Dear Joubin,

Thanks for responding to my post. I am enjoying our dialogue.

You wrote:

3 points were made in my response[1] to your post:

1) That the uncivilized behavior patterns attributed to "most western especially Americans"[2] is not unique to that subset of the biped known as Man.  This pattern of behavior has been exhibited by practically *every single collective* that has come into the possession of 'power'. And here I can add that this pattern of
behavior is in fact expressive of the value system of 'Might makes Right' philosophy of life, which is _provably_ a 'contingent value system'[3], and is in fact (imo) **the only Rational (and honest) contingent value system**.  (But that doesn't mean I agree with it ;)

Timothy -> Well I am glad you don't agree with it. The system you are describing is what I call Adversity. It is the natural system for animals.

I accept Alfred Korzybski's operational definitions of life that makes a clear distinction between plants, animals and humans. He catergorizes plants as energy-binders. Animals as space-binders. Humans as time-binders. The power of energy-binding is transformation, growth, and organization. The power of space-binding is mobility – the ability to move about in space. This is not the simple motion of plants. This is mobility – running, jumping, leaping, swinging, swimming, creeping, stalking, crawling, diving, and flying--and of course, ripping, tearing, biting, snapping and devouring. The power of time-binding is to understand – to observe and remember change over time. Understanding comes from the awareness of time – an awareness that allows humans to experience time as sequential or linear. Understanding leads to the accumulation of knowledge and the invention of technology.

These definitions were first proposed by Korzybski in his work Manhood of Humanity [7] published in 1921. Adversity is consistent, appropriate, and adaptive for animals. However, while it was the first and therefore oldest system of human organization. It was intially appropriate and adaptive for primitive humans, but as knowledge and technology grow it becomes evermore inappropriate and maladaptive for humans. I have discussed this elsewhere. [8]

I would agree with your use of the term "contingent". As I said Adversity is an appropriate and adaptive value system for animals. In this context it is rational and honest. It even works well for earlier humans who were more animal-like than human-like. By this I mean their UNDERSTANDING of universe was still immature (low knowledge and technology). As humans mature, they acquire ever higher knowledge and technology. Knowledge and technology greatly leverages the power of Adversity.

Leveraged Adversity will and must eventually result in extinction for any life form that follows that path.

2) That it is careless, at best, to present the truth of the _fact_ that *everything* in existence is interdependent on something else, as a new understanding, or that the moral code of social conduct that acknowledges that _fact_ is a 'new value system'[4].  (The point of your associate [5] is quite well understood and accepted, and was hinted at in a previous post [6] -- so we are not in disagreement in that regard.  But that was not the object of our divergence, was it?)

Timothy -> I agree that the concept of INTERdependence is not new.

Abraham, Buddha, Confucius, Jesus and others have understood the underlying connectedness of all humanity. Their admonitions to us contain high awareness of our human interdependence. This is why they taught us not to kill, not to steal, not to molest, not to fraud, not to coerce.

They understood that the conflict of Adversity was not for humankind. They understood that the indifference of Neutrality was not for humankind. They taught us to be our brother's keeper. As Gandhi explains:

"Interdependence is and ought to be as much the ideal of man as self-sufficiency. Man is a social being. Without interrelation with society he cannot realize his oneness with the universe or suppress his egotism. His social interdependence enables him to test his faith and to prove himself on the touchstone of reality. If man were so placed or could so place himself as to be absolutely above all dependence on his fellow beings he would become so proud and arrogant as to be a veritable burden and nuisance to the world. Dependence on society teaches him the lesson of humanity. That a man ought to be able to satisfy most of his essential needs himself is obvious; but it is no less obvious to me that when self-sufficiency is carried to the length of isolating oneself from society it almost amounts to sin. A man cannot become self-sufficient even in respect of all the various operations from the growing of cotton to the spinning of the yarn. He has at some stage or other to take the aid of the members of his family. And if one may take help from one's own family, why not from one's neighbors? Or otherwise what is the significance of the great saying, "The world is my family?""

