Based on years of research about happiness, Sonja Lyubomirsky concludes that:

• 60% of differences in (personally experienced) happiness are due to external and genetic circumstances
• 40% of happiness can be explained by specific thinking and behaviour patterns.

So the good thing is: almost half or your well-being can be somehow influenced, and the other half of it just asks for acceptance. It will be useful to teach yourself to think and live in ways that make most people happy. What are these patterns in thinking and behaviour that seem to make people happier?

“Below is a sample of my observations, as well as those of other researchers, of the thinking and behaviour patters of the happiest participants in our studies.

• They devote a great amount of time to their family and friends, nurturing and enjoying those relationships.
• They are comfortable expressing gratitude for all they have.
• They are often the first to offer a helping hand to co-workers and passers-by.
• They practice optimism when imagining their futures.
• They savour life’s pleasures and try to live in the present moment.
• They make physical exercise a weekly – and sometimes daily – habit.
• They are deeply committed to life-long goals and ambitions (e.g., fighting fraud, building cabinets, or teaching their children their deeply held values).
• And, last but not least, the happiest people do have their share of stress, crises and even tragedies. They may become just as distressed and emotional in such circumstances as you or I, but their secret weapon is the pose and strength they show in coping in the face of challenge.”^[1]

1. ^[1] Lyubormisky 2007: 23. ↩

“Empathic extension is the only human expression that creates true equality between people.” p. 160.

Will empathic extension grow fast enough for humanity to save the planet – and thereby our species?

Why do wars always make it to the headlines? Why has history mainly been written as a series of confrontations? Why was Darwins’ evolution theory – against his own ideas – simplified into the survival of the fittest? “.. historians … wrote little of the psychological changes that transformed human consciousness. … the development of self-consciousness and the extension of empathic expression … has been carefully chronicled and preserved in the literary narratives.” p. 301

The Empathic Civilization is a large scale reframing of all of human history. Not wars, but energy and empathy are defining features. Rifkin analyses how the discovery of new energy sources has literally fueled the development of mankind, in both material and psychological ways. Each time new energy sources were invented (like agriculture, coal and steam, or oil), human consciousness also lept into new territory. Our consciousness developed from mythological, to theological, ideological and psychological into what could be seen as an emerging dramaturgical consciousness.

So Rifkin sets out to analyse the development of human consciousness as energy revolutions allowed for more complex societies in different stages of human development.

Each energy revolution has been accompanied and enabled by a communications revolution that enabled increasing complexity. Hydraulic civilizations needed script to organize crop growth and distribution; the printing press enabled mass literacy needed to operate railroad infrastructures and the like; the telephone enabled the long distance communication needed for the fast paced and interconnected oil fueled economies; the internet enables smart distribution of sustainable produced energy.

What is the third industrial revolution? It is probably the most bold hypothesis of the book, and he extended it into his 2011 book The Industrial Revolution, which was used for our section on solutions out of the current energy crisis.

Dramaturgical consciousness is developing as we are increasingly able and expected to play different roles. Where the world always has been a Shakespearian stage, omnipresent communication opportunities building upon a psychological consciousness foster the development of a theatrical selve. Rifkin speculates that the ability to play more different roles in turn fosters an even stronger empathic capacity.

Will this empathic capacity grow fast enough among humanity to be able to deal with the consequences of climate change and resource scarcity? How many recent wars have been effectually fought over oil and other critical resources? Will a distributed renewable energy scheme distribute and democratize energy and power so that more global resource wars can be avoided? Will a biosphere consciousness eventually emerge?

Empathy is dependent on our mortality; as we start to realize our lives are volatile we can start recognizing this in other people and creatures. Our primal drive is to belong; an empathic drive. We are ultimately social beings.

I consider this a great book. Rifkin uses a lot of scientific evidence, and dares to both redefine human history but also draw realistic and useful conclusions for the future. He is quite unique in that respect.

True? No. The number of babies per woman has been overwhelmingly decreased towards two. Two babies per woman clearly means population will grow no further.

So now we are with seven billion, and growing, because there are relatively many young people. But in 2050 the world population will stabilize at about ten billion.

Human population is large but not growing out of hand, at all, anymore.

Hans Rosling, Swedish doctor and statistician, gives a face to the data in a TED talk of April 2012.

Vision 1. We are born into a safe and secure social environment…
Vision 10. Government and parliament are democratically elected…

So what if you live under dictatorship? You start a non-violent revolution.

Gene Sharp has already inspired generations of revolutionaries worldwide. His book, From Dictatorship to Democracy^[1], is a guide with over 180 means of non-violent resistance. The book can be read free online or downloaded as pdf.

