away all weapons. And then and only then will it truly be safe.

We do have the intelligence necessary to organize ourselves into a synergic community. If we kill our brother we can understand the effect on the community of man. Our actions are either responsible or irresponsible. We lost our innocence not with the bite of an apple in the Garden of Eden, but with a bite of our first kill on the African Savannah.

If we choose to act adversarily ours is not an act of innocence. We humans have choice — the ultimate choice  —  we can choose in time, space and energy.

We humans are part of a larger whole. We are a part of the community of humankind. Our time-binding power  —  the power to understand allows us to produce unlimited knowledge. If we use our knowledge to kill  —  if we use our knowledge the adversary way, we will produce unlimited weapons  —  we will produce unlimited death. 

Looking Back

Recall from our earlier discussions, the Earth is believed to have formed four and one-half billion years ago. Life emerged ~3.4 billion years ago in our oceans in the form of simple plants  —  Energy-binders. About 700 million years ago, the first single celled animals  —  Space-binders emerged in the Earth’s oceans to join the Energy-binders.

The land plants first appeared ~400 million years ago, and the first land animals arose from the freshwater fish about 360 million years ago. These amphibians and later reptiles would be joined by the first mammals 200 million years ago. Approximately 65 million years ago, the giant reptiles became extinct, as the mammals flourished.

Approximately 12 million years ago we see the emergence of first primitive apelike mammals. The first man-like apes are seen ~4 million years ago, and recognizable humanity begins with the emergence of the genus Homo erectus  —  the first ape-like men between 1.5 and 2 million years ago.

Between 300,000 and 200,000 years ago, Homo erectus evolved into Homo sapiens  —  primitive man. Time-binding must have been present at this time, but we have no documentation for it. Modern man  —  Homo sapiens sapiens first appears ~90,000 years ago. Time-binding is first documented with sculptures dated at over 30,000 years old. Wall paintings and engravings have been found in more than 200 caves, largely in Spain and France, dating from 25,000 to 10,000 years ago. Written mathematics and language are not documented until ~3500BC. This is finally proof of the existence of Time-binding and coincides with the beginning of human ‘civilization’. 

Gaining Some Perspective

Life has existed on Earth for ~3.4 billion years. If that time span were represented by a yearly calender with the beginning of life occurring on January 1st, then humanity does not appear until one minute before midnight on December 31st. 
  
 ”HumanClock”

We humans were born of Space-binding, and the Space-binding way of Adversity has dominated our lives for most of our history. If we mark our beginning with Homo erectus then that is nearly 2,000,000 years of Adversity. If we mark our beginning with Homo sapiens then it is 250,000 years of Adversity. Even if we wait and mark the beginning with Homo sapiens sapiens it is still 90,000 years of Adversity.

The first neutral mechanisms — money and local markets will not invented until 700BC. We won’t see the creation of national markets until 1600AD, and the institutionalization of Neutrality will not occur until 1776. And even today in 2002, while Neutrality is strongly present in the Western free world, the rest of the world — the majority of humanity still lives in Adversity.

By facing up to the truth

If we humans are to survive as a species let alone as individuals, we must give up the adversary way, we must put away plunder, we must reclaim the land and natural resources for the common good of all humanity.

We must help those who are the present adversary-neutral “winners” — those who “win” by just making money — to see what’s in it for them to give up the adversary-neutral mechanisms. Fortunately, there is something in it for them. Synergic mechanisms promise solutions to problems that cannot be solved in our present world no matter how powerful or rich you are.

We must put away our obsolete forms of government.They are tragicly flawed with adversary-neutral mechanisms, and can not carry us safely into the future.

And, finally, we must put away war, crime, and punishment.

If we humans choose to use our knowledge to heal and help each other — if we use our knowledge in the synergic way, we can produce unlimited tools — we can produce unlimited wealth and prosperity for all humans on planet Earth. Then, we can choose the future we want for we are time-binders.

There are three types of humans to be found in our present world. Which type you are depends on what you believe about how the world works.

Adversaries believe there is not enough for everyone and only the physically strong will survive. They believe humans are coercively dependent on others, and they best understand the language of force.

Neutralists believe there is enough for everyone, if only you work hard enough and take care of yourself. They believe humans are financially  independent and should be self-sufficient unless they are too lazy or defective. They best understand the language of money.

A new type of human is emerging called synergists. Synergists believe there is enough for everyone, but only if we work together and act responsibly. They believe humans are interdependent and can only obtain sufficiency by working together as community. Synergists best understand the language of love.

But, to be successful in our present world, the synergist must understand all three languages and know when to use them. Synergists must sometimes use the language of force, and sometimes the language of money, it depends on whom they are talking to. However, when synergists are seeking allies—when synergists are seeking to build community—they must speak the language of love.

Synergists are trying to heal the wounds inflected by those who don’t understand how the world could work. This then is the essential challenge to the synergists.

Can we work together and act responsibly in time to save our ourselves on this planet ?

Not without tools!

Why ORTEGRITY ?

Timothy Wilken, MD

When I began searching for a better way for humankind, I new we would have to learn to do things in a different way. My goal was to find a safe path that humankind could follow to move from our adversary-neutral past to a synergic future.

I called this path SafePassage. This word was important to me and I even used it as the original title for my books on Synergic Science.  Before moving on it is important that the reader understand what is meant by synergic science. If you already understand this, skip down to the next section.

---

What is Synergic Science ?

Some of you may be familar with the term synergy. Synergy means working together—operating together as in Co-Operation—laboring together as in Co-Laboration—acting together as in Co-Action. The goal of synergic union is to accomplish a larger or more difficult task than can be accomplished by individuals working separately.

R. Buckminster Fuller was a pioneer of synergic science —the science of working together— the science of whole systems, he considered the relationships between the parts that make up a system. He discovered that it is how these parts relate with one another that will absolutely determine the success of the whole system.

The dictionary defines synergy as the working together of two things to produce an effect greater than the sum of their individual effects. A simple example might be two muscles working together or two medications combined to treat a medical illness. R. Buckminster Fuller writing in 1975 explained it this way:

Synergy means behavior of whole systems unpredicted by the behavior of their parts taken separately. Synergy means behavior of integral, aggregate, whole systems unpredicted by behaviors of any of their components or subassemblies of their components taken separately from the whole. Synergy is the only word that means this. The fact that we humans are unfamiliar with the word means that we do not think there are behaviors of “wholes” unpredicted by the behavior of “parts”.

Synergy can best be illustrated I think, by chrome-nickel-steel — chromium, nickel, and iron. The most important characteristic of strength of a material is its ability to stay in one piece when it is pulled — this is called tensile strength, it is measured as pounds per square inch, PSI. The commercially available strength of iron at the very highest level is approximately sixty thousand PSI; of chromium about seventy thousand PSI; and of nickel about eighty thousand PSI. The weakest of the three is iron.

We all know the saying, “a chain is only as strong as its weakest link”. Well, experiment on chrome-nickel-steel, pull it apart, and you will find that it is much stronger than its weakest link of sixty thousand PSI. In fact it is much stronger than the eighty thousand PSI of its stronger link. Thus the saying that a chain is as strong as its weakest link doesn’t hold. So, let me say something that really sounds funny: Maybe a chain is as strong as the sum of the strength of all its links. Let’s add up the strengths of the components of chrome-nickel-steel and see. Sixty thousand PSI for iron and seventy thousand PSI for chromium and then and eighty thousand PSI for the nickel, that gives you two hundred and ten thousand PSI. If we add in the minor constituency of carbon and manganese we will add another forty thousand PSI giving us a total of two hundred and fifty thousand PSI.

Now the fact is that under testing, chrome-nickel-steel shows three hundred and fifty thousand PSI—or one hundred thousand PSI more than the combined strength of all the links.

This is typical of synergy, and it is the synergy of the various metal alloys that have enabled industry to do all kinds of things that man never knew would be able to be done based on the characteristic of the parts.

Another Synergic Science pioneer Edward Haskell taught us that when we apply synergic science to examining our human relationships, we discover:

ïrelationships can be adversary where either I lose or you lose or we both lose,

ïrelationships can be neutral where we don’t lose, but neither do we win,

ïor, relationships can be synergic — good for both of us — WIN-WIN.

Synergic system analysis reveals that efficiency within a system is a direct variable of the type of relationship. Win-win relationships maximize efficiency. Win-lose or lose-win relationships severely limit efficiency. And the lose-lose relationship allows no possibility of efficiency.

We can be more working together than we can be working separately. And, much more working together than we can be working against each other. This is just common sense.

Human synergy is working together by explicit intent. (1+1)>>2

Human neutrality is working separately and ignoring each other. (1+1)=2

Human adversity is working against each other.(1+1)<2

R. Buckminster Fuller and Edward Haskell’s achievements were in understanding how whole systems are created in physical Universe. They discovered that Nature always forms whole systems using win-win relationships. This results in the sum of the whole system being much more than the sum of the parts making up the system.

Nature was always seeking more for less — always seeking maximum efficiency in all that she did. Fuller called the principle of seeking more for less the “dymaxion” way. This is of course simply another way of stating the Principle of Least Action.

---

As I began to master synergic science—the science of working together, I began to realize that SafePassage would come from getting evermore humans using synergic process. How could I do that? I knew that most humans are motivated by making a profit. If I could show them how they could be more successful by acting synergically rather than adversarily or neutrally, they might seek co-Operation.

Synergic Systems — the cooperator’s reward

The most dymaxion principles always occur within wholes. Wholes — made up of parts having win-win relationships with each other. It is the win-win relationship that produces a profit for all of the parts. This is why the sum of the whole is more than the sum of the parts. Edward Haskell’s term for this more is the cooperator’s reward.

I was interested in synergic relationships not with atoms or molecules, but with human beings. I knew there was no law of Nature preventing humans from forming win-win relationships. If we humans could learn to organize synergically, we would also gain access to the co-operator’s reward.

By applying win-win strategy to human organizations, it would be possible to to synergize an organization so that the sum of the whole organization is much more than the sum of the talents, abilities, & resources of the individuals making up the organization.

