Howdy all, I've been a little delinquent in getting a new posting up since I'm in Denmark delivering a twelve-day intensive MythoSelf Facilitator's Training program. We've just finished day three of the twelve and so far it's been a blast. The group is incredibly diverse in some ways ... folks from over ten countries in the room, an almost even mix of men an women, the youngest is just past twenty and the oldest approaching eighty (I'm in-between `'~>) ... lots of variation in race, color, creed ... all that good stuff. Yet, I'm finding more commonality than diversity at the core of the group. Most simply everyone wants to be living from his or her core ... from the essence of their being. Given the work I do this would not be so unusual to find in a group that I attract. However, what makes the group so fascinating to me has to do with their desire to be living authentically, while also living well ... neither compromising themselves nor their lives. While this may sound familiar and the doing may be simple ... it ain't easy. As I like to say, "All it takes is giving up everything." As simply as I can put it ... the system wants to come to rest ... this could be referred to as the cessation of all desire, a total sense of completeness ... wholeness. In this way I say a person begins to operate from well-formedness. The basis of being well-formed begins with becoming aware of the extant reality and acknowledging things as they are and not as you'd like them to be ... or even wish they were.

This has absolutely nothing to do with attraction ... or manifestation ... or desire of any kind, shape or form ... this position resides beyond desire.

I know when I make these statements I am liable to turn off a large group of folks who want to or do believe in things like The Laws of Attraction and the entire manifestation manifesto ... yet for me I am simply presenting a position where the drivers are not organized around either having or doing ... but around simply being. This position doesn't conflict with having or doing, it just subordinates them to being as the primary consideration and form. In some ways this could be called the the anti-"What The Bleep" doctrine (that should be fully shooting myself in the foot for a large contingent who might otherwise have agreed with at least some of what I'm suggesting `'~>).

Yet, in the end it seems so simple ... the most likely way to have the life you are designed to be living ... a life of complete satisfaction ... would be to begin from where desire is not.

I could also put it this way ... only when desire has been fulfilled or reliquished completely can there be any sense of knowing what you want ... prior to that need drives the system. The sense that something must be missing resides at the core of self-interest ... and makes social interest at best secondary ... the individual become primary over the community. However, the very concept of living both lightly and fully demands that the individual organizes in relation to the community, to allow themselves to be contained by and consumed by the community ... while never compromising themselves to it. In this way the individual lives in oscillation between being created by and creating the community that contains and consumes them ... co-creating the reality they are living. This premise stands at the very center of almost all mythological systems of teaching, the great and perennial wisdom traditions ... the titan that consumes itself to create its own progeny ... the human phoenix. In the end the sacrifice of self-interst leads to creating futures worth living ... and leaving ... allowing for the intention of legacy and largess ... to replace greed and gluttony. So here I am in the land of the Vikings exploring the patterns of living lightly in this world ... Best regards, Joseph Riggio, Social Ontologist Langebaek, Denmark

Good Morning Folks, It seems to me that we all want the benefits of big business. Personally I want to be able to continue to turn on the lights in the evening in my home. This requires a substantial business to provide for the production and delivery of electricity to my personal residence and to maintain the infrastructure that allows for that. I also understand that getting there sometimes requires an investment by the local community or the larger society like when we dam a river to provide hydro-electric power with public funding, or when we give a private company the option to build a nuclear plant on a public waterway and use that water for cooling and steam generation. And many times in those cases because of the recognition of public investment these businesses are subject to public review. Yet it seems that all businesses trade off of public resources ... our oceans, our waterways, our skies, our roads ... just to name a few. And that a disproportionate share of the value created by these businesses operating in part due to the access of public resources are being diverted to a very limited number of well-placed individuals. One of the newest arenas where this has proven to be the case has been in the massive successes of those using public airways for the transmission of media ... super gains to a few far-seeing individuals using a limited public resource. So the argument for Social Captialism begins with asking a different set of questions premised on a different kind of thinking than we've used in the past. Virtually all consideration of past formulas have been based on the patterns established during the era of the great civilzations where a ruling class literally owned what we now think of as public resources ... land, water, etc. ... and controlled in an absolute way the ability to conduct business of any kind. In the era of monarchies and empires this ruling class controlled the flow of all commerce and the collection of all taxes and tariffs for themselves. And in many ways our social systems today remain a patchwork of laws and regulations designed and developed to serve these older systems of govenment and rule. So the outstanding question I have been wrestling with for some time has been:

"What will it take for us as a society to make the leap from the established systems that emerged during the Agricultural and Industrial Ages to a new system appropriate for a Biological Age?"

See ... I think that despite what many pundits have proclaimed as the emergence of a new age of technology or information, these advents are extensions of the Industrial Age. In fact I'd go so far as to say that technology and information are ways to extend the reach of the Industrial Age for a few more years. If we look at the path of history we could speculate the following pattern:

Pre-Agricultural - 4,000,000 BC to 3,000 BC

Agricultural - 3,000 BC to 1700 AD

Industrial - 1700 AD to Present +/-50

That means that the Pre-Agriculture Age lasted about 4,000,000 years vs. the Agricultural Age, which lasted about 5,000 years and the Industrial Age, which may run as long as 400 years (or 1/10,000 as long as the Pre-Agricultural Age). The significance of this among all else would include the idea that our fundamental nature evolved in relation to our ability to succeed and prosper in pre-agricultural times (hunter and gatherer days). We are biologically best suited for a pre-agricultural existence in many ways, although our ability as species to adapt to wide ranging environmental and societal systems truly astounds me when I think about it. Yet, I'm speculating that we are in fact evolving to a new Biological Age, one defined as much as by anything else by the desire to establish steady-state systems on a mass societal level. The will see a revisioning of the current economic models based on growth and/or compounded growth. Instead there will be growth of a much more precise and specific nature, especially in regard to our economic entities like businesses. I can envision a day in the not too distant future where we will legislate steady-state systems as matter of public law, and limit both the kind and the extent of growth for any company that operates within these systems. My favorite author in terrms of exploring this idea as fiction has been, Ernest Callenbach the author of both Ecotopia and Ecotopia Emerging, both on my must read list. Both of these books explore the philosophy and speculate about the science of a sociey built on steady-state principals. My favorite authors in terms of exploring this idea in practice would be, Paul Hawken in books like Ecology of Commerce. and Ray Anderson (the CEO of Interface, Inc., the largest manufacturers of modular carpeting in the world) in Mid-Course Correction. The entire idea suggests that we build our economic, social and political models around establishing sustainable biological steady-states. What I find so powerful in this suggestion revolves around how I think these models are more matched to us biologically as well, and will put us into social systems more suited to our essential nature in biological terms.

For instance, rather than building huge social systems designed to manage and integrate the activities of tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of people in the interest of economic production and delivery, we will be building systems of a maximum of two to five hundred people, and as small as ten to fifty people, and these economic pods will link together to form a network that produces and delivers the economic goods in the Biological Age.

Of course whole new systems will have to be conceived, designed and constructed to accomplish such a radical change in the way we do business. However, this may likely coincide with entirely new businesses that will also evolve in the Biological Age ... genetic engineering, exo-farming (off-planet agriculture), bio-machines ... many for which the essential ground work has already be laid. As we continue to unfold the complexity of the basic biology of the planet and begin to recognize the interconnectivity of this complexity we are finding ourselves faced with the daunting task of releasing ourselves from many established beliefs and practices ... i.e.: how we know the world to be.

Yet I also see this as the dawning of a new age where the entire premise of what I'm referring to as Social Capitalism comes into its own, and those businesses that are most ready to operate within the paradigm of Social Capitalism are also those that are most likely to succeed ... and succeed wildly.<

Well enough speculation for one day ... and I am looking forward to the transformation of society, capitalism and business as wel know it ... Best regards, Joseph RIggio, Social Ontologist Princeton, NJ

Good morning, So here I am defending business as positive social influence and yet I realize that there are at least some folks who are just not buying the premise. I interact with enough people during the day (my own twenty year-old son included in that list) who question whether or not business can ever serve the larger social intention. Yet for me I don't think it can be a question of, "Can business serve the larger social intention?" ... I think it has to be the quesiton, "How can business serve the larger social intention?". In my mind no larger social institution exists than the collective institution of business on a worldwide basis. We have business that runs the gamut from super mulit-nationals with hundreds of billions of dollars of revenue to small sole proprietorships that dot the landscape in virtually every country on the globe. Each of these are part of the larger collective institution of business, i.e.: directed activity of an individual or group of individuals that hold as one aspect of their total intention to create a positive profit through the production and/or sale of goods, and/or the delivery of services. In many ways that serves as the definitive definition of business as I think of it. When an intention to create a positive profit doesn't apply we are not talking about a business. We could be talking about a social entity, or a civic entity, or an educational entity but we are not talking about a business. The singular aspect of the creation of positive profit defines the institution of business as distinct from all other institutions. The objection that some folks seem to have starts with the very premise that an intention to profit exists. In their minds the very drive to create profit corrupts. Yet when we consider the history of business and the impact this institution has had on the quality of life for humans on the planet it seems undeniable that a strong positive influence can be accredited to the impact of business and the commercial activities associated with it. Yet I recognize we can also point to the ills business has created as well.

The outstanding question for me has become, "How can we organize our businesses and our business activities to serve all those impacted by the business at every level ... including the larger social structure which houses the business and gives it permission to operate?"

