Baha'i social and economic development

UN-NYC

For reflection, here's a comment from the Office of Social and Economic Development at the Baha'i World Center, from "The Evolution of Institutional Capacity for Social and Economic Development".

Baha'i social and economic development focuses on increasing the capacity of the friends to make decisions about the spiritual and material progress of their communities and then implement them.

While such development activities provide services that lead to a visible improvement in some aspect of life, their ultimate success is measured by the degrees to which they enhance the ability to address issues of development at increasingly higher levels of complexity and effectiveness.

This applies not only to individuals and communities but also to institutions. As development efforts grow, organizational structures should evolve to meet new challenges and opportunities.

And, this from a Letter of October 20, 1983, from the Universal House of Justice to the Baha'is of the World:

The steps to be taken must necessarily begin in the Baha'i Community itself, with the friends endeavoring, through their application of spiritual principles, their rectitude of conduct and the practice of the art of consultation, to uplift themselves and thus become self-sufficient and self-reliant....

Progress in the development field will largely depend on natural stirrings at the grassroots, and it should receive its driving force from those sources than from an imposition of plans and programs from the top....

... All can share; all can participate in the joint enterprise of applying more systematically the principles of the faith to upraising the quality of human life. The key to success is unity in spirit and in action.

And from the 1993 "Baha'i Social and Economic Development:Prospects for the Future",

Activities in the development field should be viewed as a reinforcement of the teaching work, as a greater manifestation of faith in action. ...

Development projects in themselves offer great opportunities to the friends to become involved in the life of society...

Openness to collaboration with people of capacity and leaders of thought concerned with issues of progress and willingness and ability to invite them to participate in applying the Teaching to specific problems, have to be created at all levels ...

The observations made in the previous section suggest the gradual establishment in each national community of channels ... to achieve material progress for themselves and their people.

...to have relevance ... it must, in all cases carry out its projects in collaboration with the responsible administrative institutions.

(credit: UN SED meeting originally uploaded by fozia25 ... click photo for to
go to flickr for a better view and set of photos.).

Village scene
Uploaded to flickr by carf

Detroit Mercy Hospitals scene by hollyziggy

Take heart! Harvard gets first woman president ever

This item "First Woman takes Reins at Harvard" is an interesting read, in conjunction with my talk from yesterday, where I argued that actually understanding the true meaning of "being human" would, in fact, dramatically increase our ability to survive in the global era -- although not by "being more competitive" but by understanding at last what it means to be cooperative.

New York Times
Oct 13, 2007

excerpts (highlights added)

CAMBRIDGE, Mass., Oct. 12 — Drew Gilpin Faust, Harvard University’s first female president, was inaugurated Friday and offered a spirited defense of American higher education against demands that it quantify what it is teaching and focus primarily on training a global work force.

“The essence of a university is that it is uniquely accountable to the past and to the future — not simply or even primarily to the present,” said Dr. Faust, 60, a Civil War historian and the former head of the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study at the university.

“A university is not about results in the next quarter,” Dr. Faust said. “It is not even about who a student has become by graduation. It is about learning that molds a lifetime, learning that transmits the heritage of millennia; learning that shapes the future.”

In clear opposition to pressure from the federal government for universities to prove they are accountable by quantifying how well they teach, she called on higher education institutions themselves “to seize the initiative in defining what we are accountable for.”

In an interview before the inauguration ceremony, Dr. Faust faulted a federal Commission on the future of Higher Education empanelled by the Bush administration for its focus on training a competitive work force for the global economy. While higher education makes “a fundamental contribution to training a work force,” she said, it should strive to be far more than that.

She paraphrased W. E. B. DuBois: “Education is not to make men carpenters so much as to make carpenters men.”...

Dr. Faust’s speech offered a ringing defense of the traditional role of universities as “stewards of living tradition,” as places for “philosophers as well as scientists,” where learning and knowledge are pursued in part “because they define what has over centuries made us human, not because they can enhance our global competitiveness.”

...Dr. Faust also signaled that universities like Harvard had to diversify their ranks.

...

She noted that American colleges had served as “both the emblem and the engine of the expansion of citizenship, equality and opportunity — to blacks, women, Jews, immigrants, and others who would have been subjected to quotas or excluded altogether in an earlier era.”

She added: “My presence here today — and indeed that of many others on this platform — would have been unimaginable even a few short years ago.”...

“It is urgent,” she said, “that we pose the questions of ethics and meaning that will enable us to confront the human, the social and the moral significance of our changing relationship with the natural world.”

Unity in Diversity - Talk cites and links

References from my talk at the Washtenaw County Baha'i Center,

Oct 12, 2007.

The slides from my talk are available in a format that is probably only readable using Internet Explorer. (it is a fairly large file (7 meg) and in a format ("mhtml") that can probably only be read using Internet Explorer as a browser, but you do not need Powerpoint.

You can get to the slide file through the first link on my web page here: www-personal.umich.edu/~schuette

If you know how to make this readable on a Macintosh or using Firefox, please email me and let me know.

Please contact me regarding copying or distribution of this material or getting the full powerpoint version. (Thank you!)

Cites and References from the talk:
===========================

Slide 2 - Photo from "Ollieda" on flickr.com (also at the top of this page!)

Slide 3 - "There can be no doubt"

Slide 4 - Baha'is Believe

Slide 6 - National Institutes of Health

Slide 7 - Airline Accidents (74% of on first day)

ICU accident rates (Dr. Pronovost)

Slide 8 - US new $1 coin

Slide 14 - Public Health Competencies

Systems Dynamics Society

Slide 15 - M. C. Escher - wikipedia

systems merge ...

Slide 16 - M. C. Escher - Waterfall

Slide 17 - Magic Dice ("non-transitive dice")

Grand Illusions website (actual dice vendor)

Slide 18 - Demo of Dice

(Excel Spreadsheet will be coming)

Slide 20 - Getting To Yes

Example of the Orange

Slide 24 - Theory X and Theory Y of organizations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_X_and_theory_Y

Slide 26 - Harvard Professor Amy Edmondson and fear at work

http://hbswk.hbs.edu/faculty/aedmondson.html

Slide 27, 28 - "Vertical" and "Horizontal" cybernetic loops

Slide 29 - Albert Einstein or Marilyn Monroe?

(picture credit: That picture is the work of researcher Gregory T Huang, from New Scientist's 31 March 2007 issue at newscientist.com, subscription required. The original covers a larger portion of the torso and the effect is much more pronounced.

Here's a link to an extended discussion of what this implies for conflict generation in society, and some other hybrid image links.

Slide 31 - US Army Leadership Field Manual (FM22 -100)

Slide 32 - High Reliablity organizations

http://www.highreliability.org/

Many links also

"Honey, I lost the nuclear weapons"

and

Positive Organizational Psychology cross-refernces

Karl Weick and "mindfulness"

Slide 34 - National Institutes of Medicine

Crossing the Quality Chasm and other links

Slide 35 - What public Health is about

Slide 36 - TS Eliot - Choruses from 'The Rock'

Slide 40 - Home mortgage disaster

Slide 43 - "Healing is not a transitive verb"

Slide 44 - Making "N+1" larger than "N"

Slide 48 - Positive Deviance

Slide 49 - Positive Organizational Scholarship

Slide 50 - Videos ("Making the Impossible Possible")

( hot links in this post 'There is a way out of this mess")

Please not the advice in read about how to view the video.

The book "Making the Impossible Possible"

Slide 53 - School of Information and "Technology-Mediated Collaboration"

Slide 55 - "We desire but the good of the world ..."

