Tuesday, March 30, 2010

Peace: The Structure of Systemic Reality

Before we go into a discussion of the principle of pretence, or the unique human ability to pretend, let us take some time to understand the basic structure of systemic reality that is beginning to emerge.

Systemic reality is the global or universal property that ensures that everything in the universe is a system and functions as part of a system. This is not just a theory; it is the ultimate reality.

Ludwig von Bertalanffy took note of this characteristic in nature and came up with his General Systems Theory. Shortly after that James Grier Miller developed Living Systems Theory. This progression from GST to LST fits in with our understanding of the origin of life; General Systems Theory representing the systemic nature of non-life and Living Systems Theory representing the systemic nature of living things. First there was non-life and then there was life. First there was General Systems Theory and then there was Living Systems Theory.

Because human life is so unique I would like to propose Rational Systems Theory, which would account for the unique human ability to pretend. It is in Rational Systems Theory that the true power of systemic reality is realized. Obviously, it is responsible for the continued existence of everything from the mighty universe to the smallest quark. But when coupled with the human capacity for to assume a foreign identity through pretence it demands our attention.

These two concepts give rise to the idea that the systems we call individual human beings will behave in accordance with what they are or what they may think they are. Both their true identity and their assumed identity will be displayed in their behavior. The most fundamental aspect of a system is found in the definition Bellinger proposed; it exists to maintain its own existence. We have no control over this. This is not selfishness. It is the natural outworking of systemic reality.

As systems we have no natural responsibility to be our brother’s keeper. Our primary and only reason for living is to ensure that we survive. Any concern we have for the welfare of others exists, not because we are rational beings – rational systems – but because together we belong to a larger system.

Sunday, March 28, 2010

Peace: Making Sense of the Issues

Given the popularity of General Systems Theory today it may come as something of a surprise to some that when it was first proposed it was thought to be fantastic or presumptuous. Here is what Ludwig von Bertalanffy, the founder of General Systems Theory wrote in his seminal work on the subject:

Either—it was argued—it was trivial because the so-called isomorphisms were mere examples of the truism that mathematics can be applied to all sorts of things, and it therefore carried no more weight than the “discovery” that 2+2=4 holds true for apples, dollars and galaxies alike; or it was false and misleading because superficial analogies—as in the famous simile of society as an “organism”—camouflage actual differences and so lead to wrong and even morally objectionable conclusions. Or, again, it was philosophically and methodologically unsound because the alleged “irreducibility” of higher levels to lower ones tended to impede analytical research whose success was obvious in various fields such as in the reduction of chemistry to physical principles, or of life phenomena to molecular biology. [Ludwig von Bertalanffy, (1968). General Systems Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications. Braziller: New York. p. 14.]

Many efforts have been made to define a system, each one emphasizing different perspectives. The most effective definition may be the one offered by Gene Bellinger which he claims he owes to von Bertalanffy. He defined a system as “an entity which maintains its existence through the mutual interaction of its parts.” It contains three important ideas about a system: 1. it is an entity, 2. it exists to maintain its existence, 3. It does so through mutual interaction of its parts.

We have already discussed the first in our blog about the distinction between organizations and organisms. The second and third ideas highlight the need for cooperative coexistence, both among humans as individuals and among the various groups into which humans organize themselves. Each system exists to maintain its own existence.

Let us suppose that System 1 has three components: System A, System B, and System C. System A does not exist to be concerned about either the existence of System B or of System C. As far as System A is concerned, the existence of System B or of System C is a non-issue. Any concern that System A has for System B and System C only exists because of System 1 to which all three belong. Under our definition of a system and the concept of systemic reality, it is the responsibility of System 1 to ensure the mutual interaction of System A, System B and System C. System A has no responsibility for System B or System C.

From the perspective of System A, anything that is not one of its components is an enemy, and anything that is perceived to be an enemy will be repelled in order to maintain the existence of System A. It is important to note that this determination does not depend on the geographic placement of that thing.

