It is advised to read the other sections first, otherwise this will make no sense!




Group Decision


- - - - - - - - - -  

Deceit

Is there a systemic way to have decision making such that deceit is not present? Politicians don't listen to arguments, they go with what they already know. They go with their gut instinct. They see their real job as convincing other people of the same conclusion that they have already reached. The really clever one's realise that it is how the debate is staged, how it is 'framed' that determines success or not (Lakoff, 2002), where the most important tool is the use of appropriate language to support your position (Chomsky {}).

Lakoff (2002) suggest that two basic camps exist and each is based on differing moral predispositions based on schemas of how the 'family' can be, and from these different orientations, either left or right wing views will emerge. The first is the camp of the 'Strict Father', where there is an absolute truth, laid out by an absolute authority figure. 'Good' citizens of this kind are self reliant, responsible and resilient; they work from a set of morals based on reward and punishment; and as such hold that 'morality' itself is something that has to be defended. From this way of conceptualising the world you have the conservative side of politics.

The other camp Lakoff calls the 'nurturing parent' which fosters empathic behaviour which promotes fairness; of helping those who cannot help themselves; protecting all from harm; the promotion of life fulfilment and self nurturance as growth in order to facilitate all these things. From this way of organising experience of the world you have the progressive or 'liberal' side of politics.

However, their minds are already made up, because their somatic markers have already been laid down. A politician will know what is right because they just know, that is, the decision is being played out by the already pre-established schemas in operation.

If, as being suggested by this work, there is a fractal relationship or 'self-similarity' between the individual and the group, then the way that decisions are made is essentially drawn from the neurological underpinnings of the self.

On the conservative side, decision making is more amygdala focused, that is easily laid down schemas that are resistant to change, quick to access (explosively organised feedback system), and impart a tendency to action. Lakoff (2002) talks of an absolute authoritarian father (god) and absolutes of right and wrong. Kohlberg {ref} speaks of an earlier developed 'conventional' morality which is also based on clear boundaries of right and wrong as defined in reward and punishment. This is also reminiscent of how the amygdala organises information, where the process is definitely not about slow deliberate consideration, but rather it's about making decision now, and following through with decisive action. For the amygdala, the organisation of experience is based on what you already know right now and its easier (in cognitive dissonance terms) to just assume the decision to be always correct.

The amygdala responds most readily to fear ...but what if someone promotes fear as a purposeful background strategy in the framing of the debate?

On the progressive side, decision making is more OMPFC, where it is subject to more neuroplasticity. Additional information can be sought and added to the schemas. The schemas can be dissolved and reformed given additional content and information. Lakoff (2002) talks about 'growth' in this light, where more information is taken in in order to build a better understanding. Kohlberg {} talks about a 'post-conventional' morality that is context sensitive. With the OMPFC, schemas of the organisation of experience can be easily adapted to different context and with the change in context, other malleable schemas can be brought into play and adjustments made. Always seeking objective truth.

The OMPFC works best with objective logic... but what if someone lies?

The pursuit of truth is a tricky thing. It is the grist for the mill of philosophy in general, as Descartes and Popper will attest to, and as Damasio and contemporary neuroscience will challenge. My aim all along in the earlier part of this work has been to give you an experience of witnessing the various forces at work. Concepts on communication, consciousness, political matrixes, and the formation of the self have been expounded, and in the following section there is suggestion that some of this can be tested empirically, however remember that the goal all along was to give you an experience wherein you could witness your world. Yes the logical, empirical data is important, but so is imparting a new schema of experience for understanding the world in which we live.




- - - - - - - - - -  

Not Another Non-Testable Hoomy Goomy Hippy Trippy Belief System!

This theory is both falsifiable and testable.

Skin conductance could be used to measure the minor fluctuations in a person 'stress' level over a day. More sophisticated measures, probably connected to a smart phone, could also be used. Perhaps a camera in the phone checks the pupil dilation of the user whenever the are using it, which is then calibrated with a content analysis of the text message being sent. Perhaps a camera on the computer at work is set up to read infra red heat signatures.