Slide 58 - friends in winter

========================

Other Nifty Thing - How those really tall cranes build themselves.

"How stuff works"

Psychosocial factors, social isolation, and depression

When you come back to me again

(On how closed loops tend to dissolve and merge the parties into one and blur the direction of causality.)

Technical paper (MIT) on high-reliability organizational culture

It's on the Social Science Research Network Electronic Paper Collection at
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=305718

Clothesline:

Two more arguments for unity

I discussed in an earlier post some arguments for why it may be a bad idea to put off efforts to deal with large-scope problems "until we have all the smaller-scope ones completed."

This, again, is flying in the fact of exactly the opposite trend among many business leaders, who have jettisoned concern about long-range planning, or else reduced it to a horizon of 3 months and call that "long-range". And, it flies in the fact of advice from many PhD advisors, who try to train their students to focus on smaller, shorter-term, more "realistic" problems.

The implicit sense is that the total energy and effort required to complete a task gets larger as the scale of the activity gets broader. In mathematical terms, it is assumed that effort to do a credible and useful job is a "monotonically increasing function of scope."

I completely disagree with that, and feel that by the same logic, no one should study astronomy, or even make a map of the stars, until we understand atoms perfectly. Or, perhaps, no one should study sociology and government until we understand everything there is to know about individual people.

It seems obvious, on reflection, that we can learn a lot about people by observing precisely the emergent phenomena around us. We can learn a lot about air by observing the weather, clouds, thunderstorms, and tornadoes that we would have a hard time "seeing" in a beaker of air, regardless how well and how long we studied it.

Also, we would have to explain why it is that it is far easier to describe the equations governing water in pipes in our plumbing than it is to describe molecular quantum mechanics. That, alone, seems to be a counter-example that disproves the hypothesis that larger things must be harder to get a useful handle on.

This is particularly true when large scale phenomena are actually causal, by all our standard definitions of that word, and the small scale phenomena of which the large is composed is not causal. Pretty much any electronic device is an example of that, where we rely on the statistical behavior of "current", without actually caring whether particular electrons move or kick back and chill, so long as most of them do what we expected every time.

Newtonian and Laplacian bases of description.

These are big words but relatively simple concepts. Newton described things in terms of points, so we might describe a ball's motion by listing where it was at time "t" for t=1, t=2, etc. to whatever precision we desire. To describe anything "large" in size therefore takes a "large"number of such measurements, and is correspondingly expensive and difficult.

Note importantly that the Newtonian method is always, literally, "full of holes" at the times we did not specify. It is an incomplete description, but works for many purposes, especially if we "interpolate" and "extrapolate" to "fill in the missing pieces" and "connect the dots."

That's not the only way we can describe the position of a ball. An alternative method, equally capable of being "complete" to whatever accuracy we desire, is to start by stating where the ball's average position will be over the time period of interest. That's the first data point.

The second data point could be the "standard deviation" or other measure of the variability of the ball's position over the time period of interest. (Or, we could pick as second and third data points the maximum and minimum positions of the ball over the time period of interest.)

Now here's an interesting thing. The way Newton described things, with three data points of the temperature today, we'd have the temperature at Midnight, at 12:01 AM, and at 12:02 AM., and not know very much that people care about, regardless how precisely those three measurements were taken. On the other hand, if I tell you the average temperature today will be 83, with a low of 55 and and a high of 92 F, I've also told you exactly 3 things, but they contain global information, not local information, and are way more helpful to you in selecting
clothes to wear, etc.

This is another counter-example, where a global measure is actually far easier and more useful than an arbitrarily precise local measure.

The specification of something, starting with the "low frequency, large scale" average color, then adding successively higher frequency variations around that base color, is basically how the jpeg images are encoded. Again, if a progressive jpeg is downloaded, you may be able to see in the first few seconds that it's not what you want as it emerges from the mist, and move on to something else. Meanwhile, viewers of TIFF images, are waiting for the top row of pixels to arrive, then the second entire row., then the third entire row, etc. You could need to download most of the picture to see what it is and whether you want it.

JPEG's can be arbitrarily precise, as precise as TIFF images, but it is seldom necessary for what humans do with images.

All the above is one set of arguments for why "large scale" properties are no harder than "small scale ones", and are often easier, and should not be neglected just because they are "large."

And, for phenomena that are "context dependent", as so much is, it may be far more valuable to us to get the first few "moments" of a distribution (the average, the standard deviation, etc.)
than to get the first few data points of the time-series. So, it can be far faster for many real decisions we need to make.

And, in physics, there are conserved properties such as "total energy" and "total momentum" that don't care at all how these rearrange themselves at the local internal level, so long as the overall total remains constant as seen from outside.

A completely different case for working from the top-down, instead of the bottom up, is called precisely that - "top down design" and "top down computer programming". A few hundred thousand person years of experience programming have led experts to believe that it is much more effective to describe a problem starting at the top, in very broadest terms with the least depth, and work our way "down" into successively more detail -- than it is to go the other way.

The other way, bottom up, in fact, is viewed as the major source of time-consuming "bugs" and conceptual errors that are very hard to resolve and hard to locate. In fact, if an organization ever gets an "Escher waterfall" shape in place, and realizes it is flawed, they might simply choose to live with the pain of the flaw, because of the amount that has been vested in "getting the pieces right" so far, the pieces that everyone has adapted to and is willing to accept as "the devil we know" rather than "starting over." At that point, as Zorba the Greek might say, we have "the full catastrophe" of a flawed design that no one wants to let go of, even though it is demonstrably broken.

With top-down design, the details rest on the the larger and larger contexts, not vice versa.
This is great, because the things most likely to change are the details, not the largest contexts.
If we rested everything on the details, every time a detail changed we'd have to redo the entire program. If we rest on top-down hierarchy of contexts, usually all but the very last few, the most detailed, remain constant over the life of the program, and the amount of change to code required is minimized. Most of the code, the upper levels, remains stable and validated and doesn't need to be touched. In the "bottom up" world, if you change one detail, you probably need to rewrite everything.

So, what I'm arguing is that these principles seem to apply as well to descriptions and measurements of our social organizations. Top down metrics may be much easier to do and reveal everything we need to know much faster than trying to get a huge number of detailed data points at the bottom levels.

In my mind, then, the mathematics and science argue strongly for working top down, and getting the large conceptual pieces resolved before worrying about the details, not the other way around. This progression seems, also, to match up with what Fisher and Shapiro are arguing in "Getting to Yes", that our problems only seem intractable because we're trying to resolve them at the most detailed level of "positions" when we could and should move up a few levels to "interests", where it is far more likely that we can find common ground.

For these reasons, from the discussion of fraying and gaps in human responsibility of synthesized tasks, and many others, I urge exploration of the "larger issues" at least in parallel with the "smaller" ones.

There are two final reasons I'll add to the mix.

First, although scientists tend to forget it, the entire enterprise of science is a social entity, and, as scientists seem always shocked to rediscover, the enterprise rests on a political and social matrix in which it is embedded.

Put most simply, if the social interests and the scientific interests clash too much, it is the scientists who will be out of jobs, not the society. If the society collapses politically, or has a global thermonuclear war or global biological war, the rest of science becomes moot. It doesn't matter how precise you are when you're dead.

There is, in other words, some timetable, some urgency, to getting sufficient data together to make some very large, very important decisions that will need to be made soon, that will dramatically effect us all. A response to the global rising epidemic of drug-resistant Tuberculosis is one, and what trade off civil liberties should have versus the rights of "the public" to be protected from people who are carrying infectious diseases. Ditto for AIDS.
What we should do about the "middle east problem" is another.

