Preliminary Arguments...

In discussions, most people adhere to no basis they can stand for and therefore misinterpretations prevail and leave little room for effective learning, let alone corrections. If it could, we would have to agree in principle that human behavior can be more easily analyzed when understanding individuals or even small  groups. The such understanding would transcend the personal neutral approach of the mainstream - which otherwise tends towards chaos. Critiques argue: The actual isolation of subjects would produce experimental artifacts and skew results or observations. But they would be politically incorrect such as: The average individual's behavior is due to complex interactions  between past experience, current environment and other as yet undetermined factors. An individual examined as such properly, would expose him or her to not be influenced by global social interactions anymore - and that would threaten the very fabric of the present mass suicide society...

With this in mind the prevailing MOS mental operating systems make people to look for "society drivers", content-free agents and personally-neutral (except for their clans) leaders which deals strictly with group will. Such society drivers are expected to form socially compatible equilibrium conditions and make them politically correct. In fact they are thus stressed from one extreme to the other; remember Hitler was politically correct in Europe until it was too late!

The resulting oscillations between the thus self-imposed boundary limits result, due to the innate dynamics of this pendulum, in the unavoidable extremes, in events that destroy the substance, such as in crimes, wars and worse. Such crash events alter the equilibrium and destabilize another systems until they are all globally synchronized. Some feel that by understanding this pendulum as a closed, unsuccessful equilibrium seeking system, we would have the starting blocks for something like Psychohistory. However, they omit to say, that Freud, on an individual level, was successful with his psychoanalysis, and found, the death principle…

Only when we learn to identify "commonly and profoundly held beliefs" rather than going along with them as the likely social driver, can we overcome the dead-end technology they drive as Freud has demonstrated for individuals! Such beliefs tend to be passed from one person to others, are so called rationales used for action, and can often help determine what someone's actions are likely to be. Another potential social driver is kinship – a person's close affection for a guru or the people he or she knows best – all such social drivers result in anything but that which is personally relevant for lifefulfillment, for it dies easier in the mass…

As long as people are mentally conditioned to not going along with the idea that focusing on a unit of study that is the cause for lifefulfillment, they themselves, as a distinct human system, even a relevant group of humans such as a family they are impotent to consider their lifefulfillment let alone that of others. The prevailing mentality says this approach would spoils the "nature" of interaction to such a degree as to render any study useless, e.g. seeking to understand yourself up to loving yourself and others likewise is politically incorrect! And in fear of that verdict, most people leave it, thus THEMSELVES, alone...

The late Carl Couch, in his work at the University of Iowa, is said to have been able to study group and inter-group
behavior in the lab quite effectively.  Couch realized that the human imagination could overcome the effects of the controlled environment as far as the "naturalness" of the interaction was concerned, yet allowing the necessary controls required for study to remain intact.  Unlike other studies in psychology and sociology where the researchers believed they needed to  deceive subjects in order to observe their "natural" behavior, Couch constructed scenarios that would naturally exhibit the behavior he wanted to observe.  He would frankly tell the subjects what he wanted to see and asked them to immerse themselves in the scenario (for example, "I am studying bargaining behavior, so you, please imagine you are an antique dealer, and you, please imagine you are a buyer and bargain over this antique.").  Couch found that the participants, even if they had never actually been, in "real life", whatever role they were playing, would nearly without exception "get into" the role and give a quite natural portrayal of the desired behavior in an environment where elements of the interaction could be observed, discovered, and/or measured easily and well.

This brings up an interesting point:  The reason other researchers were using deception in their lab studies was because they thought as most people still do who engage in arguments in discussions, is that it was the only way to keep the experiment pure, e.g. their hidden agendas met and their prejudices acknowledged. But this attempts to inhibit the very assumption that I am to pointing to, that the individual human being most be the basic unit of study in science#3, in order to emancipate each of us from the global influence#1 and the collective conditioning#2 to find ourselves in our innate state that seeks lifefulfillment rather than to be wasted in the virtual reality of self-destructive collective systems.

