This is distribution of the family’s name and attention between all its individuals symbolizes the divine participant observer native to all humans. It is primary in some humans, and undiscovered in others. It is distributing Itself as far as possible rather than consolidating and putting all Its eggs in one basket. A family concentrating on itself rather than flowing out into government, culture and church causes it to rot.

Similarly, in spreading the Light as far as possible; neither Church nor Government experience a higher concentration of the divine participant any more than Business/Culture or Family/Marriage.

The divine is present in individuals, not in one mandate individuals participate in. All four mandates are “sponsored” venues experiencing “tail winds” - none can hold claim to spiritual or social primacy.

Being the “West” representative which means “Beginnings” symbolized by “Fire” - Family is where human community is “kindled.” It is literally “living light.” It moves naturally toward the “East” where business and culture occur, symbolized by “Water” and where social action “Ends” before returning to the family.

Human experience is allegorical as well as literal and individual history concurrently incarnating the divine participant observer we do violence by calling “God.” It is better to refer to the divine participant observer more specifically than to settle for an over simplification in all cases.

“Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler.” - Albert Einstein

Because we find ourselves in different capacities and we focus ourselves in different ways, we must also approach the divine participant observer as the same. We must look at ourselves as mirrors and learn from ourselves what the divine participant observer is like, albeit imperfectly. In one context we are mothers, fathers, sisters and brothers; in others we might be elders, governors, managers, etc. The term God is nondescript and ultimately disconnects us from the quadripartite context in which we live. For example, to call the divine participant observer “King” is to at the same time invoke the divine presence in the universe, and to indicate a government context.

The term God has one connotation in human society today; not familial, not governmental, not business/cultural, only church and in that mandate in a very fractured way. It has been moved over into one quarter of human life, and only a small fraction of that single quarter of life. Meanwhile, “God” means “the invoked.” It can be said in fairness we invoke the divine participant observer in all four mandates.

Incomplete.

If your 10 year old daughter is in earshot of teenage boys shouting sexually explicit solicitations, does freedom of speech apply? What is your recourse to protect your daughter except to leave the premises or directly intervene? Without a universal platform for what parenthood means, it is unlikely that appealing to the other parent will accomplish the silence of the teenagers. Violence against the teenagers will also send the wrong signal to the young girl, so leaving the area is all that can be done. Complaining to an administrator of the facility, especially a commercial facility which needs revenue, will usually be quixotism. In that situation the parent of the girl is alone.

In at least one circumstance, the above, it is necessary to mute another person’s speech without directly stopping them from speaking by force or persuasion. On the internet this happens all the time. Freedom of speech has evolved online to allow both abuse and freedom of tranquil wholesome content without censure. One can easily block communications from another person without causing much more provocation. In that case they can even stay where they are online and not be forced to leave. How though, is this option made backward compatible with physical-reality social situations?

Handling someone in your office, or a neighbor can be messy business but without gaining control over the thoughts and words aired one might become unproductive and ultimately quixotic. A certain degree of forethought has to happen. Not to become exclusive and isolationist, but in order to interpose strong relational “codes” which are adhered to at-will. This allows people of opposing views to co-exist, understanding the boundaries they cannot cross, and inviting the penalty of separation if they do not comply with something they expressly agreed to ahead of time.

In this case, it is not only an interpersonal “legal” agreement without a government court to back it, it is even more powerful. Words themselves create space for certain words and limit the space of hearing to only be filled with certain thoughts and ideas, in more words. So this is a higher Word itself being the authority in the case of lower, lesser, inappropriate Word. The clincher is the ability to actually leverage this higher Word with the judgment necessary to apply the authority needed.

Freedom of Speech then becomes the personal lack of inhibition on the part of the speaker, which then allows Word itself to create space for the speaker, on his or her “terms.” Attention itself attains a level which is reserved for authoritative speech. Essentially, a court is created between two or more people. This demands adherence to Reason or the sharing of the same illusions so that some form of order can govern the conduct of both people speaking. Either there is logic, or there is some shared balance of lies; either way there is recourse and the ability to enforce one or the other’s Word.