We don't have time for Science to analyze molecules sufficiently well to be able to tell us who to vote for in 2008, and that won't happen regardless how long we wait. The data and factors and variables of interest to us don't even exist at the molecular level. The universe is not deterministic upwards, as physics has shown us finally.

So, if we have some hard, global decisions coming up, we cannot wait for a bottom-up assembly of concepts and fragments of knowledge to succeed, because even if it were possible to happen, which it seems not to be, it would take "longer than we have."

We have, maybe, a decade or two to decide our fate, in some rather permanent and irreversible ways.

Given all the above, this argues that at least some effort should be given to looking for a "top down" approach to understanding how things work and what our options are. In that conclusion, I find myself in complete agreement with the teachings of the Baha'i Faith, which I will close with, as quotes from http://www.bahai.org.

But First, Unity

Is unity a distant ideal to be achieved only after the other great problems of our time have been resolved?

Bahá’u’lláh says the opposite is the case. The disease of our time is disunity. Only after humanity has overcome it will our social, economic, political, and other problems find solution.

Today, several million people around the world are discovering what He means. We invite you to explore His message with us.

I didn't set out to "prove" that the Baha'i's are "right" and that is not why I raise the issue now. I raise it because the group has been focused for 150 years on precisely this core issue of "unity in diversity", the one that the rest of academia is finally recognizing, and the group has studied first hand by direct experience what it takes to make that work in various parts of this actual planet we live on. That experience is hard-won and we don't have time to replicate it.

In that regard, it seems "due diligence" to at least read what they have to say.

W.

Unity in diversity - the universal problem

If we're going to have a useful discussion on solving our most important common problems, we need to understand the concept of "unity in diversity" at more than a basic level.

I want to stress two features of this design problem of "unity in diversity" as I'm using that term:

• The design problem is very wide-spread. There are instances everywhere in space, time, and scale.
• The processes and principles behind this are not just a little similar, or even very similar - they are identical.

First - the problem is very wide spread, across space, time, and scale.

• Our bodies have muscle tissue, nerve tissue, bone, blood, etc. - each with different jobs to do.
• Companies may have marketing, engineering, and manufacturing departments, each with different orientations and vocabularies.
• Families may have very young, young, middle-age, older, and very old members, each with very different interests and needs and vocabularies.
• A university may have different departments - such as "engineering" and "literature" and "athletics", with very different orientations, priorities, needs, and vocabularies.
• A hospital may have departments, specialties, and sub-specialties - such as medicine versus surgery, emergency medicine, emergency pediatric medicine, emergency pediatric respiratory medicine, etc. -- each with different interests, needs, orientations, and vocabularies.
• Our cells, internally, are not uniform but have specialized subsections for energy production, protein production, effectively library services (DNA), etc. These are all specialized with different structures, orientations, and functions.
• Our planet is not uniform but is divided, somewhat contentiously and fluidly, into "nations" which don't line up exactly with "cultures" or "continents." These may very specifically speak different languages and have different values, needs, and aspirations.
• There are often "classes" of society with differnt values, needs, and use of language, even if it appears at first glance to be "the same language."
• There is, literally, "no end to this." If we look upwards and outwards, it seems that the visible universe is divided into solar-systems surrounding stars, and the stars are clumped in to galaxies, and the galaxies are clumped into clusers.
• If we look at the internet and the world of weblogs and interest groups (the "blogosphere") researchers have found that it too has differentiated and clumped into subgroups that mostly talk within themselves, not across groups. (See Lada Adamic's work.)
• If we look at a high-school cafeteria, sometimes the breakup into groups, cliques, etc. is obvious.
• If we look at our cities, there are "neighborhoods" with local flavors that may be very different from each other.
• Our very concepts of life and knowledge have somewhat dynamic boundaries put into them breaking one world into different "fields of knowledge" with specialized vocabularies and interests and persistent identities.
  

This tendency to break apart a homogeneous population and turn it into specialized sub-groups is everywhere. This is a very basic physical process that always tends to happen.

If you don't believe me, ask any Dean, Director, parent, school-principal, general manager, mayor, governor, president or king. As soon as you get a large group of people together they tend to break apart into "warring factions." over the smallest things. And these people will also confirm that this problem is not just wide-spread and one that absorbs a lot of their time and attention, but is one that has a dramatic, often fatal impact on the survival of the collective enterprise - from productivity to creativity to agility. Everything gets wrecked by this breaking up into silos. So, yes, there is a lot of interest in ways to counteract that tendency, and in design patterns that are "reusable" and can be plugged into your own problem situation.

What's not yet shared, however, is the realization that these problems don't just span space, but they span scale and time. These are all, mathematically, the same problem - and it is the central problem everyone on earth has a vested interest in getting solved right now, if just to "fix" their own little corner that has gone wrong and spends more time fighting itself than it does getting useful chores done.

Without destroying the benefits of specialization, and without homogenizing everyone into "the Borg", how do we overlay something else additional on top of those specialties so that they all also have a common identity, a shared component, and can, when we need to, act as one? That's the engineering design question. What works? What has ever worked?

Second, the processes and principles behind this are not just a little similar, or even very similar - they are identical.

The good news, then, is that anything we can learn about this process in one "field", say sociology, is immediately helpful in understanding another "field", such as "developmental biology", if (and only if) we can distinguish the universal aspects from the accidental local implementation details.

The physical laws and principles behind this tendency to break up into self-sustaining clusters come to us from "control system engineering", not physics or chemistry.

There are only a few stable and simple ways to make a self-sustaining control loop, with certain parts we will always find. More on this tomorrow. We know this can work because we're sitting here reading this, and our bodies are made of trillions of cells that are differentiated and yet integrated. There is a solution to this design problem. We need to understand it better.

If every level and instance of this problem has its own low-resolution sense and view and picture of this problem, limited by the very small size of their receiver, mathematically, we can still assemble all of those low-resolution pictures and process them using "image processing" techniques to come up with a single, high-resolution image of the design issue. That's where I'm going with this, phrased as an "image processing" problem. There are very powerful muscles to do that, if we can rotate this problem around and get it over to those muscles.
===

Looking ahead , in the next few days I'll bring this back to the question of "immune systems" and the defenders of the faith, or at least, defenders of certain specialized substructures that life has rearranged itself into. There are some fascinating problems caused by the difference in scale between "members" and "the whole."

For example, in our own bodies, to function, we want our cells to be specialized into very specific functions and grouped into tissues and organs, and we want blood cells to be good blood cells, not sloppy blood cells. There are standards! Deviations must be rooted out!

But we also don't want "bone" cells to attack "blood cells" as if they were foreign invaders and enemies.

Now, this is a challenging problem, because we love our cells but, like loved birds like parakeets, they are still, well, to put it crudely, bird brains. PhD's have trouble understanding differences between cells - how are single-celled cells supposed to make a better job of it? (And, the astounding reality is that they do!)

Something really, really important is going on here. Somehow, a collection of dim-witted cells (relatively speaking) has managed, between them, to be collectively bright. This may be something some of us could use. How do they do that! Can we use the same principle to become collectively bright?

It's as if they don't have a brain cell between them. Actually, that's because they don't. They're too small to have "a brain". So, huh. How do we craft a design so that low-IQ cells, making only local observations, will correctly tell "good guys" from "bad guys" quickly and reliably - when the concept "good" and "bad" are actually not even meaningful at that level, but are concepts from a higher level of existence, at the organism level?

This kind of cross-level exchange of wisdom, and the relationship between the police of the immune system and the "immune system as a whole" is where we need to go to understand how things work, and therefore, how it can break, and therefore, if we have a broken one, how to fix it.

Remembering our soldiers

Countries still send their youth to fight and die, or come home injured and changed, for causes too often "long ago forgotten."

In the US, memory seems to be very short, and even the returning soldiers from last year are themselves forgotten in corners of Walter Reed, or in our homeless shelters or in cardboard boxes on the streets.

While violence and war seem to be the last resort of those incapable of any higher form of civilization, those who go are often motivated by their understanding of what will protect and serve the rest of us, and deserve our respect. That applies as well to "enemy" soldiers and injured civilians as to our own.

This is one of the most obvious "multi-level" activities of mankind, where "the Nation" is off fighting one kind of war on one level, and armies are fighting a different war on a different level, and individuals and small teams are fighting a third kind of war on a different level.

And, the "causes" of war, or intervention points to stop wars and achieve "just and enduring peace" are similarly clouded by all the factors this weblog discusses, from feedback processes to distant causality and the aggregate impact of many "small things" that we don't realize add up to a dominant force.

I'm reading a book titled "Social Injustice and Public Health", (Oxford, 2006) by Barry Levy and Victor Sidel, which is the textbook for a course I'm taking later this summer. The editors, Levy and Sidel, previously edited two other books "War and Public Health" and "Terrorism and Public Health." Their main thesis is that social injustice underlies these problems -- war, terrorism, and public health -- and that those visible downstream outcomes cannot be resolved until the underlying problem of social justice is solved.

This is similar to the central thesis of the book Peace - More than an End to War, published by the Baha'i Publishing Trust in 1986. Quoting from the forward of that book,

The Baha'i approach to the achievement of peace calls for fundamental changes in all aspects of behavior - individual, interpersonal, corporate, and international - based upon the belief that human beings have an innate capacity for harmony and cooperation,which, unfortunately, has been suppressed by religious fanaticism and the spread of divisive ideologies.

The Baha'i teachings prescribe education for world citizenship, the fostering of effective communication, and the eradication of prejudice. The advocate social reconstruction and administration based on the principle of the oneness of mankind. Each of these behavioral changes supports the others...

While there are many misguided and less noble motivations for warfare, one of the most consistent one, on all sides of any such conflict, is the belief that sacrifice and even death are worth it in the struggle to make a world safe for our children to grow up free of terror, discrimination, disease, and oppression. I suspect no nation has ever gone to war without believing that they are champions of this effort and that they are fighting some version of evil personified. Dehumanization and demonization of "the enemy" is always rampant.

Yet, 50 years later, these people like us that we had perceived as demons are often our friends and allies, and now we've shifted to perceiving other groups as demons.

Surely, our linear minds think, there is someone out there to blame for what is going wrong, and it surely couldn't be ourselves.

One of the most important lessons of "systems thinking" is explained well using a class role-playing simulation of a massive instability in the production and distribution of the alcoholic beverage beer, in MIT Professor Peter Senge's book The Fifth Discipline. Orders fluctuate wildly until companies start failing, but there is, it turns out, no one to blame. The system is to blame. The overall structure of the interactions is to blame, and, literally, every person in the system is behaving rationally and sensibly and no one intends the whole thing to go so wrong.

I can't think of anything more important for people who want to "stop war" or "end violence" to understand than that lesson. Often, no one is to blame, and everyone is to blame, for sustaining a structure that results, inevitably, inexorably, in us demonizing each other, and killing each other, instead of watching our children play soccer together.

The problem is that warfare has always been an inefficient and ineffective method of accomplishing the goal that everyone on all sides wants, ultimately, of a peaceful world with stable, thriving communities, economic prosperity, physical health, and an opportunity to move closer to nature and our particular view of God without being demonized ourselves for doing so.

We all want what our bodies and spirits are designed for and optimized for - social connectivity to each other. We want to belong, and to belong to something larger, and belong to something larger that has noble purpose and that may demand something of us but that sustains our best self in return. When that connectivity breaks down, as all the social epidemiology literature shows, when we become fragmented and disconnected, it is inevitably followed with depression, deteriorating personal physical health on many fronts, sometimes violence, and often death. We were never designed to try to face life alone, and it doesn't work well. Even the cells in our bodies, if removed from our bodies, commit suicide ("apoptosis"), apparently seeing no reason to go on.

This seems to be a deep, profound, and multi-level need, the need to belong, to reassemble all the loose parts and form a fabric, a community, a society, a culture.

One problem is that on different scales, individuals, groups, cultures, and sometimes entire nations and peoples are perceived as "not us" by other people, and efforts are made to marginalize, detach, suppress, or kill them outright - singly, in groups, or in massive genocidal wars. Needless to say, the attitude becomes mutual and self-reinforcing.

From the model I've been painting in the weblog, we may be able to view this in the framework of "regulatory feedback control systems" trying to do what they always do - namely, figure out where their own parts are, reassemble the parts, figure out what parts don't belong, get rid of those parts, and re-stabilize the whole thing in some kind of sustainable shape -- homeostasis in the case of humans, allostasis in the case of other beings or other levels of life, "system stability" in terms of large, complex computing systems and ecologies.

Now, that process is unstoppable and comes with the territory. You can't have Life without that process on every level, from sub-cellular components such as mitochondria to nations. There is nothing wrong with that design. It's a great design. It got us from a sea of hydrogen to the complex muli-leveled beings we are and the world we've built around ourselves and the natural world we've inherited, even if we seem bent on destroying as rapidly as possible.

What is killing us, and resulting in pain and violence at all levels, is not that process, but disorders of that process.

It is quite like our relationship with microscopic organisms known as bacteria. There are millions or billions of different kinds of bacteria, and for the vast majority of them we get along fine. In fact, there are some we literally could not live without, populating our intestines. Even some of the "diseases" that "we" get turn our to be the unintended side-effect of the bacteria themselves getting a disease from the much smaller viruses. We are not, or should not be, at war with bacteria. Coexistence dominates, and there are only a few places where it breaks down, and even those are malfunctions on the pathogen's end. It makes no sense for a pathogen to kill its host, and then have to go find another.

It is, on that scale, a poor business model.

Similarly, the cells of our bodies are not our enemies as humans. Occasionally, one goes crazy and starts ignoring the larger body and grows itself unboundedly, and we call that "cancer", but for the most part the health of our cells and the health of our bodies are fully compatible and, in fact, more than compatible, they are mutually supportive. It's the ultimate win-win solution.

It is, in my mind, a very similar process that we're fighting on a whole different scale with our economies and religions and armies.

Religions have disorders at the entire entity level because they can't resolve clearly what part of themselves is "them" and what part is "other", and we end up with "autoimmune disorders" where one part of the religious body turns on another part of the religious body and tries to destroy it. Sects develop and intersect warfare results. The body religious rips itself apart, to no one's benefit.

Immune systems are great, except when they go wrong. But it is not the concept of an immune system that should be discarded - it is the disorder of the immune system that needs to be repaired. You cannot make a living, sustainable anything without an immune system.

So, our attention then is turned, inevitably, onto how our social immune system makes the subtle but absolutely critical distinction between "me" and "not me", or "us" and "not us". Which thing out there should be preserve and healed, and which thing out there should be attacked and destroyed? This turns out to be a very hard question.

But, it turns out to be a very hard multi-level question, a scale-invariant question, a problem that is instanced on every single level of every living thing that ever was or will be.

In that is our hope, because, even though no one level tells us enough to "find the answer", the fact that all levels have this problem means we can pool data, trade notes, combine our insights from every level into a single master picture and then, I believe, we will be able to simply look at see what to do. It should be obvious, once we get the right viewpoint. It should be unambiguous, because it should be beautiful, simple, elegant, and have "white space" all around it. We should "resonate" with it, because it will be the answer our own body, our own psyche, our own family, our own community needs as well.

So, if we just accept the working hypothesis that "life" exists at every level, and then extend everything we know across levels, it should turn out we already know the answer. The "life sciences" should inform the "social sciences", and vice versa, because we all face the problem of supporting a multi-level mutually compatible immune system and the associated "identity" that the immune system is pledged to defend, at the price of death if necessary.

The expression of this identity at the social and national level can be perceived as "prejudice", when it attempts to divide one part of the human body from another and turns one part of our Body on another in the form of warfare or discrimination or suppression or exploitation.

Put most simply, that can't be good. It is an auto-immune disorder. It turns us on ourselves.

If our health is actually dependent on the health of the people around us and our connectivity to that, which it is, then it seems to follow that we want more of that, not less of it.

As Fisher and Shapiro note in their book Getting to Yes, after analyzing how to stop the Soviet Union and the USA from annihilating each other in a global thermonuclear war, there is a level upstream from the details of "position" where we can look at "interests" and realize that both sides, regardless how much they may hate each other at this moment, actually are made up of humans and actually have common interests - and if we can meet those human interests in some new way, the old "positions" that led to conflict can be released without struggle. The intractable simply dissolves.

This is the sort of thing that Kim Cameron experienced at the Rocky Flats nuclear waste-dump in the work I described yesterday - Making the Impossible Possible. It can work. It has worked. It does work. It will work.

We have a much larger problem than resolving the "Mideast crisis" facing us. The development of nuclear power is widely advertised as "the threat", but it is nothing compared to the threat of biological weapons, which almost any country can already develop. Unlike nukes, that at least mostly stay where they're used, aside from toxic plumes of fallout that will kill everything for the next 50,000 years -- the biological weapons can literally take on a "mind of their own" and decide that they will turn around and destroy their creators, then go on to destroy the rest of human life on the planet. That is not cool.

And, no missile defense shield or "Star Wars" project can stop such an onslaught, once it begins.
Such a thing can be launched, stupidly, by almost any two countries that decide the only way one of them can exist is to destroy the other.

The largest threat to the Homeland Security of the USA, in that light, has nothing to do with nukes or an "axis of evil", but has everything to do with any two countries or cultures or sects of a religion that get it into their heads that they should attack each other with bioweapons, which then spiral out of control around the globe.

There is only one defense for that threat to our lives and our children's lives and the entire future of the human race - and that is to tackle the disease and disorder of our collective immune system that keeps causing "some of us" to abruptly perceive "others of us" as mortal enemies that must be attacked to keep the whole body healthy and operational and to restore "homeostasis" on a larger scale.

As I say, I think we know a lot about regulatory control feedback systems, and we have an unimaginably huge computing capacity on the planet that is mostly used for video games and unused 2/3 of every day while we work or sleep. We have a global communications system with wearable camera-phones and wireless internet. Never before in history has any civilization had such powerful tools to use to tackle any social threat.

The threat is that our collective immune system, on a planetary scale, has not yet been stabilized and keeps mis-identifying parts of our own Body as "enemies" who must die.

It's an issue of who "we" are, at the core, and finding common ground with every other human on the planet -- which shouldn't be too hard in the space age, because we're all standing on the same little ball floating in a very hostile very large space out there.

Through the matter of how our individual and population healths are intertwined on a physiological and psychological and spiritual level, there is no "them" that is not, ultimately,
also "us." "Love thy neighbor as thyself" is redundant, because our neighbor turns out to be another side of ourself.

I recall the day our infant daughter Kelly saw something interesting waving in front of her face and reached out and bit down on it, as infants tend to do. The something was her own large toe.
It took about 2 seconds for this realization to work its way through the system and the shock and horror and pain to "click" and get her to stop biting her own self. Once the issue was "realized" there wasn't a problem in getting her to "disengage."

On a planetary scale we are not just "one people" but also one "meta-organism" with a life on its own level that is higher than our own, and that we share. We have a society and civilization and we have values and "epigenetic" information that was hard won that we want to pass on to our children's children.

It's time to tackle the job of healing that meta-organism's immune system, which will be reflected in the removal of "prejudice" of all types and the partitioning of the world into little subsections that think each other is some kind of enemy agent.

It's not that we shouldn't be fighting a war against bad things and evil, but that the bad thing we need to fight has to be "prejudice" and narrow-minded, short-sighted, selfishness that threatens to kill us all downstream of its own bloody in-fighting.

I think the framework I've laid out, mostly built on Baha'i and Public Health's best teachings, may be a way to approach that problem with new eyes, new tools, and new hope.

If so, maybe all the wars everyone has fought will be finally "worth it" and we can stop the rest of the wars forever, and actually heal this disorder instead of just living with it and dying from it.

Some people have found it strange that I spend a lot of time on a "public health" weblog talking about military leadership and US Army Doctrine. I don't see these as incompatible, and I want to address that question. The US Army Leadership Field Manual (FM22-100) seems to me a marvelous work, even if it now superseded by FM6-22. The description of the doctrine is of a fighting force with tremendous focus on integrity, character, humility, strength, and being a learning organization that learns from every mistake and is agile and not hung up on outdated concepts or models of the battlefield, but can quickly process new information and develop a new model of what's going on. What is not to like there? If there are problems they are from failure to live up to that standard, not from the standard.

Here's a few excerpts from that manual:

1-3: Leadership starts at the top, with the character of the leader, with your character. In order to lead others you have to make sure your own house is in order.

1-7: The example you set is just as important as the words you speak.

1-8: Purpose ... does not mean that as a leader you must explain every decision to the satisfaction of your subordinates. It does mean that you must earn their trust: they must know from experience that you care about them and would not ask them to do something - particularly something dangerous - unless there was a good reason...

1-10: Trust is a basic bond of leadership, and it must be developed over time.

1-15: People who are trained this way will accomplish the mission, even when no one is watching.

1-23: you demonstrate your character through your behavior.

1-56: Effective leaders strive to create an environment of trust and understanding that encourages their subordinates to seize the initiative and act.

1-74: The ultimate end of war, at least as America fights it, is to restore peace.

4-9: Be aware of barriers to listening. Don't form your response while the other person is still talking.

4-20: Critical Reasoning ... means looking at a problem from several points of view instead of just being satisfied with the first answer that comes to mind.

4-24: Ethical leaders do the right things for the right reasons all the time, even when no one is watching.

Such a group is not "the enemy." These aren't the words of people with an objective of hatred and destruction. These aren't the techniques of evil.

The people aren't the problem. The army is not the problem. Individual decisions are not the problem. The problem traces back, up stream, to our collective human immune system. Like Peter Senge's example, even when everyone does the right thing with the right intentions, this sucker breaks down. OK, fine, we've identified the issue, and some tools.

We owe it to everyone who fought to get us this far, preserving the values they understood our future depends on, to complete the job, repair the planet, and restore a vital peace that finally works correctly and doesn't keep veering the car off the road into the trees.

And we owe it to our veterans not to leave them homeless and abandoned. The weapons may have changed, but in a larger sense, we still need to "complete the mission" and protect our future. It's not "their war" and it's already "over here."

