Those are some great links Kimberly. Another example of how we can pull together ideas across domains and visualize a different future. That is similar to what I was trying to do with the links following The Story.

As I look at each of those organizations - and lots of others - I think that they have placed themselves in the trap of institutional imperatives. Once they set set up a structure and fund its work, the needs of the organization take precedence no matter that the idea they are promoting is noble or timely or important. Each of them becomes "just another organization" competing with all the other organizations for the attention of the public. I think it is that competition that builds the walls of our silos - there is so much focus on getting a share of the available attention that we cannot see how what we do "fits" with what others are doing.

The idea of the global commons could go that way, or, representatives from lots of different organizations could agree to drop their competition and use the global commons to explore their complementarities - how things might fit together in a different future. I still don't think we will make that determination and implement it at the planetary level - so I am talking about a microcosm of that in every community and sharing results from that level on a planetary scale.

I am not sure how to work with the way you frame this

When civilisations fail as systems - as gandhi used to say about British Imperialism - the people at the top are fine fellows they just dont understand what the system is compounding. This is also why einstein discussed in length how hard it is to move above a system you are stuck in. He foresaw technology's converging world as exactly such a crisis. Perhaps, the simplest quick read on this is ackoff - where he gets to defing a faied system as one where teh harder each profession tries the more it makes the system worse

http://www.acasa.upenn.edu/RLACo nfPaper.pdf from http://valuesystem.blogspot.com

Three Dimensional Networking is my attempt to describe the function of that meta-system in which we all participate. The system looks different when we view it in three dimensions than it does from one dimension or from two dimensions – the difference of seeing from the inside rather than seeing from the outside.

When we are seeing (or thinking) in the first dimension, we are focused on what we must give to the system in order to take what we need from the system. We are concerned only with that portion of the value flow that flows through us personally – a small arc in a circle of value flows – or – perhaps, small arcs on the circle of each value flow in which we participate.

When we are seeing (or thinking) on behalf of a group (organization, business, non-profit, school, government, family) of people, we have to think in terms of a second dimension. We are focused on what our group must give to the system in order to take what it needs from the system – and, at the same time, what each member must give and receive to remain a member of the group thereby allowing the group to give what it needs to give. We are concerned with whole cycles of give and take, internally, around that portion of the flow of value that flows through the organization – a small arc on the circle of each value flow in which the organization participates.

From the first or second dimension it appears that we, individually or as a group, are competing with other groups and other individuals to divide up the value in the system. We can only see that value that is available for us to take and know only what “we” must do in order to obtain that value. In these dimensions, the temptation is to cheat, or steal or go to war to prevent others from taking the value “we” need because otherwise the “others” will get that value and it will no longer be available for “us”.

But, if we look at the flow of all the value through the whole system – all the production and consumption cycles – both living food webs and human enterprise – we see that every small arc is a part of a whole circle of production and consumption. All consumption is also production – every giving is also a taking. One thing must give in order for another to take – yet that thing giving must also be taking until it ultimately comes back to - we are only able to take because we are capable of giving.

The meta-system is one whole spherical set of flows. The amount of value flowing through the system increases with the number of people giving value to the system (and the number of plants and creatures giving value to the system). When our actions impair the ability of another (person, plant or creature) to give value to the system, then there is less value flowing through the system – and we all suffer. When we enable another (person, plant or creature) to give value to the system, then there is more value flowing through the system – and we all benefit. And in this respect, there are no win-lose situations. From three dimensions we can see clearly that every choice has a net result of more value flowing through the system or less value flowing through the system. We are either all winning or all losing.

If our goal is to change system function so that is works better for more people, plants and creatures – which is the only rational goal when we view the system from three dimensions – then, we must understand how the system functions. Value flows are directed through the system by the bridges that individuals choose to maintain. Value increases or decreases as a function of the complexity of those bridges. To increase complexity for the benefit of us all, we need a Better Map and to practice Using a Better Map.

What we are trying to do is find new ways for people, plants and creatures to "fit" in the value flow. The first step may be to overcome those beliefs derived from a first and second dimensional view that prevent us from seeing the possibilities that we can see from three dimensions, such as:

• some one else is responsible
• resources are scarce, and
• the market can solve all our problems

It is my belief, from my analysis of system function from a third dimensional point of view, that we can design and implement systems of production in which every one can participate, thereby ending poverty, that cooperate with natures processes, thereby healing nature. An example of the first is the Community Investment Enterprise. An example of the second is George Chan's Integrated Farm Management System.