In the instance of “Open Limited Attention-Space” which is achieved by Word being self-governing, which I’m looking at like a “Word Court” there is universal/cosmic law applying itself. Reason, itself, whether in part or in total, is creating space for Word itself to hold its court and arbitrate between two speakers. This can only happen in the case of partnership which is based on respect, friendship, or a tradition where there is an accepted precedent of respecting the boundaries of another person.

Otherwise, if there is no restraint, there cannot be friendship, partnership or tradition because over time so much negative experience would build in the channels of communication and clog the arteries of speech itself. Every interaction would become an attack or a defense, regardless of the seemingly amicable tone or harmlessness of content. It would not be the full expression of both people but the guarded and injured personas carrying out an unnoticed and possibly unintentional tyranny over one another. The pride and prejudices of each person would not allow the two individuals to communicate. This may look like free speech, but if it is, it is imprisonment of peace.

In the case of some form of “peace imprisonment” where communication becomes a projectile weapon or subtle warfare going on, quality of life for all involved will fall faster and faster. It may not be noticed because words cannot be shared on the topic if words themselves are the battleground. In that case, a third party observing the situation must participate and intervene with “foreign Word” to the context being saved from its downward spiral. Then and only then can “Word Court” be effectual and the civilization, be they two people or two billion people, can be renewed and experience quality in their relationships and life again.

What good is speech at all if what is said will not be heard and cannot lend itself to growth in the speaker or hearer? How can freedom be had at all, in speech or anything else, if there is a gridlock which cannot be overcome with neither violence or words without changing to another “type” or context for Word itself? Freedom of speech itself needs to be liberated today, with fresh insights and acknowledgment of the self-governing dynamics Word would enforce if we allowed it and showed up to its court room; Reason, inter-personal agreements and mutual respect.

Even when indirect cooperation is simulated in present forms of economics they are still direct. For example, in Chris’ Free 2 & 3 at least one person directly pays for the others. So it is really direct for one and “non” cooperation for other participants in the exchange.

IASCT is similar to the “pay-it-forward” idea where a person carries out a certain number of acts which are seemingly unreciprocated generosity.

The thing is though, we have this feeling of scarcity and risk which causes us to be fearful about giving away much. People give away their goods in Free 2 and Free 3 because they are not giving them away at all. They experience remuneration on the back-end from one big fish rather than many little fish. The premise of IASCT is that the universe is not a closed system and it has participants which are undeclared, or at least unrevealed, but who nonetheless catalyze transactions of a certain kind. That is where the Synergistic aspect comes in, and it takes place on a grand scale.

It takes a degree of faith, yes; but it is valuable to list because it is truly and legitimately Free #4. All the faith it takes though, is the amount of faith a virgin has in sex. Experienced yet? No. Aware of? Yes. Then one day sex becomes experiential knowledge also, but it was “real” all along. And funny enough, sex itself brought the virgin to the market.

Another analogy of IASCT is an obscure form of electric coils which actually keep gaps in the amount of cord wound. Normal coils cover all the space on the toroid with cord, or they do it somewhat arbitrarily, not working from any “universal” awareness. In the Rodin coil for instance, there are two wires which wrap around and there is a space left where a third wire could go. The coil is far more efficient because it has no resistance, first of all, and because it has a participating element which is not immediately apparent. The space left in the coil is space for an invisible but present “synergizer.”

When we do economics in a direct fashion, we create resistance as well. There is support to provide, customers often disgruntled, etc. This is in one sense “natural” but in another sense it is the down side of not pursuing indirect generosity as a business model. I will make a diagram of this, or perhaps Chris will since his are so nice.

The common belief is advertising moved online, but internet based ad revenues are also falling, just not as quickly.

In emerging markets print advertising is not effected, but in technology driven societies a dramatic advertising recession is gaining negative momentum and building downhill speed.

How are companies surviving if they are not advertising?

Search engine optimization is rising to the challenge of sustaining businesses today. Interested clients search for specific products and services themselves rather than being directed by advertising. But this is only one way business as we know it transformed, and it does not solve the situation of new offerings needing to gain public awareness. New options must still be exposed to customers and that is what advertising previously achieved. If the market is not aware of a product or service, it will not search for that offering. Therefore a balance of outgoing marketing and incoming search driven business must be achieved. Authors and artists feel the need for this balance especially.