1. ^[1] Gene Sharp (1993) ↩

Details of the research can be found at www.equalitytrust.org.uk.

High inequality has strong negative effects on societies, at the bottom as well as at the top. People die sooner in more unequal countries, mainly because social status has a staggering impact on health and wellbeing. Using a wealth of data and meticulous reasoning Wilkinsons and Picketts reach this conclusion: socio-economic inequality stands out as a crucial factor explaining life expectancy and many other problems like violence, drug abuse, mental illness and obesity.

More inequality increases consumption because it heightens status differences. Competitive consumption is a widely used strategy to increase status. More equality might therefore be a prerequisite for moderating consumption and creating more sustainable societies.^[1]

We are the first generation to come to the end of what raising income can do for us. Raising income doesn’t make people in developed countries happier anymore. Higher income doesn’t even make us healthier. It’s predominantly increasing equality that leads to better health and more happiness.^[2]

Status anxiety is the most striking socio-psychological phenomenon, leading a myriad of health problems and eventually early death. The many problems related to inequality through mainly status angst are:

• Lack of trust (“we are less likely to emphasize with those not seen as equals”^[3])
• Mental illnesses and drug abuse
• Physical health problems (“A sad soul can kill you quicker than a germ. – John Steinbeck”.^[4])
• Obesity (eating can provide comfort from stress and stressed people retain more fat)
• Low educational performance (stress and perceived low status impair learning abilities)
• Teenage pregnancies (women and men at the bottom have more children as a survival strategy)
• Violence, homicides (violence as last resort to gain respect^[5])
• High imprisonment rates (self-reinforcing: the most effective way to turn a non-violent person into a violent one is to send him to prison^[6]
• Low social mobility (larger social distances with stronger cultural markers harder to bridge, induces stress, reinforces distances ^[7])

Status anxiety increases in more unequal societies because “when income differences are bigger, social distances are bigger and social stratification more important”. (p. 27) Why are human beings so sensitive to inequality?^[8]

Mechanism: bad health <– stress <– low social status / lack of friends / early life stress.^[9] How does it work? Psyche –> neural system –> immune system. Stress –> fight or flight response. Over short period beneficial; over prolonged periods of time leads to loss of memory, retaining fat around the waist, high blood pressure, and higher risk of infertility and miscarriage.^[10]

Historic explanation: in smaller groups sense of identity was embedded in community.^[11]

“To do well is … almost synonymous with moving up the social ladder.”^[12] Crucial to our interaction with strangers is how they rate us; “This vulnerability is part of the modern psychological condition and feeds directly into consumerism.”^[13]  Shame, “the social emotion”, is “rooted in the process through which we internalize how we imagine others see us.”^[14]

Romantic love is considered less important in more unequal countries.^[15]

Inequality promotes narcissism.^[16] “Modesty easily becomes a casualty of inequality”.^[17] In countries like the very equal Japan, modesty is valued over being self-assured. In the unequal US, it’s the opposite.

“People with high levels of trust live longer”.^[18]

Women’s status is lower in unequal societies, while when women’s status is higher “both men and women have lower death rates.”^[19]

Mental illnesses like depression and ADHD are related to inequality. It seems that we value ourselves in relation to others and if their standards can not be reached we become profoundly lonely and unhappy.^[20] In the US, around 25 percent suffer from any mental illness, while in Japan, Germany, Spain and even Italy it’s only about 10 percent.^[21]

Relationship with consumerism: “As inequality grows and the super-rich at the top spend more and more on luxury goods, the desire for such things cascades down the income scale and the rest of us struggle to compete and keep up.”^[22]

Bio-Physical explanation and relationship with drugs: monkeys with low social status lack serotonine and dopamine in their brains. Status influences the occurrence of these ‘happiness hormones’ in their blood, and when given the opportunity only the low-status monkeys administer cocaine to themselves to get their dopamine levels up. Mental medicine and other drugs can be regarded as compensating for lack of low-status related hormones.^[23]

“Low job status is not only related to a higher risk of heart disease: it is also related to some cancers, chronic lung disease, gastrointestinal disease, depression, suicide, sickness absence from work, back pain and self reported health.”^[24] ”Job stress and people’s sense of control over their work”^[25] determine physical health.

