Sunday, July 15, 2012

New Marriage Paradigm

The road to good life experience leads into and through use of and participation in dynamic, causative and effective groups as servo-mechanisms of the will of the individual towards achieving his chosen goals. See earlier blogs for more discussion on this.  A thorough understanding of this can easily be rolled into a  self-dedication towards improvement of self in this area. If your spouse has gotten to or can be gotten to such a point of self-determined understanding and self-dedication then it should not be difficult to get them to agree that:

1)      not everything in the area of groups is completely under control of a particular individual, but some things are.

2)      There is no excuse for allowing any such area of complete control to fail in any fundamental way.

3)      Any such fundamental failure in an area of complete control would severely compromise the individual's ability to gain good life experience as a group member, and so thwart, or limit to some degree his opportunity to gain good life experience and to grow as a spiritual being.

4)      Marriage and family are the fundamental groups to which a spouse belongs. The form of a group is defined by policy or agreements by all group members involved. A fundamental policy of the “marriage group” is being true to each other-- not cheating with another woman by the husband, or with another man by the wife. Maintaining agreement with this policy is completely under the control of the spouse. Since it is such a fundamental agreement of the marriage, and since the marriage is such a fundamental group, and since the spouse can always fully control it, it should be seen that any violation of it would have severe repercussions on the ability to face up to and participate in groups. It would severely “rock the boat” and destabilize the ability to face up to, agree with, support, maintain and carry out group policy in any context.

Well, if you can get the above points in with yourself and your spouse you can stop right here and be satisfied with having stabilized that part of your life within the context of the existing marriage paradigm. However, some of us have shown ourselves to have a pioneering spirit. Can this paradigm be improved upon? Possibly, but there must first be certainty on all sides that the above points are in.

For the “pioneer spirit” here is a proposed improved paradigm:

1)      The wife should be able to maintain full confidence that the other half is not cheating. This confidence would come from her knowledge of the husband's unwillingness to screw up his life further out in the area of groups by breaking such a fundamental agreement in the marriage, and by the fact that a hope of any such desired activity could exist until the moment of its (possible)  cancellation. She could maintain the security of her marriage by periodically checking that her spouse was still motivated by and making good progress on his purpose of group participation and  use and by maintaining the following points:

1.       Each spouse should be kept fully informed of any outside interest of the partner or towards the partner before the fact of action taken.

2.      Each spouse would have full veto power over any such wished for, proposed or planned activities.

3.       A man would never be forced to say “No” to an interested party (although, of course, he could still do so), but the interested party would be required to meet the wife in person, meet any of her requirements/conditions/stipulations before obtaining her consent or receiving her rejection.

4.      Any interested party would have to be willing to participate as a subordinate activity to the original marriage in a way that does not undermine its validity.

5.      The wife could veto before such a meeting but should not do so before hearing the details.

6.      If the meeting takes place the husband should be present.

7.      His loyalty should be primarily with his wife.

8.      He should be willing to and able to guarantee the physical safety of both parties. If there is any doubt regarding this he should reject the advance solely on this basis.

9.      The man should be completely willing to accept the decision of his spouse. He should value her security and her ability to control her life and view her decision as a way to maintain it.

10.  The wife might want to take into account that, since her gender has been lax in applying themselves as civilizing influences, other women may be experiencing that “good men are hard to find”. At the least, such a request should be a reminder that she has found one.

2)      The above points would apply in a mirrored fashion in the case of a wife having an outside interest with the husband as vetoer.

3)      This improved paradigm would “dissolve” into the traditional paradigm simply through both parties exercising continuous veto.

4)      In some cases and in some economic conditions child rearing might be managed easier with more than two “parents”.

5)      If the new paradigm can be directly “stepped out” from the conventional paradigm while maintaining and securing the base relationship then it will have a greater chance for success.

      Remember, the active ingredient required to make all of this work is a strong self-determined reach on the part of the spouse towards stronger groups to use as a servo-mechanism to achieve self-determined purposes and goals.

