WHY WORK? An analysis of society, the economy, the place of work in daily life and how to achieve a fairer society with greater economic justice.

Graham Little

2

Why Work? Understanding the importance and power

of each person in a free society. The role of government and how each person can

contribute to a better life for all.

Graham Little PhD

3

Executive summary

The global financial crash, 2008-2013, caused much financial suffering. In America for example, it is suggested that many billions of dollars of wealth were transferred from poorer people to wealthier and more powerful. There were protests and marches in many countries all demanding the same thing namely a fairer share of the economic pie.

The Western World economic management is grounded on two fundamentally different sets of ideas. The free market economy of Adam Smith, and the centrally controlled economy of Karl Marx.

The free market economic system is often derisively referred to as the ‘trickle down’ theory namely that as the rich get richer some of the wealth ‘trickles down’ to those below. This disparaging reference reflecting the view that the system really does not work and there are those who remain disadvantaged.

There are many variations, such as China operating a single political system and enabling a partly free economy. The success of the Chinese experiment is yet to be determined. In Europe the mixed economy is free market with a social welfare safety net. The types of problems that emerge in the mixed model are well illustrated by recent struggle to bail out Greece, where the problem was not the debt, but the ongoing large difference between expenditure substantially on welfare, and government income such the welfare could not be sustained.

Adam Smith wrote his treatise mid to late-1700s, Marx mid to late-1800s. There has been much written since, but there has been no fundamental change and the two extreme systems of thinking remain.

Neither the work of Adam smith nor the work of Karl Marx nor any of their disciplines, nor any work written since, is grounded on thorough social science. For example, there is today, other than

4

expressed here, no understanding of causality and how it would apply in a social system. The result is there is no guarantee that the improved understanding of causality in social systems would not totally invalidate the ideas of both original thinkers and all efforts since. At best, this leaves the ideas of the original thinkers as tentative and potentially unreliable. I show how the failure of these two sets of ideas is due the fact the ideas lack intellectual substance. Both sets of ideas (Marx and Smith) have superficial appeal, but lack the intellectual integrity to fulfil the faith placed in them. We need better ideas and those can only come from better social science.

In the one hundred years and more since the treatises were written, and arising from application of the ideas of each thinker, we have learned that at its core each system has a central strength. Free markets best enable economic creativity and growth of wealth, centralized distribution of wealth best protects people from adverse economic circumstance and ensures their share arising from their effort is not denied them due the wrong reasons, mainly politics.

This leads to the central question addressed in this work: How do we understand the links between people, the economy, and wealth creation, using that understanding to design an economic/political system so that people get their fair share? Further, and importantly, that people believe the system fair.

This is a search for economic justice. A political work based on applying thorough social science providing insight into key linkages between wealth creation and people. A work intended to offer direction for change such that people feel the system just, so everyone can relax and get on with raising everyone’s enjoyment and fulfilment from life.

Perhaps we need return to the basics, but how? Global social science has not provided the sort of insight and understanding of social systems, including psychology, as provided by say, quantum physics. In

5

my life time the world has retreated from science and reason into a loose spiritualism and mysticism, I argue due in no small part that there is no science in social science, it has failed to the point that almost any pronouncement can be made and there is no rational framework whereby it can be refuted. People select the ideas from whatever sales pitch most appeals.

This work begins with a search for intellectual fundamentals. What intellectual tools do we use to conceptualize society, the economy and our links to both? Then when we apply those tools, what emerges, and what does it tell us? What is the solution to the question of building a more just and more effective economic system that taps the talents of everyone, offers fulfilment from work as a way of life, and distributes the wealth in a manner where people are relaxed and regard the system as ‘fair’?

Better science enables better technology that when applied leads to better results. To achieve better science, we need better intellectual tools to apply to the situation under study. Hence the first half of the book is devoted to intellectual considerations then applied to the question of our social structure and how it needs to be changed to achieve greater economic justice. Master the first half, and the second half falls into place. The first half provides the intellectual framework, the tools of mind, to ‘see’ what is being said in the second half. Once seen, and seen to be reasoned using agreed tools transparently applied, then you will need decide if you will adopt the founding principle that better science enables better technology, and therefore adopt the policy emerging from the analysis.

The intellectual tools chosen are those of W Ross Ashby, the founder of cybernetics. The nature of the tools is fully considered, and shown how they are the crucial tools of conceptualization, producing

6

understanding enabling better management of the situations to which the understanding applies.

I make no apologies for the demand for some thinking and reflection in order to understand. We cannot seriously expect an apt and accurate theory of society to be achieved without some in depth intellectual consideration of what we are doing.

I argue the future of humanity depends on commitment to the path of reason via selection of appropriate tools and thorough application of those tools. Human salvation lies in reason, and adopting the ideas that when implemented enable the best result for all. The standard is balance, fairness, and justice. There may be an emotional preference for this or that point of view. We may favor this group more than that group. I argue all such considerations must be placed to one side. We need invest our faith in sound intellectual tools, thoroughly and transparently applied, and adopt the policy arising from the analysis.

The solution arising from the tools: A precise structural link between individual effort and community health. Identification of the structural obstacle that deflects the current system from achieving economic fairness. Suggested changes to the Law and regulation surrounding the economy and wealth creation so the system is economically fairer. Political action so that the changes to the appropriate Law and regulation are implemented.

7

Postscript to the executive summary

I need declare my bias, every human spirit arriving into this world has the inalienable right to fulfil itself, and to express itself in the world as it sees fit, to enjoy a fair economic return for effort, provided in so doing it does not interfere with the economic returns, or right of others to do the same. I define this as ‘ethical fulfilment’.

Further, that our social systems, norms, mores, religious and legal processes need to be orientated to supporting everyone find ethical fulfilment in his or her life. The standard of performance measure for all authority, moral, religious, legal, intellectual or political, is its effectiveness in enabling greater ethical fulfilment now, today, alive on earth, for the people in sway of that authority. The standard is to lift the quality of life for the living, leading into yet greater quality of life tomorrow for our children and grandchildren who in turn lift the quality of life of their children and…

If any authority fails to meet this standard then that authority needs removed from office, dismissed as a source of authority, preferably peaceably, but by force of arms if needed.

8

Published by Institute of Theoretical and Applied Social Science Limited

ITASS info@opdcoach.com

A reaching for infinity book.

Copyright © 2016 ITASS

ISBN 978-1-877341-31-1

Fifth edition October 2015

Graham Little asserts the moral right to be identified as the author of this work.

All rights reserved. Except for purpose of fair reviewing, no part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by

any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, now known

or hereafter invented, without permission in writing from the publisher.

9

Contents

1. Why bother? ..............................................................................12

2. Defining the questions ............................................................16

3. To date social science has not delivered ...............................24

4. Simple thinking tools to improve understanding ................34

5. Discussion of Ashby tools and diagrams ..............................51

6. Understanding ourselves .........................................................63

7. The dominance of ideas and moderation of self-interest ...74

8. Beginning with social values ...................................................81

9. Understanding the passionate core of culture......................88

10. Economic fairness not equality .........................................99

11. Understanding the modern economy ............................ 102

12. Understanding organizations .......................................... 107

13. Linking individual success to organization success ..... 114

14. Linking organization success to economic success ..... 122

15. Linking economic success to community success ....... 123

16. Linking the individual to community success .............. 124

17. Wealth creation and the role of profit ........................... 126

18. The community demand is always the same ................. 129

19. The issue of governance .................................................. 132

20. Placing politics within an ethical framework ................ 139

21. ...okay, but what is new and what does it mean?.......... 166

22. The psychology of economics ........................................ 178

23. Understanding the economy in the community ........... 186

24. Engaging the power of the people ................................. 193

25. Changes to governance regulation ................................. 202

10

26. What is the role of competition? .................................... 211

27. Taxation and politics ........................................................ 212

28. Managing automation ....................................................... 219

29. The confusion of free trade ............................................. 220

30. Transparency and auditing............................................... 221

31. Social motivation, satisfaction and dissatisfaction ....... 228

32. Sounds great, but what do I do...? .................................. 233

33. ...am I really expected to make an effort at work? ....... 234

34. The future .......................................................................... 235

35. Appendix: Essays .............................................................. 243

Lack of ethics a recipe for disaster ................................................ 243

The new social science paradigm .................................................. 244

The structure of truth...................................................................... 301

The psychology of freedom ........................................................... 310

It is the message not the medium ................................................. 316

36. About Graham Little ........................................................ 319

Intellectual background................................................................... 319

Books ................................................................................................. 322

The intellectual foundation ............................................................ 324

What am I? ........................................................................................ 326

Summary of intellectual background ............................................ 329

Formal CV ........................................................................................ 332

Research ............................................................................................ 334

Publications ....................................................................................... 336

Employment history ........................................................................ 344

Skill summary ................................................................................... 345

Personal qualities ............................................................................. 346

11

Family and hobbies .......................................................................... 346

Intellectual evolution 1974 to 2015 .............................................. 347

Future work 2016 - .......................................................................... 351

12

1. Why bother?

This offering is intended to guide political action so that you, a typical, average member of society, a working person ... whether sweeping floors, stacking shelves, selling behind a retail counter, a partner in a legal or accounting firm, or a working CEO ... is offered a fully scientific analysis of society with suggested changes so that you experience greater economic justice. Some level of injustice is likely to always persist, no solution in practice is likely to be perfect. The intent is for you to feel the free democratic society proposed offers greater economic justice than our current society.

One slogan is well known: Workers of the world unite! The slogan emerging from this book might be: Demand your fair share! The point is we need to be united to get your fair share. Being united means putting in power those parties that agree with the analysis and will implement it.

Exhortations alone are shallow and empty. To guide action that is apt and valid the analysis needs to be apt and valid. You need to believe in the analysis. So yet a further slogan might be: Get the concept right first!

The ideas here are neutral in the sense they are neither ‘left’ nor ‘right’. The sole concern is to scientifically understand society in a manner enabling decisions as to the path offering the greatest economic justice. People are important, all people, no group emerges favored. The analysis shows that today we do have some groups favored over others and it is that that needs to be changed. If you at times feel disenfranchised, powerless, even in our democracy, with all its commitment to justice, public companies, share markets, transparency, and the like, it is because at times it is real, and you are powerless. Like when the company you worked at for 30 years, and that

13

your grandparents helped get under way, just up and left to lower wages in Thailand, or Mexico, or...and your small community in which you grew, and your parents grew, collapsed under the weight of debt and lack of opportunity.

You joined the political protest, marched to Parliament, or occupied Wall Street. But to no avail. You watched your parents go from comfortable middle age to elderly poor. Worked hard all their lives, lost a son in eastern wars and resistance to terrorism, solid citizens, now broke and struggling due decisions by governance they never met, and who had hardly even visited the town. Is that just?

We need better ideas than that of capitalism, free markets of Adam Smith or collective central control, socialism, Karl Marx. Better ideas where it is unacceptable for senior economist to go on TV supporting liberalization of finance regulation that months later resulted in what is called the global financial crash. We need curb the potential manipulation of our social and economic systems enabling transfers of wealth from the less off to the better off and which contributed creating a recession throughout the rest of the world.

Exhortations are shallow, so we need solid analysis offering definite and irrevocable insight and understanding of what is happening and how to manage it. And more, it must be so that anyone can understand it, not shrouded in unnecessary complexity or intellectual jargon.

We begin by carefully defining the problem, and the questions arising from it. Then discuss the intellectual tools we need to do the analysis. This lays a definite foundation for building our understanding.

We proceed by discussing the general theory of psychology that emerges by applying the tools to the circumstance ‘a person in their environment’.

14

We then apply the theories developed to understand and analyze organizations. Here we pause, since understanding the organization provides us with the primary tool for understanding society.

Finally, we explore what it all means and how can we achieve greater economic justice.

I stated earlier this analysis is neutral to left and right politics, which is strictly true, but there does emerge a crucial question the answer to which can easily be interpreted as ‘left’ or ‘right’.

Should an organization serve society or the society serve the organization?

I state now, in case you are of the opposite persuasion, my moral and ethical choice is that the organization is a vehicle of community/social wealth creation and as such must serve the community/society. This can be inferred as ‘liberal’, or ‘left’ in the previous terms. Especially since as I will discuss, implementing this position will curtail the rights and authority of those governing our organizations in many crucial ways.

The analysis shows that the modern economic structure is at root feudal, with control of organizations effectively vested in boards of directors, the governance, associated with senior officials and politicians I call the power elite. With the governance replacing the feudal lord. Efforts to spread decision making, such as public listed companies, Union representative as part of the governance, and staff representatives as part of governance, staff shareholding, etc., have not achieved the high hopes and ambitions held for those ideas. The steps to spread authority and decision making are good ideas, proposed and acted upon with integrity, the reason they have not worked as they were intended is due to the intrinsic structure of society, this is bought to the fore when the tools for understanding and simplifying complex social circumstances are aptly applied.

15

The intrinsic structure of Western democratic society leads to an Orwellian conversion, where those promoted to governance ranks are seduced by its power and privilege. As in Animal Farm the animals looking through the windows see the pigs socializing with the humans.

Those in favor of retaining existing governance control of our economic organizations could be labelled as ‘conservative’, or ‘right’.

I now proceed with the analysis, and leave it to you to determine your choice of answer to the key ethical question of economic justice before us. In our choice lies the nature of the society in which our children will mature.

16

2. Defining the questions

Imagine being a member of a small tribe in say central Asia 5000 years ago. The tribe can trace its ancestors back for 500 years. The tribe has extensive knowledge of food, shelter, travel, herbs for medicines, weather, etc. There is a written genealogical history, as well as extensive oral history and mythology. There is accurate oral narrative of other tribes and the geography for some 2000 kilometres around the village. There is also an oral narrative surrounding events such as earthquakes, violent storms and wars with neighbouring tribes.

Life is peaceful, although at times hard with occasional unpredictable weather resulting in crop failures and failure of the herds of antelope to show when expected for reasons largely unknown. Roles are tightly structured, with woman doing the work in the fields and around the home and the men expected to hunt and forage for the higher energy foods. This is seen as a natural order and part of the written and oral history. As part of development young people are carefully versed in all aspects of history, roles, and the actions that lead to tribal health and wealth. There is a tribal leader but this is not hereditary rather elected by the tribal council who tend to choose the best person for the task. The role of tribal leader is best described as ‘chairmanship’. Tribal leadership is occasionally female.

Now imagine the mind of a person raised in the village at age say, eighteen. They are fully mature and fully part of tribal village life. They have a complete orientating framework of the world in which they live and their part in it. Central to their understanding is they know their place and their role.

In the village perhaps they lived on cultivated rice, fruit, and hunting. Different groups in the community attended to different things, the community was organized to get done that which it knew

17

needed done for the community to survive. Survival included warriors to protect and defend the community.

The young man knew what they needed do to ‘do their bit’. It is most likely that everyone in the village community understood their role and responsibilities relative to community survival. Also, that everyone was expected to ‘do their bit’… and significant tensions created if someone sought to avoid their community duty and expected then to be supported by the rest of the community. It is very personal, since the person expected to be supported is an associate or neighbor, etc.

The link between daily actions are community success is very clear.

Going back before such a village, say 40,000 years ago. Perhaps living in small groups. Humanity 40,000 years ago was both physically and behaviorally the same as today. The people 40,000 years ago were like us.

Would there be any doubt about what was needed to be done to survive? Would a person be in any doubt as to what they needed to do, and what was expected of them? Would a group member be able to goof off whenever they choose, leaving it to the rest of the small group, maybe just two families, to do the necessary work of survival?

If it was just group of say a dozen individuals, largely a family group perhaps, then one goofing off was a major loss of resource and perhaps crucial skills. That was one of the benefits of the group, everyone was seen as important, with a role to play in supporting and enabling group survival.

There would be tensions between individuals...not everyone always likes everyone else, and even 40,000 years ago there would be alpha males and competition for power, and for females. Please do not

18

react to the gender bias, it is only in the last few hundred years that we have been developing gender equality.

Would interpersonal tensions and competition outweigh what was needed for group survival? Because of internal group competition would food not be secured, shelters repaired, predatory animals repulsed? If concerns solely internal to the group were allowed on average to interfere with doing the things needed by the group for survival, then the group would not survive, and we would not be here. Humanity is more disciplined than that!

We can put the situation in a sentence using an arrow, the arrow meaning ‘has an effect on’. So A → B, means that if A changes, this has an effect on B, and so B changes.

a) Actual group behavior → the essentials for group survival

→ group survival.

This equation states that unless the group’s actual behavior matches those actions needed to ensure group survival, then group survival will be threatened. I have defined the arrow, and will discuss this form of expression in more detail in a latter chapter. It is applying the tools of W Ross Ashby, the equation a) I define as an Ashby diagram. The factors in the equation are ‘variables’ that is they are aspects of situation chosen such as to provide insight and understanding of the situation. Variables do not define a situation, they merely point to a set of options to be examined to understand what is happening.

For example, from a), we could explore how clear the group is on those actions the best enable survival, then we could explore the match between what the group did, and those actions needed from survival. Imagine we investigated two groups, in similar areas, and found one group understood the survival actions 9 out of 10, while the

19

other only 7 out of 10. The difference due the fact the first group had several sources of food and had the tools to exploit those sources of food, whereas the second group had not discovered those sources of food. Further study revealed the first group applied itself to the task of the survival actions just 6 out of 10, whereas the second group applied itself 9 out of 10, and in fact had refined and honed several skills at food gathering. The result was it really did not need the extra source of food. This analysis and rating of the two groups enables us to assess their survival potential.

We are now being ‘scientific’ and ‘objective’ about the groups by applying intellectual tools that offer understanding of what is happening. The analysis offers solid evidence for any conclusions. The key point is the relationship between the ‘variable’ in the Ashby equation and the expression of the variable in an actual situation. All variables derived from any situation hold the exact same relationship to that situation.

The variable is a conceptualization tool, a way of thinking about the situation. The arrow then describes how if one variable changes, what happens to the other variables and in what order. Overall the Ashby diagram or equation offers understanding of what is happening within the situation chosen and describes how changes flow through the situation leading to the final output being the final result of the changes. Any actual situation is described by the values of the variables, and variables themselves cannot as a matter of principle direct its own value.

The relationship between an Ashby diagram and an actual situation to which the diagram applies is one of theory and empirical research, theory as variables and their relationship to the values of those variables as expressed in the actual situation. This structure of our thinking is very important. It is elaborated in following chapters,

20

but it is best if this key point is grasped now, hence I suggest pause and reflect.

Understanding of any situation depends on conceptualization of the variables that describe the key elements of the situation, and the use of the arrow to describe how a change in one of those variables influences the other variables. This is our conceptualization of circumstance, our theory. Any actual situation is described by the values of the variables, and can be said to be the empirical reality relative to our theory. In a later chapter I will discuss understanding humanity, and show how this is fundamental to understanding ourselves involving separation of our knowledge, as in theory and empirical data, from an actual event, as in the values of the variables in our theory. What is crucially important is understanding the separation of our knoweldge from actual events. Second, that the separation of knowledge and event is intrinsic to the structure of our psyche, it can be no other way. Finally, arising from this it is crucial we understand and are clear on the relationship our knowledge must necessarily make with events we experience. We never experience our theories, as a matter of principle we can only experience the values of the variables in our theories.

I repeat, all understanding depends on conceptualization. This is fundamental to the nature and operation of our mind. It immediately follows that in our knowledge is the conceptualization whereby we ‘understand’, and the experience of the events to which we apply and explain our understanding. Our understanding must not be confused with our experience of the situation, they are very different things.

It then further follows we need intellectual tools we apply to our experience of any situation. The tools then enable us to build better conceptualizations, better theory of the situation, and we can then test our theory to the situation to see if it fits the facts we know arise in the

21

situation. The better the intellectual tools, the better the theory the better the understanding the more likely theory matches data, and from the theory we can derive more effective technology to manage the situation.

For any situation the variables selected should express the ‘essence’ of the understanding we seek...an imprecise term, but apt since there is no way a priori, to determine the variables. It is a judgement based on experience, insight and trial and error searching for the theory that best fits the facts. Understanding is defined as apt and accurate when an Ashby diagram matches the empirical evidence and provides accurate prediction of the outcome in some specific situation.

a) Actual group behavior → the essentials for group survival → group survival.

We can now state equation a) is our theory, conceptualized by applying Ashby tools, linking actual human behavior in a village or family group many thousands of years ago.

When an Ashby diagram provides the correct answer, it provides understanding of the events within the situation by way of how one variables influences another, such that we have prediction of the outcome from specific changes. I define this as understanding of the mechanisms inherent within the situation. Understanding based on Ashby diagrams is an advance on merely using mathematics to calculate the correct answer. Mere calculation provides no insight into the mechanisms, whereas Ashby diagrams does offer such insight. Ashby diagrams are to be preferred since once we understand what is going on, then we have the option of managing it more effectively. (Refer The Origin of Consciousness in About)

We can describe a situation where the group loses its focus, and fails to survive as follows.

22

b) Actual group behavior → internal competition

↓_

The essentials for group survival.

The line through the arrow states that those things essential for group survival are not attended too therefore group survival is jeopardized. The group can correct jeopardizing its survival by choosing to shift its focus and action from internal issues b), and back to survival issues a).

In a small community 40,000 years ago, the analysis is easy to understand. Survival is very real and the group likely on the very edge of it every day. The overall Ashby equation describing the economic development of the community 40,000 years ago is below

1. Understanding of factors determining economic development of the community within its environment. Arising from cultural history, experience, trial and error and smart individuals.

↓

2. Identify those actions, called ideal actions, necessary for economic development. Derived from the understanding of the factors determining economic development, independent of any one person, but subject to creative effort to find more effective ways to economically develop the community.

↓

3. The economic development work distributed through various sub-groups with actual behavior matching ideal actions to a crucial minimum required standard. If the people do not match actual behavior with the ideal actions

23

to the minimum required standard, the whole community can suffer.

This is a verifiable and testable scientific theory linking measurable variables in causal sequence offering insight and understanding in ancient communities of the link between individual conduct to group survival.

For the purposes of this discussion it is shown as directional, however human conceptualization would relate the output from one step to the insight of the step before, and so the community would evolve deepening understanding of what it was doing and how to do it better. For example, experience of a poor crop after some particular weather could result in the group deciding that if the weather is ‘such and such’, then it is best if the crops are managed by doing such... The understanding could be recorded in the community records and thereby become part of the cultural understanding of the group passed from one generation to the next. Accepting the definition of improving survival was an aspect of economic development, we can now state that the community was engaged in economic development.

The questions we must consider are whether it is different today? Is any aspect of this analysis applicable today? If so, why, and how can we understand it? Specifically, if we apply the Ashby tools and build Ashby equations describing the situation today, how will it differ from the analysis of the community 40,000 years ago, and what will it tell us about our modern society?

24

3. To date social science has not

delivered

The key question is how do we build a wealthy, fair society in which everyone enjoys life to its full?

The question has a long history; it likely did not begin with Plato and the ancient Greeks, but that is a good start. Rousseau wrote how the world belonged to everyone, and how society eroded the natural moral goodness in people. In modern times we have many authors each pressing claim to this or that point of view, but is any of it sound science consistent with operation of the human mind, as introduced in the previous chapter?

The focus is on making our communities wealthier on the assumption that if the community is wealthier then it can afford better sanitation, education, food, water, shelter, security, medical services, social support infrastructure, and can reduce the adverse effects of poverty. In short, greater wealth enables better health.

It is accepted that better science builds better bridges. Then better social science will build better society. Over the last fifty years the world has retreated from reason and moved deeper into mysticism and informal religions of many types. We have continuing debate over evolution for example, and the polemic of Richard Dawkins informs and divides.

We can ask why people persist with such unreasoned views. The answer I think is much simpler than frequently recognized, they seek answers that satisfy. This retreat from reason is due substantially the failure of social science to deliver answers. Some would say science cannot deliver the answers to social issues people seek but I regard this position as excusing their lineage of thought from the failure.

25

Reason, and science is a product of reason, is human kind’s only salvation. If we are to invest faith in something, then let it be reason, since we all can believe in reason. No other belief has such reach. But, and it is an important but, to use reason we need an agreed starting point and agreed tools and method we apply to our start point.

Freud, Jung, Skinner, Karl Marx, Adam Smith and everyone in between, before and since, has failed. As the world came to understand the emptiness of theory after theory, then anyone with a point of view and willing to climb on a soap-box could proselytize with impunity, since there were no clear well defined tools to be used or intellectual standards that had to be met. Any demand for such standards and people merely pointed to this or that existing assertion or failed theory and the demand was immediately eroded, since repeatedly standards of intellectual structure had not been insisted upon. I will discuss later what exactly is meant.

We come to a key point: Theoretical physics is a respected discipline, theoretical social science almost regarded as a joke.

I recall couple of years ago I attended a writers meeting. During the coffee break I chatted with a charming woman who told me she was a novelist with five books to her name. She said she sold sufficient to be a full time writer. She asked what I do. I told her I was a business consultant and writer. She asked what I wrote about. I replied organizations, society and theoretical social science. She laughed and said ‘so you are a creative novelist as well’.

In thirty years of reflection on failed social science I concluded the problem was not the people, not the intellectuals or practitioners, but the tools that were being applied. I likened the tools to giving a house painter a wet blanket for a brush together with a pail of oil paint and telling them to paint the house and then criticizing them for doing

26

a poor, messy job. Theoretical physics is a respected discipline yet theoretical social science is not. Why? The answer is twofold.

First, lack of adequate tools for theory creation: In physics mathematics is used to guide conceptualization but that does not work very well in social science, so we need improved systematic tools for theory creation. Second, and more general, a broad lack of understanding of the crucial strategic development of science, deeply embedded in the notion of how science grows, how scientific understanding grows.

I do not wish to go too far into epistemology, sufficient to point out that if we build a house on sand, or like one of the three pigs we build it of poor materials, we ought to not be surprised when it fails.

As with houses so with understanding: To build secure understanding we need build it of strong materials resting on a solid base.

Let’s begin with one of the world’s great slogans: Workers of the world unite! That line from Marx and Engels has echoed through the world and shook its very foundations for the 130 years since it was written… Why? Such ideas only find such strong popular root when they crystallize a line of thinking that was already occurring, hence the slogan of Marx and Engels merely focused and gave voice to an inarticulate feeling among people that their social world was lacking.

The slogan – workers of the world unite - and supporting analysis also gave a direction to correct the sense of dissatisfaction within society that direction was called socialism, supported by a movement called unions. The slogan was about the mobilization of groups of people to combat the power and authority of other groups of people. That was the very essence of Marx, commonly called class conflict.

But we still have not answered how? We still do not have a clear and accurate causal theory of society where we can see how it occurs.

27

We do not have a theory of society that links people in fact to society, and to the economy.

Socialism failed, why? We still do not really understand it, because we have no theory of society that is able to explain it. Again why…?

The question is why a theory like Marx, of such deep popular appeal, fail to serve that popular appeal? This question is not about Marx at all, but is about the structure of knowledge and what constitutes sound reasoned thinking and what does not.

Would you build a house from the top down? The idea is silly. One must begin with the foundations which themselves need to be strong if the house is to be strong. In intellectual endeavor what is it that represents strong foundations and strong building materials? I have considered this question in depth in The Origin of Consciousness and will not repeat the analysis merely consider the conclusions.

I have already discussed the need for well-constructed tools, and the importance of their thorough applications. I elaborate these points in the following chapter. The second crucial issue is what I define as strategic science. To build the house we must begin at the bottom with the foundations, so we must do first things first. The exact same principle applies in intellectual endeavor, and this is the chief reason why Marx theories failed, they were not built on a secure base, they were not built on a base at all, and as a result they were simply wrong. The theories of Marx, touched a popular nerve, they were nice theories offering warm feelings to people, but failed people because they did not work in practice.

I stress at this point that we need deeply understand the relationship between first, our conceptualizations or understanding or theory, second the empirical data which our theory must describe and for which our theory must account, third the situation itself with which we are faced, and finally our emotions as regard that situation.

28

Decisions about our theories must be detached from our feelings about the situations to which our theories apply. This emotional detachment applies even to our personal theories, and we all have them it is how we work as a species. Decisions on which theory provides best understanding of a situation is an intellectual decision, and while we may use intuition, we do not use our emotion as regards the situation which can easily lead us in the wrong direction intellectually.

Strategic intellectual endeavor is when the core underlying issues that bear to some topic are fully accounted for in discussion of the topic.

I continue to use Marx as an instructive example of the intellectual failings of theory which offers emotional appeal. Imagine a theory of society that explains things by way of conflict between groups, class conflict. What questions could be asked of such a theory? I offer several below.

What exactly is the relationship of society to individual psychology?

What exactly are the causal factors in any group? Including very large groups.

What is cause? Since if the theory to be viable it needs to be causal.

To what extent to ideas influence people?

If ideas influence people, then how does the theory of class conflict influence the psychology of people engaged in that conflict?

What we know is knowledge. Seems silly but it is important to remind ourselves of that fact, what we know is knowledge. This raises other questions... What is knowledge and what is science as a subset of knowledge? How do we understand science, and can we scientifically discuss society without understanding knowledge and hence science? Can we scientifically discuss anything without understanding science? That is, if what we know of society is knowledge, which it must be,

29

then how can we apply knowledge without knowing what knowledge is and where it comes from etc., ...? We all sort of sense we know what knowledge is, but really, what exactly is the link between knowledge and objects of that knowledge, and how is it generated in our psychology, and how is it causal, etc. It gets very deep very quickly.

Knowledge lies in the answer wisdom in the next question. The thrust of strategic science is to ask the next question.

Terrible things these questions… we are not allowed to assume anything, we are not allowed to take anything for granted, we must validate everything. It does slow things down a lot, but makes us really think and dig deep into what we really understand before moving on to the next topic. A thoroughly questioning mind… a hard task master… brings integrity and balance to our intellectual effort, to science, and in particular brings depth and solidarity to our reason. It is only in the depth of this questioning digging hard into global understanding and relating our questions to earlier questions either answered or identifying and acknowledging those yet to be answered - first things first - then and only then are we truly entitled to call ourselves ‘scientists’. This idea of scientist travels far beyond the evening news clip as the latest somewhat superficial scientific breakthrough is given its 90 seconds of fame. Too frequently such a news item is driven by the ego of the scientist more than by the realistic significance of the research.

I easily asked a lot of questions about the work of Marx that he did not address nor even seriously conceptualize. His work lacked scientific depth, was written about with a vigor and authority his work did not justify. He did not have answers he had an opinion, it lacked intellectual integrity.

Intellectually at stake is a truly fundamental idea for all of science. It not legitimate to discuss some topic when there are unresolved issues that could impact the topic and reorder our understanding of the topic.

30

When we do discuss a topic, and leave issues that could impact the topic unresolved then we must ensure people understand what we have done. This is called intellectual integrity, when the discussion on the topic in question has no unresolved underlying issues.

The work used as example, the intellectual work of Marx, lacked intellectual integrity. Now that seems particularly unfair since Marx wrote and used the insight and tools of his day, but none the less it is accurate.

For Marx, he needed to preface his work … I have spent many years reflecting on this topic, in the absence of a general theory of psychology, and general theory of cause, both of which could influence this work, I speculate that…

I doubt that with such a preface the ideas would have had the same impact on the world, and as I discuss later, millions of people would not have died in the name of the ideas he initiated.

The fundamental scientific principle of first things first is a fierce ethical rule intrinsic to the very nature of serious intellectual endeavor. Strategic science controls what we can say on any topic, limiting discussion on any topic within the bounds of what is already known on issues prior to the topic but essential to the full understanding of the topic.

It is important to understand that any criticism of Marx for example, is not ideological. If we assume that Adam smith and his book Wealth of Nations was the beginning of the free market viewpoint, then his work is deficit in exactly the same way. For example, there is no ‘invisible hand’ of a market. Any inference that there is begs the question, ‘how?’ what are the causal mechanism, which of course needs an understanding of cause. I stress that all this comment is about the intellectual foundations, it is not about the ideology of left or right. It is about building our understanding so that we can be confident in what we ‘see’ and so enabled to make better decisions on the structure of our society putting in place that structure we know works and is fair. I

31

would make the same criticisms of Freud, Levi-Strauss, Skinner, and work of most historical intellectuals. First things first was not an intellectual demand made of them, was not the core epistemological foundation on which historical social science including psychology was built, as a result theory after theory failed. Social science has failed.

It is important that the principle of first things first is intrinsic to science, and accepted as intrinsic to our personal reasoning. The principle of first things first limits any discussion on any topic by what is known of crucial issues related to but prior to the topic. ‘First things first’ is a principle intrinsic to the very development of our knowledge. It is not some ethical choice made by a person. If we want our ideas to have solid foundation, then we must apply first things first, and we must use well defined tools.

Anyone not obeying the rule of first things first are engaging in speculation without intellectual foundation, without intellectual integrity. Speculation without foundation is science fiction, not science.

If we are to act and to change our social structure so it better serves us then we need do so applying ideas that have intellectual integrity. We need to be confident we are not merely making more intellectual mistakes that have dogged our social structure for hundreds of years. We need understanding with depth of reasoning behind it. We need give substance to our slogans.

Around mid-1980s, Karl Popper had shown that knowledge exists independent of the knower. A text book contains knowledge independent of the people, and this knowledge then can have its own ‘life’, be developed, etc., in ways not seen by the author. Popper called this knowledge objective knowledge, or World III, to use his terminology.

Following Popper, I reasoned that everything that was free standing had a structure, therefore if knowledge existed in its own right, was free standing, then knowledge had to have a structure. Also, about

32

mid-eighties, I read the W Ross Ashby book, Design for a Brain, Chapman Hall, London and came to understand immediate and ultimate effects, etc., the intellectual tools of the British cyberneticist.

It was immediately apparent that applying the tools of ultimate and immediate effects produced knowledge with a very precise structure. I understood the tools of Ashby were the very processes of conceptualization. Over the following twenty years I then established a general theory of psychology applying Ashby tools to the system ‘person in their environment’, while simultaneously showing how Ashby tools were the conceptualization of how we as a species conceptualized. This was the crucial reflexive criteria essential for any general theory of psychology. Humans produced knowledge, a general theory of psychology was knowledge therefore the theory had to directly account for its own existence. This type of reflexivity permeated Western philosophy as wonderfully illustrated by Douglas Hofstadter, in Gödel, Escher and Bach. As much as anything else, it was the resolution of this crucial reflexive criteria that gave me confidence my general theory of psychology was valid and the only available general theory of psychology. It still is the only general theory that meets the crucial criteria of reflexivity. (Refer The Origin of Consciousness, in About).

Ashby also showed how the tools gave knowledge that could be made mathematical. I reasoned the tools of Ashby in fact were precursors to mathematics, perhaps the conceptual foundation to mathematics as attempted many decades before by Bertrand Russell and Alfred Whitehead in Principia Mathematica. Principia is a substantial work destroyed by Gödel who showed that within any formal set of axioms there were always legitimate sentences possible that could not be proved from within the axioms. Gödel was important since he proved mathematics was an open system not bounded by its axioms.

33

As an aside, theoretical physics uses mathematics to build and explore theories, if we apply the principle of ‘first things first asking the next question’ we ask ‘why?’ Why should the universe follow any set of reasoning we humans may have invented? The theory of knowledge that emerged in The Origin of Consciousness explains why that is so, since if the fundamental foundation structure of knowledge is immediate and ultimate effects, and these are mathematical, then our scientific knowledge is intrinsically mathematical. We do not actually know if the universe follows our mathematical formulas, but we do know that our knowledge of the universe does.

Einstein wrote E=mc² before it was discovered empirically, that is we had the theory substantially before we had the empirical proof. The equation was part of the theoretically structure that lead to the atom bomb. It follows that while our knowledge of the universe parallels mathematics, there must be at least under some circumstances congruence between our knowledge of the universe and the universe, for if not, then the bomb would not have the explosive power as expressed in the Einstein equation.

I do not wish to go in too far, the crucial point is that the tools of Ashby, ultimate and immediate effects, and primary operations, supported by my work on variables and their relationship to perception, to psychology and to perceptual fields, represents nothing short of a re-conceptualization of social science. A new social science that explains why statistics exists in any science and offers greatly improved theoretical insight and understanding of the intellectual structure of social science.

For a cornerstone paper, see The Origin of Consciousness, or see the post on LinkedIn, The intellectual structure of social science (refer About).

34

4. Simple thinking tools to improve

understanding

It is easy to rant over the failings of social science, as it is easy to rant over any perceived failing. The hard part is coming up with effective alternatives. Then the even harder part, proving one’s alternative is in fact better.

One cannot build a house from the roof down. No business person of sound judgment would sign off on a business plan for a product without analysis of the market, competition, customer preferences, likely pricing, capital needed and gross margin, etc.

This principle, of ‘first things have to be done first’ is equally applicable to intellectual endeavor. For example, if one seeks a general theory of say, psychology, and if one wants it to be reproducible, and hence causal, then there has to be a theory of cause. Second, to identify the mechanisms in the system person ↔ environment there has to be understanding of the tools being used in theory creation. If we do not do these first things first, then we are left with the potential for someone come after us and develop a theory of cause that could alter all our work.

Technically I define ‘first things first’ as: Discussion on any topic must be bounded by what is known of the prior issues that are able to impact the topic. If we do not resolve issues prior to the topic that could influence the topic, then we can have no security on any pronouncements on the topic. If we leave unresolved any issue that could influence the topic, and if that issue is resolved in the future, then it could negate all we may say on the topic. I define intellectual integrity of any proposition as one where all prior issues are resolved and accounted for. If any prior issues are not accounted for then we must declare the lack of intellectual integrity up front so that people are

35

placed in a position to fully assess the proposal we make on any topic. If issues prior to any topic are not resolved, and we make pronouncements on the topic and do not declare the limitations of our work, then we fail the standard of ensuring our work has intellectual integrity. For example if a builder builds a house knowing the foundations are weak because they did a poor job, then to have integrity they need declare this to the potential buyer. We all know that does not happen, and we all understand exactly why, they would never close the deal. It is all too common when ideas are offered to people they lack intellectual integrity, for the same reason, if they were offered with intellectual integrity the limitations of the ideas would be so apparent the proposer would never close the deal.

The rule is first things must be done first. Far too often this rule is ignored. Speculation is defined as any statement on any issue that is not grounded in all that has gone before and where the first things have not been done first. Speculation is not acceptable, and is not science, rather it is science fiction. This rule of first things first is quite ruthless. For example, the works of Marx, Freud, Jung, behaviorism of Skinner, and sociologist Levi-Strauss, Tolman, Eric Berne, and the economic work of Adam Smith are all dismissed as speculative since they lack adequate intellectual foundation. This is harsh judgement, unkind and unfair, but if we are to fit rules of engagement to our intellectual efforts to build a thorough social science then the works of these prominent writers must be seen as purely historical with limited modern significance. They are historical lines of thinking, and accepted as that, but lacking in intellectual integrity, and with limited integration, by which I mean limited insight into the link say, between a general theory of psychology, and a general theory of society, and insight into the economy, given that we are the only actors.

The principle of ‘first things first’ directs that we must resolve the underlying intellectual issues that could impact our discussion of

36

any topic. In social science, two essentials are an understanding of social causality, and tools integrated into causal understanding suitable for creating theory, both applied to build a general theory of psychology.

You would not go to catch fish with a paint brush. The right tools are crucial to do a good job including social science theory creation. The use of variables and application of the Ashby principle of primary operations and immediate and ultimate effects enables conceptualization of the mechanism of any system, the steps applying Ashby tools are below (derived from Ashby’s Design for a Brain).

1. Variables are the concepts used in describing the working of any system. It is the interaction of variables that converts inputs into outputs. Variables are then our conceptualisation of the mechanisms of the system that are linked via the Ashby immediate and ultimate effects to describe how the system works. In the first instance we create a descriptive explanation of the system; then by extending the conceptualization using Ashby’s immediate and ultimate effects and the relationship between the two we build a causal explanation of the system. There is no a priori method of determining the variables that need used to describe a system. Variables selection to describe the operation of any system is the result of conceptual analysis, experience and trial and error.

2. Primary operations is producing a perturbation in one variable and then watching the order in which variables are impacted. More simply, primary operations is creating change in one variable and then watching how the change travels through the interlinked system of variables.

37

3. If two variables A, B have a relationship so that when A changes B changes then we can say A→B, and describe this as an immediate effect.

4. If then variable C conceptualised, such that A→C→B. Then A→C and C→ B are the immediate effects underlying A→B which is described as an ultimate effect.

5. The relation between variables A→B is then the descriptive explanation of the system. The relationship A→C→B is the causal explanation relative to A→B. Cause only exits in immediate effects relative to ultimate effects that is cause only exists in our understanding. This point is crucial.

6. Any causal explanation must stand in relation to a descriptive explanation. Cause is the conceptualisation of the immediate effects relative to the ultimate effects. It is the conceptualization of the mechanism of how the change in the system occurs. Necessity is the physical process whereby a change in A results in a change in B. We do not know in advance the mechanism where the change in A results in a change in B. When we first examine any new system the mechanism is unknown to us. We merely observe inputs converted to outputs. This leads to the crucial relationship between ourselves and our understanding of Nature. I postulate via the universal mechanistic postulate that there is always a mechanism. Cause is knowledge, and is the conceptualization of the mechanisms, and as such is what we know of the necessity inherent in the system under study.

7. The tools provide direction of communication between variables and do not necessarily describe the mechanism of the communication channel. This is especially crucial

38

understanding when dealing with situations where all we have are the variables and their linkages.

8. Ashby diagrams also have a special property. That is in any sequence of immediate effects we can directly form an ultimate effect between the variable at the tail of the first arrow with the variable at the head of the last arrow. So if A→C→B→D→E is a flow of change from A to E, then we can form an ultimate effect directly linking A and E, A→E which describes how a change in A ultimate effects a change in E. We will use this property of Ashby equation later in the analysis.

All systems exhibit outputs resulting from the operation of the internal mechanism within the system. Operation of the internal mechanism relative to an input is defined as necessity. Arising from my theory that Ashby tools are a model of scientific knowledge itself, gives rise to the formal definition of cause: Cause is a relation between classes of relation between classes of events. This can then be translated into more comfortable language by saying cause is the relationship that immediate effects make with ultimate effects, when the immediate effects can be said to be the cause of the ultimate effects. Conceptualization of the internal mechanism in a system in relation to the outputs is cause. Cause is not necessity it is our conceptualization of the mechanisms hence is our conceptualization or understanding of necessity.

39

The figures 1 and 2 illustrate the relationship between internal mechanisms, necessity, theory creation tools and cause.

For example, we saw the sun rise and set yesterday, but because we saw it happen yesterday is no good reason for assuming it will

Output of any system relative to an input depends on internal mechanisms of the system processing the input.

Figure 1: Necessity as the internal mechanisms of a system

Input Output

Mechanism = necessity

The tools enable conceptualization of the system and its internal mechanisms. Input A→ [C→D→E→ etc.]→B Output

Input Output

Figure 2: Cause as the conceptualization of the internal mechanisms

Cause = conceptualization of the mechanisms = understanding of necessity. Proposition: A theory is causal if and only if it identifies the mechanisms.

40

happen again tomorrow. This was analyzed by the Scottish philosopher David Hume around 1750 and is called causal expectation. Causal expectation arises from figure 1 where we see it happen but we do not really know why. Causal understanding is in figure 2, and is our theory of the mechanisms within the system, the set of linked boxes through which flows the perturbation. Our causal understanding is accurate if and only if theory fits the facts and is predictive of future events. Science is the social-intellectual process devoted to causal understanding of the environment and the universe beyond.

When a theory is not causal then the only recourse to understanding data is the use of statistics and probability. This exists today for example, in current modern physics, quantum theory, treats photons as a point particle, which is immediately in breach of this proposition, and is therefore not a causal theory. This proposition directs effort in physics to understand the internal mechanisms of a photon and its links to its environment, then and only then science can progress beyond current probability.

This theory of knowledge goes further in that it is projected that ‘there is always a mechanism’, this is the universal mechanistic postulate. The result of this postulate is that there is no such thing as ‘science’, it is all technology, since there is always an underlying level of mechanism and insight we do not know nor understand but which we can learn to predict by use of clever statistics. For example if we view what we observe of photon under specific circumstances, we can refer to these as ultimate effects. Then the universal mechanistic postulate proposes that there are immediate effects underlying these ultimate effects, and our task as scientists is to uncover them.

From figure 1 we can understand the solar system as a set of mechanisms that produce the inputs and outputs we see, sun rises and sets. We do not know what those mechanisms are, but we know they

41

must exist, and the sun rising and setting is due the internal mechanisms of the solar system.

Every system we can think of is the same and has within it, its own internal necessity, the mechanism by which it goes tick tock, tick tock... As an aside and fully covered in The Origin of Consciousness, humanity does have free will embodied in our capacity to create ideas and chose which one to act out. The capacity to create ideas and act them out exists in all aware species, but in humankind to the greatest extent. It is the full analysis of causation that leads to the understanding that humanity is not bound by mechanistic necessity that determines the non-aware aspects of the universe, that which is normally referred to as Nature. We choose our path and hence our destiny.

Now, we apply tools of physics and astronomy, and we arrive at gravity, nature of the sun, nature of movement of planets etc. What we have now is a conceptual analysis of the mechanisms. Our conceptual analysis is not the mechanism; it is our knowledge of the mechanisms. And under the terminology used here it is called cause which is not necessity but our understanding of necessity.

Going from figure 1 to figure 2 is to go from the fundamental of the universe, mechanism processing inputs to produce outputs (figure 1); to conceptualization of those mechanisms into diagrams and equations and descriptions whereby we can explain why this input results in this output (figure 2). Figure 1 represents how we must initially perceive the universe. We then seek explanation, which gives rise to figure 2, our understanding of the universe.

It is crucial to understand these relationships between perception, knowledge, cause, mechanisms and necessity. What the terms mean and how we manage them to improve our knowledge and via improved knowledge we improve our interaction with our environment, including our social environment. It is crucial to

42

understand the relationship between our perception and our intellect. We experience things via our perception but only understand things via our intellect.

In much earlier times people gave thanks to the gods for rain and sun… their explanation at that time for the ‘mechanism’ of the box called weather. Today, we have different explanations that serve the same psychological purpose.

Imagine viewing ruins of houses and circumstances of some ancient civilization. If we return to the ruins in a year or 100 years they will be unchanged other than obvious physical decay. Are ruins the civilization? Obviously not: So, what is needed for a civilization to dynamically exist? What is it that makes ruins ‘living’, or conversely, what is it that is missing in ruins that makes them ‘dead’ in the sense they are unchanging in every way other than physical decay.

Now, imagine walking into a room, there are cups and plates scattered about, seats in a semi-circle, two white boards filled with notes; scraps of paper with more notes and four groups of five chairs arranged away from the main group of chairs and well separated from each other about the room. We can surmise there was some form of group workshop, and from the notes we may even surmise what the workshop was about. If we leave the room overnight and return in the morning, then the room will be as we left it, no living actions will have altered the features in the room.

The group room is to the group as ruins are to the civilization; both are the remnants of dynamic causality of the living; both are missing people engaged and active in the processes implied and relevant to remnants. The remnants of the group activity are part of the group outputs. There are other outputs in terms of what members of the group carried with them in their minds relative to the activity. For ruins and for a workshop room, then the outputs that continue in

43

the minds of the members can be referred to as ‘cultural’, so now we have two types of output, physical remnants and cultural outputs carried forward in the mind of those participating.

In archaeological studies much of the effort goes into estimating from remnants the nature of the minds that generated the remnants. A very similar problem remains after any group exercise, for example, the CEO talking to the collective regional staff, the impact on staff may be gleaned by social acclamation such as clapping, but really the detailed analysis of the group response can only be by way of survey of each individual mind.

These arguments are more fully developed in The Origin of Consciousness. The consequence is that the mechanisms of team/group outputs are via the individual mind. A theory of teams requires a causal understanding of psychology. There is no causality in a group, it all occurs via the individual minds.

Figures 3 and 4 illustrate the different processes and how they impact the ‘group internal mechanisms’ (P is for person, and +, -, & 0 for the impact positive, negative or neutral).

Figure 3 is for a group input. Figure 4 is where each person in the group is addressed individually.

44

Group input: Talks, group training, newsletters

P1 P2 P3 P4 P5

Outputs P1 + P2 - P3 0 P4 + P5 0.5

Figure 3: Statistical impact on a group

Net group impact +2.5. Outputs only able to be considered statistically. Does not directly engage the group internal mechanisms.

Results only

Individual input into each mind

P1 P2 P3 P4 P5

Outputs P1 + P2 - P3 + P4 + P5 +

Figure 4: Causal impact on a group

Net group impact +4.0. Outputs able to be considered causally. Directly engages the group internal mechanisms.

Results only

45

Any group wide phenomenon that appears to have group wide impact is merely a ‘shotgun’ scatter into the group with take up via some percentage of individual minds in the group (figure 3).

The critical mass is when sufficient people adopt the way of thinking that we can say the group now thinks such and such, but this is convenient abbreviation. All social causality is via the individual mind (figure 4) and any form of group development via the mind of each person will be much more effective than group events.

There is no causality in ‘culture’ or society all causality in social system is by individual action. So called ‘social action’ is merely the net sum of the action of the members of the group, but the causation of that action can only be analyzed in terms of summing the action of each individual. The sum should be direction and intensity, so it perhaps best thought of a vector addition with the length of vector indicating the emotional intensity.

Imagine a box, call it box1; we know it is the internal mechanisms of box1 that turns inputs into outputs. Now, imagine we conceptualized the mechanisms of box1 to produce causal understanding of what happens. What do we have? Conceptualization of the mechanism produces a lot of linked smaller boxes inside the box1, with each smaller box having an input converted by its internal mechanisms to an output. Each ‘box’ is then a variable describing the nature of what happens in the box, with variables linked in immediate effects flows where change in one variable flows through all variables. In summary, our understanding of what happen in box1 is the Ashby diagram describing descriptive explanation.

Now imagine we take one of the boxes inside box1, call it box2, and we then analysis the internal mechanism of box2, what do we get? Conceptualization of the mechanism produces a lot of linked smaller boxes inside the box2, with each smaller box having an input converted

46

by its internal mechanisms to an output. We create within box2 an Ashby diagram of the flow of change through box2.

Now imagine we take one of the boxes inside box2, call it box3, and we then analysis the internal mechanism of box3, what do we get? …etc.

The conceptual analysis goes to infinity, or goes to an Ashby diagram which are all immediate effects, that is there are no underlying effects and the diagram is not able to be reduced into its components.

There is no infinity in the real world (see The Origin of Consciousness, About, for a full discussion on Reality and reality as the external world and our understanding of it). There is an infinite regress of ignorance. That is we can shrink our ignorance each time knowledge grows, but we can only ever shrink it, we can never know it all, and we can never know with complete certainty.

The question is whether or not there is ever any level of ‘box’ that has no internal mechanism? So then we have the ‘final and ultimate box’. There could be such an ‘ultimate box’, but this is a huge decision, to date, all of human intellectual history has always uncovered the internal mechanisms of every ‘box’ we have ever created and then discovered that the internal mechanisms themselves are just more boxes with internal mechanisms. For example, ancient people praying to gods for rain are merely assuming that what they think are the internal mechanism of weather – the actions of gods – can be slanted in their favor. Today we know the internal mechanism of weather are not gods but complex patterns in our atmosphere, so we seek a weather map hoping for good news.

It is this mechanistic regression argument that ends up with the universal mechanistic postulate that there is always a mechanism. Technically I define the postulate as: If A→ B denotes a correlation of the universe, that is a set of events E(A) and E(B), that occur with such

47

regularity and similarity as to be classified A and B. For example, the sun rising and setting. And if A→ /m B denotes there is no mechanism operative between A, B. And if A→ c/B denotes there is no

communication channel between A, B. Then: there exists no A→ B such that A→ /m B, or A→ c/ B or both are ever valid. This is the formal expression of the universal mechanistic postulate; more simply put, there is always a mechanism.