Group membership also matters; “it’s not just our individual social status that matters for health, the social connections between us matter too.”^[26]

“…in rich countries, there is no relationship between the amount of health spending per person and life expectancy.”^[27]

“… living in a more equal society benefits everybody; not just the poor.”^[28]

“Russia has experienced dramatic decreases in life expectancy since the early 1990s, as it moved from a centrally planned to a market economy, accopanied by a rapid rise in income inequality.”^[29]

Overweight amongst poor people is particularly strong related to income inequality. ^[31]. Stressed people eat more and differently, and build fat around the waist faster.^[32]. “Recent research suggests that food stimulates the brains of chronic over-eaters in just the same ways that drugs stimulate the brains of addicts.”^[33] “… lessening the burdens of inequality could make an important contribution towards resolving the epidemic of obesity.”^[34]

8. Education

“…performance and behaviour in an educational task can be profoundly afffected by the way we feel we are seen and judged by others. When we expect to be viewed as inferior, our abilities seem to be diminished.”^[35]. Low-caste boys performed worse in experiment after they had to publicly confirm their caste.

“New developments in neurobiology provide biological explanations for how our learning is affected by our feelings”^[36] When confident dopamine releases help memory, while when threatened, helpless and stressed cortisol impairs our thinking and memory. Hence inequality influences learning abilities.

10. Violence

“If you ain’t got pride, you got nothing”^[37]

Increased inequality –> status matters even more. So: inequality is structural violence. Homicides and assaults are strongly associated with inequality; “So violence is most often a response to disrespect, humiliation and loss of face, and is usually a male response to these triggers.”^[38]

11. Social Mobility

“Bourdieu calls the actions by which the leite maintain their distinction symbolic violence; we might just as easily call them discrimination and snobbery. Although racial prejudice is widely condemned, class prejudice is, despite the similarities, rarely mentioned.”^[39] “In more unequal societies, more people are oriented towards dominance; in more egalitarian societies, more people are oriented towards inclusiveness and empathy.”^[40]

Part 3 – A Better Society

“Inequality seems to make countries socially dysfunctional across a wide range of outcomes.”^[41]

The effects are not just for the least well-off, but range “across the vast majority of the population.”^[42]

Solutions: “greater equality can be gained either by using taxes and benefits … or by greater equality in gross incomes before taxes.”^[43]. Japan is the example of the latter; after WWII the society has been rebuilt very equally, with help from outside, which resulted in an equal society with few needs for redistribution.^[44]

Causality seems to go predominantly from inequality to social problems, and not the other way around. An indication for this is the fact that children of a lower caste in experiments do worse only when their caste is publicly announced.^[45]

Friendship is the opposite side of the social status coin; friendship and status are to differing modes for human beings for coming together. Economic theory of free markets is built upon the idea that material self-interest is the main governing principle of human behaviour; greed is supposed to be the “overriding human motivation”.^[46] “… greater equality allows a more sociable human nature to emerge.”^[47]

Like Ridley (2011) Wilkinson and Pickett conclude that “our unique capacity for specialization and division of labour means that human beings have an unrivalled potential to benefit from co-operation.”^[48]

“The quality of social relations has always been crucial to well-being,” to the extent that “lack of friends and low social status are among the most important sources of chronic stress affecting the health of populations in rich countries today.”^[49]

“systems of material or economic relations are systems of social relations.”^[50]

Human beings have both chimp and bonobo properties; the capacity to live both violently and/or co-operatively.

“… pursuit of status is often considered a masculine characteristic” but “we should not forget how much this is likely to be a response to the female preference for high-status males… Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac” (Kissinger)“^[51]

“A very important source of the close social integration in an egalitarian community is the sense of self-realization we can get when we successfully meet others’ needs. This is often seen as a mysterious quality, almost as if it were above explanation. It comes of course from our need to feel valued by others.”^[52]

“Though equipped with the potential to empathize very closely with others, how much we develop and use this potential is again affected by early childhood.”^[53]

When people are excluded the same areas are activated “as are activated by physical pain”. ~broken heart, hurt feelings. “We appear to have a desire to exclude people who do not cooperate. … The powers of inclusion and exclusion indicate our fundamental need for social integration and are, no doubt, part of the explanation of why friendship and social involvement are so protective of health. … Social class and status differences almost certainly cause similar forms of social pain. Unfairness, inequality and the rejection of co-operation are all forms of exclusion.”^[54]

“Given … how [inequality] heightens competitive consumption, it looks … that governments may be unable to make big enough cuts in carbon emissions without also reducing inequality.”^[55]

Looking at countries like Sweden but also surprisingly Chile, “we can be confident that it is possible to combine sustainability with a high quality of life.”^[56]

“It is often suggested that invention and innovation go with inequality and depend on the promise of individual financial incentives.” This is a myth. Evidence suggests that “more equal societies tend to be more creative.”^[57]

“Greater equality makes growth much less necessary. … A great deal of what drives consumption is status competition.”^[58] “.. the consumption of the rich reduces everyone else’s satisfaction with what they have… Richard Layard … treated this dissatisfaction as a cost which the rich impose on the rest of society.”^[59]

Competitive consumption has had important influence in 1929 and 2008 economic crises. Inequality and debt are “intimately related”.^[60]

“While inequality has been rising in the USA and Britain, there has been a long-term decline in savings and a rise in debt.”^[61] Even in periods of huge economic growth, debt and bankruptcy have been found related to inequality; “bankruptcy rates rose most in parts of the USA where inequality had risen most.”^[62] Competitive consumption even “became one of the main drivers of the long economic boom … which ended in crisis. … Spending on advertising varies with inequality.” Working hours increase with inequality, indicating stronger pressure to consume. “People in more unequal countries do the equivalent of two or three extra months’ extra work a year. A loss of the equivalent of an extra eight or twelve weeks’ holiday is a high price to pay for inequality. … The evidence … all concurs with the view that inequality does indeed increase the pressure to consume. If an important part of consumerism is driven by emulation, status competition or simply having to run to keep up with everyone else, and is basically about social appearances and position, this would explain why we continue to pursue economic growth despite its apparent lack of benefits. …  people’s desire for more income is really a desire for higher status…”^[63] “Too often consumerism is regarded as if it reflected a fundamental human material self-interest and possessiveness. That, however, could hardly be further from the truth. Our almost neurotic need to shop and consume is instead a reflection of how deeply social we are. … Consumerism shows how powerfully we are affected by each other.”^[64]

“… more equal countries … tend to recycle a higher proportion of their waste.”^[65]

How to increase equality? 

Start a social movement based on insights from this research.

Myths: “It is often said that greater equality is impossible because people are not equal. But that is a confusion: equality does not mean being the same.” Nor does equality means “lowering standards or leveling to a common mediocrity. Shaw: “Only where there is pecuniary equality can the distinction of merit stand out.”^[66]

Politics do play a decisive role; “historical evidence confirms the primacy of political will”. While it “was once seen as a way of improving people’s social and emotional wellbeing by changing their economic circumstances”, “people are now more likely to see psychosocial wellbeing as dependent on what can be done at the individual level. … However, it is now clear that income distribution provides policy makers with a way of improving the psychosocial wellbeing of whole populations.”^[67] Problems like mental illness, obesity or drug abuse are considered separately; the poor are believed to “need to be taught to be more sensible. The glaringly obvious fact that these problems have common roots in inequality and relative deprivation” has disappeared from policy makers’ views.^[68]

In the US and Britain in particular, “free-market ideology and … policies designed to create a more ‘flexible’ labour force” preceded the widening income differences of the 1980s.^[69] One clear mechanism is that of trade union membership; if policies do not stimulate trade unions, like in the EU (70% of earnings covered by union membership), wages at the lower end will be under constant downwards pressure, as seen in the US (15%).

Redistributive taxes (Scandinavia) or just a more equal paying society (Japan) are both ways to improve equality, and should be employed simultaneously.^[70]

So how to foster policial will? First, by changing public opinion. “Political differences are more a reflection of different beliefs about the solution to problems than of disagreements about what the problems are. … For several decades progressive politics have been seriously weakened by the loss of any concept of a better society.”^[71]

Corporate power offers other solutions. “Numerous corporations are now bigger than many nation states”,^[72] while “democratic control of corporate power has vanishes as corporations have become increasingly multinational. “In many top companies the chief executive is paid more each day than the average worker is in a year.”^[73] The ILO found that “there is little or no evidence of a relationship between executive pay and company performance”.^[74]

Are there alternatives to this excessive corporate concentrations of power and wealth? Yes, and “many … are already part of our lives and flourishing all around us.”^[75]

Both the non-profit sector and employee ownership in combination with participative management methods have proven to be economically and socially beneficial. “People seem to thrive where they have more control over their work. Having control at work was the most successful single factor explaining threefold differences in death rates between senior and junior civil servants working in the same government offices in Britain.”^[76] The value of companies is increasingly the value of its employees. Buying a company is buying a group of people. “… the concept of a group of people being bought and sold, and belonging to anyone but its own members, is a concept which is the very opposite of democratic.”^[77]

One of the authors who recently visited a company that had been bought by its employees noticed one big difference: “People look you in the eye“.^[78]

“An important ideological cost of the Cold War was that America gave up its historical commitment to equality.”^[79] “The scale of economic inequality which exists today is less an expression of freedom and democracy as of their denial. Who, apart from the super-rich, would vote for multi-million dollar bonuses for the corporate and financial elite while denying adequate incomes to people who undertake so many essential and sometimes unpleasant tasks – such as caring for the elderly, collecting the trash, or working in emergency services? The truth is that modern inequality exists because democracy is excluded from the economic sphere. It needs therefore be dealt with by and extension of democracy into the workplace. We need to experiment with every form of economic democracy – employee ownership, producer and consumer co-operatives, employee representatives on company boards and so on.”^[80]

It pays greatly to improve equality; if in the US income inequality was brought to the level of Sweden, trust levels might rise by 75 per cent, mental illness and obesity might be cut by two thirds, teenage birth rates halved and “prison populations might be reduced by 75 per cent, and people could live longer while working the equivalent of two months less per year.”^[81]

“Political will is dependent on the development of a vision of a better society which is both achievable and inspiring. … a more equal society in which people are less divided by status and hierarchy; in which we regain a sense of community, in which we overcome the threat of global warming, in which we own and control our work democratically as part of a community of colleagues, and share in the benefits of a growing non-monetized sector of the economy.”^[82]

“We know that greater equality will help us rein in consumerism … We have seen that the rich countries have got to the end of the really important contributions which economic growth can make to the quality of life and also that our future lies in improving the quality of the social environment in our societies”.^[83]

Side notes:

“The evidence shows that reducing inequality is the best way of improving the quality of the social environment, and so the real quality of life, for us all.” (p. 29)

Zygmunt Bauman (2011) asserts that governments focus increasingly on security while people long for safety. The preference for security, in the form of gated communities and so on, is rooted in (perceived) inequality.^[84]

Link Bateson: inequality is quality of relationship; a typical difference that makes a difference.

The hidden importance of status differences I recognize from the practice of theatre. Status games, strategies to render an on stage character higher or lower than other characters, are one of the best ways of making the audience believe in a scene. Keith Johnstone’s work on improvisation shows this in a very clear way.^[85]

1. ^[1] p. 217- ↩
2. ^[2] p. 77. The Big Idea, p. 81 ↩
3. ^[3] p. 56, attributed to De Toqueville ↩
4. ^[4] p. 73 ↩
5. ^[5] p. 140 ↩
6. ^[6] p. 154 ↩
7. ^[7] p. 163 ↩
8. ^[8] p. 31 ↩
9. ^[9] p. 39 ↩
10. ^[10] p. 85-86 ↩
11. ^[11] p. 42 ↩
12. ^[12] p. 40 ↩
13. ^[13] p. 42-43 ↩
14. ^[14] p. 41 ↩
15. ^[15] p. 44 ↩
16. ^[16] p. 42 ↩
17. ^[17] p. 45 ↩
18. ^[18] p. 57, referencing to Barefoot, Maynard, Beckham, Brummet, Hooker, Siegler (1998), Trust, health and Longevity. In: Journal of behavioral medicine 21 (6): 517-26. ↩
19. ^[19] p. 60 ↩
20. ^[20] p. 65 ↩
21. ^[21] p. 67 ↩
22. ^[22] p. 70 ↩
23. ^[23] p. 71-72 ↩
24. ^[24] p. 75 ↩
25. ^[25] p. 75 ↩
26. ^[26] p. 79 ↩
27. ^[27] p. 81, my emphasis (SJ) ↩
28. ^[28] p. 84 ↩
29. ^[30] ↩
30. ^[29] p. 87, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC28623/)

    7. Obesity

    “Food is the most primitive form of comfort. – Sheila Graham”^[30]p. 89 ↩

31. ^[31] p. 93 ↩
32. ^[32] p. 95 ↩
33. ^[33] p. 96 ↩
34. ^[34] p. 103 ↩
35. ^[35] p. 113 ↩
36. ^[36] p. 115 ↩
37. ^[37] p. 133 ↩
38. ^[38] p. 140 ↩
39. ^[39] p. 164 ↩
40. ^[40] p. 168 ↩
41. ^[41] p. 174 ↩
42. ^[42] p. 174 ↩
43. ^[43] p. 184 ↩
44. ^[44] p. 242 ↩
45. ^[45] p. 194 ↩
46. ^[46] p. 199 ↩
47. ^[47] p. 199 ↩
48. ^[48] p. 201 ↩
49. ^[49] p. 201 ↩
50. ^[50] p. 202 ↩
51. ^[51] p. 207 ↩
52. ^[52] p. 209 ↩
53. ^[53] p. 213 ↩
54. ^[54] p. 215 ↩
55. ^[55] p. 217 ↩
56. ^[56] p. 221 ↩
57. ^[57] p. 225 ↩
58. ^[58] p. 226 ↩
59. ^[59] p. 227 ↩
60. ^[60] p. 296 ↩
61. ^[61] p. 227 ↩
62. ^[62] p. 228 ↩
63. ^[63] p. 228-229 ↩
64. ^[64] p. 230 ↩
65. ^[65] p. 232 ↩
66. ^[66] p. 237 ↩
67. ^[67] p. 238 ↩
68. ^[68] p. 239 ↩
69. ^[69] p. 244 ↩
70. ^[70] p. 247 ↩
71. ^[71] p. 248 ↩
72. ^[72] p. 251 ↩
73. ^[73] p. 250 ↩
74. ^[74] p. 250 ↩
75. ^[75] p. 252 ↩
76. ^[76] p. 256, my emphasis ↩
77. ^[77] p. 257 ↩
78. ^[78] p. 259 ↩
79. ^[79] p. 263 ↩
80. ^[80] p. 264 ↩
81. ^[81] p. 268 ↩
82. ^[82] p. 271 ↩
83. ^[83] p. 272 ↩
84. ^[84] p. 58 ↩
85. ^[85] See Johnstone (1979). ↩