I think that for this to be accomplished we must first and foremost rethink our essential considerations of what business has become and what we want it to be going forward. One group that has given this some significant thinking are the folks at B Lab Inc.. In essence they are proposing a certification (voluntary) for businesses that are premised on delivering value to the full range of stakeholders that the business interacts with on every level ... internal, external and systemic. This translates into a business structure that attends to issues such as sustainability, social integrity, employee wellfare ... This kind of thinking defies the ordinary legal definitions of business in the public sector. Our legal system in the United States for instance has many times voiced the opinion on precedent setting cases that businesses must increase shareholder value as their primary consideration, despite any social intentions, i.e.: employee welfare, social integrity ... Yet we may be the generation that changes this limited and destructive trend. We may be the generation to begins the transformation to business as a positive social institution. One scenario that can emerge within such a conceptual frame retains the central intention of business of creating positive profit. However, in addition there would be demands placed upon businesses to perform in the greater service of the society/ies that house them before they gain the right to claim a profit for the shareholders. In essence since businesses cannot operate or succeed without the ongoing and substantial support of the society/ies that house them their first obligation must become the service of the society ... and they must organize (and be allowed to organize) in such a way as to allow for the earning of a reasonable and even substantial profit when they do so. I think I'll pick it up again with some practical ideas of how we can institute a social change in the domain of business .... while retaining what may be best served by capitalism and the benefits that accrue as a result of this economic approach. Best regards, Joseph Riggio, Social Ontologist Princeton, NJ

Evening all, I've been working my way down from 30,000 feet ASL and approaching the ground with this particular thread. I think that it makes some sense to see if we can touch ground today. I think that the conversation began from a guiding principal I hold near the center of my personal philosophy, which guides a significant portion of my professional activity ...

We (i.e.: humans) are first and foremost social beings.

What this means to me largely centers around the idea that every action must be considered as a social action ... and also in relation to its social impact. This leads me to my second proposition ...

One of the greatest social institutions to have emerged in the entire history of humanity has been the institution of business.

And as a species we seem to be exquisite at formulating ways and means to conduct business in every quarter of the globe. These ways and means seem not to be able to be unwound from the political systems that contain them ... they seem inextricable from the larger systems within which they operate. The one system I've focused on -- and the one that most folks I interact with on both a local level in the community where I reside as well as on a non-local level internationally where I practice professionally -- has been capitalism. The single most defining characteristic of capitalism that jumps out from the background for most people who look into it would be the idea of private property ... ownership of property, including real propery, intellectual property, resources, capital ... many, many types of private property. One of capitalism's leading proponents, Nobel Prize winning economist Dr. Milton Friedman, states the the leading benefit of capitalism revolves around its ability to allow people to be Free To Choose. Essentially his position states that the less regulation and/or interference imposed on the market the better ... more growth, more progress, more success ... more freedom to choose. Of course this works equally well with my postings on Dr. Clare Graves starting with Thinking Through The Numbers and continuing with my Why Is Any Of This Important series on *zaadz. Dr. Graves position was simple ... Let People Be! ... sometime prefaced as follows ... "Dammit ... Let People Be!. So when we think about capitalism it might be fair to start with the idea that what capitalism strives for begins with creating a context of opportunity for people to pursue their interests and profit from them by creating value for—and with—others. The more successful capitalism becomes at some level the more value must be being created. When this value includes the aim to benefit the entire community that contains the business there will be a gain to the entire social system.

This represents the path beyond Conscious Capitalism ... acting with a sensitivity to the impact on the larger system while pursuing authentic fulfillment in providing value to the community beyond the business ... to a position I'll refer to as Social Capitalism ... where the action of the business organizes around delivering the greatest social good through the institution and practice of business.

The great advantage to this type of proposition ... i.e.: Social Capitalism includes the fact that it relies for its success on highly refined and proven methodology. Capitalism work wonderfully for what it does, and I propose the essential model can extend beyond the production of profit in purely economic/financial measures. The model can be used to produce any outcomes where people have a sense of a vested interest in the outcome ... personal ownership of an outcome vs. property. I'll venture to say that the new breed of entrepreneur ... a kind of social entrepreneur ... those who are demanding authentic fulfillment in their work, usually with an eye on the contribution they are making or wish to make ... are taping into a version of Social Capitalism, an emergent form of capitalism growing from the roots of the earlier forms of Conscious Capitalism that others began planting long ago. Well I wanted to touch ground ... and maybe I have, but just ... I promise we'll drop it down a level again next time and I'll spend some of my time typing out how I think one can become a full-fledge Social Capitalist ... building and using social influence, to build social capital ... to create positive social impact ... the essence of social ontology (my primary focus behind and before everything else). Until next time then ... Joseph Riggio, Social Ontologist Princeton, NJ

Good afternoon all ... I began this thread at 30,000 Feet ASL as I like to say. It was my intention to position business in relation to and as a function of two things:

1) Profit ...

2) Social Interaction ...

And, to place these two things, Profit and Social Interaction as equals in the conversation that I am proposing. Many people, especially socially conscious people it seems, come to any conversation about business with the starting proposition of business as an evil entity ... or at the very least profit as evil. Some also come with the proposition that business could be a force for social good. I find it most interesting that some can hold both positions simultaneously ... i.e.: business as an evil entity that could be a force for social good.

Probably I'm actually most in the camp of those who think of business as equally hold the potential for being evil or a force for social good ... depending upon the leadership and constituency of the particular business in question.

When business becomes organized around (Milton) Friedman's brand of laissez-faire capitalism I think it too easily falls into the hands of those who are either largely or solely driven by self-interest ... i.e.: the profit motive. Oversimplifying his economic theory Friedman himself would say that business has no obligation other than to make money for shareholders. And his justification for this position was that in a purely market-driven system ... i.e.: pure capitalism without any constraints ... the market would always self-correct, forcing the producers (i.e.: businesses) to create the highest value propositions possible for consumers This sounds great on paper, but seldom proves out in the actual market-place. A clear example of this would be Sam Walton's model for Wal-Mart. This model rests on two very simple premises:

Offer the lowest prices for any given item

Make the widest possible range of products that consumers want available to them conveniently

As any who have followed the success of Wal-Mart knows this model proved to be particularly successful in the U.S. market ... but now without significant social costs. The formula follows Friedman's advice perfectly ... i.e.: provide the highest possible value to consumers which will in turn create the greatest possible profit to the shareholders. The Wal-Mart example also demonstrates how a supposedly free system actually manipulates the social system when a single provider such as Wal-Mart becomes so influential that it begins to shape the system in an imbalanced way to support its own outcomes over those of all others. This does not follow Dr. Milton Friedman's theory of a free-market system, or even what would be called something like pure capitalism. Instead it uses the government to bolster the aims of a priviledged few over the aims of the many. [We'll save the specifics of Milton Friedman's economic theory and the Wal-Mart example for some other posting ... in the meantime if you want to pursue this a bit more try the streaming videos of Dr. Friedman's PBS TV show Free To Choose ... these are well worth watching and a treat (or maybe a terror depending on your point of view I guess) ... Arnold Schwarzenegger hosts the video presentation.] So I think ideologically that Friedman's economic theory at the heart of capitalism makes perfect sense for an evolving society ... especially for a society aiming at the greatest opportunity for the largest numbers of people within that society.

As simply put as possible Friedman's economic theory was in his words based on the premise of being Free To Choose ... the ability to direct one's economic life without interference.

Economically it would be hard to object to Friedman's ideas based on the evidence ... i.e.: those societies that allowed the greatest freedom in economic choose have prospered financially to the greatest extent overall. You see this in societies like those in the United States, Japan, Hong Kong, Israel ... and you see the opposite in the most controlled economic societies on the planet like those much of Eastern Europe (until recently) and others. When you look you'll find the evidence glaring ... if you use this as the sole measure of success. When you add in other less individual benefits, beyond financial gain and immediate self-interest, you can paint a different picture or tell a different story. When you look for the percentage of poor individuals, especially working poor individuals, in these societies the numbers of people you could define in this way stand out. When you add in the cost to other societies that are supporting the benefits and gains accrued by those in the most financially successful countries again the picture distorts and the story changes from one of enormous success to one of great human tragedy in some cases. When you again step back and take an even larger view, and begin to consider the cost on the planet at-large and the costs that have been accumulating through time the picture and the story become depressing to anyone willing to really consider what the evidence suggests ...

... a highly polluted environmnet

... over-fished and dying oceans

... entire societies suffering famine

... people dying from the lack of clean water

And, this of course represents only a partial picture or story of the world today.

Yet, when we look at what business has done on the plus side we see that in virtually every case these same ills are least present where the society has most supported the success of the businesses operating within these societies ... and that these societies are the ones most likely to export support to other less successful societies as well.

Yet, we can also say that relatively these societies have in the past taken more from less economically successful societies than they have given back. So the questions we are now facing and have now begun to ask (rightfully so IMO) include the obligations of the most successful societies in relation to those less fortunate. We are also asking what obligations the businesses that have been able to grow and become so successful while housed in these societies have to the societies that house and permit them ... and to those societies who have been unable to date to create such successes. I think these are good questions to be asking. This begins our conversation about about Social Influence ... i.e.: who has social influence and how are they using it ... and maybe how should they be using it? Largely what we can call Social Influence begins with the way we perceive the world ... what we choose to put our attention on ... and then how we interpret what we perceive. The output/result of this process we call decision-making ... although I prefer the phrase, decision-taking. For my two-cents this begins with our thinking process which itself resides in our way of being ... i.e.: who you are. When we begin with ourselves we access our greatest potential point of leverage.

My attention has been, and continues to be, on how can we most leverage the success of our businesses and our business model to extend the benefits to the greatest number of people on the planet ... and to the planet herself ... via the very institution that has proven so successful in producing these benefits for so many already ... the institution of business.

In closing this particular post what I think remains important will be to remember and consider that the things that got us to where we are today, and the way we do things today, may not be what get us to where we want to be tomorrow. I remain ever hopeful that we are both capable of and actually learning the lessons of history that we can and are applying to creating futures that work for ever greater numbers of people going forward. Best regards, Joseph Riggio, Social Ontologist Princeton, NJ

Evening Folks ... I've been out of town for a couple of days ... I had an interesting flight, read a couple of interesting books, and had a couple of interesting meetings ... all in all an interesting couple of days ... One of the most interesting aspects of it all for me was how after-the-fact I'm now looking back and realizing that somehow I've construed it to be all about one of my top fascinations ... PATTERN. That probably demands a bit more of an explanation. Really when I say PATTERN I mean ... PATTERN RECOGNITION, i.e.: the ability to notice for and perceive patterns that are emergent around us. Specifically, the work I do emphasizes the ability to recognize patterns that people operate ... individually and in groups (small and large). This resides close to the heart of what I refer to when I speak about Social Influence. For years I've been working at defining patterns that people use in all sorts of social situations ... communicating, decision-making, leadership, etc. In the process I've identified and defined a number of recurring patterns in numerous domains. I've spent quite a bit of time codifying these patterns and working with them around the idea of improving performance, e.g.: team development ... leadership skills ... Yet for about the last four years in an accelerated, escalatign way I find myself thinking more and more aloud that PATTERNS ARE AN ILLUSION ... THEY DON'T EXIST!.

