Why Co-Operation?

Timothy Wilken, MD

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

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

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

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

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

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

The conversation might go like this, “Are you ready?” “OK.” “Ready, 1.. 2.. 3.. lift!”, and if things are going well that is fine, but if one end gets too heavy then synergic co-Operation requires that you also protect each other from loss. “Whoops! Set it down.” This is the synergic veto. This is the true meaning of co-Operation. The negotiation to insure that both parties win, and the synergic veto to stop the action if either party is losing.

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

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

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

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

Synergic relationship makes humans the interdependent class of life – interdependent on each other.

---

The following is reposted from the Foundations of World Unity series of the Bah·’“ Writings. Bah·’“ means “a follower of Bah·”.

Bah·’u'll·h was born in 1817 and died in 1892. He was the son of a Persian nobleman and born to wealth and luxury. Yet the major part of His life was spent in imprisonment and exile. He knew intimately torture and the dungeon, scorn and hunger, poverty and betrayal.

The chief principle of Bah·’u'll·h’s Teachings is “the oneness and wholeness of the human race”. This is the pivotal point of all that He taught. The purpose of the Bah·’“ Faith is to unite the entire world in one common faith and one common social order. We may perhaps state that Bah·’u'll·h’s second challenging contribution to the unity of the human race is a set of principles and a social structure designed to produce justice. He called justice “the best beloved of all things” in the sight of God. He urged moderation and warned against fanaticism and excesses of all kinds. The acquiring of education is essential to everyone. True religion and science are in agreement. Consultation is the key method for the settling of disputes and for developing plans and policies for the common good.

---

Cooperation

From the Tablets of Bah·’u'll·h

It seems as though all creatures can exist singly and alone. For example, a tree can exist solitary and alone on a given prairie or in a valley or on the mountainside. An animal upon a mountain or a bird soaring in the air might live a solitary life. They are not in need of cooperation or solidarity. Such animated beings enjoy the greatest comfort and happiness in their respective solitary lives.

On the contrary, man cannot live singly and alone. He is in need of continuous cooperation and mutual help. For example, a man living alone in the wilderness will eventually starve. He can never, singly and alone, provide himself with all the necessities of existence. Therefore, he is in need of cooperation and reciprocity.

The mystery of this phenomenon, the cause thereof is this, that mankind has been created from one single origin, has branched off from one family. Thus in reality all mankind represents one family. God has not created any difference. He has created all as one that thus this family might live in perfect happiness and well-being.

Regarding reciprocity and cooperation: each member of the body politic should live in the utmost comfort and welfare because each individual member of humanity is a member of the body politic and if one member of the members be in distress or be afflicted with some disease all the other members must necessarily suffer. For example, a member of the human organism is the eye. If the eye should be affected that affliction would affect the whole nervous system. Hence, if a member of the body politic becomes afflicted, in reality, from the standpoint of sympathetic connection, all will share that affliction since this (one afflicted) is a member of the group of members, a part of the whole. Is it possible for one member or part to be in distress and the other members to be at ease? It is impossible! Hence God has desired that in the body politic of humanity each one shall enjoy perfect welfare and comfort.

Although the body politic is one family yet because of lack of harmonious relations some members are comfortable and some in direst misery, some members are satisfied and some are hungry, some members are clothed in most costly garments and some families are in need of food and shelter. Why? Because this family lacks the necessary reciprocity and symmetry. This household is not well arranged. This household is not living under a perfect law. All the laws which are legislated do not ensure happiness. They do not provide comfort. Therefore a law must be given to this family by means of which all the members of this family will enjoy equal well-being and happiness.

Is it possible for one member of a family to be subjected to the utmost misery and to abject poverty and for the rest of the family to be comfortable? It is impossible unless those members of the family be senseless, atrophied, inhospitable, unkind. Then they would say, “Though these members do belong to our family–let them alone. Let us look after ourselves. Let them die. So long as I am comfortable, I am honored, I am happy–this my brother–let him die. If he be in misery let him remain in misery, so long as I am comfortable. If he is hungry let him remain so; I am satisfied. If he is without clothes, so long as I am clothed, let him remain as he is. If he is shelterless, homeless, so long as I have a home, let him remain in the wilderness.”

Such utter indifference in the human family is due to lack of control, to lack of a working law, to lack of kindness in its midst. If kindness had been shown to the members of this family surely all the members thereof would have enjoyed comfort and happiness.

His Holiness Bah·’u'll·h has given instructions regarding every one of the questions confronting humanity. He has given teachings and instructions with regard to every one of the problems with which man struggles. Among them are (the teachings) concerning the question of economics that all the members of the body politic may enjoy through the working out of this solution the greatest happiness, welfare and comfort without any harm or injury attacking the general order of things. Thereby no difference or dissension will occur. No sedition or contention will take place. This solution is this:

First and foremost is the principle that to all the members of the body politic shall be given the greatest achievements of the world of humanity. Each one shall have the utmost welfare and well-being. To solve this problem we must begin with the farmer; there will we lay a foundation for system and order because the peasant class and the agricultural class exceed other classes in the importance of their service. In every village there must be established a general storehouse which will have a number of revenues.

The first revenue will be that of the tenth or tithes.

The second revenue (will be derived) from the animals.

The third revenue, from the minerals, that is to say, every mine prospected or discovered, a third thereof will go to this vast storehouse.

The fourth is this: whosoever dies without leaving any heirs all his heritage will go to the general storehouse.

Fifth, if any treasures shall be found on the land they should be devoted to this storehouse.

All these revenues will be assembled in this storehouse.

As to the first, the tenths or tithes: we will consider a farmer, one of the peasants. We will look into his income. We will find out, for instance, what is his annual revenue and also what are his expenditures. Now, if his income be equal to his expenditures, from such a farmer nothing whatever will be taken. That is, he will not be subjected to taxation of any sort, needing as he does all his income. Another farmer may have expenses running up to one thousand dollars we will say, and his income is two thousand dollars. From such an one a tenth will be required, because he has a surplus. But if his income be ten thousand dollars and his expenses one thousand dollars or his income twenty thousand dollars, he will have to pay as taxes, one-fourth. If his income be one hundred thousand dollars and his expenses five thousand, one-third will he have to pay because he has still a surplus since his expenses are five thousand and his income one hundred thousand. If he pays, say, thirty-five thousand dollars, in addition to the expenditure of five thousand he still has sixty thousand left. But if his expenses be ten thousand and his income two hundred thousand then he must give an even half because ninety thousand will be in that case the sum remaining. Such a scale as this will determine allotment of taxes. All the income from such revenues will go to this general storehouse.

Then there must be considered such emergencies as follows: a certain farmer whose expenses run up to ten thousand dollars and whose income is only five thousand, he will receive necessary expenses from the storehouse. Five thousand dollars will be allotted to him so he will not be in need.

Then the orphans will be looked after, all of whose expenses will be taken care of. The cripples in the village–all their expenses will be looked after. The poor in the village–their necessary expenses will be defrayed. And other members who for valid reasons are incapacitated –the blind, the old, the deaf–their comfort must be looked after. In the village no one will remain in need or in want. All will live in the utmost comfort and welfare. Yet no schism will assail the general order of the body politic.

Hence the expenses or expenditures of the general storehouse are now made clear and its activities made manifest. The income of this general storehouse has been shown. Certain trustees will be elected by the people in a given village to look after these transactions. The farmers will be taken care of and if after all these expenses are defrayed any surplus is found in the storehouse it must be transferred to the national treasury.

This system is all thus ordered so that in the village the very poor will be comfortable, the orphans will live happily and well; in a word, no one will be left destitute. All the individual members of the body politic will thus live comfortably and well.

For larger cities, naturally, there will be a system on a larger scale. Were I to go into that solution the details thereof would be very lengthy.

The result of this (system) will be that each individual member of the body politic will live most comfortably and happily under obligation to no one. Nevertheless, there will be preservation of degree because in the world of humanity there must needs be degrees. The body politic may well be likened to an army. In this army there must be a general, there must be a sergeant, there must be a marshal, there must be the infantry; but all must enjoy the greatest comfort and welfare.

God is not partial and is no respecter of persons. He has made provision for all. The harvest comes forth for everyone. The rain showers upon everybody and the heat of the sun is destined to warm everyone. The verdure of the earth is for everyone. Therefore there should be for all humanity the utmost happiness, the utmost comfort, the utmost well-being.

But if conditions are such that some are happy and comfortable and some in misery; some are accumulating exorbitant wealth and others are in dire want–under such a system it is impossible for man to be happy and impossible for him to win the good pleasure of God. God is kind to all. The good pleasure of God consists in the welfare of all the individual members of mankind.

A Persian king was one night in his palace, living in the greatest luxury and comfort. Through excessive joy and gladness he addressed a certain man, saying: “Of all my life this is the happiest moment. Praise be to God, from every point prosperity appears and fortune smiles! My treasury is full and the army is well taken care of. My palaces are many; my land unlimited; my family is well off; my honor and sovereignty are great. What more could I want!”

The poor man at the gate of his palace spoke out, saying: “O kind king! Assuming that you are from every point of view so happy, free from every worry and sadness–do you not worry for us? You say that on your own account you have no worries–but do you never worry about the poor in your land? Is it becoming or meet that you should be so well off and we in such dire want and need? In view of our needs and troubles how can you rest in your palace, how can you even say that you are free from worries and sorrows? As a ruler you must not be so egoistic as to think of yourself alone but you must think of those who are your subjects. When we are comfortable then you will be comfortable; when we are in misery how can you, as a king, be in happiness?”

The purport is this that we are all inhabiting one globe of earth. In reality we are one family and each one of us is a member of this family. We must all be in the greatest happiness and comfort, under a just rule and regulation which is according to the good pleasure of God, thus causing us to be happy, for this life is fleeting.

If man were to care for himself only he would be nothing but an animal for only the animals are thus egoistic. If you bring a thousand sheep to a well to kill nine hundred and ninety-nine the one remaining sheep would go on grazing, not thinking of the others and worrying not at all about the lost, never bothering that its own kind had passed away, or had perished or been killed. To look after one’s self only is therefore an animal propensity. It is the animal propensity to live solitary and alone. It is the animal proclivity to look after one’s own comfort. But man was created to be a man–to be fair, to be just, to be merciful, to be kind to all his species, never to be willing that he himself be well off while others are in misery and distress–this is an attribute of the animal and not of man. Nay, rather, man should be willing to accept hardships for himself in order that others may enjoy wealth; he should enjoy trouble for himself that others may enjoy happiness and well-being. This is the attribute of man. This is becoming of man. Otherwise man is not man–he is less than the animal.

The man who thinks only of himself and is thoughtless of others is undoubtedly inferior to the animal because the animal is not possessed of the reasoning faculty. The animal is excused; but in man there is reason, the faculty of justice, the faculty of mercifulness. Possessing all these faculties he must not leave them unused. He who is so hard-hearted as to think only of his own comfort, such an one will not be called man.

Man is he who forgets his own interests for the sake of others. His own comfort he forfeits for the well-being of all. Nay, rather, his own life must he be willing to forfeit for the life of mankind. Such a man is the honor of the world of humanity. Such a man is the glory of the world of mankind. Such a man is the one who wins eternal bliss. Such a man is near to the threshold of God. Such a man is the very manifestation of eternal happiness. Otherwise, men are like animals, exhibiting the same proclivities and propensities as the world of animals. What distinction is there? What prerogatives, what perfections? None whatever! Animals are better even–thinking only of themselves and negligent of the needs of others.

Consider how the greatest men in the world–whether among prophets or philosophers–all have forfeited their own comfort, have sacrificed their own pleasure for the well-being of humanity. They have sacrificed their own lives for the body politic. They have sacrificed their own wealth for that of the general welfare. They have forfeited their own honor for the honor of mankind. Therefore it becomes evident that this is the highest attainment for the world of humanity.

We ask God to endow human souls with justice so that they may be fair, and may strive to provide for the comfort of all, that each member of humanity may pass his life in the utmost comfort and welfare. Then this material world will become the very paradise of the Kingdom, this elemental earth will be in a heavenly state and all the servants of God will live in the utmost joy, happiness and gladness. We must all strive and concentrate all our thoughts in order that such happiness may accrue to the world of humanity. the common people. Laws must be made because it is impossible for the laborers to be satisfied with the present system. They will strike every month and every year. Finally, the capitalists will lose. In ancient times a strike occurred among the Turkish soldiers. They said to the government: “Our wages are very small and they should be increased.” The government was forced to give them their demands. Shortly afterwards they struck again. Finally all the incomes went to the pockets of the soldiers to the extent that they killed the king, saying: “Why didst thou not increase the income so that we might have received more?”

It is impossible for a country to live properly without laws. To solve this problem rigorous laws must be made, so that all the governments of the world will be the protectors thereof.

In the Bolshevistic principles equality is effected through force. The masses who are opposed to the people of rank and to the wealthy class desire to partake of their advantages.

But in the divine teachings equality is brought about through a ready willingness to share. It is commanded as regards wealth that the rich among the people, and the aristocrats should, by their own free will and for the sake of their own happiness, concern themselves with and care for the poor. This equality is the result of the lofty characteristics and noble attributes of mankind.

---

 Read more from Bah·’“ Academics Resource Library

Timothy Wilken’s UnCommon Sense: We Can All Win! – PDF

1—Life
2—Three Ways
3—The Relationship Continuum
4—Three Classes of Life
5—Human Neutrality
6—Interdependence
7—Wealth

 

The following is from the sixth Chapter of the book Problems of Humanity. By the same authors: 1) Introduction 2) The Problem of International Unity 3) World Disunity

---

World Unity

Alice Bailey & Djwhal Khul

There is no counsel of perfection to give the world or any solution which will carry immediate relief. To the spiritual leaders of the race certain lines of action seem right and to guarantee constructive attitudes.

1. The United Nations, through its Assembly and Committees, must be supported; there is as yet no other organization to which man can hopefully look. Therefore, he must support the United Nations but, at the same time, let this group of world leaders know what is needed.
   
   
2. The general public in every nation must be educated in right human relations. Above all else, the children and the youth of the world must be taught goodwill to all men everywhere, irrespective of race or creed.
   
   
3. Time must be given for the needed adjustments and humanity must learn to be intelligently patient; humanity must face with courage and optimism the slow process of building the new civilization.
   
   
4. An intelligent and cooperative public opinion must be developed in every land and the doing of this constitutes a major spiritual duty. This will take much time but if the men of goodwill and if the spiritual people of the world will become genuinely active, it can be done in twenty-five years.
   
   
5. The world economic council (or whatever body represents the resources of the world) must free itself from fraudulent politics, capitalistic influence and its devious scheming; it must set the resources of the earth free for the use of humanity. This will be a lengthy task but it will be possible when world need is better appreciated. An enlightened public opinion will make the decisions of the economic council practical and possible. Sharing and cooperation must be taught instead of greed and competition.
   
   
6. There must be freedom to travel everywhere in any direction and in any country; by means of this free intercourse, members of the human family may get to know each other and to appreciate each other; passports and visas should be discontinued because they are symbols of the great heresy of separateness.
   
   
7. The men of goodwill everywhere must be mobilized and set to work; it is upon their efforts that the future of humanity depends; they exist in their millions everywhere and – when organized and mobilized – represent a vast section of the thinking public.

It will be through the steady, consistent and organized work of the men of goodwill throughout the world that world unity will be brought about. At present, such men are only in process of organizing and are apt to feel that the work to be done is so stupendous and the forces arrayed against them are so great that their – at present – isolated efforts are useless to break down the barriers of greed and hate with which they are confronted. They realize that there is as yet no systemized spread of the principle of goodwill which holds the solution to the world problem; they have as yet no idea of the numerical strength of those who are thinking as they do. They ask themselves the same questions which are agitating the minds of men everywhere: How can order be restored? How can there be fair distribution of the world’s resources? How can the Four Freedoms become factual and not just beautiful dreams? How can true religion be resurrected and the ways of true spiritual living govern the hearts of men? How can a true prosperity be established which will be the result of unity, peace and plenty?

© 1998 Netnews Association

---

This conclusion written first in 1947 was overly optimistic. The call for working together as a family of united cultures to solve are mutual human problems never came. Today, on the eve of 2003, we have no choice. We must work together or perish. We humans must make peace.

---

 Read more from Problems of Humanity, Third Edition 1964

The following is from the sixth Chapter of the book Problems of Humanity. By the same authors: 1) Introduction 2) The Problem of International Unity

---

World Disunity

Alice Bailey & Djwhal Khul

What at this moment appears to prevent world unity and keeps the United Nations from arriving at those necessary settlements which the man in the street is so eagerly awaiting? The answer is not hard to find and involves all nations: nationalism, capitalism, competition, blind stupid greed. It is an intense emotional nationalism which made the Polish nation so difficult a member of the family of nations; it is materialism and fear, plus a lack of spiritual interest, which makes France so constant an obstructionist and has led her to work against united world action; it is fanatical adherence to an ideology and national immaturity which prompts so much of Russia’s activities; it is a rampant capitalism which makes the United States one of the most feared of the nations, plus her gestures of armed power; it is the fast dying imperialism which handicaps Great Britain and a clinging to responsibilities and territories which she is realizing could well be turned over to the United Nations; the hope of Great Britain lies in her socialistic tendencies which enable her to take the “middle path” between the communism of Russia and the capitalism of the United States. It is the smug greed of the nations which escaped the war which is hindering progress; it is the devious actions of the Jews and the hatred which they cultivate which tend also to undermine the hope of peace; it is the chaos in India and China which is complicating the work of the well-intentioned; it is the unchristian and undemocratic treatment of the Negro peoples in the United States and Africa which is contributing, to the ferment; it is the blind inertness and lack of interest of the masses of the people which permit the wrong men to be in power; it is fear of the rest of the world which makes the Russian leaders keep their peoples in ignorance of the attitude of other nations on world affairs; it is the wrong use of money which colors the press and the radio in Great Britain and still more in the United States, thus keeping much of the truth from the people; it is the upheaval of labor everywhere which feeds the turmoil and forces unnecessary suffering upon the public; it is powerful, political and international distrust, lying propaganda and the apathy of the churches which still further complicate the problem. It is – above all else – the refusal of that public to face life as it is and to recognize the facts for what they are. The mass of men need arousing to see that good comes to all men alike and not just to a few privileged groups, and to learn also that “hatred ceases not by hatred but that hatred ceases by love”. This love is not a sentiment, but practical goodwill, expressing itself through individuals, in communities and among nations.

Such is the sad and sorry picture of the world today and only the blind and the uncaring will deny it. Only a keen realization of the situation and of the sources of the trouble will serve to impulse mankind to take the needed action. But there is another side of the picture and there is that which will balance the evil, though, as yet, it will not completely balance and offset it.

Today men and women everywhere – in high place and in low, in every nation, community and group – are presenting a vision of right human relations which must constitute the standard for the future of mankind. Everywhere they are exposing the evils which must be eliminated and they are educating ceaselessly in the principles of the new age. It is these men who are of importance. In politics there are great and wise statesmen who are endeavoring to guide their people wisely but have as yet too much with which to contend; of these Franklin D. Roosevelt was an outstanding modern example, for he gave of his best and died in the service of humanity. There are enlightened educators, writers and lecturers in every land who are seeking to show the people how practical is the ideal, how available the goodwill in mankind, and how easily applied are these ideals when there are enough men and women of goodwill active in the world to force the issue. This is the factor of importance. There are also scientists, physicians and agriculturists who have dedicated their lives to the betterment of human living; there are churchmen in all the faiths who follow sincerely the footsteps of the Christ (though they are not the leaders) and who repudiate the materialism which has ruined the churches; there are men and women in their untold millions who see truly, think clearly and work hard in their communities to establish right human relations.

Security, happiness and peaceful relations are desired by all. Until, however, the Great Powers, in collaboration with the little nations, have solved the economic problem and have realized that the resources of the earth belong to no one nation but to humanity as a whole, there will be no peace. The oil of the world, the mineral wealth, the wheat, the sugar and the grains belong to all men everywhere. They are essential to the daily living of the everyday man.

© 1998 Netnews Association

---

Read more from Problems of Humanity, Third Edition 1964

The following is the sixth Chapter of the book Problems of Humanity. The first edition of this book, published in 1947, contained essays on the basic problems of humanity. These had originally been issued in pamphlet form between October 1944 and December 1946, and dealt essentially with conditions during and immediately after the war years of 1939-45.

While some of the book is now out of date, most of the problems described continue to haunt us. See the Introduction.

---

The Problem of International Unity

Alice Bailey & Djwhal Khul

The distribution of the world’s resources and the settled unity of the peoples of the world are in reality one and the same thing, for behind all modern wars lies a fundamental economic problem. Solve that and wars will very largely cease. In considering, therefore, the preservation of peace, as sought for and emphasized by the United Nations at this time, it becomes immediately apparent that peace, security and world stability are primarily tied up with the economic problem. When there is freedom from want, one of the major causes of war will disappear. Where there is uneven distribution of the world’s riches and where there is a situation in which some nations have or take everything and other nations lack the necessities of life, it is obvious that there is a trouble-breeding factor there and that something must be done. Therefore we should deal with world unity and peace primarily from the angle of the economic problem.

With the cessation of World War II came the opportunity to inaugurate a new and better way of life, and to establish that security and peace for which all men ceaselessly long. Three groups immediately appeared in the world:

1. The powerful, reactionary, conservative groups desirous of retaining as much of the past as possible, having great power and no vision.
2. The fanatical ideologists in every country – communistic, democratic and fascist.
3. The inert masses of the people in every land, ignorant for the most part, desiring only peace after storm and security in the place of economic disaster; they are victimized by their rulers, by established old conditions, and kept in the dark as to the truth of the world situation.

All these factors produce the present disorders and condition the deliberations of the United Nations. Though there is no major war, there is no peace, no security and no immediate hope of either.

It is essential for the future happiness and progress of humanity that there should be no return to the old ways, whether political, religious or economic. Therefore, in handling these problems, we should search out the wrong conditions which have brought humanity to its present state of almost cataclysmic disaster. These conditions were the result of religious faiths which have not moved forward in their thinking for hundreds of years; of economic systems which lay the emphasis upon the accumulation of riches and material possessions and which leave all the power and the produce of the earth in the hands of a relatively few men, while the rest of humanity struggle for a bare subsistence; and of political regimes run by the corrupt, the totalitarian-minded, the grafters and those who love place and power more than they love their fellowmen.

It is essential that there should be a presentation of these things in terms of the spiritual welfare of humanity and a truer interpretation of the meaning of the word “spiritual”. The time is long past when a line of demarcation can be drawn between the religious world and the political or the economic. The reason for the corrupt politics and the greedy ambitious planning of so many of the world’s leading men can be found in the fact that spiritually minded men and women have not assumed – as their spiritual duty and responsibility – the leadership of the people. They have left the power in the wrong hands and permitted the selfish and the undesirable to lead.

The word “spiritual” does not belong to the churches or to the world religions. “Pure religion and undefiled” is pure charity and a selfless following of the Christ. The churches are themselves great capitalistic systems, particularly the Roman Catholic Church, and show little evidence of the mind that was in Christ. The churches have had their opportunity, but have done little to change men’s hearts or to benefit the people. Now, under cyclic law, political ideologies and national and international planning are occupying the attention of the people and everywhere efforts are being made to bring about better human relations. This, in the eyes of the spiritually minded and of the enlightened worker for humanity, is a sign of progress and an indication of the innate divinity in man. That is truly spiritual which properly relates man to man and man to God and which demonstrates in a better world and the expression of the Four Freedoms throughout the planet. For these the spiritual man must work.

The Kingdom of God will inaugurate a world which will be one in which it will be realized that – politically speaking – humanity, as a whole, is of far greater importance than any one nation; it will be a new world order, built upon different principles to those in the past, and one in which men will carry the spiritual vision into their national governments, into their economic planning and into all measures taken to bring about security and right human relations. Spirituality is essentially the establishing of right human relations, the promotion of goodwill and finally the establishing of a true peace on earth, as the result of these two expressions of divinity.

© 1998 Netnews Association

---

Read more from Problems of Humanity, Third Edition 1964

Happy Holidays!!

---

 Go Be Reconciled With Thy Brother

In his sermon on the mount, Jesus of Nazareth taught:

“Love our enemies, do good to them that hate us, bless them that curse us, and pray for them that despitefully use us, I say unto you, that every one who is angry with his brother shall be in danger of the judgement. Go be reconciled with thy brother.”

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

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

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

Whether you believe Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ fortold in the Old Testament, or just a man, his words bring wisdom to all humanity.
 

---

Read The Scientific Basis for The Golden Rule 

 

The Give Help to Get Help Wheel was developed after an original concept of Daniel Quinn’s first presented in his book My Ishmael.

---

How it might work…

Timothy Wilken, MD

Tensegrity is the pattern that results when push and pull have a win-win relationship with each other. The pull is continuous and the push is discontinuous. The continuous pull is balanced by the discontinuous push producing an integrity of tension and compression. This creates a powerful self-stabilizing system. The term tensegrity comes from synergic science.

The gifting tensegrity is a newly invented mechanism for the exchange of human help. Let us begin by describing how a GIFTegrity might be structured and how it could work. Every member of a synergic help exchange would participate in two roles. That as a giftor and that as a giftee.

The continuous pull of the giftees’ needs are balanced by the discontinuous push from the giftors’ offers  of help. Again we see as an INTERdependent life form, there will be times when we will help others and times when others will help us.

The GIFTegrity works on trust. I give help to those in need and trust that when I am in need there will be those who will give me help. Synergic Trust was discovered long ago, and was once known as: 

The Spiritual Principle Of Giving And Receiving

“When we give to one another, freely and without conditions, sharing our blessings with others and bearing each other’s burdens, the giving multiplies and we receive far more than what was given. Even when there is no immediate prospect of return, Heaven keeps accounts of giving, and in the end blessing will return to the giver, multiplied manyfold. We must give first; to expect to receive without having given is to violate the universal law. On the other hand, giving in order to receive–with strings attached, with the intention of currying favor, or in order to make a name for oneself — is condemned.”

And while, The Spiritual Principle of Giving and Receiving relies on “Heaven to keep account of giving.”, the Gift Tensegrity relies on a public database to keep account of giving.and receiving. This database of the synergic help exchange is a public space where the exchanging of help is made visable to all members who are participants in good standing.

When you join a Gift Tensegrity you sign in and register as a Giftor-Giftee. You will fill out two profiles. The first profile is for your role as a giftor. Your giftor profile is the list of the types of help you would like to give to other members of the synergic help tensegrity.

The second profile is for your role as a giftee. Your giftee profile is the list of the types of help you would like to receive as gifts from other members of the synergic help tensegrity. A third profile will develop as Giftor-Giftee members use the synergic help exchange. This is the personal history of each member’s giving and receiving. This profile is transparent. It can be seen by all members who are particpants in good standing. It shows all the gifts you have given, all the gifts you have received, and any comments made by other members of the synergic exchange tensegrity that you have interacted with in relation to the exchanging of help. Every exchange generates a Giftor’s comment rating the Giftee, and a Giftee’s comment rating the Giftor.

Now once a new member has completed their Giftor and Giftee registration and entered all their data into the data base, the computer sorts and matches gifts of help with needs for help.

Now initially within the Gift Tensegrity, the role of Giftor is active. The role of Giftee is passive. This means that once the computer has completed sorting and matching registered gifts of help with registered needs of help, the lists of matches are presented to the Giftor. These matches are not available for viewing by the Giftee.

The list of matchs are sorted with those who have the highest ratio of giving/receiving and most positive comments being sorted higher on the list than those who have lower ratio of giving/receiving and negative comments.

Freedom of Choice in the Synergic Help Exchange

However, the Giftor is free to offer his gift to anyone on the list regardless of the order presented. The Giftor is in control of his giving. Once the Giftor has made his choice and selected a Giftee to receive his offer of help, then the Giftee is notified that an offer of help has been made.

The Giftee is then presented with a list of offers of help from those Giftors that have selected them for offers. With these offers of help comes access to the profiles of the offering Giftors. The giftee is then free to examine the offer carefully, read the profile of the Giftor and decide whether to accept the offer or not.

Freedom of choice is an absolute tenant of the GIFTegrity. The Giftor decides when and to whom to offer a gift of help. The Giftee decides when and from whom to accept a gift offer of help. Giftors are unknown to Giftees unless the Giftor offers help. The Giftee is under no obligation to accept an offered gift. At this point the Giftee may contact the Giftor with questions or clarifications about the offer. If the Giftee accepts the offer, than that action is recorded as a synergic help exchange and both profiles are updated. Both Giftor and Giftee can make comments about the interaction then or at a later time if more appropriate. If the Giftee declines the offer of help, the Giftor is notified so they can offer their help to some other member.

What you might give or receive…

How do you registering the types of help you might choose to give or like to receive?. It would seem that almost any good or service could be exhanged in a synergic help tensegrity. I would suggest three general classes of Gifts as a way of organizing the data base. Also considerations of Local, Regional and Global come into play.

1) Human Knowing — KNOWLEDGE: Expertise, Consultations, Counseling, and Advise.

Those humans with expertise in almost any field can make that expertise available to others as a gift. Physicians, Attorneys, Accountants, Engineers, Scientists, Teachers, etc., etc., etc.. Location may be less important with telephone and internet communication.

This can also be available in the form or books, art, courses, online files, etc., etc., etc..

2) Human Action — WORK: Sevices, Projects, Labor (skilled and unskilled), Jobs and Tasks.

This could be as simple as baby sitting, or giving someone a ride to as complex as building a room on someone’s house or writing a custom software program, etc., etc., etc.. It could be a million and one different forms of helping provided by humans in action. Location is very important. Many services would only available locally.

For the third category, I have borrowed the term lever from synergic science. It means any device that provides the user with leverage.

3) Human Levers — THINGS: Tools, Appliances, Equipment, Automobiles, Trucks, Tractors, Lawnmowers, House Furniture, Household Goods, Furnishings, Materials, Supplies, etc., etc., etc..

And, you can give these things away fully or only gift the use of them for a specified time. Location is very important for the gift of using a tool or appliance, perhaps less important if the item is given away fully. Shipping costs might make a difference, but you can Gift an item with the provision that the Giftee pay shipping.

In fact you can gift anything with conditions. A gift is an offer of help. The giftee is under no obligation to accept the offer. Synergic exchange is fully voluntary. The giftor makes offers of help when and to whom he chooses. The giftee accepts offers of help when and from whom they choose.

Conditional Gifting

If I gift the use of a tool for a weekend, I may do so with the condition that it be returned in clean and in good condition. Conditions of gifting is both intelligent and synergic.

Things that are gifted can be new or used. Working or not working. The important thing is to describe the offered gift accurately. A television repairman might like the gift of an old TV, that he will repair and use or gift to someone else.

Since your giving-receiving profile is based not on the number of gifts offered, but rather on the number of gift offers accepted, it is of great importance to have a good relationship with the giftee. That means your discriptions of an offered gift needs to be very accurate. No one will be criticized for gifting junk as long as they describe it accurately as junk. Those seeking junk will be happy. Remember one man’s junk is another man’s treasure.

Status in the GIFTegrity

Your ranking on the help offer lists is determined in part by your ratio of giving-receiving. Everytime your offers of help are accepted your ratio goes up. Those who give the most to others will be the most honored members in the community of the GIFTegrity. So you will want to give as much as you can. Likewise every time you accept a gift offering from others your ratio goes down. So you will want to accept others gifts carefully and only when you truly value them.

The other factor in determining your ranking on the help offer lists is your comment mean. This the average score for comments made about you during help exchanges. Every encounter will be rated. +10 for it couldn’t have been any better to -10 if couldn’t have been any worse. To be successful in the gift tensegity you need to give and interact in a positive way with other members. This means you want to accurately describe your offered gifts and make sure those accepting your gifts get what they expect from your descriptions. You also want to be courteous and friendly in your encounters. If you have an encounter that earns you a low comment from an exchange partner, you will want to repair that encounter as quickly as possible so that that exchange partner will modify or withdraw their low comment.

For instance, if I gift a used computer to someone and it doesn’t work as described, I need to be willing to take it back at my expense if the giftee paid for shipping. Or pay for disposal and give up my credit for the gift. Remember, every exchange effects ratio of giving-receiving for both the giftor and giftee.

Gifting — Local, Regional & Global

Knowing is one of the most global of gifts. With the internet and modern communication devices, I can help people all over the world.

Human action will usually need to be local, occasionally regional, and rarely global.

Levers and especially use of levers will usually be local. However, it may make sense to gift a major appliance or automobile regionally. And rarely, smaller lighter items might be shipped globally especially if they are unusual one of a kind.

Bringing Dead Wealth to Life

One major advantage of the GIFTegrity is that it resurrects Dead Wealth. Dead Wealth is that wealth within the human community that is not being used to help self or others. Dead Wealth is found in all three forms — Knowing, Action and Levers.

Knowing — Almost all of us have significant expertise in some areas. Some knowledge of how to solve problems that we have encountered in our lifes. However, in our present world we trade the hours of our lives to others for just enough money to earn our livings. Our employers don’t want our expertise and knowledge unless it applys to the limited task they hired us to perform. Yet in the larger context of community our unwanted expertise and knowledge could help others. The GIFTegrity gives us an outlet for sharing that expertise and knowledge.

Again, this might be in the form of knowing and action joined together such as consultations, couseling, analysis and real time problem solving, or it may be available in the form of knowing and levers such as reports, books, video or audio tapes, artwork, photos, computer files, etc., etc., etc..

Action — We all have some hours in our lives that could be available to help others. The Gift Tensegrity gives me an outlet for all of those other skills and abilities that I am not currently trading to some employer for money. Some of us can do home and automobile repair, handyman work, cleaning, cooking, sewing, child and elder care, teaching, etc., etc., etc..

Or, it might be that if we knew what help others needed, we could combine their errands with our own when we are out running around anyway. The Gift Tensegrity allows you to quickly find out how you can turn those wasted hours into help for others.

Levers — And finally, we all have lots of perfectly good things we have in boxes in our garages, attics, and closets. Used tools, appliances, furniture, clothing, furnishings — things we never use but are too good to throw away. Now they can be easily liberated by simply describing them acturately and gifting them away. Or how about just gifting away the use of some those great tools you only use one day a week or one day a month.

GIFTegrity Servers — Local, Regional & Global

Because so much of our need for help is a need for local help. I see the need to establish Neighborhood GIFTegrities. This is where you will get help with household repair, automotive service, child and elder care, transportation, etc., etc., etc..

I envision this being started when someone with the time and interest decides to gift the use of their home computer and DSL line to run a neighborhood GIFTegrity Database. Then anyone in the neighborhood could use a computer with dialup connection to the internet to connect to the local GIFTegrity and enter into synergic help exchange.

These Local GIFTegrities servers would then be linked to Regional Gift Tensegrity servers which in turn would like to Global Servers. This would lead to a disseminated system with high level of redundancy.

This system will work easily with today’s home computers and off the shelf database software.

Need Help — Look First to the GIFTegrity

The GIFTegrity is a synergic help exchange. And as INTERdependent form or life, we all need help. As a synergic help exchange that means that the relations between the members of that exchange will be synergic. Remember synergic relationships are those that make me more productive, more effective, and more happy. When I need help, this is where I will look first.

In the beginning the gifting tensegrities will not instantly replace the fair market. It will begin as simple an alternative to the fair market. I will begin to meet some of my needs at the GIFTegrities. As I begin gifting and finding that some of my needs are met this way. I will have less need to sell the hours of my life for money to use in the fair market.

Once I am gifting 10 hours a week.I will then be able to reduce my working week from 40 to 30 hours. This is how the transition will occur.

Out of Work — Look to the the GIFTegrity

The gifting tensegrities can be enormously important to those individuals finding themselves out of work. When there is no market for the hours of your life. There is still no shortage of people who need your help. The gifting tensegrities acts as an immediate outlet for those with help to Gift, but no market for their help to Sell.

In fact the GIFTensegrity becomes a new type of insurance for all humans who are at risk for losing their jobs. In this society, that is all of us.

GIFTegrity — Not Just for Individuals

Synergic TeamNets are groups of individual humans that form themselves into Synergic Teams for the purpose of performing a larger and more complex task than they can perform as individuals. These individuals co-Operate through a network based on synergic relationships and synergic compensation mechanisms to accomplish those larger and more complex tasks. Barry Carter has written extensively about this concept in his book Infinite Wealth. And, I have developed a mechanism for organizing Synergic Production Teams called the Ortegrity which is available elsewhere.

TeamNets can register with a gifting tensegrity and list the Needs of their TeamNet Project. They may be able to attract the help they need thought the free synergic gift exchange, or they can attract help, by inviting others to join their team for Synergic Revenue Shares if the project produces revenue. 

---

Synergic science offers us choices that can lead to a world that works for all humanity. This site will focus on presenting positive alternatives for our human future. 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.

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

Synergic Co-Operation goes even farther. It is more than the win-win relationship. Synergic Co-Operation is when I win, you win, others win, and the Earth wins. It is win-win-win-win.

Co-Operation is operating together so we all win.

You help.
Others help.
You help others.
Others help you.
You help others help you.
Others help you help others.
You help others help you help others.
Others help you help others help you.

---

Understand the Scientific Basis for the GIFTegrity

See a Prototype of the Database for a GIFTegrity

As I have written elsewhere, the last system completed within the development of an embryo is the nervous system and brain.

---

Synocracy

Timothy Wilken, MD

Unanimous Rule Democracy is a much more powerful mechanism of decision making than the majority rule of present day democracy.

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.

However true synergy, which gives us humans the opportunity to accomplish more together than we can accomplish separately, also requires more from us. It requires synergic consensus. For any group of humans, synergic consensus can provide a much more powerful mechanism of decision making than even the best majority rule democracy carefully following Roberts Rules of Order.

Synergic consensus occurs when a group of humans sit as equals and negotiate to reach a decision in which they all win and in which no one loses. In synergic science this is called heterarchy. That means all members of the deciding group sit on the same level as “equals”. All decisions within a truly synergic group 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.

Most Western humans are familiar with the democratic committee system. It is very different from the decision heterarchy. While both are 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 is forced to support the action he voted against or leave the committee. Heterarchy within a synergic group, in contrast organizes individuals to have equal authority to decide on joint action with equal responsibility for the resultant that is produced by that joint action.

Synergic consensus occurs when a group of humans sitting in heterarchy negotiate and 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 plan of 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.

Synergic Veto

All members are required to veto any plan where they or anyone else would lose. This is not an arbitrary veto. This is a veto to prevent loss. The heterarchy is seeking to win together. Plans causing loss need to modified to plans that insure winning.

Therefore all vetoes are immediately followed by renegotiation to modify the plan of action so that loss can be eliminated.

Synergic consensus is unanimous consensus. Unanimous consensus is protected by the judicious use of the synergic veto. Synergic relationship requires that when any party within a group is losing, the action causing the loss must stop. But again all vetoes are immediately followed by renegotiation to modify the plan of action so that loss can be eliminated, and action can continue.

Thus synergic consensus is a two step process. 1) consensus–to find mutual agreement, and 2) consent–to find specific disagreements and eliminate those through modification and re-negotiation of proposed plans. This second step is initiated by use of the synergic veto.

After I designed Ortegrity, which uses the process of synergic consensus and synergic veto, I learned about Sociocracy. It is from Sociocracy that I have borrowed the term consent for the second phase of synergic consensus.

Sociocracy

Originated in the Netherlands in 1945 by Kees Boeke, a Dutch educator and pacifist, Sociocracy was a way to adapt Quaker egalitarian principles to secular organizations.

It uses the decision-making process of consent which is different than most systems of  ’consensus’.

Consent looks for disagreement and uses the reasons for disagreeing to come up with an amended proposal that is within everyone’s limits. Consensus looks for agreement.

If a group wants to paint an outbuilding, consensus would require everyone agreeing on a color. Consent would require everyone defining their limits and then allowing the choice to be made within those limits. The painter might end up with 10 colors that are within everyone’s limits and then choose from those.

Synergic Consensus as described in ORTEGRITY seeks both consensus and consent by utilization of the synergic veto. When any member of the deciding group is in conflict and vetos a proposed plan, they are asked how would they change the proposal to accomodate their objection. Let’s take a deeper look at Sociocracy to see what we can learn. I will mark my annotations with an asterick.

The Four Principles of Sociocracy

1) Governance by Consent: The consent principle says that a decision can only be made when none of the circle members present has a reasoned, substantial objection to making the decision. The consent principle is different than “consensus” and “veto.” With consensus the participants must be “for” the decision. With consent decision-making they must be not against. With many forms of consensus a veto blocks the decision without an argument. With consent decision making, opposition must always be supported with an argument.

* Synergic veto always requires renegotiation to find a plan of action that will solve the group problems without causing loss. Veto is never arbitrary in Ortegrity.

Every decision doesn’t require consent, but consent must exist concerning an agreement to make decisions regularly through another method. Thus, many decisions are not made by consent. Rather, with consent, persons or groups are given the authority to make independent decisions. Consent can also be used with non-human elements.

2) Circle Organization: The organization arranges for a decision making structure, built from mutually double-linked circles, in which consent governs. This decision-making structure includes all members of the organization. Each circle has its own aim, performs the three functions of directing, operating and measuring (feedback), and maintains its own memory system by means of integral education. A good way to evaluate how well a circle is functioning is to use 9-block charting. Every circle formulates its own vision, “mission statement” and aim/objective (which must fit in with the vision, mission and aim of the organization as a whole and with the vision, mission and aim of all the other circles in the organization).

* Circles are equivalent to heterarchies. In  ORTEGRITY, they are similar to Decision-Action Tensegrities.

3) Double-Linking: Coupling a circle with the next higher circle is handled through a double link. That is, at least two persons, the supervisor of the circle and at least one representative of the circle, belong to the next higher circle.

* Decision-Action Tensegrities as described in ORTEGRITY are single linked by the Organizers-Organized or the O-O.

Using a double link would add redundancy, security and allow more information to flow between Decison-Action Tensegrities–two heads are better than one, but at a price of decreased efficiency.

4) Sociocratic Elections: Choosing people for functions and/or responsibilities is done by consent after an open discussion. The discussion is very important because it uncovers pertinent information about the members of the circle.

* In Ortegrity, once the primary synergic task is defined and unanimously elected by the heterarchy, then a plan for synergic action must be developed using synergic negotiation. Now the members of the heterarchy will accept hierarchical roles with individual responsibility and authority.

In addition to the four main principles of Sociocracy, there are also these guidelines:

• No secrets may be kept  (*Transparency in Ortegrity)
  
• Everything is open to discussion – limits of an exec’s power, policy decisions, personnel decisions, investment policy, profit distribution, all rulesÖ.
• Everyone has a right to be part of a decision that affects them.
• Every decision may be reexamined at any time

* I am in agreement with most of what I read about Sociocracy. In many ways Sociocracy and Ortegrity are complimentary mechanisms with lots of similarities.

Sociocracy accomodates growth by creation of new circles that are then connected by double linking. Sociocracy can be regarded as a fractal structure, which means that the same patterns occur at different levels in the structure. That is why, once the basics are understood, the procedures at the highest level are as clear as the procedures at the grassroots level. It also doesn’t require very many levels to include a great number of people.

ORTEGRITY grows by shreddng out. 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 several 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.

The central DA-Tensegrity is the primary Tensegrity it is demarcated with the Omega symbol. 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.

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?

