Saturday, April 19, 2008

Addendum to "Stability through Equilibrium"

<<< Back to original article by Dr Sam Holliday

This paper outlines the reasoning behind the theory of Stability through Equilibrium (StE), as presented in the essay of that name dated 30 March 2008. It is suggested that StE is more useful for decision makers than the Hegelian dialectic. However, StE certainly cannot replace Hegel’s philosophy. This article is only an attempt to answer legitimate philosophical questions that those familiar with the views of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831) might ask.

Hegel was one of the thinkers of German Idealism that challenged Enlightenment thought of the 17th and 18th centuries. If you ignore the tendency of philosophy to slight the virtues of faith, duty, and group identity in favor of reason and thinking, there is much to be learned from German Idealism of the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries in general, and from Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) in particular. Kant attempted to counter the excesses of the French Enlightenment of the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries: Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592), Rene Descartes (1596-1650), Charles de Secondat, baron de Montesquieu (1689-1755), and Francois-Marie Arouet de Voltaire (1694-1778). He also attempted to counter the extreme anti-rational collectivist views of Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778).

Kant’s aim was to provide a balance between belief and science, to have both religion and reason, and to prevent feelings and skepticism from causing extremes. Kant realized that how people think about God shapes how they related to others and how they make decisions. He wanted the benefits of the reason, science, technology, and individualism of the Enlightenment and also to prevent a fragmented, godless, passionless, amoral society. He wanted what we now call modernism. However, Hegel and Johann Fichte (1762-1814) corrupted Kant’s thoughts. And then others corrupted Hegel’s thoughts: Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834), Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860), Soren Kierkegaard (1813-1855), Karl Marx (1818-1883), Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900), and Martin Heidegger (1889-1976). The outcome is today’s postmodern thought.

To understand how German Idealism has been corrupted it is necessary to outline Kant views. Kant argued that people are both controlled and control themselves--that both internal will (volition) and external knowing (cognition) influence the actions of individuals. He conceptualized a duality: unique idiosyncratic individuals with Free Will and members of many groups each having norms, constraints, roles, rules and standards. This established a sound basis for decision-making. And when combined with the ideas of the Enlightenment this was the intellectual basis for the modern era of Western Culture (1715-1965).

Kant’s views were not deterministic since he gave greater importance to the inner compass and will of individuals than to external controls. For Kant the will (volition) of individuals is something that can be observed (man is a phenomenon) since will is the cause of behavior. “We learn,” according to Kant, “what this empirical character is only from phenomenal effects and from the rule of these which is presented by experience.” (Kant, Pure Reason, 1901, p. 309) For Kant, behavior results from the interaction of will and desire (optative). “All the matter of practical rules rests on subjective conditions, which give them only a conditional universality (in case I desire this or that, what I must do in order to obtain it), and they all turn on the principle of private happiness.” (Kant, Practical Reason, 1909, p. 123). In other words, for individuals freedom is a prerequisite for autonomy.

Accordingly Kant establishes two causes for action. One is experience and the other is an individual’s inner compass. Experience is external to individuals and controls choice and behavior as a result of group norms, rules, roles and laws that can be social, commercial, or governmental. Ancient Greek thinkers (Thucydides, Plato, and Aristotle) referred to such external controls as secular authority. Today secular authority is often called “the rule of law”. Moral, ethical and religious belief interacting with will provides the internal controls of choice and behavior. The ancient Greeks referred to this as sacred authority. For Kant it is not either secular authority or sacred authority, it is both—as parts of a whole. For him there was no direct cause and effect relationship. Control and choice were the results of knowledge (cognition), experience, self-interest (desire), and will. “Complete unity, in conformity with aims, constitutes absolute perfection.” (Kant, Pure Reason, p. 389). In other words, Kant claims that the goal is not the superiority of anything over other things, but an equilibrium that resulted in stability.

Reason, according to Kant, cannot be explained solely in terms of mental operations on sensation data. This contrasted with Schopenhauer “form and rules for thinking operations” (Schopenhauer, Sufficient Reason, 1891, p. 136). Kant introduced control through a “mere idea” that lies “beyond the sphere of possible experience…. if we desire to see, not only those objects which lie before us, but those which are at a great distance behind us; that is to say, when, in the present case, we direct the aims of the understanding, beyond every given experience, towards an extension as great as can possibly be attained.” (Kant, Pure Reason, 1901, p200)

However, Kant did visualize an end as a result of conflict/cooperation, i.e. he had a teleological vision. This was one of the reasons many of the outcomes of German Idealism have been so tragic.
One of the advantages of the theory of Stability through Equilibrium (StE) is that it made it unnecessary to engage in philosophical arguments over the meaning of reason, reality, skepticism, subjectivism, objectivity, metaphysics, epistemology, rationality, phenomena, noumenal, competence, necessity, and universality.