Within the dyad, instead of using a linear approach that does not handle feedback loops, perhaps a non-linear approach would be better. Is there a movement between sympathetic and parasympathetic systems that gets played out? What will this say about the perturbations to the system that occur? How does the dyad then appear to an external observer?

At the larger level of the group, can polling information or election result data be analysed in a non-linear way? Is this then fractally self-similar to the non-linear data of individuals?

Can stock market data be analysed in a similar war? People have already latched onto the idea that the stock market is a window into peoples psychology. Is this an example of explosive and balancing feedback loops. One is predisposed to acting now, based on whatever information is at hand, whilst another is the considered analysis of broader contextual information over time. Does a 'bear-market' equate more similar to trauma than we think? Is a 'bull-market' more like say ...narcissism? Are there echo's of the sympathetic and parasympathetic system at work here? Are they fractally self-similar?

In the political-economic realms, does an economic depression precede (or "cause") a rise in right wing nationalism? Or is it the case that a rise in right wing nationalism precedes a flood of investment that raises the GDP? Isn't this then a feedback loop, which is only being understood up to now in a linear way? Would the application of a non-linear approach better explain what is occurring? Is this system then 'self-similar' to the sympathetic autonomic nervous system within an individual, and not just as a metaphor, but are they both part of the same fractal.

Is the rise of law, codes and regulatory bodies, the codification of how we should behave towards one another an expression of the parasympathetic autonomic nervous system? Again, not just as a metaphor, but as part of the same fractal? Or, alternatively, is this codification of morality an integration of the somatically organised experience and the conceptually organised experience. A nation can choose to let stock market speculation run riot (explosive feedback loop), or it can put in place regulations to prevent it getting out of control (balancing feedback loop).

Does a pure, unconstrained economic system have it's own feedback systems, reflected in it's success, as market fundamentalists would argue? Or does the operating principles of a company, as it internalises profits and externalises costs, mean that it is not really operating in a real world that has very real physical (environmental) boundaries? If left to itself, without any checks at all, would 'the market' then bring back slavery? Is then morality, as expressed in law, actually a long surviving memetic organisation of experience from the amygdala?

Is it worth testing all this by way of examination of the non-linearity in the self of the individual, the dyad of the couple and the political-economic-judicial organisation of a group?




- - - - - - - - - -  

So what's wrong with the world?

Well that then depends on your initial conditions. What underlying organisation of experience do you start from? This question could be answered in hundreds of different ways, and perhaps a content analysis of the answers provided to this question will tell you the underlying sympathetic/parasympathetic 'state' of the group at a given point in time.

Someone from the right might say, people are not self-disciplined enough, there is too much government intrusion in our lives, or people are not moral enough. Someone from the left might say, too much greed, too much inequality or too much unconstrained growth in a finite environmental system.

But taking the 'self-disciplined' and the 'greed' ideas from both sides, they are actually the same thing if viewed from the Buddhist tenant that 'desire is the cause of all suffering'.

Desire is the cause of all suffering. Interesting idea. It would mean that advertising is a bad idea because it deliberately promotes desire, and yet not having exposure to desire will lead to fragmentation should desire emerge more normally from the background environment. At any rate, advertising and regulation in general is certainly going to remain a hot topic.

Freud's notion of 'drives' might only be the basic motivation system being expressed in a runaway feedback loop of the limbic brain, which is associated with the dopaminergic and serotonergic reward systems that motivate behaviour. Untempered by the OMPFC (call it the superego if you want), this unconstrained motivation could be a problem.

The self (hey, might as well call it the ego) is at the boundary of these two function of the organisation of experience. If the same non-linear process, from which the self is an emergent property, is also in operation at the level of the group, then what is the emergent property of the group? Oh and by the way did I tell you that this might be God's phone number.




- - - - - - - - - -  

God's Phone Number

"For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." Mathew 18:20 (Hmmmm. Looks a bit different now doesn't it.)

If this work is going to include a formula, it might as well also include a passage from the bible. Like the 'hero's journey' that forms the basis of every story {ref Campbell}, the story is a narrative of how to better survive the chaotic world. Written down, in the literary and literal sense, it becomes 'gospel'. Codified laws, passed on from generation to generation, that reflect an organisation of experience. At times these laws seem resistant to change, but over time they have changed, for instance no-one really takes Leviticus seriously do they? Better to give over you're wife and daughter than have someone bugger you ...really?