Vision 4: Education is generally accessible and reaches high levels. Teachers are well paid. Classes are not too big, and personal and social development go side by side.

How to educate ourselves and our children for living in times of turbulence? How to educate starting from the ideas of what a human being is actually is? Education shouldn’t just transfer knowledge, it should educate values.

1. ^[1] The recognition that all living beings are an inseparable part of a global ecosystem. ↩
2. ^[2] Robinson, 2009: 252 ↩
3. ^[3] See for example this lecture (in Dutch). ↩
4. ^[4] A point which is endorsed by an overwhelming body of research; See Lyubomirsky (2007). ↩

The image of humanity is the foundation. As concluded in the previous chapter, we are much more social beings than the prevalent Enlightenment idea of the free individual suggests. As Frans de Waal showed,^[1] we are much more empathic and cooperative than violent, while at the same time violence and destruction are intrinsic human traits. Both the latitudinal (other living people) and longitudinal (kids and ancestors) social dimensions are inextricably part of what people are.

Following, proposals should be based on the notion of Sustainable Aggregate Subjective Well Being (SA-SWB). Why? Because we want people to experience a good life (well being), which is a personal experience (subjective), and this subjective well being should hold across groups of people (aggregate). Finally, it should last across generations (sustainable). Equality – to a certain extent –  is a prerequisite for a society with substantial subjective well being.^[2] Proposals for change should embody a mariage between equality and sustainability.

The changes induced by the current crises offer chances for implementation of the following proposals, bringing them within reach. Partially, and sometimes surprisingly, some are already being implemented. No small plans but Big Ideas. Recognizing that society consists of groups of people who what their children to survive and prosper, we will look into often surprisingly practical proposals, offering direction and guidance on how to live in times of turbulence.

1. ^[1] De Waal 2009: 205, 206 ↩
2. ^[2] See Wilkinson and Pickett (2010). ↩

PREAMBLE: Man is a social being. Individual development is always dependent on social development. Man is empathetic and able to love. This is the basis of human community.

The image of what a human being actually is has been narrowed down by science. Schumacher argued^[1] that man is considered to be a machine more than a living being. The dominant scientific paradigm, what Schumacher calls materialistic scientism, has deaf ears and blind eyes towards non-materialistic qualities of life thereby stripping it of most of its meaning – meaning that seems to be experienced by individuals as crucial.

A consequence is that the social aspects like relationships to peers, ancestors and offspring are neglected; we need both a latitudinal and longitudinal extension of human image.

Maslov’s hierarchy of needs is an example of what happens when human beings are considered to be singular machine-like creatures. The hierarchy, often depicted as a pyramid of needs, implies that the top needs are most important; self-actualisation would be the highest goal of a human being. But is this universally true? For one single individual it might be, but humanity doesn’t function as a collection of individuals. Maslov’s needs in reality are only being met in patterns of collective behaviour and collective growth. As research on well being shows,^[2] being connected to others might be at least as important as self-actualisation. As a model for building a society, Maslov is too much focused on the individual. A model of society should have groups of people as building blocks.

So what is a human being? To what extent is his or her context part of the individual? What does latitudinal and longitudinal extension of the human image look like?

Latitudinal (peers) and longitudinal (ancestors and offspring) extension of human image

A consequence of increasing specialization in science is that categories and descriptions of singularities are abundant but relationships between objects go largely unseen. Our theoretic lenses of science do not put relationships in focus, while relationships are defining what and who we are to a large extent.

Research into subjective well being shows that happy people have in common that they spend a lot of time with others and cherishing relationships.^[3] Research into innovation and trade shows that prosperity and wealth only come from trust based exchange with other people.^[4].

Not only we literally do not exist without others; we need others to be happy, to prosper and to thrive.

1. ^[1] See Schumacher 1977 ↩
2. ^[2] Lyubomirsky 2007: 23 ↩
3. ^[3] Lyubomirksy 2007: 23 ↩
4. ^[4] Ridley 2011 ↩

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Guide_for_the_Perplexed

We all recognise life if we see it but only the material aspects are regarded as truly existing by science. Schumacher argues how problematic this is and why.