The fact that events seem, to us, to occur without a mechanism or in ways we cannot or are unable to conceive is a statement about our ignorance, more precisely a statement about 'what we left behind' when we classified the events used to explain the system.

This discussion brings to the fore an important principle, that it is not possible to treat issues as separate, especially in social science.

The question referred to above, namely ‘whether or not there is ever any level of ‘box’ that has no internal mechanism so we have the final and ultimate box?’ Can be formally defined as ‘does there exist any X→Y such there is no underlying immediate effects X→Z→Y?’ We get the same answer, namely ‘perhaps’ ... but assuming there is such a proposition goes counter to the whole of humankinds experience to date, and if we assume there is no such underlying immediate effect (the Z) it will certainly reduce our search for it.

This philosophy is very different from that presented by such as Descartes and Hume, where problems are isolated and resolved one at a time. The argument here is based on the insight that if we are to discuss a topic, then we need deal with any issues not resolved but if resolved could impact the topic. This I call the ‘strategic’ aspects of science, and gives rise to the ethics of first things first. Second, in social science in particular then issues of knowledge depend on a theory of psychology, and cause must be knowledge, therefore depends on theories of knowledge. This theory of cause leads to the separation of

48

cause and necessity with necessity being a property of the system, implicit in the mechanisms that generate the outcomes of the system, while cause is the conceptualization of those mechanisms and so is the conceptualization of necessity.

There are some deeper issues related to our perception and the truly fundamental perceptual structure of the universe based on events. For a detailed discussion, see The Origin of Consciousness. I will not dive this deep, suffice to say that the intellectual position from which the models are build is as deep as any understanding can go, and should anyone be interested read the suggested texts to cover these aspects.

Recently, in private discussion I was asked ‘but why are these intellectual foundations important, and why will they lead in an improved direction compared to previous attempts’. This did surprise me, since to me it is self-evident, and I had not realized it was not to others, so I will now digress to cover the point.

The theory of causality tells us that group outputs are due the mechanisms internal to the group. Applying the tools of theory creation to groups we find the only mechanisms internal to a group are in fact the individual mind of each member of the group.

The short summary of this analysis is: There is no causality in a group; all causality is via the mind of the each individual in the group. So group outputs are a form of mean, or perhaps better thought of as the vector addition of the magnitude and direction of the attitudes and emotions of each individual in the group.

So…? I can hear the question.

This is now crucially important. Adam Smith for example, argued for free markets. That is groups of people when left to their own decisions without constraint by regulation will make better decisions

49

on behalf of society than when regulation is used. Adam Smith called it the ‘invisible hand’. The idea of the ‘invisible hand’ is that people acting in their self-interest will interact in group to direct resources and distribute those resources in in the most favorable manner for society. People act in accord with the background ethical structure. In Adam Smith’s day there was a very different ethical structure to society, one of focus on the greater social good in a background of Calvinism. With the ethical structure of today, leaving people to act in their self-interest leaves people to act according to principle of them taking what is best for them and to hell with the rest. The failure of the argument is that people act according to the broader ethical structure of society, not merely according to the economic issues, Adam Smith understood this, whereas modern interpretation consistently failed to do so. The ‘invisible hand’ argument was used in determining the deregulation of the financial sector an action that contributed to the financial crash of 2008.

Until now decisions between ‘free market’ and ‘regulated market’ degenerated into an ideological discussion between capitalism and socialism; one promoting freedom and the other pressing various restrictions, eroding social creativity and progress and encouraging handouts.

With the intellectual fundamental we are so much better placed to analyze the circumstances. We can ask a much better question directly related to the known and understood causality in groups.

When legal restraint is removed from people is it valid to assume they will act in a manner consistent with social service, act in the manner as assumed by Adam Smith? Is it valid to assume they will not act in a manner that most advantages themselves and those they know best, even at significant disadvantage to others in society?

50

The question is now not about groups, or about markets, or ‘invisible hands’ or ideology, but about what we can sensible expect in an individual mind when that mind can see opportunity to advantage itself even at the expense of others… Will people necessarily act with compassion, with social responsibility and with ethical good intent…? The evidence says ‘no, people in the modern world are likely to act with a bias toward self-interest’.

So what exactly has the intellectual foundations done for us? Precisely, given us a definite intellectual framework within which we can ask much, much better questions. From these question we gain much better insight into what is likely to happen, and that insight is stripped of it ideological trappings, so we look at it without preferences involving freedom, socialism and capitalism etc. We can look at it on basis of ‘if we enable this in the minds of these people, what are they likely to do?’

The greatly improved intellectual foundations provide us with the objective intellectual framework enabling clarity of insight free of ideology.

Imagine a senior economics professor on TV saying they think the financial industry should be deregulated, but that would result in the opportunistic and powerful people getting richer at the expense of the average worker … I don’t think the idea would have got very far. And while that may not have stopped the global financial meltdown it would have moderated it.

Regulation is not about groups, nor about societies or communities. Regulation is about the individual mind and the curbing of the excesses of greed, avarice, opportunism, deceit and manipulation. Social rules, laws and regulation are not ‘social’ at all, they are psychological. It follows when assessing the impact of law or regulation it is not judged based on statistics, but on its impact on the individual mind.

51

5. Discussion of Ashby tools and

diagrams

W Ross Ashby is the founder of cybernetics which is strictly the analysis of self-regulating systems. I adhere to this fundamental definition, specifically since I apply the Ashby tools to analysis social systems, which are clearly self-regulating.

The definition extends further, in that all human output is, well, by humans. Everything we know of anything is knowledge by definition. After Popper, we know that knowledge once shared has an existence of its own. It follows that we now have three ‘entities’ in an interactive situation, knowledge, our minds, and objects to which our knoweldge applies. This in itself is an interactive feedback system with inherent self-regulation. In short I argue the Ashby tools apply to all aspects of what we do and are the best set of tools for the creation of theory of anything, psychology, social science, or of the external world itself.

We are as we are due our fundamental nature defined as the ability to create ideas and apply them in survival. We ‘see’ in mind the situation, we ‘think up’ lines of action, apply them in mind first so ideas die in our stead. Then once we find a line of action that is non-threatening, we do it.

We can now define ‘seeing’ as having an Ashby diagram showing the change to occur and how that change will impact various variables in the situation, including ourselves. This is more precise than what may actually happen, but it carries the essence of it, and by using Ashby tools and diagrams we can make our thinking much more precise and effective.

We can now define ‘conceptualize’ as applying Ashby tools to build a theory of the flow of change through the variables such as to

52

enable understanding the mechanisms of the situation. We can then ‘see’ how we can intervene and/or act as to avoid the consequences of the situation. If we ‘see’ with precision, see the variables, and how the change will flow through those variables and we understand what the change in each variables means for us, then we are strongly placed to act with much greater effect than if we did not know what was going to happen.

It is the quality of conceptualization skill that is the foundation of our human nature. Some people have this skill much, much greater than others. It is the core skill of thinking and intelligence. Regardless of difference in intelligence between humans, every human has this skill beyond that of any animal. It is our capacity to think, reason, conceptualize, and share that with others of our species that sets us apart from all other known species.

In The Origin of Consciousness I discuss how there are two third level conceptualization tools able to lead the conceptualization process. By lead I mean we can use the tools to determine linkages between variables we did not otherwise realize exist, so E=mc² was written as a result of this process. The other to lead the conceptualization process is Ashby tools. Of the two, Ashby tools are the more powerful, since in order to build an Ashby diagram one must begin with an assessment of the variables that apply within the system under study so there is congruence between the variables and the system. That is not necessarily the case with mathematics, where for example, the factors in the equations of quantum physics have to be ‘interpreted’ relative to the situation.

The most famous physics conference was the Solvay conference of 1927, where a handful of the world’s leading physicists of the day met to discuss the emerging quantum theory. The conference lead to the Copenhagen interpretation, which at its core proposes the Ψ

53

function in the base Schrodinger wave equation was a probability function. It was during this debate that a disgruntled Einstein quipped ‘God does not play dice’, to which Bohr reputedly replied ‘Albert, stop telling God what to do’. The misinterpretation at Solvay is exactly consistent with this epistemological analysis, where mathematics is pushed to provide statistical prediction of events, in this case what fundamental particles will do under what circumstance, but where the variables used in the mathematics equations bear no relationship with identifiable variables that would drive necessity within the system under study. As a result, the mathematical variable has to be ‘interpreted’.

It is unquestioned the application of statistics is a powerful technological tool, as evidenced by this book, written on a modern computer, exchanged over the internet with those interested in publishing, and even able to be read via the technology arising from this Copenhagen interpretation. What is questioned is whether the use of statistics to predict events in fact reflects the underlying physical reality. In the theory in The Origin of Consciousness I argue that the modern interpretation that the universe is probabilistic is wrong. The error is a failure to fully understand that physics is knowledge therefore the interpretation of any physics variables is not a problem of physics but an epistemological problem fully subject to a general theory of psychology, itself fully subject to a general theory of cause.

The Origin of Consciousness offers the only available general theory of psychology with full intellectual integrity. The general theory of psychology predicts: (1) Knowledge is mathematical, but we do not know if the underlying reality is or not. (2) Mathematics can use variables unrelated to the actual mechanisms within any system, and produce equations using those variables that may or may not enable prediction of that system. (3) Where any equation uses variables not derived from the system, such as Ψ, and it succeeds in accurately predicting the outputs from any system, then the prediction is via

54

statistics, there is no other alternative. By comparison E=mc² involves variables directly derived from any system, the variables do not need interpreted.

Ashby tools are superior tools of third level conceptualization because they only use variables from the system that do not need interpretation. The Einstein mass-energy conversion equation is expressed in Ashby tools as mass→ E that is change the mass has an effect on the energy available. The constant in the equation being the square of the speed of light so a very small change in mass produces a very large amount of energy. This is the exact same conceptual structure as the equation across a TV between knob position and sound volume which could be simply expressed as v=Kp with K the constant provided the TV being studied was always the same. The constant that emerges in such equations is then an expression of the mechanism that links the selected variables, v and p, or E and m for the Einstein equation. Therefore if there is a constant, it means we do not know the mechanism and express it as the constant linking two variables. We need be more aware of how our mathematical formulations that on the surface offer so much knoweldge disguise the fact of how ignorant we remain. Strategic science reminds us by stressing at all levels we need seek the next question and the underlying immediate effect. We do not know the mechanism whereby mass converts to energy, just as we do not know the mechanism whereby a single radioactive atom goes critical and disintegrates. We just know the technology as expressed in atomic power and bombs.

Quantum physics is the most accurate scientific theory ever created with predictive power that is legend. What this says of humanity is that we are extraordinarily clever at the application of statistics to get the right answer. We are extraordinarily clever at using our knowledge to manipulate events in physical reality, that is to manipulate input-output relationships across ‘boxes’ where we do not really know what

55

is happening inside the box to generate the input-outputs we so cleverly use. The interpretation of quantum theory as reflecting the intrinsic probability of the universe is at best, a possibility, and at worst simply wrong. We do not know, and given the general theory of psychology where all growth of knoweldge is an infinite regress of ignorance, we can never know! This is the necessary relationship we have between us, our knoweldge and experience of physical reality beyond both.

Physics as knowledge means that any interpretation of physics is subject to the demand of intellectual integrity as all other knowledge we seek to apply. Which means we are not able to ‘interpret’ any knowledge in the absence of a general theory of psychology and a general theory of cause. The physicists of Solvay 1927 did not understand this demand that if their pronouncements were to have intellectual integrity they had to be made from with an apt general theory of psychology, and one did not exist in 1927. There has been no general theory of psychology with intellectual integrity until publication of The Origin of Consciousness in 2014.

Several physicists of the day in 1927, including Einstein, I suggest sensed the issue raised here, namely that to reflect the external reality then physics must use variables consistent with the mechanism of the reality. Other physicist, notably Bohr, argued that science was about outcomes, and if the equations got the correct result then they had to reflect what was happening. These were alternative approaches to science of the day, referred to as realism and instrumentalism. These are issues of epistemology not issues of physics. Hence there was a discomfort that the mathematics was going too far. But the instrumentalists won the day, and since, the ‘interpretation’ of quantum physics as reflecting an inherent probability structure in the universe has ruled thinking. Simply put, in 1927 the understanding of a general theory of psychology and the links to knowledge and cause was non-existent. Understanding of strategic science and the rule of first things

56

first was non-existent. It is superficially appealing that if one has equations that get the right answer to a high degree of accuracy, then those equation had to reflect what was happening. The general theory of psychology applied here proves that that is not true, and to reflect the mechanism of physical reality then one must use variables derived from that reality.

The threads of quantum physics have also penetrated to ideas on consciousness where it is proposed that supposed intrinsic quantum variability is the basis of consciousness. But what if quantum variability is nothing more than inadequate interpretation we created in our ignorance...? This also illustrates an important point I will cover in more detail later, namely how threads of thinking become entwined in ideas we hold often far removed from the intellectual topic to which the threads of thinking directly apply, and we assume them to a degree we do not see them for what they are. Probability as intrinsic to the universe is merely a hundred years old, but its influence is already wide spread. There exist other such threads that can reach back in a culture thousands of years subsumed as part of the culture and dominate minds today.

Strategic science stressing we link what we think now with the underlying issues that could if resolved impact the topic, is the only way I can see where we avoid sliding down intellectual rabbit holes from which we when we learn we then need extricate ourselves. Best to make greater effort with better tools and get it right first.

The importance of such philosophical debate is shown by the extent the popular mind is aware of quantum physics, probability, Schrodinger cat, etc. The theories offered here propose all probabilistic interpretation is a seriously misinformed view of the physical world in which we live. If it can happen in the esoteric world of atomic physics, it can certainly happen in the more directly significant world of the

57

economy, psychology, government regulation, politics, freedom or serfdom, and community wellbeing.

Imagine a tree... now imagine every aspect of the tree in a ’box’ in mind. The box is defined as an isolated system. We can now imagine all the functions within the tree, flow of water, leaves, photosynthesis, growth rings, etc. I refer to these functions of the tree as the ‘mechanisms’. When we first isolate the tree in the box we do not know what the mechanisms are, we just know via the universal mechanistic postulate they will exist. Our task is to conceptualize them, and use our understanding to better manage the system.

We now have the general proposition of mechanisms inherent to an isolated system. We can now apply the Ashby tools to the tree in the box, and can select variables, and then impose a perturbation to a variable and watch which variables are then effected and in what sequence. The Ashby diagram of the mechanisms then offers causal insight into what is happening in the system, in our example, in the tree. Necessity is defined as the operation of the mechanism with the system, in our example, the tree in the imagined box. Cause is defined as the conceptualization of necessity, which is the conceptualization of the mechanisms.

Now imagine we have an Ashby diagram of the tree in the box that predicts or pictures all the ultimate effects relationships of the variables that describe the mechanisms. We have what I define as a descriptive explanation.

Now imagine for every ultimate effect in our Ashby theory of the tree, we have the immediate effects. For example, growth rings, and the understanding of the role of cellular development that creates the growth rings. That is we now have an explanation of every ultimate effect of our Ashby diagram of the mechanism of the tree in terms of the variables and relationship between those variables whereby that

58

relationship occurs. I define the immediate effects underlying the ultimate effects and giving rise to those ultimate effects, as cause of the ultimate effects.

So causality is defined in relation to the system we start with. Again imagine the tree in the box... we can ask what caused it... and reply the tree in the box is as it is due the Ashby diagram describing the mechanisms within the tree. Those mechanisms are the necessity of growth and survival of this tree. Necessity meaning the tree must be consistent with its own internal mechanism and structure and can be no other way.

The conceptualization of those mechanisms in an Ashby diagram is our understanding of those mechanisms, as such it is our understanding of necessity as implicit in the tree, and we can say the diagram whereby immediate effects relate to ultimate effects is the cause of the tree. With cause being defined as our understanding of the physical necessity within the tree whereby the tree is as it is.

Now again imagine the tree in the box. We imagine the system as isolated, but that is often not very realistic. It is a useful intellectual and reasoning device to separate, isolate and so build understanding of parts of a whole system one part at a time.

Imagine the tree now linked to its environment. Now we must repeat the whole process and integrate variables within the tree with the variables within the environment, such that if a variables in the environment change, which of the variables within the tree are immediately effected. This is another lengthy journey, involving the exact same processes already discussed, hence I will pursue it no further.

Imagine the world as in a painting. It is static. Now imagine living in such a world. Nothing would ever change. It may be very boring but

59

it would be safe. Now introduce change. The world becomes dynamic, but a lot more dangerous.

Ashby diagrams project the flow of change through any system such as to enable us to predict what is going to happen.

What is this thing ‘flow of change’?

Imagine that bridge across the river, the flood washed out the supports so that it is no longer safe. The safety of the bridge is dependent on the strength of the supports. The strength of the supports depends on the volume of water. We can use the Ashby tools and write the Ashby equation: Volume of water → strength of the supports →safety of the bridge. This equation states that a change in the volume of water can produce a change in the strength of the supports, which can produce a change in the safety of the bridge.

So the idea of the flow of change is not the flow of ‘something’, it is the analysis of how a change in one variable has an effect on the other variables linked to it.

If we take the Ashby equation above then we can separate the immediate effects and the ultimate effects and we can write: Volume of water →safety of the bridge. That is the volume of the water has an effect on whether or not the bridge is safe. The way the volume of water has an on effect the safety is via erosion of the bridge supports. We can now say that the ultimate effect of the volume of water on bridge safety is via the mechanism of the erosion of the supports.

This relationship between ultimate effects and mechanism is crucial within the methodology applied throughout The Origin of Consciousness. Much more will be made of both of these concepts as we explore the arguments.

So what exactly have we done here…? We have created some variables … volume of water, safety of the bridge, strength of the supports… and we have linked those variables in a sequence to offer understanding of what can happen, a sequence with definite survival consequences. We have created knowledge of Reality we have sharpened our reality relative to Reality making our reality more congruent with Reality.

60

So what…? Well. Imagine there had been several days of rain … a real downpour. We have to cross the bridge to get to friends on the other side. But we understand the links above…then putting two and two together, we think perhaps it would be smart to just check the bridge supports before we try and cross, and so we did, and we do not fall! Of course we still have the problem of getting to the other side…Perhaps after we have fixed the supports. (The Origin of Consciousness page 46.)

Understanding the flow of change makes it rather easier to link a system with its external environment, we need identify those elements in the environment able to produce a change in a variable within the system.

Imagine a system AB, where a change in A resulted in a change in B, the Ashby equation then becomes: A → B. The system AB is a system of ultimate effects. Now imagine we uncovered CD, such that a change in C resulted in a change in D: C → D. Further, that we discovered that CD system were the underlying immediate effects of AB. We can now write:

A → B

↓ ↑

C → D

This tells us that A-B is a set of ultimate effects, any change in A, first translates to C. and the change at C translates to D, which then has an effect on B. Now, if we define the system as AB, we can state ACDB is the conceptualization of the mechanisms of the system, and the cause of events in the system. We can also say that ACDB is the cause of AB.

Imagine a pressure cooker, bowl, pressure gauge, heater, and pressure release valve. We can now create an Ashby diagram linking

61

the pressure reading with the position of the pressure release valve. V

→ P. As the valve closes the pressure rises, and as it opened the pressure drops. We understand the details of the mechanism very well. But imagine we did not, all we could see were the valve and gauge.

How would we explain the relationship? Control in the system is

exercised V → P. But the flow of energy and material is P → V. That is the material and pressure flows away from the valve as the pressure drops. The example highlights in situations less well understood, we need be very careful translating movement of material and energy merely on the basis of one variable exercising control over another.

Imagine a motor vehicle. Now imagine a variable measuring the position (P) of the accelerator, and another measuring the speed (S) of the front wheels. We can describe it P→ S. Where changes in the position altered the speed. We can easily imagine that because we understand the whole system so very well. We can also imagine how the speed alters when going up a hill if there is no change in position. The example illustrates both strengths and limitations of Ashby diagrams if we know only the Ashby diagram.

Imagine a TV. Now imagine the link between sound volume (S) and the positon (P) of the sound knob such that P → S. Now imagine we studied the relationship carefully, and produced an equation P=F(S) + K. Now imagine we did the same for another TV, and another. What do variations in the function and K represent? I argue F, and K will vary depending on the type of TV. If we apply it to TVs of the exact same internal structure, then F and K will be constant. We could capture that consistency in a single equation P=HS, where H is a constant for the type of TV. We now have Ashby diagram giving rise to ‘universal’ constants in that the constant applies provided the system we study is constant.

62

Ashby tools and diagrams are the cornerstone of the new approach to social science. Quiet reflection on the examples will enable understanding of Ashby diagrams and how they relate and describe the system to which they apply. This understanding is the crucial intellectual background to understanding the analysis of society in the second half of the book.

63

6. Understanding ourselves

There is no widely accepted general theory of psychology. There is also very limited agreement on how to build one or what it should cover. Hence the arguments and views discussed here, derived from comprehensive general theory of psychology are not the views to be found in the current popular or formal literature. Think of first things first and Ashby tools. Accept the failure to apply them resulted in the world slipping down the rabbit hole of probability as intrinsic to the universe. Now see the core of culture as that which is alive in minds. Putting those together we ‘see’ modern minds carrying the idea of probability as intrinsic to the universe in many aspects of thinking unrelated to understanding atomic particles. The capturing of idea of probability the modern mind a direct consequence of propagation of the idea via both popular and formal literature. Now, given better theory, the idea itself is highly suspect. We need climb out of a rabbit hole we created by our own lack of intellectual balance.

The issue of the idea of probability as intrinsic to the universe being embedded in our culture is hardly of major concern. But what about Freudian type unconscious, the understanding of meditation, mental health and mental illness, psychiatry, political regulation, freedom, free will and choice, social justice and economic fairness, social democracy, etc. Most of these ideas are profoundly important, and all of them have a background thinking at least as ragged as quantum physics, and none are supported by intellectual integrity.

When I approached the issues in social science as a physical scientist over forty years ago I was offended by the lack of intellectual precision in my social science reading. I determined to do better, and expressed the intent in my earliest writing (refer earliest writing, in About).

64

As I researched the issues I came to what I regard as several common sense but reasoned conclusions. In physical science a variable stands in a fixed but definite relationship to the empirical expression of the variable. The difference between a variable and its values. This was the way our mind had to work, it could be no other way otherwise we would have the values of the variables in some specific situation in advance and hence could predict the future while knowing nothing of the present. Insight into this manner in which our mind works was reinforced in the brilliant and deceptively simple experiment of Anderson and Prichert, where they showed that what people ‘saw’ depended on what they were thinking (refer About). This was general and had to apply in social science as much as physical science. In short, there could be no difference between the social and physical science, other than subject matter, conceptually they had to have the same structure.

Second, all social science is the study of the output from people. Therefore if any general theory of psychology was to be legitimate then it had to explain all outputs of all people. Therefore a general theory of psychology had to explain all social science, be the cornerstone on which social science rested. No exceptions.

If a theory was to be valid as theory it had to be predictive. This means it had to include causation, but there was no understanding of causation. Despite Einstein and Bohr debating it for a decade or more, it remained a mystery. Hence it was essential to develop a general theory of cause.

Fourth, mathematics was used extensively to lead understanding. Why? Why should the universe parallel a logic system created by one species, us? There was no solution to this question, and I found the question was not even clearly asked. A general theory of psychology had to answer this question and I came to deeply mistrust any

65

intellectual position in social science in which this question was not addressed and resolved.

I instinctively felt our minds as ‘orientating maps’ we place on the world to make sense of it. I quickly found the word that expressed the instinct, conceptualization. Obviously there is a deep interactive relationship where we conceptualize then test it, select the best course of action and do it. This sense of how we did things was deepened as I read and briefly exchanged with Karl Popper and as I was introduced and trained in Shell in the problem solving and questioning techniques of the corporate training and facilitation company, Kepner Tregoe. Any general theory of psychology had to account for how we build knowledge, the details of the relationship between our knowledge and the objects of that knowledge, then how we apply it and choose courses of action within our conceptualized options. Any general theory of psychology had to account for the details of how that happened. Finally, as discussed a general theory is knowledge, people produce knoweldge therefore a general theory of psychology had to account for itself, the reflexive criteria.

Thirty years ago these views, which I regarded as commonsense, were not the accepted views which embraced Freud, Jung, Skinner, Tolman, Carl Rogers, and others. Even today, the common sense as I refer to it is not accepted as the base on which we need go forward, should you choose, this issue is referred to in The Origin of Consciousness.

With this base I researched and wrestled to build understanding, to build a general theory of psychology that answered all the questions. It was the search for a way to conceptualize lead me to the work of W Ross Ashby, which when I read it, I immediately knew it held the key to the solution of why we do what we do.

66

In The Origin of Consciousness I apply the Ashby tools to the system ‘person in their environment’. I stress this does not treat people as a ‘system’, it is a conceptual way of isolating the events intended to be studied, and isolating those events for scrutiny using well defined tools. It is the process of conceptualization, resulting in understanding of the mechanisms operative in the system, describing necessity in the system the Ashby diagram being the analysis of causality in the system. When applied to the selected system of person in their environment the result is a general theory of psychology accounting for all aspects of what humans do.

Why bother with understanding a person? Because we have discussed the issue of causality and we know that all social causality is via the individual mind. Therefore understanding the mind is the essential backdrop to understanding society.

Imagine two people, a pygmy in the Congo rain forest, and a New Yorker. Now imagine at birth, for wherever reason, they are both born with the exact same genetic potential physically, emotionally, intellectually and as expressed in personality. We are not necessarily clear on exactly how genetics impacts and shapes this potential, but let us assume that whatever the process, at birth it is exactly the same in each infant; two human spirits with the exact same genetic structure and potential.

Both infants grew fully within their location, so the Pygmy never left the rain forest and the New Yorker never left greater New York. At forty, will these two people be similar or different? It is hard to imagine any overlap at all; the physical and social environments are so different. They will be very different people.

The exact same neurons can be functioning in both the Pygmy and the New Yorker yet they will be experiencing very different thoughts, and examination of the neural functions offers no insight at

67

all into their psychology. From the analysis emerges that within the brain we have a mind and within our mind we have a spirit.

This circumstance creates many significant issues for understanding knowledge. If the neural mechanisms underlie our thinking and our psychology, then why is our psychology not reducible to those mechanisms? Consideration of this problem, referred to as the problem of reductionism, carries us beyond the purpose of this analysis, but it must be mentioned, as it is significant. At least given the requirement of first things first, it is important that this problem is fully resolved, so that this discussion does not need to be prefaced with the fact if resolved it could alter all that is offered. The analysis offered here has intellectual integrity.

The solution that emerges is as follows. Knowledge exists in two types of variable called coherent and incoherent. Coherent variables are fundamental, not able to be further reduced. Incoherent variables or complex variables, consist of two or more fundamental variables. The position of the TV knob or speed of the front wheels are complex variables. Whereas the variable distance is not, nor is the variable thought or the variable emotion.

Thought and emotion are variables used in constructing the Ashby diagram congruent with the mechanisms in the system ‘person in their environment’. Being a coherent variable means neither thought or emotion can be reduced to anything more fundamental without losing the quality of description of the variable. So we can reduce a thought to more basic thoughts, but that does not alter the variable it merely alters the value of the variable. This is where understanding the relationship between theory and empirical research becomes very important.

If now we consider the neural flows that underlie any thought, then we lose the quality of the description thought, we are no longer

68

discussing thoughts but discussing neural flows, which are the mechanism of thought, but we do not know the nature of the thought the mechanism carries. Same applies to emotion. So studying the brain operation will tell us nothing of the psychology of the person. This does mean that psychology is a clear and definite domain of research and study in its own right, and is not reducible to the operation of the brain.

It is like studying a motorcar, imagine all we studied is the flow of fuel and firing of the pistons, it would not tell us much about the car, which requires variables more related to the ‘whole’, than to just the detail of fuel flow and ignition.

I offer below a summary of the general theory of psychology as it emerges from the Ashby analysis in the Origin of Consciousness. I stress these conclusion are not opinion, they are consequences deduced from the platform of method and the applying the Ashby tools as outlined in chapters 4 and 5.

I define this as reasoning. Beginning with a clear and well defined platform of method, applying well defined conceptualization tools as prescribed by the method and the tools, and accepting the conclusions of the process.

Summary of the conclusions arising from the general theory of psychology constructed by applying Ashby tools

Brain. The neural substrate of mind. The mechanism of mind, but mind is not reducible to the brain.

Mind. The sum of the psyche. In the Ashby diagram the sum of variables emotion, thought, attitude, and the attention mechanism.

69

Body-mind. The interaction between mind and brain, with the brain being the mechanism of mind, but mind not reducible to the operation of the brain.

Human nature. The capacity to create ideas congruent with the environment and apply those ideas in lines of behavior that enable survival.

Prime causal factors. People act based on the ideas they choose to adopt and the emotions associated with those ideas.

Motivation. The emotion associated with the ideas gives energy to mood and conduct derived from those ideas.

The human spirit. The core emotional structures arising from earliest experience including experience in the womb. This then elaborated to include core self-esteem as the person matures. This core structure is the very center of ‘I’, the continuity of self-existence even as one grows, learns and changes. The core of ‘I’ is emotional, derived substantially from earliest experience before language and conceptualization. It has been explored and stages suggested by Jean Piaget in his detailed studies of child development. The ‘I’ touches upon interpretation of all experience hence provides an emotional tone to all aspects of the psyche.

World view. The summary term for the whole structure of ideas and associated emotions that make up the person’s psyche.

Perception. Occurs only via perceptual precursors, called perceptual fields, for example, without photons we cannot see. We do not perceive an external world, we perceive only that which is encoded in the perceptual field. All understanding of the external world is drawn from

70

interaction with perceptual fields. It follows that all understanding of the external world depends on the congruence between the perceptual field and the external world generating the field.

Reality and reality. Reality capital ‘R’ is that defined as the generator of the perceptual field. Hence Reality may be a tree or a computer creating a virtual image of a tree; ‘reality’ small ‘r’ is the image of Reality derived from the perceptual field we create in mind.

Knowledge. The ideas arising from our conceptualization of circumstance. We use knowledge to manage and relate to the situation we face. I describe it as using ideas to orientate ourselves to the situation.

Understanding. When we have an Ashby diagram of the mechanisms of any system such that we can predict the output given specific inputs.

Congruence. The extent our ideas on a situation are accurate and apt, both in predicting the correct output, and in capturing the essence of the mechanisms in the flow of change through the system of variables. Congruence describes the extent reality matches Reality.

Personal theory. The ideas we personally apply to orientate ourselves to some situation. See scientific theory.

Reasoning. The use of well-defined conceptualization tools and method to build personal theory congruent with the situation to which the theory applies.

Role of group life. An individual learns a certain idea works under certain circumstance. By sharing it in the group, so all

71

benefit and group survival improves. The ability to exchange ideas is a crucial aspects of human development.

Uniqueness of humanity. Human uniqueness lies in the extent of its conceptualization skills. Humans are the only known species with third level conceptualization capacity. The line separating all known species with humans is that human are the only known species with university libraries.

Evolution. Creation and sharing ideas enabling are the core of human survival, dominance, and development. Evolution becomes culture instead of genetic.

Habits. The brain is the mechanism of mind, and is readily understood via entropy defined as the tendency of the energy in an isolated system to seek the lowest energy levels available to it. All habit is a result of this process in the brain the psychological result being actions, thoughts and emotions. All habit reflects yesterday’s learning and attitude. It is enormous survival benefit to be able to delegate repetitive tasks to habit, such as walking while focused on hunting.

Unconscious. There is no unconscious in the sense of Freud. The only unconscious is the operation of the brain to drive habits.

Attention. Is understood as one part of mind viewing and acting on other parts of mind via intervention in the neural functioning the mechanism of mind. Only by paying attention and relating our choice of action or mood to our current values do we exercise today’s learning and attitude. The attention mechanism has two primary functions, first observing and second intervening in neural flows such as

72

to make a flow occur that left to entropy in the brain would not otherwise occur.

Consciousness. The emergent awareness of self, from the core of spirit, and mind. Consciousness is not an aspect of neural operation. It is an aspect of mind. ‘I’ is an object of one’s own thinking in exactly the same way a tree is such an object. The only privileged aspect is the person knows more about themselves than another may know. Refer the Johari window, in four segments: What one knows of self and others do not, what one knows of self and others do, what one does not know of self and others do not, what one does not know of self and others do know.

Mental sets and roles. The psyche is not continuous, but divided into structures referred to as mental sets, consisting of the link to habits, and mind all aligned to the situation (which may be in the environment, or may be an imagined situation).

Scientific theory. The exact same psychological status as personal theory.

Science. Creation of theory applicable to some situation in accordance with socially shared and tighter rules of reasoning and reproduction of results than usually applies in formation of personal theories.

Free will and choice. Able to select between alternative ideas to apply to some situation.

Values, ethics and morals. Knowledge has no intrinsic internal structure. Values and morals as are distinguished not as aspects of the knowledge, but by the emotional weight given the ideas. Ethics are knowledge, with associated

73

emotions and part of the person’s actions. We give living meaning to our ideas by choosing to act them out.

Tension between choice or freewill and habit. Imagine we have two ideas on how to deal with a situation. We now have choice in that situation, and habits acquired from prior experience in the situation and/or similar situations. Habits arise from functioning of the brain driven by entropy. Choice is selection of neural pathways via attention. It always demands energy to deflect the neural flow from the pathway of habit to the pathway of choice. This tension between free will and choice is why for example, it can be so very difficult to lose weight.

Discipline. To exercise free will in situations where we have habits requires we introduce energy and direct the neural flows into pathways if left to itself, to entropy, it would not follow. Psychologically, introducing energy is effort, or the exercise of self-discipline to act was we prefer today, and not act as we have in the past.

The analysis gives rise to an overview of humankind as ‘scientists’, seeking ideas that better explain what happens in the world, then applying those ideas to ensure personal and group survival. The fundamental is the choice of ideas we allow to influence us and shape our existence. We can choose, and we can apply new ideas without altering the core of ‘I’. Without altering who we are, we merely alter what we use to express in the world who we are. Society is totally created by humanity. It is totally subject to the ideas we apply. If we change the ideas we apply we change society, and we change the experience of life of all who come after. The intent is to examine closely our understanding of society and use that understanding to better manage our society to enable greater fulfilment for more people.

74

7. The dominance of ideas and

moderation of self-interest

In 1776 Adam Smith published The Wealth of Nations, which laid the foundation of the free market economy. Less known is that in 1759 he published The Theory of Moral Sentiments, arguing that conscience was a result of social interaction. Smith himself regarded his book Moral Sentiments more important than Wealth of Nations.

At the same time, the theological view of the majority in Scotland was Calvinism, with its austere emphasis on integrity, thrift and hard work. Inherent in Smith's thinking on the free market is the ethical psychology of moral sentiments, set in a background of Calvinism. Today, we grasp at the idea of free markets without realizing that to work it must be guided by ethical responsibility.

Society is constructed by us on the ideas applied. Human nature as defined from within a comprehensive general theory of psychology is the capacity to create ideas congruent with the environment, select the most useful or effective idea and given skills to do it, act out the idea. It follows the economy is merely an aspect of society separated out from other personal behavior by applying an intellectual ‘bucket’, a convenient category.

The point fully understood by Adam Smith is that there are aspects of behavior, of a personal view of the world, more important than the economy. Adam Smith fully understood that all behavior rested on fundamental values that gave intent to the behavior. In the case of Adam Smith himself, the intent was grounded on his values derived from Calvinism, supported by expectation of authority to serve society enabling the greater good.

I suspect if Smith himself observing today he would decry the self-serving ethic all too evident and he would write of competition in

75

a different manner and point to the need of more regulation to moderate the intrinsic self-serving nature of modern values.

Human nature is about creating ideas and applying them. Second a somewhat natural desire to take care of oneself and one’s family and those one cares about. Then what can we realistically expect of people given opportunity to benefit themselves or those they most care about at the expense of those they do not know and not really care about?

Iimagine the daily news, via the newspapers, magazines, or TV. Now imagine it measured in column inches. What percentage of column inches is devoted to wealthy people, famous people, and often empty people with the sole purpose in life to stay in the news and make money as a result? I have not done the experiment. But I suspect it to be substantial percentage of column inches devoted to the people with wealth and their spending. What does that tell us about the modern preoccupation, and what values underlie that preoccupation?

I do not judge, nor do I suggest it should be changed. It is what it is, and people have the right to write what they choose, read what they choose and think as they choose, within limits, therefore again within limits to do as they choose.

However there is a crucial issue here... given we accept the ethical and moral base of our modern world, and given we accept personal freedom and individual rights, as regards this ethical and moral base, then it becomes essential to avoid those with power taking advantage of those who do not have power.

Moderation of modern self-serving ethics and morals can only be done through regulation directing people to adhere to the principle of the greater good. That in the position they hold, one of advantage and power in the community, they are expected to act in a manner that serves everyone in society, and not merely serves oneself or serve some group of which they are most likely part.

76

F. A. Hayek (1899-1992) won the Nobel Prize in economics in 1974 was a leading proponent of liberal political thinking. Two of his major books, The Constitution of Liberty and The Road to Serfdom, both supported the proposition that economic freedom was essential and if the government attempted central control of the economy then individual freedom would be curtailed. He also argued that individualism and personal freedom would flourish if and only if the economy was free, and it did not really matter the nature of the political system. I would add provided bad government is able to be replaced peaceably when needed. The views of this classical liberalism were supported by the free market analysis of Adam Smith, and substantially had its foundation in the writing of John Locke (circa 1650). This line of economic thought covered many issues now assumed, such as laws on child labor, the profit motive, and free trade (where the argument was made that global free trade could bring peace on earth).

The central issue in all liberalism, classical, neoclassical, modern, or central control as in socialism, fascism and dictatorships is the relationship between the individual and the imposition of rules by the state. Classical liberalism argues that the state should have as little as possible to do with economic activity. The problem with all this argument is that it is based on weak intellectual foundations. Strategic science shows that when any issue that could impact any topic is ignored or not resolved, then at some future date that issue could be resolved, and could totally negate all the previous speculation.

The crucial point is that we thoroughly reject arguments against regulation based on naive thinking especially if derived from a failing to appreciate the writings of some theorist. Adam Smith fully understood the relationship between the market ‘invisible hand’ and fundamental human values. The fact we lost sight of it, failed to understand and appreciate the core values of society are what drives society, not some vague and poorly analyzed economic principle, is an

77

expression of the pre-occupation that contributed to where we are today.

All liberal arguments on the economy and all centralized control arguments, are unrelated to a general theory of psychology, and unrelated to a general theory of cause. So if we are to take the historic arguments seriously we must then argue that neither cause nor in-depth understanding of psychology is relevant to the economic practice and policy, nor relevant to the relationship of both with people. I find such a position untenable. I suggest it is illogical to assume that something we create will not in any way be influenced by any understanding of how we created it. Further the understanding of how we created it to be consistent and of regular application must embrace understanding of cause, specifically how causation applies in social situations, and any such understanding must resolve all emergent issues such as the mind-body problem, choice and freewill.

Issues of apt general theories of cause and psychology were historically ignored, at least it was assumed that the popular thinking of the day was enough to enable definite statements to be made on how the society was to be structured. I argue this was an error, the thinking of the day was not good enough, and ideas adopted were, to be plain, inadequate for the task to which they were applied. What followed was the ideological debates, conflict and regimes of the last 150 years with significant levels of human death, suffering and misery. Both sides of the debate pursuing ideas equally devoid of intellectual substance. Enough!

As one who has lived the last seventy years of that 150, sensed the intellectual decline of social understanding, there has been enough suffering due pursuing poor ideas. The ideas on both sides of the ideological debate could not do that expected of them because the ideas lacked intellectual integrity and were per se weak ideas. I propose we

78

settle on much clearer and much more defined social science with the stress on reason as expressed in the thoroughness of the science, and we demand all our ideas are aimed at the single purpose of enhancing the life of people today, now, on this planet. Okay, someone may say, how? And much more importantly, when government deciding who to support, given limited resources, who should be government priority?

We need begin again with new thinking and new priorities and we need rid ourselves of historic thinking that will drag us back to the pain and suffering and conflict we need get past, preferably soon. Which means we need get past the ideas that when applied resulted in the historical conflict, death, and suffering.

As I argue later in the book, it is specifically the West that needs lead humanity to this commitment by government to the ethical fulfilment of all citizens. Better ideas better applied by government in service of citizens is the central modern ideological battle for the soul of humanity, a battle only won by example through committed leadership guiding an informed population. We need keep the guns as ferocious naked response to threat, illegal invasion or subversion, but forget them in all ideological matters. Better ideas proved to work not guns are the only answer to humanity’s ideological problems.

Given the two points, we are the ideas we apply, and we will care most for those closest to us, then I predict the world will become dominated by a single idea, namely I want what is best for me and mine.

I regard this a healthy social state of affairs. It is a practical, realistic view of what to expect of people when in circumstances where we need to predict their economic behavior. It realistically predicts we cannot depend on those with authority to exercise the self-discipline in service of a greater social good beyond their own immediate desires, and we need regulation to enforce that appropriate actions.

79

And when the politician says ...‘but you can trust me’...the response is ‘great, we thought that, therefore you will have no problem making the issues clear and transparent on paper, applying rule and processes to monitor it, so we all know what we can expect’.

I stress that this analysis of the need for regulation is derived from a fully scientific analysis of human nature, with the addition of a judgment of the ideas most likely uppermost in driving conduct in economic circumstances. There is no ideology. The emergent need for sensible regulation has nothing to do with ‘socialism’, or with centralized economic control. The demand for regulation is solely a consequence of understanding psychology and making a prediction as to the ideas most likely to dictate action, with the evidence of the prediction in the news every day, and in the actions of those who designed the deregulation of the finance markets leading to the global crash.

The general theory of psychology, combined with a realistic assessment of modern core social ethics means that under certain circumstances we need be very cautious about allowing people in authority to make their own decisions.

As an aside, I have researched the idea of the greater good, and have no definition with which I at peace. I suggest any proposed regulation or law involving the greater good is measured against several criteria including but not exclusive, the greatest number of people being served, not disadvantage anyone (if a single person is disadvantaged, then it fails the test), supports all in their striving for ethical fulfilment, is thoroughly grounded on realistic intellectual foundation such as outlined here, is carefully subject to ‘what if’ testing and can be shown to have no known adverse consequences, finally, in its fairness it feels like the right thing to do. For example, had deregulation of the finance industry that lead to the global financial crash been subject to these

80

criteria, then it would not passed the test of intellectual integrity, since it was based on very weak intellectual understanding of psychology, society, causality, and the links between them.

81

8. Beginning with social values

Every human spirit has the right at birth to seek its own fulfillment provided in so doing does not transgress the rights of others seeking their fulfilment. This right is elaborated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), with the personal ethical constraint stated in articles 1 and 12.

This is the cornerstone of my political and social belief. I believe it beyond argument. All religions are merely their view of the path to enlightenment, what I would call fulfillment or ‘life satisfaction’. All religions agree with this base, but not all accept that people have the right to decide for themselves. Any religion that dogmatically claims to be the only way and demands compliance of people is an enemy of mine for such is no more than the demand for compliance and obedience, without reason, without the person being able to choose.

I believe the only thing we can own fully and the thing beyond all others that determines our experience of life is our mind. We own it, we are the one entity we know can manage and develop it; hence we should be the one to decide its path.

First, we agree to apply reason to the questions, not ideology. The reason involves obeying the scientific rule of first things first, and applying the well-defined intellectual tools the defined manner.

Ideological and ethical issues will arise as values to the variables that emerge from the analysis. Ideological choices must be the value of variables. Hence use of reason must produce circumstances where there are definite choices and while making one or other choice may not be easy, they will be clear. Science cannot make the choice, it can only bring forth and clarify the nature of the choice to be made, since science deals only with variables and their relationship, whereas ethics and morals and action deal with the values of those variables.

82

In seeking our fulfillment we must not erode or hinder the fulfillment of others

If we take unto ourselves the right to seek fulfillment then we need award it to all others. The ethical demand on us is then immediately that in pursuing our fulfillment we must not hinder or erode others in their search.

Our moral position is then to guide and support others to identify their path, and to assist as we can for them to travel it. The limitations are that in pursuing our path we must not hinder others in pursuit of their path, and that the path they tread must be within the demands of law and reasonable ethical extensions of that law.

The rule of law

We live collectively in society, governed by law, and need accept the law, but the law must fall equally on all. The law need reflect collective opinion, even though we may not agree, we are bound by it. It need reflect the foundation moral and ethical structure as here laid out or some sensible approximation to it.

It must not be prescriptive, so does not demand I live any particular way, but rather is focused on the management of the interaction with fellow citizens. Prescriptive law is contrary to the striving in the West toward individual freedom.

I must conduct myself within the law unless engaged in protest as considered below.

Democracy as the process for nonviolent change of government

Government determined by regular scheduled vote by all, no exceptions. This position is directly from Karl Popper, The Open

83

Society and its Enemies, democracy is the chosen social process for peaceably getting rid of bad government when we need to.

Human rights

I will not discuss each of these merely refer to them, nor do I claim to have covered them all. But I think the list conveys the intent. Select own religion. To associate with whom one chooses. To travel where one chooses, other than on private property. Own property. To have privacy. To own capital. To education. To health services. To protest – mindful of the ethical demand of not restricting others. The right to protest does not give the right to stop others going about their lawful legitimate paths of action. This is a modern problem for which there is yet no social or legal solution in sight. The list is fully elaborated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, subject to the conflicts this analysis has in relation to UDHR.

Social structure as encapsulating core social values hard won over centuries

The ‘social structure’ I define as the non-prescriptive core framework of values and particular social processes that enable and deliver the values that define us and are the core of the ‘Western Way of Life’, grounded in individual freedom. Within this social structure I can live as I choose, and some may choose to live very different from me. Yet we need live side by side, neither right neither wrong, merely making different life choices. Bonded only in our full acceptance of the right of the other person to be as they choose within the law.

We need be wary of too quick judgment of any aspect of our way of life which was achieved only after great sacrifice by millions over many millennia. If people were prepared to die for some ideal in the past, we rush to change at peril of reaction and people willing to again die for it in the future.

84

Law must not specify any group

Each person must live within the law that is our Western Way. The law itself is the core of our social structure.

What is often not fully understood is that the law and life choices have parted company in that the law has to embrace different life choices. This process likely began hundreds of years ago, when for example religion was removed from the law.

An essential core part of what I refer to as the social structure in the West is this fact that the law does not and must not define how anyone must live but enables multiple choices of living. The law gives coherence where otherwise there is none.

Law provides guidelines on how we must live but does not define how, leaving much to the choice of the individual. Culture is the choice of the person of how they will live within the Law.

What I refer to then as our social structure is broader than merely the law and includes ethical restraint in relation to the law so that while the law is our core, in fact our values are not to just live the law but live by the principles embodied in the law. Unfortunately today, too often too many seek to live exactly by the law, and ethics or self-responsibility are lost and distorted in what can only be described as unseemly pursuit of particular point of view.

Need to protect the core values embedded in the social structure

The core values embedded in the rule of law in the West define the West. The focus on individual freedom: A focus won only with strife, individual freedom a delicate and most precious flower that grows only in fields cultivated with blood.

85

At times living today with this rule of law is hard when the only binding ethic between two groups of people is the right to be different. It is hard to watch someone live in ways one abhors, yet it within the law. If at that moment one does not assert the right of the other person to be different and willing to protect that right, then the West is doomed.

It is this right to be different we must protect at all costs, to ever let that slip is to lose the very essence of that which ultimately defines us and ultimately binds us.

The West’s rule of law is intrinsically multicultural

We never have to define multiculturalism. It is intrinsic to the rule of law where the law does not define living styles, merely enables many such styles.

We are free to choose our life style and live it to the full within the social structure. It is variously called a ‘plural’ or ‘multicultural’ society. This social breadth and diversity is possible if and only if we ensure our law never defines how anyone must live.

Those who come to the West must adopt the rule of law the cornerstone of Western civilization as their own. They may live in the manner of their choosing provided it is within the rule of law. It there is disagreement over the law, then there are peaceful processes for enabling change.

Western authorities have the right to protect its people should that rule of law be broken or if the intent to break it is expressed with conviction. For example, within Western Law head dress that covers the face is not worn in court...in the West, the facial expression and look in the eyes are part of the evidence in assessing guilty or innocent.

86

The need to accept diversity

The acceptance of diversity is the greatest challenge of living in the West. Acceptance of people living in a manner one cannot abide, yet provided they live within the law, they are to be accepted.

The crucial issue is for those of the West to determine the laws and social expectations which we insist upon and those we are willing to relax. For example, do we allow head dress in court that hides the face and restricts the judge’s view of the eyes? And do we allow some religions to pray during work time, yet not offer the same to other religions? How far do we bend our ways to suit? Western multiculturalism is changing our society to meet rules and mores of others. Western multiculturalism is others choosing that our way is better than the one they leave, and they adopt to the rule of law, living as they choose we bend a rule only at our convenience, any coming from outside have no right to expect us to make any such concession.

Culture as the choice of life style within the social structure

No one in the West has the right to say ‘you must live like me’…The only thing to bind us being the willingness of each to defend the right of the other to exist.

I call the choice of living style within the law as the culture. Hence the social structure must facilitate a broad and multi-cultural society. The social structure must be defended at all cost, for to have any erosion is to see erosion of our fundamental freedoms.

We celebrate our core values in cultural events, in New Zealand for example, we celebrate our freedoms and honor those who died for them in Anzac Day. The day of remembrance of the fallen. It is crucial we hold such celebrations, they carry forward and remind us that our current life is so often based on the commitment, resolves and death

87

of those who fought for the freedoms which unless we are careful, we can so easily lose sight of what it took to realize them.

The right to protest

The right to protest is perhaps the one of the most difficult moral issues faced by the West today. It is part of the fundamental value of cherishing every spirit and enabling its ethical fulfilment that it has a right to express its views.

However action that restricts others going about their lawful business interferes with their right to their fulfilment. It follows that protest that in any way restricts others going about their lawful business is contrary to the sprite of the foundation on which I argue Western way of life is grounded.

The circumstance becomes very difficult when one group acts such to give offence to another group. Then the issue of intolerance is triggered, people become emotionally distraught, and in so doing may overstep the rights of others in order to insist on the way of life they believe is the correct way. We need embrace the fundamental of Western thought and culture, namely people have right to choose, and we defend that right with the greatest and most passionate conviction.

Example of social concern is police brutality toward some racial groups and not others. Police failing in their duty of equal care toward all in society. Such officers are in breach of the foundation principle. Conversely, people need be mindful of the circumstances faced by the police who as a matter of daily work enter situations of potential violence and harm. People need accept there are bad people in the world, and the police deal with them every day. It is no excuse for police. It is reason for us to act with politeness and consideration even when it may not be offered. Exactly as one might offer mature consideration in conflict with a family teenager.

88

9. Understanding the passionate core of

culture

At times we watch others act a certain way with commitment, and we wonder why they do that. The idea may escape us, but we are quite good at intellectually understanding ideas thus very likely we will intellectually grasp the nature of their chosen path. However, the passion with which the idea enacted is likely to remain beyond our understanding. There has long been understood in social science that to really understand a culture one must get ‘inside’ it. What exactly does this mean and what are the consequences? Why do they do as they do? Why is it so hard for us to understand? What is the core of culture and how do we manage our political processes designed to smooth the transition of people from their historic culture to our Western culture?

We need to understand Western culture as placing the individual first and above all, at least that is the immediate measure we instinctively apply. The fight the West has fought is this exact primacy, me first, the group second.

After Thomas Becket was murdered on 29 December 1170 in Canterbury Cathedral, European power elite awaited the wrath of reply from the Holy Roman Empire then regarded as a primary force of the day. Other than protestations from the pulpit there was no response. The power elite of Europe learned that the Holy Roman Empire was an idea managed and promoted by Rome, but in fact had no army, had no power of arms and could not respond to the murder of one of its Bishops. The armed Barons, Lords, and land owners learned it was they and only they with force of arms, they judged rightly force of arms carried most people more often, and was more immediate in application than preaching.

89

The murder of Thomas Becket was the beginning in Europe of the separation of religion and state. The idea of separation of church and state as an idea was articulated by Martin Luther (circa 1500), John Locke (circa 1680), was acted on by Henry the VIII who famously declared himself head of a new religion the Church of England (circa 1530), was also acted on by Henry of Navarre, in France (circa 1600), who was embroiled in the French Wars of Religion between Huguenot Protestants and Catholics (circa 1510-1590). The separation of church and state achieved general acceptance around the age of enlightenment (circa 1750). The idea of separation of church and state then codified in the American Declaration of Independence of 1776 and the constitution. Through to today, it is accepted, instinctive in the way we think.

To fully understand other cultures we must understand our own. First, we must understand the ideas and second understand the depth of penetration of the core ideas, the integration of core ideas with all other ideas in a culture, and finally we must understand the passion associated with those ideas. If we do not fully understand how ideas come to be in our lives, if we do not understand the social struggle pain and death on which our ideas today rest, then we will have no chance of understanding any other people in any other culture.

Separation of church and state is merely one example. Separation of powers, jurists from politics, both from police and all three from economic power, separation of education from religion, etc. In every aspect of our lives in the West there is this thread of the rights of the individual over the accumulated group rights. The Western history is one of the struggle of the individual to free themselves from group oppression. The core idea of the West, I want what is best for me is a central defining thread that imbues all other considerations.

90

Several important points. First, the time scales involved. Our mind today is built from component ideas many of which took many centuries, involved suffering and hundreds of thousands of deaths before reaching us in its form today. How we in the West think is globally unprecedented in depth, commitment, scope and scale. No other philosophy has explored the range of ideas, had people live out such a divergence of ideas, and dragged itself back from extreme disasters of ideas such as communism and fascism.

Second, it is not ‘pure’. People will and do take advantage. Freedom requires constant vigilance by those wanting to stay free. I suggest this well understood and I wish I could say it is temporary, but unfortunately I suspect it is not, and vigilance against people who would seek advantage with no consideration for others, and against manipulation and rampant greed will always be intrinsic demands.

Third, given how our brain/mind works (refer The Origin of Consciousness in About), then any idea, say idea-1, implicit but not necessarily directly expressed in another idea, say idea-2, will accumulate the emotions of the idea-2 in which it is implicit. For example the idea of individual freedom implicit in the separation of church and state. Because idea-1 is part of idea-2, and we believe and are emotionally attached to idea-2, then idea-1 will accumulate emotional association from idea-2. Now if an idea, say idea-1 is widespread and a thread in many if not all ideology, then idea-1 becomes an almost instinctive factor, where we ‘feel’ a certain way to the depth our spirit, without necessarily fully understanding why we feel that way. The interesting issue is that when idea-1 is isolated and offered to people, it of itself may not have strong associated emotion, and such emotion will only emerge when the core idea-1 is shown linked to ideas for which we do have strong emotion.

91

How it works is that say there are two alternatives, A and B, to a point of view. One, say A, embraces idea-1, the other does not. Then a person immersed in the culture of idea-1 will feel that A is correct and they are ‘uncomfortable’ with B. So we select on our ‘instincts’, which have embraced ideas without us quite realizing they have.

Individual freedom is a core idea of Western thinking. If I am accepted as correct, and the foundation of it lays in the individualism of Germanic tribes, then individualism has been a thread in development of the Western psyche for some 3000 years. The social paradox of this core thread is that each point of view aims to assert itself. So those opposed to abortion are applying the principle of individual rights while those who support abortion are applying the principle of individual rights. This exact paradox of freedom is well understood, as is the resolution of the paradox in each person accepting the rule of law. The law determines between the two extreme points of view and settles the workable compromise. I do not think Manuel J Smith in When I Say No I feel Guilty invented workable compromise, but his 1985 bestselling book gave it prominence and placed it at the center of modern social skills. I extend the concept and argue it is the essential core of our Western way of life expressing the daily demand of the rule of law of living and working with people with whom we share no other social link other than they are our neighbor. Today it is unquestioned we understand our freedom and the paradox of freedom. What we lack is the self-discipline to live that which we understand.

In asserting our freedom we must enable the same in others. If others are not afforded the same right to freedom we assume for ourselves we are simply another dictator asserting our authority and requiring compliance. This is exactly where the West forged its metal, in the overthrow of Rome. Compliance an unacceptable option.

92

The rejection of compliance as an option is a major thread associated with all out modern thinking. Any proposal requiring compliance of one group to the demand of another will result in tension, especially if it is argued as an issue of personal choice.

Many such fights remain yet to be settled. For example, religion in schools, whether creationism is a serious scientific alternative to evolution, do people have the right to determine their own death, and do people have the right to decide if an embryo is to be carried to form a person. All of these social issues are wrestling with the exact line along which I decide or I am expected to comply with a group point of view. The movement toward personal discipline I argue is the psychological causal factor in social development. It follows that the decision to allow key issues to individual choice, such as the right to die with dignity, depends in part of the maturity and self-discipline of the citizens. Are we as a people ready to determine on such choices for ourselves such we do not impose on others?

Imagine all the ideas that make up our mind. Now imagine they are all intertwined with a central idea, as stated above. Now imagine how in our mind the ideas we accept and do not accept are associated with emotions. It is crucial to understand this point, everything about us is reducible to ideas associated with emptions. There is no causality in groups. The group is only a reservoir of ideas from which we draw and adopt to forge our own psyche. Including the idea of being compliant or not being compliant. The dominant idea of the West is to not comply. Such an idea is so deep seated as to be poorly understood, but it dominates everything. When that idea is transgressed people will have uncomfortable sense of ‘something not right’...

The only long term resolution is first, the acceptance of the right to freedom for all citizens. Second the settling of differences of opinion must be done via the court, and although neither party may fully agree

93

or accept the final arbitration, each via their reasoning understand the social reality of it, and each accepts the self-discipline to live the compromise.

The emotional and intellectual demands of living free: Reasoned understanding of the social reality of our moral choice of individual freedom; acceptance the other person has the same rights as I; the acceptance of the law as non-prescriptive of living, leaving each person to select their own life style choices provided they live within the law; acceptance of arbitration when personal choices are in conflict: and the self-discipline to live according to these principles.

Now imagine a totally different set of ideas. Let us say I am a servant of my society. I accept our social will and comply. Now assume 2000 years of evolution of society, evolution of ideas blended with social systems and norms and processes all grounded on the idea of compliance to the law. There will have been wars, deaths, and suffering in the name of detailed policy and procedures but all within a very different ideological framework. The core idea of such a philosophy is directly opposite the philosophy of the West. There is no allowance for compromise, individuals are compliant to the law which prescribes how they are to live.

A person in the West may be themselves first, and then choose their personal way of life provided they live within the law. In the alternative philosophy of compliance sketched above, call it East to offer it as opposite of West, a person today is compliant to the law of the society first, and to the social processes and authorities that are the expression of that law. A person of Eastern philosophy is a member of the group first, and may express their own view only once they have satisfied the demands of the authorities. Imagine 2000 years of indoctrination in such a point of view. The core threads that run through Eastern thinking will be of compliance and group choice,

94

directly opposite to the core thread of the West of non-compliance and individual choice.

Think through your personal ideas, and try and imagine some situation that requires individual choice, and then imagine if that choice removed. What does it feel like? Are you comfortable in having to comply to a point of view even though you disagree? Now, imagine a person immersed in the Eastern philosophy. You begin to sense how their thinking would make them ‘uncomfortable’ in adopting any point of view where they are not compliant. Individual resistance becomes unacceptable. The social group does not give the individual the right to be different. Compliance is then part of the daily social mores. It is no accident that authoritarian regimes restrict access to open information, such as block full internet access, limit newspapers, limit radio access, etc. Imagine when a style of thinking is pressed on a population for 2000 years.

If there is two dominant ideologies then one will seek to replace the other. It is no surprise that Marxism is anti-religious, since those pursuing Marxism instinctively understood that people will struggle to be compliant to two authorities at once, and the authorities will inevitably be in conflict such as to destabilize the whole social structure.

Imagine the two philosophies. West, I want what is best for me, East, I will do as I am told. Imagine a person today, after 2000 years of application of the core ideas. Immersed in the ideas, such they know nothing else. Convinced that their way is the only way. Are these people likely to have a rapport? How well will they communicate? Now add say 1000 years of historical conflict and grievances...?

I repeat, to understand another culture we need understand the ideological structure and the depth of emotion it will embrace. All mood and conduct arises from the ideas applied and the emotions associated with those ideas. We need ‘see’ the ideology from its core,

95

and not merely as presented today, or presented superficially. We need see and understand the intrinsic conduct the ideas will enable, such as resist, or be compliant. There can be no understanding of a seriously different culture without understanding of what it implicitly engenders as conduct and emotion. We ‘see’ from the inside, and that will mean leaving our ideology behind, except perhaps our objective intellectual skills of reasoned analysis.

What does this understanding mean for people coming into our Western way of life from cultures and philosophies different from ours?

Someone inculcated in a particular way of thinking may have difficulty of thinking any other way, their habits of reaction attuned to the way of thinking of their culture. Western philosophy at root enables people to cope with ideological changes, since it is based on the principle of rule of law and if people obey the law, then they may live as they choose. This ability to cope comfortably with different points of view is further enabled if we accept everyone has the inalienable right to ethical fulfilment, within which the rule of law becomes even more important, and even less defining of how any person needs specifically live. Different way of living within Western society I refer to as ‘cultures’ so Western way of thinking is implicitly multicultural, as already noted. I stress that each cultural group must swear to uphold the principle of rule of law and the ethical demand that no-one has the right to hinder anyone else going about their legally constituted business. People may protest, but I discuss the limits to protest and the ethics consistent with Western rule of law. We all want our own way, but reality is we cannot have it and must find workable compromise with everyone else. Should understanding of the rule of law and its ethical consequences be taught in schools? I suggest developing insight into the Western rule of law in school is very much more important than any religious studies.

96

Using the first person, culture is the set of ideas to which I relate and from which I draw those ideas to apply in my life. Culture also contributes to the definition of social class. My culture is also a part of a much larger set of ideas referred to as Western philosophy. To be part of Western Philosophy my culture must contain the core ideas that define the West, rule of law, individual freedom, wrestle to draw a line separating personal choice from enforced group conduct, with social development the building of shared self-discipline enabling choice to be increasingly personal with reducing need to monitor and enforce law and regulation.

Rousseau said ‘man is born free yet everywhere in chains’, the position here is people necessarily have a chain attached, the real issue is who holds the end of it. Does it require external discipline or are people willing and able to exercise self-discipline. A person sans self-discipline is sans choice, hence lacking one of the defining human qualities.

The Western way is to press for increasing personal self-discipline and reduced externally enforced discipline thereby enabling increasingly greater individual choice in pursuit of ethical fulfilment. The Western way of social pluralism, and increasing multi-culturalism, bound only by the rule of law.

‘Radicalization’ is when a person from say Western philosophy adopts ideas of another say Eastern philosophy. The ideas of the adopted philosophy become the core of thinking of the person, and accumulate the emotional association to make them the dominant driver of mood and conduct within the person. There may be many reasons why they entered the alternative philosophy, obviously they did not find satisfaction in the Western philosophy for whatever reason. Judgment may also be influenced by immaturity and lack of experience.

97

Within this theory given the West is Christian, then a person adopting Buddhism could be said to have been ‘radicalized’. However, the term radicalization is more restricted to those individuals adopting an alternative point of view to Western thinking, then from within that alternative point of view judging Western way of life as wrong and acting to overthrow it. The crucial point is that Western thinking within the rule of law encourages ‘radicalization’ in the sense of adopting new thinking and seeking fulfilment by living it out. It stops short of the full definition of ‘radicalization’ to the extent people still live within the rule of law, and does not interfere with others seeking their fulfilment. The problem occurs when the radicalization results in people wanting to force others to comply with their new way of thinking and are prepared to act belligerently toward those who do not comply.

When there is an expression of negative opinion of our way of life we must take that expression seriously. Specifically, if a person from the Eastern philosophy as sketched above comes into our Western way of life, and we know that in their home country there is negative views of our society, then it is paramount that such a person swears allegiance to our Western values of rule of law, individual freedom and compliance to our social processes and forego expectation that any of their ways can or should be implemented in our society. If they wish for changes in our ways, then we have social process for change of government, laws and regulation. Any suggestion for such change must be via the channels that exist and are accepted. To allow any exceptions to this is to allow conditions which could easily come to threaten our very way of life and the fundamentals of our existence.

Understanding culture from a scientific psychological point of view becomes very important when considering people coming into our society from outside. People when entering our Western way of life, especially if they originate in societies known for anti-Western views, may not bring their own social expectations with them. They

98

may bring their personal rights as expressed under our law, so they may pray as they choose, but not in breach of our laws. They must forswear everything from their society which is contrary to our society. They do not have to, but if they do not, they are not allowed into our communities. They may only adopt the personal expressions as allowed within our law. It is not acceptable to promote overthrow of our way of life. It is not acceptable to promote ideas that would erode our underlying ideology. It is not acceptable to manipulate our tolerance and seek to radicalize vulnerable citizens.

Finally before we let anyone in, we need decide if we believe them, we need to decide if they are people of integrity, worthy of our trust.

99

10. Economic fairness not equality

Beyond the inalienable right to ethical self-determination within the rule of law, we are not all equal.

We do not all have the conceptualization capacities of Einstein, the artistic talent of Michelangelo, the hand-eye coordination of Roger Federer, the determination of Richie McCaw, the singing skills of J-Lo, Beyoncé, or Frank Sinatra, the technical insight of Steven Jobs, etc. We all have different talents to different degrees. That is a matter of common sense. Should we then construct society to enforce economic equality, when we all know we are not all equal? Society is constructed from the ideas we apply, so we can introduce rules and laws that would moderate society toward economic equality.

To some degree the concern with economic equality comes from Marxian type thinking. From each according to their ability and to each according to their need. The principle, first used by the nineteenth century French socialist politician Louis Blanc, refers to free access and distribution of goods and services. In the Marxist view, such an arrangement will be made possible by the abundance of goods and services that a developed centralized economic system will produce. The idea is that with the full development of socialism and unfettered productive forces, there will be enough to satisfy everyone's needs. We know today it just does not work that way. Second, the intellectual foundation of such ideas is at best lacking, and at worst non-existent.

We need ideas, but first and foremost we need sound ideas fully grounded on a secure intellectual foundation, and that can only be ideas based on first things first, since if we ignore any of the underlying intellectual position we risk the ideas being wrong and being overturned when the issues in the foundation intellectual position are

100

resolved. If a house is built with weak foundations then it should be no surprise when it collapses.

We must stop supporting ideas that may make us feel good, but that do not have the foundation ensuring they are in fact good ideas and not ideas that merely serve our emotional needs. We need learn to choose ideas grounded on our reason, not our personal emotional preferences.

Grounded theory says we are not all equal. Practical reality says we do not all have the same opportunity. Our social values say that everyone must have equal opportunity within the law to find their ethical fulfilment.

The issue emerging from the tensions between these positions is one of fairness. What is an income gap we can live with? What is fair, given talent and opportunity?

The rule of fairness is that any income or wealth gap is accepted by the majority of the society as reflecting the reality of talent, circumstance and demand of the job. The ‘fair’ wealth gap is one people are willing to live with and are willing to resist attempts of the more extreme people of the society who would protest the gap is not fair.

Minority viewpoints are important and can often lead the way. However, minority viewpoints can also be self-serving and unreasonable, destructive of workable compromise. Authoritarian closed regimes suppress minority viewpoints to enforce central required compliance. Open, liberal regimes enable minority viewpoints, encourage discussion and seek the consensus of judgement as to whether the minority view is considered or ignored.

This distinction between open and closed regimes must be considered within the discussion on free speech later in the book. Second, the distinction does not require democracy as the social

101

process of peaceably changing bad government. Although democracy is currently the only process known to achieve change of bad government on a consistently peaceful basis. Also democracy is the only process that does not inherently depend on gracious social compliance by those currently in power to forego that power. However, this does not mean other social peaceful processes for changing bad government are not possible, we have simply not invented them yet.

102

11. Understanding the modern economy

Consider the term ‘economy’. The economy is the set of organizations that collective create and administer the wealth of the society. There are a very large range of organizations in society, and the economy merely refers to a particular group of them. It is very wrong to think of the economy as ‘something’, it is not, it is just a term that classifies certain outputs from our social structure. Economic outputs substantially arise from the effort of citizens. The term ‘economy’ should be seen as a label that lumps together specific social events which, as understood by Adam Smith, need to be viewed from within the broader social framework.

Everything that happens in the economy is via the mechanisms inherent in the economy that is individual organizations, and individuals within those organizations.

There is no causality in ‘organization’; it is again a label on a system that has certain outputs. Everything that happens in organizations happens via the action of individuals. It is people who act … and we group and accumulate outputs from those actions at various levels in order to discuss the broader aspects of our social functioning and so avoid being trapped in too much detail.

The problem occurs when we lose sight of the fact we have accumulated the causal factors, and we then attribute ‘causation’ to the higher level construct.

For example, a detailed business report, say the profit and loss. What is it? Precisely, it is the accumulation of certain outputs of the group of people who constitute the organization and reflect whether or not those people judged accurately what needed to be done, and then did it successfully. In short, the profit and loss reflects the effectiveness of the leadership structure in identifying and guiding

103

delivery of the actions that enable the greatest result, they are called ideal actions. I summarize, all business reports reflect the extent the leadership identified and guided delivery of those actions that enable greatest result.

To begin we need think about organizations. Think of how many organizations you belong to: From local tennis or fly fishing club, to professional associations to political parties, to your work. Even the local where every Friday after work you meet your friends will have groups, fishing, darts, bowls, or just for social outings. You may meet a stranger but they are okay if they play golf, or member of the local gym, or sports club, or Rotary, or you know of them through the parent-teachers association at your child’s school.

Organizations give modern society its cohesion, and continuity. Much of our sense of purpose as individuals comes from our involvement with organizations, from striving to help people in some social services organization or full time charity, to aiming to be prime minister or president, it is the organization that provides the history of the office or service and continuity enabling us to strive to live up to that tradition.

Organizations are not merely the core of society, they are its very essence, the ‘glue’ that both defines us and provides for us.

A crucial role of organizations is in the economy. The organization is the key vehicle of focus and human performance that provides us income and adds revenues into the community by way of expenses.

104

We can picture society, or our community as a series of organizations, each organization represented by the space between adjoining lines, as in the diagram, which of course does not even begin to do justice to the complexity and interactive nature of a real modern community. A simple tribal community is much more easily represented than a modern complex liberal plural democracy … tens of thousands of lines. The space between the lines then represents the size of the organization, its pervasiveness perhaps in society/community, etc. I do not want to get too detailed, merely illustrate the nature of the complexity.

Now, we can classify organizations into groups, political, religious, and social, sports, and the economy. But again this grouping is interrelated, for example a sport organizations needs to be in the economy to extent it pays salaries to administrators, and or players, generates revenues at turnstiles, and part of sports in sense it is relaxation and entertainment. There is a level of sophistication and complexity we take for granted and grasp very easily.

This model makes no effort to analyze the complexity, but does show in concept the nature of that complexity and gives us some mental models that enable us to ‘see’ the complexity more clearly.

105

We can now draw two lines that separate out a set of organizations and call them ‘the economy’… the two longer lines with an arrow between them. Between the two lines, we have ‘the economy’, from the small five person local engineering firm to Google, Alcoa, or Facebook, and from those economic aspects of the NFL, NHL, Greenpeace, and NBA to the economic aspects of the local golf club and a political party. The size and economic impact of these organizations may change it is the organization itself that enables continuity and is the long term provider of community welfare, both in terms of services delivered and income to people and to other organizations that serve them, those service organizations themselves members of the economy, and themselves providing continuity and structure.

In this analysis the economy consists of organization, interlinked delivering key functions whereby the economy delivers the wealth base of the society.

Who should the economy serve?

In the free democratic society of the West the answer appears clear, that the economy should serve the people in the society.

If that is so, it would follow that those in positions of power in the economy are there to manage and to guide the economy such that the people are best served. The people do not receive from the economy by the leave of some feudal lord, politician, entrepreneur, or board of directors. They receive by right their fair share.

Now given the economy is structured according to law and regulation, and given in the West we are dedicated to transparent application of law and regulation as regard the economy, it follows that if the economy is not structured to best serve people then political action needs to follow to alter law and regulation such that the economy does serve people as intended.

106

Finally, given the aim of this analysis is to link individual daily life to economic success and given the organization performance is the core of the economic performance, it follows that the start point is the relation of the daily life of a person to organization success.

107

12. Understanding organizations

Imagine entering the large meeting room in the community center. There were six tables with eighteen chairs in a U shape at one end, with a white board positioned at the head of the U. By the white board was a single chair, with a table to the side on which was a folder of notes. In each corner of the room were groups of four or five chairs. On the U shaped tables were three further small piles of notes, writing tablets, and pens. On the floor beneath the chairs in the corner were scattered papers. What do you judge happened in the room?

Beyond the fact the cleaners clearly have not yet been, the layout, notes etc., all point to a workshop of eighteen people, with plenary discussion and perhaps input by a facilitator, and small group discussion in each corner.

We can view these remnants of human activity as would an archeologist, we infer the activity from what was left behind. The first thing we infer is not about the people, it is what the remnants tell us of the organization of the people. By reading the notes, and from the nature of the organization, we could likely infer the type of people who attended the workshop.

Question: Is the organization separate from the people?

Imagine there were a number of facilitators each conducting several workshops all on the same topic, so notes, paper, layout of the room was always the same. Also, the internal structure of the workshop was always the same, with plenary and small group discussions.

While you reflect on the question of whether or not ‘organization’ is separate from people, perhaps consider an organization is a legal entity, it can own things, be held responsible, has

108

internal processes and procedures, have debts, and assets, and creditors.

Now imagine the owner of a company took their staff on a bus trip. Now imagine there was a terrible accident and the bus crashed and all were killed. Would the company continue?

The organization definitely continues even when all the people change. The organization of some event can be exactly the same with different groups of people. And a formal organization can be treated very much as a ‘person’ separate from the people in the organization. All these arguments point to the organization as separate from people.

What is it exactly then, that is separate from people?

Surprisingly this turns out to be a very difficult question. Especially if we apply the criteria of first things first, and demand that all the underlying foundation of any answer be fully addressed. You may be wondering why it is so difficult, so I will illustrate. This solution is derived directly from the general theory of psychology in The Origin of Consciousness, as you will recall, I stated it had to apply to all human output, and organization is a crucial human output dominating our lives as it does.

Human organizations are created by people, they have no physical substance, although exactly as in the meeting room, the use of organization by some group will leave archeological traces from which the nature of the organization can be inferred. The argument affirms that organization is an idea influencing human mood and conduct. But what then is an idea, how is it formed, and how is it causally linked to mood and conduct? Unless all such questions are addressed then we cannot have a theory of organization which has solid intellectual basis, and if it does not have solid basis, then we need be very cautious since the understanding could be overthrown by the resolution of underlying fundamental issues.

109

It gets more complex. Karl Popper established mid twentieth century that ideas once shared are independent of the originator, and more, ideas shared in books or electronic, that are in a recorded form, are in fact independent of any knowing subject. This means that ideas shared in recorded form are objects in their own right, and do not need people to exist. The Rosetta stone is the perfect example, drafted around 200BC, survived until our time and able to be used by us enabling translation of previously undecipherable language.

Therefore organization if drafted in recordable form does not depend on any one person, and has existence in its own right. Further, the idea of organization is a complex idea that is a complex object existing in its own right. Complex objects have an internal structure, it follows that the idea ‘organization’, when made specific will have an internal structure.

We fully understand that no matter how fully described, a book on an organization will not do anything, only sit there. People give life to organization, the description of it no more than archeological remnants. It finally follows that the recorded internal structure of organization must specify the nature of the link between people, who make the organization a living entity, and the organization per se.

What does all that mean? Someone in 5000 years’ time who finds the organization policy and operations manual of Google, could then reproduce the organization used by Google today and explore the link between the organization Google and the people who populated the organization.

Why is all that important? This whole work is founded on the idea that to build better society we need better ideas, and to create better ideas we need apply reason, and if we apply reason we need be sure we have ideas not about to be overturned by us leaving underlying

110

issues unresolved that if resolved could overturn the ideas we plan to apply.

I argue this complexity is important to avoid humanity, us, acting like Dorothy and chasing bad ideas down rabbit holes to find in the end we need wrestle back to the surface since the idea we chased did not work out for us.

Socialism and capitalism are both such ideas we have chased and which have not worked out for us, so to avoid doing the same thing again I argue we need get very much more thorough and much less superficial with our reasoning.

The solution to the intellectual foundations

The theory of organization must be derived from and integrated to a general theory of psychology, in turn can only be developed by applying well-defined intellectual tools from within a base of well-constructed methodology.

But intellectual tools and a method within which they are applied are both knowledge. A general theory of psychology must account for all knowledge. Therefore a general theory of psychology created by tools and method must also account for those tools and method and in fact validate their use. A general theory of psychology must account for itself, and if not we need be very wary of it, since it is not a general theory but merely a limited theory of potentially misleading conclusions. This demand that a theory of psychology account for itself is a crucial criteria, one which all historic theories of psychology have failed.

The theory in The Origin of Consciousness (‘Origin’) drills to this depth of explanation, therefore we can have confidence in the conclusions and I refer to the theory as being ethically constructed hence having intellectual integrity.

111

The OPD system of organizational design

The theory of organization that emerges is called OPD system of organizational design. The term specifying the intellectual depth and that the system is derived from the theory of psychology in ‘Origin’. The term did not begin as that, but that is the intent now.

The objective of the OPD system is to design and operate organizations so that the both the organization and people benefit. As stressed throughout this work, OPD is a way of thinking. The technology derived from the OPD system of thinking is referred to as OPD-SHRM (strategic human resource management).

I summarize below the key points of OPD system, if further detail required please refer to the books and papers on the system noted in About.

Overview of OPD system of organization design

Idea A. Goal → action: For every goals there are actins needed to be delivered if the goal is to be achieved. The actions needed to achieve a goal (KPI, key performance indicators) are called ideal actions. Ideal action are of the quality acting them out does not guarantee success but not acting them out guarantees failure.

Idea B. Strategy: Strategy is the overriding purpose of the organization. Strategy provides direction and in any accounting period can be sub-divided into many sub-goals (KPIs) to be achieved in that period.

Ideas A and B are irrefutable and lead to the OPD theory below.

OPD theory: That underlying every strategy is a behavioral structure.

112

Terminology: A role specification is KPI plus the ideal actions. The set of all role specifications defines the organizational structure. The behavioral structure is a set of ideal actions relative to a group of KPIs, hence a behavioral structure consists of multiple role specifications. The time budget is the distribution of time across the ideal actions in the role specification.

Organization success: Achievement of the goals or KPIs.

Personal success: Deliver of assigned and accepted ideal actions to standard.

Understanding human capital under OPD theory

Some organizations seem to have more effective staff and therefore get better results. Human effort, sometimes called human capital is a factor in the results of organizations, but because slavery is banned, organizations cannot own people, therefore we need get very clear as to exactly what is human capital.

In OPD theory, human capital value (HCV) arises as two equally important and very clear components. First, the quality of the leadership thinking beginning with the aptness and insightfulness of the strategic decisions that locates the organization in its market. Then the goal cascade gives rise to the system of ideal actions called the architecture, and enables the behavioral structure to be clearly defined. This is the first component of the human capital value of the organization. The static component, but static only in sense it is created without reference to people who occupy the organization. It is an analysis of market, organization structure, and ideal actions needed to achieve goals, all assessed without reference to people. This is leadership judgment, which creates what is called the architecture of the business, a key component of which is the behavioral structure.

113

The second, dynamic component of human capital value of the organization is the quality of the leadership effectiveness that is the effectiveness with which the leadership guides delivery of the ideal actions judged necessary for successful execution of strategy. This dynamic component depends on people, for example, if someone very good at delivery of some ideal actions leaves then the value of the dynamic component of the human capital value has decreased. That is not the case for the static component of human capital value which remains unchanged when people leave (which is why it is called ‘static’).

Summary

The key Ashby equations defining organizational design:

• Strategy → detailed goals (KPIs) in each role. Once the strategy is agreed, then it is cascaded through the agreed role structure to establish the goals in each role.

• Goals → ideal actions. In each role, the ideal actions that when acted out offer the greatest chance of greatest success in each role are identified and agreed.

• Strategy → behavioral structure. The behavioral structure is defined as the set of ideal actions underlying each KPI, therefore is the set of ideal actions underlying the strategy.

• Human performance→ behavioral structure→ strategic success. If human performance is made closer to the behavioral structure strategic success will be improved.

114

13. Linking individual success to

organization success

The economy is an aspect of society, and human behavior in the economy is needs to be understood from within the backdrop of general social ethics and morals. Organizations are the operational core of the economy. The more successful our organizations the more successful the economy. An organization is separate from people, founded by the strategic decision giving purpose to the organization. Using the principle of goals → ideal actions, the strategy within any given accounting period can be subdivided into goals cascaded through the organization, then those goals broken down into ideal actions that when acted out offer the greatest chance of greatest goal success. If the ideal actions are then delivered to standard, the organization has the greatest chance of greatest strategic success.

It follows that if actual behavior is moved closer to the agreed ideal actions then results must improve. Actual behavior → ideal actions.

We can now define organization success as achievement of the goals or KPIs, and personal success as delivery of agreed ideal actions to standard. There is no tension to these two definitions, if people deliver the ideal actions to standard, they win and the organization wins. If the people deliver the agreed ideal actions to standard and the results are not there, then the people are still successful and the leadership needs to take a very hard look at its judgment, since the people did all asked of them.

The organizational-people link

The OPD theory states that underlying every strategy is a set of ideal actions referred to as the behavioral structure that if the goals

115

(KPIs) derived from the strategy are to be achieved the behavioral structure must be acted out to standard.

The sequence is clear in the steps:

1. Set the strategy.

2. Identify the behavioral structure such that if it is acted out to standard then...

3. The goals (KPIs) are achieved, which means...

4. The strategy is achieved.

Step 2 is linking the behavioral structure of the organization to people. It means that if the behavioral structure is to be acted out to standard then the actual on-the-job behavior of the staff assigned the roles must fully match the ideal actions in the role that drive the goals (KPIs). Ideal actions drive goal achievement, goal achievement drives strategy achievement.

There is one important addition to the OPD theory, namely the determining of the organizational structure. The organizational structure divisions, teams and roles in teams, whereby strategy mapped onto the market the organization is to serve.

Defining SHRM success

We can now define a variable called strategic human resource management success, SHRM success as:

1. Design an effective organizational structure.

2. Identify the goal (KPIs) to be achieved in each role.

3. Identify the ideal actions in each role, and thereby be able to group them and define the behavioral structure.

4. Recruit people and assign them to the roles.

116

5. Assign each person a team leader, who then works with the person accepting a role and supports them to ensure their on-the-job conduct matches the ideal actions in the role offering greatest chance of greatest goal success.

Within a single role success for the person is then delivery to standard of the agreed ideal actions. If the person delivers the agreed ideal actions to standard, they succeed whether or not the goals (KPIs) are achieved.

We can now define SHRM success across the whole organization as successful completion of steps 1-5 above in every role in the organization such that Actual behavior = the agreed ideal actions. This states actual behavior of team members matches the agreed ideal actions derived from the KPIs assigned the team and distributed to team members.

Creating an Ashby diagram of step 2

Because we derived the goals (KPIs) from the strategy, and derived the ideal actions from the goals (KPIs) we know that if actual behavior matches the ideal actions then the goal has greatest chance of greatest success. People do not typically of their own accord act exactly as per the ideal actions in any role. We can express this by stating that the closer actual behavior is to the ideal action the greater the goal achievement. This principle of making actual behavior match the ideal actions, is example the same principle in golf, or tennis, or a relationship. If you do things inconsistent with what is needed in the situation, success will fall, and if you get things right, then success will increase.

Actual behavior on-the-job is a variable with the Ashby system of thinking. We know the closer actual behavior is to the ideal actions, the greater the goal success. We can now link the variables as follows:

117

OPD-SHRMsuccess is actual behavior → ideal actions that is OPD-SHRMsuccess is measured by the degree actual behavior in a team matches the agreed ideal actions. It states that as actual behavior changes relative to ideal actions then goal achievement will change. So if we do more of the ideal action we get greater success and if we do less we get less success. I suggest this is largely ‘common sense’, but frequently it is common sense not well implemented.

As an aside, the OPD system changes all of the leadership and team management processes across the organization, to a degree greater than it would appear. For example, definition of engagement changes, as does the focus of key organizational functions, such as team leader, CEO and the HR department in an organization.

CEO: Responsible for roll out of strategy. Apply the firm request on all team leader that they are to identify the goals and ideal actions in the roles in their teams, and then guide people to deliver the ideal actions to standard.

Team leaders: To apply the OPD-SHRM processes so that goals and ideal actions are clearly identified in each role and then guide people to act out the ideal actions to standard. Team leader success is measured in the extent ideal actions are apt relative to KPIs and eventually strategy, and if they are delivered consistently to standard.

HR department: Delegated by the CEO to partner all team leaders in their task. HR is the center of technical excellence and support for all team leaders on how to best achieve the team leader task as required by the CEO.

118

Aggregating individual success

We can now aggregate step 2 across the whole organization, so that we now have two variables, OPD-SHRMsuccess and Organization success. We can now write:

(1) OPD-SHRMsuccess → organization success

This Ashby diagram or equation or sentence states that within the OPD system definitions, if SHRMsuccess changes then organization success will change. The greater the SHRMsuccess in the form of the delivery of ideal actions to standard the greater the organization success in the form of achievement of the organization strategy.

The professional relationship between people and work

We now come to the first moral/ethical issue as regard the OPD theory.

We are clear on the conceptual structure of the theory, and the leadership responsibility to identify apt strategy leading to an apt behavioral structure for the organization.

Elsewhere has been discussed leadership responsibilities in guiding delivery of the ideal actions and I will not consider that further, only to say that the comments on the obligations of people on how they approach their roles in the organization applies as much to leadership as it does to the remainder of the staff.

The question is: What exactly is the obligation of people to act out the ideal actions implicit in their role that they have accepted when they accepted the role?

Before we consider whether people should or should not have some responsibility for their conduct at work, let’s examine a model of how they could approach their organization role.

119

Take any top sports person; they will know what they are expected to do. They will be able to ‘see’ the actions in their mind, and they then approach the task with clarity and discipline. They know for example, that if they want to hit a good golf shot, or shot hoops or hit a home run, their mind must be fully on the task, they cannot afford to be thinking of their family or the argument they had with the coach etc. If their mind is not on the task they know they are unlikely to give their best.

Within OPD theory work is exactly the same, people must have an extremely clear image of what needs to be done if they are to perform to their best. Second, they need be focused on the task, and not thinking of anything else.

The research by OPD International over near a decade has established that when the ideas in mind are made clear, and that is how people think, they tend to do it anyway. So OPDS theory does not demand people work harder, the first step is to be clearer in mind and so work smarter.

Motivation is defined as additional positive emotion is given to the ideas. Motivation arises in two ways, first the person puts in the effort for their own pride and self-esteem they do not do it for the ‘company’, the team leader or any other external factor. They do it for themselves. Second, motivation is enabled by the team leader making sure the person has fun while doing it, which gives the extra positive energy to the ideal actions.

Overview linking people to the organization

Human psychology: Mood and conduct arising from applied ideas.

Motivation: Emotions associated with the ideas. At work, the team leader role to build positive emotion while doing ideal

120

actions that is people having fun while doing what is agreed in their role.

Personal satisfaction: People commit to improving their own work life success and to build greater satisfaction and fulfilment from their work life. People accept and embrace the OPD human capital development system as the way to manage their mind to achieve greatest performance from themselves.

Choice: To make work life more satisfying by adopting ideal actions as what we do at work. Accepting support of the team leader find flow and fun while doing them. Flow is from Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, where people found to be most fulfilled when they are fully engaged in the task.

Key rationale: If it is made clearer in mind there is greater chance of doing it better without having to try harder. Work performance can be made clearer if the agreed ideal actions memorized and associated with fun. Summarized in the

equation, Improve action → improve goal achievement.

Game plans: The role specification/time budget in mind is made personal and called the game plan.

Perfect performance: Imagine a job being done as well as one can imagine. This is perfect performance. Now imagine what actually happens. Any difference is the performance gap. Close the performance gap by making actual performance closer to perfect performance then results must improve.

Perfect team culture: Each person striving to deliver the perfect game.

121

The OPD theory places HR at the center of the roll out of strategy, making HR crucial driver in organization success.

The individual doing his or her ‘bit’ in the organization

The Ashby equation defining personal success is (1a) actual behavior = ideal actions. This states that full personal success at work is when personal behavior matches the agreed ideal actions.

A person does their ‘bit’ within the organization when they deliver the agreed ideal actions to standard in the work role they have accepted.

122

14. Linking organization success to

economic success

The economy consists of organizations. We have established that the key to organization success is identifying their behavioral structure and guiding its delivery to standard. It now follows that if we create a set of ideal actions underlying every organization in the economy then we have the behavioral structure of the community.

(1) OPD-SHRMsuccess → organization success

Sentence (1) states that SHRM success using OPD theory is an ultimate effect in relation to the success of the organization, that is greater the SHRM success in the form of the delivery of ideal actions to standard the greater the organization success in the form of achievement of the organization strategy.

In society, the economy consists of organizations, it follows that the greater organizational success the stronger the economy. This relationship is summarized:

(2) Organization success → economic success

Community wealth depends on the ideal actions in every organization in society being delivered fully to standard. Work drives economic success

If people do not act out the behavioral structure of the community then the community will financially suffer.

123

15. Linking economic success to

community success

The Argument thus far.

(1) OPD-SHRMsuccess → organization success

(2) Organization success → economic success

Finally, it is community wealth that drives community health. Without wealth there is not enough water, education, health care, policing, and food, there is poor quality housing, poor roads, and no means of transport. This relationship is summarized:

(3) Economic success → community wealth

(4) Community wealth → community health

Sentence (3) states economic success has an effect on community wealth. Sentence (4) states that community wealth has an effect on community health. These sentences are Ashby diagrams, and as such are verifiable scientific propositions.

124

16. Linking the individual to community

success

The Argument is as follows:

(1) OPD-SHRMsuccess → organization success

(2) Organization success → economic success

(3) Economic success → community wealth

(4) Community wealth → community health

OPD-SHRMsuccess is defined as applying the OPD human capital development processes such that actual behavior matches the agreed ideal actions in the team. Actual behavior = the agreed ideal actions. The term ‘matching’ is a very high standard, so it can be softened to a more realistic (1a) Actual behavior → the agreed ideal actions which states that OPD-SHRMsuccess is applying the team development technology such that actual behavior is moved toward the agreed ideal actions.

Recall the discussion of the property of Ashby diagrams where the variable at the tail of the first arrow can be directly linked with the variable at the head of the last arrow. We can now apply this rule to the Argument, creating the ultimate effect (5).

(5) OPD-SHRMsuccess → community health

This reads that under OPD theory strategic human resource management success across the economic base of the community impacts the health of that community. I stress, we are in the middle of sociology NOT business. We are also laying the foundation of ‘...the economy’.

Ultimate effect (5) is fully social science and economics, built by well-defined rules carefully applied, a formal, measurable, testable link

125

between the successes of strategic human resource management as defined within OPD theory and community health and wellbeing.

I hope you now see why the background is so important, so that the Ashby diagrams, our sentences that summarize the argument are meaningful.

We can now elaborate (1a) and (5), to produce (5a) which precisely defines the link between individual effort and community health and wellbeing.

(5a) OPD-SHRMsuccess (actual behavior→ agreed ideal actions)

→ community health.

This sentence states that a member of a community does their ‘bit’ toward community success when they focus upon and deliver to standard the agreed ideal actions in their job in the organization being part of the economy of the community.

126

17. Wealth creation and the role of

profit

What is profit and what role does it play in society?

Profits first belong to the organizations and are the source of capital whereby the organization can develop and grow. The community is chiefly served by the wages, salaries and expenses that go into the community. The salaries include those to the leadership. The Argument makes it clear that without successful businesses the wealth base of the community will quickly erode. It follows that a primary social responsibility of any business is to stay in business, and for that it needs profits as the capital to fund its future. In funding its future the organization secures the economic base of the community.

Second, profits are the measure of the success of the leadership in selecting the strategy and their success in identifying the behavioral structure of the organization and having people act it out with commitment. Hence part of the profit determined by how smart the leadership, and part determined by committed focused, self-disciplined staff to delivery of the ideal actions. Finally profits provide return for those who invested capital in the organization.

These considerations suggest profits be distributed first to the company for future development, then to the leadership and staff in reward for their effectiveness and effort, and finally to the investors as return on capital. (With the company success enabled by astute leadership and committed staff, then investors will realize capital gain from appreciating share values.)

The collective expenses are likely 8-9 times larger than profits, yet it is profits that get the focus; this attitude needs to shift and for all to realize that without employment community wealth and health can quickly decline to survival, subsistence levels. This fact hammered

127

home when consulting in a small rural town that had just lost the beef slaughtering works. Second, recently when conducting workshops with team leaders in a company of all Polynesians, discussing employment and its relationship to community wellbeing. I was surprised when they all got it immediately, all eighteen in the room could relate to a family member or friend who was at that moment in crisis on their island when the copra factory or the fishing factory or tourist goods factory left the island. On an island of a few hundred inhabitants loss of 50 jobs is devastating.

Within the Argument, wealth creation lies in two fundamentals. First jobs available for all within the community, and the income from that job enables basic living within the community. This can only be achieved by astute entrepreneurs supported by smart leadership who enable committed and effective teams. This is the central crucial creative driver of community success.

The Argument strongly implies that the social creative demand is best served by a synergy between entrepreneurs and the community with which they are based and from which they will draw the staff. Both have a common interest in one cannot be successful without the other. My observation is the West has much to learn on how to build and nurture that synergy.

Second, wealth immediately equates to the collective profits generated in the economy representing the ‘extra’ arising from the astuteness and effort of staff and leadership in the businesses that form the economy.

The Argument and implications is a step forward to better understanding the links between personal effort, astute leadership, creativity, business performance, and the economy and community wellbeing. There is tension between these factors if and only if the contributions of others is over-looked or ignored with adoption self-

128

serving ethics seeking to deny a just return to those who contributed to the final result.

Understanding the economy as an aspect of social behavior and understanding the crucial link between personal ethics and economic behavior exactly as fully understood by Adam Smith, it is proposed that regulation is an essential requirement today. Regulation is required to moderate self-serving actions derived from the accepted general ethics of our modern world focused on the accumulation and spending of wealth. We need legislate social fairness and economic justice and not leave it to the personal choice of those with the authority.

129

18. The community demand is always

the same

The overall argument linking individual effort to community well-being is:

Individual performance → ideal actions →behavioral structure→ organization success → economic success → community wealth → community health→ community health.

Modern complexity has merely added additional steps, and modern productivity means a specific individual is insulated from immediate community development and survival.

The tribal society and the modern society both have an essential behavioral structure derived from the economic needs of the society and failure to deliver those actions to standard and on time will jeopardize the stability and survival of the society.

We also know that relative to the tribal village, there are vast surpluses in modern society, so we have a huge range of entertainment, and sports, and social services many of which are not part of the key behavioral structure of society but provide a depth and richness unprecedented in history.

The superficial complexity hides the fundamental structural similarity. If sufficient people are not committed to delivery of the behavioral structure of the society/community, then there will be people in the community who will suffer, and if sufficiently widespread, then a range of services will erode and large numbers of people will suffer (road, electricity, water and sewage infrastructure for example, not to mention medical, police and education infrastructures).

The structural comparison of economic development 40,000 years ago from chapter 2 with today is summarized below.

130

The community 40,000 years ago Modern community

Understanding of factors determining economic development of the community within its environment. Arising from cultural history, experience, trial and error and smart individuals.

Modern economic development, dependent on a successful economy, in turn dependent on successful organizations.

↓ ↓

Identify those actions, called ideal actions, necessary for economic development. Derived from the understanding of the factors determining economic development, independent of any one person, but subject to creative effort to find more effective ways to economically develop the community.

Identify the ideal actions in every job in every organization in the economy.

↓ ↓

The economic development work distributed through various sub-groups with actual behavior matching ideal actions to a crucial minimum required standard. If the people do not match actual behavior with the ideal actions to the minimum required standard, the whole community can suffer. Each person has direct and likely clear link to community survival.

Each person expected to do their bit by delivery of agreed ideal actions in their job. If enough people do not match actual behavior with the ideal actions to the minimum required standard, the whole community can suffer.

131

The central demand of society has not changed

Compared to 40,000 years ago the direct survival link today is broken by scale and complexity, but the exact same principle applies. Superficial complexity hides the fundamental similarity. If sufficient people are not committed to delivery of the behavioral structure of the society/community, then there will be people in the community who will suffer, and if sufficiently widespread, then a range of services will erode and large numbers of people will suffer (road, electricity, water and sewage infrastructure for example, not to mention medical, police and education infrastructures).

Everyone is expected to do their bit.

However, there is a structural issue... one that needs legislative change.

132

19. The issue of governance

Governance is the term applied to the intervention by particular interests moderating the link between wealth created and the return of that wealth to those who generated it. Governance is where economic productivity meets politics.

Imagine a feudal village in Europe say in the twelfth century. Wealth creation came from the land. The Feudal Lord owned the land, the serf worked the land. The crops were owned by the Feudal Lord. We can sum the situation in an Ashby argument as follows.

Effort of peasant → quality of harvest → economic return.

The return is then split between the Lord and the peasant which we can show by placing the Feudal Lord in a moderating situation effectively controlling the distribution the economic return, effectively controlling the distribution of the wealth.

Effort →harvest → (distribution moderated by Feudal Lord) → return.

There are several ways the structure could be conceptualized, however the one chosen emphasizes in the most succinct manner the political, legal and frequently armed authority vested in the Feudal Lord. The serf is entitled to a share of the wealth, not always in writing, but in precedent and history. Beyond entitlement all else received by the peasant is ‘by your leave’... That is at the graciousness and forbearance of the Feudal Lord who has all the rights and usually the armed force to reinforce their authority.

At this point the analysis diverges from the community of 40,000 years ago. In the pre-historic community the group was small enough that each person most likely understood their role in relation to community survival and understood the need to act out those actions

133

necessary for group survival. Not so the Feudal village, where the dominating factor is the politics of the relationship between the Lord and serf.

There has always been governance

The chief point is there has always been governance... or at least from the time society became more complex, work became specialized, and people were not directly involved in group survival. Likely politics appeared in communities of no more than a few tens of people. So likely governance appeared in the Argument several tens of thousands of years ago.

Also we can imagine where politics and governance were the same. The community governed by a warlord, baron, chief or prince.

Imagine society develops and grows. Returning to the Feudal Lord and the village in Europe in the twelfth century, we can readily imagine the castle, the village, the crops, and can understand the Feudal Lord ruled over by the King, who had a bigger army, and took their share from many Feudal Lords. The King’s share by now is called tax.

Where does governance fit today?

If someone generates wealth, then under the values I embrace, that is everyone enabled to find ethical fulfilment, that person should control the wealth. Where wealth generated by shared effort, then it should be by right distributed to those involved. When the person creating the wealth does not control it, rather it is controlled by another, I refer to those with the legal control of the wealth as the governance of that wealth.

Organizations are the core of wealth creation in our modern society. People work in those organizations. There are legal requirements on organizations called compliance to stop people being

134

ripped off by those who control the organizations. But this is exactly equivalent to the peasants share, and is precisely a payment for service, with no inherent control of that which is created or of the processes whereby it is created.

If we strip away complexity, by applying Ashby equations then the economic structure today is exactly the same as for a Feudal Village.

I summarize the role of governance by inserting it into the ultimate effect relation as:

(6) OPD-SHRMsuccess → (ownership and governance) → community wealth and health

The ultimate effect relationship above now says that SHRM success impacts community wealth and health but is moderated by the actions of those who govern the organization.

Modern Western society is fundamentally feudal

(6) OPD-SHRMsuccess → (ownership and governance) → community wealth and health.

Despite all its trappings of democracy, public companies, rights and freedoms, the economic core of society today remains fundamentally feudal. The new lords of the manor are the governance of the organizations for which most people work. Any wealth beyond wages for service, exactly equivalent to the peasants share, transferred back into the communities is at the discretion of the governance...‘by your leave, Lord’...which is exactly as it was in feudal times.

Today, there is evidence people feel disenfranchised. It is now clear why, they exist in the same relational state with the governance as the twelfth century serf in relation to the feudal lord. A sense of disenfranchisement is valid.

135

Capitalism as intense anti-government free enterprise

The Ashby equation under capitalism is exactly the same as (6) but enacted with greater intensity. The emphasis is on the rights of the capitalist to govern as they see fit. In capitalism there is no place for government. Capitalism is thus not a different economic system, it is merely a more politically intense version of the free market inherited from Adam Smith. Capitalism is then an intensely feudal form of free market with as little regulation to moderate the excesses of the capitalist as they are able to achieve. The capitalist rejects all government intervention and regulation especially if it impinges on the interests of the capitalist.

Typically the capitalist argues that it is the only system to optimize social creativity and innovation. In that argument there is a core benefit of free market enterprise. The free market does enable greater social creativity especially if implemented in a society with a core ethic of meritocracy, so enabling people for the most humble background the opportunity to lift themselves to highest office. The downside of free market is the lack of regulation. It follows that if the governance have all the rights, then their actions will dictate to all those without the rights.

The failure of centralized ownership

Frustration with free enterprise especially as exhibited in America in the mid-nineteenth century was crystallized by Marx, with the suggestion that making all wealth production owned by the state would correct the problem.

While in some theoretical manner all wealth and wealth creation is ‘owned’ by everyone, in practice there emerges a core of bureaucrats and politicians who control distribution of the wealth and as a result they become a system no different from the Feudal Lord, and even

136

more removed and more detached from the actual circumstances of life in the society.

The underlying reason behind the failure of socialism is embedded in another variation on equation (6) OPD-SHRMsuccess → (social bureaucrat) →community wealth and health.

All social interaction under Marxian thinking devolves to tension and conflict between groups of people, those in control and those not. The system will require strong central political control, otherwise active resistance will escalate. Motivation to produce will slow. Social wealth creation will stagnate, there will be an increasing disfranchisement of those outside the bureaucratic controlling group. As the performance of the economy deteriorates, people going without when they are supposed to own the wealth will become increasingly inclined to direct revolt. The cultural system will be dominated by fear and oppression more than liberty and fulfilment.

The wrong regulations based on wrong analysis

Better science results in better technology which enables better results. The converse also applies, poor science leads to ineffective technology and will erode and cramp results.

There is an extensive range of regulation and compliance in modern society, so the analogy with feudal society cannot be carried further. In feudal society the rights of the lord were such that the serf was almost at the whim of lord. Modern society understands how unacceptable it is for anyone to be at the whim of another, especially if that includes the goods needed for daily life. Modern regulation grew around the desire to moderate the relationship between employee and governance. Unfortunately, the regulators did not grasp the fundamental economic structure, consequently the regulation does not

137

walk the line between control of the actions that need control and pressing back to people the responsibility for their behavior at work.