Adversary Systems — the conflictor’s loss

However, today’s human organizations are at best neutral systems with much internal adversary process, or at worse adversary systems. Adversary process is characterized by losing relationships between the individuals of the system.

Adversary process is by definition conflict — the struggle to avoid loss. Within an adversary system, the sum of the whole organization is much less than the sum of the talents, abilities, & resources of the individuals making up that system. Haskell called this much less — the conflictor’s loss.

Conflict and losing relationships severely limit efficiency, productivity, and quality of work-life. If we humans desire more for less, we must learn to organize without conflict. If we desire to avoid the conflictor’s loss, we must learn to organize without “losing” relationships.

Nature has succeeded in removing the conflict from between the cells of our bodies., Can we learn to remove the conflict from between the individuals within our human organizations? Nature has learned to produce win-win relationships between the cells and tissues, between the organs and systems of organs that comprise the human body. Can we humans now learn to produce win-win relationships between the individuals and departments, between the units and divisions that comprise our organizations?

I believed the very future of our species depended on finding the way. I knew the ideal system would be synergic, but as to what particular form it would take I was not sure. Then I realized I needed to make some synergic tools.

Tool Users and Tool Makers

Humans have been using tools from the days of our earliest history. Many Anthropology and Evolutionary Scientists define human as the tool maker and tool user.

Archimedes is generally credited with the first scientific description of a tool. It was called the law of the lever.

Tools—Physical Levers

Tools are physical levers of human action. It is any device or mechanism that provides the user with leverage—any device or mechanism that leverages human action. We are all familar with physical tools.

Our homes are full of tools. We all have a tool drawer that has our screwdrivers, pliers, hammers, scissors, needles, tape, etc., etc., etc.. These are all tools. These are all levers of human action. If we look around our house we find appliances, televisions, stereos, radios, and computers. These are also tools—levers of human action. If we look in our garage, we find our more tools, power drills, crowbars, skill saws, air pumps, lawnmowers, and automobiles.

Knowing—Metaphysical Levers

Levers are not always physical—not always tangible. Levers can also be procedures, formulas, or kitchen recipes. These are metaphysical levers. Buckminster Fuller explained that some of our most powerful levers are metaphysical—that means they have no weight or substance. They are simply patterns of advantage. Another term for these metaphysical levers—these patterns of advantage are “knowing”.

One of the earliest and most important patterns of advantage was the “knowing” of the sequence for starting fire. When a group of early humans had a member who could start fire, they held an enormous survival advantage. Knowing the sequence one must use to build a table for your kitchen or make a gourmet meal for your family are examples of metaphysical levers. These are patterns of advantage.

Learning to read is learning to understand sequence. The meaning of written words depend on the sequence of their letters and that is just as true for numbers.

ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQUSTUVWXYZ

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

The meaning of written sentences depend on the sequence of the words.

The quick red fox jumped over the lazy dog.

Synergic Levers for SafePassage

I would need to develop synergic levers that humans could use to solve the real problems in their lives. The synergic process itself would be embedded within these levers.

Read the full description of ORTEGRITY

Also see GIFTegrity 

This is the fourth article in the series explaining synergic organization. See: (1) Discovery in North Carolina , (2) Heterarchy—The Secret of Japan, Inc.  and (3) Defining the Ortegrity

ORTEGRITY—The Structure of Winning

Timothy Wilken, MD

“Org1″

Major Features

ï Decision-Action Tensegrities utilizing — 

  ï decision heterarchy with synergic consenus and veto,

  ï action hierarchy with synergic negotiation,

  ï conflict free mechanism

The Ortegrity is a system for organizing two or more humans. It produces win-win relationships between all individuals within the organization. This results in a conflict free environment which optimizes the two processes of human behavior — decision and action. The resultant is that efficiency, productivity, and quality of work-life are optimized.

Decision-Heterarchy

In the Ortegrity, decisions are made in heterarchy. Each member’s role is the same. The goal is to find the plan of accomplishing the assigned task with best effect on all. A win-win solution. This search leads to the most efficient way of doing things. All members are protected from any loss by their veto. Only a win-win plan can be approved. Such plans that will be strongly supported by all members.

Humans develop strong feelings of community in heterarchy. It strengthens their committment to the organization. Individuals are more creative and enthusiastic in a setting where they feel respected and needed.

Decisions are always made heterarchically. All individuals in a heterarchy sit on the same level. They are equal in authority and responsibility. No one is superior to anyone else. It is the responsibility of all to accomplish the task assigned to the heterarchy. They all have equal authority and equal responsibility to decide how the task will be accomplished.

Anyone can propose a plan as to how the task might be accomplished. The heterarchy continues discussion until a unanimous decision is reached. Only those plans not vetoed carry. Every member has a veto and is expected to use it to prevent losses. This is synergic consensus. It is a powerful system for producing unanimous decision. Remember loss can still occur in synergic organization. But if loss must occur it is minimized and then shared equally by all members of the heterarchy.

 ”Org2″

The Synergic Veto — life’s secret for efficiency

Most humans are suprised to learn of veto power. It seems very strange in the world of “directed” management. How can the boss allow employee’s to veto his orders and get anything done?

Members of a heterarchy are not employees. They stand equal with the organizer. A major secret of life is that self-directed organization is much more efficient than other-directed organization. The secret is to transcend directing anyone. The Ortegrity creates the ideal environment for self-organization.

In an environment of self-organization, human potential blossoms. Humans operate at a more powerful level. Those in an Ortegrity soon realize that their well being depends on the success of their organizations. They realize that if they wish to be well paid their organization must be successful. They have high interest in successful solutions to their tasks. They desire to be successful, and they want their organizations to be successful as well.

Now once the members of a heterarchy have decided on a plan of action. They then renegotiate among themselves to divide the plan of action into subtasks.

Recall that 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 the best plan to accomplish the task so all members will win. It is the collective responsibility of the entire heterarchy to find this “best” solution. Anyone can propose a plan to accomplish the task. All problems related to accomplishing the task would be discussed at length in the heterarchy.

The proposed plan for accomplishing the task would be examined by all members of the heterarchy. Anyone could suggest a modification, or even a completely different alternative plan to accomplish the task — always seeking to maximize the win. All individuals would serve as information sources for each other. The heterarchy would continue in discussion until a plan could be found that worked well for everyone. The goal of the heterarchy is to find that course of action that maximizes the win for everyone, if that is not possible and the group must lose, then the goal becomes to find that action which minimizes loss for everyone. And when loss occurs it is shared equally by all. 

Organizing Humans

Those individuals within even today’s organizations are the ones who collectively “know” the most about the organization, and they certainly “know” best how to organize their own skills, talents and abilities .

In an environment of calmness and trust, two heads really are better than one. And it is the veto that lets this all work.

It is the veto that allows for synergic consenus within the Decision-Heterachy. Synergic consensus requires that all decisions be unanimous. All proposed plans are approved unless they are explicitly vetoed. Any member of the heterarchy can veto any plan in which they or anyone else loses. It is their duty to veto any loss in the system.

Because all loss positions are vetoed, all relationships become win-win. The power of synergic concensus rests on finding the third alternative. A major fact about human performance mental or physical is that it is greatest when the individual is winning. Examine our Olympic atheletes or our Nobel laurates. An environment that allows only win-win relationships will produce major increases in efficiency, productivity, and quality of work-life.

We humans are presently conditioned to expect our relationships to be win/lose. We view most situations from that either/or point of view. Either I win or I lose. It has to be one or the other. Synergy science reveals the third alternative. It may be harder to find, but there almost always exists a third way of doing things so no one loses. Or at worst you are assured that the loss has been minimized and equally shared. This distributes the loss so it has the least negative effect on the individual. This is the win-win way — this is synergy.

When all were in agreement and only then would the plan be implemented. The plan must insure that all members of the group win. Any member can veto a losing plan. Taking the time in decision making to discover the win-win way means that action will be many times more efficient.

In most human organizations today, the boss simply assigns tasks or groups of tasks to each of his selected managers. This is other-directed management — telling the managers what to do. The Ortegrity operates very differently. No one tells anyone what to do. All other-direction is replaced with self-direction. Once the heterarchy has synergically decided on a plan of action, the system negotiates to form an action hierarchy. This is the structure used in implementation. Here, each member’s role is different.

Action — Hierarchy

Now once the heterarchy has approved a win-win plan of action to accomplish the Synergic Task, the members of the heterarchy begin to form a action team on a negotiated basis. The individuals within the heterarchy divide labor. Action is too large for any single member. Individual responsibility and authority is agreed to through open negotiation. The action team then functions as a hierarchy to carry out the plan. Participation within the system is always voluntary. The members of the team decide how they wish to work together, or even if they want to participate. No one is ever forced to do anything they don’t want to. However no win can occur unless they are successful.

Individuality is a strong feature of the action hierarchy.

Actions are always made heirarchically. All individuals in a heirarchy sit on different levels. They have different authority and responsibility for accomplishing the task. Their individual responsibility and authority is determined by synergic negotiation. Once having reached a decision in heterarchy they begin an open win-win negotiation to divide the labor of the plan. They develop levels of responsibility and authority. But these levels are voluntarily assumed. Again only a unanimous arrangement is permitted.

 ”Org3″

All relationships within a Ortegrity are win-win. This is the first principle of an Ortegrity, and all are pledged to uphold it. This is why every member is required to veto any action within the the system in which he or anyone else would lose. The utilization of synergic consensus and synergic negotiation produces very different forms of heterarchy and hierarchy. The forms used within the Ortegrity are nothing like committees with majority rule, or typical other-directed hierarchies. Heterarchy decides using the mechanism of synergic consensus and veto. And hierarchies are created by synergic negotiation of individual responsibility and authority. Synergic means all must win.

There is a division of labor with the individuals negotiating as to levels of  responsibility and authority in terms of implementing the plan. The individuals remain in hierarchy until the task is accomplished. When finished the hierarchy is abandoned and heterarchy reformed to make a new decision.

Ortegrity utilizes a dual mechanism in that everyone within the organization has two identities — two roles. Everyone participates in both decision making and in action implementation. Everyone has both heterarchical and hierarchical functions. The unit of organization with in the Ortegrity is the sub-tensegrity — the Decision-Action Tensegrity.