The truth is actually more extreme: It is necessary to tear a human from global influences, no matter how isolated you make her or him, until those global influences are rightly seen as a challenge for lifefulfillment rather than as the very subject of inquiry, as that! That would make such considerations rather a self-imposed other-determining mental contamination. Only by first identifying one's personally relevant essence#3 and then becoming aware of content-free objects#1 and the physics between, and only then considering  social issues#2 contamination itself nearly dissolves away in deregulating what is in the way of lifefulfillment - not as such, but for as many as possible - and revitalizing what serves this basic purpose of the life we were given.

I hope you can see now, that the claim made her in every way contradicts any content-free self-fulfilling “positive thinking” or other prophecy and any  generalizing, personally neutral, philosophical approach. Why, because that avenue has proved itself time and again to be a thinking catastrophe that leads to human catastrophes, which can now go as far as the annihilation of life on Earth. It merely suggests that your essence is far more important than you have previously considered; its expression could in fact make the difference between meaningless annihilation and lifefulfillment...

At this stage, where the personally neutral approach of philosophy has been identified to be the cause of the problem it pretends to solve as a social driver, content-free critics would now say that information technologies is a very fundamental drivers of the social. In reference to the equally content-free genetical science the mental equivalent is sought under the heading of "Meme", in a last, desperate attempt to relate to one’s own innate being. Then you may resume talking about dynamics that lead to new personally neutral trends such as with the content-free concept that idea or believes, like viruses, ignoring the substance of other life, getting passed from person to person, evolving, spreading, dying and tearing those concerned with it, etc. Or more to the trend, 'market behavior' is identical to 'statistical mechanical effect', it's also the 'guiding hand' of economics. Baloney, say postmodernists: “People are people, people are strange. Whether they are a caveman or a rocketman is irrelevant to the basic nature of the animal. Technology is an enabler, a catalyst. It isn't a cause or effect per se.”

Do you see the point? People whose mind is tied to the above mentioned pendulum are immersed in the struggle between the personally-neutral science#2, the humanities based on philosophy, trying, in politics to instrumentalize the content-free science#1, the science of lifeless nature in making budget for the technology possible with it. And vice versa, science#1 based minds try to manipulate their science#2 masters via physical, genetical, and neuronal manipulation, at gun point, via medicine and information flooding, computer viruses, complexity and technical chaos such as in the US-election 2000...

No side can win this ongoing battle which just wastes non-sustainable natural and human resources…

So you are called, as a useful idiot to take side, or step out as the postmodernists suggest:

Ignoring the fact that above all YOU are called to be concerned with YOURSELF, the conclusion of scientist#2 then time and again, and as long as science#1 cannot produce not just artificial intelligence but artificial life is: The study of 'culture' must be a cultural. So the rat race towards reengineering Earth and life goes on… may be beyond the point of not return, towards the hell of chaos…

In any case, those involved in politics, technology and economy are gladly offering you more demonstration, but, please forgive me, they leave what is to be demonstrated not to you, but to their constituency, their geniuses and learned idiots, some of them distinguished professors, and last but not least to their ignorant power greedy  bosses, who in turn follow the stink tools of the return on investment. Clearly, after the disaster, nobody is responsible anymore what it was whoever wished to have demonstrated. You may humbly request clarification, but let all hope go; at that stage there is none to be given by anybody: You know the good thing that remains to put nails in your head, is to stop asking for reasons why and simply stop it - provided you

have an alternative
available...What is your point. If you don't know what it was you wanted to say I still do not even think we're done with this conversation; I shall do everything in the following direction, with or without someone else, WOWSE, who may read this :

Introduction to The APS® Development Network

Humans live in a world of limited physical resources, but seemingly unlimited open-ended generative or creative potential. In the 21^st century, organizations are being challenged to:

You may find these challenges fully engrossing but totally overwhelming in terms of control and feel tempted command some simpler ideas, perhaps you can punch some holes in them and communicate some of your own.

The new challenges in business reflect more and more those in life and need to be put into a context of an acknowledgement of what has been Created, what impact business has on Creation, and see people as living Creatures, with creative potential. This calls for an open-ended mental operating system (MOS), that recognizes the importance of lifefulfilling principles for the people involved. This attitude has lead to Applied Personal Science APS® by which the underlying laws that govern the lifefulfillment of real human systems ranging from individuals relationships, teams, organizations and cultures.   

