Timothy Wilken, MD
Life’s pattern of organization is the tensegrity,
it has been in use on earth for over three and one half billion years.
The tensegrity is the basis of organizing all living systems including
our own bodies. Up until now we humans have not understood the
mechanism and therefore could not use this pattern to organize our
marriages, our businesses, our organizations and institutions, our
communities, or even the entire human species.
Humans who organize themselves using the pattern of tensegrity
will find themselves orders of magnitude more efficient, more
productive, more creative, more intelligent. More importantly they will
be much more successful in pursuing their goals and desires.
Within this half century, we humans have developed ergometric
science to help us improve our tool-making. Ergometric scientists tell
us how to best design tools to fit the human form. By carefully
measuring both the physiology and psychology of the human body, today’s
scientists are seeking to determine the best designs for new tools.
They know that the best tools are those that fit you like a
well-tailored glove fits your hand.
Recently ergometric science has been much advanced by a
breakthrough in our understanding of human intelligence. With the
development of the “dual mind” model of human intelligence it is now
possible to design tools that fit the human “mind-brain”. In other
words, we can now ergometrically engineer tools to fit the way we
humans think.
We humans are the toolmakers, and in our history we have made
many tools — both simple and complex. The most complex and complicated
of all our tools are our organizations — the corporations,
institutions, militaries, and governments of earth. These are also the
most important tools in all our lives, for they significantly influence
both the quality and quantity of our lives. Of all the tools we might
seek to ergometrically engineer to fit the human “mind-brain”, there
exists no greater potential benefit for all humankind then by applying
this science to our most complex tools — our human organizations.
One such tool has recently completed development, and is now
available to organizations for immediate application. This first
ergometrically designed tool for human organizations is called the
Ortegrity. The Ortegrity is a “mind-brain” compatible system of
organizing humans. It can be used by a small group of individuals or a
giant corporation with hundreds of thousands of employees.
The Ortegrity is a “system of human organization that creates
a conflict-free environment for decision making and action
implementation”. This is an environment so ergometrically suited to
human thinking that efficiency and productivity are predicted to
increase 10 to 1000 times. Yes, that is 10 to 1000 times more efficient
and productive.
The Ortegrity achieves its great power by creating an ideal
psychological environment for human thinking. One important finding of
recent mind-brain research, is “that whenever humans experience
conflict they lose access to their full intelligence”. When humans are
confronted with conflict, their mind-brains shift to a very primitive
and highly reactive way of thinking called the survive mode. The
survive mode evolved in the jungle to insure physical survival. Its
primary skills are fighting and fleeing. Its extremes are rage and
terror. All humans thinking in the survive mode will find their
intelligence to be severely limited. Access is lost to the faculties of
reason and intuition. In severe conflict, many of us lose even our
ability to speak. Unfortunately, the survive mode turns on with the
slightest conflict, and instantaneously our intelligence begins to
decrease. It is not simply on or off. It is more like the rheostat
dimmer switch controlling a dinning room light. A little conflict will
produce a little loss of intelligence, while a large conflict will
produce a large loss of intelligence. If we remain in conflict for
weeks, then we will operate at limited intelligence for weeks. And in
full rage or terror, we humans access only a tiny fraction of our
potential intelligence. Conflict is to organizations as friction is to
machinery.
The power of the Ortegrity results then from its unique
ability to create a conflict-free state. It is this conflict-free state
that optimizes human intelligence and creativity. It is this
conflict-free state that maximizes efficiency and productivity. It is
this conflict-free state that increases the quality of work-life. It is
the conflict-free state that allows all relationships between all
members to become win-win.
In the difficult political-economic times ahead, organizations
must learn to work smarter. Only by optimizing the human factor can
they hope to survive. The Ortegrity promises to increase efficiency and
productivity by 10 to 1000 times. It accomplishes this by increasing
the intelligence and creativity of all members in the system. This is
working “smartest”. The Ortegrity was designed to fit the human
“mind-brain” like a well tailored glove fits your hand, it could change
the way we all work and live in the future.
When living systems — the plants, the animals, and our own
human bodies are compared to the best of man-made systems — the
corporations, the institutions, our governments and militaries, Living
systems are found to be one to three orders of magnitude more efficient
and productive. By utilizing the Ortegrity, it appears possible to
restructure human organizations so they are ten to one thousand times
more efficient and productive.