Admittedly this is almost an inconsequential sideline, but perhaps when one level of a fractal, is given to observing a larger level of the same fractal, they have a resonant feeling, an harmonic internal affect, that they do not quite know how to understand. Consider being on the edge of a Mandelbrot set, looking into the interior and you see the larger group fractal. It's the same fractal, just bigger.

Perhaps the self is to the individual what god is to the group. In the same way that a resonant frequency can cause a bridge to wobble, the resonant frequency within a group of people can cause an affect within an individual. An visa versa, where the comments of a brilliant oration can cause a seismic shift in the population. The affect experienced when this larger to smaller resonance happens, has not attribution source, no way of understanding, and so a mythology is created in order to cope with the cognitive dissonance it creates. Mythology, mysticism, magic are attempts to organise experience when there is no real way to base them in actual experience. Don't get me wrong, someone who has a God-episode, and who is within a set of memetic structures that have evolved to cope with this God-episode, will take on these very memes as a simple way of finding congruence again. Dawkins {ref god delusion} refers to this memetic evolution as the basis for how religions are created. As a psychotherapist though, to decry the subjective experience of someone as NOT real is to cause a perturbation in the individual that may not be coped with all that well.

The intersubjective therapeutic approach takes very seriously the supposed 'delusions' that a client is having. That's because it is not the veridical truth of polythematic delusion that is important in therapy, it is the underlying affect that is the most salient aspect to deal with. Context is extremely important here, such that in therapy, if a client is having a psychotic break and aliens are dropping from the ceiling, if therapist denies the experience of the client they are completely missing the point, which is that the client is terrified. Work with the terror instead, understand the triggers that caused the delusion, this is the job therapist has to do. In a religious delusion (Dawkins {ref}) the heart and sole of the affect being experienced is connected to a fear of dying and a sense of belonging with a larger herd of believers, so for the atheist it would be better advice to deal directly with these emotions instead. However, with religion the context is also a bit different. Zealots can get elected to office and have access to a nuclear arsenal. Here then a bit of veridical truth may be useful.

Hopefully by understanding that god has a phone number which may be the underlying parameters of a non-linear system of the self as expressed in the affective / amygdala / implicit / unconscious / sympathetic organisation of experience which is interacting with the conceptual / pre-frontal / explicit / conscious / parasympathetic organisation of experience ... then maybe we can stop the stupidity of religions. Yes the affective experience of the religious person as they experience the larger fractal is important to validate, from this perspective God does indeed exist, albeit not an old bearded man in the clouds version of god. By the same token, the sense of awe and wonder that a scientist has when they uncover something about the natural world and it all makes sense to them, this feeling too, is the same feeling! Logically the realms of science and religion can never be joined, but emotionally, from a non-linear perspective, they are one and the same thing.

From a psychotherapeutic position, it is the making of sense that really counts towards improving a persons life (all refs Stolorow et al; Lee & martin; Shane et al.; here {}). Simply dismissing does not work and is fundamentally counter productive. And it is through the understanding of how a dynamic psychotherapeutic approach works, i.e.: making sense in relationship, that the answer to the question of how to fix things in a geo-political sense emerges.




- - - - - - - - - -  

Political Mindfulness.

In therapy a core outcome is to enable the client to achieve a sense of mindfulness about their own self. In religious terms this is 'the witness'. What Maslow would call 'self actualisation'; what Grieves refers to as the post-egoic stage of consciousness where the ego itself can be examined. It is the path of enlightenment in the Buddhist tradition, a middle way, that which becomes strengthened in a meditation practice.

Our political structures need to do the same thing. There needs to be political mindfulness added to the wild chaotic mix of egoic transactions that currently exist in democracy and that led Winston Churchill to say "...democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."

This political mindfulness has been the intention of this work all along. Step outside of the specific (egoic) position that you hold with regard to politics, look at the process of political decision making as a whole, then re-engage with it from this witnessing positions. This is the next step that our political democratic institutions needs to make.