You may think that such a science#3 could be possible if only we can find a handle or starting point as suggested by science#2, the humanities based on personally neutral, denotational expressions. The task of developing a working science is considered be more than a life's work, science#1, that of content-free nature in reality took many such life's works, since Newton started it all.  Science#2, which was initiated by Plato has grown in volume with all his footnotes, but since his time 2400 years ago, the basic problems of human life and living together seem still as unsolved as ever.

However, since you and I have only one life to fulfill, we need its corresponding science#3 together in the time we have! A potentially lifefulfilling approach attributes an Open-Ended Generative Principle (OEGP) to each human system. Each person, team or organizational group is acknowledged for his/ her or their potential to overcome what at the time seems to be an end point or obstacle. Humans are potentially open-ended within their capabilities and are generative in that they can create new realities. The way a person becomes open-ended and generative is governed by a principle that reflects his or her identity.

Setting up this  science#3, by it's very nature, required the analysis of social interactions and historical precepts to determine reproducible analytical patterns.  

Every attempt to maximize one variable in an economic  and more so in an ecological system is dysfunctional because such systems have an innate dynamics where so-called variable are not just objects you can manipulate at will without any unforeseen consequences. That is even more true for a human system and trying to look at economic and business systems without considering the relevant human system, as is done in the corresponding sciences#2 such as economy, is sheer madness:  Science#2 assumes that we can predict very little about human behavior and that is all, it considers about individuals.  By going a step further, taking the view that the basic unit of human behavior happens in a dyad, a one-to-one relationship where two humans engage in a social activity such as marriage, different questions arise,  different theories and experiments are crafted and one can proceed to the next stage, to how humans behave in society... 

Then critics, unaware of the OEGP-foundation of science#3 claim rightly that such work, “unfortunately” has no "foundation" in science#1 and #2, so to speak#2, with which to start#1. In fact their knowledge of modern sciences are based on simpler ideas#1 which were extrapolated and generalized#2 into highly complex areas of study up to psychology, sociology history and politics. A synthesis of that approach was suggested by the scientist#1 SF-writer Asimov under the heading of “psychohistory”. As the name implies we could look towards psychology or history as the parents, but in truth these only form the letters of the language, the formation of the words, sentence structure, grammar and punctuation are still an unknown and unimaginable quantity critics of science#3 agree in their own mindset.  

This approach of science#3 made practical and operational with Applied Personal Science APS® challenges the long standing business concepts of control, command and communicate (c3) which originated with Plato and have been promoted by Machiavelli, Descartes and many others, and further developed by 19^th and 20^th century scientific and management writers and gurus. These c3-concepts aim at preserving position power and accompanying hidden agendas. They have led humans into personal and business disasters, economic depressions, exploitation of the poor, and civil and international wars. I short, in itself they reflect the c3-thinking catastrophe of evolution out of chaos and lead to the known human catastrophes.

The main drawback of what we now call the psycho-historic development of humanity, is that from the very start it seemed obvious that it works in short terms survival terms but it turned out more and more that to fulfill the task along that line would be impossibly extraneous and complex. However, contrary to the corresponding prejudice , its complexity is not the main stumbling block or hurdle in it's eventual development to success such as that of science#1 suggests: The now rapidly increasing complexity is the symptom of the thinking catastrophe the combination of science#1 under the “guidance” of science#2, say in politics is! It results in the now globalized closed c3-system and its self-destructive nature “naturally” increases complexity up to chaos, e.g. the annihilation of life on Earth in our reach now!

The average life of multi-national organizations up to now has been between 40 and 50 years and is now decreasing, while the life span of the average human being still increases. Unfulfilled corporate deaths impact on people’s lives, communities and economies and their fulfillment! Why do many organizations large, middle-size and small die prematurely? Research and experience indicate that the thinking and language of management is too narrowly based on c3-MOS! Managers, like communism, focus on economic activity#1 of producing goods and services. Their leaders up to politicians focus on getting attention#2 like philosophers, using their rhetoric up to blackart. And they forget their organization’s true nature; that of a community of potentially creative humans. Managers are connected to a c3-MOS mentality by the legal establishment, social scientists, business educators, finance institutions and party dominated politicians.