The Rhythm Of Life

During implementation, the action team would continue to function until the task was accomplished, then the action hierarchy is abandoned with all members returning to heterarchy to make a new decision about the next task. this of course leading to the creation of a new action team.

Decision —>Action —>Decision —>Action —>Decision —>
Action —>Decision —>Action —>Decision —>Action —>
Decision —>Action —> and on and on and on …

First it configures as a decision-heterarchy, it then considers its task, then one member declares a plan of action. If there are no vetoes, then the heterarchy configures itself into an action-hierarchy. During the action it functions as a hierarchy. Each member standing where he agreed to stand, performing those tasks he volunteered to perform. Once the action is successfully completed, the hierarchy is abandoned and the members return to the heterarchy.

Heterarchy —>Hierarchy —>Heterarchy —> Hierarchy
 —>Heterarchy —> Hierarchy —>Heterarchy —>
Hierarchy —>Heterarchy —> and on and on and on…………..

As a balanced system of discontinuous hierarchies and continuous heterarchies, the Ortegrity has the strengths of both heterarchy and hierarchy, and none of their weaknesses.  

The End of Conflict

This system is designed to eliminate all internal conflict. Elimination of all conflict maximizes efficiency, productivity and quality of work-life. All relationships between all individuals within the system are win-win. This is a design characteristic of the system. It is veto power that forces the third alternative — the win-win solution. It is synergic relationship that unlocks human potential. This is the relationship that elimates all conflict.
 

          CONFLICT                          FRICTION
      _______________         :          ___________
    ORGANIZATIONS                 MACHINERY
 

Using the win-win relationship in organizations is like applying grease to machinery. Japanese corporations are presently 150% more efficient and productive than American corporations. Those companies who choose to restructure as Ortegrities could experience an increase in efficiency and productivity of 1000%.

Decision-Action Tensegrities

The organizing unit of the Ortegrity then is the Decision-Action Tensegrity. These are also tensegrities. Synergic organization utilizes a tensegrity of tensegrites.

The D-A Tensegrity is a group of between two and twenty humans. The size of a D-A Tensegrity is limited by the complexity of decision making. In a complex area such as in research & development, the ideal size may be six or seven members. In a system with simpler decison making as many as 16 to 20 individuals may form a production D-A Tensegrity.

During decision making the D-A Tensegrity uses the heterarchical form. A heterarchy with seven members is a base seven tensegrity. A two member heterarchy would be called a base two. A three member heterarchy is a base three and so on.

The following illustration of a base seven D-A Tensegrity represents the heterarchical relationship on the perimeter and the hierarchical relationships with direct lines of communication. All individuals have a dual idenity. Their heterarchical role in decision and their hierarchical role in action.

 ”Org4″

The organizers using synergic consensus will determine how to structure their Ortegrities. There is no right or wrong way. The way that insures the maximum win and prohibits loss is the best way for a particular system. I expect Ortegrities will be as diverse as life forms.

The “organizer” does not direct the other members of his group. He would instead be responsible for coordinating their organization into an effective team.

The “organizer” begins by presenting the synergic task to the individuals within the heterarchy.

An Ortegrity divides itself into synergic groups in order to function. We can call these groups Decision-Action Tensegrities. Heterarchy is used when making decisions and hierarchy when carring out actions. Each Decision-Action Tensegrities has an “organizer” that functions as coordinator-leader. When the group is making decisions, he/she coordinates the heterarchy. When the group is taking action, he/she leads the hierarchy. Decision-Action Tensegrities can have two to twenty or more members.

StartUp Ortegrity

A StartUp Ortegrity begins when a single individual commits to using the synergic mechanism of the O.T. to accomplish some goal or set of goals that are beyond his/her abilities as an individual.

The primary organizer first sets about recruiting one or more other individuals to help him or her. The primary organizer will begin by sitting down in heterarchy with the primary group and define the primary task using synergic consensus and veto. The members of the primary Decision-Action Tensegrity all have equal responsibility and equal authority in reaching synergic consensus and defining the primary task.

They discuss things fully. Any member of the group can propose a change to improve or refine the primary task. Only those modifications which find support from all members of the group are implemented. Anyone can veto any proposal in order to prevent loss, or offer a modification to insure a greater win. Only those proposals unanimously agreed to carry.

Once the primary synergic task is defined and unanimously elected by the heterarcy, then a plan for synergic action must be developed using synergic negotiation. Now the members of the heterarchy will accept hierarchichal roles with individual responsibility and authority. If the primary synergic task is within the abilites of the primary Decision-Action Tensegrity to accomplish it,then they accomplish it operating in action-hierarchy. When they are done, they reconfigure back into decision-heterarchy to define their next synergic task.

If however, the synergic task is too large for the primary Decision-Action Tensegrity to accomplish, then part of the primary synergic task will be to make the Ortegrity larger. This is accomplished by having the primary members recruit and organize secondary D-A Tensegrities.

TopDown Self-Organization

Once all members have agreed to a primary plan of action, they then divide it into smaller secondary plans for distribution among themselves. This results in the self-assignment of tasks. The members of the primary tensegrity, then divide labor through the voluntarily formation of a action-hierarchy to implement the plan. Each “organizer”, the term “manager” is scraped altogether, then takes his task down to the secondary tensegrity which he is responsible for organizing.

The pattern of organization is from the top down. This is not the “other-directed” hierarchy of American Capitalism. The process of organization is from the top down, but the mechanism is “self directed” heterarchy. Only when synergic consensus has been achieved at the higher level can the organizational focus move down to a lower level.

Within the Ortegrity, most “organizers” will function at two levels of tensegrity. Within the primary tensegrity, they are “organized” by the primary “organizer” — the synergic alternative to a CEO. In addition these members are also the “coodinators” of their own secondary tensegrities which they are responsible for organizing.

Within the Ortegrity, those individuals operating at two levels are then both organized and organizers. As members of the primary tensegrity, they are organized by the “primary organizer” — the O’ (called the O prime) and they are also the organizers of their own secondary tensegrities. Each of these is therefore an “organized-organizer” — the O-O  (called the double O).

An organization can have any number of Decision-Action Tensegrities. These Decision-Action Tensegrities can be on different levels. Large organizations would include severay levels of Decision-Action Tensegrities. These different levels are referred to simply as first level, second level, third level and so on in synergic terminology.

Compound Tensegrities

The following illustration is of a base five, level two O.T.. Twenty five employees with one five-member primary DA-Tensegrity and five (five-member) secondary DA-Tensegrities.

 ”Org5″

The central * DA-Tensegrity is the primary Tensegrity. It divides the primary tasks of the company into secondary tasks, these are then carried down to the secondary Tensegrities for solution by the O-Os, “organized-organizers”. In this example the O’ functions as both primary organizer and one of the O-Os.

 ”Org6″
  
 

Ultimately Flexible

No known system of organization is more flexible and adaptive then Living systems. The Ortegrity is a pattern of life.

The Ortegrity is ultimately flexible. There can be two to twenty individuals within the base D-A Tensegrities. Bases can be regular — all with the same number of members or irregular — all with different numbers of members or any mixture of regular and irregular.

There can be any number of levels, and any number of branches on each level. The system is so powerful that twelve levels looks like enough for most of our needs.

The following chart is based on a base seven regular tensegrity. All DA-Tensegrities would have seven members.
 
 

LEVEL	# of base tensegrities	# of individuals
1	1	7
2	8	49
3	57	343
4	400	2401
5	2801	16,807
6	19,608	117,649
7	137,257	823,543
8	960,800	5,764,801
9	6,725,601	40,353,607
10	47,079,208	282,475,249
11	329,554,457	1,977,326,743
12	2,306,881,200	13,841,287,201

A level 12 Ortegrity would be adequate for organizing the entire humans species within a single organization. Recalling that the larger a tensegrity the more powerful it will is. Synergic science predicts this will also be true for human organizations structured as Ortegrities. Therefore, I would expect a trend towards very large organizations.

Imagine, what could be possible if the entire human species were a single organization. No conflict, no wars, no crimes. Is there anything we could not accomplish?

Read the full description of ORTEGRITY

Today, I define the ORTEGRITY, this is the third in the series that started with the Discovery in North Carolina of the Organizational Tensegrity, and was followed by my discussion of Heterarchy—The Secret of Japan, Inc..

Defining Ortegrity

Timothy Wilken, MD

Life’s pattern of organization is the tensegrity, it has been in use on earth for over three and one half billion years. The tensegrity is the basis of organizing all living systems including our own bodies. Up until now we humans have not understood the mechanism and therefore could not use this pattern to organize our marriages, our businesses, our organizations and institutions, our communities, or even the entire human species.

Humans who organize themselves using the pattern of tensegrity will find themselves orders of magnitude more efficient, more productive, more creative, more intelligent. More importantly they will be much more successful in pursuing their goals and desires.

Within this half century, we humans have developed ergometric science to help us improve our tool-making. Ergometric scientists tell us how to best design tools to fit the human form. By carefully measuring both the physiology and psychology of the human body, today’s scientists are seeking to determine the best designs for new tools. They know that the best tools are those that fit you like a well-tailored glove fits your hand.

Recently ergometric science has been much advanced by a breakthrough in our understanding of human intelligence. With the development of the “dual mind” model of human intelligence it is now possible to design tools that fit the human “mind-brain”. In other words, we can now ergometrically engineer tools to fit the way we humans think.

We humans are the toolmakers, and in our history we have made many tools — both simple and complex. The most complex and complicated of all our tools are our organizations — the corporations, institutions, militaries, and governments of earth. These are also the most important tools in all our lives, for they significantly influence both the quality and quantity of our lives. Of all the tools we might seek to ergometrically engineer to fit the human “mind-brain”, there exists no greater potential benefit for all humankind then by applying this science to our most complex tools — our human organizations.

One such tool has recently completed development, and is now available to organizations for immediate application. This first ergometrically designed tool for human organizations is called the Ortegrity. The Ortegrity is a “mind-brain” compatible system of organizing humans. It can be used by a small group of individuals or a giant corporation with hundreds of thousands of employees.

