ICSSSE98.htm

We were all present in the furnace of the Beginning, which I refer to as the Shinn-yu Event, using the Nippon ideogram concept of "motion", when all time and space "became". We swirled and intermingled as potential, and then as realized forms, in sequences of titanic stars and then in histories of atoms and molecules and metabolisms, which assembled and reassembled, in explorations of process. No matter our individual lineage, we are literally made of the ancestors of our existence, and we will contribute to the shapes and comprehensions of all the progeny who will succeed us. Sensations and thoughts.

The focus of our attention at this juncture in the stream of human history is understanding our intricate relationships with one another, particularly in the social communication called economics, but in many other ways as well. We can do this by expanding empathy from being simply the emotion of compassion for others, to being a tangible conceptual tool, realistically useful for achieving mutually coveted goals. That is, reinvent empathy as a systems tool for bringing about sustained productive-and-creative interdependence. We do that by going beyond current perceptions of ourselves, to examine and openly accept with unabashed courage, all of our behaviors for what they have been, are, and do or do not accomplish positively for us. It is a difficult, sometime embarrassing thing, but beneficial none the less.

We are very fortunate to be alive now, sharing the same years with people of intense moral vision . . . Haile Selassie, Robert Oppenheimer, Gandhi, Mao Zedong, Lord Mountbatten, Martin Luther King, Yitzak Rabin, Mother Theresa, Mikhail Gorbachev, Armand Hammer, Alan Greenspan, and a list stretching to the horizon of peoples of all cultures and levels of accomplishment. In amendment of Machiavellian utility, their devotion was and is to the betterment of life for the members of their communities, not themselves. Ends justify means, but only the highest and most noble ends.

I give you this long preface because I have been very fortunate in specific personal ways too. I was born Jewish, educated as that and as a Quaker. Respect for all life and especially for the dignity of all people supersedes all other tenets and any other rules of behavior. I studied with Lo Shu Fu, with Lawrence Slobodkin, with friends of Albert Einstein, among others. I sought out and conversed with explorers in many fields... farming, mechanics, business, sciences, humanities, arts, philosophies, education, religions and so on. And what I offer you today is a vision of respecting the dignity and integrity of all the contributing organizations of existence -- while comprehend- ing how they are integrated, and what it means for the acts and choices we must make as we encourage the vitality and evolution of humanity, as we build an open future.

So, let me face our mutual concerns with direct candor. Several years ago, as your nation was struggling to go forward, establishing new communications with the rest of the planet's global economy, your leaders took the courageous step of allowing new levels of individual freedom to thrive. Not an easy transition, especially when the health of your nation was accomplished based on limiting those personal options in favor of the larger social good. There was a video image shown around the world in 1989 which captured the imagination of your companion societies. It was of a lone person - a young man carrying packages, books -- facing quite unprotected a tank on its way to deal with the demonstrators in Tien An Min Square.

First, I apologize to you now and to those two men -- the man in the road and the tank commander -- because I do not know their names. Some in the capitalist/democratic world interpreted that moment - man and tank - as a stand against "tyranny". Others saw something else however, much more important and far reaching. I tell you that those men -- together -- represented the best qualities of being human. They could see each other's eyes, look deeply, and really know without words, the opportunity of the moment. They were the eyes of love and caring, not warring combatants. Each man was silently - and maybe with words - pleading with the other, "Please see things my way. I care for our people, I want the best for them. Please see that my way is good." A single noble goal, conflicted only in the mechanisms of getting there. Both correct. Both competent. Both needing each other. For without community, individuals accomplish precious little, since the efforts of companions improve the opportunities of individuals. And without the substance and presence of individual members, communities evaporate into meaningless non-existence.

This, this, is the core of Integrity dynamics. Call it what you will - communications, transactions, distributions, recurring encounters, metabolic loops, emergence, etc - it is the behaviors of one system, intricately and continually affecting and affected by the behaviors of others ... through some form of sharing ... creating other levels of organization, new complexities, identifiable and functional as the next larger orders of "system" with their own behavioral integrities. This, not fractal iteration, is the robust and primal mechanism of complexity creation.

All complexities in the universe are organized this way. That is the message of the Integrity perception of system dynamics. The immediate mechanisms may look different, may scale different levels of organizational architecture -- from the subatomic to metabolic to socially organic and so on -- but the relationships and factors which impact systems-in-action-with-other-systems are similar, are extensive, yet open to human understanding and appreciation ... to be used as guides, as we try new things, discover new possibilities, and provide each coming generation with the opportunities to add their voices, their unique and special accomplishments, in furthering the practical and spiritual evolution of humanity and companion life forms

There are many ways to perceive existence. One important way is valuing physical materials. We are physical creatures and "things" enhance the quality of life. That is a natural relationship. Possessions - or control of possessions - can determine what our quality of life is. But I suggest to you something you already know, that "things" are only as important as the processes they are part of. Iron and oxygen and hydrocarbons can be seen as rust and swamp gas. But form the iron just so, and mix the oxygen and hydrocarbons in the middle of it, and add one small spark of energy, and you have an engine ... that can turn wheels, and help people to achieve what muscle power alone might not, or might take extra time. So, existence depends not on the "what" that exists, but on the arrangements and relationships of the "what". Processes and systems, are the crucial aspects we must understand, because ultimately the only enduring "objective" qualities of existence are intangible dynamics, not "objects".

Integrity models these relationships as the ebbs and flows of localized yet interdependent entropy gradients, existing in nested exponential levels in a sense, yet behaviorally bound together. Imagine if you will a group of electrons confined around the nucleus of some single atom. There are well defined quantum mechanical descriptions of such systems, but follow me for a moment, and consider the relational behaviors that such descriptions environmentally enact. We can define the distribution space of valence electrons and assign an entropy value. We can place them near another atom with open electron shells, and the first valence electrons spread to a larger distribution space, correspondingly binding the atoms to form a complexity called "molecule". Therefore, an increasing entropy of dispersing electrons correlates with a complexity forming negentropic localization of atoms -- maintained as long as there is a constant sharing of electrons. A constant communication, so to speak. Like two jugglers which create the primitive dynamics of an "economy" -- as long as they continually pass objects back and forth. They are the process taking advantage of the opportunity for energy exchange [1]. The integrity of the larger level maintained because the degrees-of-freedom of the items or concepts being communicated has improved. Obviously, inner electrons are attuned to holding the individual nuclear bodies together, and even the valence electrons are constrained somewhat, but, their overall spheres of function are much improved.

So, we begin to comprehend that very intricate "complex" systems are orchestrations of many different energy flows and loops, of many interacting entropies, each of which has its own best-range-of-function, which is constantly being affected and altered by changes in the energy and information states of other companion entropies. Some for good, some for bad, and some which we need systems wisdom -- integrity recognition -- to better evaluate. But, I forewarn against a Reductionist view as we explore these relationships. This is because each entropy level -- and especially symbiotic and hyperintegrated coordinations -- has a real and valid functional Integrity - with some degree of self-sentience, whether human-like or not. And sentience deserves respect, whether person or culture or other. So even as we empirically dissect behaviors into systems-descriptions, our final goal is to interpret gained understandings back into the behaviors and experiential realities we started with. In other words, equations and flow diagrams are more than geometries, they represent sentiences -- people in some cases -- who will endure in real time, all the good or the uncomfortable that is asked of them.

Let me share some stories with you. A few centuries ago, one society coveted a product produced by another, but was too poor in hard cash to buy. So it made the rich culture desire some other item which the poor society controlled. Made it pay dearly too, in hard cash. The once poor nation was then able to use the rich nation's own money to buy the first sought commodity. Now normally, once such a balance is reached, the result can be the beginning of a natural and beneficial trading partnership. But there was a problem. The introduced commodity which got the commerce loop going was narcotics. Yes there was "trade", international commerce, jobs and so on, but the once rich nation was being torn to shreds because the narcotics were destroying its inner-system integrities and the quality of life of its people. People were lost and dying, the inner fabric of the society falling apart. Something had to be done.