What exists that we call pattern are the descriptions we use to contain disparate entities ... objects, people, ideas ... and, in so doing we group these disparate entities together in seemingly logical sets that after the fact appear to be part of a pattern we identified and not one we imposed.

My work has become about getting my clients to the position where they can stand outside of ... or maybe beyond ... pattern, at least long enough to recognize whatever patterns we think we see we've created. The freedom thus attained allows them to freely go back to imposing pattern on anything and everything with the awareness of recognizing that the patterns they are imposing don't exist. We make it all up ... and, knowing we make it all up gives us the ability to choose what we will be making up before we do ... allowing us to be more selective and discriminating in the outcomes we produce ... on our own and with others. Knowing about the illusion of pattern hails as one of the great secrets of social influence and social power ... and the ability to create social impact. When you realize that every pattern we perceive we've created ... either on our own or with others ... we are able to shift the frames within which we experience our realities ... on our own and with others ... we even possess the possibility of shifting the realities of others as well. If the idea of shifting the realities of others seems to carry a manipultative, malicious or even nafarious overone to it for you consider that this may be exactly the power we grant to organized media and virtually all artists that we pay any attention to whatsoever. A great book, or painting, or film ... any great artwork has the potential to shift our reality. I'd go so far as to say they have the potential to shape our realities individually and collectively. Sometimes the artists do this unwittingly, without the preconceived intention of shifting or shaping the realities of others, but shifting and shaping them nonetheless. And, there are some folks who will shift and shape realities with great intention. Intentional or not our realities are often shifted and shaped when we come into contact with powerful ideas, powerfully presented. George Lucas did this with Star Wars ... the Wachowski Brothers did it again with The Matrix. Individuals who are able to hold and convey powerful ideas consistently and coherently are particularly powerful ... Mother Terresa, Marin Luther King, Ghandi ... and there are numerous other examples I could just as easily mention. I'll leave this for now with the idea that we are likely to be either victims or victorious when it comes to being influenced by the patterns we perceive all around us ... and the first step begins when we decide what those patterns will be before they find us. Best regards, Joseph Riggio, Social Ontologist Princeton, NJ

Morning all, Welcome to a new week!!! I got a great quote today from Zaadz Quotes: Stoicism:

Begin at once to live, and count each separate day as a separate life.
-Seneca (4 BC - 65 AD)

I really like this idea that we can choose to begin again, anew each day. In fact to a great extent I believe that it may be the only sane way to approach the lives we are given. Staying on theme: as social beings our lives are inextricably intertwined with one another, we are by biological default connected. Therefore each day we begin our lives anew ... together. It seems to me that we are becoming more aware of the evidence of this as we struggle to come to grips with living in a patently connected world. We are living in times of unprecedented technology, and two aspects of the technology available to us today connects us globally in ways unimaginable even half a decade ago ... transportation and communication. We can be virtually anywhere we want to be physically on the globe in twenty-four hours or less and we can be anywhere we want to be virtually on the globe instantaneously. We know more today about what has happened across the continent more quickly than our grandparents knew about what happened in the next town. One of the incredible inventions of our species, trade/business/commerce moves directly on the rails of transportation and communication. Business has both been changed by and in turn changed the nature of how we move ourselves, products and information around the world throughout known history. Business has proved to be a major force in shaping not only those directly affected by in by choice or proximity, but also the planet herself. Now we are beginning to ask some different questions about how we want this change to be affected, and about the larger and true cost of business to individuals, society-at-large and the planet. We are beginning to ask, and even demand, that businesses begin to act more responsibly and responsively to these larger questions and the issues they raise. And, I'd say rightly so ... However, are we also asking the better questions as well? These might be questions about:

How has business changed the world for the better, improving the lives of individuals, whole societies and even the planet herself?

How has business become the dominant social institution on the planet and how can we use it as a social institution to create a future worth living in together?

What are the expectations and demands that we want to be placing on business to improve the quality of life for those living today and tomorrow ... not just for ourselves and our loved one, but for all those who will come after us?

There seems to be no question that business has become a dominant and powerful social force. Yet because of this we have come to resent the imposition of business, or maybe the businesses, in and on our lives.

When we remember that we created the idea of business, what it is ... how it works ... what it can and cannot do ... and that all of these things are only interpretations that we can change, adapt and modify to use as we please in ways that best serve us all ... then business can once again be seen for what it most surely represents ... a potent human idea with the potential to be transformed into an ideal if we are willing to invest ourselves to make it so.