It is immoral and twisted to send our children to fight and die to protect some set of values that we are all not involved in protecting through our own daily lives. If these values are not a big deal, then bring the army home. If they are a big deal, why aren't the rest of us working on all the other fronts possible to resolve the conflict and all future conflicts?

"Memorial Day" 2007

There is a way out of this mess

Executive summary - there is a way out of this mess we've gotten ourselves into. It involves using renewable spiritual power instead of oil or technlogy to power our commerce. There is substantial hard-nosed evidence that this works, economically. It should be investigated further, cause, frankly, we're dying out here.

Reflecting on "lean" process, yesterday I focused on some aspects of "pull" and how envisioning a future that benefited and inspired other people, or pulling on brotherly love in the immediate present, could lift the spirits and support whatever other secular task was being done at the time -- including producing goods and services that generated profit for a corporation or nation.

I want to extend those ideas into the question of global social and economic development, and see what in there could possibly offer relief to the economic burdens so many people are now suffering, even in rich countries such as the USA.

Along those lines, I am very explicitly stating a normative belief that corporate leaders should be looking into ways in which intangible "spiritual" changes in their workplace could substantially improve their "bottom line" financially. This is consistent with McGreggor's "Theory Y" and the idea that human beings actually like to use their muscles, both physical and mental, to accomplish useful and helpful work and do not need to be whipped or terrorized into doing so if they can simply be given the means to see how their work benefits others that they care about.

This post is a continuation of the general theme I've been following, which is my understanding of a model that is consistent with science, business, and the Baha'i approach to globalization, development, peace, unity, and "spiritual solutions to economic problems."

I also found a nice thread this morning that's relevant,

Perspective: Spirituality in Development

[Editor's note: The following is adapted from a paper, entitled "Valuing Spirituality in Development: Initial Considerations Regarding the Creation of Spiritually Based Indicators for Development," presented by the Bahá'í Faith at the World Faiths and Development Dialogue on 18-19 February 1998 in London.

Development, in the Bahá'í view, is an organic process in which "the spiritual is expressed and carried out in the material." Meaningful development requires balancing the seemingly antithetical processes of individual progress and social advancement, of globalization and decentralization, and of promoting universal standards and fostering cultural diversity. In our increasingly interdependent world, development efforts must be animated by universal values and guided by a vision of world community.

Local and national communities that prosper in such a future will do so because they acknowledge the spiritual dimension of human nature and make the moral, emotional, physical and intellectual development of the individual a central priority.

The secret, of course, is that the "gasoline" in this engine is not in the "seeing the end customer" type of "pull", but is in the profound power buried in that misused word "care." This fact seems to me self-evident with a little reflection -- it won't have any motivational power to "see" how a task will help someone else unless you care about helping that someone else. If you are indifferent to their fate, then it makes no difference to you whether you're helping or hurting them.

But, wait -- isn't this simply "exploiting" the worker's vulnerable primitive spiritual beliefs in order to make a buck? Even if it works, which it seems to, is this activity morally acceptable?

I don't believe that God or spiritual principles only exist in the twilight or dark. I think they are perfectly capable of standing on their own in the bright sunlight - and, in fact, that may be one of their signature characteristics. They can withstand scrutiny. Like the power of gravity, they work whether you believe in them or not, and whether you realize what is going on or not. These are not phantoms that vanish when the tribe's belief in them weakens.

The laws of physics and chemistry are fine with your "exploiting" them to build a gasoline powered engine and using it to power your truck. There is some human pleasure, in fact, in doing that engineering task extremely efficiently, with as little noise and waste as possible. A powered up jet turbine engine is a wonder to behold.

Similarly, I believe that the laws of spiritual development are fine with your "exploiting" them to build a powerful and profitable corporation. Just don't be stupid about it.

The key here is that, as I've pointed out numerous times in discussing feedback loops, the whole nature of causality becomes a sort of resonance state, either/or relationships become "and" relationships, and before/after relationships become phase-locked dance relationships. As Peter Senge points out in "The Fifth Discipline", it is as correct to say that the water level in the glass controls the hand on the faucet, as to say that the hand on the faucet controls the water level in the glass. In reality, the mind and vision of the person you left out of that picture entirely is what is controlling both simultaneously and equivalently.

So, while it is true that the corporation can be a turbine engine, "exploiting" spiritual power and turning it into hard cash, it is simultaneously true that optimizing this process will reshape the nature of the corporation at the same time in a way pleasing to God. It's not clear, in other words, who is being exploited and reshaped by the constant structure in place that makes this all possible. More correctly, it is clear who is being reshaped, and it is BOTH the workers and the corporation, and, indirectly, management, and indirectly again, the whole culture that builds in reliance on these spiritually-fueled corporations. God is totally neutral about the fact that the process generates cash and employment -- those are human-level variables.

The fact that a permanent developmental piece is thereby generated that takes on a life of its own in converting social needs into socially-useful solutions is fine with God and is in a very real way a multi-level process of building the material body of God on earth.

Of course, to work well, the process can't be totally hijacked in a stupid and selfish fashion by "management", killing the goose to get one golden egg. Not only do profits have to be shared with workers, but control of the production process, and ultimately, control of the goals of the corporation need to be shared with the workers, who are the experts in this new vision. Again, this is not an either/or conflict, because the constant goal of both the workers and management is to do a great job of finding social needs and meeting them efficiently and effectively, and in so doing generate sustaining cash flow to workers, management, owners, and a whole raft of neighbors who also benefit.

The more the owners can push, nudge, and help the Chief Executive Officers of the owned companies to do a good job and finding and meeting social needs efficiently, the more financial rewards they will reap so they can continue to do this. Again, if they are stupid and kill the goose to get one quarter's golden egg, this won't work. Again, it turns out that a good understanding of the principles here means that BOTH owners and management have ultimately the same goal, as do the workers - which is to make this process sustainable and effective for the long run, which is consistent with society's goals and values.

At every level, the thing that can cause this to be noisy and inefficient is an attempt to break up the development of stable, sustainable, long-term growth in order to maximize some local month's or quarter's cash flow. That is simply harmful to everyone's long-term interests, regardless how attractive it looks locally.

And, unlike the world's supplies of oil or nuclear power, tapping into the grid of spiritual power and converting it to developmental progress and cash flow is not only non-polluting, it's the opposite - it's health and benefit generating -- or it can be, if not applied stupidly and short-sightedly. As the investor John Templeton has sought to demonstrate, development of wealth and prosperity is not something that has to be inconsistent with spiritual development and family values. What is immoral and inefficient and ultimately self-destructive is the failure to understand the process fully, resulting in stupid short-sighted efforts to push the engine over the red-line, or attempts to hijack the process so that management or owners get all the profits and workers get none, or so that the corporation gets all the benefits and the customers get screwed. That kind of stupidity will self-destruct rapidly.

There can be, and is, a multi-level, win-win-win solution here, once you allow for the compounding effects of feedback loops, keep a very broad horizon, and think in terms of the multi-level "holons" that Ken Wilber is fond of - that is, entire hierarchies of live that span multiple levels of scale. But, also, the process won't work if participants insist on trying to rip off customers, or eat the seed corn and remove strength from the system. A properly tuned system will be agile and will grow at whatever rate conditions allow and it's stupid to try to drive it faster than that because of some concept that only, say, a 37% return on investment per quarter is "acceptable."