For example, as pointed out in the decision making matrix, when a decision needs to be made quickly, affects fewer people and is more life-and death, then a leadership method is is required. When a decision affects everyone, is less life and death but will transcend generations in its outcome, then a consensus approach should be taken.

Understand the parameters of the decision being made and then work out the best way to make that decision. Oh well, I've inferred 'paradigm', quoted the bible and used a formula, might as well use the prefix 'meta'. What political mindfulness is referring to is a form of meta-decision-making process. Where the decision making process 'knows' itself.

At the present stage of western democracy we are shifting from a broadcast medium (radio, film, TV) into a network medium (web 2.0), and as Marshall McLuhan states, "the medium is the message." As a consequence, the methods by which the current political structures operate will be fundamentally challenged. The back room political hack that crunches the numbers, the spin doctor that frames the debate, the orator who can spam out this message on the broad cast medium are all about to be replaced ...or at least augmented to suit the new medium. The original purpose of a democratic process, for open and transparent decision making is again taking centre stage, just as it did with the advent of telegraphy and pre-paid postage in the 1700's and 1800's.

The emergence of democracy 3.0, is just around the corner. It's form will be network structures, most likely a 'gamefication' of the decision making process, where people form nodes in a network, information is passed between the nodes, feedback loops are created that allow for verification and verisimilitude, and probably most importantly, where the broadcast message is reduced in it's potency. In Australia, an interesting experiment has been underway for a few years in the Q and A television show produced by the public broadcaster (the ABC - Australian Broadcast Corporation). Here a panel of known and influential thinkers, politicians, writers, artists, media commentators, are place on a panel and the audience are invited to submit questions. What's transcendent in this format is the 'twitter' conversation that run's parallel to this broadcast. A feedback mechanism where the audience can talk to the audience as well as hearing the answers from the panel members.

What's palpable is the degree to which a Q&A show differs when politicians are on the panel as opposed to the one where they are absent. The style of dialog is different without the politicians, more amiable, less confronting, more resting down and making sense of experience (parasympathetic). This highlights an example of how the contemporary politician is agonising over the change in the world order as it moves from broadcast to network. As a consequence of the politicians desperation at the medium changing from broadcast to network, the political rhetoric is ramped up considerably as they try harder and harder to depose the other side, attempting to make the voter afraid (fear = amygdalic process). The broadcast system, and it's presumed amygdalic emphasis on the organisation of experience is being fundamentally challenged, and it's proponents are clinging on desperately to the old paradigm.

Now add Myspace / Facebook / Google Plus, strong on relationship, indeed hugely successful because it is all about relationship, and which is even suggestive of meta-relationship (go ahead, change your relationship status to 'engaged', and see what happens to the adds on your page). Then there is twitter, immediate, quick, simple (short) organisation of experience. Now add wikipedia, in depth, communally organised sense making apparatus that has a massive and loyal community, yes it can be corrupted, and regularly is, but it's an indicator as to what may be possible. Then to this add the extreme edge of Wikileaks, whose simple stated aim of transparency is viewed by some as so diabolical as to make it akin to treason. At what time in the history of democracy did it become treason to expose the decision making processes of our government?

In the caucus room they hide, where decisions are like sausages, it's best not to let people see you make them. Some home truths there, but it has gone too far.

Imagine now a politician that would refuse to have meetings in private. When a colleague or opponent addressed them, the conversation would be broadcast courtesy of a personal recording device that web-casts audio in 24/7. It's a hypothetical situation of course, they would want to go to the loo in private, and intimate relations would be problematic, but still, imagine if a politician made this claim that they would never hold a meeting in-camera. Obviously they would not be invited to many meetings, especially not meetings that focus on the external security matters. But just start to imagine the implications of such an act. It would be a perturbation to the system. There is in this hypothetical, a certain ...honour.




- - - - - - - - - -  

Consciousness Revisited - What's happening as we shift in consciousness.