Modern regulators did not understand the factor that dominated Adam Smith’s thinking that economic conduct depended fully on the overall ethics and mores in the society as a whole. Nor did they understand the relationship between the organization, the economy, society, and the individual as it is presented in the Ashby equations. As a result they regulated to moderate governance taking advantage of employees. They aimed to moderate the feudal type relationship, emphasized so dramatically by Marx, where at not much more than a whim the governance could enforce this or that demand. Rules drawn from an inadequate Marxian class conflict purportedly scientific analysis where the downtrodden worker is to be protected from the nasty capitalist.

What we now understand is that all social action depends on the overall social ethic. Modern society is significantly self-serving, dedicated to wealth accumulation and wealth spending. Compliance as a residue from the times of feudal lords and monarchs is gone. I applaud our modern focus on each wanting what is best for them. It is the ethic exactly consistent with the government aim of enabling personal fulfilment of citizens. I suspect people fully understand they are not able to have their own way. Therefore there is no lack of understanding or insight. What is lacking is the self-discipline to act on the understanding, to reach workable compromise, and to then live by it. The ethics of self-service in society begins with the recognition that in our Western, plural, multicultural society, the views of the other person are as legitimate as mine. If I put my views forward with vigor, and if they match it with equal vigor, then I need find compromise, since I accept they have the inalienable right to live by their views.

138

Employees in society today given opportunity are as likely to take advantage as any in governance. Second, we understand that there is no change in society unless we change the dominate equation, that is unless we restructure equation (6). In short, the analysis suggests the regulators have regulated the wrong things in the wrong way driven by the wrong set of principles based on poor science.

We need design regulations that distribute return for effort fairly, that drives home responsibility for doing a good job on those accepting the job. If people goof off, the governance has the right to dismiss them with full community blessing, since the community accepts the business as the core of its economy and the determinant of community health. Hence the community as part of daily life accepts its responsibility in its own economic success and hence in its own health. So the chat in the local bar is doing a good job, not taking a sickie. The news is about people being successful in doing a good job, not about the nasty governance again ripping people off. The whole community is aghast at any members arriving at work with alcohol or drugs in them, such action is seen as irresponsible, possibly dangerous to others, and corrosive of community economy if allowed to persist. In this vision of society the club, pub, dinner party chatter and local and national news is very different from what is common today. We have a long way to go.

We have applied science to society to strip away complexity so we can ‘see’ what is happening. We have identified the issue of ‘governance’ as the persistent factor moderating and undermining best intentions, the question now is what exactly can we do about it?

139

20. Placing politics within an ethical

framework

What exactly is the rationale for our understanding and judgement on politics? Can we place politics onto a clearer intellectual foundation?

Adam Smith argued for free markets as the basis of wealth creation while understanding it had to be supported by the ethical and moral backdrop committed to the greater good of society. Subsequent thinking generally failed to grasp the relationship of broader social morality to economic action. It was postulated there existed an invisible hand intrinsic in the market and that would take care of social fairness, balance and wealth distribution. The analysis was deeply lacking intellectually in many ways, but foremost in the failure to grasp the exact nature of cause in social systems. The idea of an invisible hand intrinsic to markets is intellectual nonsense.

The result of our oversight was a preoccupation with governance, with the emergence of what can be rationally referred to as a modern feudal type social structure where those governing had control and became wealthy and those not governing within the organization were equivalent to serfs. It was referred to disparagingly as the ‘trickle down’ system.

Karl Marx was repelled by this system of wealth distribution, and described a state where the means of wealth production was owned by all. Unfortunately, Marx intellectual analysis was also weak, and he did not grasp that he had merely replaced governance of the entrepreneur with governance of a central bureaucracy so the status of the people was not altered, in fact their plight deepened due the fact that the central government control had to be enforced and was often done so

140

with intense policing. It was an authoritarian political regime that necessarily had to support the idea of socialist ownership.

In between there emerged mixed economies, seeking to tap the wealth creation potential of free markets, by support people with various welfare policies. Which largely brings us to today, with no progress on understanding and no real advance on the two fundamental ideas of Smith and Marx, despite a hundred or more years of writing and research.

It is fair to ask why the writings and thinking since 1900 have not produced an advance in thinking. I argue the thinking was bounded by the twin intellectual issues of inadequate intellectual tools for theory creation, and lack of integration between historical ideas and current ideas that is lack of strategic science expressed as first things first. These twin limitations resulted in a failure to grapple with major intellectual issues, such as the definition and understanding of cause, the failure to build an apt general theory of psychology, etc. In short the issues raised in the discussion on the failure of social science.

The questions remain: How do we judge our political options? What is the social purpose of political party? Should it have a purpose? Finally, should social science have any part to play in defining the role of a political party in society?

We have learned that economic behavior must be seen within the context of the ethic of the individual. If economic behavior must be seen from with the moral and ethical framework of the person, why not politics? The answer to this question is a fundamental personal decision of far reaching consequences.

Assuming Western democracy, devoted to individual freedom and property ownership and right to live as one pleases provided it is within the rule of law I propose an aim of government as follows.

141

The aim of government is to enable the ethical fulfilment of every citizen.

The focus of government is to serve the people who accept it as viable government, all of the people regardless as to whether they voted for the government of the day or not. Different parties may have different plans for delivering on its obligation but after the election who voted for whom is irrelevant. All government plans and actions are then measured against this standard.

Hopefully, as Western society matures, there emerges the depth of understanding that no group can have its way, and we learn to forge law and social process where each person is truly enabled to pursue their ethical fulfilment at behest and best wishes of all other citizens. When we reach such a state, then the need for law, monitoring of compliance, police, and judiciary diminishes as each citizen, assumes their personal responsibility for the state of our civilization. There will still be governance, politicians, and power elite, hopefully talented people charged with getting on and doing that expected of them. Meanwhile the rest of us get on with fulfilling lives.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a measure of rights of people. It was adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1948. It is a comprehensive statement of human rights, and offers a cornerstone for the constitution of a nation. However, it does not deal with the issue of social structure, equation (6), as raised in this analysis.

It is easy to understand why nations with autocratic political systems avoid the Declaration. While it is not avoided in the West, it has not caught the popular attention as perhaps it deserves. I suggest one such reason ‘human rights’ is not at the forefront of popular concern is that people appropriately concerned with their own circumstance, which is not altered by focus on the UDHR.

142

Imagine the declaration was fully implemented in a Western country. The citizens of some community totally dependent on the wages and services of a company embedded in the community could still be subject to a governance decision to move the company to another country with lower living standard hence lower costs. Full application of UDHR still leaves a community open to manipulation by the governance and power elite. The governance shifting jobs offshore could even argue that doing so benefits both countries, jobs in one, and improved profits in the other. The argument is flawed. First, people losing the jobs lose out psychologically. Second, increased profits do not serve the economy of the community from which jobs stripped. The primary economic underpinning of the community is money arising from the wages, salaries and services the company enables in the community.

Allowing governance unilaterally to move away from its community is in breach of the human rights of that community. We also know that to fully tap social creativity and innovation it is essential people feel free and able to pursue their dream and enjoy the benefits of their success. The tension between governance having unilateral power over the company and the demand for economic justice clearly defines the line that needs to be walked between social fairness invoking control and social motivation requiring freedom.

Concern with human rights raises the practical question ‘for whom?’ Today the application of UDHR globally has not served communities in nations where jobs have been moved off shore, or where foreign cheap commodities allowed to be imported without control or tariff, and damage the communities by erosion of the economic base of the community. I suggest people may even view the UDHR as a global manipulative tool of some nations as a means of persuading many Western governments to allow loss of jobs and damaging competition in Western economies.

143

When saving trees the question always is ‘which ones?’ No-one disputes the principle, the tensions always arise in applying the principle. The principle of the human rights for all people is beyond dispute. The problem arises when it is applied. The problem gets acute when it is clear resources being applied to the issue of human rights are finite. There is never enough to go around, so who is to get what? What is to be allowed and what is to be controlled, what is to let slide by because we cannot do it all?

If the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is the measure of government effectiveness, then the aim of government as enabling the ethical fulfilment of its citizens becomes the priority for application of resources and considerations in pursuit of that measure. In short, charity begins at home.

All government effort is measured in relation to the priority of citizens first. All resource applied to citizens first. The moderation of the principle ‘citizens first’ occurs if and only if a consensus of citizens agree to offer aid, etc. to citizens in another country judged worthy of support.

Immediately, government priority as argued here is in conflict with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, specifically article 14, which suggests all people are able to seek asylum and have an expectation of receiving it. Applying the principle above, then granting such asylum is judged first not from the point of view of the person seeking asylum, but from the point of view of the citizens who must embrace the applicant.

Asylum is a function of whether or not the citizens choose to provide asylum, it is not merely a decision of government. In the modern world with significant tension, economic hardship, slipping standards of education and community safety, then it is time our country took care of its own. Others who may be oppressed must face

144

their own circumstance, just as the West faced it fighting the fights needed so the Western people defined their own path.

It is undeniable that freedom and individual fulfilment demands great social sacrifice, and in the absence of that sacrifice oppression will continue. Edmund Burke (circa 1750) the Irish Politician and author, is credited with observing “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” In our modern world we could add do nothing, or flee to another country. We in the West ought to give thanks each day for the millions who made their stand, who stood on their principles and fought and often died for those principles we too often take for granted. Our Western way is the finest of humanity’s achievements and points the way for all people to their finding their fulfilment in life.

Government serves its citizens protecting them from bad people from within and from without the country. Bad people are defined as those who would advance their personal aims at the expense of the right others to their fulfilment.

Focus on the aim government as priority could be defined as liberal, however application of the principle carries policy in directions typically referred to as conservative. I stress, the policy views expressed throughout the book are not ‘opinions’, they follow from the scientific reason, as overviewed in the opening section, including application of the aim of government. Everything government does is measured against the aim nothing may stand in isolation.

For example, should the government provide aid to foreign countries? Apply the principle, and the answer that emerges is yes, cautiously, and never at the expense of its own citizens. It also follows that the circumstances of aid are carefully assessed in supporting authorities in underdeveloped countries to better help themselves.

145

What should be the policy of immigration?

Illegal immigration is not acceptable and the citizens are to be protected from people entering the country illegally. Illegal immigration can only interfere with the rights of legal citizens by if nothing else, usurping resources to which they have no legitimate claim.

Legal immigration only to the extent it does not hamper or interfere with any citizens in their search for their fulfilment. Immigration should add to the community and not detract from it. It should be seen and accepted as fair and just. Applying the aim means immigrants may not be provided resources ahead of current citizens unless it is the consensus of citizens to do so. The government has the first and weightiest responsibility to its citizens, and in its commitment to lift the quality of existence of its people, it shows the way for the rest of the world.

What should we do with refugees?

We of the West have an open and free social system, only achieved with much historical bloodshed. People made the ultimate sacrifice in service of their fellow citizens, very often such sacrifice made in opposition to the governance of the day. We of the West understand this. Beyond understanding we have it in our thinking so deeply it is almost spiritual in us. The ethics of individual rights, free speech, and the willingness to put forward personal views and the expectation that they will be listened to is ingrained in our way of life as to be beyond mere words. It is in our celebrations of the fallen, and the honoring of those in disciplined service. It is part of our culture, and as such becomes part of us as people. It cannot be removed from us... and what much of the world without our Western heritage does not understand, we may appear in disarray, but when a threat to our core emerges, we find enormous reserves of common commitment.

146

We WILL fight should our way of life be threatened, our instincts would allow nothing else.

Those who flee their country seeking refuge in our freedoms can never acquire from us that sense of freedom as we have. That can only be achieved by people in their society sacrificing themselves in service to their fellow citizens. The only long term solution for them is to stand and fight in their country to build their place in the world. And it is a fight we must not enter... it is their destiny their future, their children’s fulfilment for which they fight. And while the deaths may pain us, we need recall our own violent past, and understand the repugnance of those deaths was in fact built of many, many deaths of those who fought for our freedoms.

Accepting refugees does little for our ethical fulfilment, if anything introduces an uncertainty into our society, while enabling continuation of adverse conditions in the community from which they flee. Which is the greater moral evil, denying refugee or immigrant status to someone able to fight, or enabling their exodus from their country leaving behind less able at the mercy of the powers of oppression?

The entwining of ideas with culture with traditions, with ideas we apply today are all subtlety and deeply interconnected that they cannot be simply transplanted, they must grow from within. Each society must fully ‘own’ its path. We of the West cannot give salvation to the world, they need find their own. We need re-focus on enabling ethical fulfilment of those who are in the West today. Western concern for a greater human good in requesting people stand and fight the fights they must, as our ancestors fought, to secure a fulfilling life for all in their community. I would liken our approach to refugees as genuine ‘tough love’. The heart felt concern, but the decision reasoned with an eye to the longer term, backed by full understanding and not confused with

147

an emotional response to immediate need. The person guided gently, caringly, but not given the immediate release from the responsibility for themselves and guided to choose the path to freedom for themselves and others. Frequently the correct path is the hard path. Our forebears walked their path, enabling the society we enjoy. Any society seeking similar freedom and personal fulfilment must walk their own path to secure freedom as the quintessence of their people’s spirit, as it is ours.

What are the time scales of realistic cultural change?

Separation of church and state has taken arguably near 800 years, and again arguably, is still not complete. Would such separation have begun at all without the underlying idea of individual freedom? Personally, I suggest not, and point to other cultures where this separation has not occurred and where the dominant ethic is not individual freedom.

Penetration of ideas into a culture in our modern time was illustrated by the underlying proposition of quantum mechanics, that probability is intrinsic to the universe. This idea now influencing our thinking on consciousness, for example, a topic very much removed from physics.

A specific example of cultural development is the rise and fall of the inquisition. The inquisition begun in the thirteenth century over concern with emerging heresy in Europe. It accelerated and expended geographically in the following centuries broadly in response to the reformation, and emergence of the Church of England. The inquisition lost social momentum as the idea of separation of church and state gathered momentum and individual freedom emerged as the dominate ethic of the West. The inquisition was finally extinguished during the seventeenth century, and today people are not persecuted due their religious views.

148

The inquisition involved a crucial aspect of Western culture, namely God, and the role of God in personal and cultural life. The detail is not important. What is important is the time scale.

A significant cultural issue, heresy and the discussion of God was at first reinforced in the thirteenth century by social institutions to enforce the view of the day, and resist disintegration and fragmentation. The whole situation eventually overtaken by other more fundamental ideas that gained the hearts and mind of people, namely, I want what is best for me. We can imagine a cross over time likely around the fifteenth-sixteenth centuries, and the final acceptance of the right of the individual to choose in the nineteenth century. The issue however is not final, and today there remains resistance and argument for example on the role of religion in schools. It took near 400 years for a majority attitude to emerge, and after 800 years remnants of the issue remain in debate and tension over religion in schools, and teaching of creationism as an alternative to evolution.

Again imagine the ‘East’ culture as opposed to the West. Now imagine the compliance is not merely to the society, but to God, and the society to obey the will and word of God. Now the dominant idea is I obey the will of God, and comply with the directions of those on earth through whom God speaks. How long would it take to change that view given it has been consolidated in every aspect of the culture for some 2000 years?

From our own Western history, we would predict at least 300 years. With people living longer and working longer, let’s assume a modern generation of 50 years that is people are fifty before they assume the responsibilities of their parent’s generation. This means it is the great, great, great, great grandchildren before we could expect significant change in cultural attitude.

149

With modern distribution of ideas, and with the example of the way the quantum idea has penetrated our thinking in a mere 100 years, then perhaps this is an excessive time. Imagine adults today, fully immersed in the cultural norms of the day. Imagine their children perhaps grow in a slightly different world, and their children in yet a different world again... do grandparents influence the thinking of grandchildren? While six generation may be excessive, then three is likely too soon to expect significant change.

This argument assumes that change must come from within, guns will not achieve a result and if anything will delay change which must be willingly undertaken by people of the culture. Our Western history teaches us that enforced compliance is no long term solution. Resistance always emerges... but what will happen to time scales of change if resistance is not the norm of the culture...?

I have more questions than answers. The questions point to time scales for cultural change measured in generations. Perhaps at least four or five, and for any widely accepted idea, deeply consolidated in the minds of people, then perhaps eight or ten generation, and much more if there is no desire to change.

If for example, the West was facing tension and potential conflict with the East, given the manner I have defined the Eastern culture, then change in that culture to peaceably accommodate itself with the Western diametrically opposed core point of view could take many hundreds of years.

These arguments contribute to the strategic focus of the West being on fulfilment of its own citizens. It could be a very long time to see depth of change in the East. The West draw in other nations by the fulfilled and satisfied citizens that result from the social, economic and political processes implemented by government on behalf of the people. Guns are crucial to ensure everyone understands the ferocious

150

responses if we attacked, but are not the solution to ideological tensions. The West stands militarily very strong, patient and getting on with ethical fulfilment of its citizens, inviting all others to join the movement. It is the West, resting on a much broader and deeper intellectual/cultural tradition that must exhibit the maturity and stature in its international relations.

How is the government to be judged globally?

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is dedicated to all people. The embracing of this idea since 1948 has led to a view that the West is somehow responsible for the soul of humanity, for bringing human rights to everyone. I argue this is a grave mistake.

Imagine a rebellious teenager. The harder you push at them the more they may rebel. How do we grow them? At some point one must stop and put accountability for what happens to them back on them. It is their life, and while we care for and love them, we are unable to live their life for them. They need learn the limits of their own judgement, and hopefully learn mum and dad are smarter then they figured. I suspect today, there are very few people who do not fully understand that principle.

The second type of argument again can be deduced from our daily life. What happens if you point the moral finger at your partner? What happens when you find fault in their conduct? The typical response is they find fault in ours. And so it is all on!

The only rational conclusion is if one wants continuing dialogue then best not stir up conflict. This means positively rewarding the person when they do as we approve, and saying nothing when they do not. It also means ensuring our conduct set the example for them, we are as we would demand they be. Our focus is not on their flaws, but on managing and correcting our own so that in what we do we express

151

fully what we wish for them, and by implication show them what we wish for ourselves.

Why do we think global governments are any different? Exactly as we understand human relationships in our life so we can understand relationships between different people as expressed in relationship between governments. A word of caution, do not let any government fool anyone with the idea that rules of relations between governments is somehow different to the rules of relations between family members. This is the exact same scientific issue as the understanding that the fundamental social structure of the community 40,000 years ago is exactly the same as the social structure today. Scale and complexity does not alter the core scientific structure, it just confuses it with detail and complexity. Full grasp of the first section of this book provides the tools to strip away detail and complexity and to ‘see’ the core structure. If anyone suggests some issue is more difficult or complex, then request they apply in illustration to a family member... or better create the family example and ask why it is not an appropriate illustration of the principle.

How do we want government to be judged globally? By the success of enabling ethical fulfilment of the citizens it serves.

Governments of other countries have a responsibility to their citizens not to us. Aid and government priority then come together, in that any government may approach with well-defined plans to enable greater ethical fulfilment in their country and request funding for the plan. This is exactly the same as an entrepreneur approaching venture capitalists for funding of a new business venture. The funds are applied, the results measured, and everyone learns how to best enable a more fulfilled and satisfied people. If the aid misapplied and no results eventuate, then we reflect carefully on any future aid.

152

What is proposed is from within the ideological history and development of Western thinking. All policy questions are assessed in relation to the prime directive of government to enable ethical fulfilment of its own citizens, and the ideological demand is for all governments to follow the same directive.

In trading with China, should New Zealand press for Chinese to improve human rights?

I use the specific example of trade between China and New Zealand solely to illustrate the general point. China is one of New Zealand’s largest trading partners. New Zealand does one thing exceptionally well on a global scale, we grow grass. The grass is then browsed by animals that convert the energy of the grass into high quality protein. The core of our economy is based on export of protein. We have a solid record in human rights, and a rather more patchy record on successfully pursuing ethical fulfilment of all citizens.

In our trading relations with China, with a human rights record less than ours, do we in New Zealand have the right to request they meet our standards? Certainly, if they are say sending a team to New Zealand and it is selected with say racial bias, we retain the right to decline them coming.

The question is do we have the right to request any other country change their internal conduct so it better matches our sensitives? This is exactly the same as telling one’s partner we do not like how they conduct themselves. Unless they seek such feedback, we have no such right. We accept people as they are, or we walk away. Any in-between position exists only in our imagination and in our sense of superior indignation, especially when our own conduct is not perfect against our own standards!

153

I argue the role of the West in global human affairs is to show how it is done, and how fulfilling and satisfying the society when it is done right. We can improve very much on how we enable ethical fulfilment of our citizens. When we are achieving the ethical fulfilment of all our citizens say to a standard of 9.5 out of 10, 10 perfect, then and only then would I accept we point a moral finger at any other country.

The government of New Zealand has an obligation to enable trade between New Zealand and China such that the citizens of New Zealand benefit and are more fully enabled in their pursuit of ethical fulfilment. There is to be no moral or human rights quid pro quo. All other topics for discussion are then related to the priority for the New Zealand government, namely it is on the agenda if and only if it enhances or erodes the ethical fulfilment of New Zealand citizens.

Should we go to war?

Why? How will going to war with another country enable greater fulfilment of our citizens? Certainly as already discussed the government has the responsibility to protect its citizens from bad people who would do harm to them. So we need well-honed and ready armed forces such as to deter the ambitions of some modern Hitler, Genghis Khan or Julius Caesar.

We need a potential armed response that gives an enemy cause to pause...a strike force of such lethal application any enemy thinks ‘best let the beast slumber’. If necessary, we need to take aggressive action to eliminate specific threats, such as remove Bin Laden. A current example could be ISIS.

Should we of the West necessarily involve ourselves in regional wars where the combatants are from within the region? In the middle of the twentieth century the West was involved in several ideological

154

wars to halt the spread of socialist ideas. A cynic may say the West was committed to ensuring those in power, the governance, stayed in control and emphasis on fulfilment of the citizens, socialism, was not to become a concern.

This ideological emphasis arises from very poor scientific analysis of social systems. The issue is not democracy, but the extent the government enables the greater fulfilment of the citizens it oversees, represents and serves. Provided the bas government can be peaceably replaced when needed, does it really matter how that government arises? And is it any concern of ours how the government is selected, provided in being selected it serves all the citizens?

Too many judgments and policy decisions have historically been based on a weak scientific analysis of social systems. Judgment of human rights shifts to the same concern. Dictators supposedly resisting the spread of socialism historically supported by the West would not be supported under this more carefully reasoned emphasis of the role government relative to the society it claims to serve. Dictators who are known to be accumulating wealth at the expense of their citizens would not be supported. It would be a very different ideological world.

Should we be a global protector of peace?

Yes, we have vested interest in avoiding war which could implicate us, where our interest could be threatened. Again, the involvement has the same rationale, the government acts to protect citizens. So yes, Western governments will be implicated in negotiating restrictions to nuclear arms, or negotiating peaceful settlement of regional conflicts. But as with all external orientated policy, the priority is set against the focus on enabling the ethical fulfilment of its citizens.

155

But what if a country is determined to have a nuclear weapon? Can such a move be stopped for the rest of the future? And in working to stop it, are we merely consolidating long term enemies?

I discuss later how social development depends on the self-disciplined development of citizens. The exact same principle applies in guiding development of a mature state with the interests of humanity high on its agenda. There are risks, but I am unsure if those risks can be avoided, and the path we currently have is not resolving the tensions and is not growing the disciplined stature where we can feel at all secure. I do not promote liaise faire diplomacy, but then perhaps we need moderate any tendency to control events when in so doing we merely succeed in making people angry and suspicious.

We are not able to control everything. I would have hoped the reality of that would have emerged clearly in attempts to control family. Ultimately people must assume accountably for themselves and their life. It is no different with countries, it is just confused with detail and more complexity that hide the reality that we cannot control it all, and our fears drives our need to not let go. So tensions escalate... I am sure most adults have been through that with children.

Should the West fund global institutions?

The West is wealthy, although the rest of the world is catching up fast as illustrated brilliantly by Hans Rosling. Does the West have an obligation to enable the rest of the world? Yes, most probably in two ways, via aid, and via funding support of key international institutions, such as IAEA. World Bank, IMF and UN.

I have already discussed how we need view aid that is as funding of projects expressing the aim of the government to develop the ethical fulfilment of its people, to enhance social and economic development so reduce the dependence on aid and make the society self-sustaining.

156

Should there be quid pro quo in relations between countries?

We each live out daily life fully understanding how you scratch my back and I will scratch yours! If you cross me, especially after I scratched yours, I will grimace and express disappointment, shrug and walk away. Do not then come looking for a favor because I will politely decline. I do not see why ethical relations between nations is different.

The funding of international institutions should be reassessed. The world is quite different from when most of those institutions initiated. And I suspect we have learned that merely ‘scratching backs’ does not mean we will have our back scratched when needed. We have learned much of dictatorships, false promises, and false paths for people, that democracy is not the panacea.

We are on the edge of global civilization for the first time in human history. We need begin with this recognition. It is time we moved beyond American interests, or European interests, or Asian, or Middle Eastern interests, and move to the acceptance that all government and all bureaucracy needs move its concern to human interests, the interests of people.

Humanity is what is important, and any government, any group is only a temporary blip on the movement of humanity to realize its potential. The aim of the West to provide the rest of humanity with an example of how it is done, making Western philosophy an irresistible movement carrying humanity to its destiny.

We assess any relationship with another government based on the extent it enable ethical fulfilment in our country. We avoid judgement, and trade according to whether or not such trade serves in support of our striving from a fulfilling life.

157

How do we solve moral issues?

The problem with moral issues is there is always two sides. Don’t yawn...! That simply reality is the means to better understanding how to manage such conundrums.

Humanity is dominated by the ideas we hold as setting our direction, and the passion with which we hold those ideas gives momentum to the action arising from the ideas. The problem is we all think we are correct.

The core Western philosophy that has served us for over 2000 years is individual freedom and the struggle to achieve that through all society. As I have mentioned, I see the root of Western thought in the resistance of the Germanic tribes to subjugation by Rome. Before that, in the unwillingness of those tribes to cooperate, each thinking it was right and it was an individual entity that needed no-one else.

As Western thought developed, we made individual freedom the cornerstone of our social structure. But to work, it demands tolerance of alternative points of view. Our society will fully and finally emerge from the dark ages of war lord and feudal oppression when we fully accept the principle that only thing binding my thought with my neighbors is the mutual recognition of the right of each other to exist and to live as they choose within the law.

What has this to do with moral problems? Just about everything. Moral issues are a balance between two situations both of which are wrong or unfortunate. There is no high ground in any moral debate.

Consider abortion. No one denies the right of the unborn, and abortion can be viewed as taking a life. On the other hand what is the cost to the parent of managing an unwanted child for life? What cost on the child? What cost to society? Also difficult to deny a woman has a right to determine on her body. Whatever side of the debate is

158

selected leaves an adverse downside no matter how one tries to justify it. It is a choice between the lesser of two evils, it is best if society did not have to face either evil, abortion, or the abuse of woman with a child she does not want.

There is no question that after 4 weeks, the embryo is not a human being, although has the potential to become so, and that after 30 weeks it is. A woman forced to carry and care for a child she does not want has her right to her ethical fulfilment eroded and constrained.

If we are to learn to truly live with each other, we need embrace the right of the other person to hold ideas contrary to our own especially if they hold them with the passion equal to our own and willing to act on those ideas. World history is deep enough today to know that it is very unlikely that in ten generations time any definite idea will be right... Mature judgment, without self-serving emphasis, means knowing the evils claimed to befall the person living the hated ideas will never happen. So what do we really stand for, control of others to bend them to one way of thinking, or to enable all to find and live ethical fulfilment, their life in their way.

One argument in the anti-abortion debate is abortion is against God’s will. I need declare, I believe God exists, and is a very powerful force in human affairs. Some 3000 years ago there emerged in Europe a tribal structure with each tribe passionately asserting its independence. This core attitude of individualism persisted through Roman rule, the overthrow of Roman rule, and the feudal, difficult ‘dark’ ages that followed to emerge in the enlightenment and find voice in a deepening Western view of humanity’s place in the world. Today, as one who sees himself at the leading edge of the Western view, I argue that path for humanity is toward ethical fulfilment for every spirit that enters the world. The path of Western thinking is the only path whereby humanity will find lasting personal fulfilment. Every person

159

has the right to choose their path, within social rules where the group bound only by the commitment to the right of each to choose backed by the understanding of the need for tolerance of ideas one cannot abide, and by the recognition that the full emergence of humanity on this path requires personal self-discipline.

If God shapes the world, as suggested, then He shaped the path we tread. I argue that in putting humanity on this path He would know in advance there was a potential tension between the path selected by some and the embryo they carry.

Our choice is now between two moral evils, destruction of the embryo, not yet conscious and not yet human, merely a potentially fulfilled human spirit, or restriction and erosion of the spiritual ethical fulfilment of the woman, also a potentially fulfilled human spirit. Which spirit is to be denied? The greater good of humanity must take priority, and reluctantly, overall, God must rest on the side of personal choice.

Where two individuals or groups cannot decide the line to divide the issues between the two evils implicit in the moral dilemma then we have Supreme Courts of wise counsel to listen, research and draw the line for us, and establish the tests and considerations that must be bought to account before any spirit is to be denied. The line will not satisfy either position, it is called compromise.

Once decided we need settle down and obey the Law. We commit to the overarching Western value of enabling everyone to find personal ethical fulfilment. WE need be united in our disciplined adherence of the right of each to live within the Law as they choose even and especially when we disagree with the ideas they choose to live by.

160

Should we of the West feel guilty?

The West consumes a high percentage of the world’s resources. The West holds a high percentage of the world’s wealth. Does this mean we of the West are obligated to serve those not of the West?

Western government priority is to serve its citizens. Under all circumstances where service to citizens is not the priority then the citizens themselves must be involved in the decision. People may choose to assert a priority other than service to themselves.

I argue in favor of aid, support of refugees, immigration, and support of international institutions. I also argue we have responsibility to the world, and its political, economic and environmental stability. I argue that this global development is in our self-interest, and to the extent the citizens agree then we provide globally on our generosity.

However, I also argue governmental priority must be ethical fulfilment of its citizens and all other actions are relative to that overriding priority.

I think the West should go forward avoiding the mistakes and excesses of the past, we need to learn, and to not continue to create enemies due our own actions.

We go forward with deepened insight and understanding demonstrating to the world how we of the West enable human fulfilment. We offer a way forward for the world through our example, and offer that example for all to see.

We offer to the world an example of how a mature society, government and culture conducts itself. In our example we need not feel guilty.

161

We must vigorously resist bad ideas

Humanity rolls forward on ideas. Free speech enables the expression of ideas. Should we allow free expression of ideas opposed to the fundamental ideas that underpin free Western democracy? Karl Popper eloquently described the problem of tolerance in The Open Society and its Enemies.

“Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.”

To be specific, we should not tolerate those who would preach against our freedoms, such as the right to choose out faith, or who preach the need to change our laws and to institute their own legal and political system. There are today bad people who would deny us our rights. Our way of life depends on the core ideas that underlie it, and those ideas need protected as stated by Popper ...”I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public

162

opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.”

Protecting ourselves from bad people is not enough, we need protect ourselves from bad ideas. Yes, there is the potential for abuse, but until the rest of the world is prepared to embrace the rights and supremacy of the individual, then we need actively suppress ideas counter to our way of life. We need take action to protect our ideology as the way forward for Western society. We believe in our thinking, it has emerged and matured over 2500 or more years. We need stand firm on our philosophy and allow none to demean it. Western philosophy is the only way forward for humanity building, as it does, on our inherent nature liberating the greatness within us.

More than anything else, the West must review ideas on freedom of speech. This review comes into direct conflict with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 19. In the modern world it is no longer viable to allow unfettered free speech. To do so is to enable continued radicalization of our vulnerable and dissatisfied, exposing our communities to emergence of cells of people committed to destruction of community and who would kill children to make their point. It is unquestioned the West has historically committed offences to other people and communities, but even given our sins, we still have the right to protect ourselves.

Censorship is a very dangerous slope on which we must walk. In this modern world ethics and morals cannot be considered in isolation, but in practical balance with reality. Bad people exist. Bad ideas exist.

163

The only solution to the risks of censorship is transparency, we must press and ensure no person or group is censored in secret, but in full public glare so all may judge the rightness of the action. Conversely, we must also learn when we need trust those we place in power, since at times we may not wish to know that which they need do to protect us from bad people who otherwise would do us harm. It would be nice if the world was simpler, without the threats that need to be countered and managed. But the world is not simple, we need focus on doing better that which we know is right, focus on enabling yet greater ethical fulfilment of our people. I argue we cannot fix the world, but we can ensure that our part of it is more fulfilling for all our citizens.

In Egypt (2015) there is an example of the problems with censorship. Al Jazeera Journalists jailed for making statements contrary to the interests of Egypt when third party review of the evidence suggest no crime has been committed. I have argued we need protect the integrity of our ideology. But as in the Egypt example, it can be abused to require compliance with the current authority point of view. I have suggested one safety factor is transparency, no judgments may be made in secret all proceedings must be in the full glare of public opinion. Second, I suggest there must appeal rights and transparent appeal process, if necessary the accused is offered financial support to ensure their case is fully argued.

For example, assume we allow full free speech. A group mounts a television program on the evils of the Western way of life. The program is supported by web sites and electronic chat rooms. The program only attracts a tiny viewership and otherwise is ignored. One person watches, and has been reading and interacting for some time with others opposed to out Western way. The program is the final step in their radicalization. They obtain an assault rifle and hand gun, travel to their school or place of work or randomly get on a bus and shoot

164

eight people. In a society allowing all forms of speech this process is near impossible to stop once begun.

There is no cause in society, all cause is via the individual mind. Society and culture is only the reservoir from which the individual draws the ideas they intend to apply. Therefore the only way this type of terrorist act can be moderated is by managing more firmly what is said and what may not be said, in short of nipping the problem in the bud by exercising firmer control on the ideas legally allowed. Ultimately as argued here, the long term solution is for our Western way to be accepted by the world as the way to achieve the greatest ethical fulfilment for all citizens. This global ideological fight on how a government need treat its citizens cannot be won with guns and has nothing to do with the social process called democracy.

Being found guilty of subversion draws the exact line between free speech and censorship. It is a very dangerous line to draw, but it in our modern world I argue we of the West must be draw line therefore we need talk about how we draw it, and the legal processes we need to protect free speech within appropriate bounds.

The aim of all political activity it so enable all citizens to assume self-disciplined responsibility for themselves and find their self-fulfillment. Western government has the responsibility to protect its citizens from all situations that would disable the momentum toward ethical fulfilment, including as needed protection from ideas that would subvert impressionable people. I propose the Western thinking take this next step, beyond emphasis on the processes of government to acceptance of the priority that people have the right to expect their government to enable them a fulfilling life. The people at very least can experience the gains and know their children grow into better circumstances than they. I do not suggest democracy as the means of government is not important, but I stress that it is less important than

165

the aim of government in enabling ethical fulfilment, and the effectiveness of government as measured against the Universal declaration of Human Rights as it applies to the citizens the government serves.

The West needs to quietly and without fanfare return to its roots of individualism, step beyond the trappings of politics, power and wealth, and enhance concern with the fulfilment of its citizens encouraging the rest of the world to follow suit. This is how the real ideological battle for the soul of humanity needs to be fought.

166

21. ...okay, but what is new and what

does it mean?

(6) OPD-SHRMsuccess → (ownership and governance) → community wealth and health

We have established that in a Western democratic society wealth generation depends on the economy which in turn depends on organization success. If the businesses that make up the economy are not doing well then the community suffers. Nothing new in that.

We have established that staff performance is a key driver of organization success. Nothing new in that.

By applying well-defined tool of conceptualization, the Ashby tools, and beginning with a sound methodological base we have established that underlying every business strategy are a set of ideal actions that must be delivered to standard if the strategy is to be achieved. Staff accepting a role in the organization then engage with the ideal actions or not and they do a good job depending on the extent they do the ideal actions to standard. The collective set of ideal actions underlying the strategy is defined as the behavioral structure of that strategy. That is new.

We can now state that the staff contribution to achieving strategy is driven first, by leadership identification of the behavioral structure, second, by leadership success in guiding staff to deliver the behavioral structure to standard. I define the activity of conceptualizing the behavioral structure management, and of guiding delivery of the behavioral structure, leadership. Therefore business success as regards staff contribution to strategy is driven by the management and leadership skills within the organizations.

167

I now must hasten caution, there seems to be nothing new in that, BUT that is a superficial view applying words without grasping the changes in their definitions. In current accepted global best practice, neither management nor leadership has precise definition relative to organization success What is new is the precision of the definitions of both management and leadership, the first being the conceptualization of the behavioral structure, the second, leadership, being the success in guiding people to act out the behavioral structure. The precision of the definitions management and leadership, and the focus of those definitions are both new.

I chose not to drill further into business management and leadership. I have a number of books and papers on this topic referred to in the ‘About’. This stresses the point that where discussions on business start and discussions on the economy and politics end is somewhat arbitrary. To grasp exactly what is being said go back to Adam Smith, that he fully understood the nature of the ethical backdrop for free market competition to serve as the ‘invisible hand’ in society balancing distribution of wealth and economic power. If you reflect on this crucial issue, you gain a sense that people are society and hence ethics are intrinsic to society and actions within any sub set of society, such as the economy, must be within the overall framework of ethics of society. I cannot stress this type of understanding enough, the intuitive grasp of the relationship of all society with any sub set of society. It applies in all things.

There is only one actor, people, hence all aspects of society, all aspects of science including social science, all aspects of philosophy and ideology are created by people. All outputs by people are integrated and subject to a general theory of psychology, given we define a general theory of psychology as offering causal insight into the factors that drive human mood and conduct. While it may be convenient to think in silos, such as physics, economics, social science, leadership,

168

management, technology, etc., ... They are all outputs from people, therefore given first things first, understanding of any of them is potentially shaped by insights and understanding arising from an apt general theory of psychology. A general theory of psychology is itself an output from people, which means understanding and insight of a general theory of psychology is shaped by a general theory of psychology.

If the general theory of psychology is to be consistent it had to be causal. But what we know of cause is knowledge in turn created by people, therefore cause, psychology and knowledge are all linked in one problem situation. It followed to analyze the situation ‘person-in-their-environment’, applying Ashby tools, it was not possible to resolve the issues one at a time. When I began the analysis there was no general theory of psychology, no general theory of cause, and no general theory of knowledge. The intellectual challenge was how shape something we do not have (a general theory of psychology) with something we do not have (a general theory of cause, for example)...? Where to start?

Rene Descartes was Dutch philosopher (circa 1620) who gave us Cartesian doubt, contributed to mathematics and physics, and who had much influence on a young Isaac Newton. Descartes is often claimed as the father of modern philosophy. Descartes also gave the world method, specifically the method of subdividing large problems into smaller problems and then solving each of the smaller problems one at a time. This rather linear approach to problem solving has been the mainstay of scientific thinking for some 400 years. In the situation described in the previous paragraph, where something we need create needs to be integrated with that which we are creating, the method of Descartes does not work.

It took me near a decade to throw off that which had been ingrained in me by my study. It was not that it was taught directly, or

169

even deliberately, it was implicit in all that was offered. A thread, a manner of thinking intrinsic to the ideas taught, therefore it became implicit and embedded in my thinking, and to resolve the issue faced in creating a general theory of psychology I had to remove it from my thinking, and before that I had to realize it was there. The only method was iterative, where each problem in the problem situation had to be clearly identified, the initial relationship between them clarified, then the tools applied to the system under study with any emergent solution then applied to each of the problems and it had to resolve them all simultaneously.

It was this wrestle with the reflexivity of general theories of cause, psychology, and knowledge that lead to the understanding of nouskills, the processes of thinking, as distinct from the objects of thought, which in turn lead to the understanding of levels of conceptualization and humans as the only known species with third level conceptualization capacity (refer The Origin of Consciousness, About). The capacity for third level conceptualization is the defining quality of humanity and is what separates humanity from all known species. Einstein, Newton, Michelangelo had the capacity at the upper end of the scale, but all humans possess it far greater than all other known species. It is genetic, evolved capacity that delivers the core of our nature in creating ideas. Third level conceptualization is the quintessence of what defines us as a species.

Why is this important? Our thinking does not and cannot stand separate from our ideological history, by which I mean the whole framework of ideas that underlies our mind today. There are always threads of thoughts, ideas, implicit assumed. At times our implicit assumptions will push us in a specific direction and unless we understand the influence of that thread of thought, we will think it is the correct direction when it may well be another rabbit hole from which we will need extricate ourselves in the future.

170

Shifts in human thinking has occurred when a few have stood against many, sometimes just one since creative insight most often emerges in a single mind and seldom emerges from committee. The role of committee is for consensus of action, seldom for creative insight.

Challenging implicit assumptions is often an affront to popular thinking. ... The earth is not flat and is not the center of the universe, humans evolved and were not created, humans are part of the ecosystem and must be understood as an aspect of that system and the animals in it, people have the right to choose their religion, people have the right to choose their death or choose not to carry the embryo full term (or do they?), love between two people is precious no matter both of same sex ... Such stands by the few have frequently been subject to the wrath of the many. Such is the reality of ideas, with associated emotions, and if the idea challenged...? Typically, in time, the popular mind has accepted the rationality of the new idea. Change in the popular mind is slow and fraught with many dangers for the change agent.

The threads of thinking can reach back a deceptively long way, even for thousands of years. An idea so subtly entwined in all we think, as to be an implicit part of who we are. We need be very cautious in assuming we are modern, the ideas of our mind frequently carry ideas as implicit assumptions that were explicitly determined within our culture hundreds and in special cases thousands of years ago. The movement of an idea from being explicitly expressed to being assumed as part of how it is, is how culture perpetuates itself and develops. Associated with Western individualism is a history of ideological challenges that have advanced insight and understanding and is the quintessence of the Western Way. We must not allow humanity to slip into a compliant culture. It is the vigorous, challenging habit of thinking that we must protect for all humanity and at all cost.

171

Bertrand Russell in his brilliant, famous essay A Free Man’s Worship, offered a view of humankind standing powerless before the forces of an omnipotent Nature. Asking the question in the face of such omnipotence, within a science which leaves as shallow and passionless, what should we worship? His answer, to be free in mind, to worship humanity itself. I love this essay but reject the idea of Nature’s omnipotence. In our mind we think, create, and build ideas that enable survival no matter what Nature may throw at us. Consciousness will overcome. Reason and understanding are our tools if we have the courage to apply them. With the confidence of my Western ideology, index finger raised skyward I cry bring it on!

Organizations are intrinsic to society, they are the ‘glue’ that gives it form. Therefore it is not possible to discuss business, business management, and business leadership without understanding the links these issues make with society overall. To ignore this factor is to continue the same type of mistake we made of overlooking the understanding of Adam Smith and the essential criteria for the invisible hand of the market to in fact work.

The link to organizations is embodied in the variable OPD-SHRMsuccess. The ‘OPD’ is essential to differentiate the base definitions from current global view and understanding. OPD specifies that it is within the intellectual system built by applying Ashby tools within the methodology outlined in the earlier chapter. Strategic human resource management within the OPD intellectual system is defined as the activity of identifying the guiding delivery of the behavioral structure of the organization’s strategy. This definition is new, quite different from that in current global discussions focused on the link between human resource strategy and business strategy. The OPD definition results in major changes in the understanding of human resource management.

172

Why am I discussing human resource management in a political book on social fairness and economic justice? Because business success is the absolute core of community well-being. Without business success there is no community well-being, in fact without business and the social structure it brings, there is likely no community, merely groups eking out subsistence survival.

The variable OPD-SHRMsuccess, specifies the activity within the organization identifying the behavioral structure derived from strategy and the guiding people to act out that behavioral structure. (Refer About for further background reading.) We now come to the core of the understanding provided by equation (6), namely the direct link of the value of this variable to community well-being. That is also new.

What does it mean?

It all means precisely that if people wish for greater community well-being then they need to focus on their job at work and do it more successfully than they do now.

It means there are very precise definitions for measuring business management and leadership. For example how effectively have the executive in any business guided identification of the behavioral structure, and then guided people deliver that structure to standard? In About refer to the book Rollout for a detailed discussion on measuring these factors.

Second, that we cannot simply isolate human resource management (HRM) in business from social economic success. It becomes an interesting point as to whether OPD-SHRMsuccess is a variable in business, or social development or in economics. The greater part of subsequent economic analysis rests on this variable which encapsulates the aptness with which those in authority positions

173

within the society have conceptualized those actions that best enable greatest economic success, and guided delivery of those actions to standard.

So why does it not happen?

First, the intellectual structure is not adequate. There is in fact global discussion occurring that human resources (HR) is ineffective. This analysis make HR the core driver of business success, and thereby the core driver of community success. The intellectual analysis as expressed by the term OPD needs to be adopted as the appropriate analysis, and all historic analysis, beginning with Hawthorne research in the early twentieth century, generally accepted as the beginning of HR, needs to be accepted as interesting history but no longer at the cutting edge of understanding. In short, historical thinking about HR needs dumped, and replaced by the OPD analysis.

As evidence, at work when you interact with the HR advisor, or HR manager or HR discussed, do you feel as if the discussion is about really serious issues like the future community well-being of your children? Frankly, I very much doubt it. The likely ineptness of the discussion, your likely sense of unease without being sure as to why you are uneasy, is your instincts telling you the issues in the spotlight are not to the point. Hopefully, this analysis assists you in sorting why they are not and why you felt the unease.

A second major issue in changing the point of view is much more than merely suggesting we alter out thinking. There is an extensive industry in educating people in HR and training executives in HR and culture and engagement. There are institutions with vested interest in their point of view, Harvard Business School, Wharton, London School of Economics, there are publishers with text books that would be redundant, academic journals devoted to publishing papers with this

174

or that slant not necessarily consistent with a new way of thinking, there are people with status due their view and their writing.

The general theory of psychology, the general theory of humanity, as conceptualized by applying Ashby tools from within the defined methodology, is in The Origin of Consciousness (refer About). It clearly specifies humanity moves forward on the ideas it choose to apply. Better ideas mean more effective lines of behavior. We dominate this planet because we are better than any other known species at generating ideas congruent with the external circumstance and applying those ideas.

We now face an interesting challenge as a species. We have almost a global civilization. Within that we have people living their lives in their culture within emerging global rules of how one culture relates to another. This is exactly the same issue as different groups living side by side in Western society with each living as they choose with the rule of law, which only ever comes down to rules whereby we offer each other respect and social graciousness, such as please and thank you. What happens when an ineffective system of ideas and thinking becomes wide spread, and significant social activity builds up to support the ineffective thinking, how do we change it?

In science a change in theory is called a paradigm shift (after Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions). What happens when we need a civilization wide paradigm shift, and the existing paradigm is politically and economically supported by vested interests? Can we trust the vested interests to enable changes to the thinking when it is they who stand to lose as a consequence of the change?

This problem is again the issue I have raised many times, namely we must understand any sub-circumstance of society within the broader social context. The ‘Adam Smith’ problem. We can only understand wide spread shifts in thinking from within the

175

understanding that ideas are the very core of human existence. And shifting ideas across large groups of people is not simple or easy.

Think through the ‘revolutions’ that occurred throughout the twentieth century, usually seeking violent change from governance by the few where many served the few, to governance by the many, so many served the many. Frequently as I have discussed, faith in social ownership as the solution to economic injustice was misplaced faith. I have offered analysis as to why. I hope this work begins to provide better thinking to enable greater economic justice and peaceful revolutions with more sustainable economic justice and longer lasting social fairness.

(6) OPD-SHRMsuccess → (ownership and governance) → community wealth and health.

Review equation (6). Within Western free, democracy the economic link is irrefutable, human performance at work has a direct impact of community well-being. We can now see more clearly why the choice to place the moderating effect of governance between the two. We understand Feudal society as effort → Feudal Lord → wealth, where the serf who generated the wealth with their labor received a share but substantially at the grace and discretion of the Lord. The problem of personal self-esteem, fairness and justice summed in the phrase ...’by your leave’. I concluded that the current fundamental structure of Western society placed the issue of governance in the exact same place in the equation, with the exact same emergent issues of personal self-esteem, fairness and economic justice. I also showed how socialism via social ownership did not alter the foundation economic structure of society, merely changed the people governing from Feudal Lord, the owner or entrepreneur to the socialist bureaucrat. In modern Western society there is no direct link whereby the people who put in

176

the effort to create wealth necessarily and by right receive a share of that wealth.

We live by rule of law. We accept in our modern society with an ethical emphasis very different from that assumed by Adam Smith, an ethical emphasis very much self-serving, and where we expect the dominate idea to emerge to be ‘I want what is best for me and mine’. We accept the need today for monitored and enforceable economic regulation as the only way to impose economic justice and thereby ensure our political system was consistent with the overriding political aim of enabling ethical fulfilment for all.

The Ashby equation describing the overall economic structure of society required is in (7) below.

(7) OPD-SHRMsuccess → (the Law) → community wealth and health.

This equation states that the distribution of wealth is subject to rule of law, it is not discretionary the governance are required to apply the law. It may appear simple and direct, however in practice the idea impinges on various crucial aspects of Western society that will be contentious.

For example, imagine a business that began in a small town, and became the foundation of the economy of the town which became a successful and wealthy community with the business success significantly due the commitment of the people over several generations. The business was owned by a family who moved away from the town. Although their great grandparents were born in the town, the current family members severed their relationship with the community. The business had achieved global reputation and sales. The governance determined profit would be improved significantly by shifting all operations to Thailand. There would be no association with the town.

177

Should they be allowed to make such a shift? Is this economic justice? How does this relate to the principle of government as enabling ethical fulfilment for all citizens? Should the governance of this business be allowed to subvert the principle of government?

178

22. The psychology of economics

Humanity is as it is because we created certain ideas and applied them, learned from the result, and then reapplied refined ideas that delivered an improved result. In America it is expressed as the American dream, you can build a fulfilling life, but you have to commit and make it happen for yourself, no one is going to give it to you.

For humanity ideas set the sail, give us direction. Emotions we associate with those ideas put wind in the sail. It occurs in our mind. We are the only person with access to our mind. If we accept politics with the aim of enabling ethical fulfilment for every citizen it follows that all politics can do for us is to enable us to take action on our own behalf and pursuit of fulfilment as determined by us. We are responsible for all that happens in our mind.

The ideas plus emotions are what carry us forward. If we do what we have always done we will get what we have always got. It we judge that what we are doing will never be productive for us, then we better change it. This popular saying is fully understood and psychologically explained that if we continue to apply the same ideas with the same emotional intensity then we will get the same responses from the environment.

We can choose our own ideas. We imbue those ideas with our passion. Only we can do those things for ourselves. I define sorting one’s ideas and imbuing them with our passion as ‘pulling ourselves up by our boot laces’.

Socialism is sometimes presented as an economic system of people getting handouts and the alternative, say capitalism a system where people are expected to pick themselves up and get on with it.

179

Within this intellectual position there is no such confusion. The only person who can enable our personal ethical fulfilment is ourselves, and that is the case no matter the economic system adopted. One system it could be argued, encourages people to do nothing, the other presses people to act on their own behalf. Moderating manipulation and greed demands carefully designed regulation regardless of the system. Drawing the line between those deserving support and those who do not demands equally careful drafting of regulating.

People are responsibility for their own personal fulfilment. If the individual does not set their own purpose and do something about it, then they get that which they deserve, and all that happens to them is when due their apathy is their responsibility. Regulation offers support for people in need, exactly as the community 40,000 years ago may have supported someone not able to ‘pull their weight’. Equally important today is the need to moderate decisions that have the effect of serving some people at the expense of others. The balance lies in the nature and the quality of the regulation.