Hegel presented his views as a refinement of Kant’s views. However, his writing and the lecture notes of his students are confusing. Since Hegel’s death, in 1831, very different, and contradictory, movements have claimed his philosophy as their inspiration. Perhaps this is because his writing is so obtuse, abstract, and unintelligible it can mean many things to many people. However, all of these movements have adopted his theory of dialectic, his glorification of centralized governance, and his vision of progress as endless unfolding motion and turmoil toward some Utopia.

Hegel’s glorification of the state results in him claiming that the citizen’s life and property should be used to further state ends, and that the state was a “higher being.” Individual freedom was turned upside down by the unique view that “Only that which obeys law is free.” This created an association between the dialectic and “rule of law.” The adversarial approach used by lawyers is essentially the process of a thesis being challenged by an antithesis resulting in a solution through a synthesis. Secular authority (the rule of law) is one way to control behavior. That is it specifies certain kinds of human conduct that is no longer optional, and is in some sense obligatory. Law, and the legal procedures to enforce compliance, is the way someone specifies what others should do and specifies the unpleasant consequences if they refuse.

Also Hegel’s glorification of the state diminished the importance of sacred authority. Sacred authority is another way to control behavior. It provides an inner compass to individuals (from moral, ethical or religious belief), which imposes obligations and withdraws certain behavior from the free option of individuals. Therefore, through reliance on the procedures and processes of legal systems and through ignoring sacred authority, postmodern thought shows its Hegelian origin.

Hegel's romantic vision of all-powerful central governance and a Utopian “World Spirit” had little impact on the English liberalism of David Hume (1711-1776), Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and John Stuart Mills (1806-1873) in the 18th and 19th centuries. However, both English liberalism and the hierarchy of knowledge have influenced postmodern thought in the 20th century. Nevertheless, Hegel’s views are the foundation of postmodern thought in Europe and America today.

Modernism refers to the progressive economic and administrative rationalization and differentiation of societies that evolved in Europe from 1500 to 1914. It was built on the ideas of Francis Bacon (1561-1626), Rene Descartes (1596-1650), John Locke (1632-1704), and Isaac Newton (1642-1727). The result was the modern era of Western Culture from 1715 until 1965. The fundamental aspects of modernism (belief, group identity, loyalty, and science) are means developed during this period to achieve order and prevent chaos. Modernism evolved from Hebrew-Christian, Greco-Roman, and Germanic roots and the striking cultural growth during the European Renaissance. The ensuing three hundred year struggle between belief (accepted thoughts) and science resulted in significant advances in both science and theology. Today science is given credit for most of this progress.

After the death of Louis XIV in 1715 the Old Regime in France failed to make the adjustments needed to reflect the struggles between belief and science during the Age of Reason (18th century). This was the start of the modern era. During this evolution of Western Culture change was commonplace and repeatedly some ‘answers’ proved to be no solution at all, while the dignity and creativity of the individual grew rapidly. By the early 19th century that struggle had profoundly weakened the influence of religion on shared civic virtues, and for some science became a secular God.

Modernism continued to evolve during the 19th and 20th centuries as long as it maintained the Golden Mean, i.e. equilibrium among the four fundamentals.

1. Belief provided individuals with the Free Will and inner strength to control their behavior, to be creative, to enjoy freedom, to have self-esteem, and to be responsible for their actions. It provides an inner compass, which Christians call the Holy Spirit. It prevented the individual from being subservient to either the state or nation.

2. Group (national) identity provided a community with a sense of kinship and a unique intellectual, creative, technological, and artistic culture.

3. Loyalty (patriotism) supported the structure for a state of political unity, a democratic polity, and economic success.

4. The scientific method established an objective means for determining what is correct by uncovering falsehoods.

Modernism flourishes when these four fundamentals are all vibrant and in equilibrium. However, whenever, one is take to the extreme, and dominant the others, the evolution of modernism is slowed or cut short. Such extremism and lack of balance is what current modernists want to prevent in their struggles with postmodernists.

