We are born ignorant, with several biological requirements imposed upon us by our physical nature and our evolutionary past. Our parents came into this world in the same condition, as have all of their ancestors before them. Our basic biological needs are cared for by parents who are no longer totally ignorant about the world. What they pass on to their children, aside from this nurturing, are the skills and methods they have learned that have been successful in providing their needs. In order to be flexible, this generational transfer of knowledge must allow for changing conditions, and drop knowledge that no longer works, or is just no longer correct, as well as add new principles and ideas.

Our perceptions make each and every one of us self centered individuals. Only when we realize that the others like us are also seeing the world with their self as the individual of most importance, do we realize that we must cooperate with others to gain the requirements for our survival. The alternative is to live alone, defending resources from everyone and everything. All the social structure we see today has evolved from that central need to cooperate. The problem with group behavior is that it tends to ignore the defense of the individual when considering the needs of the group, even though every individual may loose the ability to defend themselves from the group.

Today, society has grown from the family group, to tribes, to city states, until today we have nations governing the actions of the individuals that compose them. These national societies all have the power to limit the behavior of the individuals trapped within them by coercive measures up to and including death when individuals violate the social code. I live in the self-declared freest society on the planet and yet my society, with around 5% of the worlds population, puts 25% of the worlds people in prison. Yes, the USA has the highest per-capita incarceration rate of any country in the world. Yet, all other countries, whether we consider them progressive or oppressive, put people in prisons, and execute those they consider most dangerous. One possible conclusion that can be drawn from this single fact is that I do not, in fact, live in a free society. What I am suggesting here is more than that: “We are all living under one form or another of Social Slavery!”.

When I was growing up, we did stupid things like “Duck and Cover” in grade school in response to the threat of a nuclear attack, where we were to climb under our desks and cover our eyes in preparation for the attack everyone was certain one of the “Major Powers” would unleash as world tensions built during the “Cold War”. We were trapped within societies that could kill all of us without compunction or guilt. Somehow most of us survived that period of nuclear anticipation. My point is that groups of all kinds whether they are a committee or a nation state ignore the rights of the individual in favor of the needs of the group. As all these groups are composed of individuals, this is simply counter productive to all of our individual interests. My countries legal system says killing is wrong for an individual and the correct punishment is for a group of 12 to convict the wrong doer thus allowing the State to kill this individual. This social process ignores the paradox created by allowing the belief that killing individuals is wrong unless the State does it. Wrong, or not? I say definitely wrong. If any one of us as individuals are able to be killed simply by defining it as “Justice”, then any individual can be killed in this fashion and none of us are safe living in such social systems.

For the longest time, I have been of the view that the oppression we see in society has been orchestrated by the rich and powerful, but the more I have considered the situation, the more unlikely it seems. The rich and powerful are as constrained in their behaviors as are all the rest of us. My generation fought for civil rights and social justice in the ’60s and it was our naive assumption that, if we could just get right thinking good people into office we could solve all the social problems we saw and were taught about in school. What in hind sight appears to be a complete cop-out as that generation became the rich and powerful, and did all the objectionable things the previous generation had done, was instead simply the social structure imposing its own controls over the behavior of those individuals. Even the President of the Unites States can take no actions that are not provided by his office. That is, there are a limited set of levers on his desk that can be pulled or pushed. He can not create new levers, and can take no actions other than those provided by his office. All Judges, Lawyers, Police Officers, and Clerks, have their behaviors constrained by the legal system they work under as well as the social structure we all live within. There are penalties for acting outside these systems, both within the legal system as well as the larger social structure supporting that legal system. Even though many nations on this Earth have vastly different social systems than the one I grew up in and now live, and their legal and military systems are sometimes extremely different from others, they are all bound up in their own set of rules, rewards, and punishments and leave no variance in behavior for the occupants of those societies

