Searching for me

Our spirit is our centre, our core. Whether or not it continues as a soul after death is not the point here, so I use spirit to refer to that psychological central place of our existence. In using the term, I infer only psychological structures and processes, no religion.

Every one has a spirit, the core of psyche, but not everyone understands their spirit or is in touch with it. It is easy to become detached from it, since daily life, work, family, friends, pressures and trials engage us in ways often inconsistent with what we may on reflection, choose. Our spirit is not necessarily congruent with what we do each day good intentions are not enough.

Modern psychological theory has it that via our mind, in particular, the cognitive and conceptual structures we use to ‘see’ our environment and our place in it we substantially construct our own spirit. The knowledge we use in constructing ourselves is the same as that used to ‘see’ the tree. We have private knowledge of ourselves, but it is not special knowledge. As offered in the Johari window, others may also have knowledge of us we do not know, but could if we seek it.

I ‘see’ my spirit as a structure in my psyche I call it the ‘I of I’, visualized for me, as a peaceful lake with depth into the very center of me.

The ‘I’ is the active part - roles, relationships, goals, purpose, work, family, etc. Many years ago, while conducting a senior management executive leadership workshop we were discussing roles and the role complexity of their every day life, I asked the group if they ever got lost in their role structures, such as acting as the CEO at home, or with friends, etc. They all put up their hands, I was quite surprised, first at the fact they understood exactly what I was talking about, and second they so immediately were willing to be open and honest about it. It was agreed that losing oneself in daily roles is losing touch with something important in ourselves, a loss of identity, a loss of a sense of ‘who I am’, this way for this one, this other way for that, but who am I?

The ‘I of I’ does not act, it is not an aspect of any role, it lies behind all roles and is the centre of my being in any roles - it is who I am. The ‘I of I’ is the centre of the spirit, always there, constant, perhaps at times troubled, such as when we move beyond merely sad to depression defined as an affliction of the spirit. Surrounding the ‘I of I’ are the thoughts most precious to us, those thoughts that give depth and substance to our being, we could call them values, but I mean beyond that common term, something closer to the inherent difference between perhaps an Pygmy of the Congo rain forest, and a native born New Yorker.

Some years ago, I read a book on the Mbuti. The author Colin Turnball described how when escorting a Pygmy out of this forest they stood on a hill, and the Pygmy asked ‘what were the insects’. It took the author some minutes to understand that the Pygmy referred to cattle grazing a field some miles away, that for the Pygmy in the forest with distance measured in feet not miles, anything so small had to be insects. This is a profound example of living circumstance and its impact on how we think and ‘see’ the world about us.

Other aspects of our worldview arise from ideas and ways of thinking as deeply ingrained. They are just one-step removed from the ‘I of I’, part of our kernel we call our spirit. To secure our way of life, to develop and improve, then we need understand these ideas, this way of thinking, we need ‘see’ it as part of our kernel, embrace and cherish it, accept our personal responsibility within it, and be willing to defend it.

We need understand the way of thinking that is our heritage for this heritage lifted us to where we stand today. Should we continue to fail in our ethical obligations to our heritage, then our great grand children may well look back and say ‘oh, what an opportunity they had’.

Limits to culture

Culture is carried in mind, from one generation to the next, both shaping each generation and being shaped. Without mind, culture degenerates to a collection of artifacts.

Culture is a big term, with a particular culture encompassing the collective output of some particular group of hominids. There are aspects of current culture we can happily forego - such as some tastes in music or art - for our culture embraces all music and art, which includes those aspects of which we may not approve or like. We can only ignore those aspects, for to do otherwise is to impose on some people tastes and values that we choose.

Imposition of my view on others brings forth another aspect of what has been called culture, but I suggest in a modern world needs redefining.

Separating social structure from culture

Some years ago in Auckland, we had the Centre Point Community, where it emerged that there were illegal activities, with an adult sexually abusing children, and people rightly jailed. However, there is another issue - before the illegal activities emerged - that was the right of these people to live as they choose. I disagreed with the Community values and philosophies, but I was prepared to defend their right to exist provided it stayed within the law, or legally protested current law.

We also had the divisive Springbok tour. I could protest, and make my disagreement visible, but to use force to stop people doing legally allowed conduct, subverts something fundamental. I could not forcibly seek to stop other people who disagreed with me from attending those games. I am not convinced we have actually moved beyond the subversion of that principle, and today we still pay the price of forgoing values so profoundly important we do not realise the malaise facilitated, that one group has the right forcibly to stop another group doing that which they legally can merely because the first group disagrees. Without social self-discipline, we have anarchy, more accurately what happens is the progressive implementation of control and regulation that intimately undermines that which it so loudly proclaims to protect: our freedom to choose.