See more examples following the story of How Humans Came to Live in Peace and Plenty - Version 3.0.

I have heard admirers of chan before - would it be worth developing one thread helping people explore his main idea- and are they connected or separated from permeaculture?

incidentally, here may be other places but taddy blecher in joburg free universit wants to be a magnet for any open sourcing, youth experiential edu nmodules in these areas

if anyone seriously has such stuff, I can connect bthem with my coorespondent in joburg who has known cida since it was knee hogh to a grasshopper

Integrated Farm Management System, Permaculture, Economies of Integration - all have things in common. They are not more widely applied because the predominate system is the market and these integrated systems do not necessarily produce a product that can compete in the market with companies employing economies of scale and government subsidy. . .

But, that is only because we only value things in money - and a thing that is abundant has no value in money . . .

And, the use value of those things that could be produced by an integrated system of production requires a different ownership proposition than the business organization . . .

such as the Community Investment Enterprise/Self-help Corporation.

I talked to the ZERI people about that problem - but they could not see out of their silo either. I would be happy to talk to taddy blecher in joburg free university - or any one else that is interested.

From the Global Mind Shift discussion on the Global Brain Application:

In reference to several comments above I feel the need to set out the point of beginning for my analysis.

All economic and political power ultimately resides in the individual and no organization exists except for the choice of individuals to participate in that organization. People participate in organizations in order to fulfill their human needs . Civilization consists of all of those choices to participate - which we can think of as bridges that people choose to maintain. The more bridges we build the more complex the system becomes and more value is retained - when we reduce the number of bridges the system becomes less complex and less value is retained. See Using a Better Map .

In trying to explain this functionality, I have come across three "common beliefs" that I would like to challenge:

1. If we believe that someone else is responsible for our plight, such as "the corporations" or "the power elite", then we do not take responsibility for exercising our own power to make the world better.
2. If we believe that resources are scarce then it is reasonable to assume that life is about the struggle to obtain our share of those resources and there will always be conflict over who gets what share.
3. If we believe that the market can expand to include all people, we will not be open to explore how we can create complementary systems that heal nature and produce abundance.

We cannot determine the validity of these ideas from our silos - and we cannot solve systemic problems one at a time. We must come out of our silos and have a discussion across interest and expertise about how things fit together. And I am hoping that is what a GBA would do.

have heard of zeri a lot-interested to know whether you feel there is any way to network with them or are you saying theye are stuck?

regarding the issue of where does responsiblity lie, I see it spiralling around a double loop- obviously at in one sense its all us beings' fault if we lurk while we could do something

but let's go up the "system food chain" from being to community to corporation or indeed national government -everyine seems to say my system CANNOT afford to be the first system to take a stand for what is right; if I do everyone else will go on profiting as normal and I will go bust

this refrain is particularly loud in the jargon of corpoarte social responsibility and on something like climate at the level of national sustainability responsibility

this shows that all of the above are trapped by being in a failing meta-system - a globalisation whose laws are unaturally being designed around lose-lose-lose (ie long-term compound loss of sustainability) not win-win-win - the choice of one of these 2 ends but nothing much in between is what truth systems theory says will be our race's lot

In my view the simplest level at which to intervene in all these micro to macro systems (being community, singular organsiation corpoarte or gov, global sector) is not the individual but the globa industry sector- we can all ask of such sectors as education, energy, banking , water are you ultimately sustaining human progress or the opposite. That's where te truthy test judgement needs to be made- then in those sectors that cant prove themselves true to suatining humanity we will need very micro interventions if we are to integarte goodwill's other kind of map

If we did host debates at this global market sector level then pretty soon nobody would want to have much to do with eg a water industry that said our goal is: to maximise shortages and profits however many peoples this evaporates or drowns.

What's missing seems quite simply to be the free (freedom of speech) market debate at the global market sector level of what future conseqeunce is this compounding - where incidentally I regard national governments primarily as a global market of place - well until they show that they have more human criteria that they are prepared to be transparently judged on .

I agree that there needs to be a global discussion. I don't agree that governments or corporations are the place to work for change. We need systems of production that heal nature and produce abundance . . .

The market cannot do that because that which is abundant has no monetary value . . .

