S YS TE MI C S Y MBIOTI C P LANETARY

ECOV ILLAG E NE TWORK

Systemic Symbiotic Planetary Ecovillage Network

P O Box 1674
Middletown, CA
95461-1674
USA

silverj6@mchsi.com

Silver J. H. Jones

Systemic Symbiotic Planetary Ecovi!age Network

1
 TABLE OF CONTE NTS

Why synergistic aesthetigenesis?

3
Defining synergistic aesthetigenesis
4
The bioascension era
6
Why ecovi!ages?
7

Systemic Symbiotic Planetary Ecovi!age Network

2
 CHAP TER V
Synergistic Aesthetigenesis

Silver J. H. Jones
2008

Copyright © 2002 by Silver (J. H.) Jones. All rights, electronic, multimedia, and print, reserved. A publi-
cation of SSPEN - Systemic Symbiotic Planetary Ecovillage Network.

The Darwinian model of evolution does not present a view of existence that ensures us that the experience
of life will be a beautiful one. Perhaps this is because in Darwinian evolution, we are looking at only the
first few minutes of a much longer movie, or perhaps the universe provides the biological means for sur-
vival, but expects us as cocreators of the universe, to determine if we want to incorporate aesthetics and
beauty into our lives - through our own free-will decisions. A universe without aesthetics, compassion,
and morality may be able to function within a narrow portion of the total scope of evolution, but without
the potential for bioascension, and universal ascension, such a universe would appear to be stillborn
within the total scope of universe evolution.

Why synergistic aesthetigenesis?

We must ask if aesthetic principles are guaranteed within the teleological objectives of the universe, or are
they only available, within a part of the phase portrait of the universal attractor, requiring our free-will
decisions as cocreators of the universe to explicate them, or are they manifest by some complex dynami-
cal interaction of a combination of these alternatives?
At some point in the universes history, we will have the answers to our questions. In the mean time, we do
not believe it is advisable to assume that aesthetics will be introduced as an inevitable part of universe
evolution. The most prudent approach is to assume, is that we must accept the responsibility to ensure
that aesthetic principles are incorporated into our civilizations, thereby ensuring their eventual triumph
in the larger universe. By assuming this approach, we should be on safe ground, whether aesthetics are
inevitable or not. How do we go about achieving this objective? The Darwinian vision of life and evolu-
tion, certainly does not provide us with any positive guidelines, and this has probably strongly influenced
our social memes, morays, economies, and societies. If we want to continue surviving, improving our liv-
ing conditions, and achieving ascension within our planetary ecosystem, we must provide for a strong

Systemic Symbiotic Planetary Ecovi!age Network

3
aesthetic component in our civilization. If life, liberty, and the pursuit of unselfish happiness are worth-
while human aspirations, we are unlikely to achieve them without aesthetics.
Aesthetics is probably an essential component of a truly systemic and symbiotic civilization, because
without mutual appreciation, respect, and reward, no system is likely to maintain an efficient interoper-
ability over the time scales that evolution has set before us. This means that aesthetics has to be looked at
as more than a mere social choice, or an optional, or a voluntary phenomena that simply rides on the
back of a much more fundamental and primitive reality in the form of the Darwinian evolutionary proc-
ess. Aesthetics must be thought of as having a much more essential role in design, engineering, pro-
gramming, and universal computation. Our current linear reductionist paradigm thinks of every compo-
nent of life as being separate and independently modifiable. General system research reveals just the op-
posite, because every component of a complex system is highly interactive in a complex dynamical net-
work which exhibits complex feedback and feed-forward interoperability. The universe, the life in it, the
social, and the economic systems that stem from the reality of life - are ubiquitously nonlinear, complex,
and chaotic. The subcomponents of systems cannot function without good interfaces, and these interfaces
must be refined over long periods of evolution, in which their operational efficiency develops something
similar to social conventions. As systems grow larger and more complex, the more critical the interfaces
become, because of the exponential increase in the total numbers of interfaces within the systems. If aes-
thetics is necessary for higher degrees of interoperability, efficiency, and optimization, then we have no
alternative other than to master aesthetics in all aspects of our lives, if we are to achieve our roles as
cocreators of the universe and complete the ascension process in universe evolution.