In consciousness, when a person transcends egoic structures and enters into a witness state, they can then revisit the appropriate use of any mechanism from the broad spectrum of possible approaches. When they come across a snake whilst hiking in the bush, an explosive sympathetic response may be entirely appropriate. When they see people suffering, an empathic response may be entirely appropriate. In order to delve into the secrets of the universe, a curious exploration that holds absolutes to the side, which may be entirely appropriate. When attempting to devise systems that allow us live on a finite planet, an emphasis on consensus and global equality may be entirely appropriate.

Witness consciousness gives a person the tools for the application of a spontaneously appropriate response, but only a very small percentage of the population seem to have access to this post-egoic level of consciousness.




- - - - - - - - - -  

Moving from Absolutes - Understanding and Teaching True Honour

Right now the bulk of the developed world is in the E|R Multiplistic-achievist stage, science dominates and consumerism is rampant. But the previous stage D|Q of absolute beliefs is fighting a last ditch battle to retain it's hold on many of the systems of power, seen in the rise of the fundamentalist Christian right. Out on the fringe the F|S greens are attempting to reshape the world but do not yet have the political power to manage this. However in the developing world the distribution is probably more spread out with smaller spheres of city state / nationhood which have not yet fully banded together as D|Q. Unlike the Islamic world, where the Absolutionist D|Q is dominant to such a degree that simply drawing a picture of Mohammed is going to earn you a death sentence.

At the moment, in the world, the Absolutionist positions are at each other throats. Absolutionist thinking is the hallmark of a D|Q level of consciousness that is broadly in decay. In order to help, the positive aspects of this stage of consciousness need to be reinforced in order to help those stuck at this stage to move on, the positive side of this stage of consciousness, the reason for it's take up in the first place is 'honour', belonging to a group and helping the less fortunate. These are noble attributes, and being useful, they will never really be lost, indeed no stage of consciousness is ever really replaced, just augmented as a new world view develops. So it is up to the witness conscious person to see that 'honour' needs to be reinforced in these fundamentalists before they will feel safe enough to find the curiosity that will move them onto the Multiplistic-achievist stage of scientific enquiry (E|R) and personal growth that does not come at the expense of other people.

Honour has more emphasis at this stage of consciousness, but it also can transcend the left-right divide. From the right wing perspective, going all the way back to Marcus Aurelius, honour is akin to individual morality. From the left wing perspective, honour is when people act for the betterment of society in general. However honour can go also go off the rails. In a feminist critique, it is the system of honour that can be seen as the basis of patriarchy. However a distinction should be made, where honour as it refers to something which is externally located, relative to the individual, it is actually more like 'saving face'; whilst true honour is something that is internally located and summarised by the phrase "what other people think of me is their problem".

Extreme repression of women comes when men hold their honour to be external to themselves, that is, it is held by women (mother, daughter, sister). Here now women are seen as holding the honour of the family, and if they do not do what is 'honourable' then this external locus of control is compromised. This is really no way to be, and patriarchs in this sense have not properly internalised their honour, that is, they have no positive self regard, and they end up 'demanding' that other people honour them.

Consider this from an object relations point of view and substitute the affect of pain instead. When a child falls and scrapes their knee they may experience a level of pain that that they are not familiar with. At it's extreme, this pain can cause a fragmentation of the self. Neurologically speaking the frontal cortex is overwhelmed and cannot accommodate the activation of the amygdala. As the parent sooths the child, holds them, puts on a bandaid, kisses it better etc, the affect will gradually subside and child will have a new experience that this extreme pain will eventually pass. Over time, and through subsequent events of pain and being soothed, the child will internalise this function. "in a sense, a child 'borrows' the prefrontal cortex of the parent while modelling the development of its own nascent brain on what is borrowed." (Cozolino, 2006:87).

Now apply this object relations / affect regulation concept to honour. When starting out a child is supplied with positive regard from their parents. When a child does not properly internalise this sense of positive regard, when no internal honour is constructed, then the child will forever be relying on the externally located sense of honour, something that he is told exists in close female relatives and partners. In the opening scene of the movie Rob Roy, Liam Nesson (Rob Roy McGregor) imparts to his sons that "honour is a gift a man gives to himself"

To overcome patriarchy, feminists need to honour men, and men need to teach other men that they only need to honour themselves. It's obviously a feedback loop that degenerates in the other direction, as the feminist critique makes men feel more and shamed and useless, it works to prevent the internalisation of honour needed to overcome patriarchy. But really what has to happen in men stepping up to the plate and doing their emotional work as women have been doing for ages.

With the fundamentalist, stuck in an absolute position of the world, the more you attack their position the more they may resist change. The unresolved existentialist question of an Absolutionist view of the world is that there are other with an absolute view of the world that is in fundamental contradiction. Every war, ever fuelled by monotheistic religion has been victim to this problem, and it basically boils down to two kids in a play ground taunting each other the words "My god's better than your god. My god's better than your god...".

There are few things that help a person transit to the E|R Multiplistic-achievist view of the world. One of them is simple exposure, that is being immersed in the other's culture, or 'walking a mile in their shoes' if you want to get biblical. In time the existentialist dilemma of their being multiple views about the same world will cause the breakdown of the destructive Absolutionist position.

Another thing that helps with every group dominated consciousness (B|O, D|Q, F|S) to an individualistic consciousness (C|P, E|R, A'|N') is simple curiosity. "Hmm, I wonder what's on the other side of that mountain range" is the calling for adventure to enter the C|P egotistic consciousness, and "I wonder what causes that to happen" is the beginning of scientific enquiry the heralds the advent of E|R consciousness. Encouraging curiosity is key to building on C|P to bring about the E|R, where for instance the many nature documentaries that show the workings of the natural world, the exploration of history in general, and even the plethora of crime shows on TV are just some of the expressions of this curiosity.

And in general, all existential crisis are helped by Humour, the arts and even philosophical conundrums like the koan or paradox, because they can all serve to crystallise the specific experience for the individual, giving them a frame of reference upon which to understand the cognitive adjustments being made.

But for those stuck in the honourable and noble pursuits of an Absolutionist view of the world, before the curiosity and the humour can be realised, there has to first be a sense of safety about the world. Building peace in everything we do is what will transit a person more than anything else. But going and bombing a people will work in the very opposite direction and harden the already absolute position they hold.

Now immediately superimpose on this dilemma of bring peace a safety, a politician who believes in one thing, but will vote against this in order to gain a political advantage. Can they really be trusted, and without trust, is there any sense of safety. Are they being honourable? If they deliberately omit facts that challenge their position, are they being honourable? If they bend the truth to breaking point in order to gain political advantage, are they being honourable? Are you getting a sense that our politicians are living with a falsehood that they are merely play-acting at being honourably, when really they are far from it. Right now, anything that will is actually honourable in our current systems of government are extremely needed.

Yes political compromise is a requirement in decision making, but only when it comes of the back of a PROCESS where in the expounding of ideas has occurred such that 'all' citizens may be taken through this process. Without the process it will simply come across as pragmatism at the expense of principle.

Aaron Sorkin's television series "The West Wing" worked largely from the way in which it dealt with honour, and it was received as a dry sponge thrown into a bucket of water, fans who got hooked just soaked it up. It's one of the few examples of transcendent ideological debate because by focusing on honour, they were ultimately focussing on truth telling, and it is this philosophical nut of being able to determine the truth that is being missed.




- - - - - - - - - -  

Realising the Finite - The Transit Out of Consumerism

Moving from the Multiplistic-achievist view of the world (E|R), with all of it's advantages in scientific enquiry, is also happening in the developed world. The ability to enquire will never be lost, just as the systems of honour and empathy will never be let go off in the preceding level (D|Q), but the Multiplistic-achievist world view can also degenerate for the individual by becoming one of self-absorbed over consumption. The existentialist problem of the E|R level of consciousness is that the world cannot support infinite growth because it is ultimately a finite system, and there is no guarantee that anti-gravity can be developed to over come this basic set of physical limitations.

What arises is the green/environmental movement, and this shift is also occurring. Greens do not really see that it is an issue of consciousness however, and they relentlessly pursue an agenda of education in the hope that people will change. Really all that needs to happen is the challenge that comes with defining everything as having boundaries. It is the boundaries of the physical world that bring the E|R level of consciousness into sharp relief, and the sooner environmentalist take on the role of consciousness raising agents, the better.

So for instance, it is not going to work to just sit around in a protest and demand change, it won't happen that way. Sure it will help to make the protestor feel better about themselves, but it won't work at all in the boardroom where decisions are being made. Instead the environmentalist needs to don a suit and talk to the E|R members of the board directly, or using the qualifications gained in university to change government from within. Share holder activism is another way to help in this change, as is running political campaigns more effectively in order to create necessary awareness of the boundaries that exist.

At the moment this change is occurring. Green memes are starting to appear in many guises, from the feminist demands of equal pay, maternity and paternity leave, to the host of charities and NGO's that can coordinate internationally. In Australia a tradition has emerged in some sections of the community where a 'welcome to country' is spoken as a prelude to a meeting. In this statement the original custodians of the land are acknowledged before the meeting continues. It's simple, yet powerful in that it honours.

And on the policy front the E|R transit to F|S demands that markets become regulated in such a way that the intrinsic limits of the environment are being observed. Also in Australia the creation of a cap and trade system of water rights is moving in this direction, as is the cap and trade possibility of a carbon market.

The job of the green is to highlight in argument the alternative. Purely as an example, consider the right to own a car in a city. Everyone would agree that everyone has a right to own a car. In fact anyone can own as many cars as they want. If then, everyone owned 100 cars in a large modern city, you'd expect that the total space occupied by the cars would exceed the tarmac available in the city. So, even as a purely hypothetical proposition, it might seem 'right' that everyone could own 100 cars... it's just not physically possible to do so. What then does this mean for a population that is only ever increasing (as a capitalist system demands it should do)? Won't we eventually run out of space to contain the car's that everyone has a right to own....

The use of a hypothetical like this serve to challenge the wild-west like notions of the free market that capitalism has held. It is this deconstruction of reality that the F|S green gets to be really good at, however it can also lead to the fundamental existential crisis they have to face, which is that of existential despair.




- - - - - - - - - -  

Existential Despair - transit to the post egoic stage of consciousness.

"Nothing matters" is the statement of existential despair that the F|S green has to face. It doesn't matter what I do, it won't matter, because I am just a tiny organism on a huge planet heading toward oblivion. And this planet is just a tiny brother to larger planets of the system, which pale in comparison to the moderately small sun that itself is puny compared to the space between it and the next star system which is itself only a the smallest fraction of the milky way galaxy which is totally insignificant when compared to the unbelievably huge universe ... and on top of this we are all going to die in the cold entopic expansion and cooling throughout the next hundred billion years.

Kinda bleak really, but it means that nothing any one does actually matters. Yeah we could save the planet, but why bother ... it doesn't matter. We could end wars and help the less fortunate so they can have all the luxuries of the west... smart phones and TiVo for all!, but it just doesn't matter.

At this point a koan is needed, where if nothing matters, then the idea that nothing matters is also something that does not matter.

To move out of the constantly deconstructing mean green meme that festers in F|S consciousness, two things need to happen, the first is accepting that people are developing through different stages of life and that these different stages are neither better than, nor worse than the stages that have gone before. The second construct that is needed is purpose.

To let go of the ego is to first be ok with it, and then from this emptiness to find what your specific individual purpose in life is. This is again an exploration into the unknown. What would happen if you started to do what you actually wanted to do? What would happen if you found your own specific purpose for being?

There is already an incredible volume of literature on this question, from Buddhist teachings to Anthony Robins. It does not matter really, just so long as what you are doing enlivens you. Maybe your purpose is to seek answers through scientific enquiry. Maybe it's to help regenerate bushland, travel to war zones and report what's happening there. Maybe it's about working for Médecins Sans Frontières. Having children. Teaching children. Teaching adults. Maybe your purpose is to simply evolve and become a better person.

Now consider the issue of purpose from a dyadic perspective. How many couples do you know have a specific and stated purpose. The institution of marriage can go some way towards encapsulating this but so to can a written statement or public declaration.

Now consider the issue of purpose from a political perspective. What follows is clearly an example of a political purpose.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." United States Constitution, Preamble

With all the political infighting, back room dealing and shenanigans, something is being lost from the purity of this purpose. In the next stage of consciousness the idea of deliberate purpose will again come to the for. This USA preamble is very much rooted in the D|Q meme and it will be reinvigorated in the F|S level of consciousness, but more likely a new push will emerge in the form of a global purpose, as the question is posed to humanity in general, "why are we here anyway?"




- - - - - - - - - -  

What's Next - Political Mindfulness

The next species of politician won't just use twitter, and try to get people to 'like' them on Facebook, they will be fundamentally networked into an internet structure that has been specifically designed to augment the organisation of experience of it's individual member nodes. Imagine that this politician when asked a question by a reporter, simply waited. The would sit and wait for their logged in members (nodes) to present answers, these propositions then fed back into this network structure as part of an economy of ideas, and from which is an emergent encapsulation of the answer they provide to the reporter. Drawing from the vast resources of hundreds / thousands of people, challenged, refined, processed, augmented an eventually agreed upon such that it could then be the response to the reporters question. How the idea propagate through the nodal structure is governed by very simply rules that are designed to create overlapping positive and negative feedback loops, and where the emergent properties of this network are the basic concepts from which the elected member draws from when they answer the question posed.

It would be slower than the 'leadership' response, but in this delay there is a side effect, an incredible gift which is mindfulness. Allowing the question to hang there, allowing it to be unanswered, allowing the entire group access to the PROCESS of organisation of experience is the key to "political mindfulness"

At first this non-response will seem like weakness, but it's ultimately about changing the game of decision making from one of quickly driven amygdalic response to one of mindful digesting of relevant data into a more meaningful, and potentially more useful, perspective of the world.

Imagine also the politician that would refuse to meet anyone in private to discuss something. Yes it would be incredibly problematic because any short term tactical advantage is lost, as the art of political trading is compromised. However a longer term strategic advantage is gained, because their is the possibility of using the network dominated communication medium to actually take the population along with you on the decision making process - which is consensus. From this fundamentally more inclusive methodology, you enrol more support in the longer term as people who are interested in the decision at hand can be part of the specifically designed network structure that could be developed. Who would you rather listen to, the politician that dribbles out the latest spin dreamt up by a team of marketing professionals, or one that you know has actually listened to you and people like you? Do you trust a politician who can not take in new data and is thus intransigent on many issues even though the context of many decisions will change over time. Or would you trust the politician that is able to say new information has presented itself which means we need to return to an undecided state and asses the best way forward.

Time will tell, and prophecy is difficult at the best of times, and anyway, it's a bit of guesswork anyway.




- - - - - - - - - -  

Conclusion.

(really not finished yet)

The central thesis presented contains the following parts:

1. That the 'self' of a person a recursive process that emerges from the chaotic or non-linear interaction between the sympathetic dominated structures of the amygdalic brain regions which governs an implicit, emotional, subjective and less neuroplastic organisation of experience , and the parasympathetic dominated structures of the Orbito-medial prefrontal cortex which is more a more explicit, conceptual, objective organisation of experience capable of neuroplasticity with regards the context of information presented.

2. That this emergent property of the individual is part of a larger fractal arrangement and is self-similar to both the dyad and the group, such that the masculine / feminine in the dyad is reflective of the same set of strange attractors in the ANS (sympathetic / parasympathetic respectively), as is the broadly right wing, conservative view of the world in comparison to the left wing / liberal view (again respectively).

3. That this non-linear system could be measured and stated as being falsifiable.

4. That the stages of consciousness presented by Graves point have a corresponding association with the dominant form of communication technology. Where the individualistic stages of consciousness are associated with a broadcast mechanism, and is then countered by the next stage which will re-group the population whilst favouring a network structure, and so on as a spiral conceptualised by Graves.

5. That decision making in general has evolved multiple facets, all of which are useful in their specific contexts. This may leads an external observer to suggest that were the decision making systems employed able to understand themselves, then a radically different possible way of making decisions could emerge.

6. That, in light of all this, we are on the cusp of significant change.