Synocracy—Unanimous Rule Democracy

Any group of humans organized as an Ortegrity are using synocracy. If a nation of people chose to organize as an ortegrity they would have a synocracy. If all of humanity were organized as an Ortegrity, we would have world wide synocracy.

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

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 and order his subordinates to follow his instructions. If the speed of making decisions is the only criteria for choosing a mechanism of decision making then the dictatorship—the rule by one is the clear standout.

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

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

Life Utilizes Synergic Consensus

If the human body, 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 individual, then we humans should be able to use these same mechanisms to organize our species and solve our human problems.

---

More on Ortegrity, More on Sociocracy, Read a Synergic Version of Robert’s Rules of Order.

Read more about: 1) Understanding Wealth, 2) A Synergic Future, 3) Understanding Order (PDF) , 4) Dual World , 5) The Unified Stress Concept , 6) Protecting Humanity , 7) Beyond War , 8] Crisis: Danger & Opportunity

---

References and Acknowledgements:

Barbara Hubbard originally coined the term Synocracy to refer to a not yet defined future system of “rule by the people” in a co-Operative society.

Barry Carter the author of Infinite Wealth also independently created the term Synocracy. He writes: “Barbara Marx Hubbard created the term synocracy. Having never read her book, I independently created the synocracy concept by way of mass privatization. When people are owning partners in a mass privatization organization they must participate because owners operate on profit and loss. As mass privatization communities work together we move beyond representative democracy and even beyond consensus democracy to create synergy-ocracy and synthesis-ocracy or synocracy. Infinite Wealth shows mass synocracy to be the new system of social order for the information Age to replace representative democracy. It even replaces the notion of government with the broader notion of social order. Just as learning is driven internally where education is driven externally representative government is external and where as self-organizing mass synocracy is internally driven.”

My childhood friend Bill Farmer forwarded me the following note.

---

Twelve Days of Christmas!

There is one Christmas Carol that has always baffled me. What in the world do leaping lords French hens, swimming swans, and especially the partridge who won’t come out of the pear tree have to do with Christmas?

From 1558 to 1829, Roman Catholics in England were not permitted to practice their faith openly. Someone during that era wrote this carol as a catechism song for young Catholics. It has two levels of meaning: the surface meaning plus a hidden meaning known only to members of their church. Each element in the carol has a code word for a religious reality which the children could remember.

The partridge in a pear tree was Jesus Christ.

Two turtle doves were the Old and New Testaments.

Three French hens stood for faith, hope and love.

Four calling birds were the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke &John.

Five golden rings recalled the Torah or Law, the first five books of the Old Testament.

Six geese a-laying stood for the six days of creation.

Seven swans a-swimming represented the sevenfold gifts of the Holy Spirit–Prophesy, Serving, Teaching, Exhortation, Contribution, Leadership, and Mercy.

Eight maids a-milking were the eight beatitudes.

Nine ladies dancing were the nine fruits of the Holy Spirit–Love, Joy, Peace, Patience, Kindness, Goodness, Faithfulness, Gentleness, and Self-control.

Ten lords a-leaping were the ten commandments.

Eleven pipers piping stood for the eleven faithful disciples.

Twelve drummers drumming symbolized the twelve points of belief in the Apostles’ Creed.

So there is your history for today. This knowledge was shared with me and I found it interesting and enlightening. Now I know how that strange song became a Christmas Carol…

 

In followup to  Donivan Bessinger’s series on finding a modern ethic for Humanity, I repost these three essays on synergic morality.

---

 The Scientific Basis for The Golden Rule

Timothy Wilken, MD

Edward Haskell, a pioneer of synergic science, explained:

“The first formulation of the MORAL LAW for a non-human “kingdom” of Universe was Dimitri Mendeleev’s discovery of the Periodic Law in 1869. “The properties of the chemical elements are functions of their atomic weights.”

“What Mendeleev’s discovery states for Atoms is that “As ye sow, so shall ye reap,” where “reaping” is the properties of the chemical elements and “sowing” is the co-Action between the atom’s two components ­ its vast, light, electron cloud, and its tiny, massive nucleus.”

Haskell’s analysis of the Atomic elements showed that these two components ­ the electron cloud and the massive nucleus related in only three ways ­ positive, neutral, or negative. Haskell called this the Moral Law of Unified Science.

For humans, the earliest formulation of the Moral Law of Unified Science appeared 3500 years ago as the doctrine of karma.

“Hinduism began in India about 1500 BC. The belief in rebirth, or samsara, as a potentially endless series of worldly existences in which every being is caught up was associated with the doctrine of karma (Sanskrit: karman; literally “act,” or “deed”). According to the doctrine of karma, good conduct brings a pleasant and happy result and creates a tendency toward similar good acts, while bad conduct brings an evil result and creates a tendency toward repeated evil actions. This furnishes the basic context for the moral life of the individual.”

The doctrine of karma was accepted by Buddha ~500 BC and is incorporated in modern Buddhism today. It appeared in western thought ~300 BC, in the Old Testament of the Bible as the phrase: 

“As ye sow, so shall ye reap.”

Two thousand years ago Jesus of Nazareth stated this law this way:

“Judge not, and you shall not be judged. Condemn not, and you shall not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. Give, and it will be given to you: good measure, pressed down, shaken together, and running over will be put into your bosom. For with the same measure that you use, it will be measured back to you.“

Recall Universe is now understood to be process. Reality is a happening. Many things are going on all at once. Living systems ­the plants, animals, and we humans all live within the EVENT paradigm. Buckminster Fuller defined an event to be a triad of related phenomena­ action, reaction, resultant.

The dynamics of all behavior can be understood using these three concepts. Fuller discovered for every action there is a reaction, and a precessional resultant.

I can decide on an action. I can then implement my action. The environment including all life forms react to my action, the vector sum of the two (my action and the world’s reaction) produce a resultant. I act, the rest of the world reacts, and when it all settles down the change made by the interaction of the action and reaction is the resultant.

Now reformulating Haskell’s The Moral Law of Unified Science to include Fuller’s Principle of Action­-Reaction­-Resultant, we get:

Adversary action tends to provoke adversary reaction ending in an adversary resultant.

Neutral action tends to provoke neutral reaction ending in a neutral resultant.

And synergic action tends to provoke synergic reaction ending in a synergic resultant.

“As ye sow, so shall ye reap.”

We humans have three choices. We can sow adversary actions and reap adversary resultants. We can sow neutral actions and reap neutral resultants. Or we can sow synergic actions and reap synergic resultants.

 

---

Jesus of Nazareth’s The Golden Rule

Timothy Wilken, MD

The first formulation of the synergic corollary of the Moral Law of Unified Science was:

“Do to others as you would have them do to you.”

This formulation is credited to Jesus of Nazareth who intuitively discovered the synergic way 2000 years ago. He gave us the rules for synergic relationship in his sermon on the mount.

 ”You have heard that it was said, “You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you. Ö Go be reconciled with thy brother.”

But, can we modern humans do this? Can North American whites love the South American browns? Can the Jews love the Arabs? Can the Northern Irish love the English? Can the Bosnians love the Serbs? Can the South African whites love the South African blacks?

Are we humans better able to love today? Have we learned enough in 2000 years—“To reconcile with our brother”?

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

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

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

Andrew J. Galambos, in his lectures describing Moral Capitalism, often quoted the negative version of the Golden Rule:

“Do not do to others what you would have them not do to you.”

What would you have others not do to you?

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

The negative version of the Golden Rule is true and correct as far as it goes. In fact, it is the underlying premise for the Neutral Morality found in the western world today. But, Synergic Morality requires more of us than simply not hurting. It requires more of us than simply ignoring others. It requires us to help others ­ to help each other.

Jesus of Nazareth understood this on the deepest of levels. He called for more than a prohibition against hurting others. He asked all humans to help each other.

Synergic Morality is more than the absence of hurting. It is the presence of helping. Synergic Morality rests then on the premise­ that when you help others, you will find yourself helped in return.

Whether you believe Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ foretold in the Old Testament, or just a man, his words bring wisdom to all of humanity.
 

---

As Reason Wilken writes in her review of the Web of Life by Fritjof Capra:  ”All of the parts of the earth once considered to be inanimate — rocks, soil, atmospheric gases — have a demonstrated roles to the contrary. The planet on which we live — which we had assumed to be a mere caterer to the wants and needs of humanity — is in fact a life force. This necessitates policies that are based on this reality that incorporate ecological principles into the rules of life. One of the most important principles is the interdependence of living systems.

“Life is based on a horizontal network of relationships and cycles, while the current structure of humanity is mostly linear. Humanity does not recycle most of the things we depend on for modern life: oil, minerals, land. We burn the oil, mine the minerals and populate the land without giving appropriate thought to the consequences.”