For many years businesses literally “made a name” for themselves. Now demand itself sets the terms of markets and creates businesses. Brand loyalty applies, but it is secondary to demand originating in the customer who searches. This is a change of direction in marketing. Previously a ‘buzz’ was generated around a service or product and that attracted new business. Now, the buzz originates in customers and that attracts businesses to meet specific demands. Businesses analyze search terms and position themselves to receive traffic already there.

Covered at TechCrunch: http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/09/05/negative-momentum-newspaper-ad-revenues-gaining-downhill-speed-even-online-is-declining/

Business is returning to being a cooperative effort. Marketing is a one-way operation less and less. Businesses cannot ’cause’ their idea to become the desire of a customer if the advertising industry is set to collapse in 2009 in its present trend. Now marketing must work both ways. In destabilized economies essentials take precedence. A change of tone and intention in business is taking place. Businesses may not convince customers of something that does not meet their needs. Only products and services which fit with the real life of the market are heard.

CareCaster, the online prayer community catches the fall of print and online advertising today. It provides a way for new offerings to become legitimately woven into society. The customer is aware of the new businesses and charities because the community itself has a vested interest. Customers support the organizations they pray for. Businesses and charities present themselves to the community for evaluation and support. According to prayer guided personal convictions, donations and investments are directed to the appropriate organizations.

This transformation moves from an unaware community of consumers which is coaxed, to a cloud of witnesses watching and supporting businesses and charities. Prayer communities catalyze organizations according to clear needs in their own lives and those around them. Rather than ‘consumers’ – community members are customers and vested owners. Businesses and charities create embedded interest groups who prayerfully direct resources to a common goal. In this way, creatures – individual and corporate – petition the Father for daily bread, online.

www.bezoe.com – www.carecaster.com

Rolling my stone under foot
Sitting on a rock, seat rock
Dirty gravel far as eye looks
Under the only tree we stopped

He seems untouched by the heat wave
Deep desire etched into his forehead
I am much less a man still being made
Following night and day, I need no bed

No destination, we never left we only go
My sole occupation, know new steps myself
Over land and water, to each foe we bow low
Our friend each pebble and dim evil blow dealt

Shaking dust off my feet so I can collect more
Lifting our brother up from a seat is for arms
We surge to horizons, meet them, see over
Man is when the lifting clock is fully armed

Together these quarters of the brain form a complete S E L F:

• Security
• Esteem
• Legacy
• Freedom

According to research in neurology, the title of CEO, or Chief Executive Officer tends to focus one on disproportionately left-brain characteristics in executives and diminishes the right-brain in many ways. It causes a separation of the hemispheres. The brain is a symbol and tool of a conscious person, and separation in that context shows personal, spiritual, schizophrenia.

One definition of the title “CCO,” or Chief Compassion Officer tends to focus one on a complete view which comprises both left and right brain. Compassion requires all four aspects of the human brain. This is true for the other two definitions I also link to the acronym, Chief Creative Officer and Chief Congruence Officer.

The Chief Compassion Offer title is a technology in and of itself. It aims a leader at solutions which free the world -and- the company being lead. Executive acuity is only one facet of what is required of a human individual with corporate responsibilities. Using the term CEO is merely to do with the status of their particular entity in the context within which they exist. It isolates one from humanity. Mishandling these distinctions carries with it untold damage to the human race.

Titles, names and other words we repeat over and over are matras, affirmations and powerful neurolinguistic programs influencing our mind. It is vital that we carefully choose such words and do not follow the consensus around us blindly. A CEO is not sufficient. There is more to leadership than Execution of decisions. To hold a company or world together takes Compassion and a complete SELF.

In my opinion, the same question applies to military people and attractive individuals. Not everyone would be a mercenary, others would. Not everyone would be a stripper or prostitute or generally “easy.” The critical factor is why a person fights and why a person engages in a sexual relationship. Is new life coming of this fight or bedroom scene? The same is true for “digital people.” It is said that everyone has their price and that every woman would “give it up” if the prize was high enough, in material terms, but is that so? Is our code today stored in condoms and discarded, or is it fertilizing the eggs of a world we know must become today?

Some fight for honor, some fight for glory, some fight because they could not secure another job and they would be cleaning trash off sidewalks if there were university sponsorship attached. Some programmers code for beauty and aesthetic design, wanting to see an elegant solution come to be. Others write code for money, and will be seen leaving the office promptly at 4 or 5pm. People who understand the ins-and-outs of computer hardware can be content with an above average livelihood and geekhood, but others feel a need for super-abundance in material terms. The critical factor is again, “why.”

If one is insecure, or has more esteem than is proper, it is necessary to compensate in material for what they cannot feel to be balanced in the spiritual. Shy without, inadequate within. Proud without, inadequate within. Others, such a Gandhi or others who sacrificed themselves for their people, would endure pain and suffering for a greater good than their own standing and outer status. They had inner talent that did not need to be applied in society, it could be totally committed to individual goals and character which was itself applicable, alone, without connection to a group, or social applause.

Were Gandhi or Yeshua of Nazareth, or Deitrich Bonhoeffer a programmer, neither would need patent protection, awards, degrees, large salaries, etc. They would measure their success in mouths-fed that were previously empty, or children housed who were previously in poverty, alone. The individual in its highest expression is for other individuals, not money, which is a group distinction. Money only enters into the picture, for programmers and mercenaries, when a group values something above the individual, like gold, or fine material objects, or areas of land. Because of this, people operating from character with talent will withhold services and focus on lowly options in life if it satisfies their inner demands.

It does not follow that superior training and talent in computer fields causes one to be wealthy, unless the society at large perceives the individual as the highest value in life. It is also true that not everyone has a price, and women of honor and virtue would have the courage to turn down a high ticket solication for sexual favors. Programmers and computer technicians are either whores and mercenaries, or upholders of the highest good and mercy workers like Mother Theresa or Elizabeth Elliot, to name two. Digital talent has exposed a line where sexuality and information systems are under the same laws and ethics.

Is Paris Hilton’s time best used between the sheets, beside a pool, on a fellow-rich arm, or is it more prized in sincere service of others, likely getting dirty, and with dirt, not with bodily fluids besides sweat, infant urine and bodily solids serving the elderly? Is a programmer’s time best used creating novelties and serving frivolous industries, or is it more prized in sincere service of others, like losing name recognition and joining task forces committed to massive projects for the greater good and to ultimately free the individual? Systems are systems, be they institutions or web applications. Where is time spent in this mix? Why do we fight? Why do we code? Do we love another individual in bed, or is our performance being graded and our compensation affected in market categories? Would we do what we do for no recognition at all, or for no compensation at all? If not, why do it at all?

Why do you apply your talent to a given situation?

The basic jist of the story was that Paul Revere was waiting for a lantern signal. There were two ways the British could attack, one was a land route, the other by crossing the river. The story went that if two signals were given, the river route was being used, and if one signal was given, the British army took the land route. We were taught he went riding at midnight yelling “The British are coming!” Our very seats in class were a tribute to his vigilance. Had he not seen the signals, perhaps because his cell phone rang, or he got an email, we would all be British today.

Upon research later in life, I now read that Paul Revere was one of three riders, and they yelled “the regulars are coming out” because the place was covered in British military presence. Not only that, it is also true that the person who gave the lantern signal was Paul Revere himself! Longfellow’s poem was taken as historical fact, and we were all informed of it as news. In History class, most everything is news to you.

Today, we read news headlines and receive messages and signals which are equally stylized and changed to fit various interests. This raises the question, what relevance has news today? If every piece of news takes research to verify, is it news any longer? If the riders waiting for Paul Revere’s signals needed to go and check if the signals were authentic, their plans might have been thwarted on the spot. That is the case with most military intelligence and urgent queues. So what about us? Are we well advised to read the headlines and import fret into our hearts on command, or might we need to export ourselves from the house to see for ourselves? Perhaps news today is a mere suggestion, like a special on a menu. It is the one the chef wants to make the most of, not all there is to enjoy.