One of my quests has been and continues to be to find the leverage points to help business to become this ideal. I do this with leaders of businesses ... executives, entrepreneurs, partners, owners, professionals ... and I find them open and willing, even excited, by the idea of the possibility of this transformation. I teach this to students in the BBA program at Parsons | New School University in New York City ... students who come from all over the world attracted by a world-class business education. I find these students ready and willing to consider a larger obligation to the societies they come from and the world-at-large to practice a different and more responsible kind of business practice than they have become familiar with hearing about and seeing up until now. Each time I approach this subject I find hope ... Simply it seems like the time has come to question and overturn what has been put forth as the most basic tenant of business in capitalistic framework, i.e.: the only obligation of business is to make money for the shareholders. This standard no longer applies, no longer seems enough in a world as connected as ours has become ... a world in which the very permission to conduct business demands meeting the obligations of a global community and not only the local one where that business originates.

Until we free our minds of the limits of what we know ... we will remain incapable of creating what we don't know yet ... never has this been more pertinent in the expression of human action we call business than it has become today in our super-connected world.

Yet I believe with proper consideration and conservation we can change the institution of business making it the greatest impetus to positive global change in the history of our planet. We of this day and age are the clarion call to that future becoming the one we bequest to our children and our children's children. SO, what do you think? Am I deluded to believe that an institution as corrupt as some have come to believe that business has become can change to be the single most positive force in the world ... or does the sound of the trumpet in the distance really beckon us forth to a new beginning? Best regards, Joseph Riggio, Social Ontologist Princeton, NJ PS - I'll bring it back down below 30,000 feet for the rest of the week ... stuff like sustainable business practices and human systems in business ... I just want to set the platform high `'~>

Morning, I had some time this morning so I thought at least a quick post would be in order ... Two of the most interesting distinctions I find between folks operating from a Graves Five vs. a Graves Six position are:

When someone operates from a Graves Five position they are usually quick to recognize and acknowledge themselves as operating from a Graves Five position (in context of course) ... and I almost always find that they are interested in the idea of the Graves Model because they think they can use it to understand people and gain an advantage ... e.g.: many of my business clients get immediately how valuable understanding the Graves Model will be in enhancing any marketing efforts they might undertake

When someone operates from a Graves Six position they are typically unwilling to acknowledge they operate from any position at all, claiming that they are beyond or outside of position ... immediately present to the world you might say ... and I often find that they express a real resistance, if not outright resentment, at the entire idea of typing ... "Why do we have to have categories for people?" ... it seems that rather than taking the model as one way of understanding where a person/culture/society/organization might be in a moment, they perceive the model as trying to limit and/or lock a person into a fixed description (which just isn't what Dr. Graves wrote about at all IMO)

Of course these distinctions are broad generalizations, and I'd be loathe to apply them specifically without evidence. I find it interesting though that I can usually identify the pattern typical of Fives or Sixes simply by their response to the introduction of the Graves Model at all. Since I've outlined the Five position a bit it seems like it would be useful to spend a bit more time on outlining the Six value set. Before I begin it would be useful to add that I am using two source of information when I present this model:

Written information by Dr. Graves himself (primary source material and the material I value most) as well as that written by students/scholars of Dr. Graves/Graves Model (secondary sources and derivitive sources - anything that I write about in regard to what I learned from others, including Dr. Graves himself, would fall into this secondary category of information)

Direct observation and practical application, i.e.: empirical knowledge ... since I was introduced to this model it has captured my fascination and I pursued learning about it, learning from it and applying it directly myself, in this pursuit I have become at the very least familiar with the model personally

I state all this because I tend to present aspects of the model in an unusal or unique way in comparison to some others who are writing about and/or using the Graves Model. So with fair and fore warning ... What I find to be true of Graves Sixes (i.e.: individuals/cultures/societies/organizations operating from a Graves Six position in the moment) includes a tendency to look for commonalities first. The obvious compliment to this will be an immediate exposure of difference as well, i.e.: "If we're not the same, we must be different." And, I find anyone operating from this position tends to be highly inclusive ... as long as the folks they are including are already like them. RED FLAG WARNING: (This next bit reflects my personal observation only, and should not be construed to be absolute nor based on exhaustive research.) Along with this positon of selective inclusiveness comes a highly developed and expressed exclusiveness. While there can be a great deal of intellectual tolerance expressed in the Six position, the manifestation of this often runs to extreme and intellectually violent intolerance of positions that are unlike their own. Think the accusations made about intellectual liberal elitists. This will often be the way highly educated Sixes will be seen by Fours and Fives ... even those that are highly educated themselves. I think this becomes extremely important for two reasons I'd like to point out:

I believe from the evidence that the Graves Six position truly does demonstrate more inclusiveness and tolerance than either the Graves Four or Five position - remember Fours believe they know the singular right way ... and Fives don't really care beyond how it impacts them personally in terms of their self-interest

The Graves Six postion evolved after both the Graves Four and Graves Five position as a set of values which includes access to the values of both Fours and Fives, while Fours and Fives DO NOT have access to the value set used by Sixes

