GSQ Simplified

Why do have values? Because our brains are made up a certain way. Our ability to think and decide are the peculiar results of Darwinian evolution. That evolution is the basis of our behavior; i.e., we can explain what we are by citing our history.

The idea that organizes human behavior is people have culture. Culture is the set of our beliefs, habits and rituals. Culture is a collection of ideas and values which does not exist in physical nature, but only in minds. I think Homo sapiens is unique in having a conscious culture; i.e., in being aware of one's own behavioral patterns, motives, etc. This reflective ability makes it possible to change culture rather than being directed by it in the manner of an automaton.

Culture has a logic, internal connections, which link one behavior to another behavior. While the description of that logic is an intellectual exercise, because logic does not exist anywhere except as a description, behavior is nonetheless guided by culture. The other way of stating this point is to say that culture is the explication of the behavior we observe. Observed behavior includes "causal" connections; i.e., one thing appears to be linked to another thing, A then B. This apparent ordering is explained by the notion that culture determines behavior, so there is an "internal connection" in culture corresponding to the ordering. Whether or not there is any material (real or actual) causality in behavior, the use of cause in explanation is a simplifying schema.

It is very important that we need not posit the real existence of culture or mind in the Universe. The underlying nature of things can be chaotic, and sum to nothingness, as I propose, and still be considered ordered in small samples. This is a consequence of the mathematical idea that any finite sample can be ordered. For this reason, we need not be concerned with spiritual or supernatural (dualist) explanations of culture and mind.

My basic analogy is to understand culture and mind as the software of material bodies. This is a modern concept which has been become common knowledge because of our widespread use of computers. Programs are sets of symbols; they are a language. While writing down a program describes and suggests it, the program is nowhere in the writing. The program only "exists" in its execution; i.e., as the sequence of operations in a material substrate. Software is not directly observed; it is inferred.

Human biology and behavior are the basis for determining political structures, where "political" means social decision making. This is just to say that social, political and economic regimes are determined by culture. This is a difficult and controversial point, and the central claim of the book.

A related, but equally important claim is this: intelligent creatures can change their culture. This is hopefully not a circular definition of either "culture" or "intelligent." My claim is that intelligence involves reflection, an ability to understand one's own behavior. Further, intelligence also involves the ability to change that behavior. Our consciousness is not merely a projection of self, but an activity that controls self. It is self-control which makes changing culture possible.

If no attempt is made to configure culture using thought-out standards, culture is expressed as it would be without intelligence. That expression is commonly called the "law of the jungle." Most historical human societies arise without thought or plan, so reflect a natural order driven by our biology. Such societies are typically autocratic, male dominated, tribal and insular. The overriding principle of human behavior in such societies is "might makes right." Political Conservatism is the dominant expression of this sort of culture.

It is possible to set up a thought-out Conservative culture; e.g., Plato's Republic. But that hasn't happened in History because the essence of Conservatism is defense of the past, resistance to change. The reactionary core of  Conservatism always brings it back to our pre-civilized ("animal") nature. In contrast, the essense of Utopian politics is the conscious decision to change things. Institutions like democracy are only possible as a result of voluntary acts, with constant attention to their operation. ("Eternal vigilance is the price of Liberty.")

The Ideal State is the result of inventing a culture and society. Such a State takes account of what we, Homo sapiens, naturally are. But it also adopts an ethical standard such as Equality and makes it an Ideal. The Ideal guides the laws and Institutions of such a society, not the inner urges of our Beast. The Ideal State abolishes or strictly regulates Conservative practices such as Capitalism, because they undermine the Ideal.

Utopian politics encompasses advocacy and activity aimed at bringing about the Ideal State. The direct conflict of Utopianism with Conservatism arises in the concept of Liberty. Conservative notions of "liberty" include the oppression of certain people or classes, as in slavery, serfdom and unequal distribution of goods. In Conservative politics, some people are more worthy than others (however that is determined) , so they are entitled to greater liberty and rewards of society. Utopians reject that proposition: liberty is the equal right of each person. Utopian politics discourages or prohibits inequality. Utopians go beyond the Liberalism of John Stuart Mill, because it is not a matter of the 'greatest good for the greatest number.' Justice for all is at stake.

History shows that everyone and all societies have a life cycle. The Egyptians worshipped Ammon-Ra for three millennia, but that religion and its associated culture disappeared with Alexander's Conquest of Egypt. Once the most powerful kingdom in the Mediterraneum, for the last two millennia Egypt has been a satellite of the Greeks, Romans, Arabs, and colonial European powers. It is only since Gamal Abdel Nasser came to power fifty years ago that Egypt is once again an independent, although minor, State. Modern Egypt is peopled with different races, religions and cultures than once lived in those lands. So, it is not the same Egypt as that of the Pharaohs or Ptolemies, even if the geographic name is the same. There is life and then there is death.

Eventually every society succumbs, despite strategies such as rigidity to keep it going. In most cases, the very beliefs and structures intended to prolong civilization become the means of its death. In analogy, we need to eat to live, so we grow plants and animals to meet our needs. However, some of that food is ultimately poisonous, causing various fatal diseases. Societies that live off "fast food" also incur major medical costs which eventually cripple and drag down the society. Nations dependent on oil will collapse when the oil runs out. Nothing is forever.

In the last stages before collapse, people do strange, counter-productive things. But all those things are natural enough at the time, because they really have no other choice. The Graduate Student asked, "whatever where they thinking when ...?" Actually, the instigators of collapse weren't thinking anything at all; they were just doing. They were under the control of their culture - their software - as they stampeded over the cliff.

Despite this unfortunate outcome for all societies, there are some steps that can be taken to avoid immediate collapse in places like the United States. The most adaptive step would be a conscious change of culture to one more amenable to changed conditions. In the last few chapters, I outline a few thoughts and guidelines for such a development.

GSQ is not a logically complete, comprehensive book. The subject is simply too large. I depend on the work of others to document the specific points and cases. I hope the original portions of my work will incite further studies by those interested. For myself, I am most interested in what it is that makes us "intelligent," "ethical" and "Historical" creatures. I hope to write more on that subject.