I stand near the center of a void - a zone of complete darkness and virtual emptiness. I look to the South, East, and West to infinity, and see nothing. I look to the North and see before me a gigantic formless mass of plasma - of the sub atomic particles in elementary form. Such is the state of the Universe. Under terrific gravity, there is no light given off by the mass; nor is there heat emitted. Darkness is upon all that exists.
At length there is a terrific explosion - huge sections of the mass fly out in all directions. As this occurs, the gravity is decreased and the sub atomic particles, now unstable, react violently liberating immense heat and light causing the void to be flooded with illumination.
Again the process is repeated. Each of the original large chunks now blasts into many fragments, each flying out in all directions. These fragments also decompose into smaller bits which break into still smaller ones. At last some of these blast into gas and dust.
Today we know the original chunks as the Galaxies of our Universe. We call the parts into which they decomposed the Solar Systems of the Galaxies. The smaller particles formed by their decomposition are known as the Planets of the Solar Systems. Finally we have the Satellites or Moons of the planets, the Asteroids, and the Comets, Meteorites, space dust, gas, and so forth which formed form the partial or complete decomposition of Planets.
Although the original chunk is now almost completely decomposed, it continues to expand. The Galaxies, Solar Systems, Planets, and so forth continue to expand, flying apart at a fantastic rate. The original point where the basic mass was is now empty, giving the universe a doughnut like shape. The great speed of the expanding masses causes the light rays to be stretched out, so to speak, dinning the normally bright light from other Solar Systems and Galaxies and creating the illusion of day and night on many of the planets. The dimmed light is referred to as starlight.
Let us now turn our attention to one insignificant bit of the original mass; a chunk of the Galaxy we call the Milky Way. We know it well - it is our Earth. Let us examine this chunk of mass and observe its properties. Let us look in to the characteristics of its inhabitants and attempt to explain this massive chain of circumstances that we refer to as life. Let us examine its past, observe its present state, and attempt to predict its future course. It is to this task, then, that we now turn our attention.





In our discussion of Organic Structure, we formally defined Identity as the data portion of the Key Design Program and briefly examined some of its properties. The subject of man's Identity, however is much farther reaching than a simple definition or a brief examination. Indeed, we will find ourselves referring to it again and again in future discussions. Because of its extreme importance to us, we present a more detailed discussion of the properties of Identity at this time.

Identity is the core of man - the very essence of man's being. A man's Identity distinguishes him from other men as a unique Individual and gives him a place in the highest class of a society. Identity is the basis of all progress - the source of all new ideas. It is the seat of man's drive and determination, his will to search and find - to seek out knowledge and truth. Of all the treasures of the universe, the greatest and most precious possession that an Individual will ever have is his Identity.

To man, Identity gives a unique body and mind - a physical and mental structure that has never occurred before and will never naturally occur again. To his body it imparts a special symmetry - a special beauty, a special configuration of characteristics which are his and his alone. To his mind it gives new data - new concepts and ideas that have heretofore been untapped and unexplored. It stimulates and drives him to fellow some special path not yet charted in the annals of history.

We know our Mental Identity as the hunch, the good guess, the intuitive direction the unlearned knowledge. It leads the Individual to the great invention and discovery. As such, Identity is the basis of all progress and the Individual, the only possessor of Identity, is the only one who can cause progress. All great inventions and discoveries may be directly traced to one Individual - to that one person of vision and determination whose perseverance led him into uncharted territory.

Although all naturally occurring organisms possess Identity, few use it to full capacity. Many disregard the random thought and unique drive to pursue courses already charted. Many sell short their uniqueness and individuality. In time they look to the accomplishments of others and recall to themselves, "I thought of that" when it is too late.

The future of man lies in the hands of those willing to seek knowledge and uncover the great truths. To those who follow the uncharted paths go the rewards of life. The Individual will find his greatest reward when he has followed his Identity and gained an education from himself.


An understanding of the nature of "security" is necessary for the complete understanding of many concepts in Organics. Its formal definition facilitates the defining of future terms related to it. For these reasons, we shall be rather thorough in our discussion so that the concept may be fully understood.

We shall begin with a standard dictionary definition of the term "security" and proceed to our formal definition.