The Ortegrity is a “system of human organization that creates a conflict-free environment for decision making and action implementation”. This is an environment so ergometrically suited to human thinking that efficiency and productivity are predicted to increase 10 to 1000 times. Yes, that is 10 to 1000 times more efficient and productive.

The Ortegrity achieves its great power by creating an ideal psychological environment for human thinking. One important finding of recent mind-brain research, is “that whenever humans experience conflict they lose access to their full intelligence”. When humans are confronted with conflict, their mind-brains shift to a very primitive and highly reactive way of thinking called the survive mode. The survive mode  evolved in the jungle to insure physical survival. Its primary skills are fighting and fleeing. Its extremes are rage and terror. All humans thinking in the survive mode will find their intelligence to be severely limited. Access is lost to the faculties of reason and intuition. In severe conflict, many of us lose even our ability to speak. Unfortunately, the survive mode turns on with the slightest conflict, and instantaneously our intelligence begins to decrease. It is not simply on or off. It is more like the rheostat dimmer switch controlling a dinning room light. A little conflict will produce a little loss of intelligence, while a large conflict will produce a large loss of intelligence. If we remain in conflict for weeks, then we will operate at limited intelligence for weeks. And in full rage or terror, we humans access only a tiny fraction of our potential intelligence. Conflict is to organizations as friction is to machinery.

The power of the Ortegrity results then from its unique ability to create a conflict-free state. It is this conflict-free state that optimizes human intelligence and creativity. It is this conflict-free state that maximizes efficiency and productivity. It is this conflict-free state that increases the quality of work-life. It is the conflict-free state that allows all relationships between all members to become win-win.

In the difficult political-economic times ahead, organizations must learn to work smarter. Only by optimizing the human factor can they hope to survive. The Ortegrity promises to increase efficiency and productivity by 10 to 1000 times. It accomplishes this by increasing the intelligence and creativity of all members in the system. This is working “smartest”. The Ortegrity was designed to fit the human “mind-brain” like a well tailored glove fits your hand, it could change the way we all work and live in the future.

When living systems — the plants, the animals, and our own human bodies are compared to the best of man-made systems — the corporations, the institutions, our governments and militaries, Living systems are found to be one to three orders of magnitude more efficient and productive. By utilizing the Ortegrity, it appears possible to restructure human organizations so they are ten to one thousand times more efficient and productive.

Synergic Consensus

Synergic consensus is a much more powerful mechanism of decision than the majority rule of present day committees. All decisions with an Ortegrity system are made within Decision Heterarchy. A decision heterarchy is made up of a group of humans with common purpose. The minimum number is 2 the maximum number is presently unknown. I believe the ideal size may be ~six or seven individuals. The group is organized horizontally with all individuals sharing equal authority and equal responsibility.

We humans are most familiar with the committee system. It is very different than the Heterarchy. While they are both methods of organizing human individuals to make decisions for group action. Committees are filled with conflict and highly ineffective. In a committee no individual is held responsible for the actions taken by the group. And decision is made by majority ultimatum. A desenting minority member can support the action he voted against or leave the committee. Heterarchy of the Ortegrity, in contrast organizes individuals to have equal authority to decide on joint action with equal responsibility for the resultant that is produced by that action.

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 in 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.

Unanimous Agreement

Synergic consensus is unanimous agreement. 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.”

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.

Synergic consensus is only now becoming available to humanity. We do not yet know how fast it will be at making decisions. But, I predict that decision making by synergic consensus will prove faster than decision making by majority rule. Synergic consensus elimates conflict. Recall conflict is the stuggle to avoid loss. Conflict is at the very heart of majority rule decison making. 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.

The Synergic Veto

Synergic Mechanism accepts the Neutral value — To Prohibit Loss. Those humans using synergic mechanism desire just as strongly as those using neutral mechanism not to lose, but synergic mechanism is more. Both parties need to win. Let us recall our basic definition,

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 neither party is hurt.

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 the win — to insure being 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 prohibts loss… “Whoops! Set it down.” This is the synergic veto.

This is the true meaning of co-Operation — the negotiation to insure that both individuals win. And the synergic veto to stop the action if either party is losing. Losing is the only valid use for synergic veto. All synergists are required to immediately veto any action in which they or anyone else would be harmed — any action in which they or anyone else would lose.

No-win Scenarios

Remember, even when you use synergic mechanism you can’t always win. There will times when the contraints facing a synergic group are such that loss is unavoidable. Synergic mechanism strives to make this a rare situation, but loss will occur. If you can’t find a win-win scenario to clear a synergic veto, then synergic mechanism dictates the group must admit and accept the inevitability of loss. When a No-Win situation occurs, the synergic group shifts its focus to finding that action or solution that will minimize the loss. And then, whatever the loss is, it must be shared 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 all share equally in the loss.

Synergic Equality

The basic unit of synergic organization is a synergic group organized as heterarchy. All members of a synergic heterarchy are equal. 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. This “more” is Haskell’s “Co-Operators’ surplus”.

When individuals work together in synergic relationship, they equally contribute to the synergic emergents, and will share equally in the Co-Operators’ surplus. Haskell’s “Co-Operators Surplus” is property and it is owned equally by all who synergized within the synergic group to create it. Within a synergic group all members commit to the Six Tenets of Synergic Equality.

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.
 

SYNERGY — Working Together

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.

TRUSTING — Synergic Attitude

The most powerful strategy one can use in our present world then is to seek synergic relationship. But survival requires you to avoid individuals comitted to adversary relationships. They too, are seeking to make you help them — the adversary way needs losers.

Synergists are sometimes mistaken by adversary players as weak adversaries. This is not the case. A good synergist immediately notices any loss, and will seek co-operation. If relationship where both parties win cannot be negotiated, then the synergist will break off a relationship with the committed adversary.

Synergists don’t fight or flight; they communicate and negotiate. They understand to fight or flight is to abandon the synergic way for instant conflict — for instant hurt — for instant loss. The synergic individual desires always to win. He seeks synergic relationship to increase his chances of winning.

Anytime, the synergist is not winning, he seeks to renegotiate. If he is unable to co-Operate, he chooses not to conflict. He simply ends the relationship with the least possible loss. He lives the attitude of the good synergist. I am a helper, and therefore I will help you, and trust you to help me. I will seek to help all my fellow humans, but my resources are limited, and in the long run, I must help those who help me.

Avoiding 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 lose.

Seeking Bindings

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.”

In synergic relationship there is no loss. You may win-a-lot or you may win-a-little, but you will win.

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 40,000,000,000,000 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 unanimous consensus and 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 40,000,000,000,000 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.

Read the full description of ORTEGRITY

Yesterday, I discussed the Discovery in North Carolina of the Organizational Tensegrity. Upon returning to California from my meeting with Dr. Coulter, I had a new focus. I knew a lot about Capitalism most of which I had learned as a student of Andrew J. Galambos. I was very clear about hierarchy. But I was a novice when it came to heterarchy. I immediately set out to find out as much about heterarchy as I could. In the early 1980′s, the best business organizations in the world were to be found in Japan. And, I soon discovered the secret of their success was their mastery of heterarchy.

Heterarchy—The Secret of Japan, Inc.

Timothy Wilken, MD

In 1983, the major success of Japan, Inc. was serving to focus international attention on their ways of doing business. The Japanese were employing organizing strategies that produced the highest productivity and quality of work-life in the industrial world.

Their success appeared to threaten the viability of many American corporations. This threat was leading to the careful examination of the Japanese way by numerous individuals.

Their findings revealed the major focus of the Japanese was long-term and wholistic. This was in striking contrast to most American corporations where the focus was short-term and particulate.

As the world’s business corporations sought to compete and survive in the late 70s and early 80s, they sought the most powerful organizing strategies available. Who would be right — the Japanese, or the Americans?

Should businesses have wholistic concerns or particulate concerns? Did the recent major success of the Japanese prove they had the right system?

What about innovation, creativity, and originality? How do they fare under the Japanese way? Many American business leaders were forced to decide without really being able to predict the effect of their decisions.

William Ouchi is best known for his work, Theory Z, which was published in 1981 when American businesses were still scratching their collective heads in trying to understand the Japanese advantage. Dr. Ouchi pointed out that advantage, which was revealed to be a Japanese commitment to democratic leadership that resulted in increased quality, increased productivity and decreased costs while making workers at all levels full partners in business.  He contrasted the American and the Japanese ways in the following chart. 
 

Japanese	American
Wholistic Concern	Particulate Concern
Collective Decision Making	Individual Decision Making
Collective Responsibility	Individual Responsibility
Implicit Control Mechanisms	Explicit Control Mechanisms
Lifetime Employment	Short-term Employment
Non-Specialized Career Paths	Specialized Career Paths
Slow Evaluation & Promotion	Rapid Evaluation & Promotion

Economic Survival

And how long could American businesses afford to wait before deciding? Ouchi said, “it takes a minimum of two years to convert to a type z company, and some companies might require four or six years to see effects.”

The success of the Japanese could be explained by synergic system analysis. As I examined the two ways from the point of view of synergy science, I discovered the American way was dominated by hierarchy, while the Japanese way was heavily influenced by the heterarchy.

Other-Directed Management

Nearly all of America’s businesses employed other-directed management. Other-directed management is when “A” tells “B” what to do, and often how to do it as well.

Recall that 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.” All too often individuals within a hierarchy experience feelings of inferiority. This is not surprising in a system based on superior  and inferior levels. In humans, feelings of inferiority produce hostility. In the jungle, being inferior was often synonymous with death.

This adversary reality was also experienced in the cave, and the tribe, and the feudal state , and is experienced in nearly all the corporations, institutions, governments, and militaries of earth.

Recent mind-brain science reveals that hostility produces a ‘down shift’ within the human mind to a very primitive mode of thinking — the SURVIVE MODE. This “mode of thinking” originated in the jungle, and is the master of fighting and fleeing.

Since the inception of hierarchy its constant companion has always been conflict. This now seems to be its primary limitation. One significant contributor to conflict is other-directed management.

Some corporations are seeking to move away from other-directed management through use of “delegation of responsibility”. Here, managers are still told what to do, but not how to do it. They have more freedom to self-direct. But even within systems with “delegation of responsibility”, the price of failure is usually termination or at the very least stagnation of ones career. This produces fear of failure with resultant conflict.