Monday, June 4, 2012

What's Maybe Behind a Tai Chi Principle?

I have been making use of one of the Tai Chi principles, “Move in a curve”, in my daily activities for a while and it occurred to me the other day why it may be so effective.  Consider a robot, or any kind of mechanized servomechanism that operates in three dimensions—or even just two. An ink-jet printer is a common example. All such mechanisms are a combination of one or more linear movements. Each actuator of the mechanism simply moves a variable distance along a given line (which may be moved or rotated by other actuators), or rotates a given angle. If you combine these linear movements the result will be another linear movement in three dimensional space. This is what robots do well.

The body has a great number of such actuators, each of which is responsible for a linear movement or a rotation. If we are moving a part of the body in a straight line, then we are not doing anything more than what a robot normally does. I think the Creator of the body had something better in mind for the users of the body than this type of robotic movement, and possibly installed an incentive for the body user to go in the desired direction.

 If we move a body part in a curved path then we are putting the mind as senior to the body. The mind must postulate the curvilinear motion and then make it happen by coordinating a whole group of actuators (muscles) in unison. This is beyond robotics. It I,s an accomplishment of the mind or spirit as senior to the body. Of course, this is the right direction to go to make progress in the pro-life direction, and indeed, there seems to be a reward for doing it. The body seems to respond through an improvement in Chi (Qi) energy meridian flow. This type of movement seems to massage or stimulate the set of Chi meridians used in these curvilinear movements, as well as putting the spirit or mind more “in the driver’s seat” in operating the body.

In short, the spirit can improve its ability to operate the body through integrating curvilinear motion of body parts into the motion of everyday living.

Saturday, May 19, 2012

Two Types of People

There are two types of people. The first type is not too bad off and has some idea that leading an ethical life will have a payoff of improved conditions for self, others, and his environment. In other words he or she is in touch to some degree with the pro-life purpose line.  They feel that the socio-economic “pie” can be grown larger. They can have success in life by helping to grow it.

Those of the second type of people have closed themselves off from the pro-life purpose line so far through unethical activities that they do not conceive that the “pie” can be made bigger. For them the pie remains the same, or even shrinks in size. They cannot create or grow more socio-economics, and they don’t like the idea much of others doing so either. Their only idea of success, then, is to take a piece of someone else’s share of the pie. They do not feel like they are getting ahead unless they are stepping on someone else.

Strength of A Country

The strength of a country is determined by the ability of its people to think for themselves, come up with a valid solution and put it into effect. Following in the footsteps of a “leader” is a poor substitute for this which often does not meet the standard of viability.

Education in valid subjects, and especially of practical philosophy, self-study in subjects of interest, organization and participation by the individual will help to strengthen a country.

Overwhelming the individual with too much data without first educating him in fundamental data on which to align new data will drive the individual down scale to the point where he is willing to give up on the idea of thinking for himself. In this state he becomes easily led and is of no use in correction if the scene starts going in the wrong direction.

Taking up large amounts of the free time of the individual with activities that do not strengthen the self-determined ability to align data, such as watching mindless entertainment television or movies or playing video games, leaves little time for activities that strengthen the analytical mind. Actually, spending large amounts of time sitting in front of a screen and watching pictures that someone else created can weaken the spirit of those, like children, who do not have a well-developed ability to think for self. This is because the mind is composed of pictures, and sequences of pictures, which are meant only to be a record of experience, and not as something for the spirit to become effect of through too much passive spectating and not enough active, self-determined creation in the present time.

An individual or agency or authority that enforces false data or just a set of incoherent data on the individual will diminish his ability to grow a coherent data set of his own in that area of life that the data set pertains to. This will then diminish his ability to accept new valid data or reject further false data in that area.

Once the individual comes up with a good idea his next step is to put it into effect. He must be free to organize around a purpose to achieve his goal, and he must have sufficient ability in creating and participating in a group. If he is really good with it, he may even inspire a paradigm that others may use to also reach out in the direction of the goal.

How Large is Too Large for the World Population? -- A New Criterium

An earlier blog article has dealt with the qualifications of a human being. To review, man’s hallmark ability is his ability to work together in groups. When a group is operating in mob mentality mode it has zero chance of making progress in the pro-life direction, and so allows zero chance of achieving the hallmark of man. Therefore, for a being to be qualified as a member of the human race he or she must be able to monitor themselves so as to stay out of agreement with group think or mob mentality. Some of this comes from an innate desire to think for self, some of it may come from an education in what the mind is and what mob mentality is.

When there are so many bodies available that many of them must be “manned” with sub-human beings that are not able to think for themselves well enough to stay out of a mob mentality or group think, then the population is becoming or has become too large. There are two remedies that can be applied, and a general type of activity to stay away from—never use a solution that can be perverted into an abuse.

The first remedy is obvious—reduce the population, or at least reduce the rate of growth of the population, but do so in a way that does not violate basic human rights. This may not be an easy thing to do, so it is best done in combination with the second remedy— educate so as to improve the ability of the individual to think for himself.  Educate in practical philosophical principles. Encourage the individual to develop their own sets of coherent data in whatever subject they are interested or active in, as well as to study existing bodies of coherent data that are of practical use.

In order for man to succeed in civilizing himself there must be a high ratio of analytical thought to non-analytical thought.

Force in the Mind and Analytical Justice


The argument in current use in the US legal system of “not guilty by reason of insanity” is not valid simply because everyone, at the moment of committing a crime is insane. Insanity, like sanity, is just a function of past experience. Experience results in, on the negative side, non-volitional forces or impulses that may impinge on or push the analytical mind in a certain direction, and on the positive side, greater ability to face up to, communicate, control and participate in a given area of life.  Since an individual is responsible for his past experiences he is then responsible for any insanity that results. It is true that he can get into a state of too much mental force or impingement plus too little ability to face up to life, which results in a low level of responsibility and adds up to being a danger to himself and his environment. At a certain level this can be called insanity. It can be recovered from, though not always easily.  Yes, it can be necessary to take action to protect others from an individual in this condition, but the individual in question is still responsible for putting himself in this state.

Anyone who has committed a murder and is later judged to be competent to stand trial is evidence of this. A murder is so wrong that one must have been insane at the moment of commission. At that moment mental forces pushing in a criminal direction were strong enough and the will plus ethical knowledge were weak enough that the crime was committed.  It was not an analytical moment. The fact that he is later judged as having  competency in understanding right and wrong in the given area shows that the analytical mind has made somewhat of a recovery from a temporary insanity.

Whatever the particular reasons for it, the general reason for an individual acting criminally or unethically is too much of an impingement of mental force or impulse plus too little of ability or desire to face up to the present situation, and/or too little knowledge of how to deal with it in a positive way. In this situation it may become evident that the individual is beyond being able to cope on his own. Two solutions are available in this case to those in his environment:

1.       Remove him (or her) from the environment. End of story—at least for this environment, though it may be the beginning of another story for another environment.

2.       The second option is when at least some of those in the environment deem  the future potential worth of the applied self-determination of the individual to justify the effort to apply what can be called a system of Analytical Justice. The theory is simple:

·         The desired end result of Analytical Justice is the subject making progress in the area under question in a pro-life direction of his own volition. His volition in the area has been too weak to oppose the contra-life mental forces, so care must be taken in recovering it. Though force will be applied in the pro-life direction, too much force should be avoided, so as not to overwhelm such volition. The individual won’t be of much use in the future unless he can be brought back to a condition in which he operates competently from his own self-determination.

·         A  basic assumption is that there is something to recover-- the individual at some point in the past was applying his self-determination competently in the current area.

·         Make up a set of progressive steps or actions which may be applied to the individual in question and which result in a steadily increasing mental force in a pro-life direction, and therefore in opposition to whatever force is impinging upon him in the contra-life direction.

·         Make this set of steps known publicly, or at least known to whomever may be subjected to them at some point in the future. Hopefully this will have been done beforehand, since any such set of steps, if properly formulated, are generally applicable and will apply a pro-life force on any individual. Make particularly certain that the subject individual is well informed of them.

·         Do not have a large jump from one step to the next.

·         Beginning at the bottom, apply each step to the individual. Allow enough time between steps to observe whether a desired result has been reached. At some point the increasing pro-life force will be greater than the contra-life force impinging from the mind. The individual will find it less painful at this point to discontinue the unethical activity than continue with it. Yes, there will be mental anguish either way, but less in the direction of the ethical direction.

·         Do not continue with the steps beyond this point (so as not to overwhelm his self-determination), but instead stabilize the individuals application of his self-determination in the pro-life direction by:

1.       Making sure he has knowledge and competency in operating in his area.

2.       Helping him to face up to and take responsibility for mistakes or crimes in the area in which he is operating that make it difficult for him to continue.

3.       Monitoring his progress to ensure he continues in the pro-life direction in this area.

Let’s call this Analytical Justice to differentiate it from George Bush’s style of Justice, which is really punishment, and which has an entirely different purpose.

Sunday, April 22, 2012

Desire to Know Meets Desire NOT to Be Known

OR--  Boy Meets Girl

A common cause for dissonance or ruffled feathers is the conflict of intention and desire between a man desirous of personal contact with a particular woman and the woman’s desire for the fore-mentioned man to get lost.  This is less of a problem if both parties respect and understand the value of self-determination in themselves and others and how this translates into a desire to gain and/or maintain control of the personal life. If all concerned understand how the citizen (or other) hat or interface allows contact or interaction only regarding matters relevant to that hat or interface, then the assumption of this interface can be used at any time (by civilized people) to move away from and put a stop to any sort of undesired personal contact. This is a “backing off” of the attention from the personal aspect back to the impersonal, fully public interface. 

The “rejected” party should then, if he (or she) still feels a continuing affinity towards the party of the other part, transform this affinity into a respect for the self-determined assumption and furtherance of the citizen hat or interface by the party of the other part. There is no need to apologize for placing attention on the public interface as long as it is appropriate to the overall public scene that includes both parties. That is to say that undue attention should not be shown.  Keep in mind the purpose and goal of whatever hat or interface is being used (and that is appropriate to be used in that situation). Show only attention that is directly aligned with this purpose that will contribute to progress towards this goal. When you are operating outside of the area of personal interaction, then all decisions regarding which hat is appropriate and what action to take from that post viewpoint should be made from an objective viewpoint. There is little room for subjectivity beyond the personal life, and whatever room that does exist will be fully within an objective framework.

Men can make it safer for women to interact with them if they are educated in what a hat or post viewpoint is and have developed skill in working out what it would be in particular situations, then use it in those situations. Women can help to strengthen the civilization and maintain control of their personal lives by educating themselves in this and encouraging men to apply it by showing favor or preference to those who do.  Men may also find this helps them to recover more quickly and move on from a rejection of their advances.

Keep in mind also that even if a person has not been educated in this behavior, there is a good chance that they may have, somewhere in the past, a reservoir of good experience in which they did interact in this way with others.  There is a possibility that your good behavior can help contact such a reservoir of good experience in another, especially if it Is not buried too deeply.

Sunday, March 25, 2012

Good People

A good person doesn’t  follow unquestionably the path laid out for him. A good person focuses on what is right and wrong rather than on popularity. He realizes the value in using objective criteria in his evaluations to factor out mental or spiritual aberration. He comes up with the right solution and puts it into effect or contributes to it if it is already moving in the right direction.

P.S. Why do so many Americans prefer to run on concrete paths or sidewalks rather than dirt or grass or even blacktop surfaces? Is there some sort of compulsion at work to follow the path laid out for them?

Flaws in America

Democracy is promoted to John Q. American Public as almost sacrosanct—almost holy but not quite. Actually our version of democracy is really a democratic republic, but it was inspired by the original democracy in Athens, Greece nearly 2500 years ago. When the Founding Fathers put together the constitution and finally got it ratified they had succeeded in putting together the closest thing that had existed in the 2200+ years since the original Athens democracy. So really what we have today is a highly modified version of a dusted-off prototype that had not been in active use for quite awhile. It was and still is a very liberal idea that has not stood the test of time to anywhere near the degree of say, the Roman Empire or the feudalism of the Dark Ages. That is not to say that the Roman Empire and feudalism passed the test, but they did stand long enough for it. In view of this it is rather inappropriate to see Democracy as near holy. A better attitude would be something akin to the attitude of a development and testing team towards a new prototype that shows promise but is expected to require tuning and modification and maybe even an overhaul.

Here are some major flaws I see in the style of “democracy” we have today in the USA:

1)      It is generally not understood that for a democracy to work,  at least the majority of the electorate needs to operate in the analytical band of thought, and not in a group think or mob mentality mode.  To allow for this there needs to be available a set of practical philosophical principles regarding the mind, its analytical and non-analytical components, and principles of group dynamics and health.

a.       Did the Founding Fathers even give a thought to giving women the right to vote?

b.      We could considerably raise the average level of analytical thought in the electorate just by revoking the 19th amendment.

2)      Elected politicians do not have as foremost the purpose to do what is right. They are primarily focused on maintaining or gaining approval .

a.       Will any elected or electable politician ever take the position that we should go from an unbacked paper currency to a gold (or other metal) standard? Our economy will not last backed by printed paper.

b.      Will any politician ever mention that the “War on Drugs” could be won if Americans would simply stop using the drugs?

3)      In the original Golden Age of Greece version of democracy a citizen that stood for election would have his personal and public life thoroughly gone over.  They definitely believed in character.  Nothing was overlooked.  Today we trust the press to do this for us, for the most part, and this gives them the opportunity to factor in their own bias.

4)      The weak under-belly of the USA today is the inability of John Q. Public to think for himself, or at least to do a good job of it. He trusts the news media to evaluate and summarize for him.

a.       Mr. Limbaugh, a leading conservative voice, does not want his listeners to think for themselves. He wants to think for them.

5)      The place an enemy wants to be is where you want to look for him the least , or where he is least likely to be questioned, but yet has much influence.

a.       In recent years we have had the idea of our “God-given rights” promoted to us. Is this a set up? What God gives, God takes away, right? I thought we had to fight the British for our rights.

b.      America is now “under God”, according to the Pledge of Allegiance. Many Americans do not realize this is a relatively new development that occurred during the McCarthy era of the 1950s, which was a classic case of rampant mob mentality in the public arena. Who is going to look closely or question an individual or group standing behind the G-O-D word? We got along all right for our first 160+ years  without being “under God”, which is easily translated as “under those who purport themselves to be representatives of God”.

                                                               i.      If the normal fabric and supports of our country were disrupted would the influence of the Christian Church expand to the proportions of a virtual governing body? Christianity has historically promoted the “Who band”, or bottom of  the scale of group causation. If this did occur it would be a major braking action on the progress towards civilization.

c.       Cadets in the Air Force Academy have been encouraged to see themselves first as part of “God’s Army” . Non-Christian cadets have been discriminated against.

                                                               i.      Is something similar happening in the academies of the other services of the military?

                                                             ii.      Is someone planning to use the military in a way that would require officers to see themselves as something other than American citizens first?

Sunday, January 8, 2012

The Beginning of Slavery-- a Devolution of Aberration

Please try to imagine for yourself a large picture, as complete as possible of the ideal scene of group creation, participation, growth and maintenance in a time probably long ago and possibly in a different place altogether. In fact, the time and place is really not an important part of the picture. The idea is to get a clearer picture of what to strive for as the ideal scene.  There would have been elements that we still see today, at least to some degree, but there also would have been other elements that are very rare or missing in today’s world. 

First, there would have been a high degree of literacy and mastery of language, including grammar. Although in the local area one language would most likely predominate, it would be safer if the civilization included several different languages that would act in a similar way to water-tight compartments in a ship. If a social aberration that tended toward “sinking” the civilization developed in one area it would be more difficult for it to spread rapidly throughout the rest of the civilization. Such aberration would be concentrated in the non-analytical or less analytical areas of culture. Those who could speak more than one language, and so were able to pass through a “water-tight door” into another language area, would be on average more analytical, and so less likely to transmit or carry with them such aberration from one area to another. Of course, there could be some “bleed-through” of aberration from one language area to another, but hopefully the rate of spread would be slowed enough to allow the analytical elements of the culture to effectively deal with it. 

 Individuals would have a strong sense for and awareness of self-determination in themselves and others. They would respect and value the competent application of same towards advancement of pro-life purposes and achievement of pro-life goals. They would be motivated by a desire for self-improvement and work towards accumulating good life experience to achieve this.  They would recognize that self-determination was an active ingredient in gaining such worthwhile experience, and that self-improvement was not possible without it. They would not embrace any religion or philosophy that did not support the self-determination of the individual. 

Each person would be able to apply themselves with simple or more advanced tools in carrying out small pieces of work or small projects. They would have a good sense of how to optimize their resources of time, space and material to best carry out such work. They would have developed a good ability to face up to, understand, operate and maintain machines and equipment to carry out larger projects or higher volumes of specialized work. 

Having achieved a good understanding, judgement and “feel” for the application of optimized systems of interconnected parts (machinery or equipment) to the successful carrying out of purposes, it would an easy  step for an individual to integrate himself or herself into larger optimized systems that included other individuals for the achievement of larger and long-range goals beyond what they were capable of themselves. They would value such groups as a large-scale servo-mechanism for their own self-determination which allowed them to achieve their own long-range goals, and so would be quite interested in developing them, correcting them, maintaining their health, growing and operating them.   

Individuals would accumulate skills in developing, modifying or expanding the “DNA” or policy of a group that would contain base DNA common to all groups, with layers of more and more particular DNA laid on top of each other. These skills would also be used in protecting and better controlling their private lives.  

If a person did not want to interact personally with someone, or not include them in their personal life, then he or she would have the analytical skills to develop “on-the-fly” and utilize the impersonal interface of that part of a formal group that would be inclusive of and appropriate to the interaction with that other person. He or she would also be confident that the not-so-well-liked party of the other part would have the analytical skills to recognize and respond appropriately to the desire of the party of the first part to interact on a formal, non-personal basis. This would be the case because the second party would value and respect the self-determination of the first party (and visa versa) to a greater degree than any desire they may have to interact personally, and so would respect the wish to interact impersonally. People would value not only in themselves, but in others, the skills in creating these optimized formal interfaces on-the-fly. Thus it would be possible even for individuals who did not like each other to still have good experience in working together in a formal group to achieve a common self-determined purpose. This would be true even if that formal activity was only temporary-- as in a clerk/customer, teacher/student, or driver/passenger or just a citizen/citizen interaction. Both parties could have confidence that the other’s reservoir of good experience in group participation would allow them to easily stay focused on the common purpose and forward it to a successful conclusion. 

There would be a large pool of individuals who were deaberrated enough in the area of work and groups that they could be counted on to respond towards opportunities to participate in groups that were organized towards achieving one of their own goals, or at least one similar to their own, or just towards a general pro-life goal that allowed for good experience in organization and participation at a high level. A person with a specific goal could form up a set of group DNA (policy) and present it to members of the pool. If it was a good enough purpose, and the group DNA was formed up well enough around it, then he could expect to elicit some self-determined desires to join and participate in this new group. If there were enough positive responses the group could go forward to form up and grow and carry out the purpose—hopefully to a successful end. 

An individual looking to forward his self-determined purpose would not always need to start from scratch. Often an existing group would have a purpose line matching closely enough to his own purpose.  He might then be able to join, participate in and help grow this group as a means to forwarding his original purpose. 