Defining synergistic aesthetigenesis

Synergistic aesthetigenesis is the term we have chosen to apply to the mastery of the science and art of
the application of aesthetic principles in our lives, civilizations, and eventually throughout the universe.
Synergy implies cooperation, coordination, and mutual appreciation. Genesis implies the need to generate
or evolve such dynamics, because they are not necessarily deterministically guaranteed. Just how does
one go about implementing such a program? Perhaps we can start by attempting to list some of the core
ingredients of an aesthetics program:
• The word synergy implies proper interface. A good interface is one that maintains internal structure and
functionality, while allowing for efficient flow of communication in a manner that is easily anticipatable
and mutually rewarding for both parties involved in the exchange. All parts of a system, in order to syn-
chronize their functionality within the lower and the higher levels of organization in a system, must
maintain an efficient transfer of information. Delayed or blocked information flow, is what causes sys-
tems to go out of synchronization. In simpler systems this information may be mainly quantitative in
nature, but in more complex intelligent systems there is a qualitative component in the exchange. In
advanced complex systems, as opposed to simple systems, subsystems may be unwilling to act unless
they understand not only what they are expected to do, but why they are expected to do it! Systems
based upon informed voluntary cooperation and participation, are much more likely to sustain synchro-
nized operation, than systems that are based upon strictly authoritarian, or for profit only forms of syn-
chronization. Authoritarian and mercenary systems may work in the short-term, but they are poor can-
didates to adopt for long-term sustainable civilizations. Unfortunately our modern mercenary society,
has degenerated into thinking that monetary compensation is all that is needed to keep systems operat-
ing adequately. There is so much more to establishing a good synergistic interface than successfully
completing a monetary exchange. We all recognize that goods and services must be payed for, but
somewhat more subtle factors also play a very important role in all types of interfaces.

• Body language, courtesy words like ‘please,’ ‘thank you,’ and ‘you are welcome’ bring a civility to life
which goes beyond the Darwinian imperative. Someone looking you in the eyes, is in fact, an important

Systemic Symbiotic Planetary Ecovi!age Network

4
 and valuable ‘software handshake’ in the larger socioeconomic system network. These types of signals
allow the parties involved in transactions to perform a form of authorization of trust, in much the same
manner, that credit card authorizations are accomplished electronically. Such signals provide or reveal
the probability of a genuine or disingenuous exchange. Synergistic systems must be based upon mutual
trust, appreciation, and dependability. Words, tone of voice, body language, hand shakes, and eye con-
tact are tokens, flags, or signals which help indicate intent. Manners although they are seldom thought
of in this fashion, may very well be the fuel and energy source of civility - which is so important in
maintaining a universal sense of our interconnectivity. When there are conflicting messages within
these token exchange interface zones, high level socioeconomic systems develop zones of imprecise
information, which can ripple through the larger system, eventually producing causal inefficiencies or
inoperability consequences. Time is wasted, errors pile up and compound, and eventually the system
finds itself trying to operate in an atmosphere of disinformation - an impossible task. Promises, con-
tracts, and hand shakes are methods of recognizing our mutual interdependence and responsibility. Any
lack of fulfillment of these factors causes the system to break down, because vital stages in the process
fail, and this throws the whole system out of synchronization, causing inefficient, chaotic, or in extreme
cases catastrophic failures. The current status of our financial markets in 2008, as we are going through
the sub-prime mortgage, credit default swaps, and over-leveraged banking crises, which has crippled
our financial system, with banks unwilling to lend to each other and customers - is a perfect example of
what can happen when synergistic aesthetigenesis breaks down.

• In product, services, and information exchanges there must be sufficient quantities of information, suffi-
cient quality of information, and as low a level of ambiguity as possible in the exchange. If any of these
three objective criteria for efficient exchange are missing, the passage of the poor quality informa-
tion through the various levels of the decision tree of the dynamical attractor network will essen-
tially end up partially encrypting the information flow in the system without providing a decrypt-
ing code. The system will first begin to suffer localized errors, and then these errors will spread like a
contagious virus throughout the system.

• Finding the proper balance between bottom-up heterarchical communication and organization, and top-
down hierarchical communication and organization is a major objective. Hierarchical systems have
causal decision tree structures which flow from the top-down, and they tend to favor central authority.
The advantage of central authority is that it attempts to keep all subsystems directed toward the same
objective. The weakness of central authority in complex systems, is the inability of the central authority
to keep up with the ever changing operational environment within the extended system, often causing
long time lags in initiating corrective measures, due to the time required for information to reach the
central authority, get adjusted, and then trickle down to the lower levels. The advantage of decentralized
authority is that subcomponents of the system, if sufficiently intelligent, can assume responsibility for
local changes in the operating environment, and quickly implement the needed changes before the
larger parts of the system are effected by error de-synchronization. The weakness of decentralized
authority is that conflicts can arise between parallel processes, and if there are no means to resolve these
conflicts efficiently, they can spread to larger and larger portions of the system. Local components may
have problems resolving these conflicts, because they are unable to see the full dynamics of the entire
system, because this information is only available at the highest levels of the system. Local components
may also have problems distinguishing between, localized shifts in the operating environment, and
much more extensive higher level systemic dynamical attractor alterations. It would seem that systems