Conflict — Preparing to Fight or Flight

The SURVIVE MODE of the human mind is the real “king” of the jungle. We humans are clearly the dominate form of life on this planet. We have successfully fought and fled  our way from the African savannah to the top of the modern corporate board room.

The survive mode is quite effective for physical conflict, with its extremes of rage and terror, but highly ineffective within modern organizations. The survive mode is our most primitive way of thinking. It was for survival emergencies in the jungle. Humans thinking in this mode are highly inefficient and non-productive, they lose access to almost all of what we call “human intelligence”. Any conflict can produce hostility within a human, and hostility always shifts humans into the survive mode.

Synergy science has identified conflict as the major obstacle to efficiency, productivity, and quality of work-life within all organizations. While Hierarchy clearly has some major strengths, its problems with conflict create the greatest of liabilities. If human organizations are to survive into the 21st century, it is crucial that conflict be eliminated.

             conflict        :      friction
     ___________        _________
      organizations   :    machinery

Synergic system analysis reveals that the major secret of the Japanese way is the reduction of conflict they have achieved within their organizations.

Synergy Increases Efficiency

Synergic system analysis reveals that efficiency within a system is a direct variable of the type of relationship that exists between the parts that make up the whole system.

In other words, it is how these parts relate with one another that will absolutely determine the success of the whole system.

Recall that adversary relationships are bad for me, bad for you, or bad for both of us. Neutral relationships have no effect on you or me. But synergic relationships are good for you and good for me — WIN-WIN.

The synergic relationship maximizes efficiency. Neutral relationships significantly limit efficiency, and adversary relationships allow no possibility of efficiency.

Synergy science reveals that conflict is an indirect variable of efficiency, productivity, and quality of work-life. Using win-win relationships within organization is like applying grease to machinery.

It is by making win-win relationships that we will form systems in which the sum of the whole system is much more than the sum of the parts. This “much more” results in what Haskell called the cooperator’s reward.

If we humans desire a share of the cooperator’s reward, then, we must learn to create win-win relationships between all the individuals within our organiztions and to reduce conflict where ever we may find it.

Eliminating Conflict

I pause here to mention one apparently different point of view. Recently some business writers have  been singing the praises of conflict. They advise “managers” to learn to creatively manage conflict, rather than to try to eliminate it.

However a closer examination reveals that these business writer’s define “managing conflict” as creating “win-win relationships”. Whereas synergy science defines the creation of “win-win relationships” as “eliminating conflict”. So whether we refer to the creation of “win-win relationships” as “eliminating conflict” or as simply “managing conflic”, we would all agree, it is good to create win-win relationships.

The Japanese clearly have some cultural advantages in creating win-win relationships. First of all, they are a very crowded people with over a hundred million individuals living within a geographic area no larger than a single one of our states. This crowding has produces a strong force toward a cooperative life style, and the Japanese do strongly seek consensus. They also are the only nation to have experienced nuclear war, this resulted in a people deeply committed to the cooperative way.

Some Americans seem to want to explain away the Japanese success by pointing to obscure genetic and cultural differences, as if in so doing they will somehow invalidate the Japanese success. Their success will not be invalidated. The Japanese success results not from obscure genetic and cultural traits, but from simply reducing the conflict within their organizations.

And the most powerful strategy presently known for reducing conflict is heterarchy.

The Japanese Way

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.

My study of Japanese business opened my eyes to the power of heterarchy. It is now obvious that all human organizations must master the power of the heterarchy. However, hierarchy is not the villain in this story. For American busnisesses to throw out hierarchy in a rush to embrace the Japanese way could be a worse mistake than to make no change at all. American busnesses are the masters at hierarchy, and here the Japanese can learn something from them.

The discovery of the Organizational Tensegrity reveals that human organizations require a system of organization that transcends both heterarchy and hierarchy.

At one and the same time the Organizational Tensegrity is neither a heterarchy nor a hierarchy, and simultaneously it is both a heterarchy and a hierarchy. There is a third alternative to either heterarchy or hierarchy.

The synergic way produces win-win relationships between all members of the system by transcending both heterarchy and hierarchy. This is the mechanism that allows the Organizational Tensegrity to eliminate all internal conflict.

Both-And

The Organizational Tensegrity can then be defined as that “complex organizational system that creates a balance of both heterarchy and hierarchy to produce win-win relationships among all members of the system and simultaneously eliminate all internal conflict”.

Synergy science teaches us the both-and point of view. Systems are not wholes. Systems are not parts. Systems are both wholes and parts. A human organization is not just a community, it is not just the individuals within the community. A human organization is both a community and the individuals within that community. We humans are usually misled by our great propensity to “either/or” thinking. This is not a question of “either heterarchy or hierarchy”.

An Organizational Tensegrity is highly flexible being able to move between heterarchy and hierarchy easily and frequently. This ability of the organizational tensegrity, to instantly shift between these two strategies, allows it to gain the strengths of both while avoiding their weaknesses altogether.

Heterarchy is best able to provide the needs of the whole — the needs of community, while hierarchy is best able to meet the goals of the parts — the goals of the individuals. And the win-win relationship serves as the binding that holds the system together.

Which way for Humanity? We humans find ourselves once again at the crossroads, which way shall we choose?

I believe our future does not lie in the Japanese way of heterarchy, nor in the American way of hierarchy. I believe it lies in the third alternative — the synergic way of the Organizational Tensegrity. In the years that have passed since I first described the organizational tensegrity, I have contracted the term to simply Ortegrity.

 Read the full description of ORTEGRITY

 

A graduate of Harvard Medical School and Professor Emeritus of the University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Dr. N. Arthur Coulter is a synergic science pioneer. He began searching for a better way for humanity over 50 years ago. In 1983, we would meet and work together. By co-Operating, we would discovery the organizational tensegrity.

Discovery in North Carolina

Timothy Wilken, MD

Independent of me, another synergic scientist N. Arthur Coulter, Jr., MD had been seeking to develop an ideal system of organization for human beings. He defined ideal as that system that would maximize both freedom, and quality of life for all within the system. He was the author of SYNERGETICS: An Adventure in Human Development. I discovered him by purchasing his book based on its title from a science catalog. I was so impressed with his book that I took a chance and wrote him. We soon developed a long distance friendship.

Coulter was also searching for a better world. He had realized that with the dropping of the Atomic bomb on Japan, humanity had reached a crossroad. That our weapons were now of such power that they threatened us all with extinction. He concluded:

“What is needed is nothing less than a major evolution of the human mind, which would give the rational, humane part of the mind a much greater control over the emotional part.”

Coming out the Army at the end of 1945, Coulter switched his focus from Mathematics and entered Harvard Medical School. He said he needed to learn all he could about the human brain and mind. Thirty years later, he was Chairman of the Department of Biomedical Engineering at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine. But whenever he wasn’t teaching medical students, his focus was on understanding human thinking and human relationships.

In March of 1983, I traveled from my home on the west coast of Northern California to meet with Dr. Coulter. From Chapel Hill, we traveled by car a small private retreat he had built on a lake in nearby Virginia. It was a beautiful and very quiet place ideal for thinking and corroboration. He called it Synergia.

The purpose of our meeting was two-fold, first to share our research findings about human relationships, behavior, and thinking, and then to design or at least establish criteria for designing a “conflict-free” organizational system for humankind. As synergic scientists, we both believed an ideal system would be based on win-win relationships.
 

As our discussions began, I felt sure the system would be a form of capitalism. I had studied theoretical capitalism for a number of years.

One captitalistic theorist, Andrew J. Galambos had proposed an advanced capitalistic system which was non-coercive. Its underlying premise was to eliminate and prohibit loss. Galambos’ proposed system did not insure win-win relationships, but it promised to eliminate losing relationships. Galambos’ system was a type of SuperNeutrality. It allowed win-draw, draw-win, draw-draw, or win-win. It was committed to the protection of property. But, the definition of property was expanded to include your life, freedom, ideas, and actions. Galambos’Capitalism was a much more powerful form than exists today. With its absolute prohibition of injuring others, it can be thought of as Moral Capitalism. Its tenets included the absolute protection of property, individual freedom, and total responsibility.

Galambos’s “SuperNeutrality — Moral Capitalism” retained many of Neutrality — Capitalism’s value systems. In 1983, I shared most of these values. However, even then I knew there was an even better way possible. I felt Galambos’s system could be modified into the synergic system we were seeking. I envisioned the ideal system would be a form of Synergic Capitalism — win-win capitalism.

As a synergy scientist, Coulter was sensitive to the wholistic view — a view he associated with theoretical socialism. He felt the needs of the species were more important than the needs of the individual. As the Star Trek character Spock said, “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.”

Unaware of Galambos’s work, Coulter assumed all capitalistic structures had to be based on win/lose dynamics, and therefore he was opposed to them on principle. Coulter envisioned a form of Synergic Socialism — win-win socialism.

Stalemate — Warring Ideologies

Socialism and capitalism are often polarizing words in our culture. And, Coulter and I also had our hidden assumptions. We discussed the issues long into that first night. And yet as adaptive and open as Coulter and I might hope to be, we were starting very far apart. 

Over breakfast the next morning, we both shared our concern over the risk of a stalemate. It seemed our starting premises were exclusionary. The ideal system couldn’t be both capitalistic and socialistic. Capitalistic — Socialism or Socialistic — Capitalism? It just didn’t work.

Above all else Coulter and I were committed to the scientific way. As scientists, we knew all beliefs were only models of how Nature works. That all models were only temporary, even the best were theoretically obsolete on the day they are made. All models would someday to be replaced with better ones. Newton’s model of Universe served us well for over two hundred years, but Einstein’s model of Universe replaced it all the same. Everyday somewhere on the planet a human being is discovering something new about Nature that will eventually change all of our opinions. We both agreed that all present political systems were adversary systems. That all present systems were and are coercive  systems. Our committment to synergy’s win-win principle required that Coulter and I be apolitical. We could not endorse any political system. Our interest in theoretical capitalism or theoretical socialism related only to their underlying patterns of organization.

