Timothy Wilken, MD
When I began searching for a better way for humankind, I new we
would have to learn to do things in a different way. My goal was to
find a safe path that humankind could follow to move from our
adversary-neutral past to a synergic future.
I called this path SafePassage. This
word was important to me and I even used it as the original title for
my books on Synergic Science. Before moving on it is important that
the reader understand what is meant by synergic science. If you already
understand this, skip down to the next section.
What is Synergic Science ?
Some of you may be familar with the term synergy. Synergy means
working together—operating together as in Co-Operation—laboring
together as in Co-Laboration—acting together as in Co-Action. The goal
of synergic union is to accomplish a larger or more difficult task than
can be accomplished by individuals working separately.
R. Buckminster Fuller was a pioneer of synergic science —the
science of working together— the science of whole systems, he
considered the relationships between the parts that make up a system.
He discovered that it is how these parts relate with one another that
will absolutely determine the success of the whole system.
The dictionary defines synergy as the working together of two
things to produce an effect greater than the sum of their individual
effects. A simple example might be two muscles working together or two
medications combined to treat a medical illness. R. Buckminster Fuller writing in 1975 explained it this way:
Synergy means behavior of whole systems unpredicted by
the behavior of their parts taken separately. Synergy means behavior of
integral, aggregate, whole systems unpredicted by behaviors of any of
their components or subassemblies of their components taken separately
from the whole. Synergy is the only word that means this. The fact that
we humans are unfamiliar with the word means that we do not think there
are behaviors of "wholes" unpredicted by the behavior of "parts".
Synergy
can best be illustrated I think, by chrome-nickel-steel — chromium,
nickel, and iron. The most important characteristic of strength of a
material is its ability to stay in one piece when it is pulled — this
is called tensile strength, it is measured as pounds per square inch,
PSI. The commercially available strength of iron at the very highest
level is approximately sixty thousand PSI; of chromium about seventy
thousand PSI; and of nickel about eighty thousand PSI. The weakest of
the three is iron.
We all know the saying, "a chain is only as
strong as its weakest link". Well, experiment on chrome-nickel-steel,
pull it apart, and you will find that it is much stronger than its
weakest link of sixty thousand PSI. In fact it is much stronger than
the eighty thousand PSI of its stronger link. Thus the saying that a
chain is as strong as its weakest link doesn't hold. So, let me say
something that really sounds funny: Maybe a chain is as strong as the
sum of the strength of all its links. Let's add up the strengths of the
components of chrome-nickel-steel and see. Sixty thousand PSI for iron
and seventy thousand PSI for chromium and then and eighty thousand PSI
for the nickel, that gives you two hundred and ten thousand PSI. If we
add in the minor constituency of carbon and manganese we will add
another forty thousand PSI giving us a total of two hundred and fifty
thousand PSI.
Now the fact is that under testing,
chrome-nickel-steel shows three hundred and fifty thousand PSI—or one
hundred thousand PSI more than the combined strength of all the links.
This
is typical of synergy, and it is the synergy of the various metal
alloys that have enabled industry to do all kinds of things that man
never knew would be able to be done based on the characteristic of the
parts.
Another Synergic Science pioneer Edward Haskell taught us that when we apply synergic science to examining our human relationships, we discover:
•relationships can be adversary where either I lose or you lose or we both lose,
•relationships can be neutral where we don't lose, but neither do we win,
•or, relationships can be synergic — good for both of us — WIN-WIN.
Synergic
system analysis reveals that efficiency within a system is a direct
variable of the type of relationship. Win-win relationships maximize
efficiency. Win-lose or lose-win relationships severely limit
efficiency. And the lose-lose relationship allows no possibility of
efficiency. We can be more working together than we can be working separately.
And, much more working together than we can be working against each
other. This is just common sense.
Human synergy is working together by explicit intent. (1+1)>>2
Human neutrality is working separately and ignoring each other. (1+1)=2
Human adversity is working against each other.(1+1)<2
R.
Buckminster Fuller and Edward Haskell's achievements were in
understanding how whole systems are created in physical Universe. They
discovered that Nature always forms whole systems using win-win
relationships. This results in the sum of the whole system being much
more than the sum of the parts making up the system. Nature was always seeking more for less — always seeking maximum
efficiency in all that she did. Fuller called the principle of seeking
more for less the "dymaxion" way. This is of course simply another way of stating the Principle of Least Action.