British economist Schumacher acknowledges a hierarchy of knowledge and consciousness; mineral – plant – animal – human. There is progression when moving up along these levels. Origin of action progresses as well; cause – stimulus – motive – will. Therefore each level of being becomes increasingly unpredictable.

Materialistic scientism, dominant in science, is flawed; methods of research used on lower levels of existence are inadequate when dealing with life, consciousness and self-consciousness.

Here Schumacher connects to Bateson: the map is not the territory. The territory of life is minerals and inanimate matter, but the stuff of life is more like a map laid out on this matter. This map exists more like information than as matter. DNA is a clear example of information stored upon layers of matter; the DNA is not equal to the matter, and the information stored within it becomes something else. As the logical step is made form the territory of matter to the map of life, this map becomes something completely different from the matter. Life is more than just a smart physical interplay of things. The consequences are huge; love is not just a chemical in the brain, a depressed person is not just lacking serotonin. Both statements to me are hopeless reductions dismissing what is crucial to our lives, what gives it value and makes it worthwhile.

This materialistic scientism, neglecting the unique qualities of the map which is life, is highly dominant in science. A conceptual frame describing life is lacking. I think the materialistic scientific frame of thinking is deeply embedded in the way we as Western human beings see the world.

Problematic because in social sphere this leads to moral relativism and utilitarianism. Acknowledging levels of being creates simple moralism: man should move to higher levels – of consciousness, self-consciousness, perhaps even higher.

I think everyone should read this book. To be ordered here.

”The pattern which connects”

== Introduction ==

Mind as a reflection of large and many parts of the natural world outside the thinker. Existing (human) epistemology reflection of obsolete physics; man unique and materialistic, while living universe generalized and spiritual. And yet beauty persists.

Jung following Gnostics: not mind and matter but

* ”’Creatura”’: world of living, distinctions, ”difference” as a cause

* ”’Pleroma”’: non-living, forces and ”impacts” as causes of events

The pattern which connects the crab to the lobster, the orchid to the primrose and all the four of them to me. (p.8) Both claws are made of the same ”parts” (p9) Homology (phylogenetic, serial).

Aesthetic = responsive to the pattern which connects.

Logical types of anatomic descriptive patterns:

# first-order: parts compared with parts of same individual

# second-order: parts compared with similar relations between parts

# third-orer: comparisons compared: crab-lobster vs horse-men

So: Pattern which connects = ”’meta-pattern”’ (pattern of patterns).

Such comparisons are not ”material”, ”Dingen an sich”, but they are ”real” and can have effects on both creatura and pleroma. (=connection ‘mind-matter’)

Growth: Spirals are generally produced by living things. Segments and symmetry also result of growth; growth makes it formal demands; one of these is satisfied with spiral forms. People think in stories.

Context = a pattern through time. Embryology is formal (trunk = between eyes and above mouth; fetus cannot smell). Relationship could be basis for definition (but not done in teaching, often; grammar etc).

Evolution: with Darwin and Lamarck, biosphere was Great ”’Chain”’ of Being (p. 19) Origin of species was attempt to exclude mind.

”’Logical typing”’: hierarchical structure of thought (Betrand Russell) in this book takes place of the chain.

p. 20

”’Logic”’ is unable to deal with recursive circuits without generating paradox.

”’Quantities”’ are not the stuff of complex communicating systems.

P. 21

Combining pieces of information; currently no existing science has special interest in this.

== Every schoolboy knows ==

”Postmodern statement” (SJ)

p. 27

Truth, final knowledge, never occurs in science (perhaps with abstract tautology); hypotheses are ”improved” or sometimes ”disproved”.

p. 29

Prediction never is absolutely valid. Science is way of ”perceiving”; perception operates only upon ”difference”; perception difference limited by ”threshold”.

p. 30

* the map is not the territory; the name is not the ‘Ding an sich’. (Alfred Korzybski).