From a human perspective, it is important to note that group or system identity is independent of geographic location or consciousness. You do not have to be aware that you belong to a system for the principles of systemic reality to apply to you.

Let’s take the case of the hermit sitting all alone on a mountaintop. As far as he is concerned he does not belong to any group, but the universal principle of systemic reality overrides his awareness. Sitting there on the mountaintop he acts in ways that he perceives a hermit should behave because, unknown to him, in his solitude he is a member of a group of individuals called hermits. Even though he is out of touch with any other hermit his very existence helps to maintain the existence of the system called hermits.

You may think that you labor at your particular profession or occupation to provide sustenance. While that is true, it is even truer that by working at that job you are maintaining the existence of that class of professional worker. When it matters you take the side of your profession over that of another. You cannot help it. That is the way of systemic reality.

If we can return briefly to our earlier example, the leader of an organization intuitively knows that he has a responsibility to defend the organization. This is part of belonging to the system. He also knows that “membership” in the system does not mean that the individual identifies with the system. Given the unique human quality of pretence, members of a human system are always on the lookout for plants within the system that do not really belong. Because of the natural, unique quality of pretence, distrust is built-in to our psyche. But this distrust should be against legitimate enemies.

Being at the top of the food chain we should have no natural living enemies. Somehow, we have made enemies of each other. We have a perception problem.

Friday, March 26, 2010

FaceBook comments on "Three Important Issues" (2)

(Darius) A word of caution on the V formation. When two or more V formations meet they never merge into one giant V formation. These are localized formations. But the way the leadership revolves is instructive. The goal is not to lead the formation but to ensure that the formation has leadership. Too often humans confuse the two.

(Teresa) Excellent analogy, Jeanette. I think another reason, and this will sound socialistic in nature (which isn't necessarily a bad thing), is everyone isn't commited to working together for the good of their community (whatever that community may be). I believe if my community is better, my life, living in it, will be better, so I stay involved and engaged. We seem to live in a "grab what you can for yourself and screw everyone else" kind of society. That attitude will not allow for us to "fly in a V".

(Darius) Just to note that Phil first suggested, and Jeanette expanded on, the V formation analogy.

(Jeanette) Thanks for noting that, Darius. Phil 's mentioning the V formation reminded me of one of my favorite movies.... Winged Migration... that showed many details of a flock of geese migrating. I have to admit that I watched it over and over again for the beauty and for the lessons to be learned.
Darius, you are correct that these are localized formations. They are little systems within a larger system that allows the species to reach the same destination in the most efficient manner. More geese make it because of them all working their smaller systems.
And Terri, I believe the V formation is a great example of socialism at its finest.

FaceBook comments on "Three Important Issues" (1)

(Phil) Though it is not given to any specific individual to lead the species, it's everyone's responsibility to do what is necessary for the survival of the species. When it become necessary for someone to take the lead, even for a minute, then it will be understood and supported. This leader may be the man/woman of the hour. And under different circumstances, someone else may rise to carry the torch. Each time, the species will naturally rally behind this individual. We learn this from birds that fly in V- formation.

(Darius) But they do that because they trust whomever it is that takes the lead. Our problem is not how to follow but how to trust.

(Phil) Exactly, we go back to our primary issue: distrust;-)
This is a bit odd, for they seem to understand that trust is necessary. This simply means that trust is built-in for them. What about us?

(Darius) So I must correct myself, because we know how to trust. We have developed the knack of thinking that some of us do not belong. We trust those we believe are like us.

(Jeanette) Speaking of the V formation... Ducks and geese embrace the V formation because it is expedient for each one of them and the most efficient way to move the flock from place to place. 1. It allows the flock to go more easily in the same direction. 2. The physics of the V enables those behind the leader to use less than full energy, which comes in handy for long flights. 3. It also allows for each bird to avoid the duck and goose poo.
The ducks and geese know that cooperation is advantageous for all of them for the reasons I stated above. How do we get the message across to humans that trust is advantageous for us to the degree that it will "..direct all humans to a state of being in which we intuitively wish to work cooperatively...". What is the magic forumla?

