To what extent can we change behaviour by changing what we think?
Included here is the discussion of norms and beliefs that are also part of culture.
Self-consciousness
For this I am relying mainly on these sources; Capra and Luisi, Ch12 Damasio and Hands Ch24
It appears that there are several levels of consciousness
- Cognition is the sense of detecting the environment and taking things from it (nutrients) to enable the organism to maintain itself is ubiquitous.
- Core Consciousness is the ability to sense the environment; a simple biological phenomenon that provides the animal with a sense of self at one particular moment in one particular place
- Reflective Consciousness which I call self-consciousness; at some point in evolution our consciousness passed a threshold, we no longer just sensed and reacted to the environment but also had a continuing sense of self through time. This is not limited to humans but reaches a peak in humans when augmented by language and writing.
Rational (abstract) thought
Why attach any importance to rational thought? Well it is this process that enables us to invent mathematics, philosophy and science. The processes that, supplemented by writing, allows their transmission through time, starts and then sustains the build up of human knowledge.
We may debate how much free will exists in the sense that our agency is always constrained by circumstances (what went before) as well as our natures, physiology, culture and beliefs. In management this notion is often referred to as room to manoeuvre, when a manager works out just what can be altered and what must be accepted and mitigated. What I am certain of is that through the power of thought we can imagine lots of things that are not predictable, our imaginations are freer than our agency. This is the essence of describing something as utopian, we can imagine it but know we could not live up to it. Holistic Political Economy addresses this directly see the discussions in Part 2 Assess - Vision, especially Vision for Realists and Part 3 Consider - On Power and On Change.
Ethics
If the build up of knowledge and its pursuit through mathematics, philosophy science is the product of rational abstract thought we may include ethics, i.e. the question of what is or makes for a good life.
Values and Norms, and beliefs
However it is hard to put values, norms and beliefs in the same category. These can almost be regarded as matters of choice in the sense that they are the product of abstract self-conscious thought. The though may be less than rational and some of it may not be easy to control Kahneman To stress this consider that even when these beliefs are deeply culturally embedded there are always dissenters.
A widely citied problem with our historic culture is the deep seated belief (now being challenged by systems thinking and integrative knowledge) that we are separate from nature and have a right (god given instruction in the Judea-Christian culture) to exploit it. Recently this took a more secular and aggressive turn. In modern aggressive capitalism we see a set of reinforcing beliefs and behaviours that are very dysfunctional and destructive. They emphasise individualism and diminish all aspects of life that are not economically transactional and so become inherently destructive of the environment because they rely on mass consumerism, and growth. This fetishises instant gratification. We kid ourselves that the sum total of collective greed will have the emergent property of public good.
This may have been OK when there were not many of us; we could and often did run away to start over, the world is full this option is no longer available. Now these beliefs are outdated and dangerous. On a crowded planet we have only three choices (collaborate, deceive or fight) as I discuss on Part 4 Strategy, Principle of Action - see principle 3. Because our culture itself is an artefact (i.e. we made it) so it isn't just a thing we have to live, we can change it.
A universal ethic - starting from first principles
Is it possible to come up with a universal ethic, a lowest common denominator if you will, for ethics that can be used as a guide to action? In the face of 3000 years of philosophical thinking I am going to try Note: A Universal Ethic?
First; we have a brain with the power of abstract thought
Second; we look around us and observe the world using our self-awareness
What do we see and what do we make of it? Here are the thinking steps to a pragmatic lowest common denominator form of ethics which is one of the foundations for an alternative political economy. Even though we base a new politics on emerging knowledge of cooperation in evolution we cannot escape values Note: No Escaping Values . Back to yin-yang, others will continue to emphasise competition, the case for collaboration cannot just appeal to its emerging factual base - what we have lost is dynamic tension and balance.
Self Awareness
I find myself to be here, I didn’t ask to be but here I am so I might as well make the best of it.
- Oh look there are others like me, and (empathetically) I see that they didn’t ask to be here either.
- I observe that life is short and the world is beautiful.
Now lets consider the choices from a number of viewpoints;
- Altruistic; I am lucky others are not, I will (do what I can/dedicate my life) to the service of others. A side effect will be that I will achieve happiness and enjoy my gift of life.
- Benign; I deduce that, because I want to enjoy my life, and they are like me, they want to enjoy their life as well, what else is the time for. I conclude that I (should) act freely so long as it doesn’t interfere with their freedom to do the same
- Enlightened Self Interest; I deduce that, because I want to enjoy my life, and they are like me, they want to enjoy their life as well, what else is the time for? I observe that homo-sapiens can be very violent creatures, at some point I may have to fight to keep more if they have less. If we make it equitable I am more likely to have a good life as well.
- Selfish and rich; I am a lucky (Roman), and/or hard working deserving (meritocratic therefore deserving capitalist), and what I have I intend to hold.
- Selfish and poor; I am deprived so I am going to grab some of this whilst and if I can. I don’t mind who I take it from.
- Credulous; I might get rich if I work hard and follow the rules
Dedicating ones life to the service of others is both extreme and rare; we immediately think of Mother Theresa. The benign view is lazy and has no answer in the face of violence and greed. Selfish views seem to be predominating; the question is, in the light of what we know from science, why?
Enlightened self-interest is a potentially rational transaction. If I treat others, as I want to be treated (widely known as the golden rule) then there is less chance I’ll be murdered in my bed. It has been argued for in history and philosophy, why is it not more widely accepted? The answer of course is that society can be managed in favour of power and wealth relationships that are blatantly selfish using power and a surprisingly large number of losers can be tolerated so long as they remain demoralised, defeated, and preoccupied with just getting by.
However it is worth point in out
- That when there was a justifiable perception of secure jobs and security of tenure, when things were improving for everyone, following the rules was not just and easy choice, it was logical. It turns into unenlightened self interest when the system that delivers it has wider damaging consequences that will harm our descendants. To combat that we we need a story of custodianship and passing on a world that is as good as, if not better than the one we inherited - which is difficult to make without a so-called compelling event. It looks as if climate volatility will soon be delivering that.
- When the social contract breaks down and large numbers of people are deliberately excluded, marginalised and have less chances then their forebears the logic of following the rules breaks down - it becomes a matter of how much stress the system can take before this results in social disruption. See Part 2 Assess, Timeline, The Present, Limited Participation and Disengagement - The structure of disengagement.
Rather than just ask why the golden rule not adopted, a more nuanced approach is needed. The idea of enlightened self interest needs to be extended to our descendants and for now the critical issue is what sort of actions can we take takes to embed the golden rule in our politics, how do we effect such a change?
In the vision of holistic political economy the golden rule is a foundational principle. In the practical politics of hope balancing of ends and means becomes the key to calibrated action which will take it forward. By exemplifying its fundamental underlying values and showing that they work in practice, progress will be made. See Part 3 Consider, What can be done?
What our ability to think and engage in abstract rational thought means for holistic political economy is discussed in The Products of Mind - Implications