While our wellbeing depends on a healthy market economy, government will reflect our common sentiment that the operation of the market must be protected - even if some people are left out and there is environmental damage. When people have a choice between the market and these new systems then government will reflect our common sentiment that both the operation of the market and the operation of these new systems must be protected . . .

My best guess about the most efficient place to work for change is in our own community - if we can get people out of their silo to hold a discussion across interest and expertise about implementing these new systems.

From the Global Brain Application discussion:

I think Ted and Glenn are talking about the same phenomenon. If we proceed from one connection to the next - linearly, it is like being lost in a maze. To make good decisions requires the capacity to see the patterns (the big picture, how things fit together) and that is an intuitive, right brained capacity. This may also tie in to the power of narrative as someone mentioned above.

We can think of the GBA as an interface between 6 billion experiments in how to get along in the world. All 6 billion of us are experimenting with the set of relationships in which we find ourselves. Experimenting with which bridges we will maintain. As the GBA helps more and more people see the patterns, more and more people will make choices that work better for themselves, for humans as a species, and for the planet as an ecosystem.

In the How Humans Came to Live in Peace and Plenty exercise, I came across this expression about changing our point of view on what is possible:

Every community has unused human potential and unused biological potential. We call it poverty and environmental degradation and treat it like a problem instead of a resource.

I share Wael's sense of urgency - but we cannot impose relationships on people - people have to choose them. Perhaps helping people see the patterns is the key.

The following is part of an e-mail conversation in which it was requested that I explain my work. I would like to extend this offer to any one else that is interested as well:

Introduction to Three Dimensional Networking is a partial representation of my mental map of the world. It is purposely a set of short statements of propositions embedded with links to related propositions for the purpose of exposing the pattern of connections.

Most people view the world as a set of objects in competition with one another. I am interested in following the connections between things and how those connections direct "flows" through the "system". We find flowing through the system energy, materials, nutrients, goods and services, information, . . . (value is the generic term)

Those things that we perceive as a problem result from an inadequate flow of value where we need a greater flow of value. To fix the problem we must look at what set of relationships/connections/bonds . . . (bridges is the generic term) will direct the desired flows in the desired direction.

The Self-help Corporation or Community Investment Enterprise is a set of bridges that could direct increased value flows to those left out of the market and to maintenance of healthy local ecosystems. To understand how that fits in the overall set of connections you might start here:

Follow only the links you feel like - and, feel free to post any questions you have in this forum.

David, my starting point may be common to yours- all sustanability problems begin with community problems; ie if every locality or community is sustainablke we wouldnt have a globally unsustainable planet;

I am not sure that the line, if you said it, that corporations or markets cannot solve this is useful because I would rather start by saying we have no organsiational typology designed to solve local up globalisation; in other words we will need to morph/blend or change all system typologies

it seems to me that tere are at elst 2 system issues we are goping round and round the mulberrry bush on without getting any actionable agreemnt

1 problems where the prevailing communications or information flow is "not wholly true" enough for people to see that community-sustainabiloty crises exists and in fact in most places are getting worse because media is not focusing on them in ways that people can join in and celebrate community up solutions

2 ownership of every organsiational typology; at the end of the day every organsiational system has decision making power vested into it; how is this decisin making measured; does sustability purpose right down to local communities' and peoples wellbeing actually get compounded by thsi decision making system. The shocking thing to me is that every big profession I have examined actually profits from a busienss case that rewqards the decsion making part of the organsiational system for not doing long-run and deep communal sustainability

Yes, we need a conversation across interest, expertise and profession - at the community level - "What can WE do to make OUR community a better place to live?".

At that level, it is easier to examine the assumptions - someone else is responsible - resources are scarce - the market can solve our problems . . .

. . . with an eye to practical solutions unjaded by ideology.

The Self-help Corporation is, I am convinced, not the only approach . . . just the only alternative I know of.

Thank you for your insightful comment and continuing engagement.

The following comes from an e-mail exchange with Larry Victor about the "higher immorality" that some authors have observed where perfectly decent people will do terrible things on behalf of organizations. I think this fits as a challenge to the meme about life being the struggle between good and evil:

Larry:

Three dimensional networking is a way to understand the behavior of humans in organizations.