(Phil) This is the reason why Darius pointed at Education. Not as we know it today, though. ;-)

(Inclaire) Education, education, education. Would the V work for humans, or should the V be inverted?

(Jeanette) Inclaire, if we look at the reasons for and the results of the V formation, I think there are applications and lessons we can learn for our species. The leader, at least during migration, shares strength with both legs of the V through the laws of physics. The cooperation between each in the line allows the entire line to share the strength of ... See Morethe leader's flight. If one falls out of formation, the rest have to flap harder to attempt to keep up until the line can be restructured to work again. As one leader tires, another rested one takes its place. If the V were to be inverted, the entire flock would be not only spending their energy inefficiently and not likely to make the long haul but they would be a poopy mess, too. That mess is not only uncomfortable but it weighs the individual down and further causes inefficient flight.
Perhaps one of our problems is that humans are trying to fly in an inverted V and only the "leaders" of the flock are getting the full benefits of air currents created by the flapping wings.

Thursday, March 25, 2010

Peace: Three Important Issues

We began this blog on the topic of global peace with a discussion of the distrust with which adult humans view other humans and which, we suggested, is the reason behind the need for national standing armies. Two more important issues have come to the fore: the human tendency to assemble in groups that are not always cooperative in the way they work; our unique ability to pretend that we members of another species.

All three issues play a role in the example, we discussed earlier, of the group leader who would not keep within the group anyone who is working against the best interests of the group. By extension, they are also implicated in the realization that, whereas every member of the human workforce is working to advance the cause of some institution, none can be said to be working to advance the interests of the species to which they owe their very existence.

Some may argue that this last point is irrelevant because, unlike any of our institutions or groups, no one has been given the responsibility to ensure that the interests of the species are being served. However, on this point we are no different from any of the other species which, it bears repeating, have been our teachers on how to live and survive on this planet. We are well aware of the groups among primates and canines (e.g. wolves, dogs, jackals, foxes). These animal groups have leaders, sometimes called the alpha male. Even though group leadership is an integral quality of these species there is no alpha male who claims leadership of all wolves, or gorillas in the world. Nature seems to abhor global leadership in an individual.

The integrity of the species appears to the entirely determined by the species’ DNA. Individual members of a species do not act cooperatively for the benefit of the species because someone tells them to, or because a group leader keeps them in line, but because it is encoded in their DNA. It is because of these instructions that these groups within a species work cooperatively instead of trying to destroy each other. DNA is the employer, the group leader, the alpha male.

What does this mean for humans who are longing for permanent, universal and lasting peace? The obvious conclusion is that while our institutions (political, sports-related, educational, etc.) can benefit by teaching people associated with these institutions particular ideas about peace, our best hope for global peace is to direct all humans to a state of being in which we intuitively wish to work cooperatively, regardless of our differences and without being required to change our sense of identity.

Maintenance-free peace can never come out of a process in which individuals are forced or shamed into changing, or believe that they were forced or shamed into changing who they believe they are. Resentment will always remain. We have a good example of that in the events that led up to the rise of the Third Reich and the Second World War. Germany signed the Treaty of Versailles but this peace treaty did not take away the notion that the terms of the treaty were restrictive to Germany. Clearly, many Germans shared Adolf Hitler’s passionate desire to throw off those shackles.

To accomplish this goal of a species that functions, in terms of cooperative coexistence, in the same way that every other species on the planet functions we need to understand something of the interplay among the three issues mentioned above and how they relate to who and what we are.

Saturday, March 20, 2010

Peace: In the Meantime

As we think about the last blog I want to share two songs about the subject to keep our thoughts churning. The words and music of first are by Lew Douglas, Cliff Parman, and Frank Lavere. The second is by John Lennon.


Pretend

Pretend you're happy when you're blue
It isn't very hard to do
And you'll find happiness without an end
Whenever you pretend

Remember anyone can dream
And nothing's bad as it may seem
The little things you haven't got
Could be a lot if you pretend

You'll find a love you can share
One you can call all your own
Just close your eyes, she'll be there
You'll never be alone

And if you sing this melody
You'll be pretending just like me
The world is mine, it can be yours, my friend
So why don't you pretend?

