Timothy Wilken
I long ago realized that synergic organization is so different from how things are done today that it involves a new way of thinking. Because I am describing a unique and novel system, there is always more to explain. And, no matter where I start there is more to hear and understand. In some ways its like the six blind men describing an elephant. They are all correct in their descriptions and yet all wrong.
“It was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
Though all of them were blind,
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind.
“The First approached the Elephant
And, happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
“God bless me, but the Elephant
Is very like a wall!”
“The Second, feeling the tusk,
Cried, “Ho! what have we here
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me ’tis very clear
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a spear!”
“The Third approached the animal
And, happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up he spake:
“I see,” quoth he, “The Elephant
Is very like a snake!”
“The Fourth reached out an eager hand,
And felt about the knee:
“What most the wondrous beast is like
Is very plain,” quoth he;
“Tis clear enough the Elephant
Is very like a tree!”
“The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said, “Even the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can:
This marvel of an elephant
Is very like a fan!”
“The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope
Than, seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,
“I see,” quoth he, “the Elephant
Is very like a rope!”
“And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong.
Though each was partly in the right,
They all were in the wrong!”
The Parable of the Blind Men and the Elephant by John Godfrey Saxe
Dr. Win Wenger is a human intelligence scientist whose work can be seen at Project Renaissance. He has written in response to the thread on Unanimous Rule Concensus:
As this very fine discussion unfolds, even if we are all still at the level of verbal discussion and haven’t yet asked our ImageStreaming faculties to show us what’s REALLY what’s what in this topical area: it begins to look to me as if our various respective positions aren’t all that different. I’m beginning to think that Tim is suggesting, not that we all move immediately and move everything to “Choice # 3.” Rather, there are advantages to such mutually cooperative and consultative (Socratic?) arrangements, and we want to move to take advantage of them when and where possible. Like, it’s desirable to move northward “we can’t all live at the North Pole, but there is some value to moving northward when occasion so permits.
Timothy-> Yes I agree. A synergic culture will not spring up fully grown. It will start with first two, then three, then four humans discovering that they are powerful, safer, and happier by grouping together in synergic organization. They will begin by using the tools of synergy. Unanimous Rule Consensus, The Synergic Veto, Bindings, and many more to be revealed.
As these early synegic groups develop and mature, they will discover that they prefer to deal with other similarly minded groups and individuals. Soon synergic groups will being to ally with each other. The details of how this will be done will be developed by those doing the the doing…
One quibble: not all adversarial relations are harmful. Back when the stakes were more sensible and the U.S. Senate was smaller, there arose the tradition of “Senatorial courtesy.” A very high degree of mutual civility and respect and consultative interaction. It came about this way: each Senator’s objective was to be able to find enough allies on the issues he was concerned over to win a majority. He had to attract allies, and he had to be a respected ally sought out by others. This didn’t mean he didn’t fight hard on the issues—no one wants a wimp as an ally! But by fighting WELL and with the highest courtesies and respect, he was likeliest to find allies when he needed them, so for a
time at least, that became the model and the most frequent practice.
Similar phenomena have been reported for similarly sized legislative bodies or political “courts” (“courtly behavior”) which continued over some sustained period of time and so had over time to deal with a succession of different issues. Some issues cut one way, others another way; your opponents on one CAN be your allies on another if you play it “right.” This seems very close in some regards to what Tim was suggesting for cooperative living via respect and (democratically) consulting whenever possible….. (Yes, here too “you get more of what
you reinforce!”) –win
Timothy-> As a synergic scientist, I define Adversity very carefully using an operational definition.
Adversity is the natural law of animals. It is fighting and fleeing.
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. They compete by devouring the energy-binders.
Animal survival depends entirely on finding others to eat. The herbivores depend on finding plants to eat. The carnivores depend on finding other animals to eat. The animals inability must eat. Animals survive by eating either plants or animals. Animals are completely dependent on other for survival. This fact makes animals the dependent class of life – dependent on other.
Imagine a fox chasing a rabbit, if the fox is quick enough, it will win a meal, at the expense of the rabbit who loses its life. On the other hand, if the rabbit is quicker, the fox loses a meal, and the rabbit wins its life.
The adversary world of animals 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 animals, from the smallest insect to the largest whale are struggling to avoid losing – struggling to avoid being hurt.
CONFLICT -def-> The struggle to avoid loss – the struggle to avoid being hurt.
The animals 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 its might occasionally prevailing by killing or wounding its 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 animal world where the loser forfeits its life (1+1)=1. Or in the end game of losers/losers, both adversaries may die in battle, then (1+1)=0.