Modernism continued to evolve during the industrialization of the 19th Century. By this time the nation-state with the people, rather than a King, as sovereign became the dominant actor in international relations; this necessitated the social contract, group identity and loyalty. In turn a cohesive, formidable nation-state required shared civic virtues (based on moral, ethical, or religious beliefs). Many abstract moral concepts from the past, such as Virtue, Sin, Good, Evil, Right, Wrong, Country, Duty, Glory, Honor, Beauty, and Truth, were retained - and sometimes redefined - during the Victorian era by the efforts of the ruling class. Belief in such moral concepts is one of the four fundamentals of modernism. It provides an inner compass for individuals.

However, during this period rigorous, mathematical thinking and reliance on mathematical logic were introduced. This was another of the four fundamentals, i.e. the scientific method as the criterion for establishing what is correct by uncovering falsehoods. Europe in the 19th century was a time of hope and optimism for most people (‘the many’) with a good balance (a kind of Yin-Yang) between belief and science; this was maintained until the start of World War I. It is true that the optimism of the 19th century was challenged by the fears and anxieties among a few intellectuals who looked to the past (Hegel) or looked to the future (Nietzsche).

From Modernism to Postmodernism
Optimism among the people vanished after World War I and there were attempts to eliminate or modify the four fundamentals of modernism—we can now recognize this as the birth of postmodern thought. Until 1947 this challenge to modernism had no name, but we can accurately refer to it as anti-modernism.

Many of those who witnessed the chaos, death, destruction, and horror of World War I, sought ways to achieve a better world. This was the breeding ground of anti-modernism. The youth of the 1930s had been shaped by what they considered the failure of science, liberal politics, democracy, the nation-state, reason, and Christian belief. They wanted to end the world as a lawless jungle ruled by money and power, with conflict of ‘every man against every man’. As always this despair had its philosophical and psychological underpinnings. In 1923 Albert Schweitzer referred to a disastrous imbalance between material and spiritual development, which would result in a loss of freedom for the individual. This fatalistic, pessimistic outlook eroded belief in the dignity and creativity of the individual and in ‘reason’ as the supreme arbiter. Traditional belief was replaced by ideology, with both ‘true believers’ and the disillusioned.

One aspect of blurring the concept of the nation-state was advocacy of a ‘community of nations’ governed by mutual consent under the rule of law in which legalistic diplomacy and law enforcement paradigms would prevail for the whole world. This gave life to The League of Nations. Another aspect was the prophetic voice of ‘progress’. This facilitated the spread of Marxism and nihilism. Nietzsche declared that “God is dead” and put the nation-state as the focus of belief. The League of Nations failed before World War II, and Marxism failed during the Cold War. By the end of the 1950s many of the ideologies had lost their vigor and had become artifacts of the past. Yet the sentiments behind these legacies of the post World War I period were to reemerge in the Counter Culture movement of the 1960s and in postmodern thought.

Between the two World Wars the revolt against absolutes by ‘the few’ was expressed in the literature of Jean Paul Sartre (1905-1980), Andre Malraux (1901-1976), and Albert Camus (1913-1960). They were reacting to the contradictory or hypocritical interpretations by politicians who often appealed to some abstract ‘right’ in order to conceal selfish motives, to individuals using absolute ‘truth’ in the support of partisan and irrational opinions, and to claim change and progress as the road to some utopia. Their thoughts reflected changing moral beliefs, the emergence of psychology, a focus on feelings and emotions, and the questioning of the scientific criteria of reality among ‘the few’.

However, their words had limited impact on ‘the many’ because they were presented in intellectual and esoteric terms. For example in 1938 Camus wrote in Noces: “The most repellent form of materialism is not what is usually thought of as such but the kind that wants to make dead ideas masquerade as living realities and to divert towards sterile myths that obstinate and lucid concern which we have with what is mortal in ourselves”. While such intellectual arguments might have been limited to ‘the few’, between the two World Wars there were widespread emotional reactions among ‘the many’ to the tragic events of World War I and the economic depression that followed.