And if you sing this melody
You'll be pretending just like me
The world is mine, it can be yours, my friend
So why don't you pretend?


Imagine

Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today...

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace...

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one

Friday, March 19, 2010

Peace: We Belong Here

It should be obvious by now that a full understanding of systemic reality is necessary if we are to find an answer to the most pressing issues humanity faces today.

I speak of systemic reality because it is a fact that the human race is a system because the universe is a system. General Systems Theory and Organizational Theories are academic disciplines that have been developed out of this reality. As with any other academic discipline they may only be partial in their coverage.

Let’s begin with a few indisputable facts. We know that humanity is a bona fide part of the ecosystem of this planet. There is no question that human life began on this planet. We are a terrestrial species. No one would suggest that the first humans were an expeditionary force from a distant galaxy. Not that this would matter. As long as a component is working interdependently with other components to promote the maintenance of a system it is a part of that system.

Based on what we know of natural systems, i.e. that they always work, one would expect that humanity would never do anything to jeopardize the maintenance of the world in which we live, in the same way that every other species on the planet does not jeopardize the maintenance of this planet.

Here we are faced with another fact. We have become a threat to our ecosystem. We have damaged the ozone layer. We have pushed thousands of species into extinction because of our misuse of the environment, e.g. over-grazing, over-fishing, and other forms of over-exploitation of the species. No other species does that. This world is a picture of cooperative coexistence among all the other species that share this space with us.

So, what is it about us that makes us different from the other species? Why are we behaving more as if we were a creation of the human mind than a creation of the global DNA on which everything that happens in world depends?

The answer is simple. Every other species knows exactly how to respond to the stimuli in its environment. We call that instinct. Their behavior is hardwired by their DNA. To speak colloquially, DNA tells them what to do. To some extent DNA also tells us what to do. We have as many organ systems as DNA has prescribed. We have no more limbs than DNA determines. But when it comes to how we act culturally our behavior is not prescribed or proscribed by our DNA. Consequently, we are the only species that is able to act as if it is another species. We are the only species that is able to pretend.

In the area of problem solving, we are not the only species that solves problems. Biologists have observed instances where specimens among other animals have come up with creative solutions to unique situations. But we are the only species that is capable of creating a problem in order to craft a solution. The benefits of this capability are obvious in the results of experimental science. It is great to be able to pretend we are what we really are not.

But there are also some serious drawbacks that we have not taken into account.

Sunday, March 14, 2010

Peace: Understanding Systemic Reality

We are faced with a huge challenge because there are no examples in nature that model how we should deal with self-destructive systems. Such a mechanism for dealing with self-destructive systems has never been developed in the nature because all natural systems work effectively and any threat to their existence always comes from outside of the system. Natural systems are not designed to shorten their lifespan. Having said that we should be quick to note that absence of such a model in nature does not prevent us from determining how to transform a self-destructive system into a self-sustaining system. The purpose of this blog is to demonstrate that through an appreciation of how natural systems work such a scheme can be developed.

In any natural system all the components of the system always works interdependently to maintain the vitality of the system. One could call this the first law of systemic reality. This is what Ludwig von Bertalanffy, the father of modern systems theory, was speaking of when he defined a system as “an entity which maintains its existence through the mutual interaction of its parts.” The implication is that regardless of the varied roles they may play within the parent system, all the parts of any system have the same goal.

This first law can be extended to a second law of systemic reality which posits that every part of a system is itself a system. At the same time that a system is maintaining its existence through the mutual interaction of its parts it is also interacting with other systems to maintain the existence of the larger system to which it belongs. We can conclude from this that every component of a system always works to maintain the existence of the system, and any organism that is not working to maintain the existence of a system is not a member of that system regardless of its physical presence within that system.

