Another article from The Gandhi Book Centre.

The Principles of Mahatma Gandhi

K. Santhanam

Mahatma Gandhi was an intensely active personality. He was interested in everything that concerns the individual or society. He is best known as the matchless political leader who evolved the new technique of “satyagraha”. His fight against untouchability and the notions of superiority and inferiority by birth are also fairly well known. For India, his greatest service was, perhaps, the emancipation of Indian women.

It is generally known that he lived an austere life, practised strict vegetarianism and abstained from alcoholic drinks, tobacco and even the milder stimulants like coffee and tea. His attachment to simple natural remedies against illness and disease and his radical ideas on education are not so well known to the outside world and, even in India, they have not made much impact. Gandhi deliberately refrained from making these public issues and thereby confusing the people. The only exception was prohibition of intoxicating drinks which became a tool in the armoury of satyagraha. Therefore it became a plank in the Congress program but it was well known that many an important supporter of Gandhi was privately addicted to drink and the great leader did not take undue notice of it. Even though it got into the Constitution in the form of a Directive Principle, there has been no honesty about prohibition among the Congress Governments and Congressmen in general. Gandhi’s views on language, government and economics played a considerable part in his political movements; and in the program of Khadi and Village Industries included in the Five Year Plans and in the Panchayat Raj which has recently been established, they have been accepted and implemented to some extent.

If all these ideas and activities are viewed in isolation, they constitute a miscellaneous and rather archaic collection, the importance of which will dwindle and fade away with time. It is only when it is realised that Gandhi was fundamentally a moral and social philosopher and that, through these items, he sought to experiment with certain far-reaching fundamental principles, of whose absolute truth he was convinced beyond all doubt, that their true significance becomes clear.

The Gandhian Principles

1) The first principle which guided all his thoughts and activities is the complete unity and integrity of body, mind and soul in the individual human being. He was never tired of saying that the body should be controlled by the mind and the mind by the soul. But this control is not to be achieved by despising or neglecting either the body or the mind or in the mystic exaltation of the soul by itself. He attached to physical health and well-being as much importance as to plain and logical thinking or moral responsibility. He was one of the most logical and powerful writers – yet, he was never tired of decrying all idle and purposeless playing with words and ideas or deification of thought as such. He was convinced that real thought must be organically connected to moral purposes on the one side and useful and right action on the other.

It has been claimed that the greatest achievement of Gandhi was the spiritualization of politics. This is undoubtedly true; but he had no faith in spirituality by itself as an abstract virtue. He conceived it as a kind of illumination or fragrance which should accompany every thought and action. It is difficult to define it, except, perhaps, through the verses of the Bhagavad Gita which constituted his daily prayer.

2) The second principle of Gandhian philosophy may be stated as follows: All social action should be governed by the same simple set of moral values, of which the main elements are selflessness, non-attachment, non-violence and active service. It will take me too long to define and elaborate his ideas in respect of each of these; but he believed that the growth of a mans personality is proportionate to his faith in and practice of these virtues. This is possible only when he identifies himself more and more with an ever-increasing circle till it embraces all humanity and even all living beings. He judged the value and vitality of social institutions by their capacity to foster such growth.

3) His third conviction was that no society, state or any other institution has any worth or importance apart from its part in contributing to the growth of the individuals of which it is composed. The State, the Nation, the community and other traditional groupings had no intrinsic value for him. In the pages of Young India in the earlier years, he defended the caste system as a great scheme of social and sexual discipline; but in the light of actual experience he abandoned it as an impractical system, though to the end he believed in some kind of voluntary and ideal social groups based on qualifications and capacity for service.

4) It was Gandhi’s firm conviction that means are at least as important as, and often even more important than, ends. It is, of course, desirable that ends should be good and reasonable. But they merely give a direction to life while the means adopted constitute life itself. Therefore, if the means are right, that is, if they conform to the tests of truth and non-violence, even mistakes, errors and failures aid the growth of the individual. On the other hand, wrong means corrupt the soul and no good can ever come out of them. Gandhi repudiated categorically the idea that ends justify the means. This implies the rejection of war, espionage and crooked diplomacy, even when they are adopted for the so-called noble ends of defending the country, religion or humanity.

5) Faith in God is, according to Gandhi, the foundation of all moral values. He never defined God and was prepared to allow every person to have his own idea of God. For himself, he was inclined to think of Him as the Upanishadic Brahman. But, so long as a person believes in some source of spiritual life and holds it superior to the material universe, he is a believer in God. Gandhi had no objection even to a formal profession of agnosticism, so long as a person demonstrated by his attachment to moral values that this outlook was essentially spiritual in essence.

I believe that the influence of Gandhi in the future will depend more and more on the realisation that these fundamental principles constitute the core of his teachings and that all his actions were merely illustrations of their application. He considered his life as a series of experiments with truth. Therefore, it is his conception of truth that is central to his life and work. I do not claim that the principles I have indicated exhaust his conception; but I believe that they constitute its basic elements.

More from from The Gandhi Book Centre.

Timothy Wilken’s  SafeEARTH series. See: 1) Beyond Crime and Punishment, 2) Synergic Containment: Protecting Children, 3) Synergic Containment: Science & Rationale, 4) Synergic Containment: Protecting Community and 5) Synergic Disarmament

Read Lt. Col. Dave Grossman’s: 1) Aggression and Violence 2) Evolution of Weaponry  3) Psychological Effects of Combat.

Another article from The Gandhi Book Centre.

Let there be peace on Earth and let it begin with me
Let there be peace on Earth, the peace that was meant to be
With God as our one source, United all are we
Let us walk with each other in perfect harmony

Let peace begin with me, let this be the moment now
With every step I take let this be my solemn vow
To take each moment and live each moment in peace eternally
Let there be peace on Earth and let it begin with me

Modified after –Jill Jackson and Sy Miller

Unilateral Disarmament

T. K. Mahadevan

The supreme tragedy of our time is that we are trying to fit old, habitual solutions to a problem of epic proportions, the like of which man had not faced since he first took to a gregarious life on earth. We have lost, or perhaps never achieved, the capacity for epic thinking. We seem unable to accustom ourselves to the bizarre challenges that face us. The revolutions in science have given us the power of quick and disastrous invention but not the power of dauntless thinking. Our machines increasingly resemble men and imitate their subtle ways – but alas, how near we ourselves are to the condition of a robot, tottering along set grooves of thought and action, afraid to venture out into new and unknown ways, and pathetically suspicious of anything that might upset our accustomed ways and valuations.

Disarmament is not a new problem. In the sense of a penal destruction or reduction of the armament of a defeated country, disarmament is perhaps as old as war itself. In the sense of a reduction and limitation of national armament by general international agreement -what now mostly goes by the vogue-word of Arms Control – it was first discussed in The Hague Conference of 1899 and is thus virtually a product of the twentieth century. In the more comprehensive sense of an abolition of all armament – the only sense that can have any meaning to us in the thermonuclear age – disarmament came into the arena of international discussion only after the Great War and the founding of the League of Nations, and even then only in a lackadaisical, half-hearted way. It took Hitler, the World War and Hiroshima for nations to think of disarmament seriously.

Issues of Disarmament Today

But the disarmament issue that faces us today is of an entirely different complexion and magnitude. We have no longer the luxury of time at our disposal to weigh the pros and cons and to go into the political niceties of the available traditional approaches to disarmament. Failure to achieve a quick solution can have only one relentless result – disaster. The extraordinary urgency of our present situation is not one that could be argued about. Men who ought to know have told us in unmistakable terms what the consequences of our folly could be. Herman Kahn has categorically asserted that “one must eventually introduce a major change in the situation or expect to get into a war anyway”. For, as he rightly argues, “it is most unlikely that the world can live with an uncontrolled arms race lasting for several decades”. A recent report of the National Planning Association of America has this alarming conclusion: “Not only does the danger of war remain a possibility, but the probability totalled over time increases, becoming a certainty if sufficient time elapses without succeeding in finding alternatives.

What major change have we introduced into the present situation of bewilderment and drift.” What alternatives have we found? None whatsoever. We are victims of our own clichÈs. We are a race of bewildered, impotent men trying to fit disarmament, in its nuclear overtones, into our frozen, pre-nuclear stereotypes and being rather dismayed at the result. For though it looks like an old problem, disarmament as we know it today is, in fact, a stark new problem and it can only be solved in a stark new way. Our crisis is thus essentially psychological, a crisis of failure to break away from habits of thought which have no relevance to the problems of our time. To ascribe it to the rapid advances in weapons technology or the misuse of scientific knowledge is to misunderstand the true implications of our problem.

We are living in fantastic times – let us face this fact – and only an act or acts of fantastic courage and daring can deflect us from the path of certain disaster. This is no time for lukewarm attitudes or a gradualist, empirical approach. Nor for leisurely feeling our way, one little step at a time. This is the time for a bold, reckless leap – even a leap into the unknown. This is the time for a revolution in our thinking – for an agonizing reappraisal of our basic concepts of peace and human brotherhood. This, in short, is the time for a new realism in international relations.

I believe that this realism is most in evidence in Gandhi’s hitherto unheeded call for unilateral disarmament. In our current phantasmagoria of the megaton bomb, the Polaris missile and mega-death, the only step that makes any coherent sense is for each nation, big or small, nuclear or non-nuclear, to take the lone decision of scrapping its own armoury all on its own without waiting for others to make a start. A negotiated disarmament is a political fiction. We shall await till doomsday – and how near doomsday is! – if we hope that agreement will be reached on all the minutiae that have kept disarmament negotiations going endlessly for the best part of two generations.

Even a cursory study of the history of disarmament will reveal that every so-called disarmament proposal is a veiled move in the game of international hide-and-seek, an essential factor in the strategy of power. It would be the height of naivetÈ to imagine that the ever-new disarmament proposals that often catch the headlines have been motivated by a genuine desire for peace. On the contrary, every one of them can be shown to be a sinister move to gain a strategic advantage over one’s opponent. This. being the case, it will be unpardonable folly to expect anything to come out of the present merry-go-round of disarmament talks. Multilateral disarmament is a contradiction in terms. Someone must lay down arms first. Disarmament will never get a start except unilaterally. It must begin with some one nation, big or small. There is no other way.

The general objection against unilateral disarmament is that it is quixotic, unrealistic, utopian. Maybe it is all these. But are we not living in a very quixotic age? What is realistic about the nightmare world that is unravelled, say, in the yearly proceedings of the Pugwash Conference? And why should any man be apologetic about being utopian when the only alternative to a Utopia is the extinction of man?

But, fortunately, unilateral disarmament is neither quixotic nor utopian. In fact, if there are any lessons to be learnt from the woeful history of disarmament, the unilateral approach is the only probable and realistic way to achieve disarmament in our time. For consider the conflict between national security and disarmament. Every government gives first precedence to its own security and will in no case agree to any change in the existing armament balance unless it is satisfied that such change will not endanger its security. Add to this the axiom that one nation’s security is another’s insecurity, and we at once see what a hopeless mess we would land ourselves in if we believed in the myth of negotiated, multilateral disarmament. The security demands of even two nations are hard to reconcile, not to speak of the security needs, whether real or imagined, of the five score nations which sit around the United Nations table.

No, we cannot have national security and international disarmament at one and the same time. One will eventually have to be sacrificed to the other – and which shall that one be? The answer is clear. Unless we are either insane or inhuman, or both, there is no doubt we shall all opt for the saving of humanity and human civilization rather than the illusory pursuit of our own, private, national safety.

In the final analysis, the case for unilateral disarmament stands or falls by how we answer two simple questions: (a) Is there any known method, other than a unilateral act of courage and sacrifice, by which the besetting fear of one nation for another can be rooted out? (b) Even if unilateral disarmament were to fail, will the failure be as catastrophic to humanity as the continuance of the arms race which is implicit in the never-ending process of negotiated disarmament?

We can improve upon many things that Gandhi taught us – his religion and philosophy, even his economics and politics – but we cannot improve upon this central theme-song of his whole life, this concept of daring, unilateral action – satyagraha – which finds its culmination in his call for unilateral disarmament. Many of us swear by satyagraha and some of its more fashionable modern variants, little realizing that unilateral disarmament – the phrase we shun like the plague – is nothing other than satyagraha in its international dimension. We are universal in our condemnation of armaments but we are blind to the logical corollary of our condemnation – that if we are genuine in our belief that all arms are evil the honest thing for us to do is to strip ourselves of the evil at once, regardless of whether others do likewise.

Timothy Wilken’s  SafeEARTH series. See: 1) Beyond Crime and Punishment, 2) Synergic Containment: Protecting Children, 3) Synergic Containment: Science & Rationale, 4) Synergic Containment: Protecting Community and 5) Synergic Disarmament

Read Lt. Col. Dave Grossman’s: 1) Aggression and Violence 2) Evolution of Weaponry  3) Psychological Effects of Combat.

The following article, written in the 1960′s, is reposted from The Gandhi Book Centre.

“Controlled, universal disarmament is the imperative of our time. The demand for it by the hundreds of millions whose chief concern is the long future of themselves and their children will, I hope, become so universal and so insistent that no man, no government anywhere, can withstand it.”

–Dwight D. Eisenhower

Universal Disarmament

Charles C. Walker

The necessity for universal disarmament is generally recognized. How to achieve it has been the subject of prolonged and frustrating debate. The tendency has been for discussion to polarize into contrasting positions: negotiations vs. unilateral actions; all at once vs. step by step; security first vs. disarmament first.

It is not surprising that deep-seated differences should have arisen. Disarmament means the liquidation of the war system. This is a formidable task, no less a task than replacing a system which has functioned for six thousand years. The emergence of a new international system in which war has been eradicated and a stable peace effected will be one of the great landmarks in human history. Inevitably it will bring in its wake far-reaching changes in human attitudes, behaviour and institutions. A task of this size and complexity cannot be accomplished without the dedicated labour of many people working at various facets of the problem.

The time has come when it is both necessary and possible to coordinate several approaches to working for disarmament, and to develop a comprehensive strategy of action. I would suggest five major fronts.

1. Universal Disarmament: This is the objective towards which all disarmament advocates press, by whatever route it ultimately comes. For example, unilateralists would not be content if their nation alone disarmed, faced indefinitely with an armed and threatening world. Nothing less than the abolition of the war system itself can pave the way for the emergence of a durable peace.

When USSR Chairman Khrushchov and British Foreign Secretary Selwyn Lloyd made speeches at the United Nations in 1959, calling for general and complete disarmament, the peace groups in the US, whatever the approach of their particular organizations, united in trying to persuade the US Government to declare general and complete disarmament to be an avowed objective of US foreign policy. There were powerful forces in the Kennedy administration that viewed disarmament as nothing more than wishful thinking, or even dangerous nonsense. Over these objections, President Kennedy made such a declaration in a speech at the UN.

Those who have emphasized universal disarmament have usually relied almost exclusively upon negotiation as the instrument for achieving it. The record of these negotiations is a discouraging story. They have usually been a part of the power struggle rather than an alternative to it, as each side has tried to put the other on the spot and make itself appear to be the “peace-loving nation”. There is much truth in the statement that negotiations do not change fundamentals, they register “situations of fact” (a phrase of Dean Acheson’s).

Within the past few years, it appears that among experts in the nuclear powers there is a new willingness to look seriously at the possibility of universal disarmament. The present international system is clearly becoming unmanageable. Even such tentative steps as tacit agreements to limit the arms race (e.g. not to take civil defence very seriously), attempts to prevent accidental war, various forms of arms control, etc., may be the first signs of a new direction. For some, they may be adjustments to try to save the system – to make the world safe for World War II – but on the other hand they may initiate a trend that could gather momentum and inaugurate a fundamental system change.

However, negotiation alone, and the advice of experts, are not enough to counteract the fantastic momentum of military techno logy, as well as the persistence of old ways of thinking and acting. Other approaches are required which may help to produce a situation where negotiations can be more fruitful.

2. Demilitarisation: This means the actual achievement of disarmament in a geographical area. It should not be confused with “demobilization” or any other measure short of the liquidation of military forces in a specific area.

Demilitarisation can be accomplished by force, agreement or by unilateral action. At the end of World War II, Germany and Japan were forcibly disarmed by the Allied Powers. Some proposals for disengagement have envisaged demilitarised zones in Central Europe. Frequently, a crisis situation will lead to proposals for demilitarisation of the critical area, e.g. Berlin.

US military expert Walter Millis has pointed out that no South American nation is today in a position to wage a successful war against a neighbour. Since the Chaco wars earlier in the century, the possibility of war on that continent has receded. The national military forces are for internal use. This situation might be carried a step further: abolish the armies and make all of South America a demilitarised zone. However, this would have revolutionary implications for the internal structure of the nations and societies. If a non-violent revolutionary movement took root in South America, one of its political objectives could be the demilitarisation of the entire continent.

An area from which military forces have been withdrawn will find it difficult to remain so in the absence of a movement towards universal disarmament. Much depends upon the dynamics of the larger situation of which the area is a part. Demilitarisation can be a means for limiting a danger that could become explosive; such situations are likely to be transitory. To be significant for the cause of disarmament, demilitarisation would take place in a context where nations are genuinely moving towards general and complete disarmament.

3. Unarmed Areas: If demilitarisation refers to removal of military forces, the term “unarmed areas” is used for those areas, even nations, where arms are not introduced in the first place. For example, the continent of Antarctica has been declared an unarmed area, by way of a treaty signed by fourteen nations, including the US and the USSR.

There have been proposals advanced in the United Nations to the effect that no nation should use outer space for military purposes.

Some of the new nations in Africa have not fully decided whether to build a conventional military establishment; Tanganyika, for example. It is not inconceivable that several nations in East Africa might experiment with this course of action: Zambia (Northern Rhodesia) under the leadership of Kenneth Kaunda, Mozambique, Tanganyika, possibly Kenya. The likelihood would be greater if a joint approach could be worked out among these nations in East Africa.

The very existence of an unarmed state refutes the conventional theory that the nature of the state requires military power. Regional groupings of unarmed nations would be of even more significance, and would provide a valuable opportunity to study the dynamics of a situation that may foreshadow the demilitarisation of the African continent. So far this is a slender hope but it cannot be ruled out.

4. Unilateral Disarmament: Costa Rica, in Central America, is the only nation unilaterally disarmed today. By its 1959 constitution it is not permitted to have a standing army. The reasons for this action are not pacifist ones, and no provisions for non-violent resistance have been made. Costa Rica relies upon the Organization of American States for protection. When Nicaragua invaded, the OAS gave stern orders to withdraw, and Nicaragua did. But again, the fact that a nation has taken this action disproves the contention that it can’t be done.

The British Labour Party for a short time was on record for unilateral nuclear disarmament of Great Britain. Hugh Gaitskell successfully led the fight to rescind that position. In any case, it seems to me, nuclear disarmament is a halfway house in which one cannot live for long. Complete unilateral disarmament would be a more realistic as well as more creative course. Leading non-pacifists in Britain have said already that within a decade, given present trends, this may be the most realistic policy for Britain to take.

A demilitarised Germany does not seem to be a step which the US and USSR are prepared  to  negotiate;  possibly  the  time  for  that  has  passed.  This leaves the German people three board choices: (a) a divided Germany as now, indefinitely; (b) united and armed by unilateral action of the German people; or (c) united and unarmed by similar unilateral action. Only the third is a choice with hope. It may be a long time away, but so is any resolution of the German problem, it would appear.

India may one day decide to embark upon unilateral disarmament as the only viable alternative to a protracted and ultimately disastrous arms race with China, and deeper involvement in the Cold War. Japan may be faced with a similar choice.