Systemic Symbiotic Planetary Ecovi!age Network

5
 which are able to integrate some aspects of both of these types of organization, would provide the most
synergistic operability for most general systems. Central authority must provide sufficient training and
experience to its subcomponents, thereby allowing it to place value in the information input obtained
from these subcomponents. This training is also necessary if the higher levels of the system are going to
relinquish some degree of control in the decision making process, to the lower local levels of the sys-
tem, with the intention of shortening the response time of the system to the ever changing conditions in
the environment. On the other hand, when decentralized authority is granted to the subcomponents,
they must value the capacity of centralized authority to monitor the overall operability of the system at
many levels, and to see the long-term directions and implications of the systems behavior. Information
flow between the two approaches to organization (top-down and bottom-up), must be unhindered and
valued by both parties. Nothing in life or in the universe stands still, and dynamical beauty is neither
the product of pure chance, nor is it the product of complete predetermination. These forces quite
likely play a dual reciprocal role in the unfolding of the universe, and in the intentional decisions we
must make in our role as free-will cocreators of the universe.

• Another essential ingredient of synergistic aesthetigenesis is a set of rapid and highly parallel pathways
for correcting the errors which manage to slip though some aspect of the system, or for dealing with
unanticipated perturbations form phenomena external to the system. The fastest propagating errors must
be corrected before they spread throughout a large percentage of the higher levels of the system. The
more quickly the system can be brought back into synchronization, the lesser the degree of system deg-
radation. Error correcting at microscopic and mesoscopic scales must be highly distributed and re-
dundant, because centralized error correction is too far removed in space-time to provide an ade-
quate response time.

• Beauty is not a given of emergent objectification, it is the continuously evolving product of good sci-
ence, art, and aesthetics. It is aesthetigenesis. Ecovillages and their systemic and symbiotic networks,
would seem to be an ideal proving ground for testing approaches designed to implement higher levels
of synergistic aesthetigenesis. The dynamics of evolution will not allow us to stand still. We must al-
ways make choices, and the sum total of these decisions will determine just how much synergistic aes-
thetigenesis we experience as we move through the evolutionary process. To say that we are not yet
evolved enough to accomplish such an objective, is simply to subject ourselves to further suffering and
strife. The sooner we internalize and externalize these valuable lessons, the sooner we will encounter
the post Darwinian era of bioascension and eventually the final challenge of universal ascension.

The bioascension era

The Darwinian stage of evolution is pre-civilization; its limited purpose is to evolve viable animal organ-
isms which are capable of cognition and eventually self-awareness. The next stage of evolution is bioas-
cension, and it involves more than the mixing and testing of gene pools. Bioascension involves the mix-
ing and testing of both genes and memes. Genes are the transmission mechanisms of bioinformation in
the Darwinian era. Genes are transmitted by the physical organization of physical molecules. Memes are
the transmission mechanisms of higher cognitive organisms, because they are able to capture concep-
tualization. Memes transmit models, designs, simulations, and paradigms. Memes as we currently under-
stand them, are objectified in symbolic systems referred to as languages. The development of telepathy
may prove these memes to be even more virtual, and perhaps more holographic than our current concep-
tualization allow for.