If you expand this viewpoint to all the social structures you see around you, you should come to the same conclusion that I have come to: That we are all being held in Social Slavery! There is currently no such thing as a “Free Society” on this planet! We are all bound up in social structures that, for the most part, fail to recognize our value as individuals. In most “Progressive” societies where the individual is free to bear weapons, this leads some individuals to determine that the only way society will ever recognize them as individuals is to take an automatic weapon, enter a crowded theater, and kill as many other individuals as they can before they are killed. Yes, this is a crazy idea in all its parts, but that is just the point. Putting some people in a crowd of other people where they go unrecognized for their entire lives drives them crazy. It is just as crazy to commit suicide, but I believe that most suicides can be traced to unbearable social (or physical) pressures being exerted on the suicide. These are some examples of how social structures destroy individual freedom of expression and ignore individual value. Instead we all need to be living in societies that value and protect the individual, in ways that allow individuals to form groups perform tasks to large for an individual alone, and still insure the sanctity of the individual. So, how do we do that?

One of the other truths that my generation discovered is that changing society by internal force is long, hard, and incomplete. Yes, many civil rights laws have been passed in my generation, but anyone who is paying attention will admit that much of the racial prejudice is still there, it has just become hidden and “coded”. Yes we elected a Black President, and while his problems seem to be political, anyone who knows the codes, knows that these attacks are more racially motivated than political. All of the knee jerk reactions of the opposition are based on an unwillingness to be told anything by a man of his racial background. Why is the Affordable Care Act still under such heavy attack, even though I’m getting better health care? Occam’s Razor suggests the previously described knee jerk reaction is the answer to the question. So, just how much social justice have we received for all those efforts and lives lost in the struggle? Some, but not nearly enough. Women still make less than men for the same jobs, and non-whites still populate the lower echelons of our economic society, even though things have admittedly gotten some better on both fronts. Is there any way to gain ground against these forms of social inertia? It certainly does not appear that working within the system gains ground any way but slowly.

Another approach that has, so far, failed to yield any fruit, has been to take a group of like minded individuals and create a new social order within that group. I believe that most of these have failed because that lack inconclusiveness. The only way to get everyone “on board” is to be able to include everyone. I believe I have a mechanism for possibly accomplishing all of the tasks associated with solving the above problems. I call this idea the “Society Of Phred”.

Society of Phred

The Society of Phred is designed to be a human network with individuals performing the various network tasks, as well as the work of problem solving. The structure of the network is fairly simple and relies on the fact that only a small chain of individuals is required in order to connect any two specific individuals. The network is composed of Nodes and Ports. Nodes are groups of no more that 4 or 5 people. 3 to 4 people is probably optimal for any node. Nodes are connected by Ports. Ports are single individuals who have contact with one member of at least two Nodes. That is, to be a Port you must be associated with at least two nodes. Having a connection to more than two nodes is the goal of all Ports, but there is probably a limit to how many Nodes a Port can handle effectively. Nodes are the computational components of the network, while Ports are the communication components. When a Node comes up with an answer to the networked questions, or has a problem for the network to look at, the members of the Node propagate that to the rest of the network using the Ports known to the individuals in that Node. Those Ports then transmit that message to all the nodes they know. The originating Node tags their item with a 1. That is, they identify the message, when passed to a Port, as message one. All the Nodes that Port communicates with will receive this as message 1. The receiving node has some latitude to modify the idea if the Node feels the modification enhances the idea or question. When they pass this modified (or not) message out to ports for distribution, it will be tagged as message 2. As this idea or question begins to circulate through the network, Nodes will begin to receive multiple versions of the message/question. By tagging them with an incremented count the Node receiving these messages will be able to tell how “close” they are to the originator. These multiple messages will provide a sort of change log as the idea or question is processed by the network. Obviously it would be hoped that the questions would be considered by the Node receiving it, and should an answer present itself to the Node, it would be good for that Node to pass that answer out through its Ports.

Nodes

Nodes are small groups of people (2 to 4 is optimal) who have regular personal contact. This is important because even though the network will take advantage of all the technical communication methods of communication, it must be able to operate even when all the technology fails. It is not necessary for the individuals in a Node to be of like mind, but they should be able to communicate and reason together effectively. Try to pick fellow Node members who compliment your skills and views. The group need not necessarily meet as a group to carry on the group discussions, but at least sometimes, getting together as a group can be very productive. Getting together for a game of cards, and using that as an excuse to discuss Node business could be very effective, although there is nothing wrong with just meeting for Node business. How often and how long these meeting go are completely up to the Node members. This should be nice way to socialize. not a required business schedule. Make is smooth and easy, so it can integrate into your daily life without becoming onerous.

Ports

Ports are single individuals that know others who are Node members. If you like meeting and talking to people but have no interest in being a Node member, you might work the network better as a Port. Depending on the media of transmission, there will be some clerical issues in being a Port, making copies of documents/emails/whatever to send to your other Node contacts when a Node publishes a network message. There is, of course, no problem with a Port reading these messages, and potentially adding a personal comment to the stream. These comments should be identified as coming from a Port and not a Node, and may be added to the document by the receiving Node if they think it appropriate. The number of Node contacts managed by a single Port is totally at the discretion of the Port. If a Port feels it has become overloaded, they should try to find another port to pass some Node contacts to for management. However the best strategy is to approach contact development slowly and stop before you get to the overloaded stage. Also keep in mind that Ports can connect to other Ports, as well as Nodes, thus expanding distribution without increasing load.

Standard Operating Procedure

The SOP for the Society Of Phred (SOP) when making a contact begins with a set of “call and response” questions that will tell you how to proceed with the contact. They go like this:

Are you the Society of Phred?

The answer should always be no. Otherwise the person is pulling your leg, and you might break protocol and find out why.

For the second time you ask: Are you the Society of Phred?

If the answer is yes, then you are speaking to a member. If the answer is no, you stop the questions here and begin a discussion about the Society.

If the answer to the second question was yes, then you ask one more time: Are you the Society of Phred?

The proper answer is no, followed by a normal introduction: “Hi, I’m …”

For a fresh contact, not already in the network, you will leave them with an introduction and an explanation of the society and possibly give them a link to this article and any other useful stuff that has grown out of this initial effort, let them know whether you are a Node or a Port and what you might want from them, and let them go off and decide what they wish to contribute to this effort. Don’t push, this should flow easily or it will not hold in the long run.

When you contact a member of the society, your discussion is more straight forward. If the new contact is a Port, you should begin your new relationship by passing whatever current messages you have to each other. You might also compare these messages for common contacts. You may not want to bother making the connection if you find you have the same contacts for Nodes. Don’t worry about a little redundancy. It just means you are in a well connected neighborhood. This is between the two new contacts to decide if the connection is worth establishing. If the new contact is a Node and you are a Port, or vice versa, and you are looking for that connection, then you should make arrangements for long term interaction. If both new contacts are Nodes, you may talk about combining your Nodes if this does not make the resulting Node too large.

Goals and Objectives

The initial goal of the Society of Phred is going to be to untangle the various social traps we are bound up in with the primary goal of freeing all individuals from the oppression of the group. This is a broad and sweeping goal, and it will be up to the network to break this grand vision into a set of concrete steps that each of us can follow to gain the results we all need. It is clear that the network can work on whatever ideas or questions that arise whether they appear to pertain the the main problem or not. The potential synergies could create completely unexpected results. While the initial goals of the network are the impetus to begin the work of the first group of individuals with the goal of finding ways to free individuals from group oppression, to meet this primary goal, the network may decide to investigate technological or scientific solutions as aspects of the desired solution. These sub goals will develop out of the ongoing discussion, and there will be no attempt here to outline even what sorts of things they might be. This idea is a seed that is expected to grow into something totally unexpected.

Conclusion

My hope is that I have made a convincing argument, and you are now enthusiastic about talking to friends and becoming either a Node or a Port. If you find this idea at all interesting, I can only encourage you one more time to go out and start building your Node or making the contacts for a Port. I will know I am successful when I am asked: “Are you the Society of Phred?” I’m waiting with just a bit of anticipation…