The only people who are desperate for cash in the short run are those who have done a bad job of managing what they have and are now trying to cover that up with theft of God's resources somewhere else, "robbing Peter to pay Paul." Very large scale investors realize quickly that they will happily settle for any non-zero rate of return in real wealth if it can be made self-running and sustainable. And, once they realize that and stop over-driving the engine, in fact they get their original goal because the whole system can now stabilize and stop burning up all the energy fighting with itself, with two different pistons firing at the same time in conflicting directions trying to rip apart the camshaft or engine block.

There is, in short, a "spiritual" solution to our economic problems, and by "our" I mean the full multi-level hierarchy of "us" from individuals to corporations to nations. It's a "win-win-win" solution, and the rich can stay rich and get richer while so does everyone else -- provided we attend to spiritual principles through-out at all levels.

It's also a non-zero sum game, a tap root into an infinite supply of spiritual energy of caring for each other's welfare, which goes up when the population goes up. If we could all realize the principle involved, and stop trying to out small sections of the engine for personal short-term gain, we would have so much output that everyone would have way more than they do now in the long-term.

One thing would be lost, and that is something we need to let go of - the intentional, conscious effort of some people to be better than, richer than their neighbors. We have to let go of the totally destructive mentality that "It is not enough that I win, everyone else must lose!" We have to let go of a proportional disparity of wealth as a goal of the system. It's a stupid goal, and left over from the days of massive unidirectional exploitation, where there was a sense that if the "peasants" ever got strong, they'd revolt and kill the elite. The flames are fanned by those who believe that marketing the idea of "being better than everyone else" will cause more products to be bought, and ultimately more prosperity and wealth to occur.

Our planet is finite, however, and we're getting near the limit. There is no way 6 billion people can burn resources at the same rate the citizens of the USA do without killing the planet, literally. The solution is not to stop everyone else from getting rich - it is to redefine "rich" so that it doesn't involve insane striving to get "better than" each other.

The economic power of honest compassion and caring is much stronger as a business model than the false solution of trying to run the world on greed and competition. Nothing in God's plan or the world is in the way of everyone being healthy and wealthy and safe from terrorist attacks, except our own stupid efforts to sub-optimize the engine we have here at our disposal.

I wish someone at the Santa Fe Institute, or some other think tank, could simulate this process and demonstrate convincingly, in secular terms that our national and international financial leaders could understand, that it could, in fact, work that way.

If every person on the planet had food, clothing, shelter, health care, and honest compassion from their neighbors, I think the wind would go right out of the sails of violent extremism. It's like looking at the tremendous drop in interpersonal violence as you drive the mile and cross the river from Detroit to Windsor, almost certainly due to the fact that Canada has a social safety net and the US does not.

Somehow, we are trying to power the USA workforce with terror, fear of death, fear of loss, fear that their "enemies" might get "stronger than them", fear of being unemployed -- on the implicit myth that nothing else is strong enough to get people motivated to power the wheels of commerce and wealth. That's a stupid, misguided, out-dated concept. 50 years of studies with "Theory Y", well documented by the USA's Ross School of Management, show consistently that caring, compassion, and sharing are, in fact, the basis for a much more powerful engine of profit, agility, sustainability, creativity, innovation, stability, etc.

Some very solid case-studies are available on the links from "Positive Deviance - Kim Cameron"
and the book "Making the Impossible Possible" is a must see. (The video of the book is here, if you have a high-speed link. (Nov 6, 2006) It's an hour but just spell-binding if you've ever tried to get a hostile, reluctant department to do an impossible task.

If you are experiencing difficulty viewing the video, please turn off your pop-up blocker and verify that you are using version 9 or greater of Windows Media Player.

) Many other videos on "Positive Organizational Scholarship" are there. Professor Cameron designed an approach for dealing with the cleanup of the nuclear waste mess at Rocky Flats, Colorado around what I'm terming "spiritual" principles. An effort viewed as "impossible", hopelessly locked into a management /labor dispute, estimated to take 70 years and cost $100 billion, was accomplished in 2 years using such principles.

The reason we have such social conflict and rising unemployment is that we're trying to make a defunct, broken model work when there is a better one available. It doesn't involve people giving up any of their wealth to get there, only their myths.



And, it is not some idealistic dreamer's fantasy that this can work , but well-documented studies by a well-respected School of Management. At this point, the problem seems to be one of inertia and persuading the older generation to let go of "solutions" that turn out not to scale up to global size, regardless how well they worked from 1900 to 1950.

This post "Virtue Drives the Bottom Line" has links to the serious management literature.

There's a lingering fear that this will lead to communism, or socialism, or some other ism that will force the wealthy to become poor, and lead to the workforce becoming lazy and stopping productive labor, and cause corporations to stop seeking efficient distribution of resources to meet social needs. I don't think that's the case, but some rigorous economic modeling of the ideas would really help make the case.

Repeating the summary - there is a way out of this mess we've gotten ourselves into. It involves using renewable spiritual power instead of oil to power our commerce. There is substantial hard-nosed evidence that this works, economically. It should be investigated further, cause, frankly, we're dying out here.


(Team crossing stream photo credit: Ollieda )

Photo credit: Amish barn raising by heyburn3.

One Common Faith

The booklet title One Common Faith , prepared under the supervision of the Baha'i central administrative body (The Universal House of Justice, 2005) has been recommended for group study. The starting point is this:

Ancient sectarian conflicts ... have re-emerged with a virulence as great as anything known before... A world... is warned that it is in the grip of civilizations whose defining character is irreconcilable religious antipathies. (page 7)

I want to bring some concepts from science to the discussion, and show how they fit with the theological and sociological arguments that are in the booklet. In some ways, this is a translation, as best I can, at first pass, of the document into "scientific" terms. It will be imperfect and I'm hoping that, with comments from you, dear reader, it can be improved. Hopefully, the discussion will not cause any additional hostility. ("First of all, do no harm!")

To that end, let me state that I'm going to look at some apparently depressing facts, but the end of the story will be optimistic, hopeful, and action oriented. My take on life is that, despite all the gloom and doom, some aspects of the global community have never been better, and, with the use of the web and instant global communications, we have an opportunity to improve the process that no generation in history has ever had before. This by itself is astounding, and means the past cannot be used to predict the future.

Part of the reason for the resurgence of religion is described in the booklet as the "bankruptcy of the materialist enterprise itself" -- the failure of various efforts whether secular, humanitarian,
social and economic development, modernization, globalization to make good on their promise to improve life for most of us. The promise of "freedom from want [and] fulfilment for the human spirit" has not been met.

I'd note that not only is the gap growing between rich and poor, as has been well document elsewhere, but even within the USA, as I described yesterday, the "economic miracle" seems to be sinking. Gasoline hit $3.59 a gallon in my town yesterday. Housing foreclosures are at record levels. Layoffs abound. Personal savings has gone negative and hit a rate not seen since 1933 in the "Great Depression". Obesity, depression, diabetes, asthma are rising rapidly. And so on while people seem, individually and collectively, numbed into a type of helpless-hopeless passive despair, as I described in "A Patient Dies in Los Angeles" , occasionally breaking out into extreme violence, and resurgences of anger, blame, hate crimes, and racism, individually and collectively. Why isn't this economic model working?


The answer given in One Common Faith, to paraphrase, is that we have "thrown out the baby with the bathwater." Observing the abuses and downside of religious thinking and warfare, our society attempted to break free of those problems by discarding religion and God and adopting a "scientific" and materialistic model where "competition" and "free-markets", it was argued, will produce the best possible social outcomes. Exactly how and why that was supposed to work was vaguely described as "The invisible hand of Adam Smith" or some version of "survival of the fittest", although I can't recall ever seeing a simulation model showing that individual unbridled local self-interest produced the maximum benefit for all and a stable society. (If you know of one, please comment.) And, regardless what any model might show, the actual outcome was described yesterday, and looks more like economic and social ruin than "The Great Society."