All organization derives from first dimensional networking - getting individuals to participate by fulfilling one or more of their needs:

http://www.aboutus.org/3DN_Human _Needs

Once an organization is formed, the people who rely on the organization to provide for their needs will do what is necessary to ensure the organization survives. This is second dimensional networking - meeting institutional imperatives - and where we find conflict between groups over the control of scarce resources. But, I would suggest, that in most cases, the activity of the people making decisions for the organization is a "higher immorality" only if you are a part of the group that loses in that transaction.

See : http://www.aboutus.org/3DN_Busin ess_as_Bridges

When you refer to the "elite", you sound as if you are talking about a different species. In fact, this is all a matter of degree. Some people have more and better bridges than other people. People with more wealth than I, have better bridges than I do, and if I look on their bridges with envy or fear then I create conflict in the system. If we seek to take away someone else's bridges, we reduce the flow of value through the system, and it is a lose-lose situation for everyone. It is much better if I focus on creating new bridges for myself and others with deficient bridges - because more bridges increase the flow of value through the system - which is a win-win for all of us.

Networking in the third dimension involves identifying the additional bridges we need and going out and building them. We need enough value flowing through the system to end poverty and heal nature. The resource to do that is the human and biological potential that goes unused by the "market" . . .

. . . follow the flow of value through the system . . . it flows over the bridges each of us chooses to maintain . . . civilization is the cumulative result of all of those choices . . . we can choose conflict and fewer bridges . . . or we can build bridges for more and more people, plants and creatures to contribute value to the system . . .

This is an exchange with Ted Howard in the Global Brain Application Seed forum:

TED:

Had a good look around the 3DN Wiki - it has some power as a model, and it essentially leaves out the the two most basic aspects of what it is to be human, and focuses on the third. In so doing I believe it misses most of what is happening in society, and leads to inaccurate modeling.

Certainly, human beings will act in their own best interests; some of the time, and in domains where such is clearly perceptible to them.

And to the extent that perception of value relates to real value, then exchange of value supports bridges. To this extent, the bridges model is an accurate one, and has some real power.

However, that does include the full picture. Human beings are first evolved biological entities, with all sorts of characteristics at all sorts of levels, that have been given by a process of mutation and selection over many generations. Many of these characteristics are at best of neutral value, averaged over history, and may have high negative value in our current social condition.

At the next level we have culture. The patterns of thought and activity that have evolved by a similar process of evolution by natural selection of mutations. Certainly the mutations have often been caused by conscious minds having complex thoughts, directed by intention, and often times not. In either case, whatever the first cause, the resulting play of evolutionary forces has often been with little conscious awareness as to current contextual relevance.

Much of what our bodies do, and our cultures do, is essentially random, and is neither good nor bad for us. To be actively selected out patterns have to have a negative survival value. If the survival value is neutral, then patterns (chemical or behavioural) can linger for a long time in the pool (either gene or meme).

So the first two levels of how humans behave, based on genetics (emotions etc) and memetics (culture etc) have on average and over time, a value to survival, but may have little or no relevance to the current situation that any particular human finds themselves in, if that situation is not one that has been common in the evolutionary history of the species.

Think on that for a bit.

It deserves considerable contemplation!

The idea of value transactions crossing bridges only has power in so far as those values have objective reality. In so far as the values involved are determined by genetic or memetic factors, they are unlikely to be consistently relevant in today's world . . .

Add in the problem that, it is not really value that people measure, but satisfaction. Satisfaction is the difference between expectation and delivery. If expectation exceeds delivery, satisfaction is low, irrespective of any objective measure of utility. To achieve satisfaction, one must undersell and over deliver. This is possible in the first round of marketing, with early adopters, but then those early adopters spread the idea by word of mouth, which raises the expectation in the next phase of adopters, . . .

DAVID:

Yes, satisfying human need is not as simple as delivering a better product at a lower price. Some points that you may have not fully absorbed:

• Humans need to feel secure - physically, emotionally, and economically - and the "hope" of a better future is also a powerful motivator . . . there may be other factors such as the drive to reproduce . . . or the need for recognition . . .
• We form organizations to fulfill those needs . . . the basic forms of organization where formed by our ancestors . . . family, tribe, government, business, academia, religion . . . and those evolve as they interact with each other - much the same way that species interact in an ecosystem.
• Value is the generic term to mean that which motivates us to participate in an exchange . . . once we join an organization we may not be aware of the value that motivated us - or our ancestor - to join. I may just think of it as being born Anglo-Saxon Protestant - but, if the organizations to which I belong do not deliver the value I need to thrive, I will be dissatisfied and open to opportunities to join other organizations . . . change jobs . . . join a different political party . . . change religions . . . go back to school . . .

