Possible Paradigms and their Consequences

[ OEGP-Thinking ] [ F1-9 ] [ Non-Disclosure ] [ Antithesis ] [ BCM-Constitution ]

BedeutungsGebende Informatik Medienmitteilungen

Abstract: I call “focusing on current trends and developments in complex systems” science#2, and data based empirical research on complexity science#1; the former, social sciences and the humanities, is based on denotations and is personally neutral, and the latter is based on number and is content-free following the approach of the science of nature. The recent events in history, not to mention the human catastrophes of the last century, such as the collapses of once renowned companies (Swissair, ENRON etc.) with the revelation of the behavior of their protagonists and their managers, have destroyed more than a few percent of the gross national product, namely fairness and trust. Thus the very pillars upon which our society and the market rest are shaken after the post-normal onset in the scientific community which has led to a lack of orientation and meaning. Trust, however, cannot be adequately modeled with words and/or numbers only and it is a solely personally relevant phenomena. It therefore requires modeling individual human systems and the way they network in their “excitation levels”. That in turn depends on the individual trust level in terms of the lifefulfilling quality of the collective system in which individuals are embedded and how they perceive the boundary conditions thus set. We cannot change the innate human nature and if we try to by traumatizing people into undue simplifications, we create self-destructive systems! As we know from history they can be far more evil than any individual mind can conceive it by itself. I am presenting an approach to science#3, based on open-ended generative principles, OEGP which allows for modeling how individuals form collective systems and to what degree they are lifefulfilling and for whom, and correspondingly result in synergy towards a sustainable qualitative growth or below a critical limit, to decay. Science#0 is mentioned and applied in terms of the art of introducing so far unfamiliar concepts.

Introduction: Science#2, the humanities, control how the science#1 of nature and the technology it allows are applied. It makes use of science#0, art, to convince people of it sumptuous general solutions and pre-trans-traps individual understanding which precedes or transcends it. The result are the closed, self-destructive systems#2 which we know. If we want a solution before globalizing such a self-destructive system#2, science#3 needs to be introduced which aims at lifefulfilling platforms in view of the lifefulfillment of as many as possible. Applied Personal Science APS® is the realization of science#3 and allows such applications which now need to be disseminated. This is desirable and makes sense, however it competes with science#0, which as black-art (Machiavellian rhetoric etc.) tried to lure science#2 into its linguistic traps and its proponents, politicians and their instrumentalized managers, into its post-modern “anything goes” mentality. Science#0 is about to undermine the humanities#2 in universities and via their definition power the management of universities, and through it the education of future managers with the well now consequences of the world being globalized along virtual concepts.

It is critical that the scientific community while closed to science#2, instrumentalizes science#1 and propagates its definition of power over people’s mental operating system. Thus the scientific community needs to be opened up with science#3 before it collapses on itself. The postmodernist approach of a simplifying science#0 revolt against further revelations with “anything goes” is more of a symptom of this problem of the scientific community, than any kind of solution! The starting point of this paper is the fact that in terms of lifefulfillment, only ¼ of all humans (and people in the correspondingly more and more fragmented human resources) have any interest in multiplying B=boundary conditions, P=process responsibility, O=object management and C=communication. Of those 25% only 11% have an interest in specifically multiplying B (2%), P (3.5%), O(3.5%) and C (2%) in any politically correct way. However, this minority of 11% of all human resources traumatizes the remaining 89% simply because they have an opinion which is expressed with the convincing ideas, that life is a game and that the way we play it, stems from human nature. Even research in quantitative economy disproves this evolutionary paradigm of society being a social Darwinian game, and reveals that where it prevails, economic disaster follows. To that end, Fehr and Gächter in JEP 2000 have documented, that many people deviate from purely self-interested behavior in a reciprocal manner. Reciprocity in their terms means that in response to friendly actions, people are frequently much nicer and much more cooperative than predicted by the self-interest model. However, there is more to it than reciprocal or selfish type behavior (Hammurabi level of civilization – which transcends Social Darwinism) that is pressing to be applied! Way back there in the deepest recesses of our minds and souls is a problem that keeps making itself felt at the most inopportune times. We have internalized and clung to all the pain associated with all the situations where what we multiplied did not get established. Is this hurt serving a purpose that we are rather unaware of? If so, perhaps it's time we untangle this particular knot and make peace with our otherwise unfulfilled past which blurs our present and propagates into a thus non-sustainable future. If we want to live up to our potential, an effort to solve the rising discontent in society isn't only advised, but is quite necessary. The time is ripe to address the Timely Exchange of Project-Orientated Competence, TEPOC© in view of systems closing, before their point of NO return from self-destruction. In the surviving societies, it has so far always been a critical number of people, the proper elite, who have instead lead their people forward on a path of qualitative growth. The time has come to investigate what is required so that progress is sustainable qualitative growth, towards the lifefulfillment of as many as possible. This is now a greater challenge than that which lead to the Manhattan project in World War II! 

Viability: A lifefulfilling science must be personally followed up in its application, e.g. you cannot market and sell physics, but you can apply it in your products and service and then you have a basis to be more successful in marketing and selling. For the science which models paradigms I trust you to have the integrity and the capacity to deal with insights and understanding first in your conscience, before worrying about whether others can follow you, and then to face the corresponding responsibility. Since this so-called science#3 which I am presenting here is not yet accepted in the established scientific community, the mental space it requires to modeling the consequences of possible paradigms, aiming for lifefulfilling platforms have to be assessed. Up to now dealing with the complexity of the human dynamics by the mainstream is based on science#2, the humanities, which instrumentalizes science#1, that of nature with its claims made possible by technology, based on the prevailing personally-neutral opinions in the masses, which evolve by politics. In order to infotain people into social compatibility, the ideas of science#0 are used in artful ways to create political correctness which allows pre-trans-trapping most people’s minds into the conformity required to set up systems#2. However, history is ample proof that this approach cannot be the solution. Through its globalization, it has actually become the problem against which this philosophical, humanist approach was set into motion. As we know from personal experience, this historic proof has been necessary, but it cause shows that it is not sufficient to have learnt its lesson. What is wrong with the prevailing mental operating systems that people cannot learn from history? To answer that question I have modeled the possible paradigms with their consequences up to the point where the resulting science#3 provides an orientations knowledge which allows for lifefulfilling platforms on which a solutions-orientated, personally-relevant mentality has a chance to structure the mainstream into making people relate on and interface to lifefulfilling platforms. Similarly science#2 was established to allow an elite to organize people beyond the inherent arbitrariness of just using power in a social Darwinian sense, which is attributed to barbarians. Specifically I ask you to make up your mind, whether you are able and willing to understood a framework which embeds your paradigm. This is especially relevant in view of the above mentioned mainstream approach which converges towards the point of no return from social chaos, for it creates more problems than it solves. This paper makes sense, if it triggers something to overcome the closed, and now saturated command-control-communication system which stems from the present scientific community and its instrumentalization by those who promote it to serve their agendas – often unaware of what that entails in the end . As you know, such systems are self-destructive – as is exemplified not just by the WEF World Economic in New York, which in 2002 has been convening near its grave, once its temple, the World Trade Center, a situation comparable to Faust’s end…