This is important because humans are the only organisms that are capable of taking on an alternate reality, i.e. pretending that they belong to a different system than the one to which they belong. This is both exciting and problematic. It is exciting because it has allowed us to create the organization, which has been called humanity’s greatest invention. It is problematic because sometimes the assumed reality can be mistaken for the reality.

It for the latter reason that humans are both an integral part of this ecosystem yet seem to act as if they don’t belong to it in the destructive effect we have had on the world around us.

Friday, March 12, 2010

Peace: Getting it right

It is obvious and universally accepted that something is wrong with humanity. That's the easy part. The difficult part is agreeing on what is wrong so that we can create a solution that is permanent and universal.

One reason is our unwillingness or inability to appreciate why we are so unique among all the species on this planet. By definition, every species is unique. But only humans have the ability to do science. However, this does not elevate us above the other species; it only sets us apart from them. Because, we cannot do science without the other species. This is why observation is the first step in the scientific method. We learn from the other species. One could say that nature uses other species to teach us.

It would take books document all the ways in which we have gained knowledge from observing the other species. Every thing we have learned has come courtesy of the living and non-living things in our environment. Nature appears to have planned it this way. We may not make a big deal of it but it is generally agreed that our planet was functioning perfectly by the time humans first appeared. We are not the ones who put the finishing touches on the planet. Truth be told, in the process of improving our quality of life, a desire that does not appear to exist among other species, we always manage to do harm to this spaceship on which we travel "in circles."

Before we arrived the other species knew how to coexist with which other even though the food web makes many of them enemies of others. They had mastered life before we arrived, it is hardwired in their DNA, and we have had to observe them to learn how to make the best of the conditions in which we find ourselves.

But there is one thing that nature has not been allowed to teach us. In nature we learn how things work and with that knowledge we have been able to "create" things that did not exist when our ancient ancestors arrived here. But nature does not teach us how to repair damage that does not have an external origin.

The reason is simple. The systems that comprise our world never need repair. Natural systems work, whether they be weather systems, ocean currents or galaxies. In living things, the immune system is the ultimate repair man, but it only works against external threats. Every moment it fights against a host of pathogens that keep trying to destroy the body. But it is hopeless against diseases like cancer and auto-immune diseases that are not caused by the environment.

Given our natural education it is not wonder that humans prefer to find a solution for what ails the species by assuming that the problem is caused by an outside source, even though we all know this not to be true. This is even reflected in our language.

Robert Burns first documented the phrase "man's inhumanity to man" in his poem "From Man was made to Mourn: A Dirge." The problem is that every form of behavior that we say is inhumane can only be observed among humans.

We must first properly identify the problem before we can hope for a solution. Nothing else will suffice. Our experiences with cancer and the autoimmune diseases should tell us something.

Monday, March 8, 2010

Peace: A Self-taught Species

Our journey continues with a closer look at the process of science. When something works as efficiently as science has in the service of humanity there is seldom any reason to pay any attention to any limitations it may possess. But the limitations inherent in our scientific processes have lessons to which we need to pay attention.

The ability to do science is what distinguishes us from the rest of the species.
But we sometimes overlook the fact that as a tool of discovery the goal of science is determine what we need to know in order to survive in our environment. When we couple this with the fact that we do science by observing how other species react to their environment the unnerving conclusion is that we are not as intellectually superior as we tend to think we are. We do science because we do not know, and we observe the other species because they do know. I leave it to you to determine which species is smarter.

We do have a leg up on them because we are able to teach in a way they cannot. They cannot pass on their information to us. We must obtain that information by observing them, thus making us the only self-taught species on the planet.

This is a larger potential problem than we could imagine. Not knowing drives our scientific passion but because we do not know exactly what we need to know we have no way of knowing when we know what we should know. We have no teacher to tell us that we have arrived. This means that we may stop our discovery in a particular area after finding a comforting solution that solves one of our survival needs, when a different perspective may provide a more comprehensive solution.