Should we have social welfare?

The question of welfare is an important question. Should we place malformed babies in the snow to die? Should the aged be turned out because they can no longer pay their way? Should someone with an incurable disease that erodes their capacity be terminated? What if the economy turns down, as it does, should those forced out of work be financially thrown on the scrap heap? Who do we agree deserves government help and those who do not?

These are questions of social welfare, they are not questions of socialism or left wing politics. They are questions of ethics and morality, and the manner in which the society via government treats citizens. Since the time we decided not to put the mal-formed, under

180

sized babies in the snow a level of social welfare is appropriate. But who, and under what circumstances?

The problem of welfare is creeping welfare. That is a line is drawn such those on the left receive welfare, those on the right do not. Then time passes, and some group of other takes up the case of these poor people who are just immediately to the right of the line, and the line should be moved to include them. And time passes....

The modern example (circa 2015) of the issue was mentioned in an earlier chapter, the struggle to wipe the debt of Greece, where the problem was not the debt, but the fact the government was reluctant to take steps to stop the debt continuing to build. It is very easy to see that in a democracy with significant numbers of people on welfare, or at least where significant income comes from non-productive services, the people would not wish to see the austerity measures that reduced their income. No simple solution, but both the government and people need be aware of the issue, accept a line is arbitrary, there will inevitably be those on the right. We need accept some level of this discomfort, and not allow sentiment and the arguments of a few to push the line each decade or more so more are included. I call that creeping welfare, and we run the risk of becoming a state in the same political and fiscal difficulties of Greece. Balanced books are just as important in government as in private life, or at least managing crucial financial aspects to ensure a manageable measure of balance.

The issue is creeping welfare is not drawing the line, but holding it. The issue is exactly the issue of thousands of years ago, the sentiment that some people need to be taken care of. No one could possibly disagree. But once what could be called the serious disadvantaged are taken care of then the sentiment moves to those just on the other side of the line. So in New Zealand we had the domestic purposes benefit (DPB) for people who divorce and who are left with raising children

181

enabling them to stay home with those children and not work. It has been stopped (in 2013), but illustrates the type of issues that emerge with creeping welfare. Welfare like the DPB shifts the line between self-responsibility and social responsibility, releasing people significantly from the consequences of their choices. While those who promote such social management have their heart in the right place, there are flaws in the concept. Long term strategic development of society is best served by an ethic of welfare grounded on the idea of tough love as real care and real concern for the person, but they are responsible for their choices, and for finding their path of ethical fulfilment. ‘Society’ develops in direct proportion to the development of self-responsibility and self-discipline within the citizens who compromise the society.

This intellectual position does separate citizens of legal status with the society from those who are not. Those of legal status within the society are due consideration of welfare. Those who are not of legal status with the society, are due consideration of aid. Politically, aid is of significantly lower priority that welfare. The government has the responsibility to take care of its citizens first.

Regulation is necessary, but must be moderated

Another issue is application of regulation, which is strongly promoted in this analysis. Regulation is there to ensure people act according to the ethical principles that best serve society. The aim being the ethical fulfilment enabled for everyone.

There is argument that there is too much regulation. That could be so. There are two problems, first the regulation is needed to control the few people who will not act with good intent. Therefore for a ‘person of good intent’, the regulation is excessive. There is no simple solution to this problem, it is for the person of good intent to understand that the ethics on which they operate are not the general ethics of society, and unfortunately it is necessary to put in place

182

controls to catch the few and at some annoyance of the many. I can see no other way to do it.

The ethics of regulation must be based on the right of every person to choose. Regulation is applied if and only if in the choice the individual may erode the efforts of another in the pursuit of their ethical fulfilment. For example, in New Zealand, Auckland (2015), the local Health Officials are taking legal action against a birthing hospital to stop them offering the new mother a glass of wine or low alcohol beer with the meal after the birth. This must be classified as excessive control of those who think that in all circumstance they know best for what everyone else must do. Fact, prior to entering the hospital the mother to be could go to any bar and drink as they chose. Fact, they may do so immediately after leaving. The hospital is not acting excessively, and to argue it is the thin edge of the wedge is disrespectful to people implying they are stupid. By all means have warnings against excessive alcohol consumption during pregnancy however I suspect most mothers know of this already. The legal effort is the worst of a rampant drive to control everyone which can be an unfortunate side effect of overly righteous and zealous advocates to their brand of social management. They tend to forget, they exist only because we live in a plural democracy, and if they had their way they would in fact destroy the plurality which enables them to exist.

Overzealous advocates of their brand of ‘proper conduct’ need be kept firmly in their place. But it is not ‘left wing’, it is what is it is, an urge to control frequently by self-righteous people who assume they know what is good for everyone. People not committed to people having choice, and the development in society of self-discipline and maturity of personal choice. A social tactic to assist manage this problem, since we will always have this problem in the West, it is inherent in our ideology, is to dismiss their opinion, dismiss their judgment, and look hard at the reasoning, research and the logic

183

whereby the judgment is reached. We need avoid accepting decision from those regarded as having ‘authority’. We need look hard at the ideas themselves and ask who is being served here, and does it enable ethical fulfilment, or does it merely represent the drive to control by an excessively zealous minority. It is the nature and quality of the idea that is crucial, not the person offering it. Trust no-one at face value. Judge ideas on the merit of the idea, and on the idea alone. If in doubt don’t accept it. Wait, likely somewhere in the group will be someone who will ‘get it’, and offer comment on the idea itself. If applied, it is the idea itself in application that will come back and bite you.

Seldom if ever do the zealous experts really understand the idea as it will impact you since it is highly likely they see the idea via the rosy glow of their point of view. Adopt the same principles as regards the ideas in this book. You need to think to ensure the ideas to be implemented will have the greatest positive impact on you and yours. Almost the definition of politics within the intellectual framework promoted here.

The second issue is that there is regulation of the wrong things and failure to assert regulation of the right things. For example, in American action to deregulate the financial system contributed to the global financial crash bringing financial hardship to millions of people both within America and without. The exact wrong thing to do!

Again, no simple solution, other than better insight into the factors of markets, the economy and ethics such as to enable improved management with a careful eye to the crucial parts of our economy vulnerable to self-serving manipulation, especially from within our modern self-serving social ethic. .

The rule of regulation is that less is better, people are free and must be guided to choose for themselves. Where there is a lack of understanding of the dangers of some choices, then regulation must

184

only be a stop gap until people are educated and made aware. Permanent regulation must only be applied to those instances where an individual making their own choice may manipulate that circumstance to their advantage at the expense of others. One of the responsibilities of the politician is to oversee the volume and extent of regulation and take appropriate action to reduce it when it becomes excessive. This could be quantified in a regular if infrequent review and reduction of governmental regulation.

The psychology of social development is development of self-discipline

To do their bit for their community the person is expected to deliver the ideal actions in the business role they accepted. This requires the exact same disciplined focus as exhibited by say, a tennis player playing competitive tennis. TV has frequently shown images of players hitting the winning shot then dropping to their knees in relief. Work is exactly the same. To succeed the person must find the discipline within themselves to do the task they have accepted. We celebrate after the effort, but only if the ideal actions delivered to standard.

In general we can say that personal and social success both require discipline. That discipline can either come from without, that is be imposed, or it emerges from within.

The above arguments lead to the view that to enable ethical fulfilment in the citizens requires the government developing self-discipline in people. This could be by ensuring emotional intelligence is taught in schools beginning with junior school, ensuring that by the time a young adult leaves high school they are competent at the skill and understand their own psychology and how to manage it (this is argued fully in The Origin of Consciousness).

185

A crucial aspect of social development is to enable emotional intelligence such there is a diminishing need for regulation. The people assume to an ever increasing extent, generation after generation, disciplined responsibility for those things where it is appropriate for the decisions to be left to the good judgement of the individual. The rest of us are able to trust them to do it and serve our needs as well as their own. We balance self-serving ethics with the understanding that is self-destructive if not moderated. People do not want regulation, therefore to avoid having the auditor constantly peering over their shoulder they need act with a balance between their desires and our needs. But... it will take several generations.

This insight into the relationship between personal psychological development and social development emerges as a direct result of the understanding of cause. There is no causality in a group, hence there is none in society. All social causality is via individual minds. As mentioned previously, the best method for measuring the mental state of a group is to use vector addition, with the arrow pointing direction, and the length of the arrow the intensity of that direction. The vector sum then representing the direction and intensity of group action.

Finally, imagine a solid, reliable, well-meaning and committed couple. They do not seek fame, nor to be millionaires. They merely seek to live their life, raise their children, and contribute to their community, stalwarts of the school board and the local community support group. They raise strong children, committed to the country, who serve overseas, even embrace the loss of one child in a foreign war. They blame no one, beholden to none. They merely wish to retire with enough so their life can flow forward.

What is it such people need do to ‘do their economic bit’... and what is it they should expect in return? And most importantly, how does this scientific analysis of society propose it be achieved?

186

23. Understanding the economy in the

community

The current view is the economy is understood nationally, that the organization represents work and that other than wages is preferably not part of my life, with my real life in those things outside work (preoccupation with work-life balance). That I can goof off with sickies, and have a casual, sometimes borderline irresponsible attitude to work, since there is this big thing called the economy supporting society that politicians and the power elite are expected to take care of. That any share of wealth creation in my community is by the leave of the power elite governing wealth distribution or it trickles down to my community in some magical and mysterious manner I do not really understand.

Is it any wonder the emergent attitude is one of distrust, tension and lack of respect? Further, after Marx, that any increase in wages is a social group political power struggle over profits between the power elite and those who do the work given the epithet of ‘organized labor’, a name itself that spells out the perceived social relationships.

Between the serious misinterpretation of Adam Smith and the enthusiasm for the dreadful, deeply misleading intellectual analysis of Marx, the world has traveled down a very deep rabbit hole. With the numbers of people today infected by the ideas, the wide spread acceptance and the embeddedness of the ideas in many social processes, a paradigm shift of global proportions is now needed on the reconceptualization of society and the place of individual in it.

The core of our humanity lies in ideas and applying yet better ideas in our personal, economic and social development. This means we need a different implicit message on the economy, on the value of

187

every person, and on how to achieve greater social fairness and economic justice.

Everyone is important, but everyone needs to do their bit. Modern society generates large surpluses enabling reduction in poverty, increased leisure, and ethical fulfilment beyond even the wildest dreams just four generations ago. We need be careful with the distribution of the surplus as welfare. All causality is via the individual mind, and we need exercise tough love so each person is lovingly guided to find the self-discipline to create their personal path to ethical fulfilment.

What exactly is society?

The organization exists in its core structure independent of people. Recall from the earlier chapter.

OPD-SHRMsuccess is defined as applying the OPD human capital development processes such that actual behavior matches the agreed ideal actions in the team. Actual behavior = the agreed ideal actions. The term ‘matching’ is a very high standard, so it can be softened to a more realistic (1a) Actual behavior → the agreed ideal actions which states that OPD-SHRMsuccess is applying the team development technology such that actual behavior is moved toward the agreed ideal actions.

We understand the organization as existing as an idea coordinated by its strategy, with internal structure of roles mapping human effort onto the markets, KPIs in roles derived from strategy, and ideal actions derived from KPIs. People are then linked to the organization via the ideal actions in the roles they accept.

We now can ‘see’ the Ashby equations describing the core structure of the organization.

Carrying the argument to society by applying Ashby tool we create equations as below.

188

(3) Economic success → community wealth

(4) Community wealth → community health

Finally we create the equation.

(5a) OPD-SHRMsuccess (actual behavior→ agreed ideal actions) → community health.

We now ‘see’ these Ashby equations as describing the core structure of society. We get a sense of our relationship to society as rather like our relationship to an organization. As this analysis has established, our relationship with society is substantially via our relationship with organizations, and in regard to economic success our contribution to the economic success of our community is totally via those organizations that contribute to the economic success of that community.

We get a sense of the complexity of modern life if we think of our involvement with ‘society’ as being largely via any ‘organization’ that shapes our behavior. Recall the diagram from the earlier chapter showing society as a series of organization with the economy defined by a subset of social organizations. For example your family we can think of as an organizations, since it meets the description of a group of people with expectations of your behavior. Same said of the buddies you meet each Friday night at the cafe, the members of the school board, your associates in Rotary, your bridge or reading group...etc. We can think of all these facets of life as ‘organizations’, where we must meet sufficient expectations of the members of the ‘organization’ if we wish to stay a member of that organization.

The Ashby tools strip away the detail and complexity and offer equations that give insight into what happens and offers insight into our reactions.

189

Work is the crucial basis of community success

Work lies at the very heart of the economy, of our wealth, and of all that flows from our wealth. Work is the basis of all community success.

Work is seen as a crucial part of social and community continuity. There are expectations of limited work hours and reasonable working conditions, and regulation supporting these rights of work, since they are open to abuse and manipulation of people with the power.

There is no such thing as ‘work-life’ balance. Only in as much as it exists when we have done the work expected of us, and that is subject already to regulation and compliance. Work is the crucial contribution that every person must make to the community in which they live.

The community need assume the responsibility for its own success, which can only occur via each person in the community assuming their share of the work that needs done in the community. Work is the person doing their bit.

Our success at creation of surpluses in the economy is due our nature, due our innate ability to create ideas and apply them in our survival. It is our creativity and effort differentiates our society from that of the community 40,000 years ago where it is most likely people spent much of their day in the essential ‘work’ supporting their community. We need congratulate ourselves, we have developed socially and done it exceedingly well. With improved social science, we have insight and understanding to manage it even better enabling our grandchildren to enjoy even more fulfilling lives.

What exactly is the role of the organization?

The organization is born of the entrepreneur’s creativity, bought to adulthood by the drive and commitment of people. The organization

190

as adult belongs as much to the community as it does to the entrepreneur. The successful organization is the coalescing of creativity and effort. Proof that success is 10% creative insight and 90% sweat, with both equally necessary.

With much of life devoted to work the organization must enable people the opportunity for find ethical fulfilment in their work life. Leadership of the organization is expected to enable fulfilment by ensuring people are having fun while delivering their assigned and agreed ideal actions. The theory also enables flow as defined by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi by fully engaging with delivery of ideal actions. When operated under OPD human capital development system, the person can find personal satisfaction and fulfilment while contributing to organizational success as the core of their contribution to community success. Everyone wins!

The first responsibility of the organization is to stay in business. It is the growth of jobs, wages, and expenses of the business that are the primary factors in the wealth of the community. To stay in business the organization must produce a profit. As discussed, profits must first go to the business to enable it to stay in business funding its future growth and success. Second be distributed among governance and staff. And third, provide the people who invested money in the business with a return on their capital. The level of profit of any business is a measure of insightful strategy, how smart the management in the business to define and sharpen the behavioral structure, and of the self-disciplined application of the people to deliver the behavior structure to standard. Competition is the market process whereby those factors are kept in sharp relief elsewise the business will fail in its market which results in erosion of community success.

191

We need provide law to define the role of governance

(6) OPD-SHRMsuccess → (ownership and governance) → community wealth and health.

Unless we change equation (6) nothing in society will change. The rule of the world is if you do what you have always done you will get what you always got. The change must remove all vestiges of ...’by your leave’. If it does not, then there will be no social development, and people will continue to feel disenfranchised, lorded over by the power elite and governance.

(7) OPD-SHRMsuccess → (the Law) → community wealth and health.

We need change equation (6) to equation (7) so it is not people making the decision on wealth but the Law directing those of the power elite and governance how to manage and distribute the wealth. The change needs to be transparent, enforced and enforceable. It needs forge a symbiosis between the entrepreneur, governance and power elite and the community so that all are vigorously engaged in organization success.

Management has the responsibility to identify the ideal actions that enable greatest organizational success

‘Management’ emerges as a crucial group in society, much more important than any group alluded to by Marx or subsequent authors in the same line of thought.

The role of management is to identify those ideal actions that balance the inevitable contradictory forces on an organization. For example, make profits, while ensuring people safe, the business is sustainable, the business grows jobs, stays competitive, cares for the environment, etc.

192

Every person has an obligation to deliver their share of the agreed behavioral structure

The obligation for everyone in the community to do their bit existed in the community 40,000 years ago. The relationship between society and the individual is exactly the same today.

Every person in the community 40,000 years ago would have been clear on what they were expected to do to make their contribution to community success. Today, we are now also very clear. Each person does his or her bit by delivering to standard the assigned ideal actions in their organization role. We need to embrace our human nature and choose the best ideas derived from reason and not those ideas that merely serve emotional wishes and or short term personal opportunity.

193

24. Engaging the power of the people

(7) OPD-SHRMsuccess → (the Law) → community wealth and health.

The start point in engaging people is clear, we need change the Law so that equation (7) applies, and not equation (6). How? But first, why is it necessary?

A major thread of Western way of thinking is that by hard work any person can raise themselves up, ‘do well’, and achieve social position and presence by way of the talent and work ethic. For the last three hundred years it has most actively implemented in America to the extent it is referred to as The American Dream. Very specifically, The American Dream denies the right of social prestige and authority by inheritance.

In the eighteenth century Europe was still grappling with an essentially feudal social structure with growing and increasingly vigorous resistance to the social issue of ... by your leave. The idea of The American Dream was given social substance in the American Declaration of Independence in 1776 and American constitution. I do not believe in coincidences, and the common dates of the French Revolution, storming of the Bastille in 1789, the signing of the American Declaration of Independence in 1776, the publishing of Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations also in 1776, spell out the mood of the time. It is not surprising then, that with this background of sentiment over the next one hundred and fifty years the immigration to America became a flood. People wanted rid of ...by your leave. People wanted equal opportunity. People wanted the right to fulfil their spirit in their way without having to request permission.

America flourished. It grasped Smith’s ideas, and pressed them hard into practice. Corporate American became the world’s economic

194

power house. But it had a downside where rights of the worker, the little people, demanded a fight. With the passing in America of Social Security Act in 1935 President Roosevelt acknowledged the power of the entrepreneur had to be curtailed by legislation (the New Deal).

The social issues of unfettered free enterprise were explored by Marx with the Communist Manifesto published (with Engels) in 1848, and the last volume of Capital posthumously published by Engels in 1883. Europe embraced the ideas of Marx, and there emerged a strong political left, based on Marxian ideas of class struggle. America never embraced a political left. The idea of the American Dream remained the dominant ethic and still does today but with a weary sadness in that it does not seem possible any more. The global financial crash, which resulted in much social devastation in America, bought to the fore the stark question is the American Dream dead? Has hope been lost?

The thumbnail history is fully understood by the social equation of the Ashby analysis. Equation (6) is Feudal. Europe in 1750 was Feudal and had been for 2000 years.

America grasped Adam Smith’s thinking to defeat Feudalism. For some considerable time it worked. Regulation was the anathema to social progress. The failure of the understanding of Adam Smith was subtle, and at root it involved failure to intellectually understand social causality. Failure to understand social causality as merely an aspect of a broader failure to understand causality, there is no general theory of causality, other than the one offered here, and in associated works. Cause has been the topic debate by some of our most serious minds, such as the decade of debate in physics journals on causality between Einstein and Bohr. It would seem that an esoteric debate in physics journals would not bear directly to issues of social fairness and wealth creation. I hope here I show the essential intertwined nature of our knowledge and understanding. Failure to understand causality in

195

physics flowed into the failure to understand it in social science. The failure to understand it in physics due the failure to grasp the nature of physics, this failure itself due the lack of a general theory of psychology. For example is physics knowledge. Hard to argue it is not. Wrestling to understand cause in physics is wrestling to understand the relationship of a tiny aspect of our knoweldge, physics theories, with the objects of that knoweldge, the external circumstance to which the theory applies. In short the understanding of causality in physics is not a problem of physics, but a problem of the nature of knoweldge and the relationship that knowledge makes with objects of that knowledge. But all knowledge is created by people, therefore how can we have a theory of knowledge in absence of a theory of psychology describing what it is where it comes from and the relationship between all knowledge and objects of that knoweldge...?

The lack of understanding of cause is also related to the ‘silo’ nature of much intellectual thinking. Likely we all know of situations where sales does not a talk to operations, etc. ...where the integration is lacking due development of personal fiefdoms. The same has occurred intellectually. The reality is there is only one actor, people, and that actor produces everything to do with people, so all science, all ideas of social fairness, all economics, etc. at root all to do with people must all be linked via a full and accurate general theory of psychology. Which in turn must be based on an understanding of cause, while at the same time explain cause. I refer to this latter point as the reflexive problem of a general theory of psychology, in that any general theory of psychology must explain its own existence, including the intellectual tools used to build it. These issues are the basis of this work, and they themselves fully covered in The Origin of Consciousness (refer About).

Understanding society can only be achieved from within a thorough social science, with emphasis on science. Which means economic conduct can only be understood within the broader

196

framework of social norms and morals. As I have stressed, there is no doubt Adam Smith understood this point which is why he regarded his work on Moral Sentiments of more importance than Wealth of Nations.

I mention dates to stress the time scales of real social development. It can only really be measured in centuries. History is very important, with the emphasis on understanding of where the ideas we apply today, came from. The reason is again intellectual to do with social causality. For there to be a social trend, then enough people need to think a given idea and act consistent with that idea. Second, we need understand core ideas not so often today considered directly but underlie how we think today, I refer to such ideas as implicit assumptions.

Culture moves forward on the foundation of implicit assumptions that is the only way where we do not need review every idea every time. It is exactly the same as having walking as habit. If we had to think about walking while strolling the beach with a friend conversation would be impossible. Implicit assumptions can be understood as ‘habits of thinking’. At one stage likely these habits of thinking were actively wrestled over, and it is very easy for us today to lose sight of the significance of such ideas and if we do, we risk losing the way of life our forebears fought and died for.

People do not give up old ideas easily, for example, with the Declaration of Independence over 100,000 loyalist, as they were called, left America, largely returning to England. Many people did not accept the new social structure.

The time line of the Declaration of 1776, Social Security Act of 1935, and the final realization that what is being implemented is not working in 2015, is the appropriate time scale for social trends to fully emerge. The tragedy is that in our learning people get hurt.

197

Unfortunately, that is how it is, even when we act with good faith and integrity based on our best understanding at the time, people can get hurt. Given the ideological circumstances and ethics surrounding the global financial crash there are certainly question marks as to whether the power elite acted with integrity and good faith, little wonder a lot of people got hurt, leaving an ideological wound from which we have yet to recover.

Socialism did not throw of Feudalism in equation (6) it merely replaced the Feudal Lord with the Social Bureaucrat, supported by an oppressive regime to enforce the communists’ view of society. Socialism collapsed quickly, since it acted contrary to human creativity and human wish to fulfil one’s spirit. American capitalism offered a way forward, it offered personal hope. The issues were slow to emerge, but finally they did. American free enterprise left great scope for the power elite to manipulate circumstance to their advantage.

Feudalism makes people subservient. Socialism crushes people. Capitalism manipulates people.

We come to today, where we need throw away historical labels such as ‘left’ and ‘right’, we need learn and adopt new ideas that lead down new pathways offering substantive hope in ideas grounded on a thorough intellectual and scientific base.

Modern society is focused on wealth, wealth expenditure, fame and famous people. Earlier I argued the moral foundation of the world would come to be based on a single idea, I want what is best for me. I approve this idea. This idea is the root of seeking personal fulfilment. However, the idea needs supported by ethics whereby no person may interfere with another going about their legally sanctioned quest for their fulfilment. I define ethical fulfilment as quest for personal fulfilment supported by the ethics of respect and acknowledgment of the rights of all to pursue their fulfilment. Secondly, and crucially, the

198

idea I want what is best for me as the ruling moral ethic must be supported by regulation in circumstances which offer temptation to individuals to act self-serving.

Generally we already have laws that define the limit one person may interfere with the life of another. We know at times the individual cannot be trusted to act in a gracious and supportive manner toward another when by acting differently the person can secure advantage for themselves. The same rules apply in economic conduct. Today, in all aspects of social life, including economic life, we must have regulation to moderate the tendency toward self-serving conduct.

Regulation is essential if we are to allow people to choose and pursue their own fulfilment.

We have issues of what regulation, how hard it is applied and how intensely is it monitored? These are far from simple issues. For example, today, August 2015, a huge explosion in China killed over 100 people, and part of the problem seems to be very dangerous chemicals stored close to homes despite there being regulation that states they need be stored much further away. The people are very upset, as to be expected with loss of loved ones.

The example emphasizes how difficult for the government to regulate such that people are protected by those who have reckless disregard for social safety, and if opportunity arises would take the risk and regard regulation as heavy handed. No problem until something goes wrong, as it does always sometime somewhere. Perhaps it only goes wrong once in five hundred cases, but when it does go wrong, then people can die. We have the core of a moral and ethical dilemma, do we regulate and restrict well-meaning citizens from pursuit of their dream, or do we not regulate and risk disadvantage and/or death of citizens. How many hurt, dead or otherwise disadvantaged will we

199

accept, and how many will people accept, due lack of regulation or lack of enforcement of regulation?

An even more dramatic example is in dangerous industries, such a mining and oil. The risk initiates the zero-infinity dilemma. There is a vanishingly small probability something will go wrong, but if it does the result is catastrophic. What value is placed on the life of a miner coming out of the ground versus the value of the coal? This question poses very difficult and sensitive issues of ethics for any government seeking safety of people balanced against the growth in personal financial security. Typically, 99.9% safety can be achieved with reasonable cost, 100% safety can cost as much again as the cost to get to 99.9%. An easy equation for governance decision making perhaps until circumstances collide and a mine or oil rig explodes and dozens of people die and/or the environment scarred for decades.

These emerge as agonizing questions for governments. Fail to enable economic growth where people feel they are better off than they were, risks being removed from government. Fail to regulate and protect people from opportunists’ taking advantage, risks being removed from government.

These questions point the way of politics in the future. It revolves around the plan offered. All governments face the dilemma of economic growth bringing financial wellbeing and security to citizens, set against the safety, demand for fair distribution of wealth, and set against enabling ethical fulfilment.

Social development is merely the vector addition of the commitment and skills of self-discipline in society. The higher the skills and commitment, the more the government can rely on socially balanced decision making, the less it need rely on regulation, or at least the less it need monitor regulations are being followed.

200

Social development should be the cornerstone effort of all government. Therefore it is not a matter of which party is likely to give more to people and which less. It is a matter of judgement of which regulations we need, how hard it needs be monitored and enforced, and which we can leave to judgment and fair decision making by those who need make such decisions.

The foundation of Western thought is the freedom of the individual. There are enormous advantages in living in groups, and today we have the scale of leisure, entertainment, and welfare unprecedented in human history. Accepted it need be better, but what we have is of a scale unimaginable in ancient communities.

The collision of freedom and the need to grow and fairly distribute wealth results in the need to design social systems that enable the best of both. The world has struggled with this tension for near 2000 years, from Feudalism to Communism and Capitalism. All have been found wanting, each in their own way. Each with strengths, but none fully tapped the potential of people. None have been grounded on understanding of society based on a causal theory of psychology. That is what is offered here.

Society is designed by us. It does not have the same ontological status of say a tree. The fabric of society emerges from our creative conceptualization. We can design society to be as we choose, applying the best ideas available.

I argue the ideas offered here are the currently best available ideas on which to base our design of society. However, I am opposed to revolution. We need implement the ideas one step at a time, pause and reflect on what we learn, then step forward again.

America is the Western state least confounded by feudalism, monarchy, and Marxian ideas. The error in America was the misreading of Adam Smith resulting in social manipulation by an emergent power

201

elite. Politically this is relatively easily corrected due the level of dominance of the meritocracy ethic and the overall coherence of American ideology. The best ideas are what America will do. However it still needs done one step at a time.

America can lead the way in spearheading the changes to legislation enabling greater social fairness and economic justice. In leading the West, America will lead the world down the quintessential, scientific path of human development.

202

25. Changes to governance regulation

First a summary of the points.

• The causal drivers of human mood and conduct are the ideas being applied and the emotions associated with those ideas. The ideas set the direction, the emotions provide momentum.

• Humanity congregates in groups, and has done from earliest times. Reasons are it improves individual survival where individuals learn survival ideas from the experience of one, and second, groups enable synergy of coordinated productivity.

• The fundamental structure of society is the same today as it was 40,000 years ago.

• The Western ideological foundation is the inalienable right of every spirit coming into the world to seek and secure their own fulfilment, but not at the expense of other spirits on the same quest. This right is referred to as ethical fulfilment.

• Individual freedom and fulfilment are the crucial foundation of our Western way of life. The ideas consistent with our way of life are our core ideological choices and are our core values. We stand today, free, but indebted to the millions who died to enable the core values we enjoy today. In the name of those who gave the ultimate sacrifice and for the future of our children we must not tolerate ideas which have the potential to erode or usurp or undermine our values.

203

• The moral mores of modern society are self-serving which is acceptable but requires it be recognized and regulation applied to moderate actions where there may be opportunity for people to manipulate to their advantage.

• Social development is the process of increasing understanding and self-discipline whereby people act increasingly and willing consistent with regulation so there is reduced need for it to be monitored and actively enforced. Where regulation is judged inappropriate, it is changed by peaceful social process.

• It is the primary role of government to enable ethical fulfilment of the citizens it governs.

• It is the economy that generates social wealth.

• Economic success depends on organizational/business success.

• From understanding of OPD organizational design based on goal-action, organization/business success lies in delivery to standard of the set of ideal action called the behavioral structure that underlies every strategy.

• It follows that underlying every economy there is social/community behavioral structure arising from the set of all behavioral structures that necessarily underlie every organization.

• It further follows that community success lies in disciplined delivery of the behavioral structure that underlies the economy of the community.

204

• Every individual is linked directly to community success via the set of ideal actions assigned to them from the job they accept at work.

• Everyone in a community does their bit toward community success by doing their job at work.

• Doing a good job at work is emotionally exactly the same, demanding the exact same attitude and discipline, as a professional sports player has relative to their sport.

• Social development is via the development of personal emotional intelligence and associated self-discipline as regards first, work, and second, the requirement to act respectfully and ethically toward others, especially toward those with whom one disagrees.

• The link between wealth creation and the distribution of wealth is controlled by those in governing positions in the economy. It is this that must be changed to bring greater social fairness and economic justice to society and to fully engage people in economic success.

Today, with alternative ideologies, the West must avoid armed confrontation and demonstrate the power of our values by the peace, prosperity and fulfilment it brings to its citizens. If threatened or attacked we must be ready and able to mount ferocious armed response, but armed force is not our first choice.

We need insist all who wish to settle in the West swear allegiance to our core Western values, they may live here as they wish if and only if they swear their first priority is to Western individual freedom within the rule of law. No one arriving is required to swear allegiance to our way of life, but if they do not, they are asked to leave our country, or

205

forcibly deported if they do not leave voluntarily. They may be under threat in their own society, but that is their problem and we will no longer accept any ownership of their problems. Millions have died as the West travelled its path. I argue that only in such deaths does any society come to cherish and nurture freedom and the values that support it. We respect and embrace people with values different from ours, in societies different from ours, but they must stand and fight their own fights, resolve their own problems.

We need ensure the lives of all citizens are lives of ethical fulfilment, thereby demonstrate that humanity’s salvation is the path of Western values.

The aim of the changes is clear, but bears repeating. The intent is to enable a clear legal link so that those who work and create the wealth directly benefit from their effort. The wealth creation program is to enable people to live their life as they see fit, satisfied in their contribution to their community, secure that they can afford to invest in the organization knowing that the wealth they create cannot be stripped from them or the community. Finally, they are able to retire, the final stage of their life secured by the committed investment during the core working part of their life. In short, the American Dream, but more properly the dream of people worldwide.

Policy monitoring and management

First, ownership stays unchanged. The aim to ensure the entrepreneur gets their recognition and fair share and the people doing the work get their recognition and fair share. They each need see themselves in the same boat with the other, to succeed they need each other. The chief changes are to ensure the governance of the organization is not able to make unilateral decisions on the operations of the organization that would adversely impact the community within which the organization is embedded and on which it depends for staff.

206

Policy management: There needs to be a way of arbitrating on the crucial governance issues that arise in the interaction between the staff of an organization and the governance of that organization. I see this no different in principle from the competition reviews when a company seeks to purchase another company in the same industry. One option, for example, is to extend the terms of reference of the local authority to settle disputes between staff and governance on particular issues pertinent to the community.

Second, implementing the policy through ownership. The issue is changing governance so that the community within which the organization is embedded has sufficient influence that its concerns and needs are bought fully to account. Further, that the philosophy that the governance is an equal division of power over the organization is cemented in legislation. This could be achieved buy having equal shareholding in a employee trust, and the trustees of this trust then \democratically accountable to the employees of the business and have an equal number of on the board governing the organization. Profit distribution would then according shareholding. There would be some administration and democratic issues with business operating across many communities, exactly how the perhaps competing interest of those communities were bought to balance.

Six suggested policy changes to begin

Policy 1: No organization may shift operations off shore at the expense of jobs and services within the community. This to include when an organization sold, and the sale and purchase agreement must specify the arrangements relative to the community.

On sale of the company, the ownership retains the capital. Part of what is then sold is the symbiosis with the community, leadership and the organization all ensuring the continuation of profits and ongoing success of the business.

207

Profits are not necessarily less. Imagine a company with $100 sales $90 costs. Profit of $10. (Multiply the numbers by whatever factor desired, the ratios do not alter). Now, imagine the community gets fully behind the company, and staff performance improves 10% as a result. Such a gain in human performance is proven to have a significant improvement on sales and costs. Assume sales increased by 4% and costs reduced by 4%. Changes of that magnitude are very possible, given an increase in human performance by 10%.

After a 10% increase in human performance, sales increase to $105, costs reduce to $90.7. The reduction in costs takes account of direct costs related to increased sales. Profit is now $14.3, a 43% profit increase.

At a superficial level the proposed policy structure may seem to reduce profits and so reduce the capital gain of investors and limit capital retention for future development by the company. However, a different criteria emerges, namely the success with which the company leadership successfully finds a common goal with the community, inspiring community buy-in to the success of the business and therefore lift staff performance by 10%. This could easily increase profits by 43% I suggest offsetting any reduction by the policy changes. Second, the creative energy of the business could be increased significantly as the community now bought into its development. It is a very different way of thinking about crucial links between people, business, profits and community success and security.

Such a symbiosis of commerce and community is exactly the point of the policy changes. It is exactly what is missing in all current social structures with the implicit ...’by your leave’ ... resulting in disenfranchised communities who know that are at the mercy of decisions by governance and they have no influence on those decisions that could remove the economic basis of their community. It will not

208

be instantaneous, it could take decades or more of steady persistent nudging and development before people get it...it will be just like learning to ride a bike when one did not learn as a youngster. Very wobbly to begin, but then becomes second nature, ‘look at me no hands’. Once it working, the benefits will flow to investor, community and governance.

Policy 2: All proposed redundancies are subject to review. A solution may be to require the owners of the organization to accept lower profit figures, and the staff to accept lower wages, this may be preferable relative to no wages.

Policy 3: The gap between the highest salary and the lowest must fall within a national set standard. That standard can be set lower by agreement between staff and governance, but may not be higher. I am unclear as to what the standard should be, but suggest a CEO on one thousand times the lowest paid worker is too much and twice is not enough.

Wage/salary relativity is an important consideration, the OPD theory of the organization makes it clear that every person, from the sweeper to the CEO, regardless of the size of the organization is expected to turn up each day at work with the professional attitude to their performance. Exactly as the tennis or golf pro is expected to turn up with a professional attitude. Further, the wider community needs assume responsibility that people will turn up motivated to work, and if they do not then the community itself will make their feelings known. Not the local mayor, but you, and me, and him and her, them over there. Acceptance by us, the people that the success of our community depends on us exactly as the success of the community 40,000 years ago depended on the people of that community. People are not to just goof off, work is too important and goofing off places the community in jeopardy.

209

Everyone is expected to turn up striving to play the perfect the game regarding the agreed ideal actions. Therefore the CEO is unable to claim ‘leadership’ as justification of the excessive salary gap. The emotional expectation is exactly the same for all staff. The difference between the lowest ranked role and highest is solely in creative/intellectual demand.

Income parity also includes the governance, and any contractors to the organization. Keeping an eye on contractor and governance remuneration will be important in the early days of implementing this new direction, as creative ways are pursued to circumvent the intent of the policy changes.

Policy 4: There must be a profit share, where staff enjoy their share of profits and that share is equal to the share accorded the owners.

I have already considered profits are first and foremost the means the organization funds it future and maintaining jobs and services within the community. Staff includes the management, but not the governance. And contractors are managed within the pay parity reviews. Research may guide the detail of whether any profit distribution is by salary or simply an equal amount for everyone. If it via a percentage of pay, then to ensure fairness there does need to be limits on the range of percentages.

There needs to be special consideration of extraction industries, where the asset while owned by the entrepreneur, is also viewed as a diminishing asset of the community which is due additional share of the wealth since once depleted there can be no basis for further jobs or services in the community.

Policy 5: Staff base pay, including management, is subject to any legislative minimums. Beyond that, staff enjoy the returns arising from disciplined effort via profit share.

210

The split between wage and profit share could be predicted in relation to annual budgets. Profit share could replace wage increases, with the profit share scheme sharing the gains and losses, so the staff share the responsibility for the success and failure of the company.

Policy 6: Perks and other benefits should fall equally on all staff, not merely on leadership. Information is to be openly available to staff, who must be viewed by the governance as a legal stakeholder in the organization with a right to information.

Policy management process plus six sets of regulation are suggested as the first step. There may be more policy changes, and details need settled, but I think the direction of the shift in control is apparent. Once the changes are settled then we review the progress, apply what we have learned and plan the next changes toward self-disciplined ethical fulfilment for all.

The governance/management relationship is exactly the same, with the same emphasis on profitable operation of the business. Other community concerns remain exactly the same and handled the same, so community concern over the environment or employee safety remain exactly as they are now.

The governance and leadership are merely managing the resources of the community for the benefit of the community, with some of those resources being the effort of people. The organization serves the community, the community is not there to serve the organization. If there is to be any ‘by your leave’ then the governance must seek leave of the community it serves.

211

26. What is the role of competition?

Competition is the whetstone of productive efficiency. The free market the final arbiter of the application of community resources.

Competition is not the economic social regulator moderating greed and manipulation that can only be done by regulation. A free market enables new ideas and new entrants with sharper ways of doing things and therefore is the ‘right hand’ of competition. A competitive free market enables greatest productivity in the application of social resources.

An important point is the free market as it applies within the community. Government priority is the citizens chiefly within the borders of the country governed. Citizens beyond the borders made their choice, and may return at any time.

For example, there are significant numbers of New Zealanders in Australia which is one of New Zealand’s major trading partners. The government of New Zealand has the responsibility that the trading with Australia improves the extent New Zealand citizens in New Zealand find ethical fulfilment. It does not include pressuring the Australian government to enhance the welfare, retirement and health benefits of New Zealanders in Australia. Aligning of support services between Australia and New Zealand should occur if an only if both governments agree that doing so would enhance ethical fulfilment of both sets of citizens.

212

27. Taxation and politics

Imagine the community 40,000 years ago. A person out and about encounters some situation, thinks about it, comes up with a good idea, acts, and survives. On returning to the group they share the event and what they did with everyone in the group. The parents in the group then tell their children that to cope with that sort of situation this is what you do. By being in a group everyone learns from the experience of one person, and even more significantly, future generations learn, and so evolution and survival shifts away from genetics to culture, the collective point of view of the group.

Now, jump forward 30,000 years, to say 12,000 years ago, around when farming began in western Asia, modern day Egypt, and India. Think about it, humanity was physically as we are today some 150,000 years ago, and behaviorally as we are today around 50,000 years ago, which is why I select the community of 40,000 years ago to reflect upon. It took us from around 50,000 years ago to around 12,000 years ago, nearly 40,000 years to come up with the idea that if we cultivate plants etc., we can better control our source of food.

Now imagine a village 10,000 years ago. Someone comes up with the idea that some people need tend crops, others tend herds while others fish and hunt. The crucial resource of the village, namely their personal effort, is best applied by focusing on one aspect of village survival, and for the groups focused on that aspect to get very, very good at it. Humanity found not everyone can be good at everything, and in fact it was desirable not to try.

Humankind found groups so useful as to become a fundamental part of life an integral part to human existence.

As the groups got bigger two things happened. First there emerged authority structures within the group, and second there

213

emerged the need for administration within the group. For example to resolve disputes, set priorities, coordinate effort, negotiate with groups located elsewhere, etc. The first thing, authority, involves politics, and second thing, internal group administration, requires money. So taxation and politics are born.

To deny the need for taxation and politics in the modern world is to deny one of the fundamental aspects of what enables human survival and progress, the group. Taxation is a logical result of groups, and groups a logical result of human nature as the capacity to create ideas, apply those ideas in survival, and share those ideas so the survival of the group is increased. Given taxation is about money, and politics is about control and authority, and money enables control and authority, then it is inevitable that taxation and politics became one. Taxation and politics are as natural and as important to human existence as breathing. Both taxation and politics are defined by the ideas applied. Hence the significance of ideology. Hence the significance of this book.

John Rawls (1921-2002) was a Harvard Professor of Philosophy who offered an analysis of justice in his seminal work A Theory of Justice (1971). Rawls theory of justice did not embrace a general theory of psychology, he argued from what are perceived first principles of moral and political philosophy. I remain skeptical of such an intellectual process in that it contravenes the strategic principle of intellectual endeavor of first things first. All human endeavor stems from ideas given weight in action by the emotions associated with those ideas. In selection of ideas we plan to apply the rule of first things first means we need assess carefully that the idea selected has a solid intellectual base and we are not building on sand. If we choose unwisely we can slip down a rabbit hole as we did with Marx and millions can die in application of the ideas.

214

Society necessarily contains positions of responsibility and power greater than other positions. If we now assume that every human spirit at birth would choose to survive, and in our world, to fulfil itself, then a primary function of justice is that every person receives equal support in their quest. It falls on government to ensure all receive their fair share of wealth and opportunity. Finally a moral society affirms the right of individuals to choose and grow and fulfil themselves but moderates that right along the lines of significant personal qualities, which are determined by society, not allowed to be determined by personal preference. For example, race is not allowed as a factor is determining of a person’s fitness for some role. Whereas dress and deportment is a factor left to individual choice.

Managing apparent moral conundrums require we separate personal choice from social regulation, and recognize the intrinsic complexity and frequent lack of coherence in human psychology. For example, we apply regulation to ensure all religions are treated equally in cinemas, but may provide special places to enable some religions to pray in work places, yet not allow other religions the same privilege. The latter is the choice of the business governance, and government avoids becoming involved. If people object, then they make their objection via community action such as boycotting the business or staff taking collective action supported by the community. For local or national government to become involved would raise issues for the implementation of justice as fairness in the society as a whole.

In short, in society there are two functions of justice; first, in the social structure, second in interpersonal relations. Both functions involve determining between two people with different ideas. I do not think this distinction is clear within Rawls interpretation of the theory of justice. I argue understanding of justice must illuminate the social and political processes involved in determining between two people with different opinions.

215

It becomes clear as we explore the ideas of mind in relation to the theory and understand two different sets of ideas, one is how I treat fellow citizens, the other is the regulation I wish applied to all citizens. They are not the same thing, nor necessarily bear any relationship between them. The ideas and associated emotions on how I will treat and wish to be treated by fellow citizens may bear only a limited relationship to ideas and associated emotions on how I wish to be regulated by society. Further because the human psyche is in psychological units referred to as mental sets, there is no necessary reason that what I think and feel here will be integrated with what I think and feel over there. Coherence of world view is a factor offered in The Origin of Consciousness as a measure of mental health. A general theory of psychology points to the reality of multiple points of view even within a person, and it cannot be assumed there is necessarily coherence across the world view of the person. Discussion of justice as fairness as if it was a coherent factor in society or even in a person is inconsistent with understanding the structure of human psychology.

I argue the understanding of society resting on a general theory of psychology itself resting on in-depth intellectual analysis offering full intellectual integrity is an essential criteria before we make further choices of how to change any aspect of our justice, economic or political systems. We need better ideas. We need them to work. We have had enough of appealing ideas that were no more than rabbit holes down which we slid and from which we then needed to extricate ourselves. Especially when one generation made the choice and grandchildren were required to clean up the mess. I do not wish to leave my great grandchildren a legacy of problems arising from poor choices made by my generation. We need demand all ideas before taken seriously must pass the criteria of intellectual integrity with demonstrable satisfaction of first things done first.

216

In practice it comes down to two people (or two countries) haggling over what is fair and what is not, and when they fail, of having a Court of Law to draw the line between them. The interpretation offered here of justice as fairness as the overriding commitment to the interpersonal and social processes of seeking and accepting workable compromise, backed by adherence to the rule of law. A deal done, we live the principles of the deal avoiding lawyers slipping around the legal edges. Unfortunately too often such personal integrity has been lost in the self-serving modern ethic.

Justice as fairness as defined here rests on the fundamental idea of the right of the other person to hold their point of view, even though I may disagree. Psychological complexity means workable compromise on one issue does not mean it will apply in another, especially in interpersonal situations. In social situations, previous workable compromise comes to the fore as legal precedent and frequently forms the basis of consideration of the new issue.

Politics and tax are integral to all human social systems. They emerge from human nature to aggregate for survival reasons. While the ideas may be seem sound, and be accepted, implementation may involve elements very far removed from the high sounding rhetoric offered by the ideas. The reality for example, of the need to enforce by arms socialism and communism in many countries even after the revolution was final. Marx sociology offered high promises, but frequently entailed brutal force of arms by those lifted to power by Marxian ideas.

I prefer to deal with in-depth scientific understanding of what is happening in minds, and hence draw social and political conclusions based on likely reality of events so enabling immediate practical advice in building coherent political policy.

217

The time scales implicated are much, much greater than fully understood. From our first genetically evolved human 150,000 years ago, it took another 100,000 to become the humans we are today defined by the capacity to think, and apply that thinking in survival and to share the ideas in the group. It took another 40,000 years to come up with the idea of farming.

To understand the progression in the development of ideas, in The Origin of Consciousness I argue that there has been more ideas created in the last 250 years than in the previous 49,750 years of human existence. Included in the evolution of us are ideas on our social structures, taxation, politics and human fulfilment. We can cope with this ideological explosion physically, but I suggest we are not yet fully equipped to cope with it emotionally or spiritually. As evidence, wars, terrorism, social violence and tensions, and people dying in the name of the path to salvation.

It follows that the progression from Adam Smith around 1750-1780, through Karl Marx around 1850-1880, to this book in response to both in 2015, is not an extended time scale. It only seems lengthy if measured in human life times, but that is just not an adequate measure to understand our progress as a society. Modern is not better, it is frequently far to rushed and squeezed too tight into time scales relevant to the productive/creative life of an adult, say 50 years.

We need understand our nature as one of creating and applying ideas to improve our lot. Our comfort level is often to be settled in what we know, which is contrary to our nature. So at times we need resist our own emotional preferences to settle and to step forward for sake of our children. It is all about the appropriate balance between being settled and secure, and changing things to make it better. Historical ideas on the social structure are passé, Smith and Marx have both proved inadequate as the basis of our political and social

218

existence, and as the basis of our understanding and management of our group existence. Despite over one hundred years of writing and research on both, the fundamental original ideas Marx and Smith remain the base of thinking.

Current ideas are inadequate it is time for a change.

219

28. Managing automation

Imagine a village depending on corn farming as a dietary staple. Now imagine the scythe was invented, so fewer people now needed to harvest the crop. Should those now not needed in harvest be excluded from their ration of corn?

Automation is humanity getting smarter. It did not begin in the modern world which has merely got a lot of new ideas enabling us to be a lot smarter.

Organizations serve the community the community does not serve the organization. The operation of the business is the basis of the community’s economy. When jobs lost due automation, then the community that has enabled the development of the business deserves to be recompensed for the loss of revenue into its economy.

The assessment of automation begins with benefits. By how much, how soon, and what is the initial cost? The community being part of governance involved in the business case and deciding where those benefits are to be distributed.

When a new automated company introduced into a community, then that community begins to enjoy the services etc. necessarily provided to the business. The governance of the business is then curtailed as to what it can and cannot do with the business within the overall policy guidelines for any other business within its community.

The community has the legal right to ensure its continuity and economic success. Automation is merely one of the issues the community and the governance need to resolve.

220

29. The confusion of free trade

Current economic orthodoxy supports free trade, summarized in Wikipedia for example as ‘Though it creates winners and losers, the broad consensus among economists is that free trade is a large and unambiguous net gain for society.’ Accessed August 22, and 29, 2015.

There is no causality is groups, all economics deals with groups. If group processes are political, this means all economics rest on a fundamental political base, in short economics is not a science in the manner of physics is science. Society exists fully dependent of our thinking, of our ideas applied and the passion with which we pursue those ideas. Economics deals with nothing that is not created by us in the first place. Change any of the ideas applied, then the group behavior will change, hence the economic equations as abstracted from the group could change.

We must not depend on economic equations to determine upon fairness of any free trade. Economic equations are far too removed from life in a community, and generalize across the whole of society far too much to be viable in community decision making.

Any free trade agreement is to be pursued if and only if it can be shown to enable ethical fulfilment of the citizens to a greater extent than they are being served now. In serving its citizens there is to be no ‘winners and losers’, not without the losers permission. ‘Winners and losers’ tradeoffs are contrary to the aim of government which is to enhance ethical fulfilment of all citizens in all decisions especially decisions involving the economic base of communities.

Free trade is not a technical, economic question, but a political question measured by the effectiveness of government in meeting its obligation to its citizens.

221

30. Transparency and auditing

If we do not trust people we are very careful what we share with them.

The governance and power elite are used to withholding some aspects of decisions from those people most impacted by the decisions. The reason is simple, they know people will react adversely when what they are advised disadvantages them and they have no scope to negotiate.

The governance and power elite hold the view that their final decision is not self-serving but in the interests of the greater society. The ‘winners and losers’ quoted from Wikipedia, the local community loses but the greater society gains.

It is the view of governance that the self-serving reactions of people that will get in the way of the broader social best interests. For instance the decision to shift a business off-shore to lower operational costs and significantly improved profits. However, those most served by this decision is the power elite, and those most disadvantaged is the community losing part of its economic base.

Making the intent of the economy to serve people then the structure of this decision is reversed with those most impacted having equal authority and rights in the decision as those governing the business. Secrecy is no longer appropriate, and governance will need develop skills of persuasion equal to that of any politician if they are to carry the people with them.

The only way to avoid conflict is to build trust. The governance need learn that the community has community interests at heart and those interests are the aim of the economy and of government. The community needs to learn that to develop community wellbeing can

222

only occur via the economy, and business decisions are more complex than they appear from the outside.

A further issue is the need to get past the dumbing down of all decision due to the demand of ‘committee’ consensus. Some people will have much better vision and insight than others. Some people will be much better at stirring emotions in others using hope or fear or both. Most likely the skills of judgment and persuasion will reside in different people.

The community and governance both need to learn how to achieve good judgement and then build motivation to carry it out. There will always exist people who may not talk a lot, and only occasionally step forward, but when they do they need listened to.

Good judgment, which is solely about the best ideas to be applied in group survival, will seldom arise from committee. Good ideas arise in a single mind but usually need to be approved in committee. Committee discussion can stimulate creative thinking as the points of view are explored, but that assumes people in the committee understand effective group processes like brainstorming and group problem solving and decision making of the sort promoted by say, Kepner Tregoe. There is much, much more skill required than is understood in popular insight in enabling effective group process whereby the very best ideas are uncovered in a supportive and positive group climate. Generally, in the population at large, these skills are absent and worse, there is a lack of appreciation of the need for such skills frequently backed into an attitude intolerant of different values and viewpoints.

