MichaelEmeryArt

Self

First off I feel the need to Thank all the Individuals,whom dedicated their lives to studing,exploring our cultures in the Hope that only Growth,thus evolution could continue in the best possible way'

Obstacles-Individually-

An example of how much of the Public looks at Art
In Leo's (from "Actualized.org)- "Grasping the illusory nature of thought ", He descirbes: Picasso in a conversation with a man,whom has just ,sat with him, on a train ride to some where. The man starts asking Picasso about why he paints in the fashion in which he does,..then ultimately tells Picasso, " you go to all effort to paint these paintings that are not realistic, that have nothing to do with Life, and They are thus a Useless effort!
This is a" Form " of pre-Concieved Notion that artists have always contended with,..a viewing audience, unable to see ,to truely take the time to attempt to see,..thus by stating it is "useless,not good",..the viewer has in the end got what they needed , " A Certainty ", in their own mind, now they can move on to their " Next Adventures ", so many adventure this audience has,,ever seeking that " Certainty"


            As Human-beings,if we can for a moment look at                                              ourselves-     ( our own belief's,desires),as it all begins right here with You,the one reading this at this very moment, You whom for some reason are interested in maybe Art, maybe Self-Actualizing,Culture,thats good,,as They are all very much the same in a way.

        To move ahead, " individuals"must be raised with a" goal in mind .This Goal understood by "by the Kinship, then Band, then Tribe and Cheifdom.,,as of 2018, humanity has no such Goal !   that is one specific Goal for each "individual " child .


                 What is this Goal ?

                                                "Every effort be made that they become Self-Actualized"

             




as a "Culture within Larger Culture's -( 1. the Band- 5 to 10 individuals)....onto the tribe -( 10 to 100 )...onto 





-Draft for a Statement of Human Obligation by Simone Weil

There is a reality outside the world, that is to say, outside space and time, outside man's mental universe, outside any sphere whatsoever that is accessible to human faculties.
Corresponding to this reality, at the centre of the human heart, is the longing for an absolute good, a longing which is always there and is never appeased by any object in this world.
Another terrestrial manifestation of this reality lies in the absurd and insoluble contradictions which are always the terminus of human thought when it moves exclusively in this world.
Just as the reality of this world is the sole foundation of facts, so that other reality is the sole foundation of good.
That reality is the unique source of all the good that can exist in this world: that is to say, all beauty, all truth, all justice, all legitimacy, all order, and all human behaviour that is mindful of obligations.  


Those minds whose attention and love are turned towards that reality are the sole intermediary through which good can descend from there and come among men.
Although it is beyond the reach of any human faculties, man has the power of turning his attention and love towards it.
Nothing can ever justify the assumption that any man, whoever he may be, has been deprived of this power.
It is a power which is only real in this world in so far as it is exercised. The sole condition for exercising it is consent.
This act of consent may be expressed, or it may not be, even tacitly; it may not be clearly conscious, although it has really taken place in the soul. Very often it is verbally expressed although it has not in fact taken place. But whether expressed or not, the one condition suffices: that it shall in fact have taken place.
To anyone who does actually consent to directing his attention and love beyond the world, towards the reality that exists outside the reach of all human faculties, it is given to succeed in doing so. In that case, sooner or later, there descends upon him a part of the good, which shines through him upon all that surrounds him. 


 The combination of these two facts — the longing in the depth of the heart for absolute good, and the power, though only latent, of directing attention and love to a reality beyond the world and of receiving good from it — constitutes a link which attaches every man without exception to that other reality.
Whoever recognizes that reality recognizes also that link. Because of it, he holds every human being without any exception as something sacred to which he is bound to show respect.
This is the only possible motive for universal respect towards all human beings. Whatever formulation of belief or disbelief a man may choose to make, if his heart inclines him to feel this respect, then he in fact also recognizes a reality other than this world's reality. Whoever in fact does not feel this respect is alien to that other reality also.
The reality of the world we live in is composed of variety. Unequal objects unequally solicit our attention. Certain people personally attract our attention, either through the hazard of circumstances or some chance affinity. For the lack of such circumstance or affinity other people remain unidentified. They escape our attention or, at the most, it only sees them as items of a collectivity.
If our attention is entirely confined to this world it is entirely subject to the effect of these inequalities, which it is all the less able to resist because it is unaware of it. 
 

It is impossible to feel equal respect for things that are in fact unequal unless the respect is given to something that is identical in all of them. Men are unequal in all their relations with the things of this world, without exception. The only thing that is identical in all men is the presence of a link with the reality outside the world.
All human beings are absolutely identical in so far as they can be thought of as consisting of a centre, which is an unquenchable desire for good, surrounded by an accretion of psychical and bodily matter.
Only by really directing the attention beyond the world can there be real contact with this central and essential fact of human nature. Only an attention thus directed possesses the faculty, always identical in all cases, of irradiating with light any human being whatsoever.


If anyone possesses this faculty, then his attention is in reality directed beyond the world, whether he is aware of it or not.
The link which attaches the human being to the reality outside the world is, like the reality itself, beyond the reach of human faculties. The respect that it makes us feel as soon as it is recognized cannot be shown to us by evidence or testimony.
This respect cannot, in this world, find any form of direct expression. But unless it is expressed it has no existence. There is a possibility of indirect expression for it.
The respect inspired by the link between man and the reality alien to this world can make itself evident to that part of man which belongs to the reality of this world.
The reality of this world is necessity. The part of man which is in this world is the part which is in bondage to necessity and subject to the misery of need.
The one possibility of indirect expression of respect for the human being is offered by men's needs, the needs of the soul and of the body, in this world.

It is based upon the connection in human nature between the desire for good, which is the essence of man, and his sensibility. There is never any justification for doubting the existence in any man of this connection.
Because of it, when a man's life is destroyed or damaged by some wound or privation of soul or body, which is due to other men's actions or negligence, it is not only his sensibility that suffers but also his aspiration towards the good. Therefore there has been sacrilege towards that which is sacred in him.
On the other hand, there are cases where it is only a man's sensibility that is affected; for example, where his wound or privation is solely the result of the blind working of natural forces, or where he recognizes that the people who seem to be making him suffer are far from bearing him any ill will, but are acting solely in obedience to a necessity which he also acknowledges.
The possibility of indirect expression of respect for the human being is the basis of obligation. Obligation is concerned with the needs in this world of the souls and bodies of human beings, whoever they may be. For each need there is a corresponding obligation; for each obligation a corresponding need. There is no other kind of obligation, so far as human affairs are concerned.
If there seem to be others, they are either false or else it is only by error that they have not been classed among the obligations mentioned.
Anyone whose attention and love are really directed towards the reality outside the world recognizes at the same time that he is bound, both in public and private life, by the single and permanent obligation to remedy, according to his responsibilities and to the extent of his power, all the privations of soul and body which are liable to destroy or damage the earthly life of any human being whatsoever.

This obligation cannot legitimately be held to be limited by the insufficiency of power or the nature of the responsibilities until everything possible has been done to explain the necessity of the limitation to those who will suffer by it; the explanation must be completely truthful and must be such as to make it possible for them to acknowledge the necessity.
No combination of circumstances ever cancels this obligation. If there are circumstances which seem to cancel it as regards a certain man or category of men, they impose it in fact all the more imperatively.

The thought of this obligation is present to all men, but in very different forms and in very varying degrees of clarity. Some men are more and some are less inclined to accept — or to refuse — it as their rule of conduct.
Its acceptance is usually mixed with self-deception, and even when it is quite sincere it is not consistently acted upon. To refuse it is to become criminal.
The proportions of good and evil in any society depend partly upon the proportion of consent to that of refusal and partly upon the distribution of power between those who consent and those who refuse.
If any power of any kind is in the hands of a man who has not given total, sincere, and enlightened consent to this obligation such power is misplaced.
If a man has willfully refused to consent, then it is in itself a criminal activity for him to exercise any function, major or minor, public or private, which gives him control over people's lives. All those who, with knowledge of his mind, have acquiesced in his exercise of the function are accessories to the crime.
Any State whose whole official doctrine constitutes an incitement to this crime is itself wholly criminal. It can retain no trace of legitimacy.
Any State whose official doctrine is not primarily directed against this crime in all its forms is lacking in full legitimacy.

Any legal system which contains no provisions against this crime is without the essence of legality. Any legal system which provides against some forms of this crime but not others is without the full character of legality.
Any government whose members commit this crime, or authorize it in their subordinates, has betrayed its function.
Any collectivity, institution, or form of collective life whatsoever whose normal functioning implies or induces the practice of this crime is convicted ipso facto of illegitimacy and should be reformed or abolished.
Any man who has any degree of influence, however small, upon public opinion becomes an accessory to this crime if he refrains from denouncing it whenever it comes to his knowledge, or if he purposely avoids knowledge of it in order not to have to denounce it. 

A country is not innocent of this crime if public opinion, being free to express itself, does not denounce any current examples of it, or if, freedom of expression being forbidden, the crime is not denounced clandestinely.
It is the aim of public life to arrange that all forms of power are entrusted, so far as possible, to men who effectively consent to be bound by the obligation towards all human beings which lies upon everyone, and who understand the obligation.
Law is the quality of the permanent provisions for making this aim effective.
To understand the obligation involves two things: understanding the principle and understanding its application.
Since it is with human needs in this world that the application is concerned, it is for the intelligence to conceive the idea of need and to discern, discriminate, and enumerate, with all the accuracy of which it is capable, the earthly needs of the soul and of the body.








Kinship  and Clan


                                  A this stage the childs view of the World,Society, and relationships is critical to form a strong and able human child which is able to flow into a ever changing larger society.The Band


                                   Kinship, one of the universals of human socie-ties, involves systems of reciprocal social rela-tions. All societies conceptually organize socie-tal members, to one degree or another, through structured, reciprocal systems of relations (LŽ-vi-Strauss 1969[1949]).






Haudenosaunee kinship 

                            or Iroquois kinship (also known as bifurcate merging) is a kinship system. Identified by Lewis Henry Morgan in his 1871 work Systems of Consanguinity and Affinity of the Human Family, the Iroquois system is one of the six major kinship systems (Inuit, Hawaiian, Iroquois, Crow, Omaha, and Sudanese).

