With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility.

Sticking with my Stan Lee theme, I am using this quote as part of my discussion of Inclusive Egocentricity. After the death of Uncle Ben, Spider-man adopted his phrase and it became the foundation for using his powers to help others instead of just himself. I have already written a little bit about how the focus of decision making needs to be internal, and then radiate outward. I have also elaborated the concept of Us which then gives an interesting way of interpreting such an excellent idea as, "With great power comes great responsibility."

When looking at the levels of Us there becomes no distinct separation between self and others, since the entire world is viewed in the first person. Spider-man shifted his focus away from himself to others, but with Inclusive Egocentricity, we expend ourselves to include others. This fundamentally changes a decision making system, however the concept can still be applied. For this, I'll change the definition of power and begin to talk about resources. Resources are potential energy to be used in the satisfaction of needs starting with the hardware, and then the software. These come in many forms: calories, social and emotional energy, currency, time, and space to name a few. As individuals, we gather these resources and consume them with every action we take.

(practical example)
I am extremely hungry --> I assess my food storage, choose and item, prepare it, and eat it. Then I plan to replenish the food store so that next time I am hungry I have food available. Of course there are other variables. I have to ensure that I have the currency to exchange for food which I spend calories and social energy to earn, or plan ahead and grow something of my own which then uses some space which also uses some calories, but perhaps earns some emotional energy with a sense of accomplishment. This is an example of how we are reallocating Resources in order to satisfy a basic hardware need, not only immediately but hopefully in a sustainable way.
(end example)

We need to ensure that we gather and save enough Resources to then spend or reallocate them when needed to solve our individual needs. It also becomes important to build sustainable systems that don't have too many leaks or we end up falling behind. After the individual needs are solved, we must then use those resources to assist with the needs of those within our most central level of Us. Note here that I didn't say that someone should sacrifice personal needs in order to help another, but instead sharing resources into a group of individuals for the benefit of the whole.

I mentioned that we build systems of Resource allocation in order to minimize leaks. It also becomes important to not hoard. Unused resources have just as little value as those that are wasted. Hoarding is not the same as saving. Saving is the storing of Resources for a purpose. Hoarding is stockpiling beyond one's potential needs. Such excess need to be injected into a larger system to grow the whole. So, those who have the most potential energy (of any specific type) have a responsibility to share that starting with the most central level of Us, and moving outward.

(examples)
A Billionaire should be investing money in ways that fully take advantage of the money, allowing others to benefit from it, not storing it in an inert system or one that limits the potential scope of the benefits.
Personally, I have amounts of time and physical endurance that are not already used in taking care of myself, so I use that to help my wife and kids.
(end examples)

All of this comes from a self-centered mindset. In no way am I promoting pooling Resources or giving up control of them. This is about personal impact, not economic policy. I'm not a Socialist. I'm an Inclusive Egocentrist.

Who are They?

In the previous post, I wrote about the levels of Us, a concept that expands one's sense of self to include others as part of a framework for decision making within Inclusive Egocentricity. These levels radiate out from the individual and include more and more people, with the largest circle encompassing all of mankind. With this, in our decision making process, we are taking into account the well-being of everyone. This idea needs to be clarified.

In Inclusive Egocentricity, Us is not defined as part of an opposing pair with the word "them" but because of the scope of Us at its ultimate level, it's binary opposite is "none" or "nobody." There is no room for a concept of Them. This idea sometimes described as "other" or "foreign" by social scientists is the root of much turmoil in the world, and cannot ever be positive. By defining someone as being outside of Us the individual becomes absolved of all responsibility to make decisions concerning the well-being of this "other." We must abolish this concept, and strike it from each of our minds. There is no Them; there is just Us.

From this perspective, the answer to the question that titles this post is, "this does not compute." When diving into the answer, one is sucked into a bottomless pit of nothingness, and it truly never ends as there is nothing in the pit. That's not to say there is no use for third person pronouns, but the use is recursive, because they (note the lower case) remain a part of Us in the greater picture and the separation becomes meaningless.

Throughout history, groups of people have sought to segregate themselves from others. Hundreds of different arbitrary distinctions have been given. The borders of countries, the color of skin, what religion individuals are a part of, and many other items have been some prominent choices. The items could easily have been eye color, height, amount of body hair, ability to lift a heavy item. Any potential characteristic of an individual can be used as a taxonomic reference in order to separate individuals into categories. There is no hierarchy of validity between these items. They are all just as arbitrary as each other, and we need to move beyond such simple-minded thinking.

(aside)

I was watching a documentary on Stan Lee earlier this week after writing most of the above work. Actually one of my upcoming posts is based on a recurring statement of his, and that was previously planned as well. I was really happy to hear Stan talk about the concept in the previous paragraph. According to the interview, it was this concept that led to his creation of the X-men.

(end aside)

It is in our nature to fear or distrust that which we see as being different to ourselves. Personally, I have very little in common with members of rain forest tribes in New Guinea. Because of the arbitrary nature of defining the lines between same and different, we have to be very careful in creating distinctions. In Inclusive Egocentricity, only closeness is defined. It may be that there are some individuals who share little more than biological needs with you. This person likely won't be included in one of your inner rings in the levels of Us. Your decision making will then only include deference to this foreign individual at the outermost levels.

There are thousands more arbitrary facts about me that are common with the person I am most unlike than there are differences. I must therefore see everyone as being a part of Us, and deny the existence of any set of individuals outside of that. This is not to say that there will never be conflict. There will always be conflict, and in a later post I will delve deeper into conflict resolution that is compatible with Inclusive Egocentricity.

Next week, I'll be changing focus from definitions and theory to write about actual decision making and practical application.

Being Self-centered

The foundation of Inclusive Egocentricity is admitting to being self-centered and embracing it. As mentioned in the introduction, everything in life is experienced from the inside out. We internally process information provided by sensory organs. In order to maximize efficiency and positive results in our choices, we must align our decision making with the biological limitations we have. Each of us is the center of his own personal universe.

Being self-centered in this way does not immediately assign positive or negative values to actions, but gives a reference point for decision making. Where other systems may say, "How does this affect others?" first, Inclusive Egocentricity asks, "How does this affect me?"

Due to the way in which we experience life, we must then prioritize our decision making primarily with our own physical health, especially sensory health. This is not to maximize the stimulation of the pleasure center of the brain as a hedonist may do, but to ensure the successful processing of future data. Along with this idea, life itself is defined not by the beating of a heart, or the electromagnetism of brainwaves, but by  the continuation of experience. Experience being the internal processing of sensory data. In order to function properly in a self-centered fashion, we must protect and maintain our hardware (sensory gathering equipment) first. Only after this is satisfied, do we begin to worry about the software, our mental health and intangible needs.

All of this may seem "selfish" but that is not the case. A selfish individual disregards the needs of others for the sake of personal well-being, pleasure, or growth. A self-centered individual begins by satisfying his own needs, and then moves on to others with the intent of growing the whole. For example, airline safety demonstrations tell parents to put on their own oxygen masks before helping their children. In Inclusive Egocentricity, we are self-centered but not selfish. We work to expand our concept of self to include others. The sense of self then radiates from the individual to create levels of Us.

(quick personal anecdote)
When I had been dating my wife for a while, before we got married, I noticed that I had been making decisions that not long ago would have only taken into account myself with her in mind. We were bound, and I was choosing actions based on how they would affect us, not just me. Long story short, that's when I realized she was the one I wanted to marry, but the idea carries on into the next paragraph.
(end anecdote)

Those of us who are not hermits spend our lives surrounded by others. We interact with other humans in person, over the phone, via the internet. Throughout these interactions, we develop circles, groups of people to whom we are connected. These circles fit into a system I call the levels of Us. When I use the "we" or "us" in general conversation, the most likely group of people I am speaking for is the husband-wife pair that I am a part of. For me this is the level closest to the center. Moving out from there, my kids join in. After that, I have other family and close friends. The ultimate goal is to expand the inclusion into "us" to include everyone. For decision making purposes, and for logistical reasons, our choices should be made tackling one level at a time. This list will be different for everyone, and could be very complicated. For explanation, I'll use a simple system. Radiating out from myself are only 5 levels, Wife & I, Immediate Family, Extended Family and Friends, People I know, People I don't know. Each level includes all who are in the earlier levels, so the final level is humanity as a whole. I'm not going to expand to "all life" and "the universe."

In an earlier paragraph I mentioned that decisions for taking care of the self start with physiological needs that I refer to as hardware, and then mental, emotional, social needs that I refer to as software. When we add in the levels of Us, the decision making system for Inclusive Egocentricity starts with the question, "How does this affect?" We then move outward from ourselves through the rings determining first the potential effect to hardware, then software and make a decision.

Throughout history, people have found many ways to be in conflict with each other, breaking down the effectiveness of this system, and I'll address that in the next post.

Introduction to Inclusive Egocentricity

I have spent most of my life trying to make good decisions. Like many others, I've failed at least half of the time. We could cite many reasons for that, perhaps boredom, inability to accept my own mistakes, excessive alcohol use, or intellectual arrogance. None of those things really come close to the point though. Those things are a part of me, some are a work-in-progress, and others you'll just have to deal with if you want to interact with me. The real problem isn't any of these personal failings, it's that I never accepted any moral code, legal or religious as being relevant to my life. This has been misconstrued as a failure to accept authority. In fact it's because those who claim the authority operate in irrelevant systems built on shadows and are not contested nearly as much as they should be.

Here in the United States of America, we claim that the guiding moral code for our society is based in a staunch belief in human rights. We still talk about the inalienable rights in this "one nation under God" of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Our lawmakers certainly don't make decisions in line with that credo, making it highly irrelevant. The previous regime referred to God, King, and Country as a list of priorities. Seriously? That's quite antiquated and the rules of the United Kingdom certainly don't follow that anymore. Good for them; they shouldn't. I have heard Christians of various denominations talk about another potential set of priorities: God, Spouse, Children. There are three things wrong with all of these sets of priorities. There is an implication that a higher power has defined these rules and priorities, the focus is external, and  they define differences between individuals.

Claiming the existence or knowledge of a guiding force that defines a moral code, allows an individual or an establishment to be autocratic regardless of any pretend systems beneath that. This God removes personal accountability and gives a broad range actions validity in the minds of those who subscribe to such ways of thinking. Religions have in the name of one God or another completed some of the most horrific acts in history in the name of their God, although they have done many good things too. This continues to be a problem. It's not only major monotheistic religions that are made irrelevant by abstracting their values into thin air and then giving that air power in order to alleviate personal accountability, yet I do not retract my directed point. Modern humanity has no place for such infantile systems as an abstraction given moral authority. It stands directly in the way of improvement, both personal and communal.

Moral codes tend to be focused outside of the individual, and sometimes at the expense of the individual attempting to follow the code. The Beatitudes are an example of a system focusing on others. They are a good list of nice things to do for others, but the problem comes when we push such things to a limit and glorify lack and suffering as virtues. External focus of moral systems then can lead to purposeful and valued self sacrifice. I have no idea how such systems were ever developed. It's counter-intuitive and not very helpful. We as humans experience life from one perspective for it's entirety, from the inside out. In effect, we are each the center of our own universes. Any moral code must be founded on that knowledge and grown from there.

As individuals, we are part of a larger collection. Unfortunately, we have been taught for our entire lives to break that up, and our codes of conduct are founded on the ideas of segregation (not always institutionalized). We are bombarded with ways of looking at others as being different in some way. I am a Caucasian,  Male, American. That's complete nonsense. Once upon a time, geography made a gigantic difference and the concept of foreign and dangerous made sense. This world we live in is different. The barriers of contact are gone. Communication and transportation make nearly anywhere in the world accessible to us. We need to stop attempting to define ourselves as part of a limited group with what are becoming more and more arbitrary methods of classification. Religions that have exclusive natures need to open up and stop making names for those who are not included. Nationalism is more dangerous than it is helpful. Perhaps it's the next great thing we need to conquer. Our moral codes must stop setting boundaries when pertaining to how our actions affect others. This segregation and the imaginary existence of enemies within our own species has to be broken down. One day, we might find there really is an enemy. We can't afford to invent them from within.

Seeing these problems and pointing them out doesn't do a whole lot of good, and certainly doesn't solve my problem of needing a relevant moral code for a modern world. As a result, I have come to the decision that I need to build a new moral code, based on what I call Inclusive Egocentricity. The old ways of divinely constructed We vs Other need to be replaced with a down-to-earth understanding of Me and Us. This blog will be my ongoing thoughts on how social morality can evolve in a beneficial way using both models and case studies that are current and relevant.