Around 60 BCE, Julius Caesar conquered Europe. Rome then dominated Europe for some 500 years, but only by force of arms, or the threat. The European tribes were never pacified, adopting Roman ways without losing their sense of who they were. Then around 400 CE the ‘barbarian’ tribes sacked Rome. What then emerged from the dissolution of the Roman Empire was ‘tribes’ became ‘countries’.

Our western way of life focused on the right of individual freedom traced to this beginning, the ferociously held view of these ‘barbaric’ European tribes of the right to self-determination. Likely, the foundation of this view traced even more deeply hundreds of years prior to 60 BCE.

Today, the Western Caucasians stand atop this depth of history, Rome gave us much culture, but the Barbarian tribes gave us the core of our social structure, the core of our spirit. With respects to Maori and Polynesian societies, they simply cannot offer this much, nor ever will.

History since has had the rant against the Crown by the barons called Magna Carta, the English Civil Wars, the French Revolution, the American Declaration of Independence, the first and second world wars, and the demise of the central planning of socialism as a viable social structure. The trend is the same, toward the idea I suggest will come to dominate human kind, namely “I want what is best for me, and I am damned if I will bow simply to your way”.

The problem is now ethical, how can I have my way without restricting or inhibiting others in pursuit of what they see as best for them? This takes us beyond mere culture, beyond questions of how I seek to live, especially as more and more there are those in our community who seek to live differently from me.

Individual freedom and western social structure

Tribes are gone, the world is complex; there are many, many points of view and ways of life, a ‘plural society’.

The modern western democracy has emerged over the last 2000 years so today we have core elements in virtually all free, democratic western societies.

• Paramount right of the individual to live as they choose within the law.
• Morality is not the basis of law, which can only rest on socially agreed and legally sanctioned ethical standards, such as only driving on a specified side of the road.
• Separation of powers, so state, religion, business, legislature, judiciary, police, etc all separate.
• Legislation to apply to all, so no race, creed or particular group singled out for persecution or privilege, and no exceptions.
• Socialized education, health, and some form of welfare.
• Democratic process for changing governments, without use of force.
• Demonstration is acceptable, but no one has the right to stop others going about legally constituted conduct.
• Transparency of state processes, especially as regards application of the law.

There are likely other items, but this sensibly conveys the nature of the list, and accurately differentiates this form of society from say Muslim society. This is not to say Muslim society is wrong. However, I would not choose to live under the core tenets, my spirit moulded by 2000 years of cultural history, is aligned fully with a western democratic way of life where I am me first, and then anything else second, whereas in Muslim society I am required by law to be Muslim first, and me second. This reversal of priorities is fundamental and can never be reconciled.

These fundamentals - what has been called ‘culture’ - needs to be redefined; we need to see the core of our western, plural, democratic, social structure as that, as core framework of social values we place above all others, it becomes non-negotiable, a kernel handed down to us over millennia.
Freedom, the core of our spirit, the closest idea next to the ‘I of our social I’, the nature of the social structure then flows from this idea.

As physical environment shaped the immediate perception of the Pygmy, so insight and understanding of our ideological history needs to shape the immediate perception of our modern world.

Living side by side

Who we are, intimately bound with the insight and understanding of how we have got to where we are. Yes, current place, New Zealand will shape that, but understanding the real nature of that shaping is far, far in the future. Yes, other societies, Maori and Polynesian, add some living tone. However, this must not detract or mask who we really are.

Today our society is of western heritage.

Today, I would like to think all would protect my right to live as I choose, as I would protect theirs, without reference to them, as they need never refer to me, merely with reference to the law, since I am as much part of this land as they.

We all stand before one law, non-specific of race or creed, as befits the tradition and core values that forge the central part of our social existence. This transcends culture, defining a core set of values with which we all live in the manner we each choose.

The first measure of our commitment freedom of the individual, to the core value our European tribal ancestors, is the extent our law is without race or creed. In this first measure we in New Zealand fail, for the Maori Parliamentary seats breach the measure. Muslim social structure also fails, it defined by creed, not by equal rights no matter creed, gender or viewpoint.

We are plural today, undone only in conflict. This is part of freedom's price, for freedom is a flower that blossoms only in fields fertilized with blood. Should you disagree, I suggest you check history, and the deaths in the name of freedom, tens of millions have regarded it a cause worthy of life commitment, this is the kernel of my spirit, it is where I come from and am committed to see progress.