* * *
However, with this said it is important to understand that there will still be disagreement, discussion, dialogue and debate. But the goal will not be to prevail or beat the other party it will be to find consensus. What is the third alternative where we both win and no one loses. And if we can’t find a win.
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.
It is such a relief and pleasure when such an Unanimous Rule Consensus forms, and you’re part of a self-elected team working effectively on a common goal. However, I see this only in occasional instances (made more feasible by the Net), and for relatively small groups. I don’t see this becoming a way of life for many people, because I don’t yet have a full understanding of the mechanics of how such a system will work. Let me give two examples of where my as-yet imperfect understanding sees or imagines problems–
1) Given our blessed human variety, what if one of those joining such a group gets his kicks from being obstructionist, and/or what if one who joined with a more appropriate set of intentions then changed his mind? What are the mechanics by which the URC could (a) accomplish anything at all; (b) constrain the recalcitrant member, (c) expell the recalcitrant member, since unanimity is required?
Timothy-> Unanimous Rule Consensus is one component of synergic organization. It is the basis for making decisions. A synergic organization is one in which the members view themselves as part of the same team. As individuals on the same side with common goals.
The meaning of equality within UNC is related to: 1) Being equal in responsibility for the success of the group for the success of making good decisions where all members win and no one loses. 2) Being equal in authority for making the decisions. This means that as a member of a synergic group I not only veto those proposals where I would lose, but I suggest alternative proposals which accomplish the group’s common goal without my loss. And 3) Being equally at risk for the consequences of the joint action taken by the group.
The purpose of us joining together for Co-Operation is that we are trying to accomplish some task that is beyond our abilities as individuals acting separately. If we fail to come to agreement than we will accomplish nothing. I expect that we will see synergic groups formed by individuals of integrity acting in good faith. I expect it will be quite rare to encounter a recalcitrant member.
Admission to a synergic group is by invitation and voluntary.
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.
However, if such a situation does arrive where it becomes clear to the remaining members of the group that one member cannot co-Operate, that individual could be released from the group by unanimous vote of all the remaining members. If no unanimity can be reached then the group itself would be dissolved. And the former members allowed to reorganize as they saw fit.
2) The case of eminent public domain, as representative of a much wider range of situations where various personal interests are at stake. Cities Alpha and Omega are five hundred miles apart and their economies different enough to be highly complementary, if they could somehow get their products and services exchanged between them. The only path for a road to carry this exchange, crosses one hundred different farms/land-owners. The prospect for gain to the two cities combined is a billion dollars a year and with the general spread of prosperity, the prospect of increased income and well being averages out per landowner to one hundred thousand dollars a year each. The material cost of building the road would be, say, ten million dollars. The real cost would be the acquisition and use of the strip of land on which the road would run. Average value of the strip of land, per land owner, ten thousand dollars. Worth the while of the consortium of interests to offer twenty thousand dollars per owner for use of the strip. Everyone comes out ahead. Right? Wrong. Most landowners will be happy to get twenty thousand dollars for a ten thousand dollar strip of land, plus increased prosperity of one hundred thousand dollars per year forever.
BUT: As fewer and fewer holdouts remain, the price for those remaining portions of the strip gets higher. The last holdout could ask more than a half billion dollars for his ten thousand dollar strip of land, it’d be worth the consortium’s while still. But the previous holdout, for a third of a billion? The previous before that….. SOMEBODY among those landowners would find it compellingly in his speculative interest to hold out. Collectively, the holdouts would drive the cost of the project out of reach. One person can devastate and ruin the chances of all other landowners AND the two cities, unless a mechanism exists which allows responsible collective authority of some sort to seize the holdout’s strip and pay him fair compensation, else everyone loses and nothing is accomplished. That right of eminent public domain is, of course, the normal practice or there would be few if any roads in this country, or waterlines, or power lines, or telephones (the wired kind, at least)…..
Timothy-> 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. There has been a 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.
The Institution of 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. Their belief has proven to be wrong.
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 later essays for those that are interested. Unanimous Rule Consensus is only a small part of Synergic Organization. I will explain more as interest develops.
With apologies, I don’t see how most situations involving many people could function on a URC basis. Perhaps I misunderstand the mechanics. Or perhaps what you’re saying is not that this is how we should try to organize most of our affairs, only that as we move deeper into the Information Age and the Laws of Abundance, that we will have more frequent opportunity to do things on a URC basis even if it failed to become our predominant way of living….? –win wenger
Thank you Win for taking the time to read and think about my posts. I am always willing to entertain questions and answer as best I can. I always have time to disclose more and explain more carefully. For you see synergic organization benefits no single Individual, it only has value when used by Community. As we humans become better at Community, I think synergic organization will become a predominant way of living.
Bound through synergy,
Timothy