However, this truth is only mouthed by a few as part of our religious rituals while the reality of human organization is dominated by Adversity and Neutrality. There are very few synergic organizations in existence today and no synergic governments or nations. I believe a positive future will require that ALL of humanity organize synergically.

3) That there are 2 ways of making one's choices in life, and these 2 ways are expressive of 2 fundamentally different conceptions of the meaning and purpose of existence.  To highlight this let me present this to you:  Today, you and I are in agreement regarding our "value system".  To me, this is the same old value system, and I hold it to be valid today, tomorrow, and a million years from now, baring some
unforeseen (and unexpected) changes in the very nature of existence. To you, it is a "new value system" of a 'new age' of "synergy", and expressed using neologisms, in response to 'historic' changes:  i.e. it is expressive of a contingent view of life.

Timothy -> I think I answered this above. Yes, it is an old value system to a few very wise humans. However to most of humanity living today, it would be completely new.

Which only makes me wonder:

Which value set will you adopt should our circumstances undergo a drastic or catastrophic change?  (These changes are actually not too hypothetical ...)

I agree that the times are very dangerous. I also agree with Buckminster Fuller that Universe has already determined the safe distance for living systems to be from nuclear energy. That is the the distance to the Sun (93 million miles). I am also aware that fossil fuels will be exhausted much sooner than most humans realize (estimates range from 20 to 50 years). [9]

Will you remain a "synergist"?  Will you revert back to the values of the "age of neutrality", or even the "age of aggression"?  Or would these changes usher in yet another new "age" requiring a "new value system" -- a value system perhaps in opposition to your currently held values?

Again, from my perspective as a biologist and physician, I see only three classes of life--plants, animals, and humans. I see three natural laws of life. Neutrality for plants. Adversity for animals. And, Synergy for humans. I would hope that I would remain a synergist despite the difficulty of the challenges facing me. I realize that while I might survive by reverting to the animal values of Adversity. I would no longer be truely human. This does not mean that synergists bare their necks to adversaries. They will protect their lives and families from adversaries, but they will not choose the destruction of others as their primary method of survival.

And finally:  How could one even criticize the selfish ones, if one believes in relative value systems?  Based on what Lasting Truth is this critique made?  Because its not 'nice'?  (What is Good and Right, after all, in a Contingent Universe?)

I don't criticize the selfish ones or those who are presently caught in the web of Adversity and Neutrality. Most of these are simply ignorant. If they knew and understood the synergic option, they would choose it.

Humans call what they value "wealth". In the world of Adversity, wealth is physical power. The ability to force others to help you. In the world of Neutrality, wealth is money. The ability to pay others to help you. And, in the world of Synergy, wealth is relationships. The ability to attract help from others by helping them. [10]

Thanks for reading and thinking about my post.

Bound through synergy,

Timothy

Joubin's references:
--
[1]:
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SocialModels4P2PNetworks/message/21>

[2]:
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SocialModels4P2PNetworks/message/20>

[3]: con·tin·gent (kn-tnjnt) adj. )Logic): True only under certain conditions; not necessarily or universally true: a contingent proposition.
<http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=contingent>

[4]:  "In 2001, humanity has the option for synergic relationship. If we choose Synergy we will adopt a **new set of values**" [**emphasis** mine]
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SocialModels4P2PNetworks/message/18>

[5]:  "As my associate Arthur Noll asks his students when making this point, 'Lets start with your naked body. Can you manage to clothe and feed and shelter this body, with no hands touching any article except your own hands?' ... "
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SocialModels4P2PNetworks/message/20>
 

[6]:  "[F]ew ponder the fact that should "Atlas"[5] find himself on a desert island, he would be too busy searching his next meal to sit and "shrug". [My spelling mistake
corrected :)] "
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SocialModels4P2PNetworks/message/19>

__________
Timothy's references:

[7] Manhood of Humanity:
<http://www.esgs.org/uk/art/manhood.htm>

[8] Three Classes of Life:
<http://www.synearth.net/KU1/UCS-Basics4.html>

[9] Fossil Fuel Energy Crisis:
<http://solutions.synearth.net/stories/storyReader$8>

[10] Wealth:
<http://futurepositive.synearth.net/2001/04/18>