Postscript

Some observations and remarks...

There are certain observations and remarks that can be, and should be made regarding self-help and the system discovered as a whole, as well as potential applications of it to broader areas such as society and government.

First, logic says that practically there are no limits to what one can achieve with this system. For as one continues to work, that person will find that there are fewer and fewer limits as he goes, perhaps finding that more of these are grounded in the physical plane than spiritual.

The nature of this system demands one evolve a synergy between the subconscious (per Haanel and others), the conscious spirit/soul which inhabits the body and the Divine. Covey devotes an entire chapter to this concept. “Creative cooperation” he also calls it.

Other studies either tend to confuse the body and the spirit or try to ignore the Divine influence by being “scientific” about it. Practically, more and more scientific studies are beginning to recognize the limits of pure materialistic research, i.e., denying any causation that cannot occur outside of strictly physical limits. But as well, the role of intuition has been determined to be integral to science's breakthroughs. Intuition requires all three factors of the subconscious, conscious and Divine minds to operate in cooperation. (Body, Mind, Spirit)

The fourth factor in such a synergy would be purpose. For what reason is the action occurring? What are you trying to accomplish? We deal still with the objective part of this – that of the conscious mind – to determine this purpose, in alignment with the Divine and the limits to the facilities of the subconscious.

One can have all sorts of different purposes, either constructive or non-constructive (destructive), positive or non-positive (negative). I describe these in these terms to show the practical applications. Construct means literally to build together and destruct means to build apart. Both are based on the point of create, one creating cooperatively and the other creating divisively. Earlier in this book, I mentioned that there was only positive and non-positive, that thinking was done based on solutions which were either not thought through or incompletely solved. Non-positive solutions were those which were using partial or incomplete solutions which did not result in optimal results for all concerned. The indicators of these are the negative or “mis-” emotions of antagonism, anger, grief, covert hostility, apathy and so on. Positive emotions include conservative support, enthusiasm, exhilaration and serenity. These last are those which will get the most constructive work done.

Purposes can therefore be determined to be constructive or destructive by what emotions they generate and how much they benefit current societal elements and future ones. The optimal solution would generate tremendous support and solve various problems both in the present and in the future.

The point I am leading up to is that people have this choice: they can use this data to create immensely useful corporate, governmental and religious organizations. Immense talent can be released and employed to create our next masterpieces. Or conversely, this could be used to create terrible criminal organizations and weapons that can destroy this planet or render it unlivable.

The interesting observed safeguard is that those who are creating positive works are dealing with more thought-out, more optimal solutions and so will continue to succeed. Those who are dealing in destructive efforts have built in failures, since their solutions are flawed and incompletely thought out. As well, these organizations do not factually engender the intimate support of their associates. Jealousy, fear and greed are common emotions and attitudes. So such groups are then self-destructive.

This is the point of building non-competitively cooperative organizations. This attitude must be external as well as internal. Any company must realize that this universe we occupy revolves around abundance of supply. Any lack of sufficient food, housing, clothing or any other basic want have all been solvable since at least 1950 for the entire planet. We have collectively had problems in distribution, blocked by political and ideological fixed ideas. Any lack of supply is simply a lack of creative solution.

“Enemies” to organizations do not factually exist. Where any organization uses such attitudes toward others, it factually is working to destroy that same organization. Competition injures both competitors and their shared public. Monopolistic ideas also simply hurt that very public the company is supposed to be servicing and selling to. Where companies are trying to “make money” or “stockpile assets,” it is way off the mark.

Those who gain greater market share, greater public to consume its product, simply provide greater, more complete solution than others. Often, this means inclusion of other firms as by merger. However, much time can be wasted in simply trying to defend or attack these solutions and their companies or individuals. Practically, the only real defense is to come up with a better solution. However, competition – maligned into the sole definition of survival of the fittest – has been misinterpreted. Mixing hatred or antagonism into the fray simply slows greater solution to any given problem, any given situation. So models which base economics on war or violent behavior of any type (such as animal behavior in the wild) are simply delusions spread by destructive individuals.

There are two simple datums which describe economics:

1. The purpose of any company is to deliver a service to individuals, directly or indirectly, in a remunerative fashion so that it can continue to deliver a service.

2. These individuals work out and produce an exchange for these services so as to improve their quality of life.

From violations and alterations of these two statements, one can derive all the faults of modern economic and political thought. As well, one can streamline existing businesses to improve their delivery. Politics could learn these datums, since Western governments often violate the rights of the individual to produce that exchange – anything given away for free isn't valuable to the individual; as well, taxes on companies in excess of what is needed to preserve public, common goods' value only limit the businesses ability to deliver their chosen service. After all, businesses are just organized groups of individuals (who each work their for their exchange to improve their quality of life, etc.) Excessive taxes create overhead costs which cause the company to take action to reduce these costs to ensure their survival. Often these solutions in our modern, footloose societies mean moving to another state or another country. This harms the survival of the individuals who directly participate in that company to aid their own survival. Most of these solutions depend on passing on these increased costs to their buyers and/or their workers. The balance is the maintenance of the public goods against the survival of the company. In our present Information Age, solutions are being found with more and more rapidity, requiring similar evolving rapidity within the individuals connected to these companies. And so these test our basic social bedrock and require these to evolve more rapidly than ever before.

Governments and businesses could be more creative and more responsible in resolving their solutions. But they as well must work to be less competitive and more pro-active.

Taxing the rich to pay the poor only ensures the poor stay that way. The rich aren't made any less rich through taxes alone. Taxing the rich to provide effective training that the poor can afford in order to learn how to become rich might be a better solution. But handouts don't work and never have. Equitable loans honestly repaid have. Teaching people to fish has kept people fed over the eons.

The idea of the Golden Rule is then a workable economic one. It is not, perhaps, the best solution possible, but it works historically and has wide support. Anyone can prove that it works for themselves. A model of executing this might be found in the Open Source movement, which is consistently gaining ground on the status quo. Imagine, a group of people who almost completely work for free and who constantly have the challenge of simply improving the quality of their application – and these better solutions gain greater public use (market share). But those who champion other solutions limit their own survival to the degree they incorporate these into their mission statement/vision.

So, basing business and personal solutions on this one datum is a safe (and profitable) one. Governmental employees, particularly appointed and elected ones, should take this to heart, as well as labor unions. All should work to see others around them as associates and partners in building creative cooperation to solve the various difficulties they encounter. This would build a true Golden Age.

This book hopefully lays the groundwork to make this possible.

I include these brief notes as additional thoughts on this subject. Certainly this book is no last work, nothing more than an introduction to a very wide subject. More books are needed on this subject. But I hope to have contributed to opening some doors of thought for others that we all might lead more successful lives.

Robert C. Worstell