 

In anthropology, kinship is the web of social relationships that form an important part of the lives of all humans in all societies, although its exact meanings even within this discipline are often debated. Anthropologist Robin Fox states that "the study of kinship is the study of what man does with these basic facts of life – mating, gestation, parenthood, socialization, siblingship etc." Human society is unique, he argues, in that we are "working with the same raw material as exists in the animal world, but [we] can conceptualize and categorize it to serve social ends."[1] These social ends include the socialization of children and the formation of basic economic, political and religious groups.

A bifurcate kinship system is one where: a. all cousins are called by the same term. b. each member of a kin group is called by a different term. c. Ego labels father’s side of the kin group differently than mother’s side.

Review of Maximilian Holland's - Social Bonding and Nurture Kinship-     Philip Kitcher, John Dewey Professor of Philosophy, and James R. Barker Professorship of Contemporary Civilization at Columbia University, past president of the American Philosophical Association and inaugural winner of the Prometheus Prize, stated of the book:

Max Holland has provided a wide-ranging and deeply-probing analysis of the influence of genetic relatedness and social context on human kinship. He argues that while genetic relatedness may play a role in the evolution of social behavior, it does not determine the forms of such behavior. His discussion is exemplary for its thoroughness, and should inspire more nuanced ventures in applying Darwinian approaches to sociocultural anthropology.[1]

I along with many others had the kinship/clan broken apart at very young age(my self) 6 years old

                                                        "Hindered"

Kinship and clan system

Traditionally, the Ojibwe had a patrilineal system, in which children were considered born to the father's clan.[15] For this reason, children with French or English fathers were considered outside the clan and Ojibwe society unless adopted by an Ojibwe male. They were sometimes referred to as "white" because of their fathers, regardless if their mothers were Ojibwe, as they had no official place in the Ojibwe society. The people would shelter the woman and her children, but they did not have the same place in the culture as children born to Ojibwe fathers.

       

Ojibwe understanding of kinship is complex, and includes not only the immediate family but also the extended family. It is considered a modified bifurcate merging kinship system. As with any bifurcate-merging kinship system, siblings generally share the same kinship term with parallel cousins because they are all part of the same clan. The modified system allows for younger siblings to share the same kinship term with younger cross-cousins. Complexity wanes further from the speaker's immediate generation, but some complexity is retained with female relatives. For example, ninooshenh is "my mother's sister" or "my father's sister-in-law"—i.e., my parallel-aunt, but also "my parent's female cross-cousin". Great-grandparents and older generations, as well as great-grandchildren and younger generations, are collectively called aanikoobijigan. This system of kinship reflects the Anishinaabe philosophy of interconnectedness and balance among all living generations, as well as of all generations of the past and of the future.

The Ojibwe people were divided into a number of odoodeman (clans; singular: doodem) named primarily for animals and birds totems (pronounced doodem). The five original totems were Wawaazisii (Bullhead), Baswenaazhi ("Echo-maker", i.e., Crane), Aan'aawenh (Pintail Duck), Nooke ("Tender", i.e., Bear) and Moozwaanowe ("Little" Moose-tail). The Crane totem was the most vocal among the Ojibwe, and the Bear was the largest – so large, that it was sub-divided into body parts such as the head, the ribs and the feet. Each clan had certain responsibilities among the people. People had to marry a spouse from a different clan.

Traditionally, each band had a self-regulating council consisting of leaders of the communities' clans, or odoodemaan. The band was often identified by the principal doodem. In meeting others, the traditional greeting among the Ojibwe people is, "What is your 'doodem'?" ("Aaniin gidoodem?" or "Awanen gidoodem?") The response allows the parties to establish social conduct by identifying as family, friends or enemies. Today, the greeting has been shortened to "Aanii". Pronounced; (Ah-nee)

The Band society

Band Society

Band Band, in anthropology, a notional type of human social organization consisting of a small number of people (usually no more than 30 to 50 persons in all) who form a fluid, egalitarian community and cooperate in activities such as subsistence, security,......

  • The basic features of band societies are explained by constraints and opportunities of foraging subsistence patterns including: a dependence upon the low carrying capacity of undomesticated food resources and the regime of seasonal nomadic movements. The social institutions of band societies include: 
     

                                                                    

    1. small group size
    2. bilevel organization
    3. flexible composition
    4. bilateral kinship
    5. sharing ethos
    6. egalitarian political and economic structures
    Major ethnographic examples of band societies include:
    1. the San peoples of the Kalahari region
    2. the Inuit of the Arctic
    3. the Pygmies of the African rainforest

    Group Size

    Many features of band societies result from the small size and scale of the basic social group. As the environment limits concentrations of people to under one per square mile and transportation is poorly developed, regular contact can only be made within a group of 20 to 100 people depending on the resource base and distribution. This limitation on group size also restricts social scale, the kinds of collective activities, and institutions that a fixed number of people and their accumulated resources can support.

    The low density of population and small group size are to some extent maintained by processes of birth control and birth spacing that have been documented for foraging groups. One study of child care among the Dobe !Kung found that women practiced an indirect form of birth control by extending infant breast feeding periods for several years. The stresses of lactation substantially reduced pregancy rates to produce average birth spacing of four years. The length of the period between births produced an direct benefit of avoiding the problem of having to carry more than one infant or toddler during seasonal movements. It also had the longer-term effect of keeping population sizes within the limits that the resource base could comfortably support

    Bilevel Organization

    The band itself is observable as a settlement group (usually of 20-100 members) composed of smaller constituent units, usually in the form of nuclear families or extended families related to one another by kinship and marriage ties. It is often associated with a fixed territory over  which it may proclaim exclusive hunting and gathering rights but exercises substantial flexibility in extending membership rights and allowing other groups to use its resources.

    The band will normally form a consolidated settlement unit during a limited period, but eventually divide into small family groups  that separate to forage by themselves over the annual cycle. Thus the Dobe Kung gather in large bands at the sites of  permanent water holes during the dry season, but break up into smaller family units and disperse over much wider areas of  the desert during the rainy season. Similary, the Inuit traditionally congregated along the coast during the winter and dispersed during the summer inland migrations.

    The regular alternation between band and family settlement is uniformly incorporated into the nomadic cycles of most foragers and has been the subject of some debate. Many anthropologists maintain that this pattern is a simple adaptation to seasonal variations in resource availabilties or labour requirements. Thus, limited supplies of permanent standing water bring one group together; the advantages of communal bison hunting may influence another. A second interpretation focuses on social  integration rather than ecological determinants. Richard Lee, a major figure in San studies, observes that congregation in large groups is basically a counter-productive economic strategy for foragers. Any lengthy population concentration will quickly  exhaust immediately available resources and require people to travel further and further from their base camp to find food. In fact, this problem of increased work effort regularly leads to the seasonal dispersion of the settlement. Lee argues that band  members are willing to incur the extra labour cost of congregation because of the social rather than the subsistence benefits. People might be materially better off if individual families kept to themselves all year round, but would not be able to arrange marriages or establish contacts and exchanges with other families, the main rationale for the band's existence.

    Flexible Composition

    The variable nature of the foraging resource base cannot support a constant population in any one locality from year to year. Because of this fluctuation, bands must continually adjust their numbers to respond to fortuitous abundance or scarcity. This condition encourages flexible patterns of band composition to allow individual families to change groups and locations to meet their subsistence needs. Accordingly, membership rules tend to be bilateral. People retain and activate membership rights in both their father's and mother's group. Constitutent families will form larger units through contacts with husband's or wife's kin and through patrilateral or matrilalteral ties of either spouse. (See an example of the the bilateral structure of basic San group organization)

    The mobility of small family groups and flexibility of band membership supports the formation of relatively independent nuclear family forms. This core group is uniquely important in both foraging and industrial societies for somewhat the same reasons. In modern Western contexts, pressures for nuclear family individuation are imposed by the labour market, which constantly requires people and their families to change locations in the process of "job hunting."
     

    Sharing Ethos

    Relationships among families that join together to form bands are marked by strong pressures to share resources, food supplies, and possessions. This sharing ethos, formally termed reciprocity, is important for both the coherence and the survival of foraging groups.

    The main subsistence function of the moral emphasis on sharing is to ensure that food resources do not go to waste in a situation where the maintenance of large stores is impractical. For example, if a small hunting party kills a large animal, the flesh cannot be perserved for a long enough period to supply the hunters' immediate families when they are not so successful. If, however, they give away a major portion of the meat to extended kin, they can rely upon a return of the favour at a later time. This process thus establishes a social storage system to compensate for the absence of a physical one.

    Dobe Kung institutions expemplify many mechanisms for extending reciprocity. Arrow exchanges are particularly noteworthy. The Dobe usually hunt by stalking their prey and shooting it with iron-headed arrows. These items are frequently given to kinsmen and friends as gifts, and most of the arrows a man uses will belong to other people. When an animal is killed, a major share must go to the original owner of the fatal arrow. Further divisions are made to the affines of both the hunters and the arrow owner, effectively resulting in a even distribution of meat throughout the band. Accordingly, a cycle of reciprocity involving personal possesssions is integrated into a extensive system of sharing subsistence resources. Gifts of possessions and food items overlie a more basic sharing institution, that of collective band ownership of the land and its natural resources.
     

    Egalitarian Political and Economic Structures

    The material conditions and social processes of foraging societies generally limit their capacities to support substantial differences in wealth or power and result in an egalitarian class structure. In this situation, ownership of land or other productive resources is collectively managed to the benefit of all the members of the band. Wealth differences are further restricted by the difficulties in accumulating material goods and the strong emphasis on sharing within the group. In the absence of significant class divisions, leadership within the band is usually informally based on the personal abilities of prominent members who have distinguished themselves through their subsistence or social skills. Accordingly, leaders must govern the group through consultation and consensus rather than coersion.
     

    The Ojibwe live in groups (otherwise known as "bands"). Most Ojibwe, except for the Great Plains bands, lived a sedentary lifestyle, engaging in fishing and hunting to supplement the women's cultivation of numerous varieties of maize and squash, and the harvesting of manoomin (wild rice). Their typical dwelling was the wiigiwaam (wigwam), built either as a waginogaan (domed-lodge) or as a nasawa'ogaan (pointed-lodge), made of birch bark, juniper bark and willow saplings.

    Chiefdoms

    Simple

    Chiefdoms are characterized by centralization of authority and pervasive inequality. At least two inherited social classes (elite and commoner) are present. (The ancient Hawaiian chiefdoms had as many as four social classes.) An individual might change social class during a lifetime by extraordinary behavior. A single lineage/family of the elite class becomes the ruling elite of the chiefdom, with the greatest influence, power, and prestige. Kinship is typically an organizing principle, while marriage, age, and sex can affect one's social status and role.

    A single simple chiefdom is generally composed of a central community surrounded by or near a number of smaller subsidiary communities. All of the communities recognize the authority of a single kin group or individual with hereditary centralized power, dwelling in the primary community. Each community will have its own leaders, which are usually in a tributary and/or subservient relationship to the ruling elite of the primary community

    Complex

    A complex chiefdom is a group of simple chiefdoms controlled by a single paramount center, and ruled by a paramount chief. Complex chiefdoms have two or even three tiers of political hierarchy. Nobles are clearly distinct from commoners and do not usually engage in any form of agricultural production. The higher members of society consume most of the goods that are passed up the hierarchy as a tribute.

    Reciprocal obligations are fulfilled by the nobles carrying out ritual that only they can perform. They may also make token, symbolic redistributions of food and other goods. In two or three tiered chiefdoms, higher ranking chiefs have control over a number of lesser ranking individuals, each of whom controls specific territory or social units. Political control rests on the chief's ability to maintain access to a sufficiently large body of tribute, passed up the line by lesser chiefs. These lesser chiefs in turn collect from those below them, from communities close to their own center. At the apex of the status hierarchy sits the paramount.

    Anthropologists and archaeologists have demonstrated through research that chiefdoms are a relatively unstable form of social organization. They are prone to cycles of collapse and renewal, in which tribal units band together, expand in power, fragment through some form of social stress, and band together again. An example of this kind of social organization were the Germanic Peoples who conquered the western Roman Empire in the 5th century CE. Although commonly referred to as tribes, anthropologists classified their society as chiefdoms. They had a complex social hierarchy consisting of kings, a warrior aristocracy, common freemen, serfs and slaves.

    The American Indian tribes sometimes had ruling kings or satraps (governors) in some areas and regions. The Cherokee, for example, had an imperial-family ruling system over a long period of history. The early Spanish explorers in the Americas reported on the Indian kings and kept extensive notes during what is now called the conquest. Some of the native tribes in the Americas had princes, nobles, and various classes and castes. The "Great Sun" was somewhat like the Great Khans of Asia and eastern Europe. Much like an emperor, the Great Sun of North America is the best example of chiefdoms and imperial kings in North American Indian history. The Aztecs of Mexico had a similar culture

    Statement Of Obligations
    A concrete conception of obligation towards human beings and a subdivision of it into a number of obligations is obtained by conceiving the earthly needs of the body and of the human soul. Each need entails a corresponding obligation.

    The needs of a human being are sacred. Their satisfaction cannot be subordinated either to reasons of state, or to any consideration of money, nationality, race, or colour, or to the moral or other value attributed to the human being in question, or to any consideration whatsoever.
    There is no legitimate limit to the satisfaction of the needs of a human being except as imposed by necessity and by the needs of other human beings. The limit is only legitimate if the needs of all human beings receive an equal degree of attention.
    The fundamental obligation towards human beings is subdivided into a number of concrete obligations by the enumeration of the essential needs of the human being. Each need is related to an obligation, and each obligation to a need.
    The needs in question are earthly needs, for those are the only ones that man can satisfy. They are needs of the soul as well as of the body; for the soul has needs whose non-satisfaction leaves it in a state analogous to that of a starved or mutilated body. 


    The principal needs of the human body are food, warmth, sleep, health, rest, exercise, fresh air.
    The needs of the soul can for the most part be listed in pairs of opposites which balance and complete one another.
    The human soul has need of equality and of hierarchy.
    Equality is the public recognition, effectively expressed in institutions and manners, of the principle that an equal degree of attention is due to the needs of all human beings. Hierarchy is the scale of responsibilities. Since attention is inclined to direct itself upwards and remain fixed, special provisions are necessary to ensure the effective compatibility of equality and hierarchy.

    The human soul has need of consented obedience and of liberty.
    Consented obedience is what one concedes to an authority because one judges it to be legitimate. It is not possible in relation to a political power established by conquest or coup d'etat nor to an economic power based upon money.
    Liberty is the power of choice within the latitude left between the direct constraint of natural forces and the authority accepted as legitimate. The latitude should be sufficiently wide for liberty to be more than a fiction, but it should include only what is innocent and should never be wide enough to permit certain kinds of crime.
    The human soul has need of truth and of freedom of expression.
    The need for truth requires that intellectual culture should be universally accessible, and that it should be able to be acquired in an environment neither physically remote nor psychologically alien. It requires that in the domain of thought there should never be any physical or moral pressure exerted for any purpose other than an exclusive concern for truth; which implies an absolute ban on all propaganda without exception. It calls for protection against error and lies; which means that every avoidable material falsehood publicly asserted becomes a punishable offence. It calls for public health measures against poisons in the domain of thought. 

    But, in order to be exercised, the intelligence requires to be free to express itself without control by any authority. There must therefore be a domain of pure intellectual research, separate but accessible to all, where no authority intervenes.
    The human soul has need of some solitude and privacy and also of some social life.
    The human soul has need of both personal property and collective property.
    Personal property never consists in the possession of a sum of money, but in the ownership of concrete objects like a house, a field, furniture, tools, which seem to the soul to be an extension of itself and of the body. Justice requires that personal property, in this sense, should be, like liberty, inalienable.

    Collective property is not defined by a legal title but by the feeling among members of a human milieu that certain objects are like an extension or development of the milieu. This feeling is only possible in certain objective conditions.
    The existence of a social class defined by the lack of personal and collective property is as shameful as slavery.
    The human soul has need of punishment and of honour.
    Whenever a human being, through the commission of a crime, has become exiled from good, he needs to be reintegrated with it through suffering. The suffering should be inflicted with the aim of bringing the soul to recognize freely some day that its infliction was just. This reintegration with the good is what punishment is. Every man who is innocent, or who has finally expiated guilt, needs to be recognized as honourable to the same extent as anyone else.
    The human soul has need of disciplined participation in a common task of public value, and it has need of personal initiative within this participation.
    The human soul has need of security and also of risk. The fear of violence or of hunger or of any other extreme evil is a sickness of the soul. The boredom produced by a complete absence of risk is also a sickness of the soul.
                                                                                                                                                            Simone Weil-
                                                        The Need for Roots



    Graves’ Values Systems

    The “Emergent, Cyclical, Double-Helix Model of Adult BioPsychoSocial Systems Development” – Dr Clare Graves

    “I am not saying in this conception of adult behaviour that one style of being, one form of human existence is inevitably and in all circumstances superior to or better than another form of human existence, another style of being.

    What I am saying is that when one form of being is more congruent with the realities of existence, then it is the better form of living, for those realities. And what I am saying is that when one form of existence ceases to be functional for the realities of existence then some other form, either higher or lower in the hierarchy, is the better style of living.

    I do suggest, however, and this I deeply believe is so, that for the overall welfare of total man’s existence in the world, over the long run of time, higher levels are better than lower levels, and that the prime good of any society’s governing figures should be to promote human movement up the levels of human existence.”

    Dr Clare W Graves, Professor of Psychology, Union College Schenectady, USA (d1986)

    This is a brief description of the eight human developmental levels that have been defined so far.  You will see evidence for the levels in personal growth, organizational development and cultural/political change.

    • No level should be seen as ‘better’ or ‘worse’ than any other level
    • People operate out of the level where they get answers to life’s problems.
    • Each level enfolds and incorporates all the levels that precede it
    • Up to and including level 4, it is very difficult to see (and above all appreciate the value in) any level beyond the one you are currently at.

    Level

    Outline Description and Characteristics

    1. Beige
    (Reactive)

    reactive image

    An inwardly pointing worldview, dependent on outside support for its survival. Today only seen in babies and very young children, and those people suffering from a severe degenerative condition (such as Alzheimer’s) or extreme drug dependency.
    2. Purple
    (Tribal)

    tribal image

    Very ‘tribal’ in its approach. The individual follows a strong leader or symbol. In today’s society it is seen in a somewhat more diluted form with some family units, football supporters, highly competitive corporate teams. Core values include safety and security.
    3. Red
    (Egocentric)

    egocentric image

    A highly individualistic level, often with a lot of anger in it.Can be seen in the ‘terrible two’s’ and rebellious teenage behaviour. Also evident in macho street violence later in life. Core values here include power, immediate gratification, escaping from being controlled, being respected and avoiding shame. Some evidence that a high proportion of UK prison population is at this level shown by lack of consequence awareness.
    4. Blue
    (Absolutist)

    absolutist image

    A community oriented level with strong “moving away from” motivation.Strong sense of right vs. wrong, good vs. bad and the need for order in society. In cultural terms, judicial systems develop at this level. Fundamentalist religious beliefs are seen here too. Core values include justice, security and morality. Also a desire to control impulsivity and “evil” deeds. Can be seen in movements such as “right to life” and “moral majority”.
    5. Orange
    (Materialist)

    materialist image

    An individualistic level with a strong personal drive and high energy operating from a “moving towards” motivation strategy. Very aspirational, keen to succeed and responds well to the trappings of success. Much of creative science emerges as a means to control human destiny at this level. Core values around success, creativity and achievement. Likes to be popular and enjoys winning. Can be seen in modern industrial nations and the upwardly mobile.
    6. Green
    (Personalistic)

    personalistic image

    Focus on involvement and gaining consensus/agreement. Seeks peace with inner self and to gain contact with the inner self of others. Core values around fairness and equality with the desire to free the human spirit from exploitation. Has generated the women’s movement and the civil rights movement in the last century. Wishes to eliminate poverty, racism, chauvinism and other forms of divisiveness.
    7. Yellow
    (Systemic)

    systemic image

    An individually oriented ‘systems’ viewpoint. Sees the world as being in danger of collapse because of misuse of resources. Sees life as diverse and paradoxical. Has the pursuit of knowledge as a major driver but without the need to demonstrate his/her own ego. Can often see the bigger picture and be willing to take a position that is contrary to popular opinion. However, may get frustrated if others are not able to see their point.
    8. Turquoise
    (Holistic)

    holistic image

    Sees a world in danger of geo-political collapse as a result of adopting short term strategies. Seeks spirituality and unity in living systems. Strives to eliminate war, poverty, disease, hunger and political oppression. Recognises the potential need to sacrifice self and others as may be required for the overall survival of life. Thinks and acts globally.

    Estimates of world population and power:

    Note: This table is intended as a guide only because it was based on estimates and may include some double-counting, probably as a result of exiting/entering phases)

    LevelPopulation %Power %
    1.) BeigeN/A0
    2.) Purple101
    3.) Red205
    4.) Blue4030
    5.) Orange3050
    6.) Green1015
    7.) Yellow15
    8.) Turquoise0.11

    Sources: Dr Wyatt Woodsmall – Integral Change Technology TM
    Don Edward Beck/Christopher C. Cowan – Spiral Dynamics

    Note: Our ability to influence each level requires both willingness and personal flexibility. It will be heavily influenced by the system or systems within which you currently sit. As Graves suggested, the more evolved levels do offer significantly more choice of action so anything you can do to move yourself, and your team, further into Level 7 thinking will be very helpful at both an individual and organisational level.

    Graphical Summary of Graves’ Values Levels

    Purpose: To illustrate how each level is a ‘holon’ and is encapsulated within each subsequently emerging level.
    images of graves values

    Notes for guidance:

    • Odd numbers tend towards individual orientation
    • Even numbers tend towards communal orientation.
    • No level is any more “real” than any other – it is appropriate for that person’s needs.
    • People only move from one level to another if they cease to get answers to life’s problems at that existing level.

    Relevance to organisational issues

    • We need to be aware that different parts of any organisation may be operating out of different levels.
    • We need to be able to adjust our approach to enable rapport to be established with each level as appropriate.
    • Tension, stress or some other significant change in their environment or context may cause people to regress to an earlier level.

    How the Levels May Regard Each Other

    Purpose: To provide an unscientific, tongue in cheek summary of how each level may view the others, especially what they would regard as the more extreme or “unhealthy” versions of each level.

    1. Beige
    • No real discrimination at this level, so all are ok if Beige’s own immediate needs are met
    2. Purple
    • Sees Purple as “one of us” or “one of them”
    • Sees Red as the strong leader to be obeyed
    • Sees Blue as the State or remote Government
    • Sees Orange as either their saviour (way out of poverty) or their next master
    • Sees Green as very helpful or as “do-gooders”
    • Can’t easily see Yellow or Turquoise except when an exceptional, beneficial, sustainable intervention occurs which would be attributed to Orange or Green
    3. Red
    • Sees Purple as tools to be used
    • Sees Red as a threat to be overcome or as the next leader if he or she is strong enough
    • Sees Blue as authoritarian, and probably the enemy
    • Sees Orange all around and wants its’ toys now
    • Sees Green as lunch
    • Probably can’t see Yellow or Turquoise and certainly wouldn’t value them
    4. Blue
    • Sees Purple as the “Noble Savage” in need of saving
    • Sees Red as “bad”
    • Sees Blue as being right, provided they have the same “Truth” as we do
    • Sees Orange as arrogant, self-serving, nouveau riche and greedy
    • Sees Green as “wishy-washy” and probably irrelevant
    • Sees Yellow and Turquoise as “out with the fairies”
    5. Orange
    • Sees Purple as resources to be exploited
    • Sees Red as dangerous
    • Sees Blue as “stuck” and bureaucratic
    • Sees Orange as either someone to aspire towards or as a competitor,
    • Sees Green as irrelevant to personal success and therefore to be ignored
    • Sees Yellow and Turquoise as making things overly complicated
    6. Green
    • Sees Purple as wonderful communities that should be valued
    • Sees Red as needing to be saved or educated into other ways of behaving
    • Sees Blue as authoritarian, biased and unfair
    • Sees Orange as greedy and exploitative
    • Sees Green as an enlightened, caring equal
    • Sees Yellow as insensitive and intellectualising / avoiding emotional engagement
    • Sees Turquoise as OK but lacking in emotional sensitivity
    7. Yellow
    • Sees everybody else as “interesting” and will match them as the situation demands.
    • Does relate particularly strongly to others coming out of Yellow as it reduces the possible loneliness
    • Will get immensely frustrated and walk away from those who “just don’t get it”
    8. Turquoise
    • No real evidence yet because of the very low numbers but should bring the pragmatic acceptance and curiosity of Yellow forward into the resolution of global problems.
    • The biggest risk could be that it adopts a command and control approach

    I see myself maybe 10% orange,40% green, 40% yellow, and 10% Turquoise (I can not relate to orange any longer,and really never did except by way of  "Much of creative science emerges as a means to control human destiny at this level", I also have fully accepted the fact I am " psychologically a female in a man's body ",and still wish to have a heterosexual man breed me,and sexually please him.(in the past when a man was mounting me ,I often spoke out "I wish I could have your baby",,and very much it was my want, that he climax in my bottom,for that reason. I also feel ,I am not gay,that it is may role as a woman to have sex with a str8 man


    ,    I can identify with intersex,yet see it as a natural form physically, I can related to "Hermaphroditus, the "son" of the Greek god Hermes and the goddess Aphrodite, origin of the word "hermaphrodite". in that I deep down ,I wish I could look like this,yet realize it will do no good to have any type surgery to fit this image.

    Urning: A person assigned male at birth with a female psyche, whose main sexual attraction is to men.

    Seeing Slavery and Servitude as a Culture,  (I believe,that any form of servitude,is harmful to the slave owner"psychologically".creating laziness.false power and lead to mass production as a way of life,one our society is framed on/ modeled on now,and which is a Extremely dangerous state!

    The South Expands: Slavery and Society 1820–1860 (above PDF)

     excerpt from pdf:   "Chapter Instructional Objectives After you have taught this chapter, your students should be able to answer the following questions: 1. How did the domestic slave trade function in the United States, and how did it impact African American people? 2. How was power distributed in southern white society? 3. In what ways did African Americans express spirituality during the slavery era? 4. What were the most important aspects of slave society and culture? 5. What were the challenges and opportunities experienced by the free black community?"

    Rationalization (sociology)

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    In sociology, rationalization or rationalisation refers to the replacement of traditions, values, and emotions as motivators for behavior in society with concepts based on rationality and reason. For example, the implementation of bureaucracies in government is a kind of rationalization, as is the construction of high-efficiency living spaces in architecture and urban planning. A potential reason as to why rationalization of a culture may take place in the modern era is the process of globalization. Countries are becoming increasingly interlinked, and with the rise of technology, it is easier for countries to influence each other through social networking, the media and politics. An example of rationalization in place would be the case of witch doctors in certain parts of Africa. Whilst many locals view them as an important part of their culture and traditions, development initiatives and aid workers have tried to rationalize the practice in order to educate the local people in modern medicine and practice (Giddens, 2013).

    Many sociologists, critical theorists and contemporary philosophers have argued that rationalization, falsely assumed as progress, has had a negative and dehumanizing effect on society, moving modernity away from the central tenets of enlightenment.[1] The founders of sociology had critical reaction to rationalization:

    Marx and Engels associated the emergence of modern society above all with the development of capitalism; for Durkheim it was connected in particular with industrialization and the new social division of labour which this brought about; for Weber it had to do with the emergence of a distinctive way of thinking, the rational calculation which he associated with the Protestant Ethic (more or less what Marx and Engels speak of in terms of those 'icy waves of egotistical calculation').

    — John Harriss The Second Great Transformation? Capitalism at the End of the Twentieth Century 1992


    Further objects of rationalization

    Human body

    One rational tendency is towards increasing the efficiency and output of the human body. Several means can be employed in reaching this end, including trends towards regular exercise, dieting, increased hygiene, drugs, and an emphasis on optimal nutrition. As well as increasing lifespans, these allow for stronger, leaner, more optimized bodies for quickly performing tasks.[8] Another aspect of this is maintaining a certain level of physical attraction. Processes such as the combing of hair, use of a fragrance, having an appropriate haircut, and wearing certain clothes receive calculated use, that of giving off a certain impression to other individuals.[citation needed] In these cases, we see how rationalization does produce meaning and is not just simply a way to speed things up, i.e., a fat person is said to have poor self-control and discipline and thus you can now make personal judgments about them.

    Another trend is in the bureaucratization of processes that formerly might have been done through the home. This includes the use of hospitals for childbirth and the use of doctors to identify symptoms of an illness and to prescribe treatment.[citation needed]

    Education

    Rationalized education tends to focus less on subjects based around the use of critical discourse (for instance, religion) and more on matters of a calculated importance (such as business administration). This is reflected also in the move towards standardized and multiple choice testing, which measures students on the basis of numbered answers and against a uniform standard.[citation needed]


    Virtuality and Its Discontents
    Searching for Community in Cyberspace by Sherry Turkle

    Adapted from Life on the Screen by Sherry Turkle.
    Copyright 1995 by Sherry Turkle.
    Reprinted by permission of Simon and Schuster, Inc.


    MAIN STREET, MALL, AND VIRTUAL CAFÉ

    What changes when we move from Oldenberg's great good places to something like Dred's Bar on LambdaMOO? To answer this question, it helps to consider an intermediate step--moving from a sidewalk café to a food court in a suburban shopping mall. Shopping malls try to recreate the Main Streets of yesteryear, but critical elements change in the process. Main Street, though commercial, is also a public place; the shopping mall is entirely planned to maximize purchasing. On Main Street you are a citizen; in the shopping mall, you are customer as citizen. Main Street had a certain disarray: the town drunk, the traveling snake-oil salesman. The mall is a more controlled space; there may be street theater, but it is planned--the appearance of serendipity is part of the simulation. If Dred's Bar seems plausible, it is because the mall and so much else in our culture, especially television, have made simulations so real.

    On any given evening, nearly eighty million people in the United States are watching television. The average American household has a television turned on more than six hours a day, reducing eye contact and conversation. Computers and the virtual worlds they provide are adding another dimension of mediated experience. Perhaps computers feel so natural because of their similarity to watching TV, our dominant social experience for the past forty years.

    The bar featured for a decade in the television series Cheers no doubt figures so prominently in the American imagination at least partly because most of us don't have a neighborhood place where "everybody knows your name." Instead, we identify with the place on the screen. Bars designed to look like the one on Cheers have sprung up all over the country, most poignantly in airports, our most anonymous of locales. Here, no one will know your name, but you can always buy a drink or a souvenir sweatshirt.