SECURITY, noun (Latin 'securitas', freedom
from care, from 'securus', free from care)
1. A feeling of safety, whether founded on
fact or delusion; freedom from fear or apprehension; confidence of safety; hence, carelessness; overconfidence; want of caution.
2. Freedom from danger or risk; safety.
3. Certainty; assurance; confidence; assuredness
4. One who or that which guards or secures; a defense; a guard; hence, specifically, (a) something given or deposited to secure or as- sure the fulfillment of a promise or the performance of a contract; a pledge; (b) a surety; one who becomes responsible for the obligations of another.
Syn.- Protection, shelter, safety, certainty.
We note that the term is derived from the Latin "securus", indicating a state of freedom or exemption from care. The entire definition concerns itself with the idea of protection - of making someone or something free or exempt from something else, such as from fear and apprehension, dangers and risks, and the like. Using the standard definition as a guide, we now derive a technical definition.

To provide safety and certainty, to provide exemptions from risks and dangers, some instrument must be employed to assume responsibility for such dangers. For example, if we wish to provide security with respect to the elements - that is, to secure ourselves or make ourselves exempt from the effects of rain, snow, wind, and the like, we must employ a shelter of some kind to accomplish this. Security, then, is the state existing when something is shielded from something else - some danger or risk, specifically - by some external force. We are, therefore, concerned with three basic things. First, there is some risk or danger that we wish to deal with. Second, there is something that we wish to shield or protect from this risk. And third, there is a means that we will employ to do this.


To aid in the understanding of our technical definition, consider the following example:

A housewife is watching television alone one night when the main fuse blows. All the lights, etc. go off and she is left in total darkness. She doesn't know how to change the fuse and, if there are any fuses around the house, the hasn't the faintest idea where they are. She therefore calls the Electric Company and has a representative come out and change the fuse, restoring power.

The housewife is the Secured Processor. She is unable to process the stimulus consisting of the burnt out fuse. There is risk involved here. There might be some burglar waiting outside, etc. She therefore enlists the aid of a Securer Processor in the form of the Electric Company's representative. The Securer Processor assumes all responsibility for the processing of the stimulus.
If there is a burglar, it will attack him. If there is some defect in the wiring, he will be the one liable to be electrocuted. The housewife has security with respect to the electric service by virtue of her Securer Processor, the representative.


Consider the case of an organism whose processor has a domain consisting of "x" stimuli. Let us now introduce a securer processor and assign to it the task of processing "n" of the "x" stimuli in the domain of the organism's processor. Since "n" of the stimuli originally contained in the domain of the organism's processor have now been transferred to the securer processor's domain, the organism's processor's domain now contains only (x-n) stimuli.

If n=0, then the organism's processor is still responsible for processing all "x" stimuli. If n=1, then there is one less stimulus in the domain of the organism's processor and, hence, one less decision that the organism will have to resolve for itself. As the value of 'n" approaches the value of "x"', there fore, the responsibility for the organism's decisions leans more and more on the securer processor and less and less on the organism's processor. When n=x, all the operations of the organism's processor have been assumed by the securer processor and the organism's processor no longer functions.

In Individuals, naturally-occurring organisms possessing Identity, the processor is determined by the Identity together with the programming. The Identity "colors" the programming since it is the first set of data contained in the processor. In all decisions of Individuals, therefore, a vital part is played by the Identity. Since all Individuals are unique, they yield unique decisions. They are affected differently by congruent stimuli as their processors are all different. As an Individual organism entrusts its decision making to a securer processor, however, less and less of its processor, and hence, less and less of its Identity is put to use. If it entrusts all decisions to a securer processor, Then none of its Identity is used and its mind lies idle.

As an organism entrusts more and more decisions to a securer processor, it gains more and more security, but, in the process, it loses more and more of its Identity. We express this relation- ship in the following theorem, the proof of which has just been presented.

T-4-1. S=1/I

"There exists an inverse proportion between "security" and "Identity"
such that for every unit of "security" gained by an organism, a unit
of the organism's "Identity" is lost."

The following two examples illustrate the sacrifice of Identity to gain security by special cases:

Example (loss of mental Identity)
Tim has just been hired to a job he has been seeking for some time. He feels he must make an impression upon his Coworkers that will make them respect and like him. Although he has his own ideas on many issues that they discuss, he is apprehensive about their reactions. He feels that he must sound like "one of the gang" to gain their approval. He therefore memorizes the polls and surveys in the local paper and, on more personal matters, tries to pattern himself after the boss' son. In doing this he gains the respect of the men and the admiration of the boss, but he loses a large portion of his mental Identity. His securer processors, the newspaper and the son of his boss, make all decisions for him. He no longer has any "original" views on anything.

Example (loss of physical Identity)

Jill sees a wonderful handsome boy one day and falls in "love" with him instantly. She is a bit scared, however, as she feels that she might not be his "type". The thought of making a play for him and being rebuked terrifies her. She feels that she must transform herself into his "perfect" mate. She checks with her girl friends and learns that he is extremely fond of fine, shapely blondes with clear complexions and blue eyes. She is a brunette with freckles and a cute, but rather moderate build. She has a uniqueness about her that makes her quite attractive, but she is not 'his type". She therefore arranges for her hair to be bleached and thereby become closer to her boy friend's ideal mate. She undergoes treatments to remove the freckles and has extensive plastic surgery done to modify her figure. Inert foam compounds are injected into her breasts to make her "finer" and other odds and ins are added elsewhere to help things along. She would be glad to change the eyes too if she had enough money and knew how. At last she has completely physically modified herself and is as close as possible to her boy's desires. She meets him and they marry. She gains the security of marriage and of being with the one she "loves" at the loss of her physical Identity (and mental too - she will adapt to his every desire in that line also).

These two examples concern things that could (and do), take place today. The advances in the line of plastic surgery make it possible to change ones physical Identity virtually completely. The new psychochemicals facilitate the complete overhaul of the personality and all mental characteristics. The processes bring one security, but sacrifice the Individual's most precious possession - his Identity.


The inverse between security and Identity represents a basic choice which, in the course of life, all Individuals must make. They must decide whether they will use their natural qualities of body and mind or whether they will put security above their Identity. The choice is evident in many decisions of daily life - whether to do or not to do, to speak or not to speak, to give in or stand firm, to move onward or remain. To those who choose Identity goes the rather lonely road of the Individual and the fast moving progressive culture of the Dynamics. We discuss the theory of Dynamics in Chapter Six. To those who choose security goes the synthetic happiness of complacency and the slow, non-progressing culture of the Statics (Chapter Six).

The Individual who chooses security above Identity and begins to sacrifice his physical and mental uniqueness to gain the respect of the group or state undergoes certain changes. As he gradually loses his Identity, he approaches as a limit the state of the Android or synthetically produced organism. Because he has lost a portion of his Identity, he is no longer a complete Individual. He is not an Android either, as he still has a portion of his Identity left. This gradual change from Individual to Android requires a new "transitional" classification.

We refer to naturally-occurring organisms which have lost a portion of their Identity as NEO-ANDROIDS. In the strictest sense of the word, the tern refers to those Individuals who have been permanently modified by a change in the Key Design. In a less formal sense, we include those who have suppressed some of their mental Identity or reshaped some physical characteristics, even though this does not affect the Key Design.

We shall discuss methods of modification in much greater detail later. For the present, we shall mention a few methods to emphasize our point. Modifications which cause mutations change the Key Design Program and affect all organisms produced by the organism involved from that time on. The new psychochemicals have such an effect. Radiation erases portions of the Key Design. Shock treatments erase portions of the mental Identity from memory. In the case of those techniques which do not effect the Key Design, such as voluntary suppression of data into the unconscious data program and physical modifications which can be reversed, the organisms' offspring's may be Individuals.



In Section One we talked about the concept of an organic structure called an Individual and another type of organic structure called an Android. We introduced the Android saying it was synthetic and the Individual saying it was natural, or real.
Another way in which we have compared Android and Individual is in the concept of an Identity Factor; we said that this factor existed in Individual but was absent in Android. Not so many things in reality are so pure as this black and white type of concept.

Intuitively, then, one might guess that there is some class in-between the pure models we have called Android and Individual. Such a class would have some characteristics of both. A class like this, we call a TRANSIENT CLASS. The particular TRANSIENT CLASS in this case, those organic structures somewhere in the in-between region bounded by the pure notions of Android and Individual we call NEO-ANDROID.


We will now go through some nomenclature which is useful in explaining the notions we are discussing at this present level.

The "QUANTITY OF IDENTITY INHERITED" is that quantity determined by
the average of the quantities of Identity possessed by the structure's parent structures at the time the structure was conceived, which, for each parent structure, is determined by the formula:


The "PER-CENT IDENTITY" or "%I" is that quantity of uninhibited Identity
presently possessed by a natural organic structure divided by that quantity of Identity which the structure inherited from its parent structures, multiplied by 100%, i.e.:

The "RELATIVE PER-CENT IDENTITY" or "REL %I" is the Per-cent Identity, computed with the assumption that the quantity of Identity inherited was unity.