Systemic Symbiotic Planetary Ecovi!age Network

6
Memes are the fuel of the information age, and they are a higher level of programming language that
works in gestalts. They operate above the low-level programming language of gene arrangement and tran-
scription. They are more agile, transform faster, and can be transmitted faster than the lower-level gene
programming language, which must wait for reproduction to occur in each new generation. If genes can
be said to transmit bio-hardware information that is translated into protein hardware information, then
memes are the transmission mechanisms which result from the assimilation of the universal distributed
information, and they are the general processing languages of cocreative organisms. Synergistic aes-
thetigenesis is an important aspect of meme transmission, assimilation, processing, and distribution. Low
level computer languages, such as binary code, carries little in the way of aesthetigenesis. Synergistic aes-
thetigenesis can only be a phenomena of higher level programming languages which have multicausal
logics and attractors, as opposed to the monocausal (on-off, yes-no) double attractor logic of binary
code. Multiple attractor systems (MAS) can potentially have multiple dynamic attractor networks and
multi-layer decision trees. MAS systems can have a diverse combination of stable fixed point, stable limit
cycles, intermittent attractors, semi-periodic attractors, and strange and chaotic attractors. Complexity
bifurcation progressions, and morphogenic topology catastrophes are a part of complex system networks.
Aesthetigenesis is the science and art of choice in complex and chaotic dynamic attractor networks, and
beauty is the final product of balancing order and harmony with diversity, morphology, and continual
change. When we master the practice of this art and science, we experience continual stimulation, bal-
anced with sufficient order and harmony to control the continual stress and challenge of evolutions for-
ward progression. We are able to absorb and assimilate ever increasing complexity, at a rate that is pleas-
urable and stimulating. When we practice it poorly - we can either stagnate, producing lagging cores in
the universes evolution, or be overcome and stressed by the enormity of the challenge, causing malfunc-
tion, illness, and, if not corrected, extinction. Individuals and groups that avoid the practice of synergistic
aesthetigenesis do so at their own peril. It is an incorrect interpretation of free-will, to think that we can
do anything we want in the universe. We exist, survive, and live in a universal system of vast complexity,
consisting of a single or multiple universal attractor basins that exhibit inherent teleological dynamics.
The decision trees available within the universe phase portrait are immense. Furthermore, we must bal-
ance this fact with a growing awareness that every decision has multiple consequences, from which we
cannot escape. We must choose our place on a continuum between extinction and mastery, and the science
and art of synergistic aesthetigenesis is an essential passage on the road to mastery.
Both individuals and their collective civilizations must choose which path they wish to go down - extinc-
tion or mastery. Unconscious indecision on our part, is still a form of decision from the larger perspective
of the universe, and it eventually leads to extinction. Conscious incorrect decision also eventually leads
down the path to extinction. Only conscious and correct decision leads to the progressive pathway of bio-
ascension, and eventually to universal ascension. Many people would have you believe that the universe
is nothing more than an improbable statistical fluctuation in an otherwise random sea, and that there is no
truly inherent meaning or purpose to the universe, other than the meaning which we project into it.
These are the thought forms and memes of failing atheistic civilizations, where disinformation and self
encryption have spread like a virus systemically throughout the system, eventually isolating itself from
the larger universal system, and now unable to decipher the pathway to universe ascension.
We hope that experimental microsocieties can help us reverse this current trend.

Why ecovillages?
Our proposal that ecovillages and their networks provide the larger civilization with ideal testing zones
for synergistic aesthetigenesis is based upon a number of points:
• The smaller scale of microsocieties makes it easier to isolate and analyze the consequences of alterna-
tive decisions and implementations.

Systemic Symbiotic Planetary Ecovi!age Network

7
• The causal effects of various memes and actions can be more easily tracked though the complex dy-
namics of the system, once again because of the reduced scale of the system and the resultant faster
feedback.

• Ecovillages which adopt alternative approaches can provide comparison systems, in an effort to evalu-
ate each approach in a much larger spectrum of alternatives, enabling one to prioritize the relative value
of each approach.

• By testing promising approaches, first at the level single network nodes, and then on a larger number of
network nodes, we can test for their adaptability in more diverse cultural and socioeconomic environ-
ments.

• The feedback effects of synergistic aesthetigenesis practices should be much shorter in a smaller sys-
tem, allowing the connection between action and reward to be much less spread out in time and space,
providing a stronger and more immediate reward system, hopefully causing quicker reinforcement dy-
namics, leading to a quicker adoption of correct practices system wide. In a larger system the reward
system would be much more spread out in time and space, and the adoption would take longer to evalu-
ate the full systemic implications.

• Almost all aspects of social function in small scale systems (small worlds/ ecovillages), can be evalu-
ated at a considerably reduced cost compared to the cost of testing in the larger society.

• Individuals in these communities are motivated to experiment just by virtue of their choosing to partici-
pate in such micro-communities. This should contribute considerably to their willingness to enthusiasti-
cally design, implement, and evaluate alternative approaches, knowing that they will be the first benefi-
ciaries of such practices.

This subject deserves a great deal more attention and development than we have given it here. These are
working papers that may be modified and extended, depending upon the breadth and depth of response
feedback receive.

Systemic Symbiotic Planetary Ecovi!age Network

8
Systemic Symbiotic Planetary Ecovi!age Network
9