Freedom, and only in freedom, will the human spirit soar, and only in disciplined commitment to ensure our western social structures is freedom secure.

Living side by side, we need all embrace the common aim of fulfillment through freedom, committing to the social structure that best enables our goals, and then within that social structure we live as we choose, and accept others may choose to live differently from us, even in ways we cannot abide but must accept.

Self-determination in the modern plural society is choosing how I will live and giving up the idea I have any right to direct how others should live. We need to embrace our common social structure, willing to defend the right of others to be, as they commit to our right to be, culture then expressing the group to which we gravitate and with whom we most identify and associate, while not losing sight of the broader western global social movement to which we all belong.

We need learn better how to accept the hard part of being free, namely, freedom is the demand to accept those very different from us, and offers merely the right to discipline ourselves. In embracing our freedom, showing our great grand children how to live fully within freedom, to become all that humans can be and more, greater than us, we must never compromise on our social structure that enables our freedom.

-§-

Notes:

• By mind, I imply no metaphysics, referring only to the conscious aspect of the operation of the brain. For full discussion on existence of ideas, and of the mind see the papers at grlphilosophy.co.nz.
• The Johari window explores what we know of us, others know of us, neither know of us, and both know of us.
• See the poem The ‘I of I’ in the poetry section of grlphilosophy.co.nz.
• A role is a set of thoughts and actions linked to a set of circumstances, so lover, friends, disciplinarian, father, and mother are all examples of roles. Our lives structured by circumstances, which demand different roles; it is this that asserts role complexity of everyday life.
• See the paper ‘Causes of depression’ at grlphilosophy.co.nz.

Pike River mine and Horizon disasters: What could have happened?

Imagine driving on busy Auckland road, in a queue of cars, almost bumper to bumper. Just for that split second, your attention shifts to glance at something on the sidewalk to the left. Now, you have done this many, many times, with no adverse result. However, this time, at that exact moment, the queue stops and in the split second when you look back to the queue your reflexes cannot stop the car in time and you hit the back of the car in front.

This is rather like the zero infinity dilemma. When you glance to the left, there is a very, very small probability that the queue will stop. If it does, then, well, the consequences are quite severe, all out of proportion with the small lapse in attention.

Many companies send men and woman into dangerous situations to get or do things needed for the business to operate. Very often, there is vanishingly small likelihood of some event occurring, but if it does, then people die.

There are always clues, signs, very often very small. They may occur regularly, responded to vigorously perhaps first few times then become like the boy who cried wolf.

Then, one day, at that exact moment, the collision of circumstance occurs… the circumstances of a clue so often attended to, now seemingly ho hum, collides with some other set of circumstances, and people die.

If I glance to left, and hit the car in front, am I accountable, yes, I am.

If I did not pay attention to clues, and circumstances collided, am I accountable, yes I am.

Now imagine months before, we are directors of the business, we can ensure safety to 99% within agreed budgets. To go to 100% safety will erode profits 18%. The discussion slides from lives, to the risk and to whether or not the business can weather the PR storm. Zero infinity is lost in a mass of statistics that say the risk is minimal, but we knew that … wanted it reaffirmed; talk of disaster just scare mongering.

The real problem is now clear; it is a set of ethics where the lives of those who do it, is less valuable than what they do. To be generous maybe it is just lack of insight into zero infinity, to be generous ….


FFSW: On edge on board

On the right day, it is hard to imagine anywhere better than sitting along side the Sisters, part way to Cape Brett, heavy burley trail, and fish as far as the eye can see. Sea, flat still, sun bright. Mao Mao, huge numbers blue and a few pink, big Kahawai, Kingis menacing underneath, snapper swirling in and out of the burley, big snapper glimpsed deeper, making occasional runs to grab morsels, trevs, small in close increasing to the school of big trevs at back, just out of fly cast range, along with the school of Albacore. Then total scatter as a six foot Mako drifts lazilly through the trail ... 'I'm boss' ... it states, underscored in every graceful, fluid and deadly move.

Fishing light, world records the goal. Odds in favor of fish, the adrenalin rush as the target Kingi nervously surges in and grabs another chunk.

Edgy excitement, as flies adjusted to match the burley ... 'there, there, coming in close, the big rat kingi, chasing the piper chunks' ... this is sight fishing surpreme ... hope in every cast. This time, if only I can get it past the Kahawai... a dark shape swirls to the left ... 'oh, piss off Mako' ...

The rat Kingi, reckoned at around 7 kilogram, world record on 3 kg tippet, eyes the piper imitation, then glides away. Another chunk, it swirls back in and snaps it up, again eyes up the imitation sitting just six feet down, and glides away... 'he knows its not real, its too clear'.