Digging deeper into the issue of relevance, is news really as worthy as we all think? As it stands, my trusty RSS reader Vienna picks ups several hundered news pieces per day from sources I selected. If I were to read each article and research each one, it would take me several days for every day of news. When I read from the BBC, I am confronted with about a hundred pieces of news in that source alone. Each one would like my full attention, and none of them reads, “in case you are doing something very important for humanity, please ignore this and continue your work.” It would seem that no one is assumed to be doing much of great relevance. Everything is news, from the dating habits of the CEO of Myspace to reports on Mars exploration.

Now, I am not down on news. As a web systems designer, I am kept at the front of the pack in terms of industry movements in the SaaS world, and I am able to hear of any piece of information in the world through manifold sources. This greatly improves my life and perspective but only some of it is relevant. I appreciate the ability to see a video from the president of Georgia giving his view on the Russian invasion of Georgia while I sip tea. When I come back with another cup of tea I see the Russian spokesperson giving his account of the Georgian provocation of Russia. So who is right and how much time must I spend determining this? Perhaps one person ought to be hired at be zoe to monitor the news for us all.

In the news of the Georgia/Russian conflict, I read that 12 soldiers were killed and 1,400 civilians, at the time I read. This is an outrageous and disproportionate piece of information pertaining to loss of life. What am I to do with that? My friend Bjarne Nicoliasen might suggest that over population was just slightly decreased. Being someone interested in quality of life and not reduction of life to attain higher quality, I believe that my own actions as a social systems developer in the internet applications sector are in higher demand, and that my time ought to increase in value by this information - but that I may not be required to focus as much on news either. If Paul Revere was reading a newspaper, or Bjarne was watching the news instead of pursuing their own message, would not something be lost to humanity?

In every programmer of even moderate giftedness, you have a seed which might become an entire world of new potential for the planet. What used to take many people to accomplish, with misery and monotony, can often be ‘taught’ to a piece of technology. Vast networks spring up almost over night today, when it used to be amazing to get a few people to sign a document. Web systems today improve quality of life in many ways, and we have not yet introduced much of the world to the internet still. Seeing the value something like Amazon or Ebay or Google or Ubuntu to human culture, I believe it is in the best interest of humanity for programmers to focus on their work and not to fret about events which are to be changed by a unified, digital human race.

This is not to devalue everyone who does not write code. Some have one talent, some have another. We are each members of each other, like many parts form our bodies. In our physiology we do not have the eyes continually looking at the attributes of other bodies, and we do not have our hands constantly fishing around in our noses, or our hearts drawing oxygen from air and our lungs pumping blood. Our survival would be impossible, or we would starve or degrade into an unprogressive digressive tendency, and not a life. I believe this means we need less news, and better news, and new means for obtaining news.

Earlier I joked that maybe we need to hire some one in our company just to track the news. This is actually not a bad idea as companies grow larger, and in fact much of what executives do is monitor the news with their staff assisting. But more appropriately, what information we receive must change, and when we receive it must be considered. Right now it is not possible to only receive urgent news such as, “the hill beside your house is on fire,” or “California is falling into the sea” or perhaps “today the consciences of many rich men has moved such that the IRS has let go of its choke hold on behalf of private interests which own the Federal Reserve.” I will need to track all the news sources to find out about these things, and watch outside my window. Until Globally Conscious has standardized new channels and practices for news, this must remain.

Web programmers are bridging the worlds we live in today, and either compounding or minimizing the trauma we experience in our information age lives. I strongly suggest that we organize ourselves in such a way that news is throttled and saved for later by trusted sources so that our programmers are not spending their time looking out over the world they are naturally setup to transform. Setup trusted networks of people you respect and ask them to watch the news for your whole team. Keep water-cooler conversations on the good stuff, like Ruby tricks and the joy of data model methodologies, or today on the Tzolkin. If a Volcano is erupting near you, or the planet is attacked by aliens, or someone in your family is having a child, someone will tell you. Until that time, web programmers, spend more time listening to your users than the headlines, because you are directly changing the world where all the news actually occurs.