Synergic Consensus
Synergic consensus is a much more powerful mechanism of decision
than the majority rule of present day committees. All decisions with an
Ortegrity system are made within Decision Heterarchy. A decision
heterarchy is made up of a group of humans with common purpose. The
minimum number is 2 the maximum number is presently unknown. I believe
the ideal size may be ~six or seven individuals. The group is organized
horizontally with all individuals sharing equal authority and equal
responsibility.
We humans are most familiar with the committee system. It is
very different than the Heterarchy. While they are both methods of
organizing human individuals to make decisions for group action.
Committees are filled with conflict and highly ineffective. In a
committee no individual is held responsible for the actions taken by
the group. And decision is made by majority ultimatum. A desenting
minority member can support the action he voted against or leave the
committee. Heterarchy of the Ortegrity, in contrast organizes
individuals to have equal authority to decide on joint action with
equal responsibility for the resultant that is produced by that action.
Synergic consensus occurs when a group of humans sitting in
heterarchy negotiate to reach a decision in which they all win and in
which no one loses. In a synergic heterarchy, all members sit on the
same level as “equals”. No one has more authority than anyone else.
Every one has equal responsibility and equal authority within the
heterarchy. The assignment for the heterarchy is to find a plan of
action so that all members win. It is the collective responsibility of
the entire heterarchy to find this “best” solution. Anyone can propose
a plan to accomplish the needs of the group. All problems related to
accomplishing the needs would be discussed at length in the heterarchy.
The proposed action for solving a problem is examined by all
members of the heterarchy. Anyone can suggest a modification, or even
an alternative action to solve the problem. All members of the
heterarchy serve as information sources for each other. The heterarchy
continues in discussion until a plan of action is found that will work
for everyone. When all are in agreement and only then can the plan be
implemented. The plan insures that all members of the synergic
heterarchy win. All members are required to veto any plan where they or
anyone else would lose. But all vetoes are immediately followed by
renegotiation to modify the plan so the loss can be eliminated.
Unanimous Agreement
Synergic consensus is unanimous agreement. I can hear the
objections now. “That’s impossible, you will never get everyone in the
group to agree.” “Decisions will never get made.” “It is hard enough to
get a majority to agree.”
A Japanese business heterarchy is slower at making decisions
than a single manager in an American business hierarcy. It takes longer
for a group of individuals to discuss, negotiate, and come to agreement
than it takes for a single American manager to decide all by himself.
If the speed of making decisions is the only criteria for choosing a
mechanism of decision making then the business tyrant — the rule by one
is the clear standout.
However, the Japanese have shown us the disadvantages of other
directed hierarchies. Majority rule committee is not a rapid decision
making process. Individuals within a committee are seeking to gain the
majority of support. This takes time — sometimes a lot of time. The
focus is on lining up votes — working deals — in a word — politics.
This process is anything but rapid. If all decisions in American
businesses were made by majority rule, decision making would probably
be even slower than in Japanese companies using heterarchical
consensus.
Synergic consensus is only now becoming available to humanity.
We do not yet know how fast it will be at making decisions. But, I
predict that decision making by synergic consensus will prove faster
than decision making by majority rule. Synergic consensus elimates
conflict. Recall conflict is the stuggle to avoid loss. Conflict is at
the very heart of majority rule decison making. The focus of synergic
consensus is very different. The entire group knows from the outset
that they cannot lose. They are focused on choosing a plan of action
that serves the needs of all the members in the group — to choose a
plan of action that causes no one to lose. The synergic veto is not
invoked capriciously. The only basis for synergic veto is to prevent
someone from losing. This is a mechanism to eliminate loss — to choose
the very best plan of action for everyone. This may well speed up the
process of decison making. In any event regardless of the speed of
decision, implimentation will be rapid. There is no conflict. This is a
major advantage.
The Synergic Veto
Synergic Mechanism accepts the Neutral value — To Prohibit Loss.
Those humans using synergic mechanism desire just as strongly as those
using neutral mechanism not to lose, but synergic mechanism is more.
Both parties need to win. Let us recall our basic definition,
Co-OPERATION — def — >
Operating together to insure that both parties win and that neither
party loses. The negotiation to insure that both parties are helped and
neither party is hurt.
Co-Operation is the
mechanism of action necessary whenever an individual desires to
accomplish a task beyond his individual abilities. Imagine, you and a
friend are moving a heavy piece of furniture. Neither of you are strong
enough to move the furniture by yourself. You decide to co-operate —
You decide to operate together during the lifting. You would negotiate
to insure the win — to insure being helped. The conversation might go like this: “Are you ready?” “Ok.”
“Ready, 1.. 2.. 3.. lift!” and if things are going well that is fine,
but if one end gets too heavy then Synergic Co-Operation prohibts
loss... “Whoops! Set it down.” This is the synergic veto.
This is the true meaning of co-Operation — the negotiation to
insure that both individuals win. And the synergic veto to stop the
action if either party is losing. Losing is the only valid use for
synergic veto. All synergists are required to immediately veto any
action in which they or anyone else would be harmed — any action in
which they or anyone else would lose.
No-win Scenarios
Remember, even when you use synergic mechanism you can’t always
win. There will times when the contraints facing a synergic group are
such that loss is unavoidable. Synergic mechanism strives to make this
a rare situation, but loss will occur. If you can’t find a win-win
scenario to clear a synergic veto, then synergic mechanism dictates the
group must admit and accept the inevitability of loss. When a No-Win
situation occurs, the synergic group shifts its focus to finding that
action or solution that will minimize the loss. And then, whatever the
loss is, it must be shared equally.
In synergy, we are one. In synergy are equal. In synergy we
strive to win together. But if we are forced to lose, then we will lose
together — this means we will all share equally in the loss.
Synergic Equality
The basic unit of synergic organization is a synergic group
organized as heterarchy. All members of a synergic heterarchy are
equal. They share equal responsibility for the actions chosen by the
group. They share equal authority in the process of choosing those
actions. When individuals work together in synergic relationship to a
accomplish a common goal. They are considered as a single system.
When individuals work together in synergic relationship, new
abilities, skills, talents, etc., emerge as a part of that
relationship, that are not there when the individuals work separately.
The individuals working in synergic group are more efficient, more
productive, more creative, and more intelligent, than they are when
working separately. The result of their synergy is that they create
“more” together than they could create apart. This “more” is Haskell’s
“Co-Operators’ surplus”.
When individuals work together in synergic relationship, they
equally contribute to the synergic emergents, and will share equally in
the Co-Operators’ surplus. Haskell’s “Co-Operators Surplus” is property
and it is owned equally by all who synergized within the synergic group
to create it. Within a synergic group all members commit to the Six
Tenets of Synergic Equality.
1) In synergy, I am ONE with my associates.
2) In synergy, I am MORE with my asscociates than by myself.
3) In synergy, I am EQUAL to all my associates.
4) In synergy when we WIN, I will win MORE with my associates than by myself and I will share equally in the GAINS.
5) In synergy, when we LOSE, I will lose LESS with my associates than by myself and I will share equally in the LOSSES.
6) In synergy, we will win together or lose together, but we are TOGETHER.
SYNERGY — Working Together
In synergic relationship individuals continue negotiating to
insure the win, In synergic relationship, all players are focused on
winning. Everyone is seeking help. The game calls for only winners,
there is no need for loss. Each player is expected and encouraged to
veto any suggested plan wherein they would lose. It is of primary
importance in synergic relationship to veto all loss positions. Failure
to do so instantly shifts the relationship back to adversary, with the
immediate return of conflict. In contrast, since there are no losers in
synergic relationships, there is also no conflict. And because
obtaining help by helping others attracts the highest quality help,
real winners seeks synergic help. Seek always synergic help by making
sure that those who help you also win. Be sure they understand how
their helping you will also help them. Use the following approach to
help you succeed.
Whenever you encounter conflict in a potential helper, they
are struggling to avoid loss. This means they believe they will lose by
helping you.
1) Analyze the relationship, if your potential helper
is really losing, then modify the plan so they will win. To proceed
without modifying your plan will only continue conflict and get you
only the lowest quality help. 2) If the potential helper simply misunderstands, and in fact he
really does win, then explain why he misunderstands, or fill in the
information as to how he wins. When he knows he will win by helping you
— he will immediately seek co-Operation.
TRUSTING — Synergic Attitude
The most powerful strategy one can use in our present world then
is to seek synergic relationship. But survival requires you to avoid
individuals comitted to adversary relationships. They too, are seeking
to make you help them — the adversary way needs losers.
Synergists are sometimes mistaken by adversary players as weak
adversaries. This is not the case. A good synergist immediately notices
any loss, and will seek co-operation. If relationship where both
parties win cannot be negotiated, then the synergist will break off a
relationship with the committed adversary.
Synergists don't fight or flight; they communicate and
negotiate. They understand to fight or flight is to abandon the
synergic way for instant conflict — for instant hurt — for instant
loss. The synergic individual desires always to win. He seeks synergic
relationship to increase his chances of winning.