In goes imitation, it settles to eight then fifteen feet, followed by three, four, five chunks ...'he will be fed soon at this rate' ... two chunks drift down by the imitation, now only just visible, the line goes taunt, and reel sings as the Kingi drives for the bottom. No stopping him, not with 3kg, he has his head, the skipper rushes to get up anchor and begin slow move to deeper water. Another sudden rush of line, gone.

Reel in to start again ... damn ... but that is why they are world records.

Refinement on Goldberg thesis and why men rule

One issue that does not seem to fully made with clarity, is the link of the necessary behavioral structure of social power positions, and the nature of the emotional structures that best enable delivery of the necessary behavioral structure.

In summary the advancement of theory offered here is that (1) in all positions of power in society, including positions in organisations, there are actions needed to both achieve those positions and to maintain those position, and that these actions are determined totally by the position, driven the goals the society or organisations expects fulfilled by the position.  In addition, (2) that the delivery of these actions demands an emotional disposition that is disciplined, often aggressive, and at least competitive, maintained for often-long period of time, and where, given it is a power position, there are demands for high levels of emotional resilience in face of inevitable set backs, and direct personal attacks. Issues of self/personal expression are secondary to the need to present graciously to a particular group, and issues of emotional vulnerability, angst, uncertainty, warmth, gentleness, etc, are frequently inappropriate, unable to be exhibited or expressed.

This idea is based on the goal-action principle. To illustrate, if I am responsible for keeping the fridge full of food, and fridge is empty, and go out with idea of filling it, but go to movies, then I will hardly be surprised fridge is still empty when I get home.

The point is general, in that for any goal there are action needed if the goal is to be achieved, these called ideal actions (see Nel and Little An Integrated Strategic Human Resources Model to Achieve Organisational Objectives http://www.usq.edu.au/~/media/USQ/Business/Journals/NelLittle%20Paper%201.ashx also Nel and Little, Sustainable leadership: The fundamental solution to lasting superior staff performance http://www.uunz.ac.nz/pdf/journal/edition1/Journal_part4.pdf.)

The quality of ideal actions is that if they are acted out, they do not guarantee success, but if they are not acted out, they guarantee failure. Hence, delivery of ideal actions by those seeking power positions is not a choice.

The next question is whether social power position has goals, and/or expectations of goal achievement implicit in the position. I do not wish to explore this in depth, since I think it so apparent, so obvious as to be not worth discussion. Imagine a Prime Minister position, which has no expectation of goal achievement.

The final point is that alignment of the emotional disposition needed to achieve and maintain the power positions is more ‘masculine’ than ‘feminine’. In short, gender differences emotionally pre-dispose men to the power positions more than woman. This does not mean woman are not biologically capable, there are many examples to disprove that. It does mean that the ‘average male’ is biologically better emotionally equipped than the ‘average female’, hence on average men will occupy most of the power position most of the time.

Reluctance of woman to expose themselves to the rigors of high profile leadership positions is compounded by the circumstances of marriage and relationships, perhaps summed in an attitude ‘well, by staying with him I can share a lot of it anyway’. This view, however, is decidedly not biological, but a rational decision in light of the intuitive grasp of social structures. Given choice, most rational people would accept the behind the scenes ride, privilege without the direct pressure.

A forward question is whether society is likely to redefine ideal actions associated with power positions, or at least allow their expression in a more feminine manner. Take for example, vulnerability, imagine a Prime Minister addressing the Nation, exhibiting fear and personal concern when what people really needed was reassurance the plan would work. Somehow, I do not see it quite working.


The right to leave ...

'IMMIGRANTS,  NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT.. Take It Or Leave It.
I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Bali , we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Australians. '

'This culture has been developed over two  centuries of struggles, trials and victories by millions  of men and women who have sought freedom'

'We speak mainly ENGLISH, not Spanish,  Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any  other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society, Learn the language!'

'Most Australians (but not me) believe in God. This is not some Christian, right wing, political push, but a fact, because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture.'

'We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why. All we ask is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us.'

'This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this. But once you  are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take  advantage of one other great Australian freedom, 'THE  RIGHT TO LEAVE'.'
'If you aren't happy here then LEAVE. We didn't force you to come here. You asked to be here. So accept the country YOU accepted.'

Prime  Minister Julia Gillard -  Australia

Comment:

Immigrants get away with their positioning due a major intellectual confusion between social structure and culture. The social structure is the core of the political processes and ethics that define the nature of the society. Culture is how some group within the plural structure chooses to live. Social structure deals with legislative, judicial, law enforcement processes; culture with how people live within the social structure. We need understand that it is the social structure that in fact enables the plural freedom, and hence it is social structure we must protect at all costs.