---

A Synergic Future  requires Protecting the Life Force

Timothy Wilken, MD

In a synergic culture wealth is defined as that which supports life for both self and other. It is mutual life support. Synergic wealth by definition excludes adversary wealth – physical force that hurts other human beings, and neutral wealth – money that ignores other human beings.

Synergic humans recognize that interdependence is the human condition. They recognize that all humans need help unless they wish to live at the level of animal subsistence. They choose to help others and trust that others will choose to help them.

Life forms the basis then for all synergic values. All forms of life are animated by the life force. The life force is not well understood, but it seeks to survive and to extend itself into universe. The life force is known to be three and one half billion years old on this planet. It is like a special flame, sort of a living fire, we pass it to our children in the act of reproduction. But, we do not know how to rekindle the flame should it go out. The life force itself is the very basis of living action.

(Life Force) x (Time) = Living Action.

No life force. No living action. Therefore, the the sanctity of life itself must be the highest synergic value. Therefore, 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. Now recalling that an event is made up of three parts—action, reaction, and resultant. We are ready to further define our synergic value system. 

IMPORTANCE—def—> The amount of synergic Wealth (mutual life support) effected by an event compared to the total amount of synergic Wealth.

Synergic WEALTH (effected)
Synergic WEALTH (total)

RISK—def—> What is the amount of Synergic Wealth that could be lost during an event—action, reaction & resultant.

OPPORTUNITY—def—> What is the amount of Synergic Wealth that could be gained during an event—action, reaction & resultant.

ALLOWED ACTION—def—> Any action is allowed which does not injure or hurt another human individual.

SYNERGIC ACTION—def—> Any allowed action which helps others.

DYMAXION ACTION—def—> The least action that triggers an event that produces the greatest gain in Synergic Wealth.

---

Read more by Dr. Wilken:  1) Understanding Wealth, 2) A Synergic Future, 3) Understanding Order (PDF) , 4) Dual World , 5) The Unified Stress Concept , 6) Protecting Humanity , 7) Beyond War , Crisis: Danger & Opportunity

This is the twenty fourth and final Chapter from the online book: Living Ethics: The Way of Wholeness. See: 1) How Should We Live? 2) Ethics and Civilization 3) Worldview and Ethics 4) Self View and Ethics 5) World as System 6) The Material Cosmos 7) Biological Systems Human Systems 9) Psyche as System 10) The Collective Unconscious 11) The Collective Conscious 12) Emerging From Chaos 13) The Emerging Worldview 14) The Psychological Problem 15) Approaches to Natural Ethics 16) Good, Ethics, and Evil 17) Reverence for Life and Natural Ethic 18) The Ethical Field  19) MetaEthics 20) Comparative Ethics  21) The Ethical Model 22) Ethics and the Individual 23) Ethics and Society

---

Ethics and New World Order

Donivan Bessinger, MD

These studies have set before us a worldview of wholeness and an affirmation of reverence for life as the ethic for survival. The analysis of its implications for the individual and for national society has moved us away from the polarities of doctrinaire political philosophy, and away from traditional left-right, liberal-conservative, and communism-capitalism dichotomies. It puts us on an entirely different axis.

One of the extreme worldviews lying in the old axis was that of the axis powers of World War II, whose death-loving “ethic” propounded by Hitler wrought the destruction of many individual lives and nations, and left us with a legacy of virulent bigotry which still percolates from dark crevices of the collective psyche. At the other extremity of that political pole we found, not a contrasting love of life, but another love of death, expressed in the sadistic psyche of Stalin. The polarities of the old axis of political thinking were defined by pogrom and purge.

The characterization of the psyches of Hitler as necrophilic and Stalin as sadistic (both examples of malignant aggression), is set forth in the landmark study of human destructiveness by Erich Fromm. (1) The destructiveness of Idi Amin of Uganda and Papa Doc Duvalier of Haiti (and to a lesser degree, his son) also seem to derive from similar character traits. In the Iraqi war, United Nations powers confronted Saddam Hussein, whose malignant narcissism (diagnosed remotely but plausibly by a leading political psychiatrist) represents a similar character defect. All seem to have been driven by autonomous egos, unrelentingly out of touch with all internal and external psychic regulatory function.

The Iraqi war has given new impetus to the search for a new world order. That order must place us on a new axis, which is to be understood as the line or direction which newly orients human vision and human action. Its orientation is so different from conventional ways of thinking that it seems entirely proper to characterize it as a new dimension of thought, perpendicular to the old, and intersecting it at a new center.

The first order of business for defining a new world order is to understand order, not as a rigid political system of “law and order” but as the dynamic order of creation, operating organically and systemically. The new world order must be based on our best understandings of the world as it is. The collective social order, whether of families or nations, must recognize the dynamic needs of all and respond appropriately.

That concept is not new. Confucius, Plato and Aristotle derived political philosophy from ethics, not vice versa. Each of them had a concept of harmony, natural justice or golden mean which governs right action generally, and thus determines the structuring of society. Each drew on descriptions of human functioning to illustrate social functioning. With the aid of modern knowledge, we may now understand their language as not merely metaphor, but as a recognition of the biosphere as a living organism of many levels, governed by equilibrating interactions.

Of course, each had a different concept of the ideal political system. The natural ethic “reverence for life” does not automatically lead to a particular structure of world order any more than it defined the structure of the Greek city-state or modern national society. It does provide the principle which orders its function; it also considerably narrows the options in our choice of structure.

For example, this ethic leads us away from world government. Why? In an ethics of wholeness, is there not an imperative for bringing all nations into a political wholeness? I believe not. The systems worldview presented here affirms the powerful adaptive force of diversity. It also highlights the importance of individuality, and the necessity for cherishing shared symbol systems in expressing human spirituality. It points to the powerful effectiveness of subsystem organization.

If the nation states, who are to be considered “ethical personalities,” were merged into only one global state, those strengths would be lost. The best hope for international community is for states to function smoothly in families, preserving individuality and diversity so that we may maximize our options of solving human problems.

On the other hand, reverence for life also leads us away from exaggerated nationalism. The systems worldview values the operation of life at many levels, and recognizes the need for nations and peoples to work among themselves at many levels simultaneously. Focusing all internal energies on the exaltation of the individual nation-state creates at the global level the equivalent of a pathologic complex in psychology. Usually it has a strong shadow side and limited ability to function interactively. That is destructive at the personal level and certainly even more so in world civilization. Such complexes can erupt convulsively as Nazi Germany did, destroying the nation and much life within and around it.

---

There is a presumption in some quarters that reverence for life can countenance no injury. However, the biologic economy of the organism that is the biosphere requires that life take life, for all life lives at the expense of other life. Reverence for life may countenance injury to other life, but (in Schweitzer’s phrase) only under “the pressure of necessity.” Because such necessities do arise, reverence for life may not be equated with pacifism and passive non-violence, even though those three points of view do share some common ground.

In the systems view, global society is to be conceived as global organism, in which order is equilibrium. This larger organism, like the individual human, must defend against the “diseases” or instabilities which threaten it, so that its homeostasis may be restored. A purely pacifist structure would give us the global political equivalent of AIDS — a global organism unable to defend itself against survival challenges.

The new world order must provide the global family of nations an effective “immunologic” system which provides defenses at many levels: from aggression between nations, from its own weapons systems, from national tyrannies, from international criminality, and from exploitation and other disorders of development. All of these pathologic processes have their analogues in the individual organism.

---

What does reverence for life say of military systems? What especially does it say of nuclear weapons and weapons in space? How does an entity which is to aspire to being an ethical and spiritual personality deal with modern strategic complexities? That subject, of course, merits its own book, and takes us far beyond our present scope. There is an imperative for self-defense, which must analyze and act at many levels, responding decisively but only sufficiently to restore homeostasis. These principles which apply to the individual personality must come to be realized in the personality that is the national state.

Every action which prepares for self-defense must somehow be balanced by an action at some other level that makes the need for defense less real. The systems view of levels dictates that nuclear, chemical, biological and conventional arms may not be considered in isolation. It seeks the reduction of these, but not of one at the expense of greater danger from another. While weapons in space lead to greater dangers to the global organism, monitoring systems in space provide improved feedback data for maintaining global equilibrium.

Reverence for life is prepared to shift resources toward or away from defense to maintain the balance of the global civilization, but it seeks constantly to find ways to deactivate arms systems. At the same time that it calls for eradicating the trade in and buildup of arms, it must also work toward reducing the suspicions and human problems which make people resort to arms.

Yet reverence for life is realistic. It recognizes that hardened belief systems (as distinguished from knowledge systems) will continue for some time to present real barriers to the realization of an ethical world civilization. In this imperative, reverence for life calls not only for the courage of life convictions. It calls for determination and persistence as well.

Is there in reverence for life an imperative toward creating specific international enforcement authorities with power over nations? For example, should enforcement authority be vested exclusively in a permanent armed force, under the control of a revitalized United Nations? There are powerful systems arguments against such a mechanism.