Anytime, the synergist is not winning, he seeks to
renegotiate. If he is unable to co-Operate, he chooses not to conflict.
He simply ends the relationship with the least possible loss. He lives
the attitude of the good synergist. I am a helper, and therefore I will
help you, and trust you to help me. I will seek to help all my fellow
humans, but my resources are limited, and in the long run, I must help
those who help me.
Avoiding Ultimatums
Ultimatum is an adversary condition when the stronger forces the
weaker to lose. This can occur between two individuals or between two
nations. For example, let us assume that two individuals decide to help
each other — that is they decide to work together — to form an “us”.
These individuals will discover their individual preferences are
constrained by their joint life. Because they share resources, they
can't both live in their favorite city, or in their favorite house, or
own their favorite automobile, unless by chance they have identical
favorites. The “us” is formed to gain the power and advantage of
interdependence. Interdependence’s “division of labor” improves the
standard of living for both, but the price for the higher standard of
living is that the choices of both individuals are constrained by the
needs and wants of the other.
In the adversary relationships, we experience this constraint
as the ultimatum. The ultimatum is an opportunity to lose. You can
lose-a-little or you can lose-a-lot, but you will lose.
Imagine, a husband comes home from work. He says to his wife,
“Well, I lost my job today. I have had it with the bay area. We
are going to move to Los Angeles, there are good jobs there.” His wife
counters, “But, I don't like Los Angeles. The kids and I will lose, if
we have to move to Los Angeles.” The husband plays the trump card.
“Well you can either go to Los Angeles or you can get a divorce. Its up
to you, but I'm moving to L.A.”
Which do you want? — a broken arm or a broken leg? Your choice
is between losing-a-little by moving to a community you don't like, or
losing-a-lot by getting a divorce, but you are going to lose.
Seeking Bindings
Now constraint is placed on any group of individuals who choose
to live or work together. This is a law of physics. Constraint does not
go away in the synergic relationship. But it remains only a constraint,
and not a compromise. In synergic relationship, you are never forced to
lose. You, in fact, are encouraged and expected to veto all losses. The
only path the two of you agree to walk is one in which you both win. In
synergic relationship there is no loss. You may win-a-lot or you may
win-a-little, but you will win.
The synergic alternative to the ultimatum is called the
binding. It is the contract that results from the negotiation to insure
the win — co-Operation. It is the contract establishing a relationship
in which you both win in which you both are helped.
Imagine, our husband coming home who enjoys synergic
relationship with his wife. “Honey, I got laid off today, I have really
had it with the bay area. I just can’t stay here anymore. I feel like
I’m losing.” “Well, where do you want to go?” “Los Angeles, I hear
there are good jobs down there.” “No, the kids and I would lose in Los
Angeles. How about Denver?” “Okay, I could live with that. Let me check
the job market tomorrow.”
In synergic relationship there is no loss. You may win-a-lot or you may win-a-little, but you will win.
Life Utilizes Synergic Consensus
Today, mind and brain scientists have made enormous progress in
understanding how the human brain works. There has been many surprises
in these recent advances. But the biggest shocker is that the brain
doesn’t decide what to do. Decision making is not controlled centrally
in the brain. The mind-brain appears to act as a coordination and
consensus system for meeting all the needs of the cells, tissues, and
organs of the body. The brain doesn’t decide to eat. The cells of the
body decide to eat, the brain coordinates their activity and carries
out the consensus will.
Our human brain stores the gathered information from the
body’s sensing of its environment, the brain presents opportunities for
action reflective of both the sensing of environment and the needs and
goals of the 40,000,000,000,000 cells it serves. The brain is not the
leader of the body, it is the follower of the body. It is a system that
matches needs of the body with its sensing of opportunities to meet
these needs by action within the environment. The brain is a ‘synergic
government’ that truly serves its constituents — the cells, tissues,
and organs that make up the human body. The body is governed by
unanimous consensus and has survived millions of years.
The apparent ‘I’ is not real. It is really a ‘we’. We humans
have mistaken the self-organization of synergic consensus for the
directed organization of an ego decider.
If the human body can using unanimous rule democracy and
synergic consensus can organize and coordinate the actions of
40,000,000,000,000 cells so totally that we identify the whole organism
as a single idividual, then we humans should be able to use these same
mechanisms to organize our species and solve our human problems.
To be continued ...