As I began to master synergic science—the science of working together, I began to realize that SafePassage
would come from getting evermore humans using synergic process. How
could I do that? I knew that most humans are motivated by making a
profit. If I could show them how they could be more successful by
acting synergically rather than adversarily or neutrally, they might
seek co-Operation.
Synergic Systems — the cooperator's reward
The most dymaxion principles always occur within wholes. Wholes
— made up of parts having win-win relationships with each other. It is
the win-win relationship that produces a profit for all of the parts.
This is why the sum of the whole is more than the sum of the parts.
Edward Haskell's term for this more is the cooperator's reward.
I was interested in synergic relationships not with atoms or
molecules, but with human beings. I knew there was no law of Nature
preventing humans from forming win-win relationships. If we humans
could learn to organize synergically, we would also gain access to the
co-operator's reward.
By applying win-win strategy to human organizations, it would
be possible to to synergize an organization so that the sum of the
whole organization is much more than the sum of the talents, abilities,
& resources of the individuals making up the organization.
Adversary Systems — the conflictor's loss
However, today's human organizations are at best neutral systems
with much internal adversary process, or at worse adversary systems.
Adversary process is characterized by losing relationships between the
individuals of the system.
Adversary process is by definition conflict — the struggle to
avoid loss. Within an adversary system, the sum of the whole
organization is much less than the sum of the talents, abilities, &
resources of the individuals making up that system. Haskell called this
much less — the conflictor's loss.
Conflict and losing relationships severely limit efficiency,
productivity, and quality of work-life. If we humans desire more for
less, we must learn to organize without conflict. If we desire to avoid
the conflictor's loss, we must learn to organize without "losing"
relationships.
Nature has succeeded in removing the conflict from between the
cells of our bodies., Can we learn to remove the conflict from between
the individuals within our human organizations? Nature has learned to
produce win-win relationships between the cells and tissues, between
the organs and systems of organs that comprise the human body. Can we
humans now learn to produce win-win relationships between the
individuals and departments, between the units and divisions that
comprise our organizations?
I believed the very future of our species depended on finding
the way. I knew the ideal system would be synergic, but as to what
particular form it would take I was not sure. Then I realized I needed
to make some synergic tools.
Tool Users and Tool Makers
Humans have been using tools from the days of our earliest
history. Many Anthropology and Evolutionary Scientists define human as
the tool maker and tool user.
Archimedes is generally credited with the first scientific description of a tool. It was called the law of the lever.
Tools—Physical Levers
Tools are physical levers of human action. It is any device or
mechanism that provides the user with leverage—any device or mechanism
that leverages human action. We are all familar with physical tools.
Our homes are full of tools. We all have a tool drawer that
has our screwdrivers, pliers, hammers, scissors, needles, tape, etc.,
etc., etc.. These are all tools. These are all levers of human action.
If we look around our house we find appliances, televisions, stereos,
radios, and computers. These are also tools—levers of human action. If
we look in our garage, we find our more tools, power drills, crowbars,
skill saws, air pumps, lawnmowers, and automobiles.
Knowing—Metaphysical Levers
Levers are not always physical—not always tangible. Levers can
also be procedures, formulas, or kitchen recipes. These are
metaphysical levers. Buckminster Fuller explained that some of our most
powerful levers are metaphysical—that means they have no weight or
substance. They are simply patterns of advantage. Another term for
these metaphysical levers—these patterns of advantage are "knowing".
One of the earliest and most important patterns of advantage
was the "knowing" of the sequence for starting fire. When a group of
early humans had a member who could start fire, they held an enormous
survival advantage. Knowing the sequence one must use to build a table
for your kitchen or make a gourmet meal for your family are examples of
metaphysical levers. These are patterns of advantage.
Learning to read is learning to understand sequence. The
meaning of written words depend on the sequence of their letters and
that is just as true for numbers.
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQUSTUVWXYZ
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
The meaning of written sentences depend on the sequence of the words.
The quick red fox jumped over the lazy dog.
Synergic Levers for SafePassage
I would need to develop synergic levers that humans could use to
solve the real problems in their lives. The synergic process itself
would be embedded within these levers.
Read the full description of ORTEGRITY
Also see GIFTegrity