The primary actor in international relations under modernism - the nation-state - depended on abstractions such as duty, social contract, honor, civic virtues, country, moral code, and patriotism being considered absolutes. Anti-modernism undermined these abstractions with its emphasis on concrete situations, the subjective, feelings, and an individual’s personal response to his environment. While many people still attended religious services, shared religious beliefs no longer shaped behavior as they had in the past. For an increasing number of people the source of all behavior was the unconscious, and moral, ethical and religious beliefs were only projections of the unconscious - making the idea of Free Will a dangerous myth, and the Holy Spirit foolishness.

Without the unifying absolutes which a more self-confident age was ready to affirm, common identity was lost. The ideal of a rational, responsible, consciously motivated individual was seriously damaged. Many analogies appeared of man as a machine. This was in a time of industrial societies, the expendable man, economic depression, instability, anxiety, violence, and deceit. In response the leaders of nation-states had to offer ideological certainty, Realpolitik, and the adventure of power, as answers to the emotional reaction to the apparent senselessness of existence felt by ‘the many’. The result was World War II.

Following the chaos, death, destruction, and horror of World War II a new generation followed the path of the post World War I generation. This generation wanted to create a new culture that would be a break from the past. They did not want an evolution of modernism; they wanted a paradigm shift in Western Culture. They found their answer in sentiments for multilateral governance, socialism, self esteem, feelings, compassion for the disadvantaged, and ‘new age religions’—actually they were putting old wine into the new bottles of postmodern thought.

They turned patriotism upside down by making dissent a key element of patriotism; they weakened national identify by stressing multiculturalism and diversity; and they ridiculed Christianity as childish superstition. Basically they did not want to seek a balance between shared belief, national identity, patriotism, and the scientific method as the arbiter of truth. They sought ‘progress’ toward their vision of an ideal world. They rejected Imago Dei (that humans are created in God’s image) and they made people superior to ideas with all ideas equal, rather than all people being equal before God with ideas being either right or wrong.

Postmodern Thought
The term postmodernism was first used in 1947 with regard to architecture, from there it move to art. By the end of the 1950s the term had spread to the inner circles of most academic disciplines where there were endless debates to define postmodern thought. Today those debates continue.

Although the term postmodern did not spread throughout society with the Counter Cultural movement of the 1960s, the ideas in a revised form did. During the 1960s postmodern ideas were expressed in terms of the rights of females and blacks, compassion for the disadvantaged and people in less developed countries, resentment of the ‘oppression’ of Christian churches, and how to avoid getting killed in some distant land. This remains the heart of postmodern thought today.

The extremes and violence of all movements based on Hegel’s philosophy (i.e., Communism, National Socialism, and Postmodernism) flow from an emphasis on logic and thought, to the exclusion of existence (being), and on a consciousness (mind) that creates its own version of reality. In other words there is no objective reality. This means there is no objective right and wrong. There is no Truth. The atheists of these movements have simply replaced the God of religion with a supreme being in a state, nation, nature, leader, ethic group, or social class.

Since they ignore existence (being) these movements lack the benefits of moral, ethical, or religious belief. It is this belief that provides individuals the Free Will and inner strength to control their behavior, to be creative, to enjoy freedom, to have self-esteem, and to be responsible for their actions. This belief, not reason or thought, provides an inner compass, which Christians call the Holy Spirit. It prevents the individual from being subservient to a state, nation, or leader, but belief can also cause evil when carried to the extreme. To correct this deficiency there must be a balance between belief and the scientific method.

Postmodern thought accepts some questionable premises:
1. Humans are mere mammals with large brains.
2. The mind (consciousness) is either identical with brain activity or existentially dependent upon brain activity (materialism).
3. Freedom (and Free Will) is an illusion since all behavior is predetermined.
4. Change is application of the dialectic in order to achieve progress toward a utopian vision.
5. The world consists of relatively fixed, static, discreet material particles.
6. Humans think in terms of space. Humans are the most intelligent adaptive organisms on earth.
7. Human behavior is the automatic resultant of pre-existent forces as motive flows into action, i.e. it is deterministic.

The theory presented here (StE) is based on alternative premises:

1. Humans are not mere animals with sensations. Human are distinctive because they have an inner compass, which influences their behavior. The belief of an individual, that person’s inner compass, might be God given (the Holy Spirit), or the outcome of survival instincts.

2. Humans act upon both what they perceive from their external environment and from their internal compass (affections).

3. Humans have Free Will since choice is experienced directly by the whole person (both external perceptions and the inner compass), and the behavior is only deterministic (mechanical responses) when the person lacks an inner compass.