There could be a transitory moment when the US or the USSR would strike out on a sudden and radical course of unilateral disarmament. That moment would be the time of a large-scale accidental war. The world would be so terror-stricken, with the danger of all-out war so imminent, that a “crash program for disarmament” might be inaugurated by a nation with the sense and initiative to do so. Leading military experts in the US have urged that plans be drawn up for this eventuality.

New books appearing on the subject of disarmament almost invariably have a chapter or article on unilateral disarmament something very unlikely only a few years ago. It would be ironic if non-pacifists began to take unilateral disarmament seriously when many pacifists have dismissed it out of an all too soft and unrealistic “realism”. A mass movement for unilateral action would impart impetus to all other efforts for disarmament, all the more so if such movements could develop an international strategy.

5. Unilateral Initiatives: This term describes an action that a nation may take, depending neither upon threat nor negotiation, which is itself a step in the direction of disarmament. (Technically, unilateral disarmament is an extreme unilateral initiative.) Examples of initiatives a nation might take are those ending nuclear tests, whether other nations do so or not; ending research and stockpiling of biological or chemical weapons; pledging only non-military uses of outer space; ending conscription; withdrawing from military bases.

A series of such steps, taken with special care as to timing and sequence, could help break through the vicious circle of fear and distrust that surrounds the arms race.

It is possible that a nation could take a number of such steps without impairing its relative power position. Thus the significance and effectiveness of unilateral initiatives will depend upon the motivation and context of such actions. If they are steps taken only to limit the extreme dangers of the arms race, or to gain a temporary propaganda advantage, they will be only ripples in a current. If they are, on the other band, firm and scheduled steps by way of implementing a decision to proceed to general and complete disarmament, then the strategy of unilateral initiatives can be of great value. It is the political platform on which a number of disarmament and more broadly based peace groups can unite for common organizational efforts. It is the basis for Turn Towards Peace in the US, and is likely to be the basis for action in an international confederation.

This analysis has been confined to disarmament alone. It has not proposed to deal with priorities, timetables, alternative international systems, economic or political consequences, etc. All of these have their place but it is the steady drive to universal disarmament that gives order and drive to the whole effort. What conclusions can be drawn’?

1. Success on any one of the five fronts is likely to have an impact on the total task. A gain on one front will be a gain on all.

2. There will come a time and place to emphasize one approach over others. When a favourable moment for negotiation appears, press for an agreement. When a specific issue, e.g. nuclear testing appears as a focus of concern and action, press for a unilateral initiative. When the situation is tense, with little chance for negotiation or initiatives, press the total case for the failure of military security and the inescapable necessity for ending the war system.

3. Peace groups must look beyond their own borders in order to see the dimensions of the total task. As the military aspect of the situation has become trans-national, so must the efforts to secure disarmament. The incipient trend towards internationalising the peace movement can be of assistance in this task. Even now, without a large-scale international organization a much greater degree of coordination is possible.

A parallel from the anti-colonial struggle may be instructive. There were many factors that undermined the theory and practice of colonialism. Three major factors may be singled out; (a) the organization of national resistance movements which forced the pace and made ultimate victory certain; (b) the unfolding logic of the colonial process and structure often driven home by friends of anti-colonialism within the system itself (c) the impact of large-scale related events, such as the two World Wars. To draw the parallel with the struggle for peace, first of all, mass movements for war resistance and disarmament, cooperating across national lines, are essential. Without these, other developments can too readily be thwarted and corrupted. Within this context, as war becomes ever more irrational and unworkable and this is realized by military experts themselves, they may be able to function within the councils of state in a way that gives substantial impetus to the drive for disarmament. There will also, no doubt, be great moments of decision, appearing suddenly and unpredictably, where the course of history can be changed and new epochs opened up for the human race. Thus, we should work away guided by our best lights, working with conviction but not dogmatism, with dedication but not intolerance.

Whether progress towards disarmament comes haltingly or rapidly, it will come through the vision and labours of unnumbered people who have performed that task it was within their power to do. However, it is this generation of all others which has the historic task of bringing these efforts to fruition.

Timothy Wilken’s  SafeEARTH series. See: 1) Beyond Crime and Punishment, 2) Synergic Containment: Protecting Children, 3) Synergic Containment: Science & Rationale, 4) Synergic Containment: Protecting Community and 5) Synergic Disarmament

I was very much disappointed by the decision of our American government to rebuild the Iraqi Army as reported in yesterday’s New York Times. We have just spent billions of dollars and taken thousands of lives in our effort to destroy the Iraqi Army. Now why in the world would we want to rebuild it?

Synergic Disarmament

Timothy Wilken, MD

Michel Moore’s Academy Award winning film Bowling for Columbine has brought renewed interest in the subject of weapons and their role in our present society. We are reminded that today, weapons are very easily available to just about anyone that wants them. And, while the technology to track these weapons and even the ammunition used within them is easily possible, we don’t do it. Since this might infringe on the American citizen’s Right to bear Arms.

In a synergic society there is no need to be armed. Even within our present adversary-neutral society, weapons in the hands of law abiding “good” citizens seem to bring society little benefit. And certainly, weapons in the hands of criminals and predators bring great harm to the public. Any scientific analysis of the role of weapons in modern America would reveal that weapons are not only plentiful and easily available, but that they are also very powerful.

Wisdom, we shouldn’t have!

A SYNERGIC FUTURE II

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

If majority rule democracy is obsolete and no longer the best system of human government, what other things do we believe that are equally wrong?

Redefining the Future

Timothy Wilken, MD

 In part one of A Synergic Future, I wrote:

Truth #1-Possessions are not necessarily property.

The possession of an object does not mean that the possessor has a moral or rational claim to ownership of the object. The political, economic, and social structures of our present world are all based on our concept of ‘property’ and property rights. If we define property as those possessions that were acquired by 1) either paying a fair price in a free market to the rightful owner, or 2) that which is produced by the mind and hands of the owner. Using this definition, most of today’s possessions are plunder and not property. In today’s world plunder is common and property is rare.

Truth # 2-The Majority of Human Wealth is a Gift

The vast majority of human wealth is a gift free for the taking, and cannot be morally or rationally claimed as property by any individual.

The land and natural resources are wealth provided to us by God and Nature. The sunshine, air, water, land, minerals, and the earth itself all come to us freely. The Earth’s land and natural resources are not products of the human mind or body. They existed long before life and humankind even emerged on our planet. There exists no moral or rational basis for any individual to claim them as Property.

If a claim of ownership can be made at all, it must be a claim on behalf of all humanity both the living and those yet unborn.

 

Synergic Wealth—Defined

The collective term we humans use to describe what we value is ‘wealth’. Synergic wealth is that which supports life for self and others.  Synergic Wealth comes in two forms: Synergic Trust and Property

Synergic Trust — wealth that comes to us as a gift

This includes the Life Trust — life itself, the plants and animals which are a gift from God, and Nature, and our human bodies which are a gift from God, Nature, and our Parents.

It includes the Earth Trust — the sunshine, air, water, land, minerals, the earth itself all of which come to us freely. This wealth is provided to us by God and Nature.

And, thirdly it includes the Time Trust — the accumulated ‘knowing’ from the time-binding of all the humans who have ever lived and died. Our inherited Wisdom, Knowledge, and Information including Architecture, Art, Literature, Music, Science, and Technology. It is the Time Trust that forms the basis of all human progress.

We humans are the beneficiaries then of three major trusts — the Life Trust, the Earth Trust and the Time Trust. We, humans can not and do not own these trusts. They are not derived of our lives. They are not the product of our mind or labor. We have not paid for them. There is no moral or rational basis for us to claim ownership. They are not property.

If we wish to use and control these trusts, then we must act as trustees, and then only if we act responsibly. As responsible trustees, we must preserve and protect these trusts. We must act as conservationists.

“Conservation is the sustainable use of natural resources—soils, water, plants, animals, and minerals. The natural resources of any area constitute its basic capital, and wasteful use of those resources constitutes an economic loss. From the aesthetic viewpoint, conservation also includes the maintenance of national parks, wilderness areas, historic sites, and wildlife.

“Natural resources are of two main types, renewable and nonrenewable. Renewable resources include wildlife and natural vegetation of all kinds. The soil itself can be considered a renewable resource, although severe damage is difficult to repair because of the slow rate of soil-forming processes. The natural drainage of waters from the watershed of a region can be maintained indefinitely by careful management of vegetation and soils, and the quality of water can be controlled through pollution control.

“Nonrenewable resources are those that cannot be replaced or that can be replaced only over extremely long periods of time. Such resources include the fossil fuels (coal, petroleum, and natural gas) and the metallic and other ores.”

The Life and Earth Trusts are perishable. They do not belong to us. We must protect them for our children, and for all future children. The Time Trust is less susceptible to damage by the user. Using knowledge or technology designs does not diminish their future value, but it must also be used responsibly. We must not hurt others with any trusts that we control. In fact, we should help others to whatever the extent we are capable.

All humans are trustees. We are of course the Life Trustees of our own bodies. We should take good care of ourselves. Take care with our health and nutrition. We are also the Time-binding Trustees of all the knowledge and skills that we personally have mastered from our study of the past. We must strive not to hurt others with this knowledge and skill. We should try and help others to whatever extent we are capable.

TRUST—def—> Wealth provided as a gift — The Life Trust includes our bodies as provided by God, Nature, and our Parents in addition to all other forms of life — the plants and animals provided by God and Nature. The Earth Trust includes the Earth itself and all Natural Resources provided by God and Nature. And, the Time Trust includes all the accumulated knowing and technology from the mental and physical labor of all those humans who lived and died before us. These three trusts can be referred to together as the Synergic Trusts.

In our present Adversary-Neutral Culture with its Pseudo-Independence, it is to common to boast that “I don’t owe anybody anything.” This could hardly be farther from the truth. Without our gifts from the Synergic Trust, we humans would have nothing, not even our lives. Without the gifts from the Time Trust, we would achieve nothing, each generation trapped at the subsistence level of the animal fighting and flighting to survive.

The scientific reality is that we humans owe nearly everything we are or have to God, Nature, and those humans who have lived and died before us. We are dependent on others. And sometimes others can depend on us. We humans are the Interdependent class of life.

Because Trusts are not property, control of Trust is a privilege and not a right. In synergic culture, humans may control Trusts as long as they exercise Synergic Responsibility.

Synergic Responsibility—def—>

1) Trustees must help others through their control and use of the Synergic Trusts.

2) Trustees should not hurt others through their control and use of the Synergic Trusts.

3) Trustees should preserve and protect the Synergic Trusts they use and control. They should not damage the Synergic Trusts.

Synergic Responsibilty is an obigation that is incurred by all Trustees of the Synergic Trusts. Any Trustee who violates their Synergic Responsibilities would lose their Trustee privileges.

Synergic Trusts are a gift for all humanity both the living and those waiting to be born. They must be shared equitably and in perpetuity. Synergic Trusts and the mechanisms to preserve, protect and administer them for the benefit and and weal of all humanity must be developed now. They will play a crucial role in a synergic future. This role will be explained in much detail in a later chapter. But first we must talk of that form of wealth called property.

 

Redefining the Future — Property

I explained that most human wealth is a gift and cannot be owned. As such it is a mistake to call this form of wealth property. Therefore, I coined the term “Synergic Trust” to represent wealth received as a gift. However, some wealth is property.

Property — wealth that we earn with our action and/or our leverage

Action is how most humans earn their livings today. We work for salaries using either the action of our bodies, or solve problems using the actions of our minds. Our understanding of Time-binding has revealed that thinking is the most powerful form of human action. Many of us earn our livings today by thinking.

Tools allow humans to lever the power of their action. Humans are tool users and tool makers. If I am a skilled tool user I can sell my actions to serve others with my skills. If I am a skilled tool maker, I can sell the tools I make to give other leverage increase the effectiveness of their action. Thinking can produce ideas and discoveries which lead to hypotheses and theories which lead to technology designs which allows us to build technology artifacts or tools which leverages action further.

Property is synergic wealth created by human action and leverage.

Property is not received as a gift, but is that which is earned by the labor of mind or body. Property is owned by the individual acting and the individual providing the leveraging.

Now let’s examine Volitional Scientist Andrew J. Galambos’ definition of property with my annotated comments in colored font:

“Property is individual man’s life and all non-procreative derivatives of his life.

“Property is the basis of ownership because to own means to have and hold Property. From the definition of Property, it follows that man must first own his life before he can own anything else. Life itself is defined as primordial Property.

I define the human body and the spark of life itself to be part of the Life Trust. Our bodies and life itself is a gift from God, Nature, and our Parents. As the Life Trustees of our own bodies and life itself, we owe some responsibility to God, Nature, and to our Parents. This obviously has some implications for how we use or abuse our bodies.

However, I can agree that human actions and human behaviors can be considered property, and since our lives are mostly determined by our actions and our behaviors it would follow that our lives can be considered to be our property. Galambos continues:

“No one may own any man but himself. Thus, Property excludes slavery at the outset.

“The first derivatives of man’s life are his thoughts and ideas. Thoughts and ideas are defined as primary Property.

“From the definition, man owns primary Property and, through this ownership, intellectual freedom arises and inspires knowledge and production. From primary Property (ideas) stem actions.”

Galambos’ concept of primary property legitimizes the concept of intellectual property rights, and forms the rational basis for ownership of one’s actions. Galambos continues:

“Ownership of one’s own actions (clearly a Property right) is commonly called liberty. Liberty, then, as well as life itself, is a Property right. Since all so-called human rights depend upon man’s liberty, it follows that all human rights are Property rights. There can be no conflict!”

Property rights come with Property Responsibilites. I agree with Galambos that you should not injure other while exercising your property rights. But synergic responsibilty goes further in that you are encouraged to use your property to help others.

Synergic Trust privileges come with Synergic Trustee Responsibilities which are even greater than Property Resonsibilities. Here again, you should not hurt others while controlling a trust, but in addition you must help others. Helping others is a requirement of Guardian Trustee responsibility. In addition, Guardian Trustees are bound to protect and preserve the Synergic Trust. Galambos continues:

“Ideas and actions produce further, or secondary, derivatives. These include the access to and use of land.”

Access to land and other natural resources are controlled by the Earth Trust in a synergic culture. One can gain control over land and natural resources, but only with acceptance of Synergic Responsibility—you cannot hurt anyone, and you must help others to the extent possible. In addition, one must act as a good conservationist you cannot damage or pollute the land. Galambos continues:

“Other secondary derivatives include the production, utilization, enjoyment, and disposal of material, tangible goods of all kinds from ash trays to television sets, from log cabins to skyscrapers, from oxcarts to jet planes.”

Complex secondary derivatives such as television sets, skyscrapers, and jet planes contain significant amounts knowlege and technology from the Time Trust. In synergic culture all humans are free to make use the Time Trust and incorporate our inherited ‘knowing’ into their products as long as their use of the trust does not hurt anyone. For example in synergic culture, it is immoral to use the knowledge of physics to make weapons. Galambos continues:

“These are called secondary Property. They are secondary both logically and chronologically. In all instances, their existence is antedated by primary Property which led to their generation and employment.”

Alfred Korzybski makes a similar distinction to primary and secondary property with his discussion of two kinds of wealth:

“We have seen that the term wealth, rightly understood, means the fruit of the time-binding work of humanity. Wealth is of two kinds: one is material; the other is knowledge. Both kinds have use-value. The first kind perishes—the commodities composing it deteriorate and become useless. The other is permanent in character; it is imperishable; it may be lost or forgotten but it does not wear out.

“The one is limited in time; the other, unlimited in time; the former I call POTENTIAL USE-VALUE; the latter; KINETIC USE-VALUE. Analysis will justify the names. The energy of a body which is due to its position, is called potential energy. The energy of a body which is due to its motion, is called kinetic energy. Here the material use-value has value through its positon, shape and so forth; it is immobile if not used, and has not the capacity to progress. Mental use-values are not static but permanently dynamic; one thought, one discovery, is the impulse to others; they follow the law of an increasing potential function of time.”

Galambos continues:

“Further derivatives of man’s life lead to voluntary transactions involving Property transfers (sales, trades, gifts, etc.). Involuntary Property transfers are derivative not from the property owner’s life but from the life of the coercer. Therefore, Property ceases to remain Property and is converted to plunder when subjected to involuntary (coercive) transfer.

“Children—being young human beings—have Property rights of their own and cannot themselves be owned; children are not property.

Children recieve their bodies as Synergic Trusts from God, Nature, and their Parents. In synergic culture, the parents are the trustees for infants and young children, as children grow they gain more and more control over their bodies and eventually are invested with Trusteeship of their bodies and Property rights for their actions and behavior.

Reproduction is not a property right. Reproduction is a Trust Privilege. No individual has the right to reproduce if that reproduction would injure humanity as Community. This ends my comments on Galambos’ statements.

Now we can expand our definition of Property to one compatible with synergic science.

PROPERTY—def—> Wealth created by human action and leverage. It belongs to the individual(s) whose action and leverage created it. All humans are entitled to the fruits of their action and leverage. All human-made wealth is property, and all property has an owner. The owners of property have 100% control over their property as long as such control does not injure others, this prohibition of injury includes other individuals’ property, and the synergic trusts.

Property Rights —> Owner(s) may transfer partial or complete control of their own property to others as they choose. They may sell, trade, rent, lease, license, gift, or donate their property as they please.

Intellectual Property —>Thinking is recognized as a powerful form of action. Ideas, discoveries, hypotheses, theories, and technology designs are therefore property. Synergic science recognizes Galambos’ definition of Primary Property and fully accepts Intellectual Property Rights. Primary Property — Ideas, discoveries, hypotheses, theories, and technology designs can be used to develop Secondary Property—technology artifacts or tools which leverage further action.

Action and Leverage

Synergic Economics accepts that wealth produced from human action and from human leverage is property. Therefore, wealth created by human action and leverage is owned by the individual(s) acting and the individual(s) leveraging.

The animal has action, but only we humans have leverage. While our human action can be applied directly to solving problems and meeting our needs, the labor of our backs does not take advantage of our Time-binding power. We humans owe our great success not to our muscular strength, but to the intelligence we can use to guide that strength, and the leverage we gain by using tools. Remember, we humans are the tool makers and tool users.

If I am a skilled tool user, I can use my skilled action to serve myself and others. If I am a skilled tool maker, I can leverage my action and the action of others to serve myself and others.

Thinking is recognized as a powerful form of action. Ideas, hypotheses, theories, and discoveries are therefore property. Synergic Economics recognizes Galambos’ definition of Primary Property and fully accepts Intellectual Property Rights. Primary Property—Ideas, hypotheses, theories, and discoveries, and technology designs can be used to develop secondary property — technology artifacts or tools which leverage further action. Therefore, synergic science recognizes property rights based on two forms of human behavior — Action and Leverage.

plunder

plunder—def—> Property or Trust acquired with force or fraud—all adversarily acquired Property or Trust. Stolen property is plunder. Exploited Trust is plunder. This includes Trust that is used or controlled in violation of the Synergic Trust Responsibility. Synergic Trust that is used without helping others is plunder. Synergic Trust that is used to hurt others is plunder. Causing damage to the Life, Earth, or Time Trusts is plunder. And, using Time Trust to hurt others is also plunder.

Any individual who steals property with force or fraud is accorded no property rights. Plunder cannot be sold, traded, rented, leased, licensed, gifted, or donated to anyone. Possession of plunder even when obtained innocently does not entitle the possessor to property rights. It should be returned to its rightful owner, if that is not possible then the rescued Property should be placed in the Custody of the appropriate Guardian Trustees.

We can now update our definition of Synergic Wealth.