On page 12 it is argued that "global integration" has only perpetuated and intensified gross inequities, resulting in

a questioning of all established authority, no longer merely that of religion and morality, but also of government, academia, commerce, the media, and, increasingly, scientific opinion. (p12)

and

Loss of faith in the certainties of materialism and the progressive globalizing of human experience reinforce one another int he longing they inspire for understanding about the purpose of existence. Basic values are challenged; parochial attachments are surrendered; one unthinkable demands are accepted. (para 16)

Despite the tremendous accomplishments of religiously inspired actions in the past, the question is raised as to why people are not turning to that spiritual literature for guidance today - or, if they are turning to it, not finding relevant guidance.

The problem is, of course, twofold. The rational soul does not merely occupy a private sphere, but is an active participant in a social order. Although the received truths of the great faiths remain valid the daily experience of the individual in the twenty-first century is unimaginably removed from the one that he or she would have known in any of those ages when this guidance was revealed. ... In large part therefore, loss of faith in traditional religion has been an inevitable consequence of failure to discover in it the guidance required to live with modernity successfully and with assurance.

A second barrier to a re-emergence of inherited systems of belief as the answer to humanities spiritual yearnings is the effects already mentioned of global integration. Throughout the planet, people raised in a given religious frame of reference find themselves abruptly thrown in close association with others whose beliefs and practices appear at first glance irreconciably different from their own. ...

Each one of what the world regards as independent religions is set in the mould created by its authoritative scripture and its history. As it cannot refashion its system of belief in a manner to derive legitimacy from the authoritative words of its Founder, it likewise cannot adequately answer the multitude of questions posed by social and intellectual evolution. Distressing as this may appear to many, it is no more than an inherent feature of the evolutionary process. ...

The dilemma is both artificial and self-inflicted.
(para 21 and 22)

There are several familiar threads in this section I'd like to


highlight, and bring the experiences of some other fields to bear on. The concepts I'd focus on are these:

1. The idea that "truth" depends on context.
2. The idea that context changes over time.
3. The question of how what should change over time so as to preserve "truth".
4. The question of sliding the respective "truths" of different religious founders across time and comparing them to see how much they agree, after correcting for the distortions produced by context shifts.

I focus on those because those are actually the core issues that are pondered and completely solved in the entirely "scientific" area of "General Relativity" - which is the study, basically, of how to make measurements and think and operate in a world in which context (space-time) and content (matter and energy) interact bidirectionally and affect each other, producing many "fictitious forces" that are artifacts of the accidental details of each careful observer's reference frame in which they are inextricably and invisibly embedded. (See my earlier post on Context versus Content, Silos and the Electronic Health Record. )

In other words, I'm saying that the concepts necessary to understand what is happening to religious truth over time have already been developed in science, but never been brought to bear on the problem in theology.

This is not surprising, because the concepts have an aura of "complexity" that "only Einstein" would be able to understand, because they are so "alien and unfamiliar".

Well, I've scouted out that territory, taken a good, solid graduate-level course in General Relativity, solved those equations, and can report back that this material is not at all that scary if you hide the math in the calculator and just use the results.

Furthermore, it is not at all "alien." In fact, we are born being comfortable with these ideas -- such as the fact that, in general, the volume of a liquid depends on its shape -- and then, as Piaget showed, we have these beaten out of us by "education" and finally "learn" that volume doesn't depend on shape, and that the tall, skinny glass of juice has the same amount as the short, wide glass it was just poured from. The problem is that, THEN, when these students reach grad school, trying to teach them that volume does, in fact, in general, depend on shape except on small, cold, rocky places like the Earth, they find the idea that was native and "came with the unit" to now be "unthinkable."

I have to wrap this up for the day and will continue working my way through "One Common Faith" in the next few days, tying it into the related scientific concepts that help understand it.

Let me close by at least pointing out that the idea that things change shape as they are slid through space or time is captured in the concept from General Relativity (or Hilbert Space mathematics) called "parallel displacement" or "vector transplantation."

In "curved" spaces, which are common on cosmological scales, the way things change as you slide them across space and time can be exactly computed, and therefore it can be "backed out" of the equations and corrected for. Seemingly inconsistent observations, such as two observers each seeing the other's clock run more slowly than their own" can be completely explained, predicted, and corrected for, revealing the beauty of an underlying, absolute reality, the perception of which was distorted by each observer's invisibly distorted reference frame,
and the attempt to measure straight lines with curved rulers.

Fascinatingly, the key concept comes down to what paths light travels, or "geodesics", as light's path pretty much defines "straight." That should be of particular interest to Baha'is, as the word itself means "light of God."

What is really fascinating is to imagine taking all the great religious prophets of time, assuming that they are all saying the same thing (plus noise in the reporting), and computing whether a single consistent curvature of space-time could be applied to bring them all into perfect alignment. Or, if not perfectly aligned, the "transported versions" of them could be tweaked slightly to fit the shared truth great grand estimate, then the process reversed and the "tweaks" transported back to the original context, and assessed to see if those would in fact be legitimate and acceptable small changes in concept of the source religious doctrine or not.

I'm not exactly sure how to do it, but the very fact that science does say that such a thing is conceptually possible is really important to grasp - that there are techniques to figure out what properties transport over time as "constants" and which ones transport over time as "invariants" and which as "covariants" and what properties will be preserved regardless and which ones will appear to change, due to the change in context.

If we don't even use that basic level of mathematics to compare two religions it's hard to know how we expect to tell whether, at the core, they agree with each other or not. We will be overwhelmed with accidental changes due to reference frame changes that look like they matter, but that, in the final analysis, add up to exactly zero difference.

It's time to cross-breed these scientific and religious issues. Quoting from my old textbook,
Introduction to General Relativity (Adler, Bazin, and Schiffer, McGraw-Hill, 1965), on page 16,

In order to make these general and rather abstract considerations more specific, we shall have to develop an elegant notation and proper mathematical tools which are provided by the theory of tensor analysis. The basic problem of tensor analysis is the determination of those constructs and concepts which are independent of the accidental choice of the coordinate system employed.

This, in my mind, is exactly the same problem that is involved in showing that all the world's major religions have, at their core, exactly the same constructs and concepts, underneath the apparent differences due to the "accidental choice" of reference frame in which those constructs had to be expressed at that time and place by the religion's Founder.

Science and Religion are on the same quest, trying to look through the surface complexity and noise, and see the constant Beauty behind and under it all. Science is starting at local details and working upwards, Religion is working at the global scale and working downwards, and, when they meet in the middle, if we've done our sums correctly, the two large pieces should mesh perfectly and the larger picture be revealed.

How neat is that!

Tomorrow (I hope) I'll expand on the phrase quoted above "The rational soul does not merely occupy a private sphere, but is an active participant in a social order" and explore what the current evidence in public health and social epidiology teach us about changing concepts of the nature of "an individual" and why we need a larger concept to explain the very solid biomedical data from the majority of studies that show that "connectivity" of an individual to society is the major predictor of biomedical outcomes - disease, poverty, death, heart-attacks, obesity, violence, suicide - you name it. This whole area of very robust and solid scientific data from public health forces us to change the way we think about what it means to be a "person" and "an individual" in "society."

See: The hierarchy of life
and Key Findings from Public Health
for more information on what the data actually show about how "separate" we are from each other.

Photos of the "same" Earth from various viewpoints and times are from NASA.