Sunday, March 7, 2010

Peace: A Closer Look is Needed

After posting my last blog I have been hoping that someone would challenge my conclusion that not one member of the global workforce is working to maintain the species to which we belong but, instead, are working for the vitality of one or more human organizations that we hope will collectively maintain the species. It is possible that all my readers agree with me. It is also possible that some or all don’t, but I have no way of knowing why they think I am wrong.

Whatever the truth may be on this point, I think we can all agree that no organization can thrive if its welfare is left to chance. This is the reason any leader of an organization will be very sensitive to the presence in the organization of someone who is undermining or not committed to the growth and development of the organization. Those in leadership will make every effort to ensure that this attitude does not gain a foothold within the organization. If we are truly committed to the welfare of our species, or even the welfare of those who must come behind us, we have to address this issue.

The obvious challenge was indirectly presented above. Unlike our organizations no global leader of the human race has been identified. Historically, anyone who has ever attempted to become the global leader of the species has failed in the attempt.

It appears that we have been burdened with a colossal problem but do not have a ready mechanism for solving it. I believe that much can be gained by taking a close look at aspects of our knowledge base that have not been much emphasized.

Science has done much to improve the condition of man. But there is nothing magical about science. Even though we think ourselves to be superior to the other species on the planet the truth is that they have been our teachers. Nothing that humans have accomplished on this planet is original with us. Science itself begins with the fine art of observation. First we observe the other species doing the things they know how to do and we then try our best to apply that knowledge to our own situation. In many instances, e.g. diet, lodging and body markings, we mimic them well. In other situations, e.g. flight in birds, we are still playing catch up. We have observed the efficiency of avian flight but we have not learned to fly. What we call human flight is only an advanced version of a rock being catapulted through the air under controlled conditions.

On the question of the relationship between the plight of organizations and the human species maybe we have not been as observant as we should have been. The organization is truly man’s most potent invention but it is nothing more than a machine with human parts. We learned about group dynamics from observing its operation in the species around us. General Systems Theory is a result of that observation. Maybe it is time for a closer look.

Monday, March 1, 2010

Peace: Reasons why our current methods will continue to fail.

Even though it is never explicitly stated, every human effort to bring peace to our troubled planet is based on the idea that it is possible to change the world one person at a time. This philosophy is alternatively expressed in the idea that change can be brought to humanity through the leadership efforts of only a few. The philosophy is attractive because it has been shown to work repeatedly. It is unfortunate that we have so universally adopted this philosophy without consideration from its limitations and its restricted applicability.

On the surface the philosophy is true. It is possible to change the world one person at a time. The problem is that the direction of change is not, and cannot be, defined in this philosophy. As a result, it has gone unnoticed that this philosophy drives both the waging of war and peace making efforts. Those who are involved in peacemaking efforts believe that the way to bring peace to humanity is to change the thinking of those individuals presently disposed toward violent conflict. On the other hand, those who fight wars believe that the way to bring peace to humanity is by subjugating or destroying those they believe are not disposed towards their ideas of peaceful coexistence. They fight wars to destroy their enemies so they can live peaceably with their allies. There are other reasons why the philosophy is of no use in our efforts at bringing peace to humanity.

If we look at those occasions in which the philosophy has proven to be true, they have always involved one or more human institutions or organization. This is because a human organization is really a machine with human parts. It is possible to improve a machine one part at a time because a machine is built by bringing together all the parts called for by the design. But, even though humanity bears a striking resemblance to an organization, it is NOT a collection of parts. You see, humans did not invent humanity. We did not design it. We did not put it together. Humanity, as is true of all the other species with which we share this planet, was not conceived, designed, or assembled by humans. It cannot be bettered one person or institution at a time.

Humanity is the product of global DNA and it grew and developed in the same way that any organism grows and develops. Our scientists are smart enough to know that a collection of body parts on a table can never be put together to produce a body. They also know that the only reason why organ transplants work is by suppressing the immune system of the host body to prevent it from rejecting the transplanted organ. Our best efforts will never bring permanent, universal, and lasting peace to humanity as long as our thought and policy leaders continue to treat humanity as if it is an organization rather than an organism.