Synergic Wealth —def—> Life itself and that which promotes human well being generally—that which satisfies human needs of self and other—that which promotes mutual survival and makes life meaningful for self and other. This then includes all Property and all Synergic Trust.

Synergic Wealth is then 1) Life itself including the Life Trust 2) Human Action—Mental and Physical—Thinking, Action, and Behavior—Primary Property 3) Human Leverage—Mental and Physical—Intellectual Property in the forms of Theories, Discoveries, and Technology Designs—Primary Property, and Physical Property such as Tools, Technology Artifacts, and Products—Secondary Property, 4) the Time Trust, and 5) the Earth Trust.

plunder is not Synergic Wealth. As stolen Property or exploited Trust it has been removed from the Synergic Wealth pool to serve the criminals’ needs.

If and when stolen Property is rescued by synergic justice, then it is returned to its rightful owners, or if that is not possible it is placed in the protective custody of the appropriate Trustees. If and when exploited Trust is rescued by synergic justice, it is returned to the protective custody of the appropriate Trustees.

Mixing Property and Trust

There is often an area of overlap with Synergic Trusts and Property being mixed. For example, animals trained as security agents would be a blend of Life Trust (the animal) + Property (the training and care). Also Synergic Trusts often require property to make them valuable. As example, Earth Trust (crude oil under the ground) has no value until property (oil well technology — finding, drilling, pumping, transporting) is added.

Andrew J. Galambos, Freedom100: Capitalism—The Liberal Revolution, Free Enterprise Institute, Los Angeles, Privately Published 1961

Alfred Korzybski, The Manhood of Humanity, E.P. Dutton & Co., New York, 1921

 

Redefining the Future — Expanding our definitions 

Recall my earlier definitions of synergic wealth:

 SYNERGIC WEALTH —def—> Life itself and that which promotes human well being generally — that which satisfies human needs of self and other — that which promotes mutual survival and makes life meaningful for self and other. This then includes all Property and all Synergic Trust.

SYNERGIC WEALTH is then 1) LIFE itself including the LIFE TRUST 2) HUMAN ACTION—Mental and Physical—Thinking, Action, and Behavior—Primary Property 3) HUMAN LEVERAGE—Mental and Physical—Intellectual Property in the forms of Theories, Discoveries, and Technology Designs—Primary Property, and Physical Property such as Tools, Technology Artifacts, and Products—Secondary Property, 4) the TIME TRUST, and 5) the EARTH TRUST.

plunder is not Synergic Wealth. As stolen Property or exploited Trust it has been removed from the Synergic Wealth pool to serve the criminals’ needs.

If and when stolen Property is rescued by synergic justice, then it is returned to its rightful owners, or if that is not possible it is placed in the protective custody of the appropriate Trustees. If and when exploited Trust is rescued by synergic justice, it is returned to the Protective custody of the appropriate Trustees.

Korzybski’s Indexing

Now that we have carefully defined Wealth, we can utilize a derivative of Korzybski’s Indexing^TT to identify what form of wealth we are talking about.

Property^P is designated with superscript P. Life Trust^LT is designated with a superscript LT. Earth Trust^ET is designated with a superscript ET. Time-binding Trust^TT is designated with a superscript TT. And plunder_p is designated with a subscript _p.

Some examples would be: my computer^P, the American eagle^LT,the Earth^ET, Einstein’s Theory of Relativity^TT, and the thief was arrested in possession of several cellular phones_p.

Synergic Trustees

Recall, I said earlier that all humans are synergic trustees.

We are Earth Trustees for the land and natural resources we granted use of for our personal needs. We must conserve and protect those Earth resources that we are entrusted with. This is an obligation to humanity as community and to the Earth Trust.

We are of course the Life Trustees of our own bodies. We should take good care of ourselves. Take care with our health and nutrition. As parents we are the Life Trustees for our children until they are adults. We must not harm ourselves or our children. We must live in ways to help ourselves and our children. This is an obligation to humanity as community and to the Life Trust.

We are also the Time-binding Trustees of all the knowledge and skills that we personally have mastered from our study of the past. We must strive not to hurt others with this knowledge and skill. We should try and help others to whatever extent we are capable.

In synergic culture, all humans are granted access to the Time-binding Trust at birth. Every human may make full use of the knowing contained in the Time-binding Trust as long as that use does not hurt others.

Personal or educational use of the Time-binding Trust is encouraged without limit or restriction. Knowledge cannot be consumed. Using the Time-binding Trust does not in any way diminish it.

Every human who gains economically from their use of the Time-binding Trust is required to acknowledge and give credit to the innovators and creators of the knowledge they are using.

They are further encouraged to help others to the extent they are capable — helping is a basic synergic value. Who they choose to help and to what extent they help is entirely voluntary — entirely their own personal choice. And, while synergic culture encourages its members to help others, there is no coercive obligation to do so.

Furthermore, economic gain from use of the Time-binding Trust creates no economic obligation to the Time-binding Trust or anyone else.

Intellectual Property

New ideas, discoveries, hypotheses, theories, technology designs, inventions, as well as new art, music, and writing are not a part of the Time-binding Trust. This is intellectual property. Or, what Galambos called Primary Property. All property has an owner. We cannot use property without the explicit permission of the owner. Recall our earlier definition: 

PROPERTY—def—> Wealth created by human action and leverage. It belongs to the individual(s) whose action and leverage created it. All humans are entitled to the fruits of their action and leverage. All human-made wealth is property, and all property has an owner. The owners of property have 100% control over their property as long as such control does not injure others, this prohibition of injury includes other individuals’ property, and the synergic trusts.

Intellectual Property —>Thinking is recognized as a powerful form of action. Ideas, discoveries, hypotheses, theories, technology designs, inventions, as well as art, music, and writing are therefore property. Synergic science recognizes Galambos’ definition of Primary Property and fully accepts Intellectual Property Rights. Primary Property — Ideas, discoveries, hypotheses, theories, and technology designs can be used to develop Secondary Property—technology artifacts or tools which leverage further action.

Property Rights —> Owner(s) may transfer partial or complete control of their own property to others as they choose. They may sell, trade, rent, lease, license, gift, or donate their property as they please.

In today’s world there is much interest in intellectual property. Property in ideas are protected to some extent under patent and copyright statutes. Patent & Intellectual Property Lawyers Laurence R. Hefter and Robert D. Litowitz explain: 

“In today’s world a patent is a contract between society as a whole and an individual inventor. Under the terms of this social contract, the inventor is given the exclusive right to prevent others from making, using, and selling a patented invention for a fixed period of time in return for the inventor’s disclosing the details of the invention to the public. Thus, patent systems encourage the disclosure of information to the public by rewarding an inventor for his or her endeavors.

“Although the word “patent” finds its origins from documents issued by the sovereign of England in the Middle Ages for granting a privilege, today the word is linked synonymously with this exclusive right granted to inventors. The World Trade Organization Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights provides the international standard for duration of patent exclusivity, which is 20 years from the date of filing. All World Trade Organization members will be obligated to meet this standard. Under all patent systems, once this period has expired, people are free to use the invention as they wish.

“Any invention, either a product or a process for creating a product, “provided that they are new, involve an inventive step, and are capable of industrial application.” In other words, to be patentable, an invention must be novel, useful, and nonobvious. A prerequisite to patentability is that the invention must be capable of some practical application.

“A copyright is an exclusive right to reproduce an original work of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, to prepare derivative works based upon the original work, and to perform or display the work in the case of musical, dramatic, choreographic, and sculptural works. Copyright protection does not extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, or embodied. Rather, copyright protection is limited to an author s particular expression of an idea, process, concept, and the like in a tangible medium.

“Copyright protection automatically subsists in all works of authorship from the moment of creation. The World Trade Organization Agreement provides a minimum standard for duration of copyright protection. In the case of a person, the term is the life of the author plus 50 years.

“The exclusive rights granted to the copyright owner do not include the right to prevent others from making fair use of the owner s work. Such fair use may include use of the work for purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching or education, and scholarship or research.

“To secure copyright protection, the work in question must be an original work of authorship fixed in a tangible medium of expression. Works of authorship that fall within this definition may include:

Literary works (including computer programs);

Musical works and accompanying lyrics;

Dramatic works and dialogue;

Pantomimes and choreographic works;

Pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works;

Motion pictures and other audiovisual works; and

Sound recordings.

“It is important to note that the laws of many countries do not limit the type or form of work because authors are continuing to invent new ways of expressing themselves.

Property clearly plays an important role in our present Neutral political-economic system. Property will play an important role in a Synergic political economic system as well. Those those desiring to use Intellectual Property will need to come to terms with the owner of the property. I expect most owners would want their property used as widely as possible, happy to receive a use fee or Lever Royalty. The terms and amount of the royalty would be negotiated and determined by the owner and those desiring to use the Intellectual Property. Elsewhere in my paper entitled the Organizational Tensegrity, I discuss synergic mechanisms for determining and paying Lever Royalites for the use of Intellectual Property.  

Intellectual Property Rights

Recall as Hefter and Litowitz explained, in today’s world:

“Authors which incudes scientists, writers, artists, and musicians can copyright their works. However, copyright protection is limited to an author’s particular expression of an idea, process, concept, and the like in a tangible medium. Copyright protection does not extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, or embodied.”

Galambos’s definition of property provided much greater rights to both Inventors and Authors. Under Moral Capitalism the right to control one’s property was an absolute with the only limitation being that you could not hurt others with your property. This right of course extended to intellectual property since after life itself, primary property was the most important form of property.

And, Intellectual Property rights were not limited to an author’s particular expression of an idea, process, concept, and the like in a tangible medium. Intellectual Property rights did extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, or embodied.

Galambos recognized that independent discoveries and independent inventions did and do occur. So individuals with strong evidence of independent discovery or independent invention were fully entitled to property rights.

As a synergic scientist, I am in agreement with Galambos’ call for a greater degree of intellectual property rights, and I accept the occurrence of genuine independent discoveries and inventions, and the need for a mechanism of justice to abitrate property disputes. 

Duration of Property Rights

Again, Hefter and Litowitz decribe our present world: 

“Current international statutes degree that the inventor of a new tool can file for a patent granting exclusive right of ownership for a period of 20 years from date of filing.

“The duration of copyright protection in the case of a person is for the duration of the life of the author plus 50 years.”

In Moral Capitalism, the duration of property rights were not to be limited.

According to the precepts of Moral Capitalism, Isaac Newton as the recognized innovator of the Laws of Motion would have intellectual property rights throughout his life, and these would not terminate even upon his death. Galambos invented the concept of a “Natural Estate”, the intellectual property rights of an innovator persisted even after death. A Moral Corporation was to be charged with the authority and responsibility for managing the intellectual property rights of the deceased innovator within his “Natural Estate”.

This Moral Corporation, representing the “Natural Estate”, would license the intellectual property of the deceased innovator to present humanity for moral (non-coercive) use. In our example, Newton’s intellectual property (The Laws of Motion) would earn revenue shares as a monetary payment of gratitude.

Since the Industrial Revolution is based in large part on the secondary property derived from Isaac Newton’s primary property (the Laws of Motion), one could easily imagine that the size of Isaac Newton’s “Natural Estate” would result in the creation of an enormously wealthy and powerful Moral Corporation.

With the large amount of intellectual property in the history of humanity there would be need for many Natural Estates. The largest Natural Estates would be those of the most important innovators in human history — Archimedes, Leonardo da Vinci, Hippocrates, Louis Pasteur, Alexander Graham Bell, Thomas Edison, George Washington Carver, Rudolf Diesel, George Eastman, Albert Einstein, Daniel Gabriel Fahrenheit, Michael Faraday, Galileo Galilei, etc., etc., etc..

Galambos envisioned that the Natural Estate industry would become the dominant industry in a proprietary future dominated by Moral Capitalism. He saw the Natural Estate mechanism as a complete replacement for government. After all in a world where everything is property and where there is no such thing as a small interference with property, protecting property is the only rule. Moral Capitalism results in a completely proprietary world.

Unfortunately, the Natural Estate mechanism while a clever idea does not work, and in fact can not work.

Thomas Jefferson on Inventions and Property

In a letter to Isaac McPherson on August 13, 1813, Thomas Jefferson wrote:

It has been pretended by some, (and in England especially,) that inventors have a natural and exclusive right to their inventions, and not merely for their own lives, but inheritable to their heirs. But while it is a moot question whether the origin of any kind of property is derived from nature at all, it would be singular to admit a natural and even an hereditary right to inventors. It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject, that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance. By an universal law, indeed, whatever, whether fixed or movable, belongs to all men equally and in common, is the property for the moment of him who occupies it, but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property goes with it. Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society. It would be curious then, if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property. If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from anybody. Accordingly, it is a fact, as far as I am informed, that England was, until we copied her, the only country on earth which ever, by a general law, gave a legal right to the exclusive use of an idea. In some other countries it is sometimes done, in a great case, and by a special and personal act, but, generally speaking, other nations have thought that these monopolies produce more embarrassment than advantage to society; and it may be observed that the nations which refuse monopolies of invention, are as fruitful as England in new and useful devices.

Considering the exclusive right to invention as given not of natural right, but for the benefit of society, I know well the difficulty of drawing a line between the things which are worth to the public the embarrassment of an exclusive patent, and those which are not. As a member of the patent board for several years, while the law authorized a board to grant or refuse patents, I saw with what slow progress a system of general rules could be matured.

(Source: The Founders’ Constitution) 

The Nature of Intellectual Property

Intellectual Property is slippery, hard to keep track of. When I learn something, I often place the fact in my mind without a proprietary footnote. This is true for all humans. There is presently no way to record or print out a copy of the human mind. And, if I am reading many different authors, talking with many different people, surfing the internet, listening to the radio, watching televison, there are enormous numbers of different ideas and thoughts that I am exposed daily, let alone in a lifetime of living and thinking. Is this my original idea ? Sometimes I don’t even know for sure myself.

And, my mind was already full of all the knowing that I have learned and mastered from the past. If I think in English, then the very structure of the languange I use to order my thoughts would belong to whoever invented the English language. And since language is build overtime often one word or phrase at a time, we are probably not talking about one innovator, but maybe hundreds, or thousands, or millions. And then, there is the language of mathematics, physics, biology, chemistry, art and music. Most of what I know I learned from the dead. If that is property how do we sort it all out.

And, some of what I learned is from people who are still living. That is other people’s intellectual property, but at least they are still alive to represent themselves and their property rights.

Objectifying a living individual’s knowing is difficult, but doable. I can write down my ideas. I can tell my ideas to others. I can make written, digital, audio and video recordings. I can be interviewed, questioned. Asked to explain how I created the idea, and what was my train of thought.

However, all ability to objectify my knowing ends with my death.

It would create a world full of humans looking back at the past with endless struggles between “Natural Estates” arguing over who owns what. And, how do you settle these property disputes, when all the principles are dead ? 

Creating human organizations to the manage the intellectual property of the dead is fraught with enormous difficulties. Do the executors of Albert Einstein’s Natural Estate even understand his intellectual property.

Worse yet, who has the right to select those living humans to manage Natural Estates. It is first come, first served. I could announce tomorrow that I am the executor of Archimedes’ Natural Estate and that everyone who uses leverage in anyway owes Archimedes a revenue share. Imagine the revenue that could produce. And, of course I could pay myself quite well as Archimedes’ executor. Who decides ? Who arbitrates ? Certainly, Archimedes wouldn’t care.

And, why not just announce myself as the executor of the Natural Estate for the Inventor of the wheel or for the inventor of  language. Wheels are everywhere from ox carts to 767s, who wouldn’t pay royalties on the wheel. And, language there is no one who is called human that doesn’t use languge.  Everyone who talks must pay my company a royalty. 

Death and Inheritance

The dead have no needs including no need of wealth.

WEALTH —def—> That which promotes human well being — that which satisfies human needs — that which promotes both human survival and human meaning.

The dead have no actions nor do they lever others action. The dead cannot control Property or Trust, and therefore have no Property rights nor Trust privileges.

PROPERTY—def—> Wealth created by human action and leverage. It belongs to the individual(s) whose action and leverage created it. All humans are entitled to the fruits of their action and leverage. All human-made wealth is property, and all property has an owner. The owners of property have 100% control over their property as long as such control doesn’t hurt others.

At the time of death, all primary property of the deceased passes into the Time-binding Trust. This includes all known ideas, discoveries, hypotheses, theories, and technology designs.

When a creator of scientific knowledge dies their Primary Property passes into the Time-binding Trust. Those desiring to use Time-binding Trust like Haskell’s Periodic Coordinate System^TT, Galambos’ Automatic Remoteness Dilution^TT, or Einstein’s Theory of Relativity^TT can do so as long as their use of these Trusts with synergic responsibilty — they do not hurt anyone with the leverage gained by using the trust, and they acknowledge and give credit to the innovator of that knowledge. No revenue share is paid for use of a Time-binding Trust.

Synergic Associate Daan Joubert asks:
“Suppose an innovator dies suddenly. What happens to the immediate family and the dependents that are supported from the income stream provided by the licensing of the innovator’s intellectual property.  – wife or husband, and minor children ?”

In a truely synergic culture. The basic life support for all humans individuals is provided by Humanity as Community using Wealth from the Earth, Life, and Time-binding Trusts. I will describe this completely in a later paper.

 

And, of course this is the proper roll of insurance. To provide for immediate family in the event of unexpected death.

But, during the bridge period, perhaps there could be some time period when existing contracts for use of the innovator’s intellectual property would continue. How long? The life of the spouse? Until minor children reach some age of adulthood. In today’s world perhaps that should be after college. (age 21) ?

Daan Joubert asks: “And, what about the situation where the work of the innovator was in progress at the time of the innovator’s death, suppose his/her innovations were not finished. Shouldn’t it be possible to appoint a curator of the ideas with a protected period of say 10 years, to complete the work as envisioned by the innovator?”

I think this is a valid concern, but I think the mechanisms as described would handle this OK. When the Innovator died, all his intellectual property becomes Time-binding Trust. It is now available to anyone to use with synergic responsibility. This would include those qualified to act as a curator of the ideas. Also it is possible that those most qualified to continue the innovator’s work were not even known by him. So, the release of the deceased innovators intellectual property to the Time-binding Trust opens up an opportunity for new minds to access and extend the work.

However with that said, if the innovation has not yet been disclosed to the public, or only partially disclosed to the public, then the innovation is still  private. There is no mechanism for private (not know by the public) intellectual property to enter the Time-binding Trust until it is made public by the act of disclosure. If the innovator was working with an associate, or team of associates, they could continue, finish the innovation and then go public.

Also, it is important to note any individual(s) who continue working on the innovation, making improvements to that  innovation are creating new intellectual property of their own with intellectual property rights.

So innovations should not be stranded by the sudden death of an innovator.

If you want to use the intellectual property of a living innovator. You have to ask permission and make an agreement for that use. The living innovator has property rights.  As an owner he/she may transfer partial or complete control of their own property to others as they choose. They may sell, trade, rent, lease, license, gift, or donate their property as they please.

Secondary property can be inherited — this includes artifacts of any kind or size — houses, buildings material possessions and physical products — technology artifacts or tools.

Land can not be owned. If you inherited a house or building you would be responsible to make the lease payments to the Earth Trust for the site upon which the house or building stand.

 

Redefining the Future — Trustegrities 

It must now be obvious to the reader, that most of human wealth is a gift and cannot be claimed as property by any individual or group of individuals. I have divided this gift into three categories — the Earth Trust, the Life Trust and the Time-binding Trust.

I propose the creation of synergic trustee organizations charged with the responsibility to protect, conserve and administer the synergic trusts for the benefit of all humanity — both the living and the unborn. This organization could make use of the Organizational Tensegrity synergic mechanism which utilizes synergic consensus and the synergic veto to elimnate conflict. These Synergic Trust Organizational Tensegrities will simply be called the “Trustegrities”. The Trustegrities could form the basis for a synergic government in the future. They could perform all the positive functions of present government with none of the negative consequences. The Trustegrities would exist to serve humanity as community as well as humanity as individual.

The Trustegrities will be three with separate but complimentary missions in service to humankind. 

The Earth Trustegrity will provide:

1) Access to land and natural resources for personal use at minimal or no cost, and

2) Access to land and natural resources for synergic production with appropriate charges payable to the Earth Trustegrity in lease or rental fees, licensing fees, and/or revenue shares. All rental fees, licensing fees, and/or revenue shares are entrusted to the Earth Trustegrity for Humanity as Community.

The Life Trustegrity will provide:

3) Safety from crime and war, and full access to:

4) Comfortable, safe, healthy housing.

5) Good nutritious food

6) Good preventitive health services and comprehensive cradle to grave medical care, and access to the privilege of Reproduction based on fairness, equality, and mutual benefit to both humanity as Individuals and humanity as Community. This would include monitoring administrating, adjudicating the Trust privilege of Reproduction.

7) Access to animals and plants including native flora and wildlife for personal use at minimum or no cost.

Access to animals and plants including native flora and wildlife for synergic production with approriate charges payable to the Life Trustegrity in rental fees, licensing fees and/or revenue shares. All payments made are entrusted to the Earth Trustegrity for Humanity as Community.

The Time-binding Trustegrity will provide:

9) Full education to an individual’s ability and interest regardless of age,

10) The opportunity to participate in synergic organization and invest their action and leverage to earn revenue shares and acquire property throughout their full lifetime.

11) Access to communication with humanity as individuals and to humanity as community for personal reasons, for synergic production and consumption, and for synergic consensus utilizing Unanimous Rule Democracy.

12) Protection of the intellectual discoveries and inventions of Time-binding whether they be in the Time-binding Trust, or the Property of living humans.

 

Funding the Synergic Trustegrities

Future Positive was established to help humanity transition from the present adversary-neutral political-economic mechanisms dominating human life in 2002 to synergic alternative mechanisms available in a Synergic Future. In such a future the entire human species could be organized as a single organization, then there would be no need for politics, economics, or even money. Certainly the forty trillion cells in the synergic organization which comprise our bodies do quite well without politics, economics or money.

As I said earlier, if we humans synergically reorganized, we could all be wealthy beyond our wildest dreams. If we were to take all the wealth on planet Earth today, 2002 and divide it equally among the 6+ billions of us living on the planet, we would discover to our surprise and amazement that every man, woman, and child is a billionaire. There would never be any need for humans to earn their livings again. With synergic reorganization, and careful utilization of the Earth, Life and Time-binding Trusts, the Earth could comfortably support all of humanity. And this is without any need to damage or degrade our environment.

Our Time-binding Trust is so enormously powerful and gives those of us living today such enormous leverage that it is scientifically possible to solve all our human problems and meet all of our needs.

We humans are bound to the Earth, and our individual fates are linked together — we share a common fate. We can survive and prosper together as a unified species, or we can perish as individuals fighting and fleeing like the animals. There is no separate peace and no separate solutions.

All the land and all the natural resources of the Earth are needed for our species to survive. They cannot be held and used to serve any individual or group of individuals. The land and natural resources are not property, they cannot be owned by anyone. They are a Trust to be shared and carefully utilized by all living humans. They are a Trust to be conserved for all yet unborn humanity. 

“Men did not make the earth…. It is the value of the improvement only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property…. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds.”

…..Adam Smith (1723 – 1790)

“Ground rents are a species of revenue which the owner, in many cases, enjoys without any care or attention of his own. Ground rents are, therefore, perhaps a species of revenue which can best bear to have a peculiar tax imposed upon them.” 

…..Tom Paine (1737 – 1809)

“The land, the earth God gave man for his home, sustenance, and support, should never be the possession of any man, corporation, society, or unfriendly government, any more than the air or water.”

…..Abraham Lincoln (1809 – 1865)

 

Henry George

The American writer, Henry George published Progress and Poverty in 1879, in which he made one of the first arguments for the common ownership of land by all people. He seriously argued for the full return of the land to humanity as community. He even suggested a mechanism for that transition. Here in his own words:

“There is but one way to remove an evil and that is to remove its cause. To extirpate poverty, to make wages what justice commands they should be, the full earnings of the labourer, we must substitute for the individual ownership of land a common ownership. Nothing else will go to the cause of the evil, in nothing else is there the slightest hope.

“But this is a truth which, in the present state of society, will arouse the most bitter antagonism, and must fight its way, inch by inch. It will be necessary, therefore, to meet the objections of those who, even when driven to admit this truth, will declare that it cannot be practically applied.

“In doing this we shall bring our previous reasoning to a new and crucial test. Just as we try addition by subtraction and multiplication by division, so may we, by testing the sufficiency of the remedy, prove the correctness of our conclusions as to the cause of the evil.

“The laws of the universe are harmonious. And if the remedy to which we have been led is the true one, it must be consistent with justice; it must be practicable of application; it must accord with the tendencies of social development and it must harmonize with other reform.

“I propose to show that this simple measure is not only easy of application, but that it is a sufficient remedy for all the evils which, as modern progress goes on, arise from the greater and greater inequality in the distribution of wealth—that it will substitute equality for inequality, plenty for want, justice for injustice, social strength for social weakness, and will open the way to grander and nobler advances of civilization.

“But a question of method remains. How shall we do it?

“We should satisfy the law of justice, we should meet all economic requirements, by at one stroke abolishing all private titles, declaring all land public property, and letting it out to the highest bidders in lots to suit, under such conditions as would sacredly guard the private right to improvements.

“Thus we should secure, in a more complex state of society, the same equality of rights that in a ruder state were secured by equal partitions of the soil and, by giving the use of the land to whoever could procure the most from it, we should secure the greatest production.

“But such a plan, though perfectly feasible, does not seem to me the best.

“To do that would involve a needless shock to present customs and habits of thought—which is to be avoided.

“To do that would involve a needless extension of governmental machinery—which is to be avoided.

“It is an axiom of statesmanship, which the successful founders of tyranny have understood and acted upon, that great changes can best be brought about under old forms. We, who would free men, should heed the same truth. It is the natural method. When nature would make a higher type, she takes a lower one and develops it. This is the law also of social growth. Let us work by it. With the current we may glide fast and far. Against it, it is hard pulling and slow progress.

“I do not propose either the purchase or the confiscation of private property in land. The first would be unjust; the second, needless. Let the individuals who now hold it still retain, if they want to, possession of what they are pleased to call their land. Let them continue to call it their land. Let them buy and sell, and bequeath and devise it. It is not necessary to confiscate land; it is only necessary to confiscate rent.

“Nor to take rent for public uses is it necessary that the state should bother with the letting of lands. It is not necessary that any new machinery should be created. The machinery already exists. Instead of extending it, all we have to do is to simplify and reduce it. By making use of this existing machinery, we may, without jar or shock, assert the common right to land by taking rent for public uses.

“We already take some rent in taxation. We have only to make some changes in our modes of taxation to take it all.

“Therefore, what I propose is—to appropriate rent by taxation.

“In form, the ownership of land would remain just as now. No owner of land need be dispossessed, and no restriction need be placed upon the amount of land any one could hold. For, rent being taken by the state in taxes, land, no matter in whose name it stood or in what parcels it was field, would be really common property, and every member of the community would participate in the advantages of its ownership.

“Now, insomuch as the taxation of rent, or land values, must necessarily be increased just as we abolish other taxes, we may put the proposition into practical form by proposing to abolish all taxation save that upon land values.

“As we have seen, the value of land is at the beginning of society nothing, but as society develops by the increase of population and the advance of the arts, it becomes greater and greater. Hence it will not be enough merely to place all taxes upon the value of land. It will be necessary, where rent exceeds the present governmental revenues, to increase commensurately the amount demanded in taxation, and to continue this increase as society progresses and rent advances. But this is so natural and easy a matter, that it may be considered as involved, or at least understood, in the proposition to put an taxes on the value of land.

“Wherever the idea of concentrating all taxation upon land values finds lodgment sufficient to induce consideration, it invariably makes way, but there are few of the classes most to be benefited by it, who at first, or even for a long time afterwards, see its full significance and power. It is difficult for working-men to get over the idea that there is a real antagonism between capital and labour. It is difficult for small farmers and homestead owners to get over the idea that to put all taxes on the value of land would be to tax them unduly. It is difficult for both classes to get over the idea that to exempt capital from taxation would be to make the rich richer, and the poor poorer. These ideas spring from confused thought. But behind ignorance and prejudice there is a powerful interest, which has hitherto dominated literature, education and opinion. A great wrong always dies hard, and the great wrong which in every civilized country condemns the masses of men to poverty and want will not die without a bitter struggle.

—

 “It is impossible for anyone to study Political Economy, or to think at all upon the production and distribution of wealth, without seeing that property in land differs from property in things of human production.

“This is admitted, either expressly or tacitly, in every standard work on Political Economy, but in general only by vague admission or omission. Attention is in general called away from the truth, as a lecturer on moral philosophy in a slave-holding community might call away attention from too close a consideration of the natural rights of men; and private property in land is accepted without comment, as an existing fact, or is assumed to be necessary to the proper use of land and the existence of the civilized state.

“The consideration that seems to cause hesitation is the idea that having permitted land to be treated as private property for so long, we should in abolishing it be doing a wrong to those who have been suffered to base their calculations upon its permanence; that having permitted land to be held as rightful property we should by the resumption of common rights be doing injustice to those who have purchased it with what was unquestionably their rightful property.

“Thus it is held that if we abolish private property in land, justice requires that we should fully compensate those who now possess it, as the British government, in abolishing the purchase and sale of military commissions, felt itself bound to compensate those who held commissions which they had purchased in the belief that they could sell them again; or as, in abolishing slavery in the British West Indies, the sum of 20,000,000 pounds was paid to the slaveholders.

“Herbert Spencer wrote in Social Statics, published in 1864 “Had we to deal with the parties who originally robbed the human race of its heritage, we might make short work of the matter.”

“Why not make short work of the matter anyhow? This robbery is not like theft of a horse or a sum of money that ceases with the act. It is a fresh and continuous robbery that goes on every day and every hour. It is not from the produce of the past that rent is drawn; it is from the produce of the present. It is a toll levied upon labour constantly and continuously. Every blow of the hammer, every stroke of the pick, every thrust of the shuttle, every throb of the steam engine, pays its tribute. It levies upon the earnings of those men who, deep underground, risk their lives, and of those who over white surges hang to reeling masts. It robs the shivering, of warmth; the hungry, of food; the sick, of medicine; the anxious, of peace. It debases, and embrutes, and embitters. It crowds families of eight and ten into a single squalid room. It makes lads who might be useful men candidates for prisons and penitentiaries. It sends greed and all evil passions prowling through society as a hard winter drives the wolves to the abodes of men. It darkens faith in the human soul, and across the reflection of a just and merciful Creator draws the veil of a hard, and blind, and cruel fate.

“It is not merely a robbery in the past; it is a robbery in the present—a robbery that deprives of their birthright the infants that are now coming into the world. Why should we hesitate about making short work of such a system? Because you were robbed yesterday and the day before, and the day before that, is that any reason why you should suffer yourself to be robbed today and tomorrow? Any reason why you should conclude that the robber has acquired a vested right to rob you?

“If the land belong to the people, why continue to permit landowners to take the rent, or compensate them in any manner for the loss of rent? Consider what rent is. It does not arise spontaneously from land; it is due to nothing that the landowners have done. It represents a value created by the whole community. Let the landholders have, if you please, all that the possession of the land would give them in the absence of the rest of the community. But rent, the creation of the whole community, necessarily belongs to the whole community.

“The common law we are told is the perfection of reason, and certainly the landowners cannot complain of its decision, for it has been built up by and for landowners. Now what does the law allow to the innocent possessor when the land for which he paid his money is adjudged to belong rightfully to another? Nothing at all.
“The law simply says: “The land belongs to A, let the Sheriff put him in possession!” It gives the innocent purchaser of a wrongful title no claim, it allows him no compensation. And not only this, it takes from him all the improvements that he has in good faith made upon the land.

“You may have paid a high price for land, making every exertion to see that the title is good; you may have held it in undisturbed possession for years without thought or hint of an adverse claimant; made it fruitful by your toil or erected upon it a costly building of greater value than the land itself, or a modest home in which you hope, surrounded by the fig trees you have planted and the vines you have dressed, to pass your declining days. Yet if Quirk, Gammon and Snap can mouse out a technical flaw in your parchments or hunt up some forgotten heir who never dreamed of his rights, not merely the land, but all your improvements, may be taken away from you. And not merely that. According to the common law, when you have surrendered the land and given up your improvements, you may be called upon to account for the profits you derived from the land during the time you had it.

“Now if we were to apply to this case of The People v. The Landowners the same maxims of justice that have been formulated by landowners into law, and are applied every day in English and American courts to disputes between man and man, we should not only not think of giving the landholders any compensation for the land, but should take all the improvements and whatever else they might have as well.

“But I do not propose, and I do not suppose that anyone else will propose, to go so far. It is sufficient if the people resume ownership of the rent of land. Let the landowners retain their improvements and personal property in secure possession.

“And in this measure of justice would be no oppression, no injury to any class. The great cause of the present unequal distribution of wealth, with the suffering, degradation and waste that it entails, would be swept away. Even landholders would share in the general gain. The gain of even the large landholders would be a real one. The gain of the small landholders would be enormous. For in welcoming justice, men welcome the handmaid of Love. Peace and Plenty follow in her train, bringing their good gifts, not to some, but to all.”

Henry George was born in Philadelphia, PA in 1839, the Earth’s human population had just passed 1,000,000,000 individuals. It is one hundred and twenty years since Henry George wrote his book Progress and Poverty. Since then the Earth’s human population has increased six times.

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

The wealth represented by the land and water, native plants and wildlife, chemical, mineral, and metal natural resources is so enormous that when it is rescued from the plunderers and returned to the Synergic Trust to benefit every human it will easily sustain the needs of all humanity.

The Synergic Trusts would make Land and Natural Resources available to individuals and organizations. The Trustegrity could be funded entirely by rent receipts from the lease and utilization of Land, and from the licensing fees and revenue shares it receives for use of Natural Resources from the Life and Earth Trusts. This leasing of land and licensing of renewable natural resources would provide the revenue base for all of the beneficial services to humanity as community and to humanity as individuals.

Basic shelter, food, education and medical care would supplied without charge to individual humanity.

Only those individuals wanting to use land and natural resources for synergic production would pay appropriate charges payable to the Earth Trustegrity in lease or rental fees, licensing fees, and/or revenue shares. Only those individuals wanting to use animals and plants including native flora and wildlife for synergic production would pay approriate charges payable to the Life Trustegrity in rental fees, licensing fees and/or revenue shares.

Only those making non-personal  use of the Earth and Life Trusts are charged fees and/or revenue shares. The rents and licensing fees charged by the Trustegrity and paid to the Synergic Trusts are not taxes, since the rentor or licensee is recieving valuable access to and use of the Earth, Natual Resources, Plants and Animals, wealth belonging to Present and Future Humanity as Community in exchange for the fees and revenue shares that they pay.

Thus the Trustegrities would abolish all taxation.

 “We know how to solve our problems, we just don’t use what we know.”  —  Alfred Korzybski

Redefining the Future — Guardians of the Synergic Trustegrities

Science fiction is a form of Time-binding. “Science fiction differs from science fantasy in that science fiction must obey the Laws of Nature.” A simple example is found in motion picture films. ≠In Gary Lucas’ Star Wars trilogy≠ we hear explosions of battle in the vacuum of Space although sound cannot be conducted in a vacuum. However, in Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey all the scenes in space were truly silent. The film 2001 is science fiction while Star Wars is science fantasy.

The best science fiction writers are always good scientists. And the best science fiction often predicts future science. Many scientific discoverys and technologies are described in science fiction stories years or even decades before they become realities. Jules Vern, described travel from the earth to the moon in 1865 and ocean going nuclear submarines in 1869.

Issac Asimov is perhaps one of the best examples of both a great science fiction writer, and a good scientist. His interest in science and writing developed in tandem.

He wrote his first story when he was only 11 years old, his first published writing was a column he did for his high school newspaper. While he continued writing, Asimov also attended college and managed to graduate from Columbia University with a B.S. in Chemistry in 1939, and two years later earned his M.A. in Chemistry. He continued studying at Columbia in a Ph.D. program, but with time off for WWII, he was not awarded his Doctorate in Biochemistry until May 1948. During this same period, he also managed to write 36 science fiction stories.

Asimov is most famous for his Robot stories. Asimov’s Robots were something very special. They could take any form, from a small household appliance to large space craft carrying tens of thousands of human travelers. Their most common form however was humiform. Examples of humiform robots are seen in recent science fiction movies. Most notably 3CPO the intergalactic translator in Gary Lucas’ Star Wars trilogy, Arnold Swartzenegger’s performances as terminators in James Cameron’s The Terminator films, Brent Spiner’s performances as Lt. Commander Data in Gene Rodenberry’s Star Trek — The Second Generation, and most recently Robin Williams’ performance of The Bicentennial Man based on an original Asimov story.

Asimov’s robots were were highly intelligent, spoke and understood all human languages, were highly mobile, physically strong and enormously powerful. They were awesome machines. If they had wanted to hurt human beings they could have in an eyeblink. But Asimov’s robots never wanted to hurt humans. Their powerful “positronic” brains were constrained by the Three Laws of Robotics. These laws first appeared in print in 1942 as follows.

Asimov’s Three Laws of Robotics (1942)

1) A robot may not injure a human being, or through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

2) A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

3) A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.

Here we see that Asimov’s First Law of Robotics contains the commitment to helping. Not only must the robot not injure a human being it must protect the human being from harm. This is a requirement for helping. His Second Law of Robotics states again that the Robot must help human beings by obeying their orders. In Asimov’s stories the robots were often owned by the human beings they served. Asimov’s robots were almost always very decent and caring individuals, while their owner’s were often only too human. The robots were treated in the best of circumstances as respected and valuable friends, and in the worst as victims and slaves.

Asimov’s robot stories were remarkably interesting and intelligent. He fully explored the ramifications resulting when his robot’s intelligence evolved to a point that it equaled human intelligence and finally surpassed it.

Writing in 1942, Issac Asimov described a futurescape, where Robots had been invented in 2007. He invented the Three Laws Of Robotics to insure that this servant class of robots were safe to be with human beings. His futurescape spanned 6 decades and by 2064, positronic robots governed by the three laws of robotics were a widespread and common phenomena on Earth. They were especially important in humanity’s expansion into space and the colonization of other planets.

Forty-five years later, Asimov was still writing robot stories, but things had changed.

Twelve centuries had passed in his imagined futurescape, the science of robotics had progressed as rapidly as Moore’s Law drives computer design on Earth today. Robots were smaller more intelligent and could be made to look exactly like humans. Theoretically, a robot’s lifespan was unlimited. Robots had an endless opportunity to learn and to think about what they had learned. They were more intelligent than most humans, and their long life experiences meant they were usually much wiser.

It became obvious that the laws of robotics needed to be advanced as well. Asimov rose to the occasion by creating an additional or fourth law of Robotics. It was called the Zeroth Law because although it was created fourth chronologically, it was logically the First Law.

Asimov’s Four Laws of Robotics (1985)

0) A robot may not injure humanity or, through inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.