P. 31

* All experience is subjective

p. 32

* Image formation processes are unconscious

p. 38

division of universe into parts necessary but no necessity determines how it is done

p. 40

* Divergent sequences are unpredictable (breaking chain, braking glass)

p. 42

“deep gulf between statements about an identified individual and statements about a class. such statements are of ”different logical type”, and prediction from one to the other is always unsure.

p. 43

it does matter which individual man acted. Precisely ”this” makes history unpredictable into the future.

p. 44

* Convergent sequences are predictable

Aggregates of individuals (solar systems, billiard balls) predictable. BUT statistician should always remember that his statements have reference only to aggregates, not to individuals.

p. 45

* Nothing will come of nothing

but zero can be a message (in context).

p. 49

* Number is different from quantity

Number ~ pattern, gestalt. Quantity ~ analogic, probabilistic computation.

p. 51

“what is the largest number that the ”process of growth” can handle as a fixed pattern, beyond which the matter is handled as quantity?”

p. 53

* Quantity dus not determine pattern

* There are no monotone “values” in biology

* Sometimes small is beautiful

the tale of the polyploid horse: four times usual number of chromosomes, twice as long, twice as high, twice as thick. BUT: ”’8 x as heavy”’ has normal Clydesdale horse! Fat and skin twice as thick, surface area only four times that of normal horse, so cooling not sufficient. Windpipe only 4 times as wide (not 8 times).

Interaction change and tolerance. Like with traffic: ”suddenly” the threshold of tolerance is passed and congestion appears. The changing of one variable exposes a critical value of the other.

Little is known of message system that controls growth. Why symmetry in mammals?

p. 58

* Logic is a poor model of cause and effect

If-then in syllogisms is ”very different” of that in cause and effect.

p. 59

“Logic can not simulate all sequences of cause and effect. If-then of causality contains ”time”, but the if-then of logic is timeless.”

Example: buzzer circuit. Contact->Activated->contact broken->inactivated->contact. BUT, logically: If contact is made, contact is broken. If P, then not P.

Logic is an incomplete model of causality.

p. 60

* Causality does not work backward

When causal systems become circular, a change in the circle can be regarded as a cause for a change in any variable in the circle ”at a later time”.

* Language commonly only stresses one side of any interaction

p. 61

* “Stability” and “Change” describe parts of our descriptions.

== Multiple versions of the world ==

What bonus comes from ”combining” information from two or more sources? (67)

It takes at least two somethings to create a difference. Binocular vision; the difference between the two images is of a different logical type than that of the separate images.

Description, tautology, explanation (p. 81). Description and explanation are connected by tautology. Why is in mirror left-right changed but up-down not? because the mirror provides a 180-degree reversal (west-east -> east-west) so: you’re essentially looking at your back.

Does opium contain dormitive principle? No, the combination of opium and people.

“Epistemology is always and inevitably ”personal”. (p. 87)

== Criteria for mental process ==

What is ”mind”? How to think about thinking?

# An Aggregate of interacting parts of components

# Interaction triggered by ”difference”; difference not located in space or time

# Mental process requires collateral energy

# Mental process requires circular (or more complex) chains of determination

# Coding: effects of difference are to be regarded as transforms of events which preceded them

# Logical typing: description and classification of these processes of transformation discloses a hierarchy of logical types immanent in the phenomena

Thought, evolution, ecology, life, learning etc occur ”only” in systems that satisfy these criteria.

Sensory organs respond to change or difference.

Circular chains: steamengine with governor

== Multiple versions of relationships ==

What is inside or outside the ”self”? Dependency, aggressiveness or pride only exist ”between” people. (133) ”Play” only happens between living creatures; it is not the name of an act but a ”frame” of action. (p. 139).

Totemism: the religion based on analogy between social system and natural world.

Abduction: lateral extension of abstract components of description. Metaphor, dream, art, science, religion, poetry, totemism: all (aggregates of) instances of abduction within human mental sphere. (p. 142)

== The great stochastic processes ==

“Without the random, there can be now new thing.” (p. 147). Both genetic change and learning are stochastic processes. Random stream of events and non-random selective process.

Does the nature of homological formal resemblances tells something about the ”process” of evolution? (p. 166) “Why do some characteristics become the basis of homology?” (p. 168)

D’Arcy Thompson: map animal on square paper, distorting, same coordinates will accomodate the other form. (170)

All innovative, ”creative” systems are ”divergent”. (p. 174)

Two stochastic systems:

* Darwinist; random component genetic change

* rooted in external adaption; random provided by system of phenotype in interaction with environment

== From classification to process ==

Weismann barrier: acquired characteristics can not be inherited.

Communication between levels of different logical type can have undesirable effects.

Logical typing applied in world of organisms takes on different appearance than in mathematical world: instead of hierarchy of classes, “we face a hierarchy of ”orders of recursiveness”. (p 201)

Shotgun firing: information about the ”self” can only be harvested ”after” the firing. (201)

“system of law enforcement [is] necessarily discontinuous for reasons connected with ”time”” (p. 202)

“Wise man see outlines and therefore they draw them.” (William Blake)

== So What? ==

”Aesthetics” and ”consciousness” will have to be mapped onto the ideas in the present book. (p. 211)

These issues and the ”sacred” will be dealt with in the next book, “Where Angels fear to Thread”.