We also agreed that finding the ideal organizing strategy for humankind was important if not critical. Neither of us wanted a statemate. We both committed to openly considering the other’s point of view, and further pledged a willingness to modify our positions based on the power of each other’s arguments. But after hours of discussion, I still believed the ideal system would be a form of synergic capitalism, and Coulter believed it must be some form of synergic socialism.

Korzybski’s General Semantics

We decided to formalize our discussions by utilizing the powerful communication science — General Semantics. Alfred Korzybski originated General Semantics to take the misunderstanding out of communication. He is quoted as saying:

“There can be no disagreements only misunderstandings. We are all looking at the same universe, in the end we must agree.”

I hoped Korzybski was right, and that Coulter and I would somehow discover we were only misunderstanding each other. But I had my doubts, capitalism and socialism — could they ever be resolved into a single system? No, it had to be either one or the other.

I hoped General Semantics would lead us to an answer. If it was to be socialism, then I was willing to change my position. But Coulter, would have to prove he had a better system.

After breakfast, I began by presenting the basic postulates underlying theoretical capitalism and its underlying relationship to hierarchical strategy, and then Coulter presented the basic postulates of theoretical socialism and its underlying relationship to heterarchical strategy. First I would teach him, then he would teach me. We alternated back and forth.

By late in the afternoon of our second day, we had both learned a lot. I was beginning to see the power and value of heterarchy, and Coulter was discovering the power and value of hierarchy. Both of us had held a number of false assumptions about the other’s position. However no real progress was made towards our ideal system. And, we still found ourselves butting heads over the terms capitalism and socialism. It seemed both of us carried strong emotional opinions about the terms in our unconscious. Our strong emotional attitudes seemed to block any hope for a solution in the little time we had available. If we didn’t change our focus, hope for any meaningful solution would be lost. Because our unconscious attitudes were sabotaging our efforts, we agreed to drop the terms capitalism and socialism completely from our discussion.

Beyond Capitalism & Socialism

Coulter and I both agreed that what was really important was to create a system that produced only win-win relationships. If we succeeded at that, then whether it was “capitalistic” or “socialistic” might not really matter. At this point, we agreed to change our focus to “hierarchy” and “heterarchy”. We began seeking a unique system that would transcend both capitalism and socialism — perhaps we could call it simply synergism.

I began by discussing the underlying structure of capitalism. I felt that even if the ideal system wasn’t capitalistic it would still have to retain hierarchy.

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.

This is why American companies have individual decision making, and individual responsibility. Hierarchy has a particulate focus because goals are particular to the individuals who create them.

Hierarchy’s focus on the individual does lead to the stimulation of individual innovation, creativity, and originality. This leads to the development of a few individual stars who tend to dominate the company. Individuality has its strengths — one of which is rapid decision making. One individual can always decide much quicker than a group. I highly valued the individual and felt reliance on the best individuals had to be good for the whole group. Now it was Coulter’s turn to speak for heterarchy.

Coulter was just as sure the ideal system must be a heterarchy. His commitment to heterarchy was supported by research findings which revealed human relationships are optimized when humans feel they are valued at the same level.

The primary organizing strategy of theoretical socialism is heterarchy, this is in sharp distinction to political socialism which is usually hierarchical.

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 oneness — 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 it is much less expensive to erase lines on a paper, than to demolish mortar, brick, and stone.

As we focused more tightly, our discussions intensified, and to our mutual surprise we began to discover much agreement. Both hierarchy and heterarchy were emerging as valid strategies. They could both be seen to have major utility. They were very different, but equally valid methods of organizing. Heterarchy seemed better for meeting the needs of the whole system, while hierarchy seemed better for accomplishing the goals of the individuals within the system.

Heterarchy reduces conflict by seeking consensus. This appears to be the secret of its success. This is also why we see slow decision making, but rapid implementation. Hierachy produces rapid decision making, but slow implementation. Individual decision making always occurs with minimal knowledge of the attitudes of those who will be responsible for implementation. This lack of awareness produces inevitable conflict which slows and limits the success of implementation.

Neither seemed universally superior, heterarchy worked best in some areas, but hierarchy clearly worked better in other areas. But despite our agreement, if our two positions were found to be equally valid, then which one should we use? Our discussion of heterarchy and hierarchy did not trigger the emotional reactions that discussing socialism and capitalism had, but we seemed no closer to our goal than we had the first day. Heterarchy and hierarchy seemed to be exclusionary as capitalism and socialism. It had to be either heterarchy or hierarchy, it could’t be both.

Exhausted, we decided to break. Coulter invited me to take a walk along the lake that bordered his property. For some minutes we walked in silence, both of our minds grateful for the rest. Eventually, we reached a pleasant spot beside the lake and we sat down.

A few sailboats could be seen on the lake chasing the spring breeze. The scene was pleasantly reassuring, no sign of the troubled world that had prompted our quest for a new way for humankind. I thought of all the years I had been seeking a better way. It seemed so long ago that this journey had started. Even as a child, I had believed in a world without conflict. Coulter too seemed quietly sad, he too had been searching for a long time. His journey had begun even before my birth. I lay back and closed my eyes. The noise of the water gently laping against the shoreline began to soothe my troubled mind.

Beyond Right & Wrong

Later, as we lay by the lake, Coulter told me of a powerful thinking tool he had developed:

“When I find I am confused, I test the idea by placing it in the following multiple-point-of-view rotary.

“The “idea” is right.
“The “idea” is wrong.
“The “idea” is neither right nor wrong.
“The “idea” is both right and wrong.

“First, I think of all the examples of when and where the idea is right, then of all the examples of when and where the idea is wrong. Then I look for examples where or when the idea doesn’t seem to apply, and finally I think of examples when the idea seems paradoxical — both right and wrong simultaneously. I have used this tool many times, and I have always understood the idea much better because of it.”

After resting a few more minutes we slowly walked back to his cabin. Following a break for supper, we resumed our discussions. We continued to learn from each other, but agreement seemed no nearer.

Alone, in my room preparing for bed, I took Coulter’s advice and jotted down his rotary.

Hierarchy is right.
Hierarchy is wrong.
Hierarchy is neither right nor wrong.
Hierarchy is both right and wrong.

Heterarchy is right.
Heterarchy is wrong.
Heterarchy is neither right nor wrong.
Heterarchy is both right and wrong.

As I lay down to sleep the rotary kept dancing in my head. Coming into our meeting, I had never felt so sure. How could so many things that seemed certain suddenly become so uncertain?

How could things be so right and so wrong all at the same time? What is the value of our science, if it can’t answer our questions?

And tomorrow, was our last day.

Last Day

The third morning, we began our discussions on mind-brain science. This has been a primary focus of both Coulter’s and my research for a number of years. Here we found an abundance of agreement. By midday we had reached a number of accords concerning human thinking. As we broke for lunch, we were pleased with this progress.

As this was scheduled to be our last day of meeting, we agreed to try for the ideal system once more after lunch. Coulter was still committed to heterarcy, but I had opened his eyes to hierarchy. Likewise my eyes were now open to heterarchy, although I still leaned toward hierarchy.

The night before I had completed outlining the operation of a hierarchy, so it was Coulter’s turn to talk. Coulter began to describe his ideal heterarchical system in terms of decision making and project execution.

Coulter’s voice modulated with excitement as he described the “heterarchy with  mission teams”. He had imagined a system of associates that were organized as a heterarchy. All members would sit on the same level as equals. No one would have more authority than anyone else. All problems and projects would be discussed at length in the heterarchy. All individuals would serve as information sources for each other, however participation was always voluntary.

Coulter leaned forward, “Now any individual would be free to declare a mission. Then other members of the heterarchy could examine the mission and participate on a negotiated basis in the creation of a mission team. If a declared mission found no voluntary allies, it would die for lack of support.”

“What would be the structure of the mission teams?”, I asked.

“The teams will be organized any way they like, remember it’s all voluntary. The individuals of the heterarchy will decide how they want to organize themselves, or even if they want to participate.

“Only those missions adequately supported by the heterarchy could occur. All involved would be voluntarily participating. Committment would be 100% . When a mission was over the team would return to the heterarchy.”

“Could the mission team be a hierarchy?”, I asked.

EUREKA

Coulter paused momentarily stunned. He seemed deep in thought, then he relaxed with a sigh and responded, “I had never really thought about the structure of the mission team. Yes, I think you are right. The structure of the mission team would be a hierarchy.” He paused again, deep in thought, then continued, “But with an important difference from many hierarchies because everything is voluntary.”

I realized he was describing negotiated hierarchy, a powerful form of hierarchy that served a vital role in Galambos’s non-coercive capitalism. As Coulter continued talking, I saw the heterarchy in my mind’s eye begin to move. First, there was the heterarchy, then one member of the heterarchy declared a mission. The heterarchy suddenly configures itself into a mission hierarchy — a negotiated hierarchy. During the mission it functions as a hierarchy. Each member standing where he agreed to stand, performing those tasks he volunteered to perform. The system was strongly self-organizing. Once the mission was completed, the hierarchy was abandoned the members return to the heterarchy.

Heterarchy becoming hierarchy becoming heterarchy becoming hierarchy becoming heterarchy becoming hierarchy and on and on and on………….

The model danced in my head. Always a heterarchy, occasionally a hierarchy. The heterarchy was the continuous pull — always pulling information. The hierarchy a discontinuous push — only occasionally pushing out a mission. Coulter was describing a tensegrity. A tensegrity made up of heterarchy and hierarchy.

Hierarchy is both right and wrong.
Heterarchy is both right and wrong.
Hierarchy is neither right nor wrong.
Heterarchy is neither right nor wrong.

In a flash, Coulter and I had got what we were after. I had been blind to heterarchy and he to hierarchy. But there it was, both strategies in one system. I had not come to North Carolina looking for tensegrities, and Coulter had never even heard of a tensegrity. And yet, his “heterarchy with mission teams” was in fact a tensegrity — a tensegrity with an equal balance of heterarchy and hierarchy.

There are no accidents in Nature and the tensegrity is no exception. This is the way we humans were meant to organize. Life’s most powerful organizing strategy for us is the organizational tensegrity.