This scene, or at least an approximation of it must actually have occurred at some point in the past. That is because it is the optimal operating basis to allow the most “bang for the buck” in terms of progress made along self-determined purposes for a given amount of effort by the largest number of individuals. So a large number of individuals, all of which were well aware of the game of gaining good experience, and with the intention of growing their own self-determination and respectful of the desire of others to do the same, all working to optimize resources to allow the most success along this line would have formed themselves into just such an optimal configuration. What would have held it together was the awareness of and respect for the self-determined purposes of others more than just those of self, and the desire to allow the opportunity for others to be successful in forwarding those purposes as much as for self. The motivation for this would just be the recognition that this whole scene depended on a large pool of deaberrated group members capable of going into agreement with  and operating on a self-determined basis being available, and that the best way to guarantee such a pool would continue and grow into the future would be to allow each an opportunity for success along these lines, so as to give each a reason to stay in the area and accumulate more good experience. 

Actually this scene may have been only a sub-scene of a wider, less optimal scene, and maybe it did not happen everywhere, but I think it is still a good philosophical tool to help point the way from the current scene we find ourselves in towards an improved civilization. Please take a moment to imagine a civilization operating in this manner before reading on. 

How did this scene devolve into what we see today? One way to look at it is that the average level of group health must have declined for various reasons. The environment could have changed more quickly than the ability of the group to modify its policy framework to accommodate it. The group members may have had less than adequate training on their jobs, which led to mistakes and errors which were withheld or hidden from the rest of the group, which led to poor communication and withdrawal and individuation of the group member or a subsection of a group from the group as a whole, which led to less than complete agreement on the group policy set, which led to fractionation of the group into factions, which led to worsening production, etc. The pool of available group members shrank so that fewer and fewer new groups would be able to be manned up. 

Finally a point was reached where  someone who had developed a set of group DNA (a policy set) for their own particular purpose was selfish enough to adopt the attitude of “I want my purpose forwarded and I don’t care about your self-determination and your purposes”,  and solved his problem of not having enough self-determined response to participate in his group by forcing participation on those unwilling, or not willing enough. Thus slavery came into being. It is a not facing up to or non-confront of the pro-life way to organize and participate in groups. It is a lazy, selfish solution that sells out the future of the overall scene for what seems to be a temporary gain in the ability to forward the slaver’s selfish purposes in the present. 

Slavery institutionalizes a lack of regard for and a closing of the door on the forwarding of the self-determined purposes of others. This was a vital motivation that held the ideal scene together, so progress towards it is effectively barred.  

A slaver does not want to face up to this truth, or he would not be able to stand himself for very long, so he tells himself some lies. One of the main lies he uses is the false notion that position or case state is a mandate to arbitrary rule. Arbitrariness does away with agreement on group DNA or policy sets.  An arbitrary is the antithesis of policy, so this degrades group health further. Institutionalizing arbitrary rule on a large or small scale acts as a further barrier to progress. The slaver is continually committing the crime of barring the way, or at least making it more difficult to forward the pro-life purpose of approaching and operating in the ideal scene of civilization in his environment. This contra-life activity is enough to bar his own success in the game of recovery of self. To “win” he must now drop into a lower game of materialism and lie to himself about the existence of the higher game in which he has failed. He becomes less and less able to face up to not only the ideal scene of group health and anything that approaches it, but even anything that seems to be going in that direction.  Since a high ability to align data is required to put together group DNA or hierarchies of policy that forward a group purpose, or even to understand and operate an existing set of policy, this cutting across or thwarting progress towards higher levels of group causation results in a degradation of analytical abilities to align data in those responsible. The slaver becomes very dirty in the area of group causation, group health, group dynamics. He loses his abilities to face up to and deal with systems of policy, and to a lesser degree, any other kind of system. He now must reach for something simple enough that he can still understand that he can use as a substitute for a healthy group. The most common substitute is a personality-based hierarchy.  It doesn’t require much in the way of analytical abilities to apply. In fact, you could call it an analytical cop-out. To operate in such a hierarchy you just have to keep in mind 1) “Who is my boss?” 2) “Who do I supervise?” This is in common use by organized religion, organized crime and other areas of high levels of dirtiness in the area of groups.