So, understanding this third level, as you call it, we can think in terms of designing new kinds organizations that fulfill human needs by giving our "better qualities" survival value . . . giving the model objective reality.

Did you see Whole System Design?

TED:

I see our emphasis is different, but the material covered is the same.

Seeing this brings me back even more firmly to solnx

To create and environment where all of the basic survival needs are met (no existing organization is required to meet those needs), and to give an environment of hope (where anything is possible), and to provide the tools for personal development, and network building (education, communication and travel), is to provide an environment where the existing bonds to existing organizations weaken sufficiently (over time, as the new systems become familiar and trusted) that dissatisfaction with the old organizations grows and new bridges can easily form, and new organization can flourish.

I see the GBA application being a key part of both the education and communication strategies; and it could easily be a key player in the governance strategy.

One of the key problems we face is that there is no reliable method of determining if an individual is dealing with abstracts, or if that individual has learned a set of contexts for repeating words that give the impression of having learned an abstract.

It may be that those without abstraction end up creating and operating the rule based bureaucracies that are becoming so dominant in our world; that are so despised by those of us who love individual creativity and freedom.

Perhaps that thought needs a bit more research and experimental design.

From a conversation with Larry Victor:

Larry: "every small arc is a part of a whole circle of production and consumption"

I question whether "every arc" is a material exchange. Also, some things are shared, and some things are not consumed (but used and returned).

I am not sure that "sharing" is an "exchange". I may produce a semiotic structure (sem) and publish it on the WWW; this is a ONE-to-MANY transaction. If many persons respond to my published sem, this is a MANY-to-ONE transaction. Both could be mapped. A subset of responders may begin networking that leads to the emergence of a group action (coordinated actions by members of the group - but "more than the sum of the parts"). That group action could result in waves of consequences. The map for representing this would not be easy to visualize.

David: I do not think of the "flow of value" as primarily an economic exchange. Human need is much more complicated than that:

http://www.aboutus.org/3DN_Human _Needs

We find flowing through the system - energy, materials, nutrients, goods and services, information, knowledge, wisdom, love, entertainment, (peace of mind - as you say) . . .

Our access to any of those is not necessarily a function of "commerce" . . . but is the motivation for our participation in family, employment, church, community, country, on-line forums . . .

So, it is that dynamic - when you publish knowledge on the internet - what motivates others to participate by reviewing that knowledge? How can we motivate people to participate in a set of exchanges that produce abundance and heal nature?

http://www.aboutus.org/3DN_Great est_Difference

It is the individual choice to participate - the choice to maintain a bridge - that contains all the power that there is in human systems.

I understand the point you are making and I am fairly well aligned, however, I'd like to revisit the first two points and explore potential for rewording or qualification.

Here they are: # If we believe that someone else is responsible for our plight, such as "the corporations" or "the power elite", then we do not take responsibility for exercising our own power to make the world better. # If we believe that resources are scarce then it is reasonable to assume that life is about the struggle to obtain our share of those resources and there will always be conflict over who gets what share.

As a strong statement - #1 - I agree, we are not absolved from our role in making the world better and being active remedy to our plight. We must conduct ourselves differently. However, this does not mean that other formal entities: corporations, governments bear no responsibility, or that we should not exercise strategies that take their presence and behavior into account. They operate and impact the space that we inhabit, and they are very real forces on the world stage. Some of our attention must turn to this in defense of our interests.

This relates to the second point ... I agree many of the resources we need are not in a state of scarcity (but some are) ... and most that are believed to be scarce are perceived as such because an artificial scarcity results from the behavior of the actors noted in point #1.

I'm think we can better frame these two points to acknowledge this. The interaction of systems and processes has bearing on the third point - we need to give ourselves the freedom to explore development (and attention to) complementary systems (and how they interact).

Thank you Michael - and yes, the world consists of organizations - each pursuing the goals of the organization. But, when we look at how the decisions of those organizations are made, we realize that those decisions are the result of choices made by individual humans - to own stock or buy products in the case of corporations - a vote of the majority in the case of government - and the world we live in is the cumulative result of all of those choices.

If we are truly egalitarian - and everyone gets the right to make their own choices - then WE have the world WE have chosen and only WE can change it. Given that realization, I am advocating the choice to bring more power closer to home by developing systems of production that produce abundance and heal nature . . .