We are a western democracy, committed to individual freedom, and a market economy. The society is plural, so within the Law, people may live as they please, pursue their own ends with the ethical constraint that in so pursuing their fulfilment they do not restrict others in pursuit their's. So Catholics pursue Catholicism, Protestants, Church of England, non-believers, atheism and Muslims may pursue Mohammad. This is plural society in action.

Where the actions of any group conflict with the core social processes and norms, then it is the group that must adapt, recognising there is a greater good, a greater group to which they belong, and core rules of social structure cannot must not be adapted merely to the preferences of any group.

We need all see clearly that the core of social structure, hard won over thousands of years in the west, enables a level of freedom unprecedented in global history, and to change that, to moderate it in fact endangers the very freedoms we now enjoy.

The Western measure of freedom is two fold, laws that enable differences, and laws that fall equally on all. It is the latter where we in New Zealand fail, and is the reason I oppose in principle the Maori seats. Any group has the right to form a political party, but no group has the right to have that enabled by preferential legislature. And in the first issue, laws enabling differences, is why I oppose Sharia Law and the Muslim way. I believe that each person has the right within a reasonable framework of law, to pursue the fulfillment of their own spirit.

The West has already seen assertion of religious authority, the religious wars of the 1600s, and in England when heretic Catholics were purged from society. We know, from our culture and history, how valuable these rules of social structure, how hard won and at what huge cost in life and suffering, we ignore our history at our peril.

What came before the big bang...

... The singularity exploded, and in time we became. Today, we know black holes and what goes in stays in. The universe matures, one black hole grows until there is just it, and one speck of matter in the universe. The last speck of matter is swallowed, and space collapes since space and matter are linked via gravity, causing the singularity to become unstable. The singularity explodes ...

Business ethics, spirituality and the 'righteous man'

The finance industry crashed. With it emerged again, and again the unethical and illegal conduct of those governing the affairs of companies. Where did such permission come from?

John Calvin was a theologian of the reformation of 1600s. His theology was disciplined, individualistic, and intense, as fitted the agreed personality of the man. His theology is alive and well, in the modern Presbyterian and Methodist Churches. He was a concerned and ethical man.

In The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith gave the world the idea of the invisible hand of the market. He was a concerned and ethical man.

Darwin gave the world the survival of the fittest. Darwin was a concerned and ethical man.

Economic growth to improve the lot of people emerged as a social priority, a commendable goal, adopted by governments around the world. Three sets of ideas fitted together like hands in hand-made gloves.

There emerged the idea of ‘robber barons’ focused on growth, productivity, and output. Self-absorbed, unconcerned with community, since the invisible hand takes care of that, aggressive and often ruthless to be the fittest in the race for survival, who attended church, pious as fitted disciplined, intensity, given salvation in Hallowed Halls, while using and abusing community and ‘common’ people. The term ‘robber baron’ reflected their ethics, unconcerned by their actions that for them were justified within the philosophical framework.

From the collision of ideas came accepted duality of ethical standards. Within their worldview, sometimes referred to, somewhat unkindly, as Calvinism, they saw themselves as ethical people. They justified their greed, and to its shame offered salvation by an unethical Church. By my standards, these were not ethical people.

It was all within the Law. However, legislation cannot resolve all and cannot establish a balanced sensibly fair society. Ethics in the form of self-responsibility to fairness and reasonable dealings must be the backbone of social structure.

In response to this greed still with us today, came Marx. A most passionate man, concerned at what he saw, writing of such fervor as to drive a movement called ‘socialism’, so the left wing is born. Unfortunately, the intellectual core of the work of Marx is seriously lacking. The culmination of the socialist view Russia, predictably collapsing under the weight of the same greed and privilege, arising from the ethical considerations that Marx attacked.

The central questions remain today, what is a fair society, how is wealth to be distributed and by what means? Marx did not succeed with his answers they do not work.

A founding principles of Western thought, if not the founding principle, is the inalienable right of every human being to pursue fulfillment of their spirit in the way they choose, merely being required to ensure ethics whereby in so pursuing their own ends they do not hinder others pursuing their ends. This is a fulfilled life for all, a worthy social end in which I believe.

Economics needs be a servant to spiritual social end, not its master, economic philosophy subservient to the fulfillment of our spirit.  If we do not answer the questions that Marx failed to answer, answer in depth based on sound and secure social science, then regulation will progressively ensure the necessary discipline, and more and more, we will cease to be free.