4. Change can be either good or bad depending on decisions made to affect the rise and fall of groups. Humans are the creative force of change.

5. The world reflects continual adjustments of thought and action of life within functional wholes made up of coordinated parts. Life is a matter of time, change and quality, not of space, position and quantity. The flow and essence of life can be visualized by the theory of Stability Through Equilibrium (StE).

6. Humans think in terms of time and space. Time is fundamental to change whether it is building, growth and improvement or declining, fall and decay. The past, present and future are all aspects of the reality of living but the future can never be the same as the past.

7. Human behavior involves choice, which is difficult when it requires effort to overcome laziness, custom, tradition, feelings and emotions. Humans can be creative because consciousness is the selection of images and choice of reactions to those images.

Good and evil are terms that have emotions and political utility, but no true meaning. They depend on desires and ends. One person’s, or group’s, good is often other’s evil. For example, there is no agreement on the meaning of freedom, responsibility, honesty, duty, or honor. The saying of Confucius “What you do not like when done to yourself do not do to others” comes as close as anything to being a universal value. Although most of the Ten Commandments have wide acceptance, they certainly do not define good and evil for all humans. Evil is complicated by the fact it is tied to religious beliefs in the goodness and power of God. As the atheist Spinoza has noted (Ethics, IV, pref.) “As far as the terms good and bad, they indicate nothing positive considered in themselves…. For one and the same thing can at the same time be good, bad, and indifferent”.

The history of Ethics is evidence that this is an issue of continuing interest, yet to be resolved. Good and evil are words that will always be disputed; they are too subjective. Therefore, the solution in StE is to keep the subjective and the objective in balance—to seek Truth through belief, the adversarial method, and the scientific method. This solution might not satisfy the requirements of philosophy, yet it provides a useful tool for the art of decision-making.

Since 1965 there has been a struggle between modernism and postmodernism. Michel Foucault advocated raw power solutions to determine who gets what when and how. Jacques Derrida advocated the deconstruction of language since no language can describe reality. Richard Rorty advocated subjective agreement within members of competing ‘tribes’ to challenge realism and thus resolve conflict.

Under modernism people were expected to think in terms of equality of opportunity, to think that through ambition, skill and personal effort individuals can be successful, that society should merely remove artificial barriers and then judge everyone by the same standards. However, postmodernists see these values as oppressing some people, which makes them racism and sexism - the greatest of evils. Therefore, they consider it moral to deconstruct such “obsolete“ views through de-stabilization of the core values (inner compass) of individuals. (Kate Ellis, Socialist Review 91:2, 1989, pp, 39-42) This is why postmodernists often use ad hominem attacks, set up straw men, make absurd moral equivalences, and attempt to silence anyone who questions their views. (Stanley Fish, Free Speech, 1994, pp 68-69 and Andrea Dworkin, Intercourse, 1987, pp. 123-126)

Language is the key to how postmodernists want us to investigate the origin, nature, methods and limits of knowledge. They claim that language concerning interpersonal relations is a way to manipulate, and that it is really only an expression of the unquestioned assumptions of the author. For postmodernists words do not have a specific meaning; they can only be “unmasked”, i.e. to determine different interpretations. Language, according to postmodern thought, has been a means used by those in authority to manipulate others--the way that authoritarian, patriarchal societies of Western Culture have kept women and "others" in their place. Therefore, for postmodernists language never ends in reality. Language is always a self-referential system for each individual. Language only reveals more language. Deconstruction is, therefore, a never-ending process. Fortunately StE allows such postmodern rhetoric to be ignored since decision-makers can agree in advance on the meaning of words by using objective standards and thus come to a shared awareness of reality.

We have not yet reached the era of postmodernism sought by Michel Foucault, Jean-Fran├žois Lyotard, Jacques Derrida, Richard Rorty and Stanley Fish. However, since postmodernists reject many aspects of the modern era (1715- 1965) this struggle has caused a decline and decay of Western Culture.

Stability Through Equilibrium
The theory of Stability through Equilibrium (StE) is an attempt to challenge how today’s postmodernists misuse the ideas that after 1500 evolved into the modern era of Western Culture (1715-1965). It is an attempt to link theory and practice, to recognize that decisions should reflect both the freedom of individuals and the need for common identity and cooperation, to take into consideration that there is no utopia, and to recognize that all groups first rise and then fall.