To be continued …

Read the full description of ORTEGRITY

 

I am reading more of Elaine Morgan and the Aquatic Hypothesis of Human Evolution. It is very interesting stuff and makes sense to me at a deep level. Looking in another direction, some of Buckminster Fuller’s students have proposed an interesting new project.

Tetworld Center for Peace and Global Gaming

Tetworld’s concept for a global gaming center is in actuality a global observatory. That’s exactly what it is–an observatory! The only difference is that rather than looking outward toward the stars, we are looking inward at Spaceship Earth from a place (in space) outward from the earth.

It’s as if we turned the Hubble Space Telescope towards the earth–and instead of observing a planet rotating at 1,000 miles per hour, we are able to see the entirety of earth at a single moment (ala the Dymaxion Earth Display Map as shown below).

Where one can go and view and study conditions aboard the planet.The huge computing and display capabilities of the observatory will enable us to see where all the people and resources are, where the crops are today, where they were last year. Project conditions for next year. Where are the wind and hydropower resources–view migration patterns–watch planetary deforestation unfold before your eyes. Posit “what ifs”. What an extraordinary resource it will be!

A global, planetary, earthian observatory of earth itself.

Quite apart from its integral value to global gaming–it stands alone as a needed, unique and vital resource for the planet.

Read more about Tetworld

I have been working on my next book. It is a history of humanity from the perspective of synergic science. You can see some of it now up at CommUnity of Minds. I came across this article during my research. It was first posted here about one year ago.

What is so wrong with just making money ?

Timothy Wilken, MD

Making money is not the same as creating life support. Elsewhere I have defined mutual life support to be synergic wealth. Money was defined as neutral wealth. We humans are an interdependent species. We meet our needs by making exchanges in the marketplace. Supply and demand often determines the value of things that we need. High demand raises the value of a particular good, as does low supply. It is scarcity that gives everything its maximum value.

The laws of supply and demand were originally formulated by Adam Smith before the invention of advertising. Advertising is a powerful tool designed to create demand. This tool is a constant and insideous companion to modern life. It is enormously effective at creating demand. You can’t watch television, listen to radio, read a magazine, or even drive on the public highways without being bombarded with advertising. This prolific advertising creates a strong demand for products and services that have little or no benefit to humankind.

Most of this advertising created demand is for our wants not for our needs. Wants and needs are not the same.

I want a Mercedes, but I need transportation.

I want a gold Rolex, but I need to know the time.

I want Gucci loafers, but I only need shoes.

I want a million dollar architectually designed home, but I only need safe, comfortable housing.

Our present culture is dominated by the idea that more is always better than less–that expensive is always better than inexpensive. Two phrases in common use today encapsulate this attitude: “The only difference between men and boys is the price of their toys.” and “He who dies with the most toys wins!”

Scientists have discovered that Nature is always seeking more for less–always seeking maximum efficiency in all that she does. R. Buckminster Fuller called this principle of seeking more for less the “dymaxion” way.

This is of course simply another way of stating the “Principle of Least Action”. In science the most elegant solution is the one that explains the most with the fewest variables. A synergic culture will be dominated by the dymaxion ideal. The best will be that which accomplishes the most with the least.

Doing more with less will makes more available to help others. Helping others so that you are helped in return is the operating basis of synergic culture. There our human wants will move towards congruence with our human needs.

But, back to the present world, today’s wants are not only more than we need, but they often are not even good for us.

I want a cigarette, but what I need is to relax.

I want a drink of alcohol, but what I need in to reduce the stress in my life.

I want an extra dessert, but what I need is more love in my life.

Much of what we want is not helpful for us and often times even harmful. But the laws of supply and demand respond as well to human wants as they do to human needs.

Those products most demanded whether for wants or needs are considered valuable. And it is the possession of valuable things that is the usually definition of wealth. This means in today’s world many harmful things are valuable–cocaine is very valuable, and possession of a ton of cocaine would make me wealthy.

In a synergic science, we make a major distinction between creating mutual life support or synergic wealth and just making money which is neutral wealth.

Synergic wealth is more than just what humans want or value. Synergic wealth is that which supports mutual human life. Synergic Wealth is defined as life itself and that which promotes human well being generally–that which satisfies the human needs of self and other–that which promotes mutual survival and makes life meaningful for self and other.

While money is considered wealth in our present neutral society, even here it is not really wealth. Money is a symbolic tool that can be used to represent real wealth. It was originally invented as a mechanism to protect real wealth. This distinction has been lost in our modern world. Today there is no distinction between money and real wealth.

Most of the activities found in today’s neutral cultures have as their only purpose the making of money. As R. Buckminster Fuller explains:

“Those who have learned how to make money with money–which money can never be anything but a medium of wealth exchanging–have now completely severed money from its constant functional identity with real wealth . . . About 90 percent of all U.S.A. employment is engaged in tasks producing no life-support wealth.”

If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. How can you tell if you are helping the human condition or simply making it worse?

You must ask yourself, am I creating real wealth with my actions and my leverage or am I just making money to purchase the life support I need? Do my actions and leverage create life support–that which promotes human well being–that which satisfies human needs–that which promotes both human survival and human meaning? Do I create the real wealth necessary to support myself and my family, or do I live off the real wealth created by others.

When we analyze our present world, we discover that most individuals in today’s world do not create the real wealth that supports them and their families. They live off the productivity of others. These are not obvious criminals or thieves. Most of them are completely ignorant of their unknowing participation in the plundering of their fellow humans. They are busy making money which in today’s world is easily exchanged for life support–real wealth.

If as Fuller tells us 90% of employed Americans are engaged in tasks that make money, but produce no real wealth, what are these Amercans doing?

Obnoxico

Some of those making money, but producing no real wealth are involved in making products to satisfy human wants. In 1947 Buckminster Fuller coined the term Obnoxico to represent a fictious private-enterprise corporation  whose only purpose was to exploit the “wants” of humanity to make money. As Fuller explains:

“In my theoretical Obnoxico’s catalog the number-one item suggested that on the last day that your baby wears diapers you very carefully remove them, repin them empty, and stuff them full of tissue paper in just the shape in which they were when last occupied by your baby. You pack this assembly carefully into a strong corrugated-paperboard container and send it to Obnoxico, which will base-metallize the diapers, then gold- or silverplate them and send them back to you to be filled with ferns and hung in the back window of your car. The easily forecastable profits from this one item ran into millions of dollars per year.

“Somehow or other the theoretical Obnoxico concept has now twenty-five years later become a burgeoning reality. Private enterpriseis now building airports with ever-longer walkways and hotels with ever-increasing numbers of levels of ground-floor and basement arcades to accommodate the ever-more-swiftly multiplying Obnoxico stores. “Human beings traveling away from home with cash in their pockets, thinking fondly of those left behind or soon-to-be-joined loved ones, are hooked by the realistic statuettes of four-year-old girls and boys with upturned faces saying in a cartoon “balloon,” “What did you bring me, Daddy?”

“As the banking system pleads for more saving-account deposits (so that they can loan your money out to others at interest plus costs) the Obnoxico industry bleeds off an ever-greater percentage of all the potential savings as they are sentimentally or jokingly spent for acrylic toilet seats with dollar bills cast into the transparent plastic material, two teddy bears hugging an alligator, etc..”

Look around today, and you will find no shortage of products that fit in with Fuller’s concept of “Obnoxico”. Television, radio, and our sunday newspapers are filled with ads for these silly products that are of little or no value to humanity. Those creating these obnoxious products are simply seeking to earn their livings by making money.

They are unaware that making money is not the same as creating life support.

Advertising

Some of those making money, but creating no life support are engaged in selling products and services to satisfy human wants. Recall human wants are not human needs. Advertising is the creation of  human wants so that individuals will buy products they don’t need so that others can make money.

In today’s great market, which is the very hallmark of our neutral society, enormous amounts of money and effort are spent in advertising to create human wants where none exist. When you really need something, do you require someone to inform you that you need it. I don’t think so.  If you need something, you will automatically go and look for it.

Wants now are a very different case. I don’t know I want something until I see or hear an advertisement for it. It is estimated that $170, 000, 000, 000 is spent annually on advertising to generate demand for products and services that we almost never need. And the entire cost of all advertising is added on to the price of the products and services we are being urged to buy. As David Shenk explains:

“In 1971 the average American was targeted by at least 560 daily advertising messages. Twenty years later, that number had risen sixfold, to 3,000 messages per day. More than 1,000 telemarketing companies employ 4 million Americans, and generate $650 billion in annual sales. Today’s commercial messages have crept into every nook and cranny of our lives–onto our jackets, ties, hats, shirts, and wristbands; onto bikes, benches, cars, trucks, even tennis nets; onto banners trailing behind planes, hanging above sporting and concert events and now, in smaller form, bordering Internet Web pages; onto the sides of blimps hovering in the sky. Magazine ads now communicate not only through color and text but also through smell and even sound.”

This barrage of 3000 messages a day is not to sell us any thing that we really need. We don’t need advertising to urge us to meet our human needs. We may benefit from a directory, i.e. the Yellow Pages of the telephone book, or a catalogue of available products, but we certainly don’t require a constant bombardment of messages telling us where to get out needs met.

The purpose of advertising is to make money, not to create life support.

And it is very effective at making money by generating enormous demand for unneeded products and services to satisfy artificially created human wants.

 Advertising injures humanity

Even, if we were somehow wise enough to ignore advertising and never purchased a single unneeded product or service, advertising would still be very damaging to the quality of our lives.

It intrudes into every facet of modern life, wastes so much of our precious time, and disrupts the very fabric of our lives.

Imagine a world without advertising. Imagine a world where  magazines, newspapers, radio, and television contain no advertising. Take a few minutes to really imagine it.

It would be wonderful.

Play money

Some of those making money, but creating no life support are speculating in currencies, commodities, and of course the stock and bond markets. Speculators buy low and sell high. They do not invest in anything. They are seeking to gain a momentary price advantage and realize a quick profit. Their only interest is making money.

Today’s markets are such a large part of our political-economic world that most living humans assume they have always existed. This is of course not true as Hazel Henderson explains:

“Until the sixteenth century the notion of purely economic phenomena, isolated from the fabric of life, did not exist. Nor was there a national system of markets. That, too, is a relatively recent phenomena which originated in seventeenth century England.

“Of course markets have existed since the Stone Age, but they were based on barter, not cash, and so they were bound to be local. The motive of individual gain from economic activities was generally absent. The very idea of profit, let alone interest, was either inconceivable or banned.”

Day traders are new breed of speculator emerging in the current American stock market. These individuals are drawing a lot of attention by buying and selling stocks many times a day. They hold on to their purchases sometimes for only a few minutes to a few hours again seeking to buy low and sell high.

Collectively, all these speculators are having a large effect on the global economy. Henderson explains:

 “Regulators and central bankers were forced into collective action on a crisis basis after the 1994-95 Mexican peso crisis, since none could defend their currencies, even in concert. Central bankers’ policies are defeated each day by the collective action of currency traders staging “bear raids” on weak currencies at will. U.S. treasury Secretary Robert Tubinand and Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan’s efforts to coordinate thirteen countries’ central banks to boost the dollar prior to the June 1995 Economic Summit meeting between the United States, Britain, Germany, Italy, Canada, France, and Japan and later efforts gave only short-lived warning to currency traders–at a cost to their respective taxpayers of over $2 billion each. Increasingly, central banks will have to shift from managing domestic money supply to focusing on global aggregates. No longer is it only developing countries that are swamped by waves of hot money washing across thier borders. McKinsey Global Institute estimates that the total stock of financial assets traded in global capital markets will increase from $35 trillion in 1992 to $83 trillion in 2000.”

Speculators do not create life support. They are only making money. And all the money they make through this process is at the expense of life support created by someone else. Speculators do not really invest in anything. But what about the Stock Market? Surely, this is a place where real investment takes place in companies that are creating life support.

It depends of course on whether I invest in a company creating products and services that support life, or I invest in a company just making money by creating products and services to satisfy human wants. But let us suppose, I do invest in a company creating life support then surely my investment is contributing to the creation of life support. The following description is found on the internet at the Financial Forecast Center.

How the Stock Market works

“It all starts when a company wants to raise money to invest in something they think will be profitable, such as a new manufacturing process, more production capacity, or a new product. The company can do this a number of ways, but the two most popular are to borrow the money or sell part of the company. Borrowing the money is usually done by issuing a “bond” which is a promise to repay the borrowed money with interest.

“The next most popular way for a company to get money is to sell “stock” in the company. This is essentially selling a bit of the company in return for a promise of getting a split of the profits when there are profits to split. Stocks are also called “equity” because the owner of the stock has equity, or part ownership, of the company.

“When a company is formed, or incorporated, it sets up a certain amount of stock, which is worth about as much as the paper it is printed on–stock in its infancy carries no real value outside of the company. When the original owner of the company needs to raise money, he has to find good natured people with money to burn and sell this stock person by person, one person at a time. A share of stock signifies the holder owns some fraction of the company and allows the owner to enjoy part of the profits of the company. The stock may have a “face value” given to it when the company was formed, but you couldn’t walk into a grocery store with $10 worth of this stock and buy a loaf of bread.

“As the company becomes even larger and needs to raise even more money (usually several hundred million dollars), the stock will be offered on the open market. This is when it gets interesting. An initial public offering is made of so many shares of stock at a predetermined price, say $15 a share. People who invest in the stock market usually read the Wall Street Journal looking for initial public offerings, or IPO’s. At the moment the stock is sold to a shareholder it is worth its selling price of $15 a share. Now, you could turn around and sell it for $15 dollars to someone else and then go buy a loaf of bread, if someone is willing to pay you $15 dollars for it. The stock has now gone from being held by a few owners of the company, who would have a hard time selling it, to being held by thousands of owners who could sell it more easily because it is now being traded at stock exchanges such as the New York Stock Exchange or via the NASDAQ.

“Soon after trading hands a few time, the people buying the stock now determine the value of the stock by what they are willing to pay for it. Sometimes the price of a stock that sold for $15 a share at its initial public offering will drop like a rock. Other times, it will skyrocket. The value of the stock is set by many, many people trading it in a free market. And even though a person buying a share of stock may be a hundred times removed from the person originally buying the stock from the company at the IPO, that person still owns some teeny, tiny fraction of the company. I don’t know how they do it, but the company keeps track of all their stockholders, even if a person holds one share for a week.

“Sometimes the value of a share of stock is determined by crazes, such as the internet which tends to drive the price up quickly, but the price may also fall as quickly when the craze looses it “newness”. More often than not, the price of stock is set by how much profit the owner will receive, or dividend, and by the company’s current earnings and their prospects for future earnings. A company with little hope for the future will be frowned upon by the people wanting to buy their stock, and the buyer will not pay very much for it (its price usually doesn’t drop to $0 right away, as there are optimists and opportunist who will take a chance on disfavored stocks and will keep the price from falling to nothingness over night).

“It’s just like trading baseball cards. When stock is traded on the open market, the only reason it is worth so much is because there is someone out there willing to pay that much for it. No magic, no mystery.”

The stock market is really two different markets–the primary market for new shares and the secondary market for existing shares. The primary market is where companies offer new securities for sale to the public. When a company first joins the Stock Exchange their initial public offering is made offering new shares to the public. Also established companies listed on the Stock Exchange from time to time may issue additional new shares to raise additional money. It is this selling of new shares in this primary market that raises money for companies. Once the public has purchased these new shares, they are then free to turn around and trade these now existing shares as they like in the secondary market.

The proceeds from such trades goes entirely to the shareholder. Sales of existing shares in the secondary market does not raise money for the companies. Now the vast majority of stocks bought and sold every day are existing shares in this secondary market. Most investors are not seeking the small return that comes from dividends paid by the companies on the stocks they purchased, but rather hope that the market value of these shares will increase enough so that they will profit when they sell later.

Again, we have a case of buying low and selling high–we are just making money rather than creating life support. Buying and selling stock is almost completely divorced from the companies whose shares are purchased. The rise and fall of stock prices often have little or nothing to do with the real value or health of the companies themselves.

The stock market has become like a global casino. Will I get lucky. Will I buy low and sell high. Will I make money. There is no thought of creating life support.

Crack dwelling

Some of those making money, but creating no life support are dwelling in the cracks between the creators of life support. These cracks have been created by our adversary-neutral government.

Crack dwellers include the service industry that surrounds the Stock Market. You are not allowed to purchase stocks or bonds directly. You require a stock broker to be sure that you pay a commission everytime a trade is made. Commissions are paid with every buy and every sell.

The stock brokers are always winners regardless of whether the stocks go up or down. They make lots of money, but of course create no life support.

Government employees are fully supported by by tax dollars. The American government (federal, state, and local) consumed 44% of our national income in 1996. To the extent that government action does not help the people, and certainly in all instances where it hurts the people, this represents plunder–crack-dwellers. Our government wastes much of the national income it siezes in the name of the public good. As Hazel Henderson explains:

“As most U.S. citzens know, state and local governments in the United States are often the most corrupt, dominated by financial and corporate special interests. Local politicians almost routinely line their pockets, thanks to inside information on where airports, roads, and other projects are to be sited, allowing profits for politicians and their friends from real estate and construction deals.”

Accountants and attorneys spend many hours working in the cracks between the people and the government. They are living off the productivity of their clients–crack dwellers.

Before you buy a house a Title Search is legally required. Fees are charged for this service that is many times greater than its real value. Fuller told us that the Banking industry collected over $1 billion in 1978 just for transferring home-ownership deeds–crack-dwellers.

The entire Real Estate Industry is based on government licensed Realtors getting into the cracks between the buyer and seller and “earning” 12% of the selling price of the house–crack-dwellers.

Once a home is sold it must be financed and here again the banking industry charges “points” to originate the loan in addition to the prevailing interest of the moment–crack-dwellers.

Today’s health care system is full of crack-dwellers. Occupying the cracks between the providers and users of health care, some CEOs of today’s modern HMOs are “earning” as much as $400 million a year by denying needed health care to their members. As a practicing Physician, I now spend hours each week playing “may I help my patients” with clerks who know nothing of medicine but are instructed in blocking all requests for authorization–crack-dwellers.

Insurance clerks at some of our largest Health Insurance companies routinely throw away every third claim they receive on the basis that this practice will significantly delay payment, and if the insurance company is lucky as many as one third of providers will not rebill–crack-dwellers.

These are only a few examples. If you look around, you will discover that our adversary-neutral world makes cracks between every buyer and seller–between every producer and consumer.

Today many modern humans are living in the cracks “earning their livings” off the productivity of others.

What’s so wrong with wanting things?

Human wanting will survive a synergic revolution. In a synergic culture we humans will also want things that we may not need. But our wants won’t be artificially generated just so someone else can make money. This change will mean an end to unsolicited advertising.

Some would argue that this would mean an end to free television, or cheap newspapers. I would argue that commerical television, and newspapers full of adverstisments are neither free nor cheap. When we purchase any advertised product we are paying for our “free” televison and our “cheap” newspaper. And, this ignores all the time we waste being distracted by misdirected advertisements.

When humans have need for a product or service, they will take action to meet their needs. Clear and easily accessible information about all available products and services will be a part of synergic culture. However, advertising as we know it today will go the way of the dinosaur.

What’s wrong with just making money?

The money makers in today’s world are among the most respected and admired. The vast majority of humanity thinks there is nothing wrong with just making money since they are completely unaware of the difference between just making money and creating life support.

Of course the difference is that making money is making neutral wealth, but it is not creating synergic wealth. Those just making money are often the “winners” in the neutral-adversary reality of our modern world. But the price humanity pays for this minority to win is the necessity for the majority of living humans to lose.

Those who just make money still need life support. They get it by trading their Neutral wealth–money for Synergic wealth–life support. If as Fuller tells us 90% of Americans are just making money then only 10% of Americans are creating life support. No wonder the majority of humans are losing.

The truth is especially hard to believe if it requires that we take action–if it requires that we change. If humanity is to have a future, we must take action–we must change. If humanity is to have a future, we must believe the truth.