There is the need for social development of skills and insight which can only come from the education system... group process, brainstorming, problem solving, decision making; emotional intelligence; understanding one’s own psychology; skills at finding and

223

accepting workable compromise; understanding of the rule of law; where our values came from, so history from the point of view of where the ideas we use to build out mind came from; tolerance in acceptance of the right of other people to hold their point of view; insight into the economy; and development of purposeful intent to contribute...these are some of the skills important in development of individuals of Western culture. The development of the insight and skills needs to be part of our education curricular, but this book is not the place to explore the necessary development of our education system.

Unions are an economic factor through Australasia and Europe, but much less so in America. Before extending this discussion I wish to make clear my views on Marxian type class solidarity and social structure. I stress, human nature is the capacity to develop ideas and apply them in survival, supported by the capacity to share ideas so all in a group enjoys the benefits of the ideas of a single person. This position is fully developed in the book The Origin of Consciousness (Refer About).

I define evil as ideas that if acted out do harm to people. Evil is real, it exists, and it is measurable. Evil is implicit in ideas, especially when we act out those ideas. It is acceptable to have evil thoughts, but only if one has the emotional intelligence to contain the actions that arises from those thoughts. One can think evil, but one may not do it, nor encourage others to do it.

War is evil. War is a tool applied as necessary to protect and serve citizen’s ethical fulfilment.

It is public record that in communist and socialist regimes over sixty million people have been executed, murdered largely in the name of the good of the regime. There is now a direct line from the ideas of Marx, to the social structures that emerge from those ideas, to mass

224

killings. The ideas of Marx are among the most evil ideas foisted on people in the whole of human history.

Group solidarity is important, but must not be confused with solidarity of social class. We think different, we have different talents, different opportunity, different energy, different values, we make different choices, pursue different life goals, have different wealth, speak different, have different manners, and yes, people similar will gravitate together.... but because I am me, and fall into one social class, this does not mean I am necessarily in any class conflict with them. I might be envious, I may think evil of someone in some other social class, but I may not act on that thought. I need find workable compromise with them.

I and someone I dislike may share just a single ethical rule, we each are fully committed to the right of the other to be and to pursue their quest within the law as I pursue mine. We share nothing else except we are both willing to fight for the right of the other live as they choose within the law. Each person has the inalienable right to be different, and I have no right to dictate their choices other than when their choices directly inhibit me in my pursuit of my ethical fulfilment, and vice versa. This may be the only rule we share, but it is crucial we share it otherwise a multicultural plural society devoted to personal freedom and fulfilment cannot exist. The only ethics that can emerge from this shared rule are that we dismiss evil and seek workable compromise.

This scientific social analysis shows how in the free market economy of Western society it is the commercial organization and only the commercial organization that drives development of social wellbeing. Further, that this insight extends far beyond merely money or physical resources. To make work the intrinsic economic structure of Western society, people must learn how to live and work together

225

with people they may not like. In short, economic behavior can only be understood from with the mores of society overall. This is the point assumed by Adam Smith and overlooked or ignored by us for over two hundred years, and hammered into our awareness by the global financial crash. Let us not repeat the mistake.

The sort of industry wide union solidarity arising from Marxian ideas is wrong, and leads society in precisely the wrong direction if the society is seeking advance of its citizens to greater wellbeing.

Economic success drives social health and wellbeing. Organization success drives economic success. People need understand they work to ensure organization success since in so doing they enable social success. The entrepreneur sets business direction and in that judgment lay the foundation of business success. I define entrepreneur as the person or group determining the strategy of the business and is seen as separate from the leadership which is responsible for the roll out of strategy.

The leadership of the business, responsible for roll out of strategy, in synergy with the community, guides identifying the behavioral structure underlying the strategy and guiding its delivery to standard. A crucial aspect of leadership within this model of the business in the economy in society is the engagement of the community with the roll out of strategy. To enable greatest engagement the feudalistic role of governance is replaced with law which provides the community rights as regards governance of the business to ensure community interests are fully protected. The rights of the community in business governance is part of the overall aim of politics in society as enabling ethical fulfilment for all citizens.

A crucial point pressed hard in this book, is that the economy cannot be discussed without appropriate reference to the background structures in society.

226

Group solidarity in this theory is the solidarity between business governance, leadership and community from which is drawn the staff to drive the ideal action that offer greatest chance of greatest success.

All groups ... entrepreneur, governance, leadership, staff, community ... have much to learn in insight and understanding, skills and in workable attitudes. Government education policy has much to contribute to smooth functioning of the social structures that must inevitably be part of the theory in practice.

Within this intellectual position, with all social causality via the individual mind, and all economic success via the commercial organization, group solidarity is getting all key players in any organization in the same boat, all rowing in the same direction.

There will be an ongoing need for auditing and report transparency, especially in the early stages with high mistrust and uncertainty. Someone or some group needs the skill and to be trusted by all parties to conduct such audits.

Second there will be a need for skilled people to negotiate on behalf of staff in an organization with both the governance, and possibly with community authorities who have the vested rights by law to intervene in the governance of the business.

Finally there will be the need for group creativity, problem solving and decision making, with such a group perhaps compromising leadership, entrepreneur, staff, governance, and community authority, to find alternatives, decide options, and resolve issues that could impact them all. Such meetings would be well served by an independent facilitator.

The current global union movement is founded on Marxian ideas of class solidarity negotiating with the governing class and power elite on behalf of the working class. This conception is simply wrong and

227

very poor sociological analysis. When applied across society as a whole Marxian sociology is evil.

The current global union movement needs to re-conceptualize its role in society, redefine its purpose, its raison d’etre, and how to achieve that purpose.

I suggest that the three key services above could be assumed by the movement, that is what is currently referred to as the union movement could focus on delivery of auditing services on behalf of communities, negotiating with governance or community authority services on behalf of staff, and on facilitating group meetings involving entrepreneur, leadership, staff and community.

Because the term ‘union’ is so intertwined with the defunct ideology of Marx, I suggest the name be changed.

Whether the advice regarding unions is adopted, the functions of auditing, negotiating and facilitation emerge from the social structures implicit with this model of social development.

228

31. Social motivation, satisfaction and

dissatisfaction

In a series of books and articles from around 1960 to 1970, Frederick Hertzberg (1923-2000) produced and elaborated one of the world’s most influential theories of motivation and understanding of human behavior at work. The theory is called the two factor theory, and essentially states that certain aspects of work are motivational, and result in satisfaction in staff while other aspects are referred to as hygiene factors, they do not motivate and only ever influence people in their absence so only ever result in dissatisfaction. Hertzberg died in 2000, but remains one of the most influential business thinkers.

We can now offer additional understanding of motivators and hygiene factors as follows.

All human mood and conduct arises from the ideas we apply to any circumstance and the emotions associated with those ideas. We can broadly classify emotion into positive emotion, laughter, satisfaction and fun are positive emotion, and negative emotions such as anger, dissatisfaction and hate. We can now classify motivators and hygiene factors according to this deepened insight into human psychology.

Motivators. Relate to factors fulfilling for the person, and associated with positive energy. Such factors include challenging work, recognition for one's achievement, responsibility, opportunity to do something meaningful, involvement in decision making, sense of importance to an organization that give positive satisfaction, arising from intrinsic conditions of the job itself, such as recognition, achievement, or personal growth. When the ideas of the person is on these topics, the associated emotion is positive.

Hygiene factors. Relate to factors that do not fulfil, but if absent are associated with negative emotion. Such factors include status, job

229

security, salary, fringe benefits, work conditions, fair pay, paid insurance, vacations. They do not give positive satisfaction or lead to higher motivation, but dissatisfaction results from their absence. The term "hygiene" is used in the sense that these are maintenance factors. These are extrinsic to the work itself, and include aspects such as company policies, supervisory practices, or wages/salary. When the ideas of the person is on these topics the associated emotion is negative.

The theory goes on describing four circumstances as high motivators, high hygiene, low of both, and high of one and low the other.

We can consider it this way: Motivators are ideas intrinsic to the job people think about all the time. Managed effectively, they lift the person and encourage performance. Hygiene factors are those aspects of work people think about when they feel short changed. People do not think about hygiene factors if the factor is to the standard they embrace. It follows that when people think about hygiene factors the emotions are negative.

The theory in Why Work places work at the very center of social development, that a person ‘does their bit’ when they deliver agreed ideal actions at work to standard. It follows that this analysis by Hertzberg now becomes core understanding of a fundamental aspect of social life.

Let’s imagine a ‘typical’ person. Let’s propose they are adult and working at seventeen, they live to ninety, and they work until they are seventy. They work forty five hours a week, forty five weeks a year. Let’s us call the years seventeen to ninety their adult life within which they have a work life seventeen to seventy.

Total adult life is 73x24x365 = 639480 hours. Total work life is 53x45x45 = 107325 hours. It follows that work life is 16% of adult life.

230

It is in our work life that we make our contribution to society, generate the income to live, and accumulate the wealth to live the twenty years after work, and support development of our community such it supports us in our retirement. Work may occupy a preeminent psychological positon, and while the actual hours are just 16%, it typically occupies much more of our thinking time. In mind, work can be a dominating factor in life. It is possible that work is the largest single focused activity of a person. I argue with appropriate change of governance law it is appropriate for work to be a dominate factor in life.

If we assume the person is satisfied in their life outside work, and that any potential dissatisfaction in their life is at work. Now imagine people know the work secure, they are not subject to ‘by your leave’, the organization is secure in their community economy with their community having equal rights in governance decisions, that the leadership actively enables a solid hygiene base and actively encourages people to engage with the work itself and people understand that in so engaging they are doing their bit for their own community, would a person and such a community be inclined to get into the boat and row?

The community would have a strong vested interest to be self-motivated and committed to lifting business results to lift community wellbeing. We can now understand the factors of Hertzberg as underpinning community satisfaction not merely company satisfaction.

A second major aspect of human happiness lies in the idea of flow as researched by Mihaly Czentizmihaly, who found people had some of their happiest moments when fully engaged with a task. If work is embraced as crucial to the community, it is not separate from a person’s life rather it is crucial aspect of that life, then flow at work becomes a much more realistic goal. Flow is the person engaging with the ideal actions assigned them in their job, derived from the

231

organization behavioral structure, with all contributing elements encouraging them to seek flow at work. To find flow at work is to find some our happiest moments are when engaged with work we know to be meaningful and important to our community.

Imagine every person in society in flow at work, where the leadership was enabling flow, and enabling deep positive emotions associated with work for every person. Now over 16% of the life in the community is rewarding and fulfilling. People look in the mirror each morning and feel satisfied with the person looking back. The discussion in the local club or cafe is very different. People embrace work, and are critical of those who talk of goofing off. There is deepened sense of trust and security. We all know that external factors make an economy unpredictable, and things can fall, but then everyone would know there are strong social processes that underpin the synergy of business with community, and everyone has trust in those processes.

Society grounded on positive self-esteem, hope, clarity of understanding with respect for others in the community doing their bit, security, and faith in the social processes that enable a sensible measure of fairness.

Would crime fall?

Would our children be more secure, less drugs?

Would people smile more to each other in the street?

Would there be greater tolerance?

Less racism? Less gender discrimination?

What would happen with greater hope?

Greater good will?

232

I do not know. My sense is that with the changes in the emotional base of our communities so it is significantly more positive I judge the influence far reaching. I hope you judge the same and join the call that it is time we learned and did it better.

233

32. Sounds great, but what do I do...?

The great strength of democracy is every vote is equal. If enough people think the same way and vote the same they win the day. The problem with democracy is fragmentation.

To be very clear, fragmentation is when people do not coordinate voting with others over the issues that are important. In short we tend to select among candidates who best match our choices or who we feel most likely to give us our choices. Everyone knows how it happens.

To do something about it? Identify those politicians who support the ideas and press them to see it gets done. Place steady and constant pressure on politicians that this is an important set of proposed changes you would like to see explored more fully, tested and if they hold up, to see the changes implemented. Read the Why Work again. Make sure you fully understand. The structure of society is a crucial factor in your life. I have tried to make this theory accessible to everyone. In that I am a philosopher exactly as Plato, seeking to influence your ideas.

I hope you share my view of how important it is and bring steady pressure to build a better social structure to better serve our children. We need to gently and respectfully resist any forces in the world today that would sway us from our path of Western individual freedom and fulfilment as the path for humanity.

What do you do? Decide that this is the way and press for change.

234

33. ...am I really expected to make an

effort at work?

Yes!

235

34. The future

Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow, Creeps in this petty pace from day to day To the last syllable of recorded time, And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle! Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player That struts and frets his hour upon the stage And then is heard no more: it is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.

Macbeth Act 5 scene 5. Shakespeare

Is life a poor player? Do we strut and fret our time to no greater effect than to listen to the sound of our own voice? Does all our effort amount to nothing? Shakespeare placed the words in the mouth of Macbeth who proved to be a person of some conscience dominated by an opportunistic villainy.

In more recent times Bertrand Russell proclaimed our helplessness before omnipotent Nature, arguing we need find a peace in our humanity, even if we are overshadowed by forces vastly greater than our existence.

Is such our lot?

As the conduct of his life catches up with Macbeth Shakespeare suggests in the ‘tomorrow’ soliloquy even such an unprincipled person begins to see the error of their ways, questioning the manner they conducted their life. The insight of genius into the human condition...? A glimmer of hope?

236

In The Origin of Consciousness I apply Ashby tools within a systematic methodology and show our nature is the capacity to create ideas and apply them in the enactment of our life. In evolution, we applied ideas in our survival, sharing the ideas in groups such that the overall survival of the group was enhanced from the learning of a single group member.

Macbeth’s final despair at life is the realization that he and he alone made his choices. His wife taken her own life, surrounded by enemies with much reason to see him dead, he can do not more than resign himself to his ignominious fate, his life a tortured unsatisfying path he chose. Macbeth realized in the end it is not about the end but about the manner we conducted ourselves during the journey.

We are, we become, we are defined by the ideas we allow to shape our direction in life and to which we attach our emotions. The consequence is clear as it is simple. We need adopt better ideas to build a better life. We need build better ideas and ensure depth of emotional association with those ideas to give them zest and momentum. Once we have sorted our mind, and imbued the ideas we choose with our passion, we need trust our mind, allowing it to carry us forward. We need retain some monitoring of ourselves to ensure our actions are indeed founded on the ideas-passion we selected. We become people of integrity where we never need state our values they are evident in our actions. In this measure of his own life Macbeth failed himself and he knew it. The genius of Shakespeare is to capture the essence of the human condition over 400 years before we could give our understanding of it a precise intellectual structure.

Our spirit lies at the very center of who we are. At its core our spirit is an emotional response to circumstance encoded in us before language, before any ideas, before we even understood ourselves as a separate unique entity. As our world view develops this emotional,

237

inarticulate core becomes entwined for example, with our thoughts on ourselves (our self-esteem), the image we see of ourselves in the reactions of others to us, (the social mirror), and the feedback of success and failure in pursuit of our goals. Our spirit is elaborated as our world view is elaborated, and since our world view is elaborated about the core of our spirit, so the emotional tone of our spirit flavors the whole of our world view.

Better science enables better technology which enables a better result. It is here Bertrand Russell and I part company. Russell was commenting on the science of his day, especially social science. In the appendix of this book I outline the foundation of a social science very different from anything available in Russell’s time. I have applied the methodology and tools of this improved social science to provide causal understanding of a person in association with their environment in The Origin of Consciousness. The summary comments throughout this book are derived from the theoretical position in ‘Origin’.

At the personal level, we can choose the ideas we will allow to shape us, and we can work to imbue them with the passion we judge appropriate. Culture does not define us, genes do not define us. We are defined by our choices of how we think and the passion with which we imbue our thoughts. However, to choose ideas that separate us from our group, perhaps from family, is very difficult. But, in principle it can be done.

In the West, we are enabled to choose our own ideas. In the East, using the term I applied in earlier chapters, people are not so enabled.

Macbeth could have chosen differently, selected a different path. Perhaps he would never have been king, but then perhaps he would not have died in defiant despair (...lead on McDuff and cursed be him who cry hold enough). Perhaps then he would have viewed life as a fulfilling journey.

238

Ideas have enabled human survival for tens of thousands of years. I go further, and argue that the thrust of evolution is the development of a supreme species that will occupy all niches of the ecosystem. I suggest that such a species can only be one with a mind able to create ideas and apply them in survival, and with an adaptable body able to act out the ideas, share those ideas in groups, and with ideas so able to respond effectively to whatever nature may offer. If evolution is toward the species with the greatest survival capacity, then evolution is toward mind, the capacity to create ideas that are tested prior to action so survival assured before action taken.

This book is about the social structure within which the person lives their life. As with personal choice of ideas, we create the ideas from which is formed the social structure, it is not given or preordained. It is not as a tree, it does not have any structure not created by us therefore it has no structure we cannot change. What is required is the political will to change. In the West, political will means enough people accepting the ideas and insisting they be adopted. Such is the core cultural value of the West... people wanting what is best for them with full acceptance that that is the basis. We have yet to finally learn that such a self-serving ethic is possible only when supported by an acceptance of the right of the other person to hold their views with equal passion, and those views may be far removed from mine. The only rational ethical social structure that enables such diversity is workable compromise, backed by rule of law and legal process accepted by all so if they and I are unable to find agreement, then the legal system will find it for us.

I have applied the methodology of the improved social science to the questions of economic fairness and social justice. It emerges that the type of free market system which typifies the West is appropriate, but requires modification to better enable people find fulfilment, to not feel disenfranchised, and to become fully engaged in their own life and

239

community with deepened commitment and to the development of them as individuals and to the development of their communities.

The whole point of the book is to enable people have greater ethical fulfilment in their life. That no-one ends as Macbeth, or if they do, it is in full insight and understanding of the nature of their choices, and society and the justice system offers no mercy. There will always be bad people.

The crucial shift occurs in our political choices, namely it is about enabling greater life fulfilment and satisfaction of people. The social process of democracy is incidental to the primary goal. What exactly does this mean?

I suggest two crucial criteria in determining on any system whereby government is selected. First, it must enable peaceable change of government, so people can, without violence, get rid of bad government when they need to. Second, the system must enable the wishes of people to be heard and clarified, and responded to.

Democracy is one idea for achieving these two criteria. You judge how effective an idea... please, judge democracy according to the extent it meets the criteria, and do not judge it in relation to whether it enables economic fairness, which is a separate issue. There are other ways of conceptualizing social solutions to the key criteria for selecting the social process of determining on government.

For example. Imagine the country in areas of say 250,000 people. Now imagine each area had elected representative of say 20 people to govern the area, so 1 person per 12500 people. Then imagine areas accumulated into regions of say 40 areas. The chairperson of each local area council automatically sat on the regional council. Then regions grouped into territories of 40 regions, and each regional chairperson automatically on the territory or say national council. Now imagine technology enabling almost instantaneous survey of the whole

240

population. If any local group dissatisfied with the skill and application of their representative they are easily replaced. Then the annual budget for each level could be assessed by the people able to veto or support via the technology. Government priorities able to be assessed by technology veto or support... etc. It would be different politics from that we have now. Whether better or worse, I am uncertain, not the point, which is with just a little effort we can think up other systems.

Do we think that in say 300 years the social structures and process will be as they are now? I certainly hope not. I hope those who follow accept the principles embodied here, that humanity rolls forward on the quality of the ideas it selects and applies in personal life and in the social structure and government. That our focused creativity is applied to developing social processes that serve people enabling them to live lives much more fulfilling and satisfying than we live today.

This book offers a new and improved intellectual foundation to social science. But, and this is crucial, it is not intended as some esoteric system of ideas just for the elite few. It is crucial that people of the West understand and have the intellectual background to make an informed choice. I accept those unused to exploring formal ideas in science may find this book a stretch... but this sort of understanding is crucial in making choices on the social structure going forward, in effect setting up the social structure for our grandchildren whereby they find fulfilment and life satisfaction beyond that which we found. If that is not the point, then pray tell me what is!

If we remove the demand for democracy. If we seek agreement with governments that the priority is to enable ethical fulfilment of its citizens. Would that alter the friends and enemies of the West? For example, where would China position itself? The government of China has historically acted as an oppressive regime. But no country of the West has faced the conditions of China, 1.2 billion people historically

241

ruled by warlords with limited social cohesion as a modern nation. Perhaps one party, but if the roots of government reached down to the village level, and if people felt their voice heard and government responded...? There are any number of autocratic regimes that would not fit the criteria in any way, yet have historically been supported.

We need get clearer about our Western social priorities... and it is not so simply ‘democracy’, rather the intent of government, the systems enabling people are heard, and that the needs and wishes of people are responded to such that they are enabled to live more fulfilling lives.

Why Work offers first, a new structure for social science, and illustrates the application of that system to the question of improving economic fairness. Second, it offers new insight into the West style of government grounded as it is on individual freedom. Finally, the book offers a clear strategy for the West, namely to draw other countries into the Western way of life through example, that people of the West are the most fulfilled and satisfied peoples in the world. The West can become the ideology nurturing the soul of humanity, but not without having a hard look at what we are, what we really stand for and the ideas that when implemented best enable our aims. And we need give up the idea that guns can solve ideological differences. We need guns, enabling powerful responses to external enemies in our modern world, but we need better understand their role and limitations.

If the past one hundred years has been the emergence of better physical technology based on better physical science, I hope the next one hundred years is the emergent of better social technology based on better social science. Humanity enters an extended period of spiritual and social development, removed from any religious elements, based solely on the insight and understanding of selecting and applying better ideas.

242

243

35. Appendix: Essays

Lack of ethics a recipe for disaster

In 1776 Adam Smith published The Wealth of Nations, which laid the foundation of the free market economy. Less known is that in 1759 he published The Theory of Moral Sentiments, arguing that conscience was a result of social interaction. At the same time, the theological view of the majority in Scotland was Calvinism, with its austere emphasis on integrity, thrift and hard work. Inherent in Smith's thinking on the free market is the ethical psychology of moral sentiments, set in a background of Calvinism. today, we grasp at the idea of free markets without realizing that to work it must be guided by ethical responsibility. Regulation is required to moderate greed. If those with power acted with ethics of moral sentiments, set into a solid background of Calvinism, we would not need regulation. Pike River mine disaster, Horizon oil rig disaster, and the global financial collapse are all due to the same cause - failure of those in governance or with economic power to act in an ethical manner as regards society. Until we replace what once was given by the Church with self-discipline driven from within such disasters will continue.

244

The new social science paradigm

Prologue to this version

A new intellectual position derived from the proposition that we can only interact with perceptual fields. February 2015.

This paper offers an overview of the foundation intellectual position from which the general theory of psychology is derived. The general theories of psychology, cause and knowledge are intertwined with emergence of the fundamental intellectual position presented here. By that I mean that the position summarised here was used to develop the general theories of psychology and cause and knowledge, while at the same time the theories explain the existence and development of the intellectual position presented here. As mentioned in the body of the book, this is the essential even critical reflexive criteria that must exist between a general theory of psychology and knowledge and in the absent of this criteria any proposed general theory of psychology must be rejected.

Executive summary

The opening proposition is that in the absence of perceptual fields all perception of the external world is lost. It follows that all interaction with the external world is via perceptual fields. The reasoning proceeds to examine the logical consequences of this proposition. It is asserted that if the start position is valid, and the reasoning valid, then the consequences are valid.

The new paradigm that emerges rests on three principles.

The rule of relations which states that a relationship can be established between two objects if and only if each object is independently discernible.

245

Strategic science which states the discussion on any topic must be bounded by what is known of the topic and must account for all factors that could influence discussion on the topic.

That the intellectual tools applied in discussion of any topic (1) must ensure congruence between theory and the aspects of the external world to which the theory is to be applied; (2) must provide understanding of the mechanisms operative within the external world which give rise to events to be explained; (3) must provide causal understanding of the mechanisms; (4) must produce theory with consistent properties having an understood relationship with the circumstance to which the theory applies. Currently the only intellectual tools available that meet this specification are the Ashby tools and resulting Ashby diagrams.

The rules of the new paradigm define a system of ethics and quality standards for all intellectual endeavour. When applied the standards and ethics significantly change crucial aspects of physical science such as the interpretation of quantum physics, redefines the status of mathematics, and asserts time is an aspect of theory but does not exist in the external world. Second, when applied to social science lead to a theory of psychology different from any that has gone before, with a ripple impact throughout social science and aspects of social enquiry often considered independent of social science such as management and organization discussions.

Abstract

The paper is founded on the original work of W Ross Ashby, in his Design for a Brain (Ashby, 1952), supported by Ganzfeld laboratory experiments and the experience of clear air white out.

The intellectual position is logically reasoned from a fundamental foundation, leading to emergence of a new paradigm (Kuhn, 1962) for

246

social science, and a general theory of psychology markedly different from all that has gone before (Note 1: Scholarship).

The new paradigm consists of three propositions (Little, 2014): The rule relations, the principle of strategic science, and Ashby tools and diagrams. The paradigm asserts all science is knoweldge, people produce knowledge therefore any interpretation of any specific knowledge can only be a detail within the overall interpretation of how all knowledge relates to the objects of that knowledge. Hence the interpretation of physics is subject to emergence of a general theory of psychology.

Immediately arising is the extraordinarily narrow intellectual foundation that ignores the greater bulk of historical literature. The emergent paradigm supersedes historical thinking, turning it into the history of social science and psychology, interesting but irrelevant. Intellectual revolutions are understood as part of paradigm shifts (Kuhn, 1962). Psychologically, new paradigms are very difficult demanding significant effort to move beyond one’s own mind to judge alternative points of view.

The issue of judgement is of such significance the first three sections are devoted to it. The paper then follows with introduction, the logical analysis beginning with the irrefutable start point followed by conclusions.

The issue of judgement

The theory in ‘Origin’ (Little, 2014) defines human nature as the capacity to create ideas and apply them in survival. That the central determinant of all human mood and conduct is choice based on the ideas the person holds in mind.

If this is correct, and the thoroughness of the reasoning and irrefutable nature of the start point implies it is, then imagine a person

247

educated in a point of view, spent their career immersed in it, share it with all colleagues and associates, has it reinforced at conferences, workshops and the like. Has published papers in journals on the point of view and has credibility and social esteem even political position based on it. The person thinks in no other fashion and has substantial emotional investment in the point of view.

How does such a person judge an alternative point of view contrary to their own?

The issues implicated in this situation are well known to history as humanity wrestled to accept the world is not flat, the earth is not the centre of the solar system and, today, that evolution not God is responsible for our existence.

There is substantial literature support for the insight that people assess any current circumstance based on historical ideas. This process is defined by Ashby as using ‘borrowed knowledge’ that is applying historic knowledge not immediately derived from the circumstance to interpret the circumstance. (Ashby, 1952).

In 1978 two researchers (Anderson and Prichert 1978) asked fifty people to view a house with the intent of buying it. Then they asked a different group to view a house with the intent of burgling it. Each group was asked to then write down all they could remember about the house. They produced lists so different one would not know they lists were of the same house. I have used this example in management workshops for twenty years and discussed it with hundreds of managers (Little, 2015). The research dramatically drives home the point that ‘seeing’ opportunity depends on point of view, as does emotional reaction, since ideas we use to ‘see’ often has associated emotions. The first thing any manager needs to do to develop themselves is to gain control of the ideas they use to ‘see’ a situation, especially if they seek a ‘fresh’ approach or ‘new’ opportunity. I would

248

refer to this research by encouraging them to remember ‘buy and burgle’ as reminder of the need to ‘beware pre-existing prejudice and turn their mind around and think new ideas’ (Little, 2011).

Colin Turnball (Turnball, 1965) described how when escorting a Pygmy out of the rain forest for the first time in the Pygmy’s life, they stood on a hill and the Pygmy asked ‘what are those insects’. It took the author some minutes to understand that the Pygmy referred to cattle grazing a field some miles away and below them by hundreds of feet. For the Pygmy in the forest with distance measured in feet not miles anything so small had to be insects. People grow and develop in a cultural/physical environment.

The point that we see with our mind not with our eyes is well accepted in popular opinion with many quotes and quips, for example, What we see depends mainly on what we look for attributed to John Lubbock, and a romantic view A man sees in the world what he carries in his heart Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Faust: First Part, which I interpret as what one sees is defined by one’s intention. And again from Goethe, on listening, a person hears only what they understand. And a modern view, of an educator (Rakestraw, Marsha 2012), tells the story of an elderly man outside a village, approached by a traveller wishing to know the nature of the people in the village. The elderly man asks the traveller what type of people they have found in their travels, to which the traveller replies liars, thieves, and scoundrels. The elderly man replies that is the sort of people they will find in the village. A little time later, the elderly man is approached by a second traveller, who asks what sort of people live in the village. Again the elderly man asks what sort of people they have found in their travels. The traveller replies they have found kind, generous and gentle people. The elderly man tells the traveller that is the sort of people they will find in the village. I suggest all adults understand the ‘truth’ of story and its general applicability.

249

The question is whether or not our perceptions are influenced by pre-existing ideas and opinions?

I suggest the commentary above conclusively establishes that our pre-existing ideas and opinions do influence our perceptions. That what we ‘see’ and how we feel about what we ‘see’ is determined by what we already think, and not merely by what is in front of us.

It was understanding of this circumstance, that we see with our mind, and decades of manager development experience that involved this issue, that in part resulted in my building the general theory of psychology on the work of Ashby, since his idea of borrowed knowledge offers an immediate understanding of the problem, and hence offers a solution.

To clarify, a significant issue that any general theory of psychology must resolve is how our current perceptions are influenced by pre-existing ideas and opinions. There are very significant intellectual issues embedded in this question, for example how do ideas exist, what is the link between ideas and neural functioning, what are the mechanisms embedded in this circumstance, what are mechanisms generally...etc. These and other issues are unravelled in this paper and the book derived from this paper (Little, 2014). At this early stage there arises the question of reflexivity; namely, that is this paper is knowledge, people produce knowledge therefore any general theory of psychology must account for how this paper exists. This point is discussed further in the introduction below.

The psychological issue of borrowed knowledge impacts Kuhn’s ideas on paradigms and in particular paradigm shifts. To simplify reference to the issue of borrowed knowledge, I refer to it as bias.

A paradigm shift is simply moving from one set of ideas to another. The psychological mechanisms of borrowed knowledge, bias, are exactly the same mechanisms involved in shift from one set of ideas

250

to another. In short, the issues, implications and conundrums of bias in judgement involving say judging people in the village, or looking at the house to buy or burgle, are exactly the same as those of some of intellectuals or academics judging one set of ideas applicable to a situation compared to another. Bias is a potential issue in academe.

In 1996, Alan Sokal (Sokal 1996) submitted a paper to the editors of Social Text purporting to link quantum variability to consciousness. On publication Sokal announced the paper a hoax. He did it as a test to see if he obeyed all the required formalities of a paper, then the work would be accepted by the editors who were likely to be receptive to the argument in the paper. The circumstance is referred to as the ‘Sokal affair’. There followed a number of research efforts and surveys of the process of peer review, all of which confirmed the usefulness of peer review. I will not proceed with deeper discussion of the Sokal affair, it is fully covered in ‘Origin’ (Little, 2014a).

Unfortunately, none of the surveys or research faced the fundamental, researched and commonly understood issue of psychological bias (Note 5: Peer review). The question is: Do pre-existing ideas bias or prejudice a person depending on the ideas and the relationship of those ideas to that which they are examining? I have already asserted ‘yes’ to this question... therefore why is it thought not to apply in assessing intellectual work? Specifically why is it not thought to apply in peer review, and especially as regard potential paradigm shifts involving major realignment of ideas and dismissal of the greater part of historical literature and lines of thought?

This paper is in response to the intransigence personally encountered in pursuing the ideas outlined herein. I fully accept the need to validate new ideas. I completed the book The Origin of Consciousness by early 2013. I then sought to exchange with people I judged able to assess the ideas, and also pursued publishers. All

251

interactions were a failure, the work was trivialised, dismissed and I was repeatedly patronised (Little, 2014a). Why? I raise this issue not in personal protest, but as practical research. As an outsider to academe I argue my research findings are as apt as those of an academic studying and making observation on society. It happened over a period of several years and with many of the world’s most prestigious intellectual institutions (Note 6: Academic survey).

This paper is an attempt to put the ideas in a shorter context, as I discuss in the introduction, aiming to draw people into the work willing to invest the effort into understanding ideas markedly different to those in which they are deeply inculcated, a term I do not think too strong. Perhaps reread the second paragraph of this section and reflect on the extent the education and work experience of an intellectual/academic in fact restricts original and creative thinking to what Kuhn defines as ‘normal science’ (Kuhn, 1962), which leaves open the question of what happens when normal science is an exhausted line of thinking? The issue and role of our intellectual institutions in society is discussed in some depth in ‘Origin’ (Little, 2014a). I have not addressed the issue/problem of adult/university innovation and creativity in the book, but have held private exchange on it with the Dean of Academic Development at Unitec, Auckland (Note 3: Personal development versus education).

The key point is that as a matter of prior research and practical popular understanding bias is an issue in human affairs. Second, arising from the Sokal affair and my personal experience over at least three years, bias in the exact manner of the prior research and popular understanding is a factor in academe and erodes judgement in peer review and in assessing competing paradigms.

252

The intellectual question now is how do we judge ideas independent of bias? Is it possible to have judgement of ideas inherent within the ideas themselves that do not implicate borrowed knowledge?

Any system for judging a set of ideas that is intrinsic to the ideas must show how current ideas relate to and are derived from pre-existing ideas, second, must bring to account pre-existing ideas that could influence existing ideas. I refer to this as the test of historical flow. Such a system is possible, and logically sound. It is based on the principle of first things first. I refer to the system as ‘strategic science’ which I discuss in the following section.

Strategic science

I fully discuss the principle of first things first in ‘Origin’ (Little, 2014b). I further discuss in greater detail the application of first things first to intellectual endeavours in the appendix to the book, Toward a better standard of judgment than peer review (Little, 2014c). I will not repeat those discussions, and merely summarise them.

The idea of ‘strategic science’ is having clearly in mind the aim of achieving increased verisimilitude of socialised theory (discussed and defined in the text). Then ideas at any point stand in relation to the aim and to that which has gone before. The concept of strategic science does not define selection of the start point, and does not preclude new paradigms derived from a narrow base that result in dismissing much of what may have gone before. No new paradigm will be ‘brand new standalone’, that is there will be pre-existing items and discussion, and pre-existing issues which must be bought to account (discussed in the text as ethical construction). All surrounding lines of thinking may be ignored, which means that all normal science within those line of thinking is exhausted, petered out exactly as a vein of ore peters out. It is possible in principle for the process to dismiss 99+% of all historical thinking that is the new paradigm can be built on a minute percentage

253

of historical literature. This drives the point made in ‘Origin’ (Little, 2014) that science is search for congruence between a socialised theory (reality) and the circumstance to which it applies (Reality) and is fully independent of popularity, politics, and a majority point of view.

First things first is the idea that if one wishes to efficiently build a sound structure then it is best to begin at the beginning. For example one builds a house from the foundations up. The paper (Little, 2014c) illustrates how this principle applies in intellectual endeavour as much as in any other.

Strategic science is precisely defined: All discussion on any topic is bounded by what is known on the topic, and brings to account all issues that could influence the topic. This fully meets the standard of historical flow in that there are no relevant pre-existing ideas not bought to account.

When discussions on a topic are bounded by the principles of strategic science, then I define the discussion as ethically constructed. When ethically constructed then the ideas within themselves have intellectual integrity.

For example, consider discussion of motivation in management literature. Strategic science argues that an accurate general theory of psychology must bear to such a discussions since motivation is merely an aspect of that which moves people, and any accurate general theory of psychology must fully resolve this question. Therefore any discussion of motivation in the absence of an accurate general theory of psychology must be regarded as tentative and speculative until validated from with such a theory. The impact of strategic science is deepened by understanding that a general theory of psychology is a ‘topic’, therefore is subject to the principle of strategic science. Hence to consider any theory of psychology one must check that it itself has been constructed within the ethical framework of strategic science, and

254

if not, then it is not able to be used. Pre-existing issues relative to a theory of psychology would include for example, causality in social science and the relationship between ideas and neural functioning. Hence applying strategic science is to build into all thinking a depth of understanding and completeness as to make the discussion on the topic, in this example, motivation in business, an authority it does not have otherwise, and has a depth of intellectual integrity and intellectual depth that only strategic science can give to it.

Second example, people produce knowledge, quantum physics is knowledge, therefore any accurate interpretation of quantum physics can only be from within an accurate general theory of psychology, and any comment in the absence of such a theory must be regarded as tentative and speculative. Similar arguments apply to ontology, for example whether or not time exists in the external world, or is merely a construct used by humans to measure aspects of the external world. These issues also subject to underlying ideas, for example on causality, status of mathematics as an intellectual tool, understanding of conceptualisation. Any one of these issues if or when resolved, could impact current interpretation of physics and issues of indeterminacy and wave-particle duality.

Quality of output is a crucial issue in commerce (Quality assurance, 2015). One common approach is to ensure that the quality of all components of any product meet quality standard. Then the final check is merely on whether the product ‘fit for function’ and assembled correctly, since it is known all components comply with quality standards. This approach is to ‘build in’ the quality so it is intrinsic.

Karl Popper (Popper, 1972) argued for knowledge without a knowing subject, that knowledge once formed was independent of the knower. Knowledge is created by people. It follows that the principle argued by Popper has the effect of having knoweldge stand in relation

255

to a person exactly as any other manufactured product, such as shampoo, a toaster, a bridge, a rapid rail underground transport system, or an iPhone that revolutionises how we communicate. All known products have an internal structure (the exception currently is the photon treated as a point particle, but this view is questioned in this paper). This implies that knowledge will have an internal structure. This point is considered further in later sections.

The idea of building in product quality by enforcing the quality of components depends on understanding the internal structure of a product. Applying the standard of strategic science to all underlying ideas related to any topic has the exact same effect on the quality of a discussion on a topic as building in quality to the components of any manufactured product. Strategic science is a standard of total quality assurance of intellectual endeavour (Little, 2014a).

When a discussion is not bounded by strategic science, then it should be prefaced with the ethical qualification: In the absence of ... which when created could alter all that is here stated, we speculate that...For example, there is yet no general theory of psychology widely accepted. Therefore all discussions on the interpretation of quantum physics, motivation in business and on the existence of time in the external world, must be prefaced by the ethical qualification: In the absence of a general theory of psychology, which when discovered/created could alter all that is here discussed, it is speculated that...

Within the bounds of strategic science as defined above and in the references, I make the following assertion about the ideas in this paper and in the book ‘Origin’.

256

Statement of intellectual integrity

The ethical standards of strategic science have been applied such that this paper is ethically constructed and the ideas have intellectual integrity in that there is no influential issue not bought to account.

Graham Little

Auckland, New Zealand

February 2015

Introduction

The analysis begins with the irrefutable proposition that for example, in the absence of photons we cannot see. Far reaching insights can be deduced from this single fundamental proposition. However, it is crucial to understand that the relationship between a theory of psychology and knowledge is reflexive. People produce knowledge, therefore a general theory of psychology must fully explain its own existence. The reflexivity is not explored in these notes, but is evidenced in that this is not a ’linear paper’ which means this is not a paper that offers in an ordered linear fashion the factors on which rest the general theory of knowledge. A general theory of psychology cannot be understood without understanding how humanity relates to its environment, and conversely how humanity relates to its environment cannot be understood without a general theory of psychology. What is here is at the beginning of a general theory of psychology, but could not have been written without the solution which emerges from the analysis (Note 1: Scholarship).

Each major sequence (1, 2, 3...etc.) of argument begins with a proposition deducible from the irrefutable start point. And within each

257

sequence, the details then argued/deduced from the proposition that begins the sequence.

The process itself is crucial in the validation of the theory, namely if the start point irrefutable, and the reasoning valid, then any conclusion is valid, even irrefutable. For any particular conclusion, the degree of validity, the verisimilitude, dependent partly on the length of the chain of reasoning to arrive at the conclusion, since the longer the chain the greater the potential for error. A valid theory is one where the start point is secure, the reasoning accurate, clear congruence between variables and events, ethically constructed with all influential factors bought to account, and the theory predicts the correct answer with no or no immediate data refuting the theory. The verisimilar theory is the one best meeting the criteria of validation (Note 4: Scientific knowledge).

There is no comprehensive definition of a ‘general’ theory. It is accepted here, as in ‘Origin’ that a general theory is one that brings to account all factors within a system and accounts for all outputs of that system. This definition of ‘general’ theory adapted from Einstein’s general and special theories of relativity as descriptions of the universe, where the special theory does not include gravity and the general theory does. A general theory of psychology applies to the system person in their environment, leaves out no factor pertinent to the operation of the system, and accounts for all outputs from that system. This definition precisely parallels Einstein. It follows that the scope of a general theory of psychology must apply to everything people do.

This analysis if, or when proved correct, results in far reaching changes for example to social science, psychology, epistemology, mental health policy, spirituality and meditation, science, theories of the universe, theories of atomic and sub atomic particles,

258

understanding of time, understanding of culture, evolution, the place of humanity in the universe.

An example of the scope, the analysis locates an observer in their environment (a human is such an observer). The precision enables full understanding of how the observer creates a complete representation of their environment relative to their perceptual modalities. The analysis leads to the proposition that time is the measure of the period between events and exists only in the representation within the observer and does not exist in the external world. For humans, this proposition means that the theory of space-time is false.

The theory also: Proves the necessary existence of an external world and internal representation of that external world. Analyses the exact state of the external world and the perceptual field arising from it for perception to be possible. Analyses knowledge, showing current views of reductionism wrong, and showing how knowledge must be discontinuous. Presents science as the socially shared activity of the search for congruence between understanding of the external world and the external world itself. Separates perception into the physical immediate perception involving no psychology and full interpretation of perception, involving psychology. Analyses the necessary structure of perception as events and the relationship between events exhibiting no regularities of the environment, and necessary structure of knowledge as categories of events that do capture the regularities of the environment. Shows how the ‘flow of change’ is the fundamental of a dynamic universe. Analyses how mechanisms underlie the flow of change. Shows how a ‘conceptual unit’ is the fundamental manner in which an observer must approach the environment. Analyses how linked categories of events enables prediction of the mechanisms with the links describing the flow of change. Defines linked sets of categories of events as ‘theory’. Shows how pre-existing theories are used in the interpretation of current events, and that this can cause

259

significant psychological difficulties for an observer in the acceptance and understanding of alternative theories.

The originality of the analysis is shown by the many propositions which have never been previously offered. Second, originality due the propositions have not been previously presented in the manner as deduced/inferred from a single irrefutably start point.

This paper is not written in consideration of the reader. The intent is to put the theory conceptually as succinctly as possible. It assumes intent to understand the intellectual position. Hence the paper requires significant reflective thought and effort to fit the pieces together in mind. Understanding this intellectual position is as completing a 2000 piece jigsaw puzzle. Each piece exists relative to other pieces. Full and final understanding of each piece depending on its relationship to the whole. The whole only emerges as the last piece fitted into place.

Irrefutable start point

Start point: All perception of the external world is mediated by perceptual fields.

In the absence of photons the observer cannot see, and in absence of pressure waves in the air they cannot hear, in the absence of chemicals they cannot taste or smell, and in the absence of surface variation they cannot feel (Little, 2014d). There is no evidence or argument to refute this position. It follows any observer does not interact with the external world directly, but via an abstraction of that world defined as a perceptual field. To the extent there is no evidence or argument in refutation, this start point is taken as irrefutable.

Summary of deductions from the start point

Below are the key deductions from the start point.

260

1. All perception must follow a process

2. The two aspects to all perception are (1) physical interaction of the perceptual field with the perceptual modalities of the observer, (2) the interpretation of the image created by the physical process

3. All observers must act assuming their reality is congruent with Reality

4. The observer creates line of action in reality to manage their interaction with Reality

5. To assume reality congruent with Reality implicitly assumes congruence between Reality and the perceptual field

6. For perception to be possible the perceptual field must be differentiated with respect to the perceptual modality

7. There are three types of perceptual field differentiation

8. The theory of differentiated perceptual fields fully accounts for human perception

9. The image/representation of Reality is separate from the interpretation of that image. The formation of an image of Reality in the observer only drives immediate action in genetically learned emergence responses, such a fight or flee response in humans

10. The interaction between an observer and perceptual fields is via events

11. Events are categorised according to their properties

12. Everything experienced by any observer is a unique event

13. Historical knowledge used to classify an event is defined by Ashby as borrowed knowledge

261

14. Prediction of any environment is possible if and only if categories of events are linked in sequences such that the sequence reflects the flow of change

15. A ‘conceptual unit’ is a selected aspect of a perceptual field

16. Events have internal mechanisms that interact with the environment of the conceptual unit producing the properties of the event

17. Categories of events are prioritised by observers

18. To conceptualise the mechanism within any conceptual unit is to define smaller conceptual units within the initial conceptual unit

Discussion of the deductions

1. All perception must follow a process.

Field generator→ perceptual field→ perceptual modality of the observer→ physical image/representation → interpretation of the image resulting in that which the observer understands as their environment.

This flow must follow the start point in linking the external world to the understanding of that world by the observer. The field generator referred to as Reality (capital R), “that which the observer understands as their environment” referred to as reality (small r). The image of Reality is abstracted by the observer from the perceptual field and interpreted giving rise to reality from which the observer then chooses the course of action.

The flow sequence from Reality to action is then summarised: Reality→perceptual field→ image→ reality→ action. This relationship must exist for all species of observers which manage their interaction

262

with their environment based on their internal representation (reality) of the external world (Reality).

In future I will use the single term observer, referring to ‘species which manage their interaction with their environment based on their internal representation (reality) of the external world (Reality)’.

That is, an observer is defined as an example of a species where the flow of energy image → reality → action involves more than singular synaptic connection, thus implicates internal neural/nervous system processing and so implies more than genetic programmed ‘hard wired’ reaction. An amoeba being single celled, is at the extreme end of ‘singular synaptic connection’ with ‘hard wired’ reaction involving no internal processing. It follows humans are ‘observers’ under this definition.

For humans the perceptual modalities are the senses of sight, sound, smell, taste, and touch and perceptual fields therefore consist of photons, air pressure waves, chemicals, and surface variation of objects.

2. The two aspects to all perception are (1) physical interaction of the perceptual field with the perceptual modalities of the observer, (2) the interpretation of the image created by the physical process.

Immediate perception is the physical creation of an image or representation of Reality by interaction of perceptual fields with the perceptual modalities of the observer. Immediate perception is the process whereby a physical Reality in the form of perceptual field, interacts with the physical perceptual modalities of the observer to create within the nervous system of the observer a physically based image/representation of Reality. The observer interprets the image to form their reality as their understanding of Reality. Therefore ontologically there are three distinct things being Reality, perceptual

263

fields, and reality. It follows that an observer does not always perceive that which they immediately perceive. For example, discussing a show with a friend after the event, and the friend refers to some action in the show not noted at the time, but on reflection ...’oh yes’.

3. All observers must act assuming their reality is congruent with Reality.

The observer’s reality is fully independent of the external world (Reality). Changes in reality have no impact on Reality. Changes in Reality impact reality if and only if perceived, and even then if only if the perceived image is interpreted (refer later section for full discussion of this point).

The rule of relations asserts that for a relationship to be established between two objects then each object had to be independently discernible (Little, 2014). Where the objects are not independently discernible then the nature of any relationship can only be a theory until such time the theory is validated by observation of each object and validation of the relationship between them. All observers can only know an external world (Reality) via an internal representation (reality) drawn from an abstraction of that external world (a perceptual field).

Therefore no observer can establish Reality independent of reality. It follows that the only rational position for any observer is to assume the existence of the external world (Reality), understanding that this is a theory, and that within that theory the immediate working assumption is that reality interpreted from the perceived image generated from the perceptual field is consistent with Reality. In summary, observers assume their reality is congruent with Reality.

4. The observer creates line of action in reality to manage their interaction with Reality.

264

The observer makes action choices based on reality. There are obvious survival benefits to species able to test with ideas in reality prior to action in Reality, the species avoids testing with their life. The dominant species will the one with greatest capacity to use reality to manage Reality.

This immediately suggests that the thrust of evolution (in the sense of evolving a dominant species in any ecosystem) is toward the species with greatest capacity to a create realty as congruent representation of Reality, and use reality in survival. In Earth’s ecosystem, the dominant species is humanity.

The mechanism of evolution is via interaction between the physical capacity of species and an aspect of the environment. It follows that the thrust of evolution is the mental development of species via interaction with perceptual fields. This can be summarised as the thrust of evolution is the development of mind.

It is hypothesised that the thrust of evolution is toward the species with the greatest capacity to create and apply ideas in survival (Evolution, 2015) (Note 2: Wikipedia). Upon reflection, it is obvious that using ideas to test actions in mind prior to doing it offers the greatest possible survival opportunities. Further the use of ideas in survival of the species by a group depends on the mental capacity being supported by language to share and teach members of the group the ideas and their use in survival. Then and only then do all share that which the individual learns. This argument means that the dominant species will exhibit neural capacity to create and use ideas in survival and will have a strong group social structure where the ideas of one are shared among the group enabling group survival. At that point species evolution shifts from being physical to operating through that which humans refer to as ‘culture’.

265

5. To assume reality congruent with Reality implicitly assumes congruence between Reality and the perceptual field.

Virtual reality, clear air white out and Ganzfeld effect in the laboratory all prove that this assumption is not always correct. The perceptual field is typically assumed congruent with Reality, if it is not then actions in Reality based on judgement from reality could lead to death.

6. For perception to be possible the perceptual field must be differentiated with respect to the perceptual modality.

Without photons, for example, the observer cannot have sight as we understand it. However, the absence of a perceptual filed is too extreme to be of use in analysis. A natural circumstance is clear air white out, described as perception of a flat featureless plane of white. All depth perception is lost in clear air white out, and unless the observer aware of the situation, they will not know (Sater, 1969, and Mahon, 1981). Clear air white out may be regarded as nature’s virtual reality. The conditions of clear air white out are reproduced in the laboratory in Ganzfeld experiment. Half ping pong balls were placed over the subject’s eyes and illuminated with white light. The subjects then described a flat featureless visual field, and in some extreme cases complete loss of vision (Cohen, 1957). In his paper Cohen concluded: "It may be conjectured that the perceptual mechanism has evolved to cope with a differentiated field, and, in the absence of differentiation, there is a temporary breakdown of the mechanism".

The logical reverse then applies: For perception to be possible the perceptual field must be differentiated with respect to the perceptual modalities of the observer. This logical reverse is taken as the start point for the analysis of perceptual fields. The nature of the necessary differentiation is considered in the next section.

7. There are three types of perceptual field differentiation.

266

Imagine two small squares in perception of any environment. How could one square be different from another? There are only three categories of differentiation.

• Spatial differentiation, one square located in different part of the image on the environment. The differentiation is experienced by the observer as arising from a different locations.

• Aesthetic differentiation, containing all sensory and conceptual input. Colour, shape, and measurements such as pressure. Aesthetic differentiation arises from the detailed qualities of the elements of the perceptual field. For example, for vision, aesthetic differentiation of colour, luminescence, texture, etc., arise from the properties of the photons. Shape, however, is a combination of aesthetic and spatial differentiation. This category could be subdivided, but knowing the path we tread, I know subdivision makes no difference and ask the reader to bear with me.

• Dynamic differentiation that is the content of one square could change with regard the other. In the absence of dynamic differentiation the environment is static as in a painting. When change in one event is followed by change in another event, we have the flow of change through the environment. The flow of change is dynamic differentiation since in the absence of the flow of change, the environment is static as a painting. Because two events typically follow each other, does not mean they are causally connected by the underlying mechanisms. However, it is substantive evidence they are so connected.