Today there are at least three reasons why postmodern thought is an inadequate tool for the art of decision-making:

1. It relies of moral relativism.
2. It does not reward performance.
3. It undermines Western Culture.

According to postmodern thought there is no existence (being), and individuals can create their own personal versions (narratives) of reality. Therefore, shared belief does not exist: what is good according to one narrative is evil to another. This is moral relativism. Without moral, ethical, or religious belief there is no way to differentiate between good and evil. Therefore, there can be no right or wrong. Hegelian dialectic keeps the violent struggle going. It is self-perpetuating.

Postmodern thought redistribution rewards without regard to merit or performance. Without objective truth postmodern thought attempts to eliminate or modify many of the roles, rules, standards, and character that were accepted as proper, good, and right prior to the 1960s. The result is that postmodernists want to take from wealthy, powerful, heterosexual, white males, who were the cornerstone of the progressive economic and administrative rationalization and differentiation of societies that evolved in Europe from 1500 to 1914, and to redistribute rewards to minorities (that is, everyone else).

This is why, for many, multiculturalism has replaced the modern era ideal of the melting pot. And why postmodernists consider Christianity evil, but understand how Islam serves the human need for religion, and consider all cultures and ethnicities equally valid. Postmodernists will never give this up. It is the fuel that keeps their ideology alive: no struggle, no theme of oppressors versus oppressed. It is the very basis of their nonjudgmental, nondiscriminatory ideology, in which the elitists and ideas are equal, and in which disagreements are resolved by discussion and compromise - but never by the use of force.

Ever since the invention of this challenge to modernism, by the anti-modernists after World War I, the entire Western Culture has been reduced to a shadow of its former self. All vestiges of masculinity have been diminished. This includes fatherhood, father figures (authorities), fathers being responsible for their family unit, and the sanctity of marriage; as well as changes in education (all levels), the military, the church, journalism, and with regard to sexual relations. Postmodernists using “political correctness” have perverted all of Western Culture. Paradoxically, many postmodernists in Europe and America have embraced Muslims as a tool of violence to destroy Western Culture.

For some it is difficult to understand the theory of Stability through Equilibrium (StE) and thus easy to ignore or discredit. Here are the six key elements of the theory:

 First, it is offered only as a helpful tool in the art of decision-making, not as a contribution to philosophy.

 Second, stability is the condition of a system that maintains balance among its parts through continual adjustments, not a condition of permanence or an attempt to preserve the status quo.

 Third, equilibrium is a means of self-regulating (homeostasis) to maintain the internal stability of the system regardless of any internal disruptions or input from its external environment.

 Fourth, equilibrium is a dynamic process that relies on feedback in order to make necessary changes. This process requires both contingency planning and the ability to recognize, and respond to, random events.

 Fifth, equilibrium requires structures and processes to insure checks and balances.

 Sixth, Conflict/Cooperation is a dynamic whole with two interacting parts; the two parts cannot be separated in the theory of Stability through Equilibrium (StE).

As with all theories Stability through Equilibrium (StE) is subject to revision. Although it certainly has implications for philosophy, there is no intent to describe, or explain, it in the technical, academic terms used in the study of philosophy. If the words used do not accurately describe reality they need to be changed, or defined better, so as to insure effective communication. If the theory is shown to be lacking as a tool for the art of decision-making, it needs to be modified.

The adversarial approach, as practiced by lawyers, politicians, and academics, is the outcome of interpretations of Hegel’s dialectic theory and his utopian vision. As a result secular authority is drifting toward ever-greater centralization—the “whole” of which Hegel speaks—and endless self-perpetuating conflict. An alternative is needed for decision-making. A theory of Stability through Equilibrium (StE) seeks self-regulating systems of conflict/cooperation that maintain a stable system through coordinated responses of its parts. Also this theory would encourage decentralization and greater freedom. StE should replace the adversarial approach for decision-making in public affairs, both foreign and domestic.

Copyright © 2008 Armiger Cromwell Center, 3750 Peachtree Road, NE, Suite 374, Atlanta, GA 30319-1322. 404-201-7374. Permission is granted to forward this article by e-mail to friends or colleagues on a fair use basis. For reprint permission, contact Armiger Cromwell Center at

Printable format (in Google Docs: may require registering)

- <<< Back to article by Dr Sam Holliday

- Filed on Articles in in "The Dystopia of Paradise", cat. Philosophy

No comments: