Lewis Works

This open, on-line Newsletter is published weekly, every Friday Afternoon at 4:30 PM PST. It is updated with new announcements and articles each week. You may subscribe to our newsletter at: Newsletter

Lewis Works Newsletter

The E-zine of Applied General Systems Science

"Opening the Collective Mind with Imaginative Design"

By Hugh M. Lewis, PhD, MA, general editor

Vol. II:  No. 8

11/26/04 Copyright 2004 ©, Hugh M. Lewis.  Facsimiles of this page or parts of this page may be printed and distributed for non-profit research, consulting and educational purposes only, as governed by fair use policy.

If you really need to know, find out all about it with one of our SEARCH engines:

On Top

This has been a short and fast week--the holidays here are looming large and coming fast upon our own cultural horizon. As the saying goes, one must always expect the unexpected! There have been few new developments since the previous Newsletter. I have produced a short main article and a few comments in the various other subsections. I offer statements of basic objectives of each of the main departments of the framework. I have decided to try to completely and thoroughly purge my system, so to speak, and to throw all sense of caution or pretension of professionalism to the wind by giving thanks these holidays to the splendid efforts and sacrifices of the American government, not only in protecting and promoting the interests and freedoms of the American people, but of all the world's people. I'm straying off the beaten path of a systems framework, though, as far as analysis of contemporary and dominant systems we must deal with, I feel it to be not only relevant and apropos but most timely.

Criticisms/Comments, then Provide Feedback

Main Article

American administration is not just a job, nor even just a profession any longer. It has become a whole style of life, a country club, even a somewhat pseudo aristocracy. The traditional stratification of American society, between line and staff or blue and white collars, has evolved to a new form of hierarchical stratification via governmental administration. An administrator doesn't simply quit because of a lousy work ethic or bad judgment on the part of those who appointed her or him or the mistakes they make on their own and blame on others. No, they are promoted out of harm's way, given a salary increase, "relocated" to a distant field with a second, a third, neigh, nth number of chances to start fresh. No, the American government has too much invested in the status and privilege of an administrator to let them go as if they were so many salaried or part-time employees. After all, it would look bad for the company as a whole, as they stand for the whole system, the established order, the authority that articulates down from on high. They are the living embodiment of the justification for higher taxes, big budgets and inflation.

In such an administrative context, Government profiling of the American people has come of age as a principle mechanism of social control and manipulation. No doubt the digital information revolution has conspired to make such profiling even more subtle and sublime in its results than it already had been. It is carried on like a deep science, though it is not done in an open manner in the way that normal science is supposed to be conducted. It seems the shallower the bureaucratic water-hole it is practiced in, the "deeper" the science of profiling becomes. Who the deep scientists are who have concocted these profiling systems, and to whom they are held accountable, seems to me to be largely a well-guarded secret. Of course, academic psychologists themselves have come to use standard inventories, that do not go past certain built in cultural, linguistic and cognitive biases, as the chief instrument of their legitimization as true social sciences, and it seems, government funding agencies and interests have been largely the source of their funding and prestige. I doubt a lot of debate is going on any longer in academic psychology forums concerning behaviorism, organicism, psycho-analysis or Father Freud, just as anthropologists appear to have abandoned their own father, Franz Boas, in favor of new theories of ethnic memes and mom's blue genes.

Of course, reworking the Universities after the debacle of Vietnam and the campus protest movements of the late sixties and early seventies has been the first step to the reform of the American system. Universities are more strapped by government sponsorship and administrative controls than ever before, and to raise any form of political protest these days is not only to be construed as "political incorrect" but as a basis for dismissal and removal from a campus. Needless to comment, thought on campuses has fallen suit, and if one is looking for free speech and independent thinking in various academic programs, one is almost bound and certain to come away from one's academic experiences disillusioned if not completely "brain washed." I think the contemporary American campus reflects many of the realities of contemporary American society. They have become a breeding ground for a certain kind of uninquiring intellectual conformism, and for a kind of paradigmatic disciplinary approach to knowledge organization and articulation across a wide range of scholarly fields. Graduate students are being trained and rewarded not for the clarity or independence of their ideas, but for adopting the dogmas espoused by one or other of the faculty who are jockeying and competing with one another, often in a vicious and cut-throat way, for limited resources, students and, of course, the prestige of being treated like you really know what you are talking about. If a critical attitude among students is cultivated, more often than not this attitude is one that is more hypo-critical and aggressively criticizing, rather than merely being skeptical or critical in some philological sense of the term.

I would define profiling in its basic sense as a nomothetic system of social and personality classification based upon an individual's response and performance to tasks on a kind of inventory or other interview protocol design, or based upon an individual's traits, characteristics and other patterns of behavior. Profiling a serial killer at a murder scene is one thing, profiling a person seeking job is quite another.

The function of profiling the general population in a closed socio-economic system is primarily to reinforce the status quo of a class stratification in such a system, and thereby to structurally preserve the inequalities and asymmetries of such a system. In order to help keep people in their places, and to legitimize a policy of doing so, one must first define what those places are. Profiling serves this purpose when it comes to its broad-scale deployment across large sections of the national population. It can thus be described as a gate-keeping mechanism that serves to limit access to resources redistributed through the system by means of systematic categorization and exclusion. It provides a way of blocking "front door" and "front of the line" social mobility, while still permitting side-door or back-door selection to take place.

Profiling seems, by its deployment, to be in fact much more than a new form of science, but a form of high art, albeit somewhat propagandized into service of government based interests and interest groups. In large measure, what is kept in secret and hidden from view from the eyes of the American public, does not need really to be held in any kind of ethical account--the ethics of profiling are presumed away with the "science" of administrative anonymity, bureaucratic diffusion of responsibility, and a lock-step, "hail the SYSTEM" sycophancy.

One really does not need any longer to buy into the idea of Global or Federal Conspiracy Theory to accept or find plausible the idea that the degree of control and, in a sense, "intrusion" into the everyday affairs of Americans has increased considerably, especially in the last couple of decades, and that this has resulted, among other things, in the possibility of a new form of "unfreedom" that comes from the ability for other people to manipulate your identity and control your range of choices without you even knowing about it happening. The conspiracy part is really not one guy phoning another guy in a distant city. It is a collusion of shared cultural values, of ideological commitments, of a form of limited responsibility that comes through wielding power. The side-benefits are great, the prestige built-in and there is almost no downside to speak of except perhaps a series of lunch-dates with social undesirables and rather boring in-service meetings in hotel conference rooms.

Cybernetically, we can say the government bureaucracy, in spite of increasing deregulation, is getting better at what control functions it has done. It is getting better in a sense that it is able to monitor and respond efficiently to a wider range of issues that occur, even down to a very local and even personal level of articulation. Depending upon our perspective, I guess, this can be either a very good and wonderful thing, or it can be potentially a very dangerous and bad thing. I'm inclined to suspect that most people employed by the government or serving in some administrative position, would be inclined to adopt the former point of view. Everyone else would be wise to be a bit more skeptical about our Brave New Bureaucracy, and would probably do better to lean the other way.

The concept of political equality really plays no part any longer in government based decision making or selections, if they ever really did play a part. Double standards, disguised by ideological rhetoric about "Diversity" and "Multi-Cultural Multiplicities," have become the norm, by which people can be conveniently categorized, labeled, channeled, and, in a sense, their fates sealed permanently in a file that everyone in the world seems to have access to except the person whose name is on the file. For one thing, Party Politics seems to have become all the rage, and the notion of a professionally disinterested bureaucracy, secure in their posts regardless of weather changes in the Presidency or Congress, is perhaps a quaint anachronism from a by-gone, "Gone with the Wind" era. 

The concept of political equality would entail a measure of, should I say dare mention it, social and psychological blindness, even racial blindness and ethnic blindness, which is really another way of saying that the government officials who are selecting on the basis of applications, for whatever purposes, would have to do so in a manner essentially blind as to the background and profile of the individual doing the applying. This is not to say that those who have a criminal record should not be subject to screening on some level, or those with certifiable psychotic episodes, or those who have some other kind of dubious history of social deviance. But at some point, at what point, should profiling of average American people, and utilization of secret records kept on their identity, be allowed, manipulated and abused in secret, particularly among a petty and somewhat overpaid class of administrative gate-keepers?

Though the government increasingly uses market based designs and strategies borrowed from big Business, and even, often, the business leadership themselves, it remains basically the greatest and wealthiest re-distributive economy the world has ever known, which means that however much it may deregulate and privatize public sectors of the economy, it still fundamentally runs on the same basic framework of administrative "trickle down" of positive authority, opportunity, and resources availability. Among a lot of other things, this means that there is always going to be a huge bottleneck of money and power--the two biggest things that make up any political-economy, in the seats of centralized power. There is nothing unusual about this pattern as it is typical of any state-organized political system that ever existed.

If we want to look at classical anthropological and archaeological models of state systems theories, we can refer to the concepts of hyper-coherence and meddling as explanatory models of why bureaucratