To me it's about considering anutha way, anutha possibility for our individual and collective futures. The hard question to ponder is if your mind has been brainwashed from the day you were born with a whole lot of patterns that are really for the benefit of those managing the managed, what then?.

My words speak to the managed

If you seek resilience in your overall community then your should consider a diversity of communities within that framework. Governments are always at odds with itself. One part of it insists that we must be compliant so we can be better managed. After all a "one law fits all" is without a doubt fair and at first look would sound cheaper, yet is it, sometimes it's actually not. What is the true cost of a one community fits all approach and how to fund infrastructure and enforcement to maintain such a one rule state.

Then there are the parts of government that are working the coalface of disempowered people, people totally incapable of making a decision in their own best interest. This initiative, the inner drive has been all but cultured out of them. They know only one approach to buy.

They buy their gardener, they buy their kids care, they buy their sewage treatment, they buy their entertainment, they buy their safety and as a result pretty much unable to make or do anything outside a purchase. This totally stifles the innovation required for a diversity of outcomes.

when you combine this with governance that judicially penalises behaviour outside the box what do you expect other than docile, compliant people
So lets make sure we understand at it's simplest - Building resillience

PADDOCK, FARMERS AND AGRICORPS
We have a farmer and an Agricorp each with four paddocks

When does it make sense for a farmer to run contra to the "Law of Buy". Maybe its when they plants four different varieties each with their own income. Now a corporation might decide it's better to plant just one crop in all four paddocks because it's immediate concern is to obtain the quickest fattest return to the shareholders this year not next. To do otherwise is to be in breach of the Typical Directors role.

A bug comes along raids both farms with equal veracity and as a result wipes out the entire corporations crop while our farmer only lost 1 quarter. So by maintaining a diversity of crops/communities we minimise our losses while accepting the lesser overall return in the immediate, afterall some crop is better than no crop.

The difference worth pointing out, that the human organism actually want's the food more than they want a corporation to profit. Sadly corporations plant most of our fields today, farmers lose their skills to pass onto others to grow other crops and now our whole community is food vulnerable to the short term profit of agricorps.

Now the managing should be encouraging as many food security projects as it can to stimulate diversity in approaches and more secure food for the managed. Unfortunately this would mean less buys for the Agricorps and they are the ones that fund the political parties.

Overall for the community and in appreciation of resilience, one should diversify the crops.

MAPPING PADDOCK TO PEOPLE AND POLICORP
So map this across to people and societal framework

If a state is only governed by one rule, then if that rule does not work where is the resillience built into the community. For example if 100% of a community thought a law should not apply to them, then why should it?

Could we not consider a framework of communities with their own laws, thereby negating the need for so much infrastructure. If you are into something that is very important enough for you to move to another community so you can be free to live within that communities paradigm, you are by default removing some of tasks of the managing. Less managing is cheaper to run and both communities benefit.

In other words, How could our country look if we built our communities around an agreed set of values from the ground up instead of the top down?

We have a top down one law fits all approach, the goverment is the policorp in the agricorp example.

Centralised governments take away the right for local communities to develop their own framework in a way that empowers that community to self organise.

Of course there are some laws that would most likely run accross all communities, Thou Shalt not kill for example, stealing another and a community can reaffirm those values for itself.

However most of the laws governing the social behaviour of humans could be left more to the managed than the managing

So in essence you cannot have a more resilient population through compliance.

You need to consider where communities decide for themselves their level of compliance that they will in fact come to different conclusions, different ways and if we watch, we might just learn something.

Anutha Mindmate - Dr Clare Graves

Like the bud of the rose, man at the first level is a tightly bound system whose totality is yet to be. All that is to be in man or rose is present but not seen and this, all that is there, may never come to be. As one may never know the full beauty and fragrance of the rose, so too, may one never know the full flavor of human behavior.

If you have the time I think it's a good read

http://www.clarewgraves.com/articles_content/1965/1965_1.html

Replace business with community

Manager with community manager

Replace Business with Gov

Manager with Public Service/Politicians

it's about those that manage the managed

love it

Predestinative management ultimately gives way and one of the reasons is that nature does not place brains solely in the heads of predestined leaders. Some of the led get their share and some of these ultimately question their slavish existence. When successful Predestinative management frees energy in the human system and when this increased energy is joined with the impelling reason of dissatisfaction dynamic brain systems are activated which produce insights that propel man to a still higher level of human existence.

and this

The few, and there are few in the beginning, lift themselves to the third subsistence level through their own efforts. And as a result they see themselves as unquestionably superior to others. After all, they alone have brought themselves to this exalted position by superior use of their own energies. They were not born to be, they were made by their own efforts. They conclude, therefore, that they are indeed superior, that they are destined to lead not by Divine plan, but by proven superiority. Thus they spawn the power ethic. An ethic based on the thema that Might is Right, a thema described in detail by Machiavelli. This is the level of the omnipotent existence, a state of existence derived from the individual’s ability to produce at will and based on what can be called the domestication of power.

He who lives by the power ethic believes that the power to change rests in the superior talents of the few, those few who are capable of using force to obtain desired ends. Power is virtue.

Hows this gem

The leader strives to entice the led to arrive at the managerially desired decision and the led strive to avoid a decision they fear others will not like.

After all the goal of fourth level people is to be liked, not to decide.


If managers are at the fourth level and the managed are at the second level the situation is worse. Leaders believe the followers should participate in decisions and the follower believes he should be told. The manager waits for participation and the managed wait for direction. In this hopeless combination of dissimilar incongruent value systems the organization is stifled. It dies.

The whole paper is such a learn

Variability of a marked degree, value wise and other wise is here. It will always be with us. Let us include in our decision-making matrix that man is an organism which at one and the same time tends to settle into any one of a number of quasi closed systems or to move on through many to his equifinal end.

1959 - "An Emergent Theory of Ethical Behavior Based upon an Epigenetic Model" 
(from the Collection of William R. Lee)

1960's - Excerpts from papers and tables illustrating Dr. Graves' thinking about the theory at
that time.                                               (from the Collection of William R. Lee)

1961 - "On the Theory of Ethical Behavior," paper sponsored by the Religious Education
Committee of the First Unitarian Society, Schenectady, NY 
"The most significant comment on man’s present predicament I have heard in many 
years." -- William Gold, minister The First Unitarian Society
(from the Collection of William R. Lee)

1962 - "The Implications to Management of Systems-Ethical Theory," November 11, 1962
(from the Collection of William R. Lee)

1964-65 - "Levels of Human Existence and Their Relation to Value Analysis and 
Engineering," paper presented to the Fifth Annual Value Analysis Conference

1965 - "Value Systems and their Relation to Managerial Controls and Organizational Viability,"
presentation to the College of Management Philosophy, The Institute of Management
Sciences, Jack Tar Hotel, San Francisco, California, February 3, 1965

1965 - "Personality Structure and Perceptual Readiness: An Investigation of their Relationship to
Hypothesized Levels of Human Existence," Clare W. Graves, W. C. Huntley, Douglas
LaBier, Union College. (A tachistoscopic study by Douglas LaBier used by Graves in
validation of his point of view.)

1965 - "Man: An Enlarged Conception of His Nature," paper presented at the 2nd Annual
Conference on the Cybercultural Revolution, New York, 1965.

1970 - "The Congruent Management Strategy," Clare W. Graves, Helen T. Madden, Lynn P.
Madden. An industrial report laying our a new philosophy for managing.

1970 -  "The Levels of Human Existence and their Relation to Welfare Problems," paper delivered
May 6, 1970, at the Annual Conference, Virginia State Department of Welfare and
Distribution, Roanoke, Virginia

1970 - "Levels of Existence: An Open System Theory of Values." Journal of Humanistic
Psychology. Fall, 1970. Vol. 10 No.2., pp. 131-155. (Available in print only. See 1971,
"Seminar on Levels...", below.)

1971 -  "Seminar on Levels of Human Existence" presented at the Washington School of
Psychiatry, Washington, D.C., October 16, 1971. Available as the book, Clare W.
Graves: Levels of Human Existence, by William R. Lee, Chris Cowan, and Natasha
Todorovic. Includes a reprint of the 1970 Journal of Humanistic Psychology article,
"Levels of Existence: An Open Systems Theory of Values," which is not available in
electronic form. Order at Store tab

1971 -  "Levels of Existence Related to Learning Systems," Paper read at the Ninth Annual
Conference of the National Society for Programmed Instruction, Rochester, New York,
March 31, 1971

1971 - "How Should Who Lead Whom to do What?"  Presentation at the 1971-1972 YMCA
Management Forum

1973 - "Let Us Bring Humanistic and General Psychology Together: A Research Project Needing
to Become." Presentation at the NIMH, Washington, D.C.

1974 - "Human Nature Prepares for a Momentous Leap" The Futurist, April, 1974, pp. 72-87.

1977 - The Never Ending Quest: Dr. Clare W. Graves on Human Nature, manuscript of book
project stopped by poor health. Reconstruction published 2005.

1981 - "Summary Statement: The Emergent, Cyclical, Double-Helix Model Of The Adult Human
Biopsychosocial Systems" (Handout prepared by Chris Cowan for Dr. Gaves's
presentation in Boston, Mass., May 20, 1981)

1982 - Unpublished Seminar Handout  (Used by Dr. Graves in his presentations sponsored by 
The National Values Center; prepared by Chris Cowan)

For additional references from Dr. Graves' work, go to the bibliography in Source section

WHY THE PEOPLE ARE NOT AS RESILIENT AS THE GOVERNMENT WOULD LIKE

That both sides of the house left or right are both aiming to decrease the size of our government and associated public service. This is a weird time  where the right use the same rhetoric of the left and visa versa. 

They both are acknowledging what David Cameron said in regards to how do governments do the same with less money as the debt of most western governments is currently unsustainable.

So to see my observation we should look at what they mean by smaller government. One way of governing less, we need as a people to be doing more, unfortunately we can't do much more because years and years of overgoverning has made the people so compliant  that they have become dependent on those that govern them. This is one o the major reasons why the cost of government has blown out so much

Literally the hiring of thousands of people to ensure the compliance of others when if you really want  a resilient society you need to develop diversity within the governing framework.

For example if people could practise managing themselves they will get better at it and save the government much money, however to have people to take on that responsibility without it being about the money you need to promise them - Autonomy and recognition


So when it we use for example the following behavioural observation. If I want people to learn how to look after themselves, then you need to give them permission to do it in ways that work for them which might mean that the framework they put around themselves and their community might be different to the one the government might wished to see and this is the risk.

That to achieve self reliance, you need to free up peoples autonomy to both make decisions and proceed with resultant actions.


An example would be the following

A law that runs across a state that one part of the community thinks should be allowed while in another part of the state does not.  The cost of implementing a compliance system is greatly reduced in the are it is not allowed and nearly nill in the area it is allowed.. It's by insisting that all should live under one rule ensures a very costly level of enforcement.

another does not. if for example a shire made local law supported by the vast majority of residents that ran at odds with a state law then by allowing that shire and it's community to it run it's course they are learning about self management,

it goes to the core of managing the managed.

Supporting Videos

Political
David Cameron: The next age of government

Anutha Human - Neville Yoeman