With these notions, one can now write mathy definitions for Individuals, Neo-Androids, and Androids.

In a strict sense, we can call Individuals the class of structures with %I at exactly 100, Androids as that class with %I at exactly 0, and all elsewhere Neo-Androids.

Or, being more practical, using the standard gaussian distribution, we can call %I above 75 Individuals, 75-25 Neo-Androids, and below 25 Androids.


Various types of structures were covered in Section One. These were defined when introduced. We have now introduced and defined the Neo-Android and this completes the structures covered in the text. The flow-chart below is a helpful tool for quick reference concerning structures.



Intuitively, when we think of progress, we think of a moving forward toward some yet unachieved goal. People, Individuals, move toward goals and sets of people, which we have called SOCIETIES, also meander towards goals.

In our model of an "Individual", we have presented certain ideas previously. From these ideas, we now point out that the model for an Individual is equivalent to the model for a Computer coupled with the concept of Identity.

If we drift to a theoretical notion of a "society" of Computers, and then think of progress, the model "society" as a function of time will achieve a stable state of some sort and stop. The program will "run out". At this point there will be no more "PROGRESS".

When we say SOCIETY, of course, there is more involved than Computers, from the definition given previously. The point is that the model limited in this way ceases to progress at some predictable fixed point on the time line.

In the format of the definitions and models of this text, there is essentially only one difference between a real "SOCIETY" and the limited model we have just discussed and this difference is our notion of an "Identity factor" or "Identity".

The differences, then, observable by comparing real "SOCIETIES" which show PROGRESS in an onward and continuing nature and our "run out" model brings us again to the concept of "Identity".

We say that Identity is a necessary condition for continued PROGRESS.


Societies are classified into three major groups. These groups are STATIC, DYNAMIC, and TRANSIENT. STATIC societies are modeled by the "computer" model above and they are social systems in which a predominate choice of Security above Identity has led to an essential standstill. DYNAMIC societies are modeled by a predominant choice of Identity above Security and they are social systems showing continuing and onward growth. TRANSIENT societies show a combination of these two models and there is an interplay of forces at work.

The study of STATIC societies is called SOCIOSTATICS and the study of DYNAMIC societies is called SOCIODYNAMICS. We call both fields of study, SOCIOSTATICS and SOCIODYNAMICS, the study of "THEORITICAL SOCIAL SYSTEMS" because in real life they are hard to find in such a pure form. "REAL SOCIAL SYSTEMS" are not so pure and direct as these models but they show characteristics of both. A social system showing this duality and interplay of conflicting forces is called a TRANSIENT SPACE.

THEORITICAL SOCIAL SYSTEMS are covered in Chapter 6 and REAL SOCIAL SYSTEMS are covered in Chapter 7.



Competitive Basis and Competitive Advantage are both necessary conditions for competition to exist. Neither one by itself will do. And, there are certain constraining interrelationships. If Competitive Basis is as large as possible, everyone would be equally familiar with each other to the point that any contest would end in a stalemate. Realizing this, there would be no reason to compete because it would be futile.

And similarly, if Competitive Advantage was as large as possible so that everyone could overcome the other, the system would either annihilate itself or agree to stay apart so that they could survive and again there would be no competition.

So, referring to the graph, in practical reality, as Basis increases, Advantage decreases and vice versa.

Consequently, due to this, competition is self limiting and is at a maximum when Basis and Advantage are roughly equal.

Having gone through the basic idea, we now present the concept in a formal way using "properties" -

A Competitive Basis is a necessary condition for competition.
A Competitive Advantage is a necessary condition for competition.
Given two non-congruent organic structures under going modification such that their processors are converging-
As the two organic structures approach a congruent state as a limit, the competitive basis which exists between the two structures approaches an upper limit of unity.
Given two non-congruent organic structures undergoing modification such that their processors are converging:
As the two organic structures approach a congruent state
as a limit, the competitive advantage of either structure approaches a lower limit of zero.
Given two non-complementary organic structures undergoing modification such that their processors are diverging:
As the two organic structures approach a. complementary state as a limit, the competitive basis which exists between the two structures approaches a lower limit of zero
Given two non-complementary organic structures undergoing modification such that their processors are diverging:
As the two organic structures approach a complementary state
as a limit, the competitive advantage of either structure over the other approaches an upper limit of unity.


Using the competition concept. and the definitions and properties just presented, we can now write cute mathy definitions for the three classic political systems, ANARCHY, DEMOCRACY, and SOCIALISM


ABS: A society in which the average competitive basis of the natural organic members is exactly zero and the average competitive advantage of these members is exactly unity
REL: A society in which the average competitive basis& of the natural organic members is not above 0.25 and the average competitive advantage of these members is not below 0.75.


ABS: A society in. which both the average competitive basis and the average competitive advantage of the natural organic members are between zero and unity
REL: A society in which both the average competitive basis and the average competitive advantage of the natural organic members are between 0.25 and 0.75.


ABS: A society in which the average competitive basis of the Natural organic members is exactly unity and the average competitive advantage of these members is exactly, zero.
REL: A society in which the average competitive basis of the natural organic members is not below 0.79 and the average competitive advantage of these members is not above 0.25.

To link the classical structures to the Basic Inverse (Identity-Security)

we present the following three properties-

Anarchy is dynamic or Identity-Oriented
SOCIALISM is static or security-oriented
Democracy is a transient-space

Classical concepts in Religion behave in a manner similar to concepts in the Identity-Security relationships. The Religious Properties presented below are designed to show these relationships and link up classical Religion to the master (I-S) Inverses.

The Religious concept of "Soul" is similar to the Plan Theory concept of an "Identity Factor"
The Religious concept of "God" is similar to the Plan Theory concept of a dynamic or Identity-oriented force.
The Religious. concept of "devil" is similar to the Plan Theory concept of a static or security-oriented force.
The Religious concept of "heaven" is similar to the Plan Theory concept of a dynamic or Identity-oriented environment.
The Religious concept of "hell" is similar to the Plan Theory concept of a static or security-oriented environment
Earth is a transient space.

T H E     S O U L     A N D     I D E N T I T Y

If there is one main principle in all religious concepts, it is that man possesses a Soul. In defining the Soul, dictionaries use such phrases as "the immortal spirit which inhabits the body", the "animating or essential part", "the vital principle", "the source of action" , and "the essence". All of these phrases indicate that the Soul is the basis of man - that the Soul IS man.
The Bible teaches that the Soul is a gift of God; that God has caused the Soul to inhibit the body of man. We are taught that this gift can only be bestowed by the Creator himself and that man shall never synthesize the Soul or acquire it by any other means. Although we cannot "buy" a Soul, we know that we can "sell" ours. Men often disregard this great gift and "sell their Souls to the devil". Stories are often written of those who gained prosperity and worldly goods by "selling" their Souls.
So far, in this theory, we have not defined the Soul as such, but we have discussed in great detail the concept of Identity. We have said that Identity is the essence of man. We know that it gives man uniqueness and makes him an Individual. We know that Identity is possessed only by naturally-occurring organisms and that it cannot be synthesized or acquired in any other way. This is natures process and we must rely upon nature to perform it.
In "The Basic Inverse" we learned that Identity could be sold (suppressed) to gain security and that as security was gained Identity was lost. We know of many who feel that security is of a greater value than Identity and are quite willing to sell it to anyone who will give them worldly things in return.
We see, therefore, that both the Soul and Identity are "sold" to gain securities, that both are products of forces beyond the control of man, and that both offer uniqueness in that both give man special qualities peculiar to him alone. Since the Soul behaves in the same manner as does Identity, we must consider the theory that the Soul is Identity and Identity is the Soul. We shall assume that the two are congruent for the duration of our discussion.
The link between the Soul and Identity represents a bridge between Philosophy and Science. The expansion of such bridges will eventually result in a formal, scientific proof of all principles of the Bible and other great philosophical texts. Those who believe that Religion is invalid because science is valid should  note that science and Religion merge at this point.

There are certain classic symbols used. in literature, poetry, music, etc., that, while we will not get formal about them, do, nevertheless tend to line up with the. transition and implication of transition from Identity-oriented to Security-oriented and vice versa.
We group these "key phrases" into major areas and list them below:



We present here by summary the overall implications of the choice between Identity and Security that we have been discussing here in Chapter four. Although some points require the reader to add a bit of insight - they do not really require all that much.