I am sure you recognize the story. Because at some point, abuse of the integrity and dignity of the nation could not be tolerated any more. And the Opium Wars took place. And then the great leader, Chairman Mao, galvanized this nation, removing the conditions which were draining the economic and personal energies of China. As I would describe it, there was a shift in the entropic flows of resources. Human resources and monetary resources were no longer allowed to erode and diminish, but were secured inside the body politic. You regained control of your destiny, your Integrities. Individually and as a nation.

I do not remind you of this story to enflame old hatreds. I do ask that you comprehend shared history in terms of energy flows and systems competencies. Lives were lost on all sides because the societies were trying to survive, but were blind to each other's integrities. They were selfishly addicted to one commodity stream or another, and oblivious to the more important qualities of life and mutual reliance. People once sacrificed themselves to those misplaced devotions. But now, together, we can accomplish something creative. We can reduce any agonies to come and improve the security and options of all companion cultures and global citizens. You should know, as we explore these possibilities together, that other societies -- the existing economic powerhouses of the west -- are susceptible to the same ills as China once suffered. Our societies are even today burdened by human potential lost to infiltrated narcotics. We have persons of influence who see their culture companions as fodder, to be burned up in the race for acquisition of individual wealth. But they do not represent the bulk of our peoples. There are growing groups of influential persons who recognize that we are stewards, are responsible for the Future, and are not just manipulators looking for immediate gratification or imagined power. There are no perfect solutions yet. No one, no group, is controlling the destiny of the world, though it is probably safe to say that there may be some trying. I tend to think that even if there exists a mix of selfish as well as noble mechanisms and goals already at work -- a natural state of affairs -- that there is no reachable future of any deep meaning or enduring value unless every culture contributes to getting there, with everyone's dignity actively respected and protected, not just isolated samples of good faith.

That doesn't mean that there will be perfect harmony or absolute agreement at all times. That extreme unity is a narcotic condition as well. Healthy organic systems -- including societies -- need diversity, gradient differentials, in what will happen and when, in order not to become sedentary and even atrophy, no matter how secure or stable conformity may seem. It goes without saying that the democracies of the planet suffer some internal corruption difficulties - persons seeking egotistic power and control. But the overriding relationship which we never set aside and which we never lose sight of (hopefully) is that we are willing to trust our opponents to respect and nurture our welfare and well being. When we esteem our opponent's children as highly as our own, there may be disputes and differences of views, but there can be no "enemies".

Having said all this, I return to some systems models. A friend of mine created what I call the Integrity Game. Simply presented, imagine a vertical opaque board with a matrix of holes. One side is Red team, the other side Blue team. Two six-sided dice are rolled, one has 3 red sides and 3 blank, the other 3 blue sides and 3 blank. There are pegs available to match the combinations: blank-blank, red-blank, blue-blank, red-blue. As the combinations are made, pegs are placed in the grid. But, only blank or red can show on the red side, and blank or blue on the blue side. The goal is to complete some specified pattern. The matrix represents the option spaces. The "goal state" of either player is affected simultaneously by a series of mutually impacting events, where there may or may not be competition for the exact same locations of the matrix in order to "win". Rolls and placements are not strictly maneuverings of greed and capture. In an open system, events may help one participant over another, may help both, may hinder both, or a player may be obligated to helping the opponent. Some peg placements allow both parties to win - accomplish individual goals - which is something quite different from games in which only one "winner" is allowed. The players have some latitude in organizing where and how they want to achieve their respective goals. They can freely prioritize, even though tied to mutually random events and to designed-yet-random behaviors by their companion.

This simple analog can be applied in many ways. We can imagine that one player is an individual, and the other, is her or his community. We can imagine that there is only one player, but that there are n-number of playing surfaces, representing aspects of the person's life ... welfare of personal health, welfare of family members, welfare of the family, welfare of job situation, welfare of access to knowledge, to food, to transportation, and so on. The rolling dice can represent income, and "peg-placement" is the allocation of resources ... current and anticipated ... where all the concerns have to be dealt with simultaneously, with diverse interaffects, many having feedback and plural components to them. Each event being part of sequences that are systemically dissipating or gathering of energy/information reserves --- changing the entropies of the assembled aspects.

In the real world of systems-priorities, winning means "continuing to participate"[2]. That means: vital dynamic systems must have - and must maintain - behavior options. We can best visualize the components involved by using a variation of the standard Gaussian curve [3][4]. The integrity of any system (or component sub-systems) depends on the ability to maintain ongoing flows of information and energy through available option spaces. This requires flows for self-maintenance as well as with open encounter-space. On one side of the curve are under utilized option spaces, while on the other are increasingly saturated eigenspaces. There is no single best node, or locus poised between chaos and disorder. Rather, systems need a latitude of carried energy/information in order to function at their "best" [3,5,10]. The resilience to stay competent within the function range is what is important, including the added freedom to improve the overall function space. A computer without a data base on its hard drive is just another rock in the road. A computer which has a saturated memory matrix has no room to manipulate the information, and is just as useless. Atoms with saturated valence shells -- like the noble gasses -- are more limited in their capacity to form molecules. Oppositely, an athlete with stronger muscles and discipline of motion can accomplish more. A person with more education or skills will have an easier time surviving in a variety of potential environments or situations where different knowledge is useful. A citizen who can contribute concepts and wisdom to his society, not just work effort, strengthens the integrity of the person and the society. The survivability of a system -- the ability to maintain functional integrity, depends not solely on utilization of all capacities at all times, but on the preparative tools, resources, energy, information, skills etc to deal with conditions and propositions -- both the foreseen and the unpredictable. The ability to explore and endure new options.

Factors which contribute to the Integrity of a system are: 1)being organized with capacity-potential, 2)having suitable energy and information, and, 3) appropriate processing of energy/information. This last factor includes "rates" of processing. Like drinking water a glassful at a time rather than from a high pressure fire hose. This holds true for all integrated flows even in larger assemblies. Some systems are so complex as to require a variety of "internal" flow rates. It is interesting to note that previous generations were insightful enough to define "return-on-investment" as "interest rates". We tend to imagine it only as the percentage of some original quantity that a starting amount increases by. In fact, it is quite actually the speed at which energy flows through a system. In economies, it is the speed at which funds circulate. It is the entropy gradient created by some local transaction or even a cluster of them.

Organized systems that behave with some degree of uniformity and cohesion would seem to require unity of such flow rate. To some extent, this is true, and mechanisms have been tried to enforce that stabilization. "Indexing" was one method of making sure that goods and services stayed synchronized. In basic physics systems there are fixed values to electron energies, trackable by quantum mechanics. Even the animal energy molecule Adenosine Tri Phosphate will always provide a given energy when chemically decomposed. In human commerce however, such "valuations" can float. A loaf of bread may cost pennies, or trade for a brick of gold under black-market conditions. Once a complex economy settles to some comfortable level of functioning, it's assumed that intermediary and exchange value-relationships are stable -- even beneficial, too. Indexing locks in those relationships. For example, by taxation percentages, or cost-of-living benefits -- where the cost of housing rentals is assumed to be workable if at 20-25% of a family's income. Rather than absolute free-market interactions, where even 'correspondences' can change (but with irregular time lags), indexed systems do it by rule of law. If the general cost-of-living rises (by analysis), then landlords are permitted to raise rents, and social subsidy programs must distribute more funds, etc, but only by the same percentage factor.

This does stabilize economies. So does voluntary indexing, exampled by secondary lenders charging a mutual percentage "over Prime" interest rates. The downside, which must be balanced by other shunt mechanisms, is that those percentages might not allow local flexibility, especially if there are changes in the number of commodities involved. Such situations function better under a more open free-market environment. However, the Integrity Paradigm points to another important application of systemic interest rate diversity. Not only is it important that there be a blend of 'coordinated/open' vs 'fixed' interest rate relationships within a given system, but different economic sectors may function best at quite different speeds. This has already been accidentally implemented in the financial credit sector, but should be examined closely for possible applications elsewhere.

In order to protect financial reserves from being drained by credit-defaults, the international credit companies kept their charge rates high (15-25% range), even though the Prime lending rates had fallen to low levels in recent years (currently 5-7%). The relationship was initiated strictly to insure corporate profits by bleeding off funds from the broader economic cycles into the lending institutions at a faster diversion rate. Yet that shift, away from the previous policy of straight indexing profit margins across the economy, and toward alternative indexing linked to (un)acceptable loss-rates, showed that it indeed might be wise to allow different sectors the latitude to move funds at different rates. To allow for variations in the value-added measures of mutually esteemed commodities. We don't expect bones to metabolize at the same speed as nervous tissue or muscles, nor do we demand that our digestive systems work at full speed all the time, so we might want to consider whether we want all social or economic organs to pace each other in some absolute way. It is possible that we do, but it is not unreasonable to consider other organizational system options.

This notion of tiered-interest rates -- allowing a more natural diversity of economic energy flows -- has a specific application of much larger concern ... the meshing of industrial with neo-industrial, agrarian, service, and alternative occupation populations. As we continue to participate and help coordinate our populations which are engaged in diverse work systems, with differing value-added factors assigned to the same goods and services, it is wise to remember local processing capacities and engage these systems very carefully. For example, agrarian peoples should not be denied the products of industrialization, but neither should the industrial sectors blindly impose their commodity valuations on the agrarian cultures, assuming that things will naturally adjust. The impact of such dis-synchrony can be events like severe unemployment and zero cash flow, which only destroys the integrity of local communities, families and individuals ... the back bone of any culture. The rush to become "productive" may corrupt the natural as well as social environments. These too are symbiotic players, susceptible to unusual shifts in energy exposure, stressed in the ability to shunt or process-through any excesses, deficiencies or imbalances. In other words, extending Integrity Game relationships, there is a constant correlation between respecting and maintaining the welfare and integrities of individuals -- persons, families, communities, regions -- and the welfare of the larger organisms -- nations, corporations, global regions, the natural gaian environment. Each integrity for itself as well as for the integrities it creates in concert with others.

I am not flippant or casual about this. Recognizing the intricacies of complex global organizations doesn't predict solutions, but it does focus on characteristics to be mindful of. I present the Integrity philosophy as a worthwhile way of understanding the unavoidable process interdependencies involved and so the potentials available. The specific mechanisms which we eventually choose to design and implement will make a difference. Our concerns will even extend to styles of complexity -- inter-translating behaviors as degrees-of-freedom in time and function space, as well as embracing the positive benefits of "unknown". There will be no "absolutely correct" or "absolutely wrong" designs. Nor do I worry about perfectly-level playing fields. Disparity - if not too extreme - is a gradient which encourages action. It is nice to embellish negotiations with the civility of slow paced meals, or to embroider the techniques of how to manufacture a fine sword blade within ceremonies of process and prayer, or to speak of national unity as the Songs of Flying Dragons (Korea), or to start the day with calm exercise, or to use the I Ch'ing to preserve social relational wisdom -- both in its original forms and context, and especially in the new systems applications as done by Anthony Judge [6].

Confucian officials being sent to help govern in communities where they could reap no personal gain was one way of balancing societal with individual integrities [7], the US three part government system of Judicial, Legislative and Executive branches is another, the Communist system of cells which unify the concerns of all peoples to the welfare of the nation is another ... which is, I might suggest, a strong foundation upon which to tap the creativity and natural wisdom of the nation. The pathways are already in place through which all citizens can send the voice of their votes and suggestions to the leadership. It may not mimic the mechanisms of other societies, but imitation is not required, only communication and symbiosis are. We need to value our humanity, our diverse cultural creations, even as we contribute to the health of populations by the inauguration of productive relationship systems. Life is an art form and an exploration, not a final achievement. Diversity is not lack-of-unity, it is the foundation of synergy. The vitality of living systems depends on systemic diversity. Shannon even made that a fundamental relationship of Information Theory. Reiterated interconnections and plural-pathways maximize information distribution and entropically stabilize a communication system against local disruptions. Understood as a systems-process, it maximizes the option spaces of information/energy distribution potential.

There are also some interesting consequences in so far as mathematical modeling is concerned. One notion Integrity analysis indicates is that there are several classes of new functions which must be defined, which embrace topology, coding theory, dimensional analysis, and more. The premiere one involves a multiplicative operation which does for the Pi-Function what "zero" does for arithmetic relationships. "Zero" is not just an integer useful in calculations or as a Boolean gating state. It tacitly carries the philosophical notion of "potential" -- as in: "this locus has the capacity of being assigned any value n". In the new function, factors reduced to a value of "zero" transduce to a multiplicative value of "one". This enables the modeling of plural inversely proportional complexity assemblies, such as when a "nation" exists, defined by mutual behaviors rather than by population count. A 'tournament' can remain as a 'process entity' because even as participants are eliminated (going to zero presence), their statistical valuation goes to one, therefore being computationally ignored, yet not driving the entropy or distribution statistics or play probabilities of the remaining teams to nothing and destroying the entity called 'tournament'.

The clearest way to example Integrity as an orchestration of process dynamics is to relate 3 more stories, one of which concerns an actual philharmonic orchestra.

Several years ago the Philadelphia Orchestra invited a well known European conductor to take over the orchestral helm. After playing in the existing hall, he agreed to take the job on one condition: that a totally new facility be built! It seems that in previous years the wood floor of the hall had been replaced with concrete. The hall's owners had encountered revenue falloffs, and in an attempt to generate more monies to keep the facility open, installed concrete flooring to handle other events. This destroyed the acoustics. The change had been a reasonable one from the standpoint of creating revenues to keep the building self sufficient. But not a technique in the best interests of maintaining the Integrity requirement of a philharmonic facility. The re-structuring had generated jobs. It had opened up the facility for a wider range of activities. It's just that the music suffered, music that for generations had been composed based on the tonality of instruments and buildings made of pre-20th century materials. "Music" could still be played and heard there, but it was no longer of the quality which composers, musicians, or listeners expected. Who could have envisioned that a music hall reconstruction contract, which cash flow benefited the community, would result in the silencing of the music there? (Obviously, no one took the time to consider that concrete lacks "timbre" as well as timber!) Depending on the information set being considered, all benefits or deficiencies per a given Integrity domain, are relative. The entropy gradients are different, and, interaffective. What benefits one set of requirements may co-improve others, yet co-diminish still others. To remain naive to this effect, is to throw away all the intellectual qualities we hold most dear. No one can perfectly perceive everything. But to ignore information and integrated goal priorities is foolish, and could prove globally reckless and destructive.

The second story reviews an event of evolution. We tend to see the transition of life from sea to land as one of gross anatomy -- the development of lungs, and of appendages to move around with. These were necessary, yes, but a more crucial adaptation was a metabolic one [8]. That was the ability to renally and cellularly process fresh water instead of salt ocean water, in order to stay hydrated. This required an astounding reconfiguration of the primal osmotic chemistries and energy/entropy pathways of metabolisms. The lesson here is that survival rests in the minutia and interdependencies of energy processes. And the cascade of effects can be enormous. It is changing potential which makes possible new potentials. A change in water metabolism eventually enabled the use of fire.

Lastly, in 1981 anthropologist Dean Falk [9] discerned significant differences in the natural drainage of blood out of the brains of Australopithecine robustus and gracile forms. She theorized that longer lateral angled vein paths in A.gracile permitted higher blood pressure in an upright posture, coincided with improved intelligence, and, confirmed by Michel Cabanac, enabled better body/brain temperature regulation. In light of different ideas about the role of DNA in such events, I began to consider the scenario as systems impacting other level systems. The question of import to complexity is, how did this happen genetically? It's doubtful that a sequence mutation for those lengths of vein coded for "turn left/right" vs "grow straight". What is possible is that there was a delay in the "stop" codon group which controlled the proteins/hormones involved in brain tissue growth -- in a matrix where developing vascular tissue competed for room with neurons. Maybe the fetal neural tissue was bathed in extra nutrients, or began earlier in the total growth sequence. These and others possibilities are open to research. The bottom line however is that a relatively simple change in DNA can cascade up through many levels of Hebbian assembly ... option spaces compounded on option spaces ... and produce profound changes at the anatomic and then behavioral levels of an organism. In this case, a host of multi-tiered benefits resulted from a small change in the DNA, in a species which possibly evolved into humans. We can therefore refine our understanding of evolution. The "success" of Darwinian "fitness" is the ability of an organism or a system to cope with and thus endure through potentials, immediate and extended, on many levels. Fitness is "competence", not "strength".

For humanity, here and now, survival does not mean settling down into evolutionary stasis like sharks did. It will depend on our willingness to explore potentials that unpredictably might open on to greater potentials later. Recognizing that we cannot absolutely predict or guarantee resources or creativity, so we must protect all future resources ... human and otherwise. The ancient North African Greeks of Cyrenia commemorated on their coins a bromeliad plant called the Sylphium. It was a nutrient source, a medicine, and more. But we will never know now, because the only Sylphium left are carved images on little metal disks, since the plants were exploited to extinction. If there were ever a clear warning from our relatives just 2000 years deceased, that is it. We are on notice: Do not destroy the natural world.

Integrity concepts see systems not as competitions but as dynamic coordinations. They need behavior- ranges, whether locally defined or hyperintegrated. They require compatibility with varieties of information, energy and other systems. They survive based on the successes of component and companion systems. And they improve and secure their existences by adaptations done in coordination with environmental options. As we continue to build conceptual, relational, and social systems for the future, it will be good to stay focussed on these ideas. Every "integrity" thrives on enduring in and exploring possibilities - especially ones that are far removed from where they are in any given space or moment or situation.

It is correct to learn the ways of other cultures, for that indeed expands connections, comprehensions, and options. But only as long as we are clear on our priorities -- supporting integrities, valuing opportunities, encouraging exploration and striving -- individually and organizationally. Life would lose its meaning if there were only one painting, one song, one perception, one sensitive legal system. As much as we strive to improve our existences, we don't really seek absolute perfection. We laugh best at surprises, we test ourselves against the anticipated but unexpected, we take pride in our children's abilities to learn more than we, we explore mysteries and contemplate eternities. We and all systems, are blends ... secure in the comfort of repetition and renewal, yet also, optimistic that we will be competent enough to deal with challenges and that future generations will be more competent still. And who can predict the mixing of our gene pools - all the yet-to-be-realized potential of our children and generations to come - that will result in the next great Poets or Inventors or Stateswomen? The goal of a feasible global economy is not just sustenance for all, but health and opportunity, to continue the Universe's long unfolding process of Life and Creation.

Integrity is thematic as both application and philosophy. Singular dynamics. Multiple mechanisms. A uni-verse and an infinity of perspectives [11], so integrated and so reticulated that we can, even as we explore the universe to know more about it say accurately - not just poetically - that we are the universe exploring itself. We are companions, poised together at the true dawn of civilization - enacting, exploring and creating the processes & systems of existence.

References

[1] Diane Haugen, personal communications, April 1998.
[2] Lawrence Slobodkin, graduate seminar discussion, SUNY Stonybrook, Spring 1973.
[3] Initial Formulations for a Unified Field Theory, SUNY Stonybrook, � Spring 1973.
                      online at: ceptualinstitute.com/uiu_plus/1973.htm
[4] "Understanding the Integral Universe"
                            also: ceptualinstitute.com/uiu_plus/uiueconomics.htm
                            also: ceptualinstitute.com/uiu_plus/uiuenvelopment.htm
[5] Tsang & Tsang, NECSI Conference on Complexity, Nashua '97.
                                      ceptualinstitute.com/genre/tsang1.htm
[6] Anthony Judge, Union of Int'l. Associations, ceptualinstitute.com/genre/judge/iching.htm
[7] Emmanuel Sillman, discussion on Comparative Anatomy, Duquesne University, Pgh., 1966
[8] Lo Shu Fu, "Documentary Chronicle of Sino-Western Relations", Univ Arizona Press, Tucson, 1966.
[9] Dean Falk, Braindance, New York : H. Holt, (1981) 1992
[10] Robert Theobold, "The Rapids of Change", Robert Theobald Knowledge Systems.1987.
                     online at:   http://www.transform.org/transform/dlc/rapids/rapids.html
[11] Heiner Benking, USA website   ceptualinstitute.com/genre/benking/homepageHB.htm