When folks who have evolved to the postion where the Graves Six value set becomes available to them the can choose to use this expanded value set (expanded beyond the value sets of Fours and Fives) to actually create a more inclusive community. By example I tend to work with what could be called Conscious Executives, Entrepreneurs and Professionals as my core client group. In fact those I work with are more often than not highly aware and creative individuals who are leading businesses with an intention to promote conscious (and I'd add - compassionate) capitalism. These folks truly want to change the world for the better ... Creating Futures That Work ... as a tagline I use in my business says. These folks are often found in the LOHAS marketplace, and most are Cultural Creatives themselves. All of these demographic labels are highly recognized by virtually every one of my clients, yet many of them will initially resist the idea of using a value set template like the Graves Model when I initially present it to them. One of the things I also see frequently will be the attitude being expressed that: "We get it and they just don't." E.g.: "We get that if we don't do something about the environment the whole thing could crash ... those other folks keep polluting and trashing the world just to make money at whatever cost ... they don't really care about anyone but themselves." I know this might/can sound harsh, yet I also find it to be a common value position among even some of my most aware and highly evolved clients. What shifts once these clients begin to get that these are value positions, NOT the way people intrinscally are ... or a position of BEING, they relax their exclusionary stance and the expressions that emerge from holding onto it. It becomes possible to build a more inclusionary (i.e.: larger) frame for interacting with people successfully ... they get more of what they want, and you get more of what you want. From the position of recognition of differnences of the value sets that various individual/cultures/societies/organization operate out of the true value of the Graves Six position becomes most evident ... the ability to operate at multiple levels of consideration simultaneously.

At their best Sixes create solutions that attend to the desires and needs for the plaurality of constituents in any given context. When they do this they serve both themselves and others brilliantlly ... creating greater value that becomes increasingly available and accessible in many diverse domains of consideration ... commerce, science, art ... virtually anywhere they choose to put their attention.

We are seeing in communities like this one here at *zaadz the evolution of inclusiveness and awareness about how the social networks we build can be used to serve the greatest common good, while at the same time supporting the individuals who comprise them ... and even those beyond the net of the community itself. From my point of view this represents a movement from self-interest to the beginnings of a true position of social-interest that begins at the Graves Six level of social values. Wow ... once again I took a bit of time laying out an idea that I wanted to share. I hope at least some find it informative ... useful ... entertaining ... or maybe even all three. Best regards, Joseph Riggio, Social Ontologist Princeton, NJ PS - I feel inspired to spend a bit of time next time around the idea of business as a social mechanism ... and how business can be used to lead the way as a positive social force ... until then ...

Good evening all, Well if you've been reading along I salute you! I never really intend for a blog posting to go as long as some of mine tend to go, and then again I have been known to write short articles disgused as blog postings frequently enough that I can't say they are the exceptions. When I began writing this series, Why Is Any Of This Important I knew from the get go that I'd have to divide up what I wanted to say into more than one posting. Here I am at number four and I don't know quite know yet where this will take us exactly. So far I've introduced the idea of Dr. Graves' "Emergent, Cyclical, Double-Helix Model Of The Adult Human Biopsychosocial Systems ... hahaha ... now you know why I just refer to it as the Graves Model. Although Dr. Graves descirbed eight of the value sets he outlined in his model, I began at Four, presented a bit about Five and intend to present a little about Six before we're done here. The reason I've chosen to focus on these three levels (Four, Five and Six) are because they are the most numerous and frequent value sets influencing the experience of folks living in or at the edges of the modern, industrialized world. Obviously if this would be taken as a given that would also mean that these three value sets represent the value sets the majority of people most frequently access who are likey to be reading this ... and in addition these value sets will also be the ones that most frequently influence the experience of this group. Generally speaking, if you have some sense of the Graves Model Levels Four, Five and Six you'll have a pretty good sense of what aspects of the model make it important in terms of understanding and influencing social impact ... especially in the larger scheme of things.

Once again, what makes this so important has to do with getting the impact of our values sets on our perception of reality, shaping what we perceive and what we don't perceive ... as well as what others perceive and what they don't perceive.

Simply, if we can't/dont perceive something for all intents and purposes it doesn't exist for/to us. Essentially this means ... if we are perceiving the world/reality through different filters based on different value sets we are operating from we live in different worlds/realities.

Level Four in the model represents a level of values that emerged to bring greater order to the system through the establishment of rules and laws by which to govern and manage a more intergrated and larger system ... a system from which emerged the great civilizations. Level Five swung back from a primary focus on the group to a greater focus on the individual. Where Level Four allowed for the emergence of the great civilzations, Level Five allowed for the emergence of individuals as great men and women ... of art, science, commerce ... all the sundry and various fields of human endeavor. This allowed for the creation of new forms of organization to come into being under the direct guidance of these individuals and their ilk. The opportunistic orientation of Fives created unprecedented progress, development and wealth in the system.Yet with these new opportunities for the individual to emerge as outstanding within the larger context came a renewed sense of self-interest unknow in the history of the species. Along with this self-interest came a disparity of wealth ... groups of haves and have-nots ... equal to or greater than any seen during the reign of the predominance of the Four value set and the separation between the nobility and the commoners. Level Six in classic dialetic form responsed to the peaking of the Five value set and the predominance of the individual with a swing towards valuing the collective ... the group. This led to the emergence of a Level Six value set where the predominant value became plurality ... the values of diversity and equality. This value set puts the emphasis on creating community, consensus and a larger pie to divide, rather than possessing a larger slice of a limited pie for ones self. The Six value set brings a higher level of creativity into being ... a particular creativity aimed at expanding the known vs. the Five orientation to expanding what we know about the known. Next leap ... an exploration into the unique creativity of the Graves Six value set. Joseph Riggio, Social Ontologist Princeton, NJ