The sheer enormity of the c3-only task seems to overwhelms any advance now. It is based on visualizing the end goal and the steps leading to it and, it turns out completely counter-productive in its self-destructive end results – as demonstrated vividly not just by Hitler in the past, the most barbarous century, which tuned completely into the c3-philosophy of controlling objects, commanding subject (into world wars) and communicating the rest risks in an attempt to infotain the masses.

To participate, develop and survive, those responsible for organizations need to:

Instead, the main scope of projects under the paradigm#2, social Darwinism, instrumentalizing paradigm#1, the economic imperative and its technology, focuses on identifying single historically repeated patterns in only one aspect of society, for example simple economic fluctuations and trends – simply to fit into the underlying c3-MOS mental operating system.  The real causes of such simplifications and its trends are ignored by those who foster them such as stock-brokers and management gurus in line with the c3-philosophy of the spirit of the time. Its focus is on patterns desirable in the mainstream’s image,  regardless of its consequences in time, space and extent.

The APS® Development Network which relies on the Business Constitution Movement on the other hand provides a catalyst to spread lifefulfillment through the application of  business networks and market forces. The purpose of what we start with, workshops, is to explore lifefulfilling principles, the implications for individuals, teams and organizations, and to form a network to develop an OEGP approach toward the formation of learning organizations up to lifefulfilling platforms.

Once lifefulfilling patterns can be identified, they can be mapped to one another, not by the know reductions to generalizations but in reference to the appropriate OEGP that models the options for lifefulfillment of those responsible for such patterns. We are not using models#2>#1 that reduce life to variables and reduce them to various linkages through which the bearer of life can be manipulated such as with words, money, orders and coercions. That is not only too complicated when it comes to the timelines of such patterns, it reduces life to an event driven formula of social Darwinism.

Most people stand by, some say yes it is terrible, BUT do nothing. How do we encourage action beyond a mere response#1, towards lifefulfillment#3? Consider the conventional#1>#2 steps possible:

Or instead, right from the beginning:

Lets go through theses steps and learn where each one is appropriate with people ready for it. Please bear in mind the last one is only possible with science#3; find out how:

If you join the BCM Business Constitution Movement, you learn to explore and investigate ways to turn your organization into a lifefulfilling platform. The APS® Development Consult support you and your team members in personally updating your mental operating systems from the prevailing c3-MOS to a personally lifefulfilling C3-MOS not just through reflection and action learning but towards Timely Exchange of Project-Orientated Competence, TEPOC©:

With APS® we can use more than our c3-MOS manipulated history to test against and develop these patterns. In fact this unfulfilled summoned histories cannot provide us with the complete range of possible outcomes for our personal lives and the lifecycle of our organizations! So please stop asking for references to it in terms of specific events and their past success in terms of simple standard patterns such as used for job applications: As with other c3-formulae people with “advanced” c3-MOS we can add and modify the respective variables and constants to better fit the desired impression, as is the case with most psychological tests, and thus project the actual c3-result in a matter of a self-fulfilling prophecy! However, lifefulfillment cannot be c3-maipulated by “positive thinking”!

Theory aside, the point is, professionals and all those who want to fulfill their lives should stop focusing in the determination of general pattern as a form of "proof of concept". Admittedly such patterns turn out to be very simple and refer to very little historical background, just the one that is socially compatible and politically correct. Also they turn out to be manageable and that is how the systems closes on itself, with what that entails, self-destructiveness!

As a benchmark to possible answers, say for your own mental operating system, the organization of your mind, not much relevant data for comparison exists outside your experience and that is why it is important to learn to relate to that kind of data.

Interested in the C3-approach and to participating in a BCM workshop towards Timely Exchange of Project-Orientated Competence, TEPOC©  on lifefulfilling platforms?

It will not be about patterns that often repeat; it is about specifically modeling unique human systems and their path towards lifefulfillment. It is not about lots of ideas regarding to ride the trend and manipulate it's development and other peoples view on this subject. It is about what YOU need to understand and apply to fulfill your life and through relationships, teams, organizations and cultures that of as many as possible. And, eventually to become part of the solution in deregulating collectives towards lifefulfilling platforms and revitalizing them through a proper interface to your C3-MOS.