The "corporations" will adjust their behavior in response to such developments . . . government will reflect the reality of such developments . . . academia will try to understand such developments . . . charity . . . ?

But we cannot assign responsibility for such development to any of those organizations . . .

See How Humans Came to Live in Peace and Plenty - Version 3.0 and the links that follow.

Yes, these entities are conveniences of the people that formed (and somewhat) compose them. This composition (in the case of organizations) establishes a distributed but shared responsibility among members (staff. volunteers, board, shareholders, constituents). The issue is however, that there is strong focus on limiting liability for behavior and distributing risk/responsibility with the object of limiting that risk... I contend that these entities operate still with some logic of their own - the members of the organization who take on governing role in the org have some trust relation and fiduciary responsibility to think from the view of the organization and it's mission/constituency.

We dont always handle these roles in the best way possible. We engage in self-binding acts (sometimes) precluding opening up the bigger issues.

There are many cases where organizations elect to NOT collect particular kinds of information on their activities or their handling of personnel - because such knowledge/information brings with it responsibility/liability. There is therefore a built in preference for plausible deniability... a willful not knowing - as Jamie Kalven describes ... institutional not-knowing. (Excellent series: Kicking the Pigeon)

I have not addressed the institutions of Government in this, but they are equally complex, if sometimes more constrained in pre-binding.

Any of us, individually or as a decision maker for an organization, must tend to "sources of value" that allow us - or the organization - to continue in operation (to pursue our goals). I have called those connections, bonds, relationships, contracts, agreements . . . bridges as a generic term. The belief that a bridge is at risk is the source of conflict in human systems . . .

and, what you describe above - when short of outright, knowingly criminal behavior - is behavior justified by the actor as necessary to protect the bridge. Say you made a mistake at work - the damage is already done but, if your employer knew you made the mistake you would lose your job. Would you be tempted to not mention that you did it?

If we understand civilization to be the bridges each of us maintains and it is those bridges that direct the flow of value through the system . . .

When we view the world from our individual perspective we must maintain those bridges that provide for ourselves and our families,

When we view the world from the perspective of our organization, we must maintain those bridges that provide for the continued existence of that organization, so that we protect our bridge to the organization,

When we view the world from the perspective of all the bridges and all the value flowing over all the bridges, we can see that our community has unused human and biological potential . . . and that if we could build a bridge to realize that potential there would be more value to flow through the system.

From the middle perspective, the world appears to be a competition between organizations to divide up the value in the system. From the last perspective we can see that we are either in a cooperation to increase value in the system (contributing to an upward spiral) or acting against our own and our collective interest and decreasing value in the system (contributing to a downward spiral).

What I am hoping we can accomplish over at the Global Brain Application Set Up discussion - if Global Brain Software as the Web 2.0 semantic web is already in place - as John Ringland suggests - is more and more people begin to see the possibilities derived from a three dimensional understanding of the world.

Catalytic Communities has made a start in its database of solutions - Greg Pace of the Coalition for the Global Commons also just joined the GBA discussion and they are interested in a planetary conversation about these issues . . . we need more people with other backgrounds - and other bridges to other sectors of the population - so we can develop a common language about our common future . . .

I'll stop now, but anyone listening is welcome to join in . . .

This is from a conversation being conducted across the Coalition for the Global Commons, Global Brain Application Set Up and Striking at the Root discussion forums:

Foundational Metaphors

Ravi, you say:

It is something we discover about how the Whole is already designed to operate as a single system.

which brings me to a discussion with John Ringland about world views being based on foundational metaphors. I have been thinking about the ramifications of three of those:

The predominate metaphor is the struggle between good and evil. Which is a two dimensional world view in which there are those allied for good (us) in a struggle with those allied for evil (them) and progress toward a “better” future requires that we defeat them. This is the standard competition between groups for scarce resources on which our basic institutions are based.

As we become more interconnected, I hear a lot about the body metaphor in which we, and all things, are like cells in an organism. In this metaphor, every cell has its assigned role and when a cell fails to fulfill its role it is said to be diseased. I think the idea that the Whole is already designed to operate as a single system fits with this metaphor.

In the ecosystem metaphor, species and groups interact in ways that either increase diversity or decrease diversity. Using this metaphor, I am saying that generally the increase will be “good” and the decrease “bad” - so in that respect it is not much different from the first two. The reason that the ecosystem metaphor works best for me is that I cannot conceive of a predetermined end state – as in civilization progressing from infant to adulthood. Rather, the world can develop in an infinite number of ways.