Morning all ... I actually wrote a whole post yesterday that I lost :-( Anyway that post was off-topic from this thread ... so I took it as a message from the Cosmos. Here I am back on track (with this thread) today ... So Welcome Back! I can sum up where I left off last with two line from my previoius posting:

If we truly want to know ourselves, we must first know the group/culture/society within which we have been formed.

Virtually all value sets, regardless of what they are or who holds them, are built on the premise of very specific and particular illusions accepted and held as being real as defined by some particular group/culture/society.

I had those separated with the following paragraph in the original:

The values we hold are often not our own, but rather those we have been told are how the world simply “is” … fait accompli. For all intents and purposes the ‘reality’ we are presented with becomes our reality … THE REALITY! This illusion … maya … becomes real when we accept it as real, regardless of the evidence perception overrides any extant experience. (Formatting added)

Well I covered that well enough to set the frame in that last posting (if you missed it, you can read it here: Why Is Any Of This Important ... Values|Part 2). Now I want to jump forward one step in the Graves Model of value sets ... to the Graves Level Five. Fives are organized to seek, find and respond to opportunities in the environment. They are sometimes referred to as entrepreneurial types because they tend to specifically notice for economic opportunities ... openings for them to acheive and succeed personally. Often for Fives my observation has been that this will be associated as much with status as with actual monetary or material gain. In fact I'd said that the idea of economic opportunities actually fits this type particularly well when you apply the equation, economic = control of resources. I'd personally say that as often as not Fives are driven by a fear of shortage ... even to the extent of poverty as much as by anything else that could motivate them to action. This includes BTW the fear of being status poor - not getting the recognition they want and often believe they deserve. Fives are often driven to garner acclaim and fame for themselves I think of some famous Fives as folks like Donald Trump (who I mentioned before) and Martha Stewart. I find it interesting that this trait, being driven to acclaim and fame also haunts many Sixes in the Graves Model who have come through and retain the value set of Five, while acting out of a Six position ... think: Oprah Winfrey. Again, my observation has been that what drives this folks as much as their desire for economic success has to do with a fear of being (or becoming) status poor. Now I've clearly stated that the Graves Model as I understand it wasn't designed as a personality typing instrument and only loosely applies to individuals at best. In any given moment ... and possibly in a particular context ... someone may be acting out of what appears to be a fixed value set. However, Dr. Graves stated in his work that a person always has access to every value set prior to the most evolved one they have incorporated in themselves.

People are NOT LIMITED to a single value set that contains them, they have the option to move fluidly through many value sets to the extent their personal flexibility allows them to do so.

I like the way Ken Wilbur refers to this when speaking about the Graves Model. More or less he says that people have a zone of comfort where they most naturally reside in regard to the value set they operate from most easily (at any particular point in their life). I'd call this their value set strange attractor ... like a dip in their values landscape which draws and pulls them to it more than other features in their values landscape ... like kind of gravity sink of sorts. So then back to the core of our original stated mission in this thread:

If the Graves Model doesn't really apply to individuals as a typology system then what makes it valuable or important?

Well for me first and foremost the Graves Model does represent a societal typology. What makes this so important has to do with how the societal value set influences the members of the society where that value set holds sway. In most of the modern, highly industrialized world (e.g.: the G7-9 countries) the Graves Five position has become the dominant value set. The domination of the Graves Five value set in these countries has produced societies which hold out economic success as the greatest achievement to be sought after, and the collolary of those with the most fame as being the role models of what it has become to be successful. One of the challenges with this has been that these same countries/societies are also the most able to export their values and impose them upon others who might and do hold alternative values. Of course one of Clare Graves other comments was that someone or a society at a lower level in the evolutionary values model will not be able to perceive the values models that are evolved beyond their own as more evolved. He said it will only be possible to perceive values that are at or below the level to which you have evolved yourself (as an individual or a society). Therefore, Fours will perceive Fives as successful Threes and determine they need to be stopped as the early civilizations stopped the barbarian attacks upon their cities and societies. When we begin to get how our own values determine first our abiility to respond by shaping our perceptions as they do we begin to attain the possibility of other choices in our responses. However, we are often most blind to that which we hold as most obviously REAL ... the way the worlld "IS" for us. These become our ubitquitous truths ... all but invisible to us. Yet by looking outside and beyond ourselves we may glimpse the reality that contains us ... and in so doing the mirror of ourselves ... maybe taking the first step in setting ourselves free ... TO BE! ... as the good Dr. Graves was so fond of saying. Best regards, Joseph Riggio, Social Ontologist Princeton, NJ