1) A robot may not harm a human being, or through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm, except where that would conflict with the Zeroth Law.

2) A robot must obey orders given it by a human being, except where that would conflict with the Zeroth and First Laws.

3) A robot must protect its own existence except where that would conflict with the Zeroth, First or Second Laws.
Robots in Asimov’s earlier stories then became known as 3-Law Robots in contrast to these new more powerful 4-Law Robots.

Recall that Asimov’s First Law of Robotics contains the commitment to helping. Not only must the robot not injure a human being it must protect the human being from harm. This is a requirement for helping. His Second Law of Robotics states again that the Robot must help human beings by obeying their orders. Thus within the original Three Laws of Robotics, we see a strong commitment to helping humans. This commitment to helping is expanded with the Zeroth Law.

As 20,000 year old 4-Law Robot Daneel Olivaw explained:

“The Zeroth Law is a corollary of the First Law, for how can a human being best be kept from injury, if not by ensuring that human society in general is protected and kept functioning?”

The Zeroth Law of Robotics introduced the concept of responsibility to and for the entire human species. Now Asimov’s robots were required not only to care for and protect the individual human beings that owned them, but also to protect all human beings and by extension the ecosystem and the earth itself.

 

Guardians of the Synergic Trustegrities

Asimov’s Four Laws of Robotics can serve as the basis for a code for Synergic Trustegrity Guardians. We can eliminate Asimov’s Second law which does not apply since humans are not property and cannot be slaves, and we can elimate the Third law as redundant since a Guardian Trustee is a human being and so is protected by the First law.

Within synergic community, it is understood that actions that injure the Earth, the Environment and all non-human Life also injures humanity. This leaves us with only two laws to serve as the:

Code of the Synergic Trustegrity Guardians

1) A Trustegrity Guardian may not injure humanity or, through inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.

2) A Trustegrity Guardian may not injure an individual human being, or through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm, except where that would conflict with the First Law.  

 

The Needs of the Many

In Gene Rodenberry’s original Star Trek,  Mr. Spock, the Vulcan Science Officer from a race ruled by logic, would remind his shipmates that: “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or of the one.”

The human body is a community of 40 trillion individual cells. The individual cells are organized synergically to be interdependent upon each other. They cannot separate themselves from the body as community. The survival of the cells depends on the survival of the body. The needs and safety of the body precedes the needs and safety of the individual cells. Sometimes individual cells are injured or even sacrificed to protect and insure the survival of the body as a whole. The needs and safety of the community of cells takes precedence over the needs and safety of the cells as individuals.

With the discovery that humanity is an interdependent species comes the realization that we humans can no longer separate ourselves from community. Humanity as community is larger and contains humanity as individuals. The needs and safety of humanity as community must precede the needs and safety of humanity as individuals.

Our present culture based on the false premise of human independence often places individual needs and safety over community needs and safety. This will shift dramatically in a synergic culture.

The first law of the of the Guardian Trust Code commits to protect Humanity as Community. The second law commits to protect Humanity as Individuals. This represents a major shift in human values from today’s focus with the individual as primary to tomorrow’s focus with community as primary.

While the Trustegrity Guardians are responsible for the safety of both humanity as community and humanity as individuals, the needs and safety of community take precedent over the needs and safety of individuals.

This does not suggest a casual attitude towards the rights of individuals. Trustegrity Guardians may not injure a human being, or through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm, except where that would cause injury to humanity as a whole — except where that would cause injury to humanity as community. When an adversary event presents no risk to humanity as community then the Trustegrity Guardians’ first responsibility is to the safety of the individual. 

Synergic Trustegrity Guardians

The Synergic Trustegrity Guardians could fufill this obligation by joining on of the three divisions — the Earth Trustegrity,  , the Life Trustegrity , and the Time-binding Trustegrity. Recall the Trustegrities are structured using the principles and mechanism of the Organizational Tensegrity. Decisions are made in heterarcy using synergic consensus. Loss within the organization is eliminated with the synergic veto. Action is carried out by negotiated hierarchical. This eliminates conflict. The three trustegrities would work together. They would be guided by Humanity as Community using Synocracy.

The Earth Trustegrity Guardians would protect and preserve the Earth Trust including the Earth and all the Natural Resources. The Trust would be administered to best serve present and future humanity. 

The Life Trust Guardians would protect the Life Trust including all living systems — all life forms — this includes all humans, all animals, and all plants.

And, thirdly the Time-binding Trustegrity Guardians would protect and preserve the Time-binding Trust — the accumulated “knowing” from the lives and actions of all the humans who have ever lived and died. Our inherited Wisdom, Knowledge, and Information including Architecture, Art, Literature, Music, Science, and Technology. Because of their committment to protecting all who have lived and who have died, they also protect the “knowing” of the living — the Intellectual Property of  living humans.

Best of the Best

The Synergic Trustegrities will seek to attract the best of the best as candidates for Trustegrity Guardianship. Once selected these Trustegrity Guardians would have greater trusteeship privileges with concomitant authority and responsibilities for and to the Synergic Trustegrities. Once selected Trustegrity Guardians can serve in one of the three branches of the Synergic Trustegrities — the Earth Trust, the Life Trust, or the Time-binding Trust.

Trustegrity Guardian Candidates should have repeatedly demonstrated both personal and public honesty, and should have a history demonstrating synergic morality and behavior. In the future, Universities will offer degrees in Trustegrity and Guardian Science to prepare those young humans to desire to serve Humanity as Community. A careful selection process will be developed to select the very best which could include Trustegrity Guardian Academies.

It is apparent that the responsibilities of Trustegrity Guardians will be great. They of course are not allowed to hurt anyone through their control of the Synergic Trusts. But in addition they are required to protect and conserve the Synergic Trusts. Further, they are required to help others and to insure that all humans have the basic needs of life —both survival and meaning. This is a binding obligation. Failure to meet these obligations results in the immediate loss of Synergic Trustee privileges.

The Trustegrity Guardians will be charged with protecting Humanity as Community, and Humanity as Individuals, the plants and animals, the Earth and all Natural Resources, Intellectual Property and the Time-binding Trust 
  
They will protect and conserve the Earth and the Natural Resources — including both the renewable resources — soils, water, and minerals — and the nonrenewable resources — coal, petroleum, natural gas, metals and other mineral ores.

They will protect Life — plant, animal and human.  

The Life and Earth Trusts are finite and fragile. Once a species of plant or animal becomes extinct, it is lost forever. Once our nonrenewable resources are consumed they are lost forever. And even the renewable resources can be damaged by careless use. And once damaged, they may not be repairable.

The Synergic Trustegrities hold all land and all the natural resources including native plants and wildlife in synergic trust. Land and natural resources cannot be owned. Land may leased as living sites for individuals and families. Land may be invested as production sites for manufacturing and commerce and earn revenue shares on behalf of the Trust. Natural resources may be invested in synergic production if it serves the interests of humanity as community and public welfare. Such investment would earn revenue shares on behalf of the Synergic Trustegrities.

The revenues the Synergic Trustegrities receive from their leases and investments are used not only to protect and preserve the synergic trusts, but also to help others.

The Trustegrity Guardians accept as their primary responsibility the protection of humanity as community and humanity as individual. They will seek to ensure that all humans are safe from crime and war; that all humans have access to shelter, nutrition, medical care, and education. They will further accept responsibilty for the provision of good care and life support for all humans in need — children and adults — the ill and injured, the poor and destitute, and the homeless.

The Trustegrities will be three with separate but complimentary missions in service to humankind. 

The Earth Trustegrity will provide:

1) Access to land and natural resources for personal use at minimal or no cost, and

2) Access to land and natural resources for synergic production with appropriate charges payable to the Earth Trustegrity in lease or rental fees, licensing fees, and/or revenue shares. All rental fees, licensing fees, and/or revenue shares are entrusted to the Earth Trustegrity for Humanity as Community.

The Life Trustegrity will provide:

3) Safety from crime and war, and full access to:

4) Comfortable, safe, healthy housing.

5) Good nutritious food

6) Good preventitive health services and comprehensive cradle to grave medical care, and access to the privilege of Reproduction based on fairness, equality, and mutual benefit to both humanity as Individuals and humanity as Community. This would include monitoring administrating, adjudicating the Trust privilege of Reproduction.

7) Access to animals and plants including native flora and wildlife for personal use at minimum or no cost.

Access to animals and plants including native flora and wildlife for synergic production with approriate charges payable to the Life Trustegrity in rental fees, licensing fees and/or revenue shares. All payments made are entrusted to the Earth Trustegrity for Humanity as Community.

The Time-binding Trustegrity will provide:

9) Full education to an individual’s ability and interest regardless of age,

10) The opportunity to participate in synergic organization and invest their action and leverage to earn revenue shares and acquire property throughout their full lifetime.

11) Access to communication with humanity as individuals and to humanity as community for personal reasons, for synergic production and consumption, and for synergic consensus utilizing Unanimous Rule Democracy.

12) Protection of the intellectual discoveries and inventions of Time-binding whether they be in the Time-binding Trust, or the Intellectual Property of living humans.

The responsibilities of the Trustegrity Guardians are great.Theirs is a moral and binding obligation. Failure to meet these obligations would result in the immediate loss of Synergic Trustee privileges.

 

Last Friday, I “coulded” on my readers. I said that “working together”, we could make a difference. As synergic pioneer Buckminster Fuller taught, we must: “Always tell only the truth, and all the truth, and do so promptly – right now.”  But more than simply telling the truth, we must face up to the truth, and change.

A SYNERGIC FUTURE

Timothy Wilken, MD

If we humans are to solve our overpopulation/fossil fuel depletion/global warming crisis, it will require that we take action. We can expect no help from big government and big business. They created this crisis and they have no interest in solving it. Big government’s only goal is to be re-elected so they can retain political power, and the only goal of big business is to make money. These two forces have combined to create the present law of society one dollar = one vote.

If we humans with no political or economic power want to solve our problems, then we will have to take charge of our society. What is our authority for taking such action? We must begin by seizing the moral highground. And, taking the moral highground requires that we face the truth.

Truth #1-Possessions are not necessarily property.

The possession of an object does not mean that the possessor has a moral or rational claim to ownership of the object. The political, economic, and social structures of our present world are all based on our concept of ‘property’ and property rights. Recall from the Basics section, my discussion of the shifting of human values as humanity evolves from adversary processing to neutral processing to synergic processing. Adversary wealth is physical force. Neutral wealth is money. And, synergic wealth is mutual life support. Therefore adversary ‘property’ is property obtained by force or fraud, and then held with physical force. Neutral ‘property’ is property purchased in the fair market, and held by right of law enforced by neutral government.

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

This resulted in the legal precedent wherein possession is 9/10 of the law.

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

Most of the founding fathers of Neutrality were beneficiaries of ‘adversary’ property and in no hurry to give it up. They also believed that in the long run these injustices would slowly be corrected, and all property would eventually come to be ‘neutral’ property. We will see later that this was not the case.

While synergic ‘property’ is not yet defined, it would have to be property that was obtained without hurting or ignoring anyone, and even more importantly, it would have to be property that was mutually life supporting–that is it would have to be property that had a beneficial effect for self and others. If humanity is to advance to Synergy, our concept of ‘property’ and property rights must change radically in the future. How this could work will be explained in the Future section, but now let us examine ‘property’ as it exists today.

The Territory Imperative

The need to control land begins in the Adversary world as Robert Ardrey explains:

“A territory is an area of space, whether of water or earth or air, which an animal or group of animals defends as an exclusive preserve. The word is also used to describe the inward compulsion in animate beings to possess and defend such a space. A territorial species of animals, therefore, is one in which all males, and sometimes females too, bear an inherent drive to gain and defend an exclusive property.

“Observations of twenty-four different hunting peoples so primitive that their ways differ little from the ways of paleolithic man revealed that their homes were isolated and far-spread. So remote were they from each other that there seemed small likelihood that any one could have learned its ways from others. Yet all formed social bands occupying exclusive, permanent domains.

“Lions, eagles, wolves, great-horned owls are all hunters, and all guard exclusive hunting territories. The lions and wolves, besides, hunt in cooperative prides and packs differing little from the bands of primitive man.”

Frederick G. Kempin, Jr., Professor of Legal Studies at The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania explains further:

“The concept of property goes far back into history. Records of primitive societies indicate a degree of private ownership of personal property. Private ownership of real property–the land itself–is apparently a much later concept, one that evolved after nomadic tribes settled down in permanent agricultural communities. Even in agricultural societies the land was often considered the property of the tribe or of a clan within the tribe and was rarely privately owned. Even as late as the Middle Ages the absolute ownership of the land by its individual occupants was unusual. Under feudalism, for example, land was held subject to obligations to a superior lord. The breakdown of the feudal system gradually destroyed the feudal relationship between lord and vassal, and the settlement of the New World increased by millions of acres the available land. In the Western Hemisphere absolute ownership of the land became the norm.”

Institutional Neutrality seeks to protect the free and independent citizens from loss. The escape from the Adversary way is the escape from losing. This fact makes property, private ownership of property, and property rights the very foundation of Institutional Neutrality. In today’s America,

“Property is anything that can be possessed and disposed of in a legal manner. Running water in a stream is not anyone’s property, because no one possesses it. If one, however, lawfully takes water from a stream in a container, the water in the container becomes property. In a legal sense property is the aggregate of legal rights of individuals with respect to objects and obligations owed to them by others that are guaranteed and protected by the government. Ownership of property is classified as either private or public. Private property is ownership by an individual or individuals, whereas public ownership implies possession by some kind of a governmental unit. In another sense property is classified as either real or personal. Real property, also known as realty, is land, any buildings that may be on the land, any mineral rights under the land, and anything that is attached to the land or buildings with the intention that it remain there permanently. Personal property is simply defined as any property that is not real property.

“During most of human history, real property–the land itself–was considered the greatest source of wealth. With the coming of the Industrial Revolution, however, personal property–especially in the form of stocks and bonds–gradually outstripped land as the basis of the industrial nations’ wealth. Classical Marxism views the private ownership of both forms of property as symptoms of the capitalist system that needs to be abolished to make way for a communist society. Therefore, in traditional communist nations very little real property and wealth-producing personal property is individually owned. Private ownership is generally limited to such personal articles as furniture and clothing. Small farms and dwellings in some Marxist countries remain privately owned, but most land is cooperatively owned. In the reformist and democratic socialist countries a mixture of private and public ownership of property generally prevails.

“Perhaps because land was traditionally the main source of wealth, the transfer of real property from one owner to another used to be much more complicated than the transfer of personal property. Since the Middle Ages this difference has diminished. Two basic instruments of transfer are used: the deed and the will. The government may cause land to pass from some form of public ownership to private ownership by a grant (and reclaim private land for public use by eminent domain). Much of the land in the American West, for example, was granted by the government to the original settlers.”

Who has the Right of ownership?

When children sit down to play the board game Monopoly, the first step after choosing your game piece is to count carefully so all players begin with exactly the same amount of play money. That is the only fair way to begin.

The control of property did not begin with the institutionalization of Neutrality. The players of Neutrality did not start out as equals. The adversary way dominated all human relations until 1776. It continues to dominate most human relationships throughout the rest of the world.

However, in the United States in 1776, the empty continent with its seemingly unlimited resources allowed the new players of Neutrality access to land that could be turned into private property by simple occupation. If you didn’t have what you needed here–you just moved west. There appeared to be land enough for all–available for the taking. However even in America in 1776, the empty continent of North America was not as empty as it appeared. The native Americans were simply swept aside by the American colonists. The lands they occupied were seized by force and fraud.

“In 1851, Chief Seattle and the Suquamish and other Indian tribes around Washington’s Puget Sound, were “persuaded” to sell two million acres of land for $150,000 or seven and one half cents per acre.”

And what of the large plantations in the South that were build on the backs of ~12 million negro slaves? Did those land owners have a moral claim to their ‘property’? And, what of the “carpet baggers” who stole the same lands after the Civil War, did they then represent the rightful owners?

Even those who settled in empty spaces did not pay any price for the land. They either just took it or received as a grant from the government. That is certainly not a fair exchange. And, who gave the land to the government in the first place? Of course, the Government had simply seized the land. After all, might made right. The strong dominated the weak–it was the adversary way.

Galambos Redefines ‘Property’

Today ‘property’ clearly has many different meanings. In the early 1960s, one capitalistic theorist, Andrew J. Galambos proposed an advanced capitalistic system which was non-coercive. Galambos’ Moral Capitalism was based on a new definition of ‘property’ designed to eliminate and prohibit loss. Galambos’ Moral Capitalism promised to eliminate losing relationships. Galambos’ Moral Capitalism was a type of Super-neutrality. It allowed win-draw, draw-win, draw-draw, or win-win. In Galambos’ own words:

“What is Property?

“Most people think of Property in terms of material possessions. Because of this, many have successfully denounced the morality of the pursuit of material well-being and claimed it produces conflicts with human rights.

“The above is a restricted and erroneous point of view on Property. A more satisfying and total concept arises from the following definition:

“Property is individual man’s life and all non-procreative derivatives of his life.

“Property is the basis of ownership because to own means to have and hold Property. From the definition of Property, it follows that man must first own his life before he can own anything else. Life itself is defined as primordial Property.

“No one may own any man but himself. Thus, Property excludes slavery at the outset.

“The first derivatives of man’s life are his thoughts and ideas. Thoughts and ideas are defined as primary Property.

“From the definition, man owns primary Property and, through this ownership, intellectual freedom arises and inspires knowledge and production. From primary Property (ideas) stem actions. Ownership of one’s own actions (clearly a Property right) is commonly called liberty. Liberty, then, as well as life itself, is a Property right. Since all so-called human rights depend upon man’s liberty, it follows that all human rights are Property rights. There can be no conflict!

“Ideas and actions produce further, or secondary, derivatives. These include the access to and use of land and the production, utilization, enjoyment, and disposal of material, tangible goods of all kinds from ash trays to television sets, from log cabins to skyscrapers, from oxcarts to jet planes.

“These are called secondary Property. They are secondary both logically and chronologically. In all instances, their existence is antedated by primary Property which led to their generation and employment.

“Further derivatives of man’s life lead to voluntary transactions involving Property transfers (sales, trades, gifts, etc.). Involuntary Property transfers are derivative not from the property owner’s life but from the life of the coercer. Therefore, Property ceases to remain Property and is converted to Plunder when subjected to involuntary (coercive) transfer.”

Property or Plunder?

Galambos acknowledged Frederick Bastiat as his antecedent in recognizing the distinction between property and plunder. Bastiat recognized that French society in 1848 was heavily influenced by the Adversary way, and he was calling for a better way when he wrote the following words:

“A Fatal Tendency of Mankind

“Self-preservation and self-development are common aspirations among all people. And if everyone enjoyed the unrestricted use of his faculties and the free disposition of the fruits of his labor, social progress would be ceaseless, uninterrupted, and unfailing.

“But there is also another tendency that is common among people. When they can, they wish to live and prosper at the expense of others. This is no rash accusation. Nor does it come from a gloomy and uncharitable spirit. The annals of history bear witness to the truth of it: the incessant wars, mass migrations, religious persecutions, universal slavery, dishonesty in commerce, and monopolies. This fatal desire has its origin in the very nature of man–in that primitive, universal, and insuppressible instinct that impels him to satisfy his desires with the least possible pain. (*Here Bastiat is describing the Adversary way and the Principle of Least Action.)

“Property and Plunder

“Man can live and satisfy his wants only by ceaseless labor; by the ceaseless application of his faculties to natural resources. This process is the origin of property.

“But it is also true that a man may live and satisfy his wants by seizing and consuming the products of the labor of others. This process is the origin of plunder.

“Now since man is naturally inclined to avoid pain–and since labor is pain in itself–it follows that men will resort to plunder whenever plunder is easier than work. History shows this quite clearly. And under these conditions, neither religion nor morality can stop it.

“When, then, does plunder stop? It stops when it becomes more painful and more dangerous than labor.

“It is evident, then, that the proper purpose of law is to use the power of its collective force to stop this fatal tendency to plunder instead of to work. All the measures of the law should protect property and punish plunder.”

This then is one of the major problems with human society even in today’s world. It is based on a definition of ‘property’ which makes no distinction between possessions held through honesty and possessions held through thievery – possession and ownership have long been considered synonymous. This is a belief that persists even in our present world.

Galambos reserved the word property for those possessions that were acquired by 1) either paying a fair price in a free market to the rightful owner, or 2) that which is produced by the mind and hands of the owner. Using this definition, most of today’s possessions are plunder and not property. Galambos continues:

“Children–being young human beings–have Property rights of their own and cannot themselves be owned; children are not property.

“Your ownership of Property is the basis of all you are, all you have, and all you can hope to achieve. Therefore, protect your property as though your life depended upon it. It does!”

Galambos’ Moral Capitalism

In Galambos’own words:

“Moral Capitalism is the societal structure that produces freedom by ensuring that each individual is fully (100%) in control of his own property (property being individual man’s life and all non-procreative derivatives of his life). Either each individual controls his own life and all of its derivatives–or he does not. If he does, capitalism is the societal structure that prevails–by definition. From this definition of capitalism, it is evident that moral capitalism is an absolute concept. It does not depend upon time, place, and circumstance.

“There are no possibilities of this being compromised or misunderstood.

“Thus, moral capitalism–an absolute–requires new ideas to bring it into existence. How do we know this? Because it doesn’t exist at this time–anywhere on this planet. Furthermore, it has never existed to this date–anywhere on this planet. Before you jump to the false conclusion that it is impossible, consider that the reason for this is not that it would violate any law of nature (the condition for impossibility), but that the social technology to establish it has not been known in the past. Thus, moral capitalism requires the constant search for new ideas, new theories, and new applications. It is, therefore, a progressive and liberal development because it requires forward-thinking and increased individual freedom (liberation from property interferences and controls). Moral capitalism’s only tie with the past is the American Revolution and its ideological antecedents.

“Today moral capitalism does not exist. And those who argue that if more enlightened men are appointed or elected to high office and if the present restrictive laws are repealed then we will achieve freedom are wrong.

“The trouble is not with men, but with a system that can do nothing but coerce. Regardless of who holds the reins of power, the individual is still at the mercy of the state authority. It is not true that good men will reform the state. It is true that the state will corrupt the best of men. No one–and this includes the most sincere and well-meaning of politicians–is immune to Acton’s disease. Acton first defined the symptoms of the world’s foremost political disease: “Power corrupts and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely.”

“Moreover, conservatives worship tradition. Moral capitalists, on the other hand, honor the knowledge of the past, but believe themselves capable of improving upon it and do not succumb to self-derogation by assuming they can do nothing but repeat the processes of the past. The conservatives who concern themselves most with the rituals of the past traditions and their codification into a party line become the major conservative politicians. The moral capitalists who concern themselves most with improvements and progress become the major innovators and entrepreneurs. Conservatism is concerned with codifying past controls of property, moral capitalism is concerned with the improvement of property, the protection of property, and the moral utilization of property.

“The final point to be emphasized is that moral capitalism is not a political concept and that the purpose of moral capitalism is to construct a society wherein man is free by controlling all of his own property all of the time. Because property does not have a political origin (but oftentimes it has a political destruction), moral capitalism does not concern itself with improving the state or any of the political apparatuses employed either to run the state or to exchange the administration of the state. Politics, at best, is a game which never ends. First, the “ins” and “outs” play until the “outs” get “in.” Then they switch sides and play it again. And so on, until man loses all his property and ends up enslaved. Moral capitalism is the vehicle of progress and the builder of civilization through property sanctity. Freedom is its attainable goal. Freedom is not a game. Freedom is a man’s loftiest goal and the prerequisite for all his other permanent goals.

“And when it is finally achieved, freedom is forever!”

Galambos’ Moral Capitalism offers us better protection of property, increased human freedom, and a fairer concept of justice.

However while, Galambos’ Moral Capitalism does prohibit hurting others, it does not require helping others. Thus in the final analysis, Galambos’ Moral Capitalism is a neutral and not a synergic system. However it is a much better neutral system then the one in place today, therefore we should embrace and make use of those mechanisms of Galambos’ Moral Capitalism that do offer clear benefits. One of these is the need for a clear distinction between property and plunder. This distinction is essential if we are to repair our present world.

In today’s world plunder is common and property is rare.

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

Then we can build a future where the very opposite is true–a future where property is common and plunder is rare.

Truth # 2-The Majority of Human Wealth is a Gift

The vast majority of human wealth is a gift free for the taking, and cannot be morally or rationally claimed as property by any individual. Alfred Korzybski explains:

“In the earliest times, humans knew that they did not create nature. They did not feel it “proper” to “expropriate the creator” and legalistically appropriate the earth and its treasure for themselves.

“Early man felt, in their unsophisticated morale, that being called into existence they had a natural right to exist and to use freely the gifts of nature in the preservation of their life; and that is what they did.”
Property, ownership of land and the control of natural resources by individuals comes later in the human story. Hazel Henderson, a Futurist and Economist, explains:

“Private property is another good example. The word ‘private’ comes from the Latin privare–‘to deprive’–which shows you the widespread ancient view that property was first and foremost communal. It was only with the rise of individualism in the Renaissance that people no longer thought of private property as those goods that individuals deprived the group from using.

“Today we have completely inverted the meaning of the term. We believe that property should be private in the first place, and that society should not deprive the individual without due process of law.”

Land and Natural Resources — A Gift

The land and natural resources are wealth provided to us by God and Nature. The sunshine, air, water, land, minerals, and the earth itself all come to us freely. The Earth’s land and natural resources are not products of the human mind or body. They existed long before life and humankind even emerged on our planet. There exists no moral or rational basis for any individual to claim them as Property.

If a claim of ownership can be made at all, it must be a claim on behalf of all humanity both the living and those yet unborn. This is a truth that has been known and ignored for hundreds of years. In the words of some of our greatest thinkers:

“God gave the world in common to all mankind.”

…..John Locke (1632 – 1704)

“The earth is given as a common stock for men to labor and live on.”

…..Thomas Jefferson (1743 – 1826)

“The earth…and all things therein, are the general property of all mankind, from the immediate gift of the creator.”

…..William Blackstone (1723 – 1780)

“Men did not make the earth…. It is the value of the improvement only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property…. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds.”

…..Tom Paine (1737 – 1809)

“The land, the earth God gave man for his home, sustenance, and support, should never be the possession of any man, corporation, society, or unfriendly government, any more than the air or water.”

…..Abraham Lincoln (1809 – 1865)

“Equity does not permit property in land…The world is God’s bequest to mankind. All men are joint heirs to it.”

…..Herbert Spencer (1820 – 1903)

“LAND, n. A part of the earth’s surface, considered as property. The theory that land is property subject to private ownership and control is the foundation of modern society, and is eminently worthy of the superstructure. Carried to its logical conclusion, it means that some have the right to prevent others from living; for the right to own implies the right exclusively to occupy; and in fact laws of trespass are enacted wherever property in land is recognized. It follows that if the whole area of terra firma is owned by A, B and C, there will be no place for D, E, F and G to be born, or, born as trespassers, to exist.”

 …..Ambrose Bierce (The Devil’s Dictionary, 1911)

“How can you buy or sell the sky, the warmth of the land? The idea is strange to us. If we do not own the freshness of the air and the sparkle of the water, how can you buy them? . . . This we know: the earth does not belong to man; man belongs to the earth. ”

…..Chief Seattle (~ 1854)

And yet today, the Earth’s land and natural resources are claimed as the personal property of a few individuals and serve only them.

Galambos on ownership of land and natural resources

Recall Galambos’ basic definition of property:

“Property is individual man’s life and all non-procreative derivatives of his life.”

This definition would exclude land and natural resources since they are clearly not a derivative of any individual’s life.

Whether individuals have a right to the ownership of land and of natural resources was a question that Galambos did not answer. Galambos did made reference to the work of Henry George, a nineteenth century social scientist who had written:

“All persons have a right to the use of the earth and all have a right to the fruits of their labor. To implement these rights it is proposed that the rent of land be taken by the community as public revenue, and that all taxes on labor and the fruits of labor be abolished. Liberty means justice and justice is the natural law. The social and economic ills besetting the world today are the result of non-conformance to natural law.”

In a another paragraph quoted earlier, Galambos says:

“Ideas and actions produce further, or secondary, derivatives. These include the access to and use of land.”

Galambos agreed with George that individuals have a right to use land and natural resources. Elsewhere, Galambos explained that an individual who builds a road to access land, who cultivates a field to grow crops, or who constructs a mine to remove metal ore, is entitled to some property rights related to those modifications and improvements. However nowhere does Galambos state that an individual can claim personal ownership of the land itself, or to the raw natural resources that are found on that land.

Galambos admitted that a better answer was needed and felt that answer might lie in a modification of George’s work. However, his interests took him elsewhere and he died before offering us a better answer.

Progress–another gift

Much of today’s wealth is not in the land and natural resources, nor is it found in cash, stocks or bonds, nor is it in all the personal possessions that we all hold so dear. It is in the evermore powerful tools and technology that results from the accumulation of our human Time-binding power. Present humanity is always the inheritor of the knowledge and technology of past humanity. Our quality of life is always richer, better, safer, healthier, simply because we are later. But present humans pay nothing for this rich inheritance. We take our wonderful inheritance and accept is as our due. We are not even aware that it is an inheritance. We simply call it progress.

Korzyski on Progress

“Our primitive forefather in the jungle would have died from hunger, cold, heat, blood poisoning or the attacks of wild animals, if he had not used his brain and muscles to take some stone or a piece of wood to knock down fruit from trees, to kill an animal, so as to use his hide for clothes and his meat for food, or to break wood and trees for a shelter and to make some weapons for defense and hunting.

“Our primitive forefather’s first acquaintance with fire was probably through lightning; he discovered, probably by chance, the possibility of making fire by rubbing together two pieces of wood and by striking together two pieces of stone; he established one of the first facts in technology; he felt the warm effect of fire and also the good effect of broiling his food by finding some roasted animals in a fire. Thus nature revealed to him one of its great gifts, the stored-up energy of the sun in vegetation and its primitive beneficial use. He was already a time-binder; evolution had brought him to that level. Being a product of nature, he was reflecting those natural laws that belong to his class of life; he had ceased to be static–he had become dynamic–progressiveness had got into his blood–he was above the estate of animals.

“We also observe that primitive man produced commodities, acquired experiences, made observations, and that some of the produced commodities had a use-value for other people and remained good for use, even after his death.

“After the death of a man, some of the objects produced by him still survived, such as weapons, fishing or hunting instruments, or the caves adapted for living; a baby had to be nourished for some years by its parents or it would have died. Those facts had important consequences; objects made by someone for some particular use could be used by someone else, even after the death of one or more successive users; again the experiences acquired by one member of a family or a group of people were taught by example or precept to others of the same generation and to the next generation.

“The produced commodities were composed of raw material, freely supplied by nature, combined with some mental work which gave him the conception of how to make and to use the object, and some work on his part which finally shaped the thing; all of this mental and manual work consumed an amount of time. It is obvious that all of these elements are indispensable to produce anything of any value, or of any use-value. His child not only directly received some of the use-values produced by him, but was initiated into all of his experiences and observations.

“Generally speaking, each successor did not start his life at the point where his father started; he started somewhere near where his father left off. His father gave, say, fifty years to discover two truths in nature and succeeded in making two or three simple objects; but the son does not need to give fifty years to discover and create the same achievements, and so he has time to achieve something new. He thus adds his own achievements to those of his father in tools and experience; this is mathematical equivalent of adding his parent’s years of life to his own. His mother’s work and experience are of course included–the name father and son being only used representatively.

“In political economy , we have not yet grasped the obvious fact–a fact of immeasurable import for all of the social sciences–that with little exception the wealth and capital possessed by a given generation are not produced by its own toil but are the inherited fruit of dead men’s toil–a free gift of the past. We have yet to learn and apply the lesson that not only our material wealth and capital but our science and art and learning and wisdom–all that goes to constitute our civilization–were produced, not by our own labor, but by the time-binding energies of past generations.

“This stupendous fact is the definitive mark of humanity–the power to roll up continuously the ever-increasing achievements of generation after generation endlessly. Such simple facts are the corner stones or our whole civilization and they are the direct result of the HUMAN CAPACITY OF TIME-BINDING.”

“And here arises a most important question: since the wealth of the world is in the main the free gift of the past–the fruit of the labor of the dead–to whom does it of right belong?”

The gift of progress is from all the humans who have lived and died in the past. My grandmother was born in a house without telephone, radio, television, electricity, running water or toilet. My mother was born in the same house with the addition of electricity, running water, and radio. I was born in a modern hospital, my mother was put to sleep for the delivery and I grew up in a house with electricity, running water, flush toilets, radio, and telephone, and when I was eight, we got a television–Progress.

My daughters were born in a hospital “home birth center” with my wife awake and participating. My daughters live with us in a house with three televisions, two stereos, three radios, many telephones, three video recorders, and a three personal computers–Progress.

I am no smarter than my grandparents. I do not work harder. I am do more deserving. But I am richer. I have a better quality of life. I am healthier. Why? simply because, I am later. Human knowledge and technology continuously results form the continuing use of our Time-binding power–Progress.

Progress is the mark of Time-binding power. As we humans look around us things are always advancing. Three hundred years ago we cooked our food over wood fires. One hundred years ago we cooked with piped in gas. Fifty years ago, we cooked with wired in electricity. And, today we cook with microwave–Progress.

Three hundred years ago we traveled by foot, or rode on the back of an animal. One hundred years ago, we moved by steam powered train. Fifty years ago, came the car and plane. And today, we jet from New York to London in three hours–Progress.

We humans understand progress. We know today’s automobiles are much safer, more comfortable, more efficient than yesterdays models. We know today’s power tools are, stronger, lighter, and cheaper than yesterdays. We know that today’s computers are unbelievable faster and more powerful than those made five years ago and they are much cheaper–Progress.

Modern humans are not smarter, they are not better, they are just later. Humans began first making tools ~2.5 million years ago. Humans began using and controlling fire ~1.5 million years ago. The wheel was invented ~6000 years ago. Each generation of humans inherits the accumulated knowledge and technology created by previous generations. We didn’t pay a fair price in a free market for this knowledge and technology. It comes to us as a human legacy–a free gift of the past–the resultant of human Time-binding Power.

We can purchase the newest model of automobile, or the newest model of computer and “own” that. But we can’t own the knowledge and technology that are embedded in these tools. Progress is the result of Time-Binding.

Two Gifts

It should be clear now that the vast majority of human wealth is a gift. None of us have any moral or rational basis to claim individual ownership of this gift. We did not create it. We never paid for it. It is clearly not property. The land and natural resources of the Earth are a gift from God and Nature to all life on Earth. And, Progress is a gift passed in trust from all the humans who have ever lived in the past to those of us living today, and to those humans that will be born in the future. Today these two great gifts are possessed and controlled by a handful individuals, and these great gifts serve only those few individuals at great cost and harm to the remaining 95% of humanity.

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

Believing the Truth

If we humans synergically reorganized our world, we would all be wealthy beyond our wildest dreams. Today in 2002, if we were to reclaim the gift of all the land and natural resources presently held on planet Earth as individual property. And if we were to further reclaim the gift of Progress from those few who control it today, and then divided these two gifts equally among the 6 billions of us living on the planet, we would discover to our surprise and amazement that every man, woman, and child is wealthy beyond their dreams.

With synergic organization, and careful utilization of the planet’s total wealth for the benefit of all humanity, the carrying capacity of the Earth could be maximized to solve all our human problems and meet our all our needs. And this is without any need to damage the Earth, or degrade our environment.

There would never be any need for humans to earn their livings again. Our livings have already been earned by all those humans who lived and died to give us the great gift of progess. Then all humans would be free to spend their time making their lives meaningful by creating more wealth to be gifted to living and future humanity.

To better understand my proposal for a synergic future, it is important to understand what I mean by wealth. 

‘Wealth’

The collective term we humans use to describe what we value is ‘wealth’.

The human species emerged in the world of space-binding. Here the rule of survival was fight or flight. The values in this world were adversarial. Adversary relationship originates on earth in the animal world. Earth supplies limited space for the animals. Space is finite. Good space is even more finite. This means it is very limited. There is only so much good water, so much good grazing land, so much good shelter, and so much good food. There is not enough to go around. The space-binders must compete for this limited amount of good space. They compete adversarialy. They compete by fighting and flighting. They compete by attacking and killing other space-binders. Humans living as space-binders follow the adversarial rule. They compete by fighting and flighting. They compete by attacking and killing their enemies. In this world survival depends on securing good space and avoiding bad space. Bad space is where the predators live — bad space is where you lose — bad space is where you die. Bad space has threatened humans for a very long time as Jared Diamond explains:

“For most of the time since the ancestors of modern humans diverged from the ancestors of the living great apes, around 7 million years ago, all humans on Earth fed themselves exclusively by hunting wild animals and gathering wild plants, as the Blackfeet still did in the 19th century. It was only within the last 11,000 years that some peoples turned to what is termed food production: that is, domesticating wild animals and plants and eating the resulting livestock and crops.”

Jared Diamond makes the point, that for 99.9% of the seven-million-years that our species has existed, we have been hunter-gatherers. And, for that same period, our species has been dominated by the adversary way, and all human values have been adversarial values.

Adversarial Wealth — Physical Force

The human species emerged in the world of space-binding. Here the rule of survival was fight or flight. Their values were adversarial. Adversary relationship originates on earth in the animal world. Earth supplies limited space for the animals. Space is finite. Good space is even more finite. Thus, it is very limited. There is only so much good water, so much good grazing land, so much good shelter, and so much good potential food. There is not enough to go around. The space-binders must compete for this limited amount of good space. They compete adversarily. They compete by fighting and flighting. They compete by attacking and killing other space-binders.

Humans living as space-binders follow the adversarial rule. The compete by fighting and flighting. The compete by attacking and killing their enemies. Physical force is what adversarial humans value most. The force to physically control other humans. Adversarial wealth is fighting men, weapons, horses, fortresses, that which gives me the adversarial advantage. Adversarial humanity uses force and coercion to protect life, to promote human well being and satisfy human needs.

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

All humans living in the adversarial world are struggling to avoid losing — struggling to avoid being hurt.

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

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

The adversarial value system is much intact in our present world. Much of today’s wealth is weapons. Nearly all of today’s nations maintain large armies, navies, and airforces. The number of weapons in private hands is equally enormous. Adversary wealth is physical force.

With the emergence of Neutrality which became institutionalized in 1776, came a new option for humanity. And with this option came a new set of values — neutral values. 

Neutral Wealth — Money

Neutral relationships originated in the plant world.

Sunlight provides unlimited energy for the plants. Each individual plant needs only the sun, and adequate water and minerals to survive. Plant survival does not require any relationship with other. This fact makes plants the independent class of life — independent of other.

Humans living in the world of Institutional Neutrality view themselves as independent of others. They should not deliberately hurt another human, but they are also are never required to help another human. Their success or failure depends solely on their own efforts and talents. Individuals have no relationship with each other. Individuals have no awareness of each other, they ignore each other. To survive in the neutral world, you must be self-sufficient. If we analyze neutral relationships, we discover that individuals are unchanged by their relationship. They are neither less or more after the relationship. They are the same. 1+1=2.

Choices which do not hurt or help are neutral. Actions which do not hurt or help are neutral. Relationships which do not hurt or help are neutral. The mechanism of relationship is conducted through a free and fair market with the honest exchange of merchandise of good value at a fair price.

FAIR TRADE —def—> The bartering to insure that the exchange is fair — to insure that the price is not too high or too low — to insure that neither party loses.

Institutional Neutrality is about fairness. The market place is a fair and safe place to exchange goods and services. Neither seller nor buyer should be injured in the exchange. Products should represent a good value and be sold at a fair price. All citizens are quaranteed freedom from loss.

The medium of exchange in the neutral world is money. Money is used as symbolic representation of all real wealth. For all intensive purposes in the Neutral world money and real wealth are the same.

Money is what neutral humans most value. The money to purchase help. Neutral wealth is any negotiable security — cash, stocks, bonds, Certi?ates of Deposit, that which can be exchanged in the fair market. Neutral humanity uses money to buy life protection, to buy human well being and satisfy human needs.

Today, humanity has the option for synergic relationship. If we choose synergy we will adopt a new set of values — synergic values. 

Synergic Wealth — Mutual Life Support

In a synergic culture wealth is defined very differently. Synergic wealth is that which supports life for self and others. It is mutually life affirming. This 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 know that adversarial humans make people help them. This is help obtained with coercion — force or fraud. Those providing the help are losing. When you force others to help you, they do the least they possibly can. Because the helper is hurt, adversary help produces the lowest quality help.

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

They understand that synergic humans attract help by helping others. This is help attracted by helping others — when another individual understands that by helping you, they will also be helped, they will automatically help you. When others understand that when you win, they win, they will support and celebrate your success. This is the power of the win-win relationship. Show those who can help you, how they will win by doing so. Show them how they will be helped by helping you. Because the helper is helped, synergic help is of highest quality.

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

Synergic relationships are mutually helpful. Both parties in the relationship experience a gain. In Synergic relationships, one individual plus another individual is more after their relationship than before: 1+1>>2. Synergic relationships are marked by low conflict with high effectiveness and enormous productivity.

The wealth available to humanity in a synergic future is mutual life support. Synergic wealth resulting from Synergic Organization and Synergic Government can produce a high quality of life for all humanity.

While Adversary-Neutral Organization and Adversary-Neutral Government can only offer a decent quality of life to a fraction of the 6 billion humans currently living on the Earth. And that achievement is possible only with the exploitation and squandering of Nature’s great gift of the fossil fuels.

Petroleum, natural gas, and coal are are called fossil fuels because they are all made from decayed plants and animals that have been preserved in the earth’s crust by pressure, bacterial processes and heat. It takes millions of years for these organisms to chemically change into fossil fuels.

With the exhaustion of the fossil fuels, our current Adversary — Neutral Organizations and Governments can only offer humanity an Earth with a carrying capacity for ~100 million humans. That means a lot of people will die.

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

A Synergic Future  Begins with Synergic Values

Thousands of years ago the synergic way was discovered intuitively by Jesus of Nazareth. He gave us the rules in his sermon on the mount:

“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.”

Synergic morality requires 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 not have them do to you.”

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

This is where Galambos’ “Moral Capitalism” is incomplete. The negative version of the Golden Rule is just and right, but Synergic Morality requires more of us than simple 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 did not call for simply a prohibition against hurting others. He called on us to help each other. Synergic Morality is more than the absence of hurting.  It is the presence of helping.

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. Fuller defined an event to be a triad of related phenomena— action, reaction, resultant.

The dynamics of all human 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 produce a resultant. I act, the rest of the world reacts, and when it all settles down the change made by the interaction is the resultant.

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 and end in a synergic resultant. This is the Law of Karma. Synergic Morality rests then on the premise—that when we help others, we can hope to find ourselves helped in return.

Humans who would organize themselves synergically, must commit to synergic values. If they wish to gain the power of synergic interdependence they must understand synergic mechanism, accept synergic responsibility, and embrace synergic morality. Synergic individuals do not hurt others, and to extent that they are capable, they help others.

The Life Force

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 Wealth effected by an event compared to the total amount of Wealth.

WEALTH (effected)
WEALTH (total)

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

OPPORTUNITY—def—> What is the amount of 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 Wealth.

 

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

SYNOCRACY 

How will we make decisions in a synergic future? In today’s world 2002, it is assumed without question that majority rule democracy is the best way to organize humanity. To even offer a criticism of majority rule democracy is to invite an immediate and often emotional charged attack on oneself. We are quickly asked to choose between majority rule democracy or the dictatorships of communism/fascism. We are quickly reminded that if we don’t like it here in a majority ruled democracy, we are free to leave.

Majority rule democracy is clearly a major advance over the adversary systems of dictatorships—the rule by one, or oliarchies—the rule by the few.

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

In modern representative democracies we find the majority rule mechanism used to select our representatives, to make decisions within committees and to make decisions within the legislative bodies, however careful analysis reveals we really have rule by the few.

In the United States, we elect one president, 100 Senators and 435 Congressman. This is one President for ~271 million Americans. There are two Senators for each state. Senatorial representation would vary from one Senator for ~16 million Californians down to one Senator for ~350,000 Delawarians. The members of the first House of Representatives were elected on the basis of 1 representative for every 30,000 inhabitants, but at least 1 for each state. At present the size of the House is fixed at 435 members, elected on the basis of 1 representative for about 500,000 inhabitants. Our representatives do not even know us. If any Congressman met with 10 of his constituents every day for 365 days a year, it would take over 137 years for him just to meet all of them. And Congressmen are only elected for two year terms. If our Congressman don’t even know us how can they represent us?

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

As the United States grew in population and in influence in world affairs, the volume and complexity of the matters arising inCongress also increased. Due consideration to all matters submitted to the Congress could not be given in open debate on the floor of the Senate and House. As a result, the standing committees of the Congress became the arbiters of the fate of practically all legislation. There are 22 standing committees in the House and 16 standing committees in the Senate. Even though majority rule is used to make decisions in these committees once the decision is made the results are imposed on ~271,000,000 Americans.

Recently, the American people have attempted to exert their will by making use of ballot initiatives. Almost always if these initiatives are not popular with the Few that Rule, they are quickly dismantled. In November of 1996, the majority of Californians voted for Proposition 209, which banned affirmative action, Proposition 215, which legalized medical use of marijuana, and Proposition 187, which denied legal benefits to illegal immigrants. By January of 1997, all three were hung up in the courts or in a jurisdictional squabble with the federal government. None was close to being enforced. By May of 1998, Proposition 215, the Marijuanna for Medical Use Initiative which passed by a 56% majority throughout the state and by an 80% majority in San Francisco has all but been dismantled by the Few who Rule. They had succeeded in closing the majority of the medical marijuanna clinics which had opened throughout the state, and were pressing criminal charges against many of those involved in the clinics. Obviously, the majority does not rule in California. This fact is not lost on the electorate.More more citizens have realized that voting in our representative democracy does not make any difference. For despite the fact that our American Goverment is more and more intrusive in our lives, we are less and less interested in pretending that our voting makes any real difference.

Voter turnout has been declining steadily since 1960. And as reported in the Wall Street Journal for November 9, 2000:

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

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

Seeking Synergic Government

However, even if we had direct democracies using majority rule, it would not be a synergic form of govenment. In fact, if we use the criteria of prohibition of loss, majority rule democracy is not even a neutral form of government. In majority rule democracy, the minority often loses. As Andrew J. Galambos writes:

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

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

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

Rule by the Majority

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

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

Compared to dictatorship—the rule by one, or olioarchy—the rule by a few, majority rule democracy—the rule by most is clearly a much fairer way. It should come as no surprise then that majority rule democracy is so attractive to Institutional Neutrality since fairness is one of Neutrality’s highest values.

While it should now be clear to the reader that Neutral political-economic systems are better for humanity then Adversary political-economic systems. Representative democracy’s Rule by the Few is also better for humanity then a dictatorship’s rule of by one. But the advantages that Neutrality and majority ruled Representative democracy have over Adversary dictatorships does not mean there is nothing better for Humanity

Unanimous Rule Democracy

Synergic consensus is a much more powerful mechanism of decision making than the majority rule of present day democracy.

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

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

Synergic Equality

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

When individuals work together in synergic relationship, new abilities, skills, talents, etc., emerge as a part of that relationship, that are not there when the individuals work separately. The individuals working in synergic group are more efficient, more productive, more creative, and more intelligent, than they are when working separately. The result of their synergy is that they create “more” together than they could create apart. This wealth that produced by “working together” was called the CoOperator’s surplus by synergic scientist Edward Haskell.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Is Unanimous Rule Democracy Feasible?

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

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

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

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

Life Utilizes Synergic Consensus

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

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

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

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

Andrew J. Galambos, Thrust for Freedom #7 —What is True Democracy?, Free Enterprise Institute, 1963

Here are some things that we could do if we chose to work together: 1) BIAS systems,  2) Ortegrity, or 3) GIFTegrity.

Human intelligence science has revealed that our enormous intelligence is the result of possessing dual minds. These dual minds create a dual world in which we live. Wednesday, I discussed the Dual Mind and Progress which leads to today’s conclusion.

My World of  ”Ought to Be”

Timothy Wilken, MD

In the past week I have talked about learning to “could” on each other. Now I would like to “could” on my readers. I will start by revealing an important secret.

If you want to help make a world that works for all humanity, you must know this secret. It is the secret of making wholes — the secret of oneness.  You must live from the point of view of the whole.  You must identify with the whole. If you take care of the whole, the whole will take care of you.

The following analogy may help you understand.  Think a moment of how our brain functions — the neurons of our human brain focus entirely on the needs of the whole body, and in turn discover the whole body takes care of them.  They have no concerns and give no attention to maintaining their own temperature, to acquiring their own nutrition, to oxygenating themselves, or even in protecting themselves from bacteria or virus.

The neurons place their trust in survival of the whole.  By making decisions which keep the body healthy and safe, they  insure the body is capable of meeting all the needs of the neurons.  By serving the whole the neurons find themselves served.

I have taught that humanity is evolving. We evolved from the animals. Animals are space-binders. Their lives are dominated by adversity. Early humans lives were dominated by adversity. Humans who commit to adversity could be called Adversans. I explained to escape the Adversary world, humans invented Captitalism and the Great Market. This is a Neutral mechanism. Humans who commit to Capitalism and the Market could be called Neutrans. I have explained that if humanity is to have a future that we must give up the hurting of Adversity — give up the ignoring of Neutrality, and embrace the helping of Synergy. Humans who commit to Synergy could be called Synergans.

Now imagine that the Earth including all of life is a single organism — GAIA.  Further imagine the entire humans species  —  all of humanity — organized in a single organizational tensegrity. This evolved form of humanity could be called Synerganity.  Synerganity then could be the brain of GAIA.  Each human being functioning as a neuron within GAIA’s brain.

Synerganity will care for GAIA — care for all of Earth.  We humans could function as neurons.  We could care for the whole and discover ourselves to be cared for as a part of  Gaia.  Synergan will meet all the needs of the individual humans within it.  Just as our brain meets the needs of all the forty trillion cells contained in our bodies.

Synerganity structured as a organizational tensegrity could create an optimum environment to maximze individual meaning for all humans on earth. If we serve synerganity, synerganity will serve us. I believe this is what Jesus meant when he taught us to serve God and all  our needs would be met. Fuller knew this intuitively — he discovered the more humans he served the more important was his life. The only time he could’t meet his individual needs was when he focused on trying to meet them.

When a human begins to think as a synergan, then GAIA’s brain grows.  The more intelligent GAIA is, the more likely she will survive.

Thinking as a synergan is a state of mind — to begin we stop thinking about meeting our needs separately.  We stop adapting from our own individual point of view. Instead, we think wholistically — how can I help synerganity meet my needs. My needs are a subset of synerganity’s needs.  We stop thinking about accomplishing our individual goals separately, instead how can synerganity accomplish its goals which include the subset of my goals.

When I am a synergan, I think about meeting all Synerganity’s needs — which include my own individual needs, and my own individual survival. When I am a synergan, I think about meeting Synerganity’s goals — which include my individual goals.

Then the first and most important step on the critical path for human survival is for all of us to increase our awareness. 
 

AWARENESS   =   Who I Know on Earth 
                               All Living on Earth

As a synergan, I decide with an awareness of the needs and goals of all of humanity.  There is no place for neutral in a synergic Earth.  To be unaware is to conflict by accident and redundancy.

Only by examing all points of view can I choose the action that promotes the most and hinders none — only by stabilizing our whole species can I hope to protect my family.  As Arthur Coulter teaches I must choose SYNERGY.

This then is FIRST TASK — I must learn to think as a synergan.  I must stretch my skin around the entire earth.  I must extend my senses to monitor all my fellow cells.  I must develop empathy for all of humanity.

With increasing awareness we will be able to self-organize much more effectively — to synergize much more powerfully.

We all have  our own individual awareness — each awareness is unique and different from any other awareness on the planet.  From whatever point of awareness we begin each of us can transcend ourselves and choose to become even more aware of the whole … the whole species.

As a synergan, I view life from the point of view of all.  My awareness is ONE.  I make my decisions with an awarenss of the goals and needs of all humans.  I need not know the detail’s of every human’s life to know every human’s needs.  I need not know everyone’s story to know what environments have potential for everyone’s meaning.  An awareness of ONE is more a qualitative change than a quanitative one.  It is a new point of view.

Choose to think as a synergan.  Think of yourself inside synerganity.  Meet your needs as a subset of synerganity’s needs.  Serve the whole and the whole will take care of you.

This is the secret of making wholes — the secret of oneness.  If you take care of the whole, the whole will take care of you.   If we serve synerganity well, we will find ourselves alive and well safe inside of synerganity. The world’s problems today are much larger than any single one of us.  But to synerganity, these problems will seem like nothing. No more than a few months work.  Then our future will truely be unlimited.  The stars will indeed be ours.

We now have a solution — the Organizational Tensegrity is a pattern we could use to become synerganity.  The binding is the win-win relationship.  Decision is made in Heterarchy with synergic consensus as first principle.  No one is coerced.  All losses are synergically vetoed.  Action occurs in Hierarchy  negotiated by all, here again we all win.

We could make the world better. We could work together. We could love each other. Are you ready to join the Synergic Evolution? All you have to do is change your mind. 

---

Here are some things that we could do if we chose to work together: 1) BIAS systems, 2) A Synergic Future, 3) Ortegrity, or 4) GIFTegrity.

Human intelligence science has revealed that our enormous intelligence is the result of possessing dual minds. These dual minds create a dual world in which we live.

The Dual Mind and Progress

Timothy Wilken, MD

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

Both animal and human offspring begin their lives in nearly total ignorance. The differences that exist between them are small, but what advantage in knowing that does exist belongs clearly to the animal. While the animal seems to begin life with a greater store of inherited knowing, it possesses little ability to learn from its parents. The animal is condemned to rediscover over and over, every generation must discover anew the knowings of its parents. The wise old owl may know a great deal, but he has no way to pass what he knows to his offspring and they have no way to receive it. Animals have only the space-mind. They are confined to living in the world of “is”.

Only humans have access to the dual-world. We can and do pass our knowing from one generation to the next.

Progress —defined—> The progression from the world of “is” to the world of “ought to be” —  the progression from the real world to the ideal world.

We humans need our space-mind to survive in space. To be safe in the world of “is”, but we need our time-mind if we want to create a better world  —  a world that “ought to be”.

Albert Schweitzer, the great humanitarian who worked with the poor and ill in Africa, said he wanted to see a world where there was no disease. Well, I think most of us would probably agree that represents a good “ought to be”.

Now, its important to remember that not all “ought to be”s are good.

“Ought to be”s are just opinions. Adolf Hitler wanted a world where there were no Jews. Not such a good “ought to be”. An “ought to be” is just an opinion. At its very best, it becomes an ideal. At its very worst it can become nightmare of crime and tragedy. Animals kill for food or to eliminate competing genetic lines, but only humans murder each other because their time-mind has decided that someone “ought not to be”.

The space-mind and the time-mind are partners. Universe is space-time.

When we use our dual minds intelligently, our space-mind tells us what is and our time-mind tells us what could be. What could be. Our world of “ought to be” is an opinion of how realty could be. The term should is best left to describe the picture of how reality is. This is also the scientific definition of the term should.

The dual-world model is also very helpful in determining whether your relationship with someone should continue. I have used this model in couple counseling. Not uncommonly, when a husband and wife come in to see me, they are at war with each other. After I have got to know them and learned how they perceive their problems, I teach them about the dual-world. Then it becomes a simple matter to ask each of them to define their “ought to be” mates. Then the next step is find out if they are willing to “could” on each other and work together to move in the desired direction.

The human space-mind often gets injured by its experiences in life because it thinks in pictures and images and feelings. These three always go together. So if a lot of pictures in your memory are attached to negative feelings, then you will carry a lot of beliefs and associations that are hurtful. All of us carry some of these painful pictures around. Most of us have seen somebody, that we care very much about, when they were very angry, screaming, or crying. And further, because no one is the way they “ought to be”, nearly all of us have felt some time felt rejected by our parents even though they may loved us. And, if you are not the way you “ought to be” then there must be something wrong with you. This makes us feel second rate and inferior. These old injuries often occur in our childhood and are carried throughout our lives unless they are repaired.

Let me use an example from my own life. My wife carries an injury from her childhood that Rational Psychologists call catastrophizing. Her mother was a catastrophizer and my wife is one as well. Do you know what a catastrophizer is? Let me give you an example of catastrophizing. Imagine you are sitting at the kitchen table and one of your kids knocks over a glass of water. Now a non-catastrophizer might say, “Oh,here, let me get a towel. You could be more careful son.

Now lets look at the same situation with a catastrophizer. One of your kids knocks over a glass of water. The castastrophizer responds, “OH NO!. MY GOD! WHAT HAPPENED? OH CHRIST, MY TABLE IS RUINED. YOU SHOULD HAVE BEEN MORE CAREFUL.”

Catastrophizing. Do you know anybody who acts like this? Unfortunately, catastrophizing behavior which is never intentional still injures little kids. Why? Because children’s space-minds create pictures with strong negative feelings when events like this happen. They believe they are bad. They think, “What did I do? Something terrible. I ruined mother’s table. I must be a horrible person to have created so much havoc for my mother. Maybe she won’t love me.” And so children who have catastrophizing parents duck. They get gun shy. And by the way if you are a catastrophizer it’s almost always because you know a catastrophizer who was usually your parent. And your parent knew a catastrophizer who was probably her parent, and so on.

We always get two things from our parents. We get their ‘knowing’ and their ‘not knowing’. So, if mom was really good with a checkbook, always had the budget balanced, knows where every penny is, then probably I’ll also be good with a checkbook. But if mom was a catastrophizer, then I may be a catastrophizer too.

So in my world of “ought to be”, my wife would learn not to catastrophize. Now one of the injuries I carry from my childhood is called by Psychologists a touch disorder. What’s a touch disorder? Being uncomfortable when you are physically touched by another human. Many Americans have this injury. Where does it come from? Not getting touched very much. So, if one or both of your parents were uncomfortable being touched or touching others, you may not have gotten touched much as a child. I can remember whenever my father would try to give my mother a hug or a kiss, she would withdraw or pull away saying, “Oh no, not in front of the children.” So I grew up uncomfortable with being touched and with a tendency not to reach out and touch others.

And, in my wife’s world of “ought to be”, I would learn to be more comfortable with being touched and in touching others.

After learning about the dual-world, we were both able to could on each other. I was able to tell my wife Judy that my “ought to be” Judy would be less catastrophizing. And she told me that her “ought to be” Tim would be warm, affectionate and more comfortable with touch.

So, after thinking about it for a while and I said, “Well, my “ought to be” Tim would also be warmer, affectionate and more comfortable with touch. And she said, “You know, my “ought to be” Judy would be less catastrophizing.” So we helped each other move towards our mutual “ought to be”s.

If you can’t agree on “ought to be”s with the important people in your life then you don’t have sound basis for a successful relationship, and you will be better off terminating that relationship. But before you decide to end a relationship, you need to make sure both of you understand the dual-world.

When I worked with couples in stressed and troubled relationships, I would teach them about the dual-world. This was often the very first lesson, because it  explains so much about human relationships. And when we reached the point in counseling were I felt they understood the dual-world, I would say, “Now let’s talk about what’s wrong.”

The wife would say, “Well he’s doing this, and it really annoys me.”

“All right, so your “ought to be” husband wouldn’t do that. He would do something different.”

And then the husband would say, “Well, she is doing this, and it really annoys me”

“All right, so your “ought to be” wife wouldn’t do that. She would do something different.”

Are the two of you willing to could on each other, remember no shoulding, but inviting each other to change, pulling each other a little bit with an invitations, can you pull each other a little bit in the right direction?

And you would be amazed at how often individuals using this model can decide that they really would like to move in the directions that the other individual really does want. And that it hasn’t been that they didn’t like the idea, often they agreed. It’s they didn’t like being pushed. They didn’t like being shoulded on. They didn’t like feeling NOT OK, bad, defective, not all right. They didn’t like being treated as inferior and without respect.

Imagine you are occasionally late getting home because you work overtime to help pay the bills, sometimes you forget to call your wife and she always gets upset. One day she gives you an ultimatum, “You never call me when you’re going to be late. If you don’t start calling me, I’m going to leave you.”

Now you start thinking, “Why should I have to call her? I am working hard for her and the kids. She knows I’m not goofing off. She should trust me. How dare she threaten to leave me for working so hard for the family. I shouldn’t have to call her.”

So my wife is shoulding on me, and I am shoulding on myself. Maybe one of my friends is shoulding on me as well, perhaps telling me that I shouldn’t let my wife tell me what to do. And I become reactive and say, “No. I’m not going to let anybody tell me what to do.” Remember the space-mind is in charge of survival. Survival is an individual experience. When you are angry, when you are hostile, when you are in a rage, you are fighting against the world.

So if we can get rid of the shoulds, and the badness, and the NOT OK’s, then very often human beings can say, “You’re right. I could call you when I am going to be late. If you’ll stop telling me that I should call you,then I could call you.”

Now the time-mind doesn’t think there is much difference between saying, “You could call me,” rather than, “You should call me.” But the space-mind feels an enormous difference.

Remember, its not what you say its how you say it. The time-mind focuses on content, while the space-mind focuses on the process.

And, your could has to be genuine. If the tone of your voice is demanding when you say “YOU COULD CALL ME!” then your words will not be heard as a request. The space-mind is an expert at reading tone of voice and body language. We cannot hide our true feelings from the space-mind of others.

So if we want to make progress in our personal lives or as a community, we must learn to could on each other — to pull our fellow humans from the world of is toward the world of ought to be — to pull our fellow humans from the real world toward the ideal world.

We humans could solve our problems. We humans could work together. We humans could love each other.

 

---

To be continued …

Human intelligence science has revealed that our enormous intelligence is the result of possessing dual minds. These dual minds create a dual world in which we live. Most of us don’t know we have dual minds, and still fewer know that we live in a dual world.

The Dual Mind creates a Dual World

Timothy Wilken, MD   

Did you watch the opening ceremony for 2002 Winter Olympics? It was beautiful. We sure put on a good show for the rest of the world. We honor and cherish the first humans to inhabit North America — the Native Americans.  We respect and protect the native animals of America — the Buffalo, Coyote, and Eagle. And, did you see the beautiful paper puppets? Wasn’t the one of the giant American Bison cool with all the little buffalos running inside of it?

Of course, our show for the rest of the world wasn’t really the truth. It was only a picture of the world as it ”ought to be”. An “ideal” picture of early America. This is the way our Amercian history “ought to have been”.

In the “real” world — in the world of “is”, those arriving from Europe would kill or imprison most of the Native Americans, use the Chinese and African immigrants as slave labor, and kill all but 800 of the millions of mighty Buffalo that ran on the American plains. This was the number of living Buffalo at the end of the 19th century. Our American history “could have been different”. But it wasn’t.

I am suggesting that the opening ceremony “could” also have been different. It could have presented the settlement of the American west with a little more respect for the truth. It could have still been beautiful, perhaps even more beautiful. I think it would have been much more valuable to show the rest of the world that we know that real adversity is a part of our history. That we know we made mistakes in the past, and have committed to learn from those mistakes. That we now have respect for Native Americans, Chinese Americans and African Americans. That we wish we had not made so many native animal species extinct, and that today we cherish all live on planet Earth.

This would have shown the world that we did remember the past.

Human intelligence science has revealed that our enormous intelligence is the result of possessing dual minds. These dual minds create pictures of a dual world in which we live. Most of us don’t know we have dual minds and almost all of us don’t know we live in a dual world. We live in two worlds all of the time.

Let us begin by examining the world created by the space-mind. It creates a picture of reality. Space-mind is in charge of survival. So it needs to know what the world is really like. Boy if you are in your space-mind, you better live in the real world. Right? Ever play dodge ball? When I was a kid, dodge ball was a big game. I don’t know whether they even play it any more. You go into the gym and line up against the wall and somebody throws a volleyball at you at high speed. Right? You dodge it Right? You better know where the ball really is or you are going to get hit. Ever play snow ball fights? Same thing right? You better know where those snowballs really are or you’re going to get hit. The space-mind has to know where things are in space. Where they really are. When I’m teaching this lesson to a group of students I’ll suddenly toss a pencil to someone sitting in the first row, and it’s amazing, they almost always catch it. One hand will fly up and catch the unexpected object. Their space-mind reflex puts their hand up. The space-mind has to know what’s real and what’s really going on or you don’t survive. If there is a tiger in this room I had better know it’s here. So the space mind makes a picture of reality from its sense images and feelings. That’s picture of reality is what I call the world of “is”.

The world of “is” is the way things really are. And, at its very best this picture of reality approaches the “real” world. Now we don’t have a perfect picture of the universe the way it really is. But our space-mind is pretty good. It keeps me from running into the walls and safe in high speed motor traffic. My student in the front row demonstrated his ability to catch the pencil perfectly when it came flying through the air unexpectedly.

Now we humans also have a time-mind which is into becoming, it’s interested in cause and effect, it is always predicting the future based on its understanding of the past. So the time-mind forms an opinion of reality from words and thoughts. This opinion of reality is what I call the world of “ought to be”.

Every human has two worlds created by their two minds. Everyone of us has a world of “is” and a world of “ought to be”. I’ve got mother “is” and mother “ought to be”. Teacher “is” and teacher “ought to be”. Son “is” and son “ought to be”. Dad “is” and dad “ought to be”. Husband “is” and husband“ought to be”.

By the way, our husband “is”and wife “is” are always comes up short. Aren’t they? They are never the way they ought to be. Also, our son “is” and daughter “is” are also coming up short. They are also never the way they ought to be.

Why are they coming up short? Why are they never the way they ought to be?

Our time-mind uses all of its cause and effect knowledge to predict the way things “ought to be”. And we are always carrying our opinions of how it “out to be” with us at all times. Seven o’clock in the evening, and I run out of milk. So I get in my car and go down to Seven-Eleven only to discover they’re closed. “Damn it! That’s not the way it ought to be!” My space-mind shows me a picture of a closed store  —  the world the way it is. My time-mind tells me in words,“That’s not the way it ought to be.”And, so my space-mind prepares my body to fight.

All of us are rejected to some extent because we are never the way our parents think we ought to be. Because you see an ought to be at its very best is an ideal. The world of “ought to be” at its very best is an ideal. Well in the ideal world, the Seven-Eleven Store would be open, right? I’d go in and get my milk. Right? My son, in the world of ought to be, would get straight A’s. Right? That’s an ideal. Ideally my son would get straight A’s. Ideally my husband would remember my  birthday. Ideally the people on the road would be more courteous. Ideally the government would lower our taxes, right? In the world of “ought to be” the government would operate economically, and give the taxpayers a large refund. But in the world of “is” we just keep paying more taxes.

Now knowledge of the dual-world can be of great help to you. Whenever you find yourself angry at the world of “is”, it probably is because you are mistaking your world of “ought to be” for the real world. Imagine, I am reading my newspaper when I come across a story I don’t like. I exclaim: “I can’t believe this! This can’t be happening.” In other words, in my world of “ought to be”, this doesn’t happen.

There are none so blind as those that will not see.

Not believing reality can be very dangerous. The Jewish people during WWII were very much victimized by the world of “ought to be”. The American government played into that tragedy in a very large way. There was a group of Jewish people who suffered even more than those who were gassed in the concentration camp gas chambers. These were extraordinarily brave individuals who risked their lives to smuggle out pictures of the death camps. These photographs eventually reached the American government providing proof of Hitler’s atrocities. The American government said they were fake. Why? In the American government’s world of “ought to be”, atrocities like those shown in the photos just didn’t happen. In their world of ought to be those kinds of things simply don’t happen. The photographs had to have been faked. Sadly, the whole world learned four years later that the photographs were not faked.

If I’m angry about the world of “is”, it’s often because I am convinced that my ideal world of “ought to be” is the real world.

This is the most powerful lesson that I teach in stress medicine. It’s the single one tool that can help you make a major change in your life. I can teach you how to  desensitize yourself to hostility. I can teach you how to do all kinds of relaxation, biofeedback. But if you understand about the world of “is” and the world of “ought to be”, and you understand that the world of “is” is the real world, and that the world of “ought to be” is only an ideal world, you can unstress yourself  greatly.

When my daughter was only four years old I taught her about the dual-world. I remember when something wouldn’t work out for her, she would say, “Well, that’s not the way it ought to be, but that’s the way it is.” If adults could learn to say those words they could help themselves a lot. “That’s not the way it ought to be, but that’s the way it is.”

But because we don’t understand the dual-world, we “should” all over each other? You see the world “should” comes from our world of “ought to be”. This ought to be “should” is an ideal. When I say,“You shouldn’t have said that.” I mean in my world of “ought to be”, you wouldn’t have said that. Ideally, you wouldn’t have said that.

The real “should” is from the world of “is”. If I drop this pencil it should hit the floor. I drop the pencil and it does hit the floor.

The ideal “should” is from the world of “ought to be”. I should weigh twenty pounds less, but nothing happens. What’s wrong here. Why didn’t I magically lose twenty pounds. This must be a different kind of should. This is an ought to be “should”, not an is “should”. Ignorance of our dual-world can make life very confusing.

To take advantage of our new knowledge of the dual-world, we must learn to “could” on each other. Let us learn how to “could” on each other rather than “should” on each other. This becomes very important. Why? Because see when I “could” on you it’s an invitation. But when I “should” on you it’s a push and your space-mind fights all pushes. Remember the space-mind fights all pushes.

To demonstrate this point in the classroom, I approach one of my students and ask the other students to turn to each other and do what I’m doing. Then I take the hand and wrist of my student, and move the arm around without the student’s control. I push the student around a little. Not causing any real pain.Then I ask, “How does that feel? How does your space-mind like it? Here, feel it. Don’t think it. What does space-mind say? Now you know I’m doing an experiment. But what does space mind-feel?”

Of course the space-mind doesn’t talk but if it did it would say, “Leave me alone. Get off me. Don’t touch me. Don’t push me.”

When we “should” on each other we are pushing,“You should have done a lot better on that test.”

“Damn it. I’m all right. I’m ok. You can’t tell me I should have done better.”

My space mind defends against all pushes. And a “should” is a push. Anytime you “should” on somebody you invoke their space-mind and they shut down. They rebel. They push back and they won’t do anything you tell them.

If you want to win friends and influence others, you need to learn how to “could” on people — a “could” is a pull — a “could” is an invitation.

“You could study a little more and maybe your grades would come up.” The student says, “Yes, I could study a little more and maybe my grades would come up.” That’s not a push. That’s an invitation. That’s a pull. That’s a possibility.

“You could make a note in your schedule about my birthday because it’s real important to me.” And I reply,“You know I could do that. Maybe I will do that. This is a better alternative to: “You shouldn’t have forgotten my birthday. You never have time for me.” To that I may reply, “Damn it. I’ll forget your birthday every year from now on.”

Our space-mind does not like to be pushed around. And so, what do we do? We humans push each other all day long.

We also push ourselves don’t we? Ever hear your little time-mind “shoulding” on yourself? “I shouldn’t have done that. I shouldn’t have said this.” “I should have done this. I should have told my boss off. I should have told him what I really thought of him. With knowledge of the dual-world, it is much more effective to could on yourself. I could have communicated my point of view more effectively to my boss.

In summary then, all humans have two minds — the space-mind and the time-mind. These two minds create two worlds  —  the world of “is” and the world of “ought to be” — a picture of the real world and an opinion of the ideal world.

It is our ability to create these two worlds that makes us human.

---

To be continued …

 

The following is a preview from a new book in progress on understanding human intelligence. 

Understanding the Dual Mind

Timothy Wilken, MD

Human intelligence science has revealed that our enormous intelligence is the result of possessing dual minds. These dual minds create pictures of a dual world in which we live. Most of us don’t know we have dual minds and almost all of us don’t know we live in a dual world. We live in two worlds all of the time.

Let us begin by examining the world created by the space-mind. The space-mind thinks in pictures and codes those pictures with feelings. The space-mind is in charge of survival. So it needs to know what the world is really like. Boy if you are in your space-mind, you better live in the real world. Right? Ever play dodge ball? When I was a kid, dodge ball was a big game. I don’t know whether they even play it any more. You go into the gym and line up against the wall and somebody throws a volleyball at you at high speed. Right? You dodge it Right? You better know where the ball really is or you are going to get hit. Ever play snow ball fights? Same thing right? You better know where those snowballs really are or you’re going to get hit. The space-mind has to know where things are in space. Where they really are. When I’m teaching this lesson to a group of students I’ll suddenly toss a pencil to someone sitting in the first row, and it’s amazing, they almost always catch it. One hand will fly up and catch the unexpected object. Their space-mind reflex puts their hand up. The space-mind has to know what’s real and what’s really going on or you don’t survive. If there is a tiger in this room I had better know it’s here. So the space mind makes a picture of reality from its sense images and feelings. That’s picture of reality is what I call the world of “is”.

The world of “is” is the way things really are. And, at its very best this picture of reality approaches the “real” world. Now we don’t have a perfect picture of the universe the way it really is. But our space-mind is pretty good. It keeps me from running into the walls and safe in high speed motor traffic. My student in the front row demonstrated his ability to catch the pencil perfectly when it came flying through the air unexpectedly.

The Time-mind thinks in words and forms those words into opinions. The time-mind is into becoming, its interested in cause and effect, it is always predicting the future based on its understanding of the past. So the time-mind forms an opinion of reality from words and thoughts. This opinion of reality is what I call the world of “ought to be”.

Our time-mind uses all of its cause and effect knowledge to predict the way things “ought to be”. And we are always carrying our opinions of how it “out to be” with us at all times. Seven o’clock in the evening, and I run out of milk. So I get in my car and go down to Seven-Eleven only to discover they’re closed. “Damn it! That’s not the way it ought to be!” My space-mind shows me a picture of a closed store  —  the world the way it is. My time-mind tells me in words,“That’s not the way it ought to be.”And, so my space-mind prepares my body to fight. I discuss this dual world more completely elsewhere.

Now let us examine how the space-mind and time-mind make their decisions which is very different.

Let us begin by examining how the space-mind makes its decisions. Remember the animal mind is a Space-mind. He moves toward pleasure and away from pain—toward good space—away from bad space. My cat comes running when he hears the automatic can opener. He jumps into my lap to get a good rub. He runs away when hears the bark of a dog. Or the slam of a door.

The space-mind has only one goal—survival. Once achieved, the space-mind is content. It has no need to become, no need for achievement, no need to accomplish anything more than survival. My house cat once he has obtained shelter and good food has no need to do anything more. He is willing to lie by the fire, day after day, year after year—totally content with his full belly and his masters stroking hand. But if he encounters pain he gets away from it as fast as is possible. And few animals move as fast a “scalded cat”.

Space-mind Deciding

The space-mind’s purpose is to secure survival for the body. When it’s decisions produce high survival it feels pleasure. When its decisions produce low survival it feels pain. The space-mind tries to guide the organism towards pleasure and away from pain.

 

Very high survival is called ecstasy. Sexual orgasm feels very good because reproduction of the organism is the most powerful form of biological survival. Very low survival is called agony. So this is how the space-mind makes all its decisions. It moves towards pleasure and away from pain. The space-mind is concerned about being. Survival is being. Is my being pleasurable or painful.

Time-mind Deciding

The time-mind works in totally different fashion. The time-mind is concerned about becoming. To become somebody, I need to understand. And, if I understand something I know what it means. So understanding, allows me to develop meaning in my life. Meaning and becoming are tied integrally to understanding.

Understanding leads us to predict what will happen and with accurate prediction, I can control. We humans judge our lives by how the events in our world compare to our predictions. So if nothing is going the way I predict it should—If nothing is the way it ought to be, I feel depressed.

Depression results when our lives are not working as we predict they should. I predict a well deserved raise in my salary, but instead I get fired. I predict the pleasure and enjoyment of a brand new car, but I buy a lemon. I predict my wife will throw me a surprise birthday party, but she doesn’t even remember my birthday.

When life does not occur as I predict it should, I am disappointed. When my experiences do not become what I expect they should, I am depressed. And, just the opposite, when things go the way I predict they should, I am satisfied and excited. I predicted I would win the award as an outstanding employee, and I won the award. I predicted I should get a new car, and I did and its even nicer than I imagined. I wanted my spouse to celebrate my birthday, and she threw me a marvelous party with all my friends.

 

Now let us examining the spectrum of our prediction accuracy. We can have very low prediction accuracy—very low meaning. Life can be depressing.

We can have low prediction accuracy—low meaning. Life can be disappointing.

We can have high predictive accuracy—high meaning. Life can be satisfying.

We can have very high predictive accuracy—very high meaning. Life can be exciting.

Things are going the way I predict they should be going. My life is meaningful. I am becoming a success. I feel in control.

Dual Mind Deciding

Now if we can examine the dual-mind as a unified entity. Happiness is when my life is both pleasurable andsatisfying. I feel joyous when my life is both ecstatic and exciting. And sadness is when my life is disappointing and painful. Or in the extreme when its agonous and depressing.

 

This model then explains how all humans make all their decisions. But which path I will follow to achieve happiness depends on how I think the world works. Synergic science shows there are three types of humans to be found in our present world.

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

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

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

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

We believe that you should, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” What is it that most of us want others to do unto us? Synergic scientists answer this question as follows: Help and support others as you would wish them to help and support you.  Or, more simply, ”Treat others the way they want to be treated.” 

Synergists are trying to heal the wounds inflected by those who don’t understand how the world could work. This then is the essential challenge to the synergists. Can we work together and act responsibly in time to save our ourselves on this planet? … Only by helping each other.