The question posed by these different metaphors is the question of free will and, perhaps, the ontological commitment – if I have free will then WE have free will. If we adopt the ecosystem metaphor, the world – as it is affected by human choice – is a constantly changing set of bridges and WE choose what it looks like. Therefore, it is up to those of us who understand this power of choice to propose choices most likely to lead to a world that realizes the biological and human potential of the planet. I don't think that is one large planetary experiment – I think it is many community experiments – because, large complex systems need locally stable components . . .

The issue of predetermination or free will is an old discussion but it has significant ramifications for how we move forward from here. I can imagine the graduates from Ravi's course being very successful in life as they align themselves with the value flows through the system – and perhaps that is what people mean when they talk about self organizing systems. If we are not limited to how the “Whole is already designed” then we need to imagine all the possible ways the bridges could be configured and choose the configuration that best suits us. Until we “discover” the reality, I extend the offer of a bridge in mutual support to both those seeking to discover the latent design and those like me who would test potential design.

Ravi, You and I have discussed whether correcting the “I” error is a necessary first step or a desirable end result of our work. I still do not understand the emphasis you place there since you acknowledge that one thing is related to another and everything is related to everything else. You say:

The programs you refer to as Whole System Designs don’t allow for the existence of the conceptual substance, let alone its critical importance in the Whole System.

If that is the criteria, then I think we can agree that these “programs” are Whole System Designs as they do indeed allow for the existence of the conceptual (I have a problem with the term substance) and, in fact, incorporate the conceptual as a functional aspect of the design.

it is the quality and quantity of conceptual content available at each of the points, that determines the degree to which the local human form at the point contributes to the damage of its environment or not.

I do not disagree with this point. The problem is that we do not yet have a universal measure of the quality and quantity of conceptual content. Let us agree that, resident within some individual (point of observation – transmitter/receiver), there is a set of concepts that represents “actual system function” more closely than the set of concepts resident in any other individual. That most accurate set of concepts could be said to have the highest quality and quantity of conceptual content, and is, theoretically, already available to every other individual. The problem is how to recognize what is accurate in our set of concepts and what is inaccurate.

You an I might agree that it is inaccurate to consider ourselves separate and vulnerable individuals – but, to a point of observation without connections to a group that provides adequate connections to the value flows, they “appear” to be separate and vulnerable and will act to provide for themselves (perhaps criminally) without regard to that act's impact on the system as a whole. The act will produce a response from the system that will reinforce that point of observation's belief that they are separate and vulnerable.

Further, most individuals are members of groups that do provide access to the value flows and that believe that they are in a competition over scarce resources. As these groups engage in the competition, some will achieve their objectives and others will fail to achieve their objectives – meaning that some groups end up with more resources than other groups – reinforcing the belief that the world is a competition among groups for scarce resources.

Because the world reinforces these erroneous beliefs, it is difficult, if not impossible, to upgrade the quality and quantity of conceptual content at a point of observation where their beliefs have been confirmed by experience in the world. And it is those individuals who are successful acting without regard to their impact on the whole – and those groups that are successful in the competition for scarce resources – that have the apparent claim to having the highest quality and quantity of conceptual content. (They understand how the world works and have used that understanding to accomplish their goals.) More importantly, the acts of these individuals – create a world in which we are each vulnerable to crime and fraud – and the acts of these groups – create a world in which resources are scarce and can be obtained only through success in the competition, and WE and each of us are vulnerable to war and economic disruption.

In that respect, WE create the world through the choices of each individual point of observation. Most of these points have only limited choices and any of those limited choices will reinforce either the first dimensional view that we are separate and vulnerable or the second dimensional view that we are members of a group in competition with other groups over scarce resources. When we act on those beliefs we create a world in which separate and vulnerable individuals form groups for the purpose of assuring their access to resources making those beliefs the more accurate representation of system function and, arguably, a higher quality of conceptual content than the set of concepts you and I propose.

So, the way I see it, is the only way to upgrade the conceptual content of individual points of observation is to give them a choice to act in a way that reinforces the belief that we are all in this together. The imagining, articulation and implementation of such choices is what I am calling Whole System Design and creating a world in which each individual point of observation has the choice to act “with . . . the rest of the Wholesystem” is our highest priority.