In a world in which such powerful forces are deployed, the absence of a shared worldview (a “cosmos in common”) presently dooms such unitary international enforcement solutions. Even when that problem is overcome, a permanent standing world army would not be subject to systems feedback (“checks and balances”), so that such an entity could become a greater threat than benefit. The international imperative of reverence for life is to work toward a shared ethical worldview. It is in that realm that the United Nations Organization can make a very much needed contribution to the current international environment.

These principles also help clarify the doctrine of justifiable war. War is justified only in the interest of the whole, and never only in the narrowly construed (short term) national or economic interest. Broadly construed (and over a longer term), national and economic interests coincide with the interest of the whole. Self-defense is justifiable, since the integrity of its parts is in the interest of the whole. Even so, war must only be a very last resort, after all other means have been exhausted. The natural ethic leads us to develop a broader range of options for problem-solving, so that risk of war is steadily reduced.

---

What does reverence for life say of response to internal national tyrannies? In the introduction, we sketched the progression of international law from a law of sovereigns to a law of sovereign nations, and pointed to the limited options by which peoples worldwide may react to internal tyrannies within an isolated nation. The barrier of sovereignty must usually be breached by force — the economic force of sanctions, or military force of arms — if the peoples of other nations are to aid the oppressed people. Those within such a nation who seek just change have little alternative but to let the tensions rise to the point of violent internal insurrection.

The Iraqi war provides a compelling contemporary example of the inadequacy of a strictly interpreted doctrine of sovereignty for fostering a new world order. The United Nations acted decisively to push Saddam Hussein’s forces out of Kuwait, since the Iraqi invasion represented a breach of Kuwait’s sovereignty. However, the same nations (who still at this writing, March 1991, had occupying forces in Southern Iraq pending a formal ceasefire) invoked the doctrine of sovereignty to grant Hussein free rein for violent post-war repression of Kurds and Shiites.

Thus, a world order based on respect for the organic needs of all peoples calls for a greater variety of mechanisms for avoiding and confronting national tyrannies. Such tyrannies are a threat to the whole whether or not the “sovereign” tyranny presents an immediate armed threat to neighbor nations or commercial interests.

One attractive new option derives from the recognition of heads of state and heads of government as professionals whose “practice” has implications for the safety of the globe. While the sovereignty of peoples to select a government is paramount, no people may justifiably sustain and support a government which is a threat to the general safety; nor may sovereignty be used to license tyranny.

World order requires an accrediting or credentialing mechanism which effectively monitors and responds to oppressive leadership well before mass destruction — internal or external — occurs. Such a multi-tiered mechanism could be provided by a global Council of Heads of Government (CHG), developed along the lines presented in the appendix.

---

What does reverence for life say of response to international criminality? Despotism is only one such category. Terrorism is another. So is the massive international trade in illegal drugs, armaments, and in chemical, nuclear, and biological warfare agents. All are substances harmful to global society as well as to individuals. Another category is the protection and reward which sovereignty gives to criminals who sequester fortunes in national and international banking systems.

Solving such international problems requires establishing special purpose agencies for cooperative efforts and expert interactions at many levels. Of course, there is a distinction between forming cooperative agencies under joint authority of nations and forming agencies having authority over nations.

We must remove barriers to trade, communications, and law enforcement. To do so, we must also overcome the barriers of national prejudice, pride and even jurisdictional borders. For some special functions and purposes, nations will need to voluntarily relinquish claims of sovereignty so as to permit ethical life-affirming forces to effectively offset the many destructive forces which are not so fettered. For example, there should be a legal mechanism for declaring international outlaws, for whom no border could be a protection.

The doctrine of sovereignty is essential to defining a nation’s identity. In systems terms, it defines a nation’s legal “boundary” just as its border defines its geography. Yet boundaries must be open to solutions of problems of the organic whole. Boundaries must be more porous “membranes” if there is to be world order.

---

What does reverence for life say of exploitation and other disorders of development? There is a special imperative to make hope and progress real in the less developed, underserved areas of the world. Here especially, the systems worldview makes clear that the problems of such peoples are problems for all other peoples too. Reverence for life demands that these needs be met for the benefit and balance of all life on the planet, and it is here especially that barriers to innovative cooperative solutions must be removed.

The term Third World is a misnomer now, for there is only one world, at least on Earth. In an organic worldview, all nations are developing nations. The important distinction is not the immediate level of achievement of each nation, but whether there is healthy growth or a disease of arrested development. Corrective action does not focus on the size of the economic gaps, but on treating the problems which retard growth.

Among nations, there will always be a spectrum of differences in size, natural resources, and national needs. There are also historical factors which contribute to a nation’s natural endowment. History cannot be undone, and must be accepted as a given. The only effective repair of the wounds of past injustice can come in the repair of our worldview, so as to get on with problem-solving.

The “Third World” is an arena which because of its history is especially sensitive to appearances of imperialism and colonialism. Paradoxically, the barriers of national pride, prejudices, and politics have often created serious obstacles to international cooperative measures. A systems view indicates that the areas with the greatest problems need the greatest adaptive flexibility if they are to survive at all. The ethic of reverence for life offers an alternative to economic imperialism, and offers in its place an imperativism for finding adaptive healing solutions.

But we must also seek a balance between under-development and malignant over-development. Resource development in all areas of the world, especially in its remote areas, carries implications for the entire globe. Development is not to be pursued for its own sake. It must be pursued in accordance with the need for human life to be balanced with all other life. For example, full “development” (i.e. destruction) of the world’s rain forests is robbing us of the source of one third of the world’s atmospheric oxygen.

---

Reverence for life also creates an imperative to affirm the collective psychological dimension. It presently sounds far-fetched and unscientific to speak of a world psyche. However, even if it is only conceived as the projection or resultant or resonance of all of our individual aspirations, there is a collective dimension to the ordering of individual psyches toward unity within the self and with the world. That spiritual dimension of human existence is expressed as religion, through art and ritual. Unfortunately, we have come to see religions as competing systems, rather than as complementary spiritual subsystems participating in the one system of creation.

I would suggest that we affirm our systems unity by developing, through our many arts, various international rituals and symbols by which individuals and groups can relate to world order without threatening cherished religious beliefs. International sport festivals serve this function to some extent. We would do well to encourage their “spiritual” dimension and deemphasize their commercial aspect. Perhaps we should also express these themes through periodic global festivals. Earth Day provided an example, but this theme of human oneness in and with creation goes beyond our traditionally narrow definition of environmental concerns.

Dare we even hope for geographical symbols of spiritual unity and purpose? For a “New Jerusalem” which symbolizes not only a spiritual inward peace, but also the political peace implicit in any concept of world order? Despite the very serious political and religious problems which stand in the way of such a proposal, it still seems worthwhile to uphold the ideal of a stateless Jerusalem as a world city belonging equally to all peoples.

Varanasi, though its status is not contested, holds a somewhat similar significance in the East. It and Jerusalem both stand as historical symbols of mankind’s spiritual achievement. Together, the two cities touch in some way the spiritual aspirations of most of the world’s peoples: Jewish, Christian, Muslim in Jerusalem; and Hindu and Buddhist in Varanasi-Sarnath. The two would be especially appropriate centers for continuing inter-faith dialogues toward spiritual understanding.

---

We live in a dangerous world, faced with many forces for life destruction and life denigration. The evening news telecast and the morning newspaper always carry the same litany, ritually reciting civilization’s daily penance of totalitarianism, terrorism, political famine, religious wars, racial repression, nuclear threat.

The people intone, Kyrie eleison. Lord, have mercy.

Yet it is not in the nature of mankind, or the nature of nature that the world is so ordered. It is the nature of nature to seek to adapt and thrive. All of unconscious nature is directed toward will-to-live and toward the seeking of its balance. Nature’s only barriers to a balancing force are to be found in the human conscious. It is there that the barriers to human wholeness must be breached.

The solution to our dilemma, individually and collectively, is to bring into focus once again the ancient wisdom of creation, that the natural ethic is life ordered toward balance. We are not held hostage to impenetrable forces of evil. We are held hostage behind our own barricades which block ethical awareness.

The solution to our dilemma lies in working together to expand ethical awareness, not only within ourselves but in the world at large. It is in inner awareness that we find a “great energy for mighty transformations.” It is there that we find why heaven and earth are so great.

It is in the ethics of reverence for life that we can find our adaptation and our opportunity. It is in its imperative for the affirmation of all life that we can find, individually and collectively, the counterbalancing forces for survival.

It is a dangerous age, but it is an age of hope.

 

- end -

 

Copyright 2000 by Donivan Bessinger. All rights reserved.

---

References:

(1) MALIGNANT AGGRESSION — Erich Fromm. The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness. New York: Holt Rhinehart Winston, 1973. (15:142).

---

Introduction to Living Ethics, 2000
Introduction to Emerging From Chaos, 1993

Appendix
Notes and Sources

---

More by Donivan Bessinger, MD