These principles are crucial in later sections and lead to the proposition that the Ashby tools and diagrams are a theory of knowledge. The types of differentiation are general applying to all types of perceptual field. These are environmental categories as evident in perceptual fields applying to all observers. Evolution of all aspects of

267

species is in relation to these categories of perceptual fields and the nature of Reality with regard these environmental categories. Time does not itself emerge as a differentiated feature of perceptual fields.

Dynamic differentiation proposes time as a measure of the period between events. Exactly as distance is a measure of spatial differentiation. There are now two theories of time.

• That it is part of the universe which seems the currently accepted position.

• That it is a construct observers use to measure the period between events and therefore is part of an observer’s reality but not part of Reality.

If we are to accept the analysis in ‘Origin’ as accurately locating an observer in their environment, then we must conclude time is an artificial construct in reality pertaining to Reality measuring periods between events in exactly the same manner as length measures distance in spatial differentiation. This theory of the observer in their environment proposes the human theory of space-time is false.

8. The theory of differentiated perceptual fields fully accounts for human perception.

Lack of photons, dark, results in failure of visual perception. But this condition too extreme to be of use. Clear air white out also results in failure of perception. The Ganzfeld effect re-creates the conditions of clear air white in the laboratory. The most controlled circumstance is in Ganzfeld laboratory studies. A constant signal creates a constant image and is interpreted as a flat plane with this interpretation not congruent with Reality. This could also be reproduced in virtual reality, where the subject ‘sees’ a flat plane, whereas the Reality is the computer generating the image. The ‘normal’ perceptual field is spatially, aesthetically, and dynamically differentiated. When reduced to just

268

spatial differentiation, as in clear air white out, depth perception and dynamic perception is lost, the world appears flat, featureless, unchanging.

A more extreme effect in Ganzfeld studies is noted in some subjects where they experienced complete loss of vision. This is explained by the eye having restrict spatial vision, then all forms of differentiation is lost, with the complete loss of sight. The eye covering is still illuminated with white light, hence the loss of sight must result from the interaction between the perceptual field and the modality of sight within the observer. Psychological human visual experiences arising from perception explained by entropy and cybernetics. The proposition is that all sensory modalities operate in the same manner and for all observers.

In cybernetic studies, a constant signal in a channel has the same effect as a zero signal (Ashby, 1952, and references therein). In terms of ‘Origin’, this is described as the flow of change being blocked. The constant signal arising from the visual input which has no spatial, aesthetic or dynamic differentiation fills the communication channel separating the neural visual system from that of interpretation. A non-differentiated perceptual field with restricted visual field results in constant flow filling communication channels such that sub units of vision and interpretation are isolated from each other. There is complete loss of visual perception.

The only explanation that fits the circumstance is that the brain is an ‘entropic device’, understood by rules of normal science thermodynamics (as opposed to quantum physics) hence the term ‘entropic device’, referring to the primary role of entropy in understanding the brain.

The Ganzfeld has typically been interpreted as an aspect of parapsychology (Ganzfeld, 2015). The view here is it has nothing at all

269

to do with psychology, and is solely to do with the operation of the brain which is the mechanism of mind and hence when brain function is distorted it has psychological consequences (this point is elaborated further in later sections and in ‘Origin’). The fact of the Ganzfeld effect and the simplicity and readiness of the explanation (Little, 2014) is offered as empirical evidence on the following points.

That mind is best understood as separate from the brain, but the brain is the mechanism of mind. Therefore any distortion to the operation of the brain will have unusual psychological consequences and that is exhibited (Ganzfeld, 2015). The nature of the distortions will not be explicable in terms of psychology, but will be explicable in terms of the variation and distortions in communication between sections of the brain. The brain operates in coherent functioning sub units, such as speech, vision, interpretation and analysis, emotions, etc. and these sub units significantly communicate as ‘blocks’. Communication between sub units of the brain is fully understood by cybernetic principles, for example constant flow has the same effect as zero flow. The brain is fully understood as a device dominated by entropy defined as the tendency of the energy in any system to seek the lowest available energy states.

This exact same mechanism also explains meditation. Hence within ‘Origin’ theory, mediation is not ‘psychological’ nor any form of ‘higher’ consciousness. The state arises from a focused undifferentiated input into neural structures which has the effect of disassociation those sub-structures within the whole. Meditation is totally a neural phenomenon with no psychological, or spiritual implications other than the experience of it (Little, 2014).

These circumstance are postulated to apply to all observers.

Humanity is different only in the degree with which we have evolved the capacity to create and apply ideas (Little, 2014). The generality of

270

the use of term ‘observer’ is illustrated by considering a flock of migratory birds which use the magnetic field as a sensory directional device in choosing their flight path. The question is whether or not clear air white out conditions would result in the difficulties and danger for them as for a human observer. The dramatic impact of clear air white out is illustrated in the Mount Erebus Air NZ crash where pilots were completely deceived by that which they were observing and flew directly into the side of Mount Erebus and 257 people died (Mahon, 1981). The discussion in Sater (Sater, 1969) illustrates how detailed knowledge enables pilots to fly safely in clear air white out, illustrating how ideas enables survival behavior.

The implication that for perception to be possible then the perceptual field had to be differentiated relative to the perceptual modality of the observer has been noted in the literature since 1957, reinforced in 1969, and again in 1981. In addition the term photon came into common use around 1930, but it has been accepted for hundreds of years that light consisted of particles, but this complicated by light also exhibiting wave properties. The theories in ‘Origin’ are substantially the reasoned consequences of these long standing literature observations reinforcing the extraordinarily narrow historical base on which the theory is constructed.

The theory of differentiated perceptual fields of vision then fully accounts for depth perception and the dynamic nature of the environment (with human observers).

• No photons, no visual perception.

• Undifferentiated photons, clear air white out, where reality is a flat plane of white typically not congruent with Reality which may be a landscape of rivers, trees, valleys and mountains.

271

• Undifferentiated photons. Ganzfeld effect with reduced visual field so spatial differentiation is reduced. It is not dark, there is a field of undifferentiated photons impacting the eyes, but the subjects report complete loss of vision. Accounted for by separation of visual perceptual system from the interpretative neural system due the channel of communication flooded with an unchanging signal blocking the flow of change.

• Spatial plus aesthetic differentiated perceptual field of photons, the environment experienced as a painting. The theory specifies depth perception depends on spatial and aesthetic differentiation in the perceptual field. In the absence of aesthetic differentiation depth perception is lost.

• Spatial plus aesthetic plus dynamic differentiated perceptual field of photons, the environment experienced as is ‘normally’ experienced.

This sequence asserts the theory of differentiation of perceptual fields as necessary and sufficient.

It is proposed that these principles apply to all types of perceptual field and to all observers describing the essential structure of the relationship between a perceptual field and the perceptual modalities of the observer.

9. The image/representation of Reality is separate from the interpretation of that image. The formation of an image of Reality in the observer only drives immediate action in genetically learned emergence responses, such a fight or flee response in humans.

If observers interact with perceptual fields, and we assume physical things influence physical things, then the representation of Reality is first a physical image in neural structures. Also given humans may

272

immediately perceive that which they do not perceive, then it follows the representation and the interpretation and analysis of that representation are in different neural blocks. It is the interpretation that builds reality, which is the observers understanding of Reality. Separation of image and interpretation of the image is also inferred by the complete loss of vision induced under specific and controlled Ganzfeld circumstances where known factors were enforced and produced the predicted result. The ‘image’ is of a flat plane, yet we remain able to ‘interpret it’, and when we understand, we know it is in a Ganzfeld experiment, or clear air white out.

The image is generated in the perceptual modalities on the brain. Interpretation is the aspects of brain involving categorisation, judgment, and choice of response. This aspect of the brain is referred to as mind. Separation of mind and brain, yet mind an aspect of brain operation, immediately implies the mind is not ‘reducible’ to the physical operation of the brain.

This implication raises significant issues in epistemology, posing the question: If we have mind, and brain is the mechanism of mind, then why is the operation of mind not ‘intellectually’ reducible to the mechanism of the brain? The same question in general terms: What exactly is the link between perceived events and the mechanisms of those events? (See later sections where ‘event’ and ‘mechanism’ are fully defined.) The questions are considered in full in ‘Origin’, and results in the proposition that knowledge is not continuous but exists in domains, each domain defined by particular type of variable called a coherent variable.

10. The interaction between an observer and perceptual fields is via events.

Without dynamic differentiation the environment is static as in a painting. Dynamic differentiation is the ‘flow of change’ through the

273

environment reflected in flow of change through the perceptual field. Each point of change is where some aspect of the perceptual field changes. We can select the term event and define it relative to a change in the observer’s reality giving the following possible definitions. An event is change in:

• External world, Reality.

• External world, Reality plus perceptual field.

• External world, Reality plus perceptual field plus perceptual modality of observer.

• External world, Reality plus perceptual field plus perceptual modality of observer plus change in the observer’s reality.

For all observers, unless the change in a perceptual field created change in the perpetual modality, then for that observer there was no change. Second, the change in the perceptual image is not always noted. Therefore the decision is to define an event in relation to the physical changes of immediate perception. This leads to the definition of an event: A change in Reality creating change in the perceptual field in turn creating change in the perceptual image in the observer.

An events occurs in this place, in this way, and in relation to all previous events. Each event is unique, but this is seldom nominated in the classification, hence a sunrise is called sunrise, not sunrise say, number 666, 444, 232, 161. Hence it follows no event can be repeated in that no event can have the exact same sequence of prior events. If a first time event, then that can never be repeated. If a subsequent example of the event, say the 456 example, then no event can ever again have 455 prior similar events.

11. Events are categorised according to their properties.

274

A category is formed by listing the range of properties of the event. Then any event is so categorised if it the properties falls within the appropriate range. Properties of categories are the experienced empirical properties of events. Categories are formed by grouping properties that typically characterise the event. For example, the properties of sunrise can be bright and red. Then along with other properties, an event is classified sunrise, or could be classified like sunrise. If the communication receiver person understands sunrise, then they will understand the event as it was experienced by the observer. To fall within a category, any new event must match an appropriate range of properties. All properties of events can only be described in terms of spatial, aesthetic or dynamic differentiation of perceptual fields.

Categories of events may have a very large range of properties. For example, a sunrise may vary from dull, overcast slow emergence of light through the clouds, to brilliant colours and a radiant glow of a grand new day. Categories are the empirical properties of event, defining the event.

All categories arise by systemising and grouping properties of events. The process is formally defined as conceptualisation. Categories are referred to as ideas. Ideas defining events give regularity beyond the event itself. Ideas can be about ideas. Properties of a category are ideas about ideas. Collection of ideas is ordered referred to as knowledge (Little, 2014). Ideas enable communication. “I went to Joan’s wedding”. The wedding was different from the last and will be different from the next, but both speaker and listener exactly understand each other.

12. Everything experienced by any observer is a unique event.

275

Henceforth I will use the term event without qualification that is inferring all the properties as intended.

All events are the end result of the mechanisms that underlie events and are the physical necessity which results in the event. The events themselves are not regularities, they are the result of the regularities. Regularities of mechanisms are only captured in categories of events (ideas). In science, for example all observation is of events. All empirical data derived from events. We can refer to categories as variables, then all events are the empirical values of those variables as exhibited in the properties of the event. For example, we can refer to sunrise as the variable. The qualities of today’s sunrise the value of the variable as expressed empirically in the event today.

All observers only experience values of variables. There is no regularity of the environment in recording of events. This principle is very important in creating a general theory of psychology, where, for instance, we experience fear, or anger, or love, it follows none of these can be a variable as a matter of principle, they can only be values of a variable. In this case, the variable is emotion, and the experienced emotions are values of that variable.

13. Historical knowledge used to classify an event is defined by Ashby as borrowed knowledge.

Any new event can only be categorised by creating a new category, or by using existing historical categories. Existing categories of events are from historical experience and is knowledge that does not arise immediately from the current event. It follows that that in the absence of creating new categories, observers apply their historical understanding and experience to manage current circumstance.

Typically, observer’s use their past to manage their present. This principle precisely accounts for difficulties of a Kuhn paradigm shift in science, and for related change management in commerce. For

276

example, academics inculcated into the accepted manner of thinking, the current theories, interacting with some new analysis, for example, typically attempt to do so based on their historical experiences and understanding when the analysis is original and steps beyond what they know. While parts of it may relate to historical analyses, that part must be located within the jigsaw that is the whole, elsewise there is no real understanding merely limited reaction. Equally important to understand is how the reactions of people occurs and how they need manage it, this follows since they are human observers and the theory must account fully for exhibited conduct by all observers. This is an example of the reflexive requirement of any theory of psychology and/or the intellectual position enabling creation of such a theory.

14. Prediction of any environment is possible if and only if categories of events are linked in sequences such that the sequence reflects the flow of change.

This follows since observers interact via events, these events have properties, and by categorising events the observer can link one category of event to another. Thus when an event experienced it is categorised, the category linked to a category in the next event and thus predict the direction of the flow of change in the environment, which is to say to predict the next event. For this to hold in any observer, then the reality of the observer must meet three criteria.

First, categories of events conceptualise regularities of the environment. That is, all events which fall into any category must display some minimum of the properties of the category. This also means that the properties of a category must be consistent. Second, the event meets minimum list of properties of the category. This may mean the event fall into a sub category within the overall category. Third, categories are linked such as to indicate the flow of change through the categories and predict which events will come next. Hence

277

the observer is warned of impending environmental condition. For example, a sunrise with very particular properties known to the observer giving forward warning of changing weather conditions and the prospect of rain. Here, the subcategory of sunrise linked by flow of change to rain. The flow of change may be understood without knowledge of the underlying mechanism. This is explored in more detail below in relation to the veracity of quantum physics.

Culture and group understanding, learning, teaching and child rearing are fully implicated at this point, since the observer may not have personally experienced the details of the type of sunrise before, but has been taught it by others of the group who gave them knowledge of what to note and what it meant.

15. A ‘conceptual unit’ is a selected aspect of a perceptual field.

A conceptual unit can be and understood as a ‘square’ placed on a perceptual field to isolate/identify particular events. This must follow, since the observer stands before the perceptual field and to communicate about it the observer must categorise it isolating units within the field and relate those units to other units in the field and or units to follow. Sunrise is such a ‘conceptual unit’.

To enable prediction of the environment, it is not necessary to know how sunrise occurs, merely how certain properties of the conceptual unit indicate what is going to happen next. For convenience, conceptual units so drawn on a perceptual field are referred to as ‘boxes’, or ‘squares’, for example the analysis of the types of differentiation of perceptual fields proceeded by defining two separate and distinct squares on the field, then analysed how they could be different. This is the process of conceptualisation, a crucial intellectual process that results in the dominance of humanity in this ecosystem.

278

We conceptualise Reality more effectively than any other known species.

16. Events have internal mechanisms that interact with the environment of the conceptual unit producing the properties of the event.

This arises because all observers must stand before the perceptual filed and classify it. The first step is categorisation of events. Each event is itself then a conceptual unit, a square drawn on the perceptual field by the observer. To understand that which is in the square is to draw smaller squares within the first square. At each stage the intent is to conceptualise the flow of change. Each step is then the conceptualisation of the processes whereby the step above is manifest. The processes whereby any event is manifest is defined as the mechanisms of that event. Mechanisms are the inherent regularity, or the necessity inherent in the environment.

Mechanism in Reality is unknown and never experienced. All observers can ever know of mechanism is a linked set of ideas in reality that offer explanation and understanding. That is, an observer can only have a reality relative to that thought to underlie an event. Prediction by all observers depends on creation of linked categories of events. Linked categories of events is referred to as a theory.

A theory is the conceptualisation of the mechanism to identify the variables that offer the best categorisation of the event, with those variables linked such to accurately track the flow of change through those variables. Theory is a set of ideas in reality and is the observer’s best understanding of the mechanisms, hence is said to be the cause of the events within the conceptual unit to which the theory applies.

Causality is the extent the observer has conceptualised the regularities of the mechanisms in Reality, defined as ‘what is understood in reality of mechanisms in Reality that underlie events’.

279

For example: We experience sun rising and setting, however that does not justify assuming it will rise tomorrow. This is causal expectation as analysed by Hume that is we cannot legitimately attach causation to the empirical events as experienced. However within ‘Origin’ theory we now add the theory of the mechanisms that underlie the sun rising and setting, solar system rotating about the sun, gravity, planets ...etc. The theory of the solar system and gravity is the causal understanding of the mechanisms whereby the sun rises and sets.

The reality for any observer consists of interlinked categories of events (ideas) enabling prediction and management of the environment, associated with the observer emotions about the ideas. It follows reality for any observer is not empirical, not that which is experienced, but conceptual structure derived from the events experienced by the individual and/or learned from the group, integrated with the emotions of the individual. All current events are then viewed in relation to a pre-existing reality, from which emerges a new reality. This proposition is projected to ‘typically’ hold, since the creation of new categories of events in order to classify some new events is the exception.

If reality1 was the pre-existing reality, and E the event, then reality2 is after the event and either integrates E, or ignores E. Either way the pre-existing reality, reality1 is changed, in that if E ignored, then in the reality after E, reality2, the observer knows it has been ignored and that makes reality2 different from reality1.

In the modern world, the ideas can be ideas about ideas. For example, TV, movies, Star Trek, role model, culture, schooling, or quantum physics. The complexity of thinking of the modern mind does not alter the above arguments. Complexity does not change the principles merely represents the degree of the interaction between the principles.

280

17. Categories of events are prioritised by observers.

If an observer had no priorities they would not know which to attend to in any environment. It follows that for all observers there must be an attention system linked to priority categories of events. This system of attention must be linked to immediate perception and have physical correlates within the perceptual modality of the observer. In short, survival demands the aspects of perceptual fields can draw the observer’s attention when needed. This analysis leads to there being certain neurons that when activated result in a cascade through the observer’s brain and draw the observer’s attention. As already pointed out, the ‘Origin’ theory proposing the fundamental of human nature as the capacity to create ideas and use them in survival, immediately implicates the group and hence culture. It would then logically follow that any system of ‘attention’ neurons in a human likely involves both genetics and culture. So the system of attention is at first genetic then shaped by the culture of the individual which structures the genetics in relation to the likely environment in which they live.

18. To conceptualise the mechanism within any conceptual unit is to define smaller conceptual units within the initial conceptual unit.

All observers must relate and understand Reality via reality. A conceptual unit is a selected aspect of differentiated perceptual field defined in reality, with implied reference to Reality. No observer can interact with perceptual field from the ‘other side’... that is all interaction is via events, and no observer can know Reality or its mechanisms directly. An observer stands before the perceptual field, subdivides it to select conceptual units. The observer has no choice in this process, since all interaction with Reality is via perceptual fields, and the interaction with perceptual fields is via events. It follows that any analysis within any conceptual unit is via the same process, hence the analysis within any conceptual unit can only proceed by creating

281

smaller conceptual units standing in the exact same relationship to the observer as the original conceptual unit.

To conceptualise the mechanism underlying any event1 necessarily involves identifying the categories of events (event1.1, event1.2, etc.) within the event1, and linking those categories to describe the flow of change. Conceptualisation infers an infinite regress of theory.

Physical necessity lies in the mechanisms. Cause is our understanding of the mechanisms. Mechanism is intrinsic to an event. The only termination of this principle is if, or when are found events with no theory of underlying mechanisms. Theory is an act of the observer. Assume event E, has no theory of mechanism. It follows that the non-existence of theory may reflect that there is no mechanism underlying E in Reality, but equally may reflect that the observer has not yet been able to create conceptual units within E such as to accurately conceptualise the mechanism.

The universal mechanistic postulate states there is always a mechanism. This is interpreted as underlying all events1 are other events2. The observer must stand in relation to events2 in the exact same manner in which they stand relative to events1. Underlying events2 are other events 3... Does the regression end?

All human intellectual history has uncovered mechanisms.

Quantum mechanics currently proposes no mechanism for sub atomic events, presenting them as probabilistic. Within this intellectual position, probability is a means to coping with variation of distribution of flow of energy via mechanisms we do not understand and for which we have no theory. We use mathematics and details of the start point to enable analysis and prediction of the flow of change from one event to the next. This is merely using probabilities to predict the flow of change between events with unknown mechanisms. This works if the distribution of the flow of change from any specified event is

282

consistent. Given the start point, we can predict the next event with significant accuracy, including the relative probability of the next event being Ea and Eb, but this does not mean there are no mechanisms. The accuracy and consistency of results infers a mechanism which is initiated by the start point, and able to be predicted by the probability equations. But to repeat, this does not mean probability is intrinsic to the universe. To paraphrase Einstein, we do not know if God plays dice or not, but assuming He does will restrict us finding out.

On evidence of this analysis combined with the fact humanity has always uncovered mechanisms, it is proposed that the universal mechanistic postulate holds as the most practical working assumption, namely there is always a mechanism. Our problem is to conceptualise it.

A consequence of this argument for example, is that the search for the Higgs boson as the fundamental unit of matter is questionable, in that this theory predicts that as we are able to more tightly define and measure periods between events (time) and more tightly observe smaller volumes of space, then there will appear smaller and yet smaller particles. Perhaps one day we may find events where there is no underlying mechanisms, but the arguments in support of that position will be long and arduous given our 50,000 years of intellectual history where we have always found mechanisms. I suggest it inappropriate yet to even infer the universal mechanistic postulate is false, which of course calls to account the interpretation and place of quantum physics in our scientific understanding of the universe.

To summarise: Events are defined by the observer depending on the empirical qualities experienced by the observer. Categories of events are ideas that aspects of that empirically experienced. For example ‘dull grey’ sunrise, could be categorised as ‘colour of the sunrise’ and is described as a variable describing sunrise. Variables cannot in principle ever be experienced. All experience consists of the

283

values of variables in relation to events. All events have underlying mechanisms whereby the event is manifest. That is all the properties of all events are generated by mechanisms giving rise to the properties experienced. But, there is no generality in the empirical properties experienced relative to any one event. Generality depends on the variables created by grouping types of empirical experience to build categories. The mechanism of any event is then the flow of change through linked variables that categorise experience. Further one event translates into another if and only if the early event has variables in common with the later event or has variables able to directly influence variables in the later event. A system of variables describing the flow of change through some system (conceptual unit) is described as the theory of the mechanisms of that system.

Ashby tools of conceptualisation

The verisimilar theory has preferably an irrefutable start point, is soundly reasoned, ethically constructed with all relevant factors bought to account, and the theory congruent with the Reality to which it applies (Note 4: Scientific knowledge).

The start point is a matter of judgment and insight. It can be perhaps thought of in the same manner as the judgement of entrepreneur is regarded in commerce. It is the founding insight. Following Kuhn, the judgement may identify and correct what were previously assumed and be a revolutionary paradigm shift, or the judgement may be within existing assumptions and understanding and hence be ‘normal’ science.

The process of conceptualisation is to identify a system of categories of events (referred to as variables) that aptly reflect the essential features of the system under study. The system under study itself a conceptual unit drawn on a perceptual field encompassing or defining a set of events. The intent is to conceptualise a theory that best describes the mechanisms understood or accepted to underlie the

284

events, and thereby account for the causality of those events (this must be read within context, the terms all derived from the discussion above).

The theory itself consisting of apt variables linked such as to describe the flow of change through the system. Apt variables that change in sequence as the perturbation moves through the system is the theory of the mechanism that underlies the events. The mechanism is the necessity in Reality, forever unknown, and the theory is what we understand of the mechanism, our conceptualisation of it, hence is referred to as the cause of the events.

Given that to identify underlying mechanisms is to identify events within events within events within..., and assuming the universal mechanistic postulate is true, then causality is an infinite regress.

Selecting the start point is an intellectual entrepreneurial judgment. The start point defines the initial conceptual unit to be studied. Selection of variables, categories of events, is also an act of judgement that entails knowledge of the types of variables that offer congruence with the system under study, a degree of common sense, an eye to parsimony, yet the selection offers a sense of completeness that upon reflection and with imagination one can ‘see’/sense how the variables likely account for the range of events under study. The creation of the theory is to link the variables such as to describe the flow of change from one event to the next. Following the flow of change from one variable to the next can be done empirically, by experiment, or can be done in imagination by thought experiment.

The final step is the testing of the theory to assess the accuracy with which it accounts for the events defined in the initial conceptual unit. For example, begin with an opening set of values of the variables, then change one of the values and assess if the theory account for the observed events. Accuracy of result is the end game, but as in

285

commerce, there must be some latitude and acceptance of the learning process. Hence Popperian falsifiability is important, since we know all swans are not white, but a single or even a few refutations does not necessarily mean the theory false. And conversely, any number of positive results does not necessarily mean the theory is true, since accuracy of result is only one factor, the other being congruence of how the theory explains the results, and whether or not that congruence offers insight into the mechanisms, that is offers insight into the workings of Reality.

It is this conclusion involving congruence that leads to the questioning of quantum theory where there is no ‘natural’ congruence between the variables and Reality (Little, 2014). The interpretation of quantum physics was determined at conferences, and among other decisions on the interpretation, it was proposed that Reality was indeterminate. Indeterminacy was not universally accepted at the time, and although it remains subject to discussion, it is the largely accepted view today (Copenhagen interpretation, 2015).

There now are three questions: (1) what intellectual tools parallel this process? (2) What is the status of mathematics? (3) What intellectual tools lead the conceptualisation process?

1. What intellectual tools parallel the process arrived at in the analysis?

The process of Ashby, referred to in ‘Origin’ as Ashby tools, proceeds as follows. (Little, 2014 and Ashby, 1952): Defining the conceptual unit.

• Identifying variables that best characterise the mechanism within the conceptual unit.

• Apply the process of primary operations by placing a perturbation on one variable, and track the flow of change

286

through the variables. This can be done experimentally or via thought experiment.

• Categorise the flow of change into immediate effects where the change in one variable has an immediate effect on another, or ultimate effects where the change in one variable ultimate effects another.

These steps precisely parallel the discussion above arising from the intellectual position summarised in the paper. This relationship stresses the issue of reflexivity as it applies in the system under study. Upon reading Ashby in the 1980’s I immediately saw he had grasped something not previously recognised, that his tools were a general theory of knowledge, and saw immediately that the general theory of psychology I was striving to create had to explain Ashby’s tools, while at the same time I could apply Ashby tools to build the theory that had to explain itself. The first output were the papers at the philosophy web site (Little, 1999), these were then used as notes to write ‘Origin’ (Little, 2014), which was then used to write this paper.

Ashby tools give rise to Ashby diagrams having precise and defined properties providing high degree of congruence between reality and the Reality to which they apply (Little, 2014, and Little 1999a). Ashby diagrams are the conceptualisation of the flow of change through systems of linked variables with the linkages classified into immediate effects and ultimate effects. This structure gives rise to the conceptual hierarchy of theories where immediate effects are the understanding of the mechanism of the ultimate effects, hence immediate effects underlying any system of ultimate effects is said to the be the cause of the ultimate effects.

2. What is the status of mathematics?

287

The analysis in this paper begins with the irrefutable proposition that all interaction between an observer and the external world is mediated by perceptual fields. The imagery is that humanity stands before perceptual fields and must conceptualise it, identify events within events, and from the theory that emerges must then deduce the mechanisms of the field generator defined as Reality.

The question is why should the universe follow the human system of mathematics? The location of humanity in the universe within ‘Origin’ states that it does not, at best mathematics parallels human conceptualisation of the perceptual field, in short mathematics parallels human reality as our knowledge of Reality. (Little, 2014).

Mathematics can be regarded as a reliable indicator of events in Reality if and only if the variables in the mathematics are directly congruent with Reality. For example E=mc² relates variables regarded as ‘existing’ in Reality, whereas Ψ does not and has to be ‘interpreted’. The issue is at what point mathematics ceases to lead the conceptualisation process and begins offering relationships that have no physical ontological existence, and hence offer no insight into developing congruence of scientific theory and Reality. For example is string theory a mathematical formulation that has overreached itself?

3. What intellectual tools lead the conceptualisation process?

‘Origin’ discusses three levels of conceptualisation. First, selecting of a course of action. Shall we take this route or that? Second, use of processes to order knowledge, such as decision making. Third and finally, when the creative process is turned back of itself, to produce tools able to lead conceptualisation.

No other known species exhibits third level conceptualisation that is no other known species has intellectual tools that lead its conceptualisation process. This means all other known species exhibit

288

only first and second level conceptualisation. For example, they can select courses of action and learn which is the most favoured, and they can for example exhibit problem solving behaviour.

The most complete expression of the gap between humans and all known species is the content of a university library, which is largely devoted to the conceptualisation of the environment and universe. The content of a university library built on advanced conceptualisation, but in particularly separates humanity from all known species for example with calculus, and quantum physics.

Mathematics was the first system able to lead the conceptualisation process. E=mc2 was written before discovered empirically. But the crucial point is that E, m and c are all accepted as variables of Reality. So the mathematics is exploring linkages between accepted existing variables.

If the imagery of ‘Origin’ is correct then all observers stand before perceptual fields seeking congruence between their understanding of Reality, their reality, derived from the field, and the Reality assumed to lie behind the field. It follows mathematics is a crucial tool to explore linkages between variables in reality, and to uncover relationships between those variables not previously noted, but if and only if the variables themselves offer congruence with Reality.

Ashby tools are the second system of third level conceptualisation tools.

Ashby tools offer direct and the most secure method of building theory congruent with the flow of change in Reality. The reasons are that Ashby tools direct variable selection congruent and apt in relation to the conceptual unit under study. Primary operations is the process of applying a perturbation to a variable in the system and then noting which variables change in which sequence, ranking the linkages into immediate and ultimate effects. Therefore, the theory, the Ashby

289

diagram, does not merely model the flow of change, it is the flow of change through the variables.

It follows that Ashby diagrams (Little, 2014) arising from applying Ashby tools, that are ethically constructed, are the most congruent and complete representation available of the mechanisms that drive events.

Ashby tools as a theory of knowledge

Ashby tools capture and systematise the natural processes of human conceptualisation.

I suggest that for any human activity, if we think about it, clarify it, systematise it, then we have the opportunity to do it better than we did prior to efforts to get it clear. Ashby tools fall exactly into the category by systematising and clarifying how to conceptualise and create theory offering derived from the perceptual field that is most congruent with the Reality which lies behind the field.

Ideas are created from events by using the properties of the events to categorise events. The categories are ideas and/or variables, or both. All categories of events are ideas. All variables are categories of events, and hence ideas. But not all ideas are variables.

Knowledge is defined as ideas ordered in relation to a topic (Little, 2014). It is the ordering that creates knowledge as opposed to a scattering of ideas. Variables are categories of events whereby the properties are ordered and defined tighter than in personal use, and usually socially agreed. Hence variables are special ideas of science, used in seeking socially agreed congruence between theory and Reality.

In the same manner that passing, running with the ball, and retention of the ball are theory of football, so Ashby tools are a theory of knowledge, useful to everyone, but of particular relevance to science as precise tools of theory creation, producing theory (Ashby diagrams)

290

with strong congruence and of known and well defined properties bearing very precise congruence with the Reality to which they apply (Little, 2014, and Little, 1999a).

In an earlier section was proposed that strategic science is a system of total quality assurance for intellectual endeavour, and should be part of the responsibility of the leadership in all intellectual institutions exactly as it is part of the leadership of any organization delivering product to the public (Little, 2014a). A key aspect of that discussion is understanding pre-existing ideas as the ‘components’ of any current idea, and if the components are of a high quality standard, then the current product is of high standard and fit for purpose if and only if the components assembled correctly.

Understanding how some ideas are components in some current idea is one aspect of understanding the structure of knowledge. Specifically, in terms of the theory in ‘Origin’, the structure of ideation describes the ‘content-structure’ of knowledge, and is first, second and third level conceptualisation.

The other aspect of the structure of knowledge is the conceptual-structure of knowledge as expressed in the immediate effect and ultimate effect relations (Ashby, 1952, Little, 2014) between variables. The conceptual-structure of knowledge has the effect of placing the content-structure of knoweldge into conceptual hierarchies where some ideas are necessarily lower than others. For example a theory of psychology in relation to a discussion on motivation in business, and causality in relation to a theory of psychology. The conceptual-structure of knowledge is third level conceptualisation (Little, 2014), unobserved in any other known species, it is this that separates humanity from all known species,

The structure of knoweldge is further complicated by knowledge necessarily existing in domains defined by coherent variables (Little,

291

2014, and noted in sections above). Some domains are then the underlying mechanisms of the higher domain. Within each domain ideas are ranked by content- and concept-structure, and similarly domains themselves are ranked by both content- and concept-structure as determined by the coherent variable defining the domain.

Conclusion

All science is knowledge. People create knowledge. It follows that any interpretation of any science can only be a detail within the overall understanding of how all knowledge relates to the objects of that knowledge. A general theory of psychology explores a conceptual unit defined as ‘a person in their environment’. The conceptual unit is merely a set of events. From the start point we can only stand before the perceptual field and draw on it a circle that surrounds the events we wish to study. Then we explore events within the events, within ... But this is psychological, so how can we do this without understanding how we are to do it?

Then there are the issues that if not integrated into the solutions could alter them, such as the relationship between mind and neural activity, cause in social science, cause in general, definition and understanding of knowledge, process of conceptualisation and Ryle’s regress, nature of perception, and analysis of the attention mechanism.

The theory is the conceptualisation of the mechanism underlying the events evident within the circle on the perceptual field called ‘person in their environment’. It is an ‘eye of God’ approach, looking at a person in their environment, but knowing that any solution must equally apply to self, looking at the system person in their environment.

Finally, if the theory is to be a valid general theory it must account for all outputs from the system. Nothing can be exempt. This means for example the theory must reach across all social science, since all of

292

social science is created by people. It must account for why quantum physics is as it is. It must tell us what does and does not exist, therefore if time exists it will direct understanding and if it does not, then how and why it does not. It must account for why we are as we are, why we evolved, and why we are dominant. Do we have a spirit and what does that mean? What is mental health and mental illness... but mental illness defined in terms of why and in what way can the theory fail, and what we can do about that. Why does humanity aggregate? What evolutionary reason lies behind the trait? What is human nature? Where did human nature come from? What exactly is out basic genetically driven fundamentals and how do they influence choices in our lives? Do we really have choice? If so how? How do ideas exist, and how do they influence us? And where did they come from?

Nothing can be exempt. And without this reach then by definition it is not a general theory of psychology.

The start point is understanding the consequences of our fundamental place in the universe. We stand before a perceptual field...

Notes

1. Scholarship: It is crucial to give recognition to sources. However, I do not complete scholarship for ‘political’ reasons. I have had numerous advice that this or this person needs afforded scholarly recognition since they are influential. I decline, partly in line with the review of the Sokal affair, where exactly political scholarship was offered, and contributed to poor ideas being published. I offer reference to those works that have influenced my thinking. A full citation of my background is in ‘Origin’ (fourth edition), pages 433-435, and in the Prologue and Background, pages 7-44. Secondly, the intellectual position is derived from an extraordinarily narrow intellectual base yet the reasoning successfully progressed to offer a complete solution to the

293

underlying mechanisms of a person in their environment, including resolution of all factors that bear to such a solution, such as perception, causality, and knowledge. No other historical line of thinking has achieved this result. These historical lines of research (Psychodynamics, behaviourism, cognitive and humanist psychologies) were researched and found limited, in that no progress seemed possible over and above that completed by the researchers (Little, 1985). These unsuccessful (in terms of failing to achieve significant progress beyond that of the founders) lines of thinking were abandoned around mid to late 1980s, as emerged understanding of the application of the issue of social science causality, the necessary reflexivity between psychology and knowledge, and the need for clear, systematic intellectual tools beyond mathematics. This development is summarised in ‘Origin’, in the Background, pages 11-33.

2. Wikipedia: I use Wikipedia as a reference source of a general and overview nature. I do so in full understanding of that which I choose to do. I regard shared knowledge as a crucial aspect of human development, therefore any aspect of Wikipedia related to overview and general understanding should be able to be appreciated by any informed reader, and if offered by appropriate authorities, such academic institutions, then people have a right to be able to depend on what is offered. For instance the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy... a source I accept and respect, and one in which people should be able to have faith in the aptness and accuracy of observations they offer. Wikipedia statements by appropriate authorities ought to be a reliable start point for any research. Beyond appropriate authorities, then caveat emptor must apply. I accept the need to date the reference, since human knowledge is dynamic, and the insight of yesterday, may not be the insight of today.

294

3. Personal development versus education: Refer to the CV on LinkedIn (Little, 2015) for a summary of the research experience enabling personal growth in large numbers of delegates with a single tutor. Universities currently focus significantly more on ‘disciplines’ than personal development, whereas the research referred to reverses this priority. I have recently exchanged with Dr Ray Meldrum, Executive Dean Academic Development at Unitec, Auckland, on the application of the research applying personal development processes to large groups into a university context, in part dealing exactly to the issues raised here, aiming to build people with minds/thinking capacity supported by the emotional structures enabling proactivity as priority over education building knowledge in them.

4. Scientific knowledge: Within the theory in ‘Origin’, the primary genetic base of humanity is the evolved capacity to create knowledge and apply it in survival to the extent that the theory defines this capacity as ‘human nature’ (Little, 2015a). Knowledge is created by people. It follows that any general theory of psychology must account for the creation of knowledge, its application, and its link to both perception and emotions of the observer. Further, that humans use the internal representation (reality) of the environment (Reality) to select a course of action. It immediately follows that the greater the congruence between reality and Reality the more apt the course of action. It further follows that all humans aiming to survive, seek congruence between reality and Reality. In ‘Origin’, science is defined as the socially shared effort to develop congruence between understandings in reality of the mechanisms understood to underlie all perception of Reality. The expression ‘understanding in reality of the mechanisms understood to underlie all perception of Reality’ is defined as ‘theory’. Therefore in ‘Origin’ science is defined as the

295

socialised search for theory congruent with the mechanisms of Reality. It follows that the issues of verisimilitude of a theory are the issues of congruence between theory and Reality. The analysis results in questioning the application of mathematics in absence of clear congruence of variables being manipulated by the mathematics (Little, 2014f). It follows that priority in assessing a scientific theory are (1) start point is secure, (2) the system to be studied is clearly defined and all relevant factors bought to account, (3) the reasoning is sound, (4) congruence of the variables with Reality, (5) the extent the linkages between the variables reflects the flow of change through Reality, (6) that the theory predicts the correct result (7) there is no or initially only limited result that refutes the theory (since limited refutation may merely reflect learning and refinement of theory). In ‘Origin’, every person is intrinsically a scientist. It follows that science is the collective pursuit of congruence within socially agreed rules and ethics, with each scientist acting exactly as everyone need act, seeking congruence, but within the socially agreed context.

5. Peer review: The results at http://www.senseaboutscience.org/pages/peer-review-survey-2009.html, are typical. The majority very rightly think that without peer review science would be eroded as a disciplined activity, that the control imposed by peer review is essential. The point made in ‘Origin’ is that the only option on offer is peer review. Second that all forms of peer review intrinsically carry bias as a potential problem, and merely looking to improve it cannot eradicate the issue of bias, which is intrinsic to the concept. Therefore a system for the judgment of intellectual quality can be established that does not intrinsically carry this threat ought to be given priority. The concept of ‘strategic science’ as summarised in this paper and discussed in ‘Origin’, is an assessment of intellectual work

296

intrinsic to the work itself, and is free of the sort of bias intrinsic to peer review. Judgment of an intellectual work is twofold in strategic science. First, the strategic science question: Is the discussion bounded by that which is known, and are all issues that could influence the discussion fully and ethically identified. In short, is the work ethically constructed and therefore intrinsically offers intellectual integrity. When the work passes this test, then it could be peer reviewed as to technical content, that is are the technical details of the work correct in accord with the norms of the discipline. In ‘Origin’ I suggest the first step of judging intellectual integrity be done by the HOD in the intellectual institution, as it is the management of quality of output of a team precisely as any team leader has accountability for the quality of the output of the team in any business. Finally, in commerce, it is the CEO who bears the brunt of quality failure, and I suggest that the parallel apply in intellectual institutions.

6. Academic survey: ‘Origin’ was completed ready for assessment early 2013. I approached philosophy and psychology departments at universities of Auckland, Otago, Harvard, Yale, Oxford, Cambridge, University of London, Stanford, UCLA, and several others of lesser reputation. I engaged with the Society of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, and its parent the American Psychological Association and unsuccessfully sought contact with the British Psychological Association. Details of exchanges are available. Those approached were unresponsive. I did naively expect sceptical interest to potential solutions to questions unresolved in all existing literature. Instead I was told that a general theory of psychology was not possible, I could not have solved the issues and that minds did not exist, my work was ‘unilluminating’ and of no interest. Those that did undertake to read and comment on the book did not hold to their word, and

297

the response were shallow and dismissive. Universally all were much too busy to have time to reflect or consider new thinking. The overall tenor of the responses is discussed in ‘Origin’, fourth edition, chapter The power of method, pages 57-60. This paper is a result of these interactions. My attempt to engage in such a manner as to have the ideas taken seriously, and with due reason and objectivity accepted or serious reasoned analysis offered as to why the ideas and the analysis is flawed. We stand before perceptual fields we can do nothing else. We can never interact directly with what lies behind the field, and can only deduce what lies behind it via our interpretation of the field using our evolved capacity of conceptualisation. I can see no flaw in this fundamental position and no flaw in the consequences that emerge from it. But then, I created the start point and the details of the analysis, we have the wrestle of seeing trees from the wood and vice versa. Hence I seek more detached informed opinion.

References

Anderson, R.C. and Prichert, J.W. (1978) Recall of previously un-recallable information following a shift in perspective. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 17, 1-12.

Ashby, W Ross (1952). Design for a Brain, Chapman and Hall, London, and Introduction to Cybernetics, Chapman and Hall, London, 1956.

Cohen, W. (1957). Spatial and Textural Characteristics of the Ganzfeld. Am.J.Psych. 70, 403-410.

Copenhagen interpretation (2015). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation. Accessed February 20 and 22, 2015.

Evolution (2015). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution, accessed February 22, and 23 2015.

298

Ganzfeld. (2015). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganzfeld_effect. Accessed 20 and 22 February, 2015

Hume, D. (2015). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Enquiry_Concerning_Human_Understanding. Accessed 20 and 22 February 2015.

Kuhn, T. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Chicago: University of Chicago Press

Little, G. R. (1985). Creativity and conflict in psychological science. Impact of science on society, number 134/135, pages 203-210, and at http://www.grlphilosophy.co.nz/psychological_science.pdf.

Little, G. R. (1999). http://www.grlphilosophy.co.nz/paperindex.htm. Accessed 20 and 22 February 2015.

Little (1999a). A Model of Knowledge and Tools for Theory Creation. http://www.grlphilosophy.co.nz/paper3.htm. Accessed 20, 22 February 2015.

Little G. R. (2011). The point covered in many books on manager development. The Mind of the CEO, The Last Leadership Book You Ever Need Read, The Executive Pocket Guidebook, Time Budgeting, All by Self Help Guides, 2011-2105, Auckland, www.amazon.com/author/grahamlittle and www.lulu.com/spotlight/grahamlittle.

Little, G. R. (2014).The Origin of Consciousness, Self Help Guides Limited, Auckland (www.lulu.com/spotlight/grahamlittle).

Little (2014a). The Origin of Consciousness. Fourth Edition, Chapter: The power of method, pages 69-74.

Little (2014b). The Origin of Consciousness. Fourth Edition. Chapter: The intellectual tools and method, pages 48-50.

299

Little (2014c). The Origin of Consciousness. Fourth Edition. Appendix: Toward a better standard of judgment than peer review, pages 401-432.

Little (2014d). The Origin of Consciousness. Fourth Edition. Chapter: Is there an independent Reality? Pages 75-81.

Little (2014d). The Origin of Consciousness. Fourth Edition. Pages 88-89, and the last two chapters, pages 386-297.

Little G. R. (2015). LinkedIn profile to view the curriculum vitae that summarises the work history and manager development experience. www.linkedin.com/in/grahamrlittle.

Little (2015a). Post at LinkedIn profile, www.linkedin.com/in/grahamrlittle. Do our genes determine who we are?

Mahon, P.T. (1981). NZ Royal Commission to enquire into the crash on Mount Erebus, Antarctica of a DC10 operated by Air New Zealand Ltd. Wellington: New Zealand Government Printer.

Popper, K. (1972). Objective knowledge: An evolutionary approach. ISBN: 0-19-875024-2c. The logic of scientific discovery, 1959 English version. ISBN: 0-415-27844-9. Conjectures and refutations, 1963. ISBN: 0-415-04318-2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper. Accessed 19, 20 and 21 February 2015.

Quality assurance (2015). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality_assurance. Accessed 20, 22 February 2015.

Rakestraw, Marsha (2012). Humane education. http://humaneeducation.org/blog/2012/06/21/what-we-see-

300

depends-on-what-we-look-for/. Accessed February 20th, and 21st 2015.

Sater, J.E. (Editor) (1969). The Artic Basin. Washington. The Artic Institute of North America.

Sokal, Alan (1996). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Sokal, accessed July 22, 23 2013 and http://www.physics.nyu.edu/sokal, accessed July 22, 23 2013.

Turnball, Colin. (1965) Wayward Servants, Doubleday, New York.

301

The structure of truth

In a lively discussion on truth, Felipe Fernandez-Armesto, (Truth: A History and a guide for the perplexed. Bantam Press, London, 1997). Felipe Fernandez-Armesto, then an Oxford Don, opened with a description of how one tribe, when confronted with a problem of true or false, would congregate while the shaman cut the head from a chicken and depending on whether the headless chicken ran left of right determined if the issue was true or false.

I was initially perplexed by this, a serious discussion on truth, by an Oxford Don, talking about primitive tribal superstitions involving judgment reached depending on the direction taken by a headless chicken. After having read a few more pages, as they say, the penny dropped with a great thud.

The point made at the opening. There is no sure way to truth, there is no method, system or technique to absolve us from deciding for ourselves. Truth is a judgment. And an individual judgment at that. One follows the opinion of others at one’s risk.

We now have several significant issues. First, does that mean that truth is relative? The so-called science wars were on this issue. That the cultural bound views of that primitive tribe on how to get to the moon were as ‘true’ as the views of a NASA engineer. Yep, that view is obviously nonsense and has been dealt to, although it lingers in some circles.

So how can we understand the issue of truth? What exactly is it? What is the structure of truth? How does truth bear to our psychology?

Finally, how can we make sure we are making the best judgments we can? I think we need do better than follow the frantic meanderings of headless chickens.

302

To be precise: In ‘Origin’ we have a general theory of psychology. What exactly does the theory tell us about truth and how to ensure we are making the best judgements we can?

Perhaps you are wondering why a general theory of psychology must bear to the question of truth?

Consider the science wars, they held that a ‘theory’ is a cultural bound construct. And from within a culture, one theory is as good as that from another culture, one was not truer, just different. Now I may not have got it exactly right, but it does not actually matter, the crucial thing is every aspect of the issue is psychological. Consider the questions: How do we perceive any object? Do we build images of objects in mind? If so, how do we build such images? Once built what exactly is the relationship of an image in mind to the object of that image?

There is obvious agreement that we build and use images in mind, since the science wars is about whether one is necessarily ‘truer’ than others. But all of this speculation occurring in the complete absence of any depth of understanding of how any image of an object is created in mind, and how that creation bears exactly to the object.

There is an issue of terminology, I use the word ‘image’ in its broadest possible sense to describe that which we ‘see’ in mind of an object that is outside our mind. So ‘image’ may be a visual image, a conceptual diagram, a theory, or a set of sentences that describe the object or some combination of them all. Image alludes to that which we ‘see’ and typically that which we use to understand an object, and ‘orientates’ us to the object. From this orientation we choose a course of action deemed appropriate. Actually, as I outline in ‘Origin’, it is more appropriate to describe us as locating our image of the object within our internal reality which has the effect of orientating us to the object.

303

As stated recently on TV, it takes around a second for someone to work out they are in a dangerous situation. That is the image of the situation is located in their internal reality, and ...‘oh shit’... What if the ideas and insights that generate the ‘oh shit’ are not true? The ‘oh shit’ is very true for the person and they are likely to react accordingly. But it is a mistake in judgment on their part. A situation where their reality is not aptly congruent with Reality.

A crucial dominate human output that must be fully accounted for by a general theory of psychology is knowledge, ideas. Especially shared ideas since with shared ideas new minds are being shaped to orientate those adopting the ideas to the objects to which those ideas pertain. Ideas are typically shared via culture, but that discussion must await another essay (refer ‘Origin’). Are the ideas being shared true? Do they orientate people effectively? Do the ideas enable ethical conduct respectful of all? I hope you begin to see just how important ‘truth’ is to us as a species, and for each of us individually.

As stated above, it is all psychological, ergo, subject to elucidation by an apt general theory of psychology. In fact I go further, that any general theory of psychology that does not bear directly and fully on such issues is not worthy of consideration.

Truth and judgement emerge as head and tail of the same coin. What exactly does the general theory of psychology in ‘Origin’ say of this so that we can understand it with precision and accuracy?

We need a secure start point.

Just recently I was on the couch at a friend’s place seated next to his thirty-five-year-old son. We were having a generally ‘Philosophical’ conversation, as I am inclined to do, this family enjoys such discussions. I pointed to the large flat screen TV on the wall, and stated you do not see that TV, what you see is an image in your mind of the TV. He paused for a minute, which in conversation is quite a long

304

time, ‘that’s deep’, he said, ‘need think about that’. Just then the rugby started, England playing the All Blacks, and we have yet to pick up and complete the conversation. PS: the ABs thrashed them!

First I need deal to the naive view that in our mind there is a little person sitting looking at the images created in the brain, with the recursive problem of what is happening in their brain, and then the next brain, etc. Our brain consists of multiple domains each able to do something different from other domains, so the idea of one part of the brain being an input of another is perfectly sound and implicates no infinite regress (refer ‘Origin’).

In the dark we cannot see, in the absence of chemicals we cannot smell, and in the absence of pressure waves in the air we do not hear. I call these potential sensory inputs a ‘perceptual field’ (refer ‘Origin’). All our experience of the external world is via sensory input. From that sensory input combined with our ideas we create our ‘image’ of the external world.

It follows that there is an image of the external world, I refer to as reality. Second, that image is created in relation to objects beyond our senses I call Reality (the capital and lower case r deliberate terminology to distinguish the two, reality, personal and private, and Reality, the external world).

We can add a refinement, we have Reality generating perceptual fields with which we interact to create our reality (how we create it, etc., goes beyond this essay but is discussed fully in ‘Origin’). Because of this sequence, Reality→ perceptual field→ reality, we actually cannot be sure that our image of Reality is in fact the true Reality. Virtual reality proves the point along with naturally occurring clear air white out (‘Origin’).

305

I do not see how any of the above argument can be refuted. We have our secure, irrefutable start point namely that there is a Reality from which we derive our reality.

There is a line of argument that suggests any external Reality is generated by consciousness. That we cannot be sure an external Reality exists. Quantum physics has played a part in this debate in the recent century that consciousness causes the collapse of the wave equation, and Schrodinger’s cat, etc. Virtual reality and clear air white out make the point that we cannot be sure that what we ‘see’ is in fact ‘there’, but I think that is not quite what is meant.

There are two arguments. First comes from the rule of relations which states that a relationship between two objects can be analyzed if and only if each object is independently discernible. Conversely if the two objects are not independently discernible, if we cannot separate them, then we are not able to discern the nature of the relationship between them, and cannot establish conclusively there are two objects.

For example, imagine looking at a vase of flowers, there is the vase, and the image in mind of that vase. Now close your eyes and visualise the vase. Now open your eyes and try to separate the image of the vase from the vase itself. We can most likely establish that the vase is an object in Reality by touching it etc. It is not virtual reality. But we cannot separate in our mind the image of the vase from the vase. Therefore we cannot establish conclusively there are in fact two objects. Image in reality, and vase in Reality.

It follows that based on the methodological rule of relations no single person or even a group can establish conclusively that there is or is not a Reality separate from and independent of reality. To do so requires technology whereby we can view the vase in Reality simultaneously with the image in reality such that we can conclusively

306

state both exist and are independent of each other. Such technology does not currently exist.

We can apply reasoning in the form of Reality→ perceptual field→ reality and state that our reasoning suggests strongly there is reality and Reality, hence the rational position to adopt is one of pragmatic realism, and so if we see a bus coming, best get out of the way in case we are run down.

The second argument is about the status of quantum physics.

Is quantum physics knowledge? Of course. It then follows that the interpretation of quantum physics can only be a detail within a general theory of knowledge describing how all knowledge relates to the object of that knowledge. Further, that since people create knowledge then a general theory of knowledge can only be created from within a general theory of psychology which describes how all knowledge comes to be. This means that in the absence of an apt general theory of psychology any interpretations of quantum physics have to be treated with considerable caution.

We can also approach the issues from another point of view. We have established that we only know Reality via reality. We can ask what exactly can we know in advance of any situation? We cannot know the empirical details, for example we know a sunset is a sunset, but in advance we do not know exactly what it will look like on this particular occasion. In ‘Origin’ and in earlier essays I discuss how any system has intrinsic internal mechanisms, and these mechanism are regular and consistent. Mechanisms are the processes internal to any system whereby any input into the system is processed to create the output.

So, for example, we know that for sunset, the sun moves across the sky, slowly disappearing below the horizon. As the sun moves below the horizon the angle between the rays of the sun and the clouds and atmosphere result in sometime spectacular orange glow. We do not

307

know in advance the quality of the glow, but we can know in advance the exact nature of the mechanism that produce the glow.

We can conceptualize these mechanisms for any system, and use them to enable us to predict the actual empirical circumstances. I have also argued that this is the exact nature of all science, and can be nothing else, since we can only know mechanisms in advance.

Any understanding of mechanisms is a conceptualization of them, a conceptualization of the flow of change though the variables used to describe the system (this is described in full in ‘Origin’). If we conceptualise them accurately we then can say we have the cause of the empirical circumstances exhibited by the system.

We now have two definite and very clear circumstances. First, causal description of the mechanism whereby any system processes any input to create the output. This is a conceptual diagram describing what happens in Reality. It is also possible to have detailed mathematical description whereby we can calculate the correct answer. In ‘Origin’ I propose a thought experiment whereby we test if it is possible to build a mathematical probability description of some known system that predicts the correct answer that does not reflect the mechanisms in Reality. I propose that it is possible to build such a probability description, and it will get the correct answer. This thought experiment immediately casts doubt on quantum physics as describing the underlying mechanism of Reality no matter how accurately it enables calculation of the correct answer. Mathematical formulations are just that, and we have no right to assume that any natural system necessarily follows our mathematics. The only way to accurately understand the mechanisms of any system is a conceptual representation of the system not a mathematical description.

There are now several fundamental conclusions:

308

1. We only know Reality via our personal reality derived from Reality.

2. That what we know of Reality is derived from our sensory systems interacting with perceptual fields, combined ideas in memory derived from previous experience with the situation.

3. That our personal reality and Reality are fully independent.

4. All people in the same circumstance are subject to the same Reality that each may interpret it differently, have their own reality, but there is only ever one Reality.

5. That to understand what is happening in Reality we must build images in reality that are conceptualization of the mechanisms where an input is converted to an output. This process is referred to as congruence, and mathematical descriptions cannot be assumed to be congruent merely because they enable us to calculate the correct answer.

Finally, the crucial conclusion defining the essential structure of our search for truth.

6. The truth of our reality rests in its congruence with Reality.

The search for truth is an implicit aspect of our psychological structure. Verisimilitude is the ongoing process of seeking truth, making our reality truer, and truer. A verisimilar reality is the current best match between reality and Reality. This search for congruence applies personally, and in science. In principle there is no psychological difference.

We can now define Truth (capital intended) as reality having perfect congruence with Reality. But as a matter of principle we can never know if or when we have achieved perfect congruence. We can only ever judge the best of our ideas that are the most congruent with

309

Reality. We can only ever know the verisimilar reality, the reality judged most similar to Reality.

Congruence is found in judgement without bias. We need multiple inputs to ensure a rounded view, balanced, detached, unclouded by emotion, without self-serving viewpoints. I suspect everyone is familiar with these demands of good judgement, when we are too involved and need excuse ourselves, declarations of vested interest, etc. etc. in commercial, private and criminal circumstances.

The theory declares itself as offering not much, if anything new. It merely provides intellectual substance to things we know we need do. This has been a lengthy analysis to get to the point that society already knows and acts upon. I regard it a great strength of the theory in ‘Origin’ that it is exactly that sound, realistic and practical.

The importance of truth to us is underlined by the fact that from experience we had already got to the point that theory states. Compare that, for instance, to the weak social understanding of mental health, our spirituality, and appropriate insight into personality, intelligence, and science.

The fact the theory in ‘Origin’ accurately describes and accounts for truth, so clearly important to us gives support that maybe, just maybe it is also correct for those things where we show more limited insight and so could usefully adopt.

310

The psychology of freedom

“The truly free man is a slave to hardest taskmaster of all: Himself and his principles. To preserve today’s freedoms, we need rediscover self-discipline.” Little G. R. Social models: Blueprints or processes, Impact of Science on Society, vol. 31, #4, pp 439-447, 1981.

I apologize for the sexism...1981, a manner of writing correctly unacceptable today, but I did not want to amend the quote. My first consideration on freedom and its relationship to social models. In a later essay, although around the same period, I wrote ‘a person sans self-discipline, is a person sans everything’.

Since these cryptic observations I focused my effort in reflection and research on five questions.

1. If we had an apt and accurate general theory of knowledge what would it tell us of the structure of knowledge and the relationship knowledge makes to the object of that knowledge?

2. If we had an apt and accurate general theory of psychology what would be its structure and what would it tell us of two people having a conversation?

3. If we had an apt and accurate general theory of society what would be its structure and what would it tell us social development and how that occurs?

4. Do humans have a spirit, and if so what is its structure and how is it related to the structure of the human psyche presented in the general theory of psychology?

5. There is only one actor, people, therefore how do the solutions to the first four questions relate one to the other?

311

The solutions to questions 1, 2, 4, and 5 as it applies to the existing solutions, is found in The Origin of Consciousness, www.lulu.com/spotlight/grahamlittle.

Freedom is an output of people, if the theory is a general theory psychology as I claim, then freedom must fit within the intellectual structure formed by the solutions. It follows that the insight into freedom must be an item of psychology.

The general theory of psychology is summarized in the essay Understanding and managing motivation. The theory presents the fundamental of our existence as the wrestle between habit, arising most from choices we made yesterday, and exercising freewill to choose today.

Habit is the psychological experience of our brain operating along neural pathways directed by entropy. The preferred interpretation of entropy is that it will direct the energy flow into the lowest available energy states. Entropy is found to apply in all known circumstances, therefore it is a secure assumption it will apply in our brain. It is also very important to understand that we are not our brain, we are alive in the energy flows in our brain. If the energy flows cease, we cease to be. Therefore, any physical law that impacts energy flows in the brain is significant in understanding us.

A second major aspect of understanding us is freewill. We form, create or otherwise have ideas. We can apply ideas to ‘see’ something that way or this way. Ideas therefore provide us with choices. Via our attention mechanism we can influence the energy flows in our brain to activate neural flows that if left to themselves would follow entropy, and so those neurons would not activate at all. Ideas provide us with choices, and our attention mechanism enables us to act upon those choices. This is summarized in the motivation paper as follows.

312

Our attention mechanism has two functions. First we are able to ‘observe’ all aspects of our mind. Second our attention system enables intervention in our brain to alter the activation energy of neurons so energy will flow along paths if left to entropy it would not follow. This property leads to the conclusion from theory that on evidence to date, consciousness is the only force in the universe that can thwart entropy. (A water pump and holding tank on the hill in order to facilitate gravity distribution, for example, is created by consciousness and achieves exactly that result.)

Ideas as choices, able to be acted out, so together, ideas and the ability to act them out gives us freewill

To choose and action our choices we need enable energy flows in our brain that typically on their own accord, will not occur. This also summarized in the motivation paper.

• Energy flow into neural pathways is dominated by the energy of activation of that pathway. To have energy flow into pathways of higher activation energy than those available requires energy I refer to as effort of activation.

• Psychologically effort of activation is referred to as self-discipline, namely managing our mind so that we act and feel according our choices now, and not act and feel according to yesterday’s choices, lived out via acquired habit.

The analysis merely provides detailed psychological structure to that which was intuitively grasped. That is as it should be, the in-depth intellectual structure providing foundation to what intuitively feels right.

So what does this mean?

To live according to choices then we need generate energy I refer to as energy of activation if we are to stay within the bounds determined

313

by those choices. The circumstances whereby this energy of activation is created can only arise in one of two ways. The energy arises in us due imposition of external pressure, or we find it from within. In short, discipline is imposed on us, or we find self-discipline.

We are very familiar with imposed discipline. The names ring though history, kings, queens, dictators all built power and consolidated power based on force of arms. They knew the way, their way, and beware any you disagreed or threatened in any manner to unsettle the grip of the dictator. Today, in a modern western democracy we have dictatorship by majority vote. Perhaps more civilized, but the consequences remains the same, people required to comply with the rule whether or not for their good.

The problem with creating space for self-discipline is that some will abuse the opportunity. There has been a steady degradation of social ethics at least since the time of Adam Smith. He wrote Wealth of Nations in 1776 assuming the continuity of an ethical approach by those in power of serving a greater good. His assumption was wrong. We have seen the global financial crash fundamentally arising from the greed of a few in power who saw and acted upon opportunity to increase their wealth at the expense of many. This point is explored in more detail in A lack of ethics a recipe for disaster. We have an example where over several hundred years’ changes in personal ethics had an influence on social development.

Within this theory, what is the precise nature of the relationship between social development and personal development?

First, let’s define social development. I suggest it is the movement to a more liberal society, less regimented, where people are free to live as they choose. Each person seeking their personal spiritual fulfilment while enabling every other person to seek and find theirs. Within the broadest possible bounds of Law. Where policing, judiciary

314

and prisons are a minimal demand on government budgets. Where self-abuse of substances is minimal, murders almost non-existent. Education grasped by people seeking development of their own minds, as opposed to sitting back intellectually and emotionally waiting for someone else (the teacher...?) to convince them they should bother. I am sure you can imagine such a state. Is it idealistic...? Maybe, but a practical ideal we can move toward.

What is required to move to such a state?

The theory suggests three key ingredients. First people need an objective, scientific theory of themselves whereby they fully understand why they do what they do. From within the theory they can see clearly how they can manage their own spirit and mind to enable greater fulfilment for themselves and for their children to whom they will gift the understanding. Second people need the skills. Third, people need apply the skills and build in themselves the self-disciplined constraints and work quietly and gently on themselves and their children. In time, over generations, the constraints cease to be such, emerging as relaxed satisfying habit. People, understand, exhibit the self-discipline enabling the imposed discipline of Law to be liberalized. Social development moving forward as the personal development of understanding, skills and application becomes consolidated in the culture.

We become the species we can be.

A reality check is to spend an hour on twitter. Or watch Ross Kemp on Gangs. The immense gap between the reality and the vision.

The theory provides a clear direct path to the vision. We begin where we are and apply the theory to move forward. Unless we begin, we will never get there. What else should a government do other than have as a definite aim the fulfilment and life satisfaction for people now, while ensuring each generation steps forward to a more peaceful, more fulfilling future for children. Second, and beyond politics,

315

successive governments carry forward the social/personal development arising from the theory. This effort embodied in the strategic plans of bureaucracies, upgraded, say, every 15 years in relation to social development progress. Social development tied to personal development in people understanding their own spirit, have the skills to manage it, and are doing so. In New Zealand, the Sir John Kirwan promotion of how to carry oneself through depression is the beginning of exactly the personal development recommended in this essay. We have started, but it can be so much more precise and effective. Supported by society as a whole, willing to see national funds invested now in securing our children’s future peace and fulfilment.

We become the ideas we apply. We do have a choice.

Progress will likely be measured in multiple-decades even centuries. So why bother? I am a humanist, committed to humanity. Also, I would like to be remembered and thought of kindly by my great-great-great-great grandchildren.

And the definition of freedom: The right to discipline oneself in pursuit of personal fulfilment and in relation to the greater social good.

316

It is the message not the medium

When Marshall McLuhan said ‘The medium is the message’ he was seeking to explore a subtle relationship between what is said and how it is said. Unfortunately, he overstated the case to the point of being wrong. There is nothing subtle about twitter. There is something sinister.

It is said the world revolves on money. The world revolves on ideas; money just makes for a smoother ride. Try living today without having a single thought. For example, try living all day in meditation! Imagine driving to drop the kids at school in a meditative state. As they say in the Tui ads, yea right!

Where do our ideas come from?

Imagine the earliest human. Imagine at the beginning, the first minds exactly like ours, will they have the ideas we have. Hardly!

So somewhere in the 50,000 years between them and us we acquired a lot of ideas.

We need understand ourselves. We define ourselves in how we think and from what we think we act. Our ideas come to us from the nousphere, gifted to us by our parents, and grandparents, back to the first ideas gifted by someone to their children, tens of thousands of years ago. This process is the very essence of why we are as we are. This process the very essence of our survival and dominance as a species. It is no accident nor any act of any god as to why we are here and are as we are. No faith nor religious protestations can ever excuse anyone from accepting this fundamental of our very existence and the expression of our selves. Ideas. Ideas are what is important. Really important. To build a better future for our grandchildren we need identify, select and adopt better ideas. The better the ideas lived out, the better this world.

317

We are first a spirit within a mind. Both defined by our thoughts. Ideas. Our spirit defined in the ideas we hold dearest, often without knowing what exactly those are! We are, we can be, that lacking in self-reflection of those things that shape us. Ideas forge our existence, forge the very experience of life itself. Would you really argue ideas are not important?

So how do we explore ideas? We read! And what needs to be our purpose in reading?

The intent, all intent should be focused on just one final medium, our brain and within our brain our mind and within our mind our spirit. Nothing else is more important, nothing else can be more important, ever. In good ideas elegantly expressed we lose ourselves in the moment of another world, we call it fiction. In yet another work we find ideas that help us understand, we call it non-fiction.

Einstein offered the quip that for most people thinking was rearranging their prejudices. He has a point. If ideas dominate us as much as I argue they do, then perhaps we each need explore them more carefully. Have you ever sat down and seriously examined the consequences of your most cherished prejudices? And what sort of mood is likely best for examining prejudices? Fast, frantic, opinionated? Or slow, quiet, and reflective. The medium is not the message, but it can set the tone.

Please, let us not take such as twitter seriously. There is no reflection in twitter. It is a hammer with which we crack nuts. Harder the nut, the harder and faster it is hit. And we can do it anonymously.

Be careful of such as twitter, it can only reinforce stereotypes and prejudice.

The world is driven by stereotypes, if we seek a better world then we need begin with careful assessment of our own stereotypes. For

318

assessing what we think, where that will carry us and our children, we need to reflect with the purpose of managing the only medium that matters, our mind. Then having established the ideas that when acted out will build the world we seek, we firmly manage our integrity, bringing our actions into line with that which we say we believe.

Does it really matter if our reflections guided by words from a stone tablet or from an EBook? Shall we ask Moses...?

319

36. About Graham Little

Intellectual background

Available reading on the intellectual foundation, the general theory of psychology arising from the intellectual foundation, OPD theory and OPD-SHRM system of human capital development. All books are being edited in line with developments and experience. If any book is not the sixth (6th) edition, it is not the latest version. Currently, none of the books available are 6th editions.

Essays

(At www.linkedin.com/in/grahamrlittle)

Achieving the perfect game plan to double profits

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20140731224137-7640385-achieving-the-perfect-game-to-double-profits?trk=mp-reader-card

Making HR the proactive driver of strategic success

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20140801013532-7640385-making-hr-the-proactive-driver-of-strategic-success?trk=mp-reader-card

Management is more important than leadership

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20140802002017-7640385-management-is-more-important-than-leadership?trk=mp-reader-card

320

How the team leader needs to lead

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20140805205316-7640385-opd-leadership-making-work-fun?trk=mp-reader-card

Making your work day more fulfilling for you

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20140810213120-7640385-how-to-ensure-you-find-work-fulfilling?trk=mp-reader-card

Okay, strategy is agreed. Now what?

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20140815185709-7640385-okay-strategy-is-agreed-now-what?trk=mp-reader-card

Understand and manage motivation

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20140821050453-7640385-understanding-and-managing-motivation?trk=mp-reader-card

An integrated motivation policy

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20140822025012-7640385-an-integrated-motivation-policy?trk=mp-reader-card

Goal setting is old hat, why do we need KPIs

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20140826215656-7640385-goal-setting-is-old-hat-why-do-we-need-kpis?trk=mp-reader-card

Management versus leadership: Let’s settle the debate once and for all

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20140830220517-7640385-management-versus-leadership-let-s-settle-the-debate-once-and-for-all?trk=mp-reader-card

321

Change and continuous improvement in business and community

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20140912031046-7640385-change-and-continuous-improvement-in-business-and-community?trk=mp-reader-card

Governance, senior leadership, organization design

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20141001191109-7640385-goverance-senior-leadership-organization-design-and-improving-results?trk=mp-reader-card

New approach to HR to get better results

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20141008021416-7640385-new-approach-to-hr-to-get-better-results?trk=mp-reader-card

Understand and manage financial reports

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20141010225708-7640385-understanding-and-managing-financial-reports?trk=mp-reader-card

Desirable social pre-conditions for unlimited leave

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20141012224359-7640385-desirable-social-preconditions-for-unlimited-leave?trk=mp-reader-card

Work, flow and job satisfaction

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20141111014720-7640385-work-flow-and-job-satisfaction?trk=mp-reader-card

322

Building a high performing culture

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20141125194933-7640385-building-a-high-performing-culture?trk=mp-reader-card

Redefining engagement

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/redefining-engagement-graham-little?trk=mp-reader-card

OPD analysis of training and coaching

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/opd-analysis-training-coaching-graham-little?trk=mp-reader-card

Books

Redesign of the organization book series enabling improved strategic human resource management delivering greater profits. Each book offers understanding of OPD from a different point of view as discussed in the description.

OPD is founded on the fundamental intellectual position and the general theory of psychology in The Origin of Consciousness. Dr Little’s books are here: www.amazon.com/author/grahamlittle and at www.lulu.com/spotlight/grahamlittle.

Testimonial: “The OPD model, based on the research of Dr. Graham Little, is a solution to the HR questions being raised and is the most logical and thorough intellectual development currently available in the HR field….the OPD approach also entails practical solutions and is 10 years ahead of current thinking in this field.” Quoted by Professor of HR.

“Follow OPD advice, the money just turns up.” Client CEO to newly recruited divisional manager.

323

Title Summary description

The last leadership book you ever need to read (vol. 1)

Introduction to the new organization design arising from the improved insight into people and their relationship with their organization. The improved understanding of people is applied to gain greater insight into the link between people and the organization resulting in clearly defined business processes enabling team leaders to guide their teams to greater success.

Time budgeting (vol. 2)

Guides definite techniques enabling people to focus more effectively on the tasks at hand, allocate their effort across the tasks and achieve a better result than they would by any other technique.

Modern team leadership (vol. 3)

Guidelines for team leaders in applying the clearly defined team leadership processes to enable the greatest opportunity for greatest team success.

The role of human resource management in the modern organization (vol. 4)

The new design for organizations results in a change in human resource management aim and priorities. The role of human resources details the nature of the changes needed to ensure that HR is providing the internal service and partnership to team leaders enabling the organization the greatest opportunity for greatest strategic success.

324

The Mind of the CEO (vol. 5)

An overview of OPD implementation from the point of view of the CEO/senior executive, exploring the how the CEO best think about roll out of strategy to enable greatest success.

Executive pocket guidebook (vol. 7)

It is not always easy to ‘see’ new ideas. The Executive pocket guidebook is a short introduction to the new organizational design enabling an easy transition in thinking from what is currently accepted to the new ideas.

Human capital (vol. 8)

The new design of organization results in very specific definition of human capital in the organization. Human capital discusses the new definitions of human capital value and the specific actions executive and team leaders can do to build the human capital value in their organization.

Rollout (vol. 9)

The aim of every organization is to achieve its strategy. Rollout describes the detail of how strategy is linked to the actions of people, and how the leadership can influence that link to improve delivery of the strategy.

The intellectual foundation

Book: The Origin of Consciousness. Fourth Edition. The Origin of Consciousness www.lulu.com/shop/graham-little/the-origin-of-consciousness/paperback/product-21730547.html

325

Essays

(At www.linkedin.com/in/grahamrlittle)

The intellectual structure of social science

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/intellectual-structure-social-science-graham-little?trk=mp-reader-card

Defining consciousness

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20141112033215-7640385-defining-consciousness?trk=mp-reader-card

Do our genes determine who we are?

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20140928233534-7640385-do-our-genes-determine-who-we-are?trk=mp-reader-card

How do I think and can I do better?

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20140903031948-7640385-how-do-i-think-and-can-i-do-it-better?trk=mp-reader-card

Understanding and managing depression

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20140817010000-7640385-understanding-and-managing-depression?trk=mp-reader-card

Mind over matter

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20140804020101-7640385-origin-mind-over-matter?trk=mp-reader-card

Why we do what we do

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20140804013719-7640385-origin-why-we-do-what-we-do?trk=mp-reader-card

326

How do we build a general theory of psychology?

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20140804012800-7640385-origin-method-and-the-beginning?trk=mp-reader-card

What am I?

I believe we need return to full and vigorous assessment of ideas in their own right. While we celebrate the source of quality thinking, we do not as a matter of course determine the worth of ideas depending on the source, we judge the worth of any ideas based on prerequisites that the ideas itself must meet.

Intellectual movements and refinements are given names. I am concerned with the quality of life of people in their communities and the role of government in enabling fulfilment of people which would tend to label me a modern social liberal. But then the emergent priority of vigorously controlling illegal immigration, placing the priority on citizen rights ahead of aid, refugees, and human rights concerns in the rest of the world makes me a conservative.

I am a scientist first. If our physics analysis leads to the view that all photons are purple we would shrug our shoulders and say ‘all photons are purple’. We would not say photons should not be purple they should be...

I have wrestled 40 years to give social science the exact same intellectual structure relative to the objects of social science as physics equation have relative to the objects of physics. In this book, and in previous books, you can judge if I have succeeded.

My ideological conclusions depend totally on the foundation propositions from which the conclusions derived. All are values of the variable thought. Human nature is to create ideas and apply them in

327

survival. Human evolution is dominated by our nature. We embrace ideas giving them living zest by associating emotions with them. Understanding and accepting this means that for any group of humans the social structure that has emerged around them will depend on the ideas they have created and applied and the passion with which they hold those ideas. When they encounter different ideas they will most likely react adversely.

The only binding principle to unite different world views of different groups is to apply scientific reason where we all accept we and our groups are dominated by the ideas accepted. Understanding itself dominated by the theoretical understanding of our relation as individuals to those ideas. Our ideas are just the values we have chosen to adopt of the variable thought. We pursue our ideas depending on the level of passion afforded to our choices.

We can assert that it is our ideas that everyone need adopt, but we do so in full recognition and understanding of all human history that people resist, and when they do people on both sides die and suffer. Deeper understanding of human history has it that when people do die and suffer there is often no real gain 100 years on. The suffering then becomes morally questionable and looking back we may struggle to understand the thinking of the time from within our broader and distant perspective. Why cause people to suffer now, when in 100 years our descendants may well look back and ask ‘why did they cause all that human pain and suffering?’

Ideas do not bound our potential they are merely the devices we apply now. We can adopt new ideas. If we now question in which direction we need change our ideas, the answer is clear and derived directly from our nature. We need change our ideas in the direction that brings greatest survival for ourselves and for the group to which we

328

belong. This leaves us with the responsibility of determining which ideas will achieve the best result.

In our modern world, much of humanity is still at the level of physical survival. I am no supporter of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, but I do think it is true that people are not going to be concerned with the subtleties of the relationship between the individual, economy and state while their children are dying of malnutrition and lack of clean water.

In the West today, we largely meet immediate physical survival. As a result I would amend the central proposition from We need change our ideas in the direction that brings greatest survival for ourselves and for the group to which we belong, to We need change our ideas in the direction that brings greatest fulfilment for ourselves and for the group to which we belong. Just one word is changed, but is not a subtle change, and lays the emphasis on the nature of our choices and the objective they must meet.

It now immediately follows from my intellectual position, first who are the major players in our fulfilment. The key players are ourselves, the governance of the organization in which we work, our community/social structure our integration with it, the power elite surrounding that organization and the laws and regulations that focus the actions of people with whom we necessarily interact.

Second, what should be the agreed expectation held of those players. This work argues the aim is to enable ethical fulfilment of all citizens (with citizen defined as a legal resident of the country, with the laws, regulation and focus of government being to serve all citizens).

Third, what do we know of ideas historically applied, did they work or not?

Fourth, how do we determine which ideas have substance and which do not? What prerequisites need to be applied to judge the

329

validity of any set of ideas? Why is it important to apply the prerequisites? If historical ideas do not meet the prerequisites, then we need dismiss historical ideas as interesting but no longer applicable. Along with the authors/creators/supporters of those ideas, since it is what is said, the idea itself that is crucial not who created or who supported it.

We have a social aim, we have clear rules guiding those with delegated authority, we have agreed factors to gauge priorities, and we have sound and effective intellectual processes with which to judge the caliber of ideas. It is not about which ideas does one prefer, but which ideas best meet the process whereby we decide what to do. If you have read to here, then this tight summary will be clear in your mind. This leads to the answer to the question the title of this sections, what am I?

I am a theoretical social scientist.

Summary of intellectual background

As background to my intellectual development I cite the following:

1. Gaining a PhD in Chemistry at a time when that subject was taught as an intellectually precise discipline, therefore gave rise to a preference for conceptual precision.

2. Karl Marx, whose work convinced me there had to be a better way, that such inadequate and incomplete intellectual effort could not conceivably be the end of understanding?

3. Extensive reading in psychology, epistemology, sociology and management. The lack of conceptual precision offended me, and for the greater part this

330

reading generated in me a sad disrespect for work seriously and repeatedly inadequate. I determined to do better.

4. Bertrand Russell, whom I read and who opened my mind to philosophy and its implications.

5. Karl Popper whom I read, and with whom I exchanged communication in the early/mid-eighties, just prior to the death of his wife.

6. W Ross Ashby whose work in cybernetics and analysis of self- correcting systems, inspired me and gave me the central intellectual tools that dominate my work.

7. Tielhard de Chardin, whose wrestle with science and faith was exquisite, and whose vision of the nousphere gave me the core of my personal faith. Nousphere spelling is deliberate, taken as ‘sphere of thought’. I regard the nousphere as humanity’s rudder. I have faith that people will gravitate to reason in the nousphere as the direction, and hope that people find their passions as the source of energy. My personal dictum: May passions ever move me but reason be my guide.

8. Kahil Gibran, who gave us the wonderful poetic vision of humanity - sailing on the sea, our reason determining the set of the sail, our emotions the wind to give us momentum.

9. R.C. Anderson and J.W. Prichert who in the late seventies, in my opinion, did one of the most simple and elegant experiments ever done in psychology. That single paper dominating my insight into how people work.

331

10. T. Kuhn, who in the Structure of Scientific Revolutions insightfully linked socialized ideas to personal psychology, giving us insight into ‘paradigms’ and ‘paradigm shifts’.

11. W. Cohen, whose laboratory work on Ganzfelds proved a crucial point of perception, that in the absence of a differentiated perceptual field, the perceptual mechanism fails. Therefore the converse must apply, namely that a perceptual field must be differentiated with respect to the perceptual modality for perception to be possible.

12. J.E. Sater, in his book on the Artic Basin, and his graphic description of clear air white out. This was particularly poignant to me, as this work was uncovered when I was researching the Air NZ Mount Erebus crash in which 257 people died and where clear air white out was a major factor in the crash.

13. A. Einstein and N. Bohr (supported by Hume) for the importance of understanding cause. God may play dice, but right now we do not know whether He does or not. But if we assume He does, then we will never discover the framework of variables and their relationships whereby He does not.

There are perhaps others, but they are minor. To this list I added my own belief that all things are explicable, but to find secure explanation we need do first things first, and we need effective intellectual tools. Now after 30 years of reflection, I offer for your consideration this work and the others that support and surround it.

I finally built my intellectual position on the works noted; putting together what could seem on the surface disparate ideas in hopefully

332

new and productive ways. We need build insight and understanding on the best of what was before using only the that offers a coherent way forward, then and only then do we move forward standing on the shoulders of the giants before us and by so doing seeing further than they could imagine.

Formal CV

o High school: School prefect. Vice-captain of the school first fifteen and school athletic team. Runner up dux.

o Canterbury University, PhD.

o Visited Shell Australia to select the training programs most applicable to Shell Oil New Zealand, implementing the programs on return to NZ.

o Technical advisor during Oil Industry negotiations with the New Zealand Drivers Union.

o Planned and implemented a ‘planning for your retirement’ program for Shell Oil New Zealand.

o Successfully introduced an American franchised meal delivery system (Temprite) into NZ Hospitals.

o Commercial Director with L J Fisher private entrepreneurial vehicle.

o Turned around a kitchen cabinet factory.

o Due diligence on several companies then purchased by the group.

o Founder and CEO of:

o The counseling company Institute of Theoretical and Applied Social Science Limited.

o The short course training company The New Zealand Business School. Oversaw operation of the business,

333

especially marketing, staff performance, and retained overview and managed creation of the materials and approach for developing people in both businesses.

o Conducted the first short supervisor training course in Auckland.

o Wrote the letter to the then Post Office to create the section in the Yellow Pages ‘Psychologist’.

o Seven years with monthly column in Management Magazine.

o Four years with weekly talk back show on 1ZB.

o Six years with article in the automotive newsletter Quarterly Report.

o Nine books published on leadership and management, four in New Zealand five in London.

o Regular contributor to the letters in the NZ Herald.

o Extensive successful contract completion in strategy development, restructuring, and improving human performance.

o Researched epistemology, ontology, social philosophy, and psychology. Adopted the cybernetics methodology of W. Ross Ashby, and redeveloped it for the creation of theory in social science. Applied the methodology to build a general theory of psychology. Interpreted the theory, consolidated the method, theory and interpretations in a book, The Origin of Consciousness.

o Arising from the intellectual position in ‘Origin’, developed new approach to strategic human resources, designed, tested and commercialized the OPD-SHRM system consisting of consulting process and web based management system. System described in detail at www.opdcoach.com.

334

o Lecture on the OPD system of organizational design at Unitec, including creation of suitable examination questions and answers for student assessment.

o Associated with Dr Pieter Nel, Professor of HR at Unitec as global academic spokesperson for the OPD theory.

o Three management books accepted for evaluation in the UK 2013 Management Book of the Year Competition.

o Taught graduate ‘Organizational change’, 2015, UUNZ, University of Southern Queensland paper, 12 students, who achieved 2A, 4B, 6C.

o Testimonial by Professor Nel on the OPD theory:

o The OPD model, based on the research of Dr. Graham

Little, is a solution to the HR questions being raised and is

probably of the most logical and thorough intellectual

development currently available in the HR field. The OPD

approach is probably 10 years ahead of current thinking

in this field. ... The OPD-SHRM system is an idea whose

time has come in the challenging times currently facing

businesses globally.

o Building market traction for the new OPD theory into the design and operation of organizations.

Research

o Research experience in organic chemistry from completing my PhD.

o CEO and founder of the Institute of Theoretical and Applied Social Science (ITASS) Limited developing more effective, and more cost effective for the client, counselling interventions for typical psychological issues of stress, depression, substance abuse, stopping smoking, anxiety, and relationship difficulties.

335

o As CEO and founder of The New Zealand Business School, developed out of ITASS, research into training room interventions to achieve greatest behavior change in delegates that translated into the greatest performance gains back on the job for the client company. (PS: the NZBS trained 15000 people/year, 1985-1993).

o Research into the training and skills needed by tutors to enable changes in delegates in business training courses that lead to positive returns in results for the client company.

o In depth social science research in developing a general theory of psychology, written up and published in the book, The Origin of Consciousness.

o In depth HR research developed from within the general theory of psychology on the link between a person and the organization, how to manage that link to gain greatest commercial payback, and build greatest satisfaction for the person. See the books below.

o Research into sociology, applying cybernetic tools to establish a clear theoretical link between OPD strategic human resource management (OPD-SHRM) and community health. This research available in the book Building community wealth and health.

o Methodological insight and experience.

• Practical experience in physical science methodology from the PhD.

• Quantitative links between counselling interventions, time, hours, costs, and assessed cognitive, emotional, and behavior changes (Quantified by use of questions requiring 1-10 response, from client and validated by family implicated in the desired behavioral, emotional and cognitive changes).

336

• Quantitative links between training room interventions and company profit gains.

• Quantitative links between OPD human resource management and profit gains.

• Quantitative links between OPD strategic human resource management investment and the company profit and loss and balance sheet.

• In depth understanding of research design, both empirical and theoretical design.

• Developed unique social science methodology based on W Ross Ashby cybernetics in order to develop the general theory of psychology, which in turn lead to the OPD theory of organizational design. (See book ‘Origin’, first 3 chapters)

Publications

o Little, G.R. PhD thesis, Studies in Carbonium Ion chemistry, 1971, Canterbury University, Christchurch, New Zealand.

o Journal papers arising from the PhD.

• Blackett, B.N., Coxon, J.M., Hartshorn, M.P., Lewis, A.J., Little, G.R. and Wright, G.J. The mechanism of 1,3-dioxolane formation from the BF3-catalysed reaction of epoxides with carbonyl compounds. Tetrahedron, 1970, 26: 1311.

• Coxon, J.M., Hartshorn, M.P., Little, G.R. and Maister, S.G. The directing effect of the S-O configuration on the pyrolysis of cyclic sulphites. J. Chem. Soc., Chem. Commun., 1971, 271.

• Cole, R.F.J., Coxon, J.M., Hartshorn, M.P. and Little, G.R. Mass spectrometric studies of some

337

substituted cyclohexane-1,2-diols. Aust. J. Chem., 1973, 26: 1277.

o First papers in social science that chartered the research path.

• Little G. R. Social Models: Blueprints or Processes. Impact of Science on Society, 1981, vol. 31, No.4, pp 439.

• Little G. R. Creativity and conflict in psychological science. Impact of Science on Society, 1984, 134/135, pp 203.

o Management books.

• Little, G. R. 101 Ways to be a Better Manager. Reed Publishing, Auckland, 1988, second edition 1990.

• Little, G. R. 101 Ways to be a Better Production Manager, Reed Publishing, Auckland, 1990.

• Little, G. R. 101 Ways to be a Better Retail Manager, Reed Publishing, Auckland, 1990.

• Little, G. R. 101 Ways to be a Better Sales Manager, Reed Publishing, Auckland, 1990.

• Little G. R. 5 Steps to Successful Business Leadership, MB2000, London, 2000.

• Little G. R. Operations Team Leadership, MB2000, London, 2000.

• Little G. R. Management Team Leadership, MB2000, London, 2000.

• Little G. R. Retail Team Leadership, MB2000, London, 2000.

• Little G. R. Sales Team Leadership, MB2000, London, 2000.

338

o OPD journal papers.

• Nel P.S. & Little G.R. An Integrated Strategic Human Resource Theory to Achieve Organization Objectives , The International Journal of Organizational Behavior pp. 4-13 (http://www.usq.edu.au/~/media/USQ/Business-Law/Journals/NelLittle%20Paper%201.ashx)

• Nel P.S. & Little G.R. Sustainable leadership: The fundamental solution to lasting superior staff performance, Asia Pacific Journal of Business and Management, 2010, Volume 1 (1), pp. 43-54. (http://www.uunz.ac.nz/pdf/journal/edition1/Journal_part4.pdf)

• Nel and Little The Future of Organizational Design, World Review of Business Research, Vol. 5. No. 2. April 2015. http://www.wrbrpapers.com/static/documents/April/2015/5.%20Pieter.pdf

o OPD books. www.amazon.com/author/grahamlittle

• Little G. R. The Last Leadership book you ever need read, Self Help Guides Limited, Auckland, 2011.

• Little G. R. Time budgeting; Getting the best result from the time available. Self Help Guides Limited, Auckland, 2011.

• Little G. R. Modern Team Leadership, Self Help Guides Limited, Auckland, 2011.

• Little G. R. The Role of Human Resources Management in the Modern Organization: Making

339

human resources the driver of success. Self Help Guides Limited, Auckland, 2011.

• Little G. R. Rollout: Improving Rollout of Business Strategy. Self Help Guides Limited, Auckland, 2012.

• Little G. R. Human Capital, Self Help Guides Limited, Auckland, 2012.

• Little G. R. Executive Pocket Guidebook: Summary of making organizations more successful. Self Help Guides Limited, Auckland, 2012.

• Little G. R. Building Community Wealth and Health: Achieving a wealthier and fairer society. Self Help Guides Limited, Auckland, 2012

• Little G. R. Introduction to Redesigning the Organization Book Series, Self Help Guides Limited, Auckland, 2012.

• Little G. R. The Mind of the CEO: Thinking habits of the successful CEO. Self Help Guides Limited, Auckland, 2014

o Consolidation of research into social science methodology and it application to a build and then interpret a general theory of psychology.

• Little, G. R. The Origin of Consciousness, Self Help Guides Limited, Auckland 2013. www.lulu.com/spotlight/grahamlittle

o Personal notes/papers on intellectual on resolution of the key research questions.

• Web site www.grlphilosophy.co.nz . These papers formed the basis of the book The Origin of Consciousness.

340

o Business coaching manuals.

• Eighteen corporate training/coaching workbooks published on web at www.SelfHelpGuides.com.

• Creating high performing teams.

• Customer handling skills.

• Achieving more sales through your sales team.

• Introduction to selling.

• Senior sales refresher.

• Making training pay.

• Negotiating.

• Poise and personal power in business.

• Improving profits.

• Retail selling.

• Retail store management.

• Telephone skills.

• Fundamentals of coaching.

o Poetry, at www.grlphilosophy.co.nz.

• 1981 to 1991: Cogito revised

• Some Wet Sunday

• Dianne

• Tomorrow today

• The I of I

• Power of Images

• It does not get better than this

341

• Friend's 60th

• Years that separate

• Birthdays

• Complex!

• Structure of Relationship

• To a Woman Drawn

o Essays on social science, www.grahamlittle.blogspot.com, 2014.

• Into me see: The beginning (on method).

• Why we do what we do.

• Mind over matter.

• The structure of truth.

• Hope for stroke.

• The explanation of everything human.

• How do we know the truer theory?

o Essays on social science and psychology, LinkedIn posts, www.linkedin.com/in/grahamrlittle, 2015.

• How do we build a general theory of psychology?

• Why we do what we do.

• Mind over matter.

• The structure of truth.

• The correct theory of psychology must explain all human output.

• Ideas truth and integrity.

• Understanding and managing depression.

342

• The psychology of freedom.

• How do I think and can I do better.

• Do our genes determine who we are?

• Defining consciousness.

• The intellectual structure of social science.

o Essays on leadership and organization development, LinkedIn posts, www.linkedin.com/in/grahamrlittle, 2015.

• Achieving the perfect game to double profits.

• Making HR the proactive driver of strategic success.

• Management is more important than leadership.

• Leadership making work fun.

• Making your work day more fulfilling for you.

• Okay strategy is agreed. Now what?

• Understanding and managing motivation.

• An integrated motivation policy.

• Goal setting is old hat, why do we need KPIs?

• Management versus leadership. Let’s settle the debate once and for all.

• Change and continuous improvement in business.

• Governance, senior leadership and organizational design.

• New approach to HR to get better results.

• Understanding and managing financial reports.

• Desirable preconditions for unlimited leave.

343

• Work, flow and job satisfaction.

• Building a high performing culture.

• Redefining engagement.

• The OPD analysis of training and coaching.

• Would you like to double profits.

o General essays. www.grahamlittle.blogspot.com. 2012.

• Toward new social thinking.

• Who am I and where did I come from?

• Understanding culture.

o General essays. www.grahamlittle.blogspot.com. 2011.

• Where passion meets purpose.

• Selecting economic policy on science not ideological preferences.

• Only we can do that.

• A society needs rules.

• Why did that happen?

• The cycle of birth and death (of the universe).

• The abuse of science.

• Toward a fair society.

• When science isn’t.

• Understanding what it is like to be...you, me, he, she or thee.

• Building a fair society.

• Who are we?

344

• Bringing heart to our legislation.

• Giving democracy a soul.

• Understanding culture (initial thoughts)

• Searching for me.

• Pike river mine and Horizon disaster: Why?

• Refinement on Goldberg thesis and why men rule.

• The right to leave...

� What came before the big bang?

� Business ethics, spirituality and the righteous man.

Employment history

o PhD Canterbury University.

o Two years Shell Oil chemical sales representative and two years training and recruitment officer in Head Office Personnel.

o Two years contract general manager in Command Services.

o Two years Commercial Director Fisher International, Commercial Support to the late Lou Fisher.

o Six years CEO of psychological counseling company, ITASS. Institute of Theoretical and Applied Social Sciences Limited.

o Twelve years CEO of the corporate short course training company, The New Zealand Business School Limited.

o Eighteen years as self-employed independent consultant, contracts focused on staff performance, general strategic consulting, senior team development, HR advisor and strategic HR.

o Since 2006, founder and CEO of the human capital development business OPD International Limited (www.opdcoach.com).

345

Skill summary

o Design of learning & development: Expert in training and development program design.

o Policy: Experience in drafting policy guidelines and design of associated business processes that enable performance and efficiency.

o Policy and governance: Excellent general strategic and business management skills.

o Student motivation and assessment: Experience at design and application of examination systems to assess student progress.

o Tutoring and lecturing: Experience at gaining interest and maintaining student engagement.

o Research: Broad experience base enables balanced research design of projects.

o Business process design: Clear and systematic approach resulting in simple, cost effective policy and procedures.

o Financial responsibility: Employed in several roles with full P&L accountability.

o Business planning: Expert in integrating HR strategic plans into general business strategic planning.

o Business projects: Able to research a business and design, develop, and guide implementation of projects to improve performance, staff satisfaction and profits.

o Facilitation: Over 10,000 hours of successful group training experience in New Zealand largely at level of middle management, Executive development and senior sales person.

o Performance management: Expert at enabling performance improvement in teams and individually.

346

o Talent development, succession planning: Insightful of talent, and skilled at drawing it forth.

o OSH, recruitment, remuneration and payroll: Experience at policy on payroll systems, pay for performance systems, recruitment policy and OSH.

o IT: Skilled in use of Office.

o Mergers and acquisitions: Experienced in cultural blending and IT integration.

Personal qualities

o Deep, clear thinker. Drawn to challenging problems. Sees big picture, but strong on managing the detail. Persistent and determined. Works well in a team. Excellence verbal and written English. Patient. Determined. Assertive. High emotional intelligence. Gets things done.

o Educated Canterbury University, B.Sc. (Hons), PhD (1971, Organic Chemistry)

o Health, excellent. Regular attendance at the gym.

o Hobbies writing, gym, fly fishing both fresh and salt water. Holds two salt water fly fishing world records.

o Associate Fellow of the New Zealand Institute of Management.

o A member of the Society for Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, a division of the American Psychological Association (APA).

Family and hobbies

Graham is divorced, with two adult children, both in relationship, daughter living in Brisbane, and son living in LA. He has three grandsons (at time of writing). His hobbies are fly fishing, both fresh and salt water, he has two salt water fly fishing world records.

347

Enjoys the gym, and is a passionate armchair follower of the World Champion New Zealand All Black rugby team.

Intellectual evolution 1974 to 2015

My work falls into several stages.

1. Drafting the questions. 1974.

1.1. If we had an apt and complete general theory of psychology

what would be its structure and what could it tell us of two

people having a conversation?

1.2. If we had an apt and complete general theory of knowledge

what would be its structure and what could it tell us of the

relationship between knowledge and the objects of that

knowledge?

1.3. If we had an apt and complete general theory of society what

would be its structure and what could it tell us of direction

and mechanisms of development of a society?

1.4. There is only one actor, people, therefore how do the solutions to the first three questions relate one to the other?

1.5. Then about 1984 I added a fifth question: What do the

solutions tell us of the human spirit, what is it, how does it

develop and how is it manifest in human affairs?

2. Research phase. 1974-Christmas 1997.

2.1. 1974, drafted the first four questions.

2.2. My father died, February 1978, age 58. In my first and last

discussion with him the afternoon of December 24, 1977, in

the Te Atatu Hotel lounge bar, my first ever drink with him

348

as friends, he enquired on what I was trying to do. In reply

he gave me a crucial comment that sums my life: It’s a long

way from Runanga son. It was in that moment, like many young

men, I was 32, I realized my father was no fool, and had deep

understanding even though he was without any formal

education. The burning memory of my father, confined to

bed due serious mine injury, saying with deep passion, ‘get an

education boy, you are not going to the mines boy’. I have missed him

very much.

2.3. 1984, added the fifth question on the human spirit.

2.4. 1974-1990, read extensively in social science. Across all aspects, psychology, sociology, anthropology, epistemology,

political philosophy. This laid the depth of base to later work.

Read Marx, Kahil Gibran, Tielhard de Chardin, Popper, and

Bertrand Russell.

2.5. 1980-1983. Spent over 60 Saturdays in Auckland University

Library, researching journals in social science, consolidated

my data base and background. Researched clear air white out,

after Mt Erebus disaster in 1979. Researched crucial papers

from which I developed my overall intellectual position:

Anderson and Prichard on relationship between mind and

perception, Cohen on Ganzfeld effect, Sater on clear air

whiteout. The Air NZ Mt Erebus disaster in 1979, where 257

people died, gave my work tremendous momentum, since if

clear air white out had contributed as claimed, it had to be

explicable.

2.6. Two papers published that outlined my overview of society,

and my intended research program. Little G. R. Social

349

Models: Blueprints or Processes. Impact of Science on

Society, 1981, vol. 31, No.4, pp 439. Little G. R. Creativity

and conflict in psychological science. Impact of Science on

Society, 1984, 134/135, pp 203.

2.7. 1984-1990. Exchanged with Karl Popper. Discovered Design

for a Brain, by Ashby and grasped its significance as a theory

of the structure of knowledge. The problem was to prove it.

2.8. 1991, Reed published four management books: 101 Ways to

be a better manager, 101 ways to be a better: production,

sales, and retail manager. Sold strongly in NZ and Singapore.

2.9. Christmas 1997, six weeks camping holiday, decided

problems were beyond me and effectively decided to stop my

quest.

3. Realization and refocus. Late 1998.

3.1. In late January 1998, began to draft a new management book.

As I wrote I realized I was writing about a general theory of

psychology I did not know I knew.

3.2. My mother died, and I gave up my work for 6 months.

3.3. Late 1998, I drafted the first paper outlining the new theory. Submitted to several journals only to be rejected with

comment ‘interesting, but does not fit, try…’ After four such

rejections, I decided to build my own philosophy web site.

3.4. Began www.grlphilosophy.co.nz.

4. Drafting the theories. 1999-2009.

350

4.1. Wrote the papers held at philosophy web site. This work

represents more than personal notes, but not quite

publishable papers. Some 50 papers, estimated at near

400,000 words. This first expression of my ideas and insights

laid the base from which in the next five years I developed

the books.

4.2. Wrote the foundation paper to OPD system, People and

profits derived from my foundation intellectual position. See

the web site.

4.3. 2000, Management Books 2000 in London published five

management books. Five steps to successful business

leadership, Operations team, Retail Store team, Sales team

leadership, and management team leadership. Sold modestly.

I did not have the market presence I had in NZ with my 7

years in Management magazine, and 4 years with talk back

spot on leadership on talkback radio, 1ZB.

5. Refining the theories into books. 2010-present.

5.1. 2010-2012. Wrote the OPD books, see the About in Why

Work. Books failed to get above the ’noise’…

5.2. 2013-2014. Wrote The Origin of Consciousness. Joined Society of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, the theoretical division of the American Psychology Association, or so I thought!. Sought to engage with members of STPP to discuss my ideas and approach to a general theory of psychology. Was dismissed with personal attack in particular by a person who was a senior academic and had been engaging with the group for a decade with their own views of a general theory of psychology. Was told by another senior

351

academic, a senior administrator in the APA my work lacks substance and was without merit.

5.3. 2015. Previous attempts had not lifted my work above the noise… decided to write a ‘political work’, dealing with a theme that had arisen from my OPD organization work, namely the link between people and the economy.

5.4. February 2015. Drafted the paper on a new paradigm for social science, in the appendix of why work. Submitted to several philosophy journals… was declined. Added it to appendix of why work.

5.5. March-May 2015 completed Why Work. Aim for this book to lift my work above the ’noise’…

Future work 2016 -

5.6. I believe that the world’s academic/intellectual community has a responsibility to humanity to audit the ideas offered to humanity and to accept the core responsibility for which ideas are acted upon, and the consequences of applying those ideas. I believe the intellectual community has failed in that regard. This is spelled out in Why Work in my comments on Marx. But we could include for example, Freud, Adam Smith, and the interpretation of quantum physics. I wish to continue this challenge and do what I can to enable reconsideration of the role of our intellectual institutions asking that a higher standard of judgement be applied.

5.7. I will edit all the previous works, since writing Why Work has massaged my insights and skills at presentation of the ideas.

352

5.8. I aim to continue development of my ideas, exploring their application so that people are enabled to find greater ethical fulfilment. But that fulfilment grounded on ideas with intellectual integrity so people can be confident of the pedigree of the ideas.

5.9. The books I aim to write are summarized below.

On what we know: Insights into how to judge ideas. The nouskill of filtering the deluge of modern information. The nature of ethics. The nature of science and its role. Keeping science in perspective. The importance of the link between science and ethics.

Finding wisdom: Questions lead our intellect. Develop the philosophy that knowledge lies in the answer wisdom in the next question, it is the next question that keeps us balanced and humble, avoiding arrogance that we have a final and full answer. Select a range of situations, including most of the current scientific domains, and list unanswered questions.

Development of the Western mind: Trace emergence of ideas and make point we become the ideas that are applied. The core idea of 'I want what is best for me'. The issue of the ethics arising from this idea. Project the structure of future minds, economics, education, politics, work, values, war, poverty, wealth, child rearing, personal violence, drugs, freedom, mental health and mental illness, use of Wikipedia as the global mirror, culture, personal fulfilment, and spirituality.

Nouskills: Using knowledge to process knowledge. Nouskills and intelligence. Nouskills and education.

353

Mental health: What it is, how it is managed, how it arises in the theory? Mental illness defined as erosion of mental health. Public policy on mental health. What the government can do to promote greater mental health and the potential social benefits. Counselling processes and notes and strategies for managing mental illness conditions.

Future minds: The role of Western education policy on guiding the thinking skills, mental and emotional development of young people enabling them to live more fulfilling lives. Education on topics versus personal development in the classroom.

Humanist Spirituality: The importance of believing in something bigger than self. The structure of the human spirit. The causality of human mood and conduct. The search for personal fulfilment. The ethics of personal fulfilment. Nature of the nousphere. Role of nousphere as humanity's rudder. Faith and hope in a secular context. Principles as ideas worth living out. Integrity. The importance of each person. Cultural choices are the summation of the individual choices of the minds in the culture.