That is how I include the impact of the conceptual upon the rest of the Whole, and include the impact of the rest of the Whole upon the conceptual and what I mean when I say that it is incumbent upon those of use who understand that we are a functional part of a seamless whole to design and implement these new choices. If not US who – or, is there a latent design . . . ?

This is an exchange with Paul Klewin at the Global Brain Application forum.

I hope some feedback from you is possible before I try to move on.

I will try to address your points concisely – without exploring the consequences – we can come back to what each point means in terms of possibilities.

I think everybody’s life is a part of two processes:

1. perennial evolution of energy, matter and life 2. economic growth called progress

Second process threatens natural harmony of all life, is therefore absurd unless you assume human existence is something different and superior to universal evolution.

Whole System Design requires that we consider the consequences of our choices throughout the whole system. Science as it is currently practiced is reductionist and linear – and that is applied in business. We measure growth in only a narrow sense – increase in monetary wealth. That measure is not directly related to increase or decrease in the “wellbeing” of human beings generally or nature as a whole. Have you seen this articulation?

The assumption unfolds as hierarchy of consciousness, knowledge and power generally known as:

1. the Creator 2. Humanity (destined to posses and rule the nature) 3. Matter and nature

Such an assumption was perfectly natural when humanity and human mind were born, therefore it was the basis of our social and cultural (memetic) evolution. Regardless of individual decision of being believer, atheist or agnostic it is contained in every mind.

Yes, this belief that hierarchy is the natural state is prevalent in the “common knowledge”.

God Country Family The Haves The Have nots

However, from a whole system point of view, our existence and the existence of everything else is the result of a set of relationships and we cannot change any one relationship without considering the affect that change has on all the other relationships on which our existence relies. There is no one aspect of system function that is more important than another - each aspect creates the opportunity for the existence of every other aspect. The giant red wood does not exist without the fungi that digests its leaves.

Now I follow wikipedia: The mind is a model of the universe built up from insights. For me it means we can not build a better world, we can only build a better model (and possibly believe mind and matter are interconnected).

Agreed. The world derives from our models because our models dictate the choices we make. Another way this is said is “the stories we tell create the world in which we live”.

But anyway we arrive at basic problem: What is the meaning of “good – better”? Within existing models answers are different.

My answer to that is that it is better to contribute to an upward spiral than it is to contribute to a downward spiral. The first is a win-win for us all and the second is a lose-lose for us all and for that complexity that is lost to the system. There are no win-lose choices – all that one group appears to gain in the competition between groups is directly related to the potential foregone through decreasing complexity.

So when I think about scaffolding I mean construction of platform overlooking from outside all existing models. On the contrary, I have impression that WSD remains within a model based on our superiority to the rest of universe.

If I have not addressed this adequately, let us explore that further.

Further I follow the concept of “the universal truth”, which is generally connected with every current model. Scaffolding and platform means a model, where universal truth may or may not exist and anybody can believe any truth may be discovered any day, but current model must describe what we know (solid knowledge) and what we shall not know in foreseeable future. The latter again must deal with responsibility: Maybe someone else is responsible, but we have no ground to take for granted.

The only universal truth that I feel confident about is that everyone gets to make their own choices. The world is and will continue to be what WE choose. Each of us chooses whether to let others make choices for us and whether to believe certain things about the world. When we each fully realize the power of our choice, we will create better choices for ourselves and the world around us. If we choose systems of production in which everyone can participate and that increase nature's diversity rather than diminish it, we will move in the direction of the world we want. I don't think there is a utopian end state – only increasing complexity or decreasing complexity.

We have to understand “whole system design” not as a picture, necessity included, but as a dynamic and constant process of first designing, then building necessary common awareness. To what degree you can follow my thinking?

I have always imagined a first small group of people agreeing to a set of relationships such as that described in the Self-help Corporation. And that set of relationships successfully delivering that which people need and desire – so as to create a flowering. So, there is two steps to “building necessary common awareness”. The first is to find that first group of people, and, as that experiment succeeds, the second step is to build the awareness to reproduce it in many places and many variations. A new kind of group, a new species of group - that can fill the niche created by all the potential left out of the market economy - which will evolve in response to its interactions with other species of group.

“Designing awareness” or perhaps “designing a message effective at raising awareness” is the focus of my participation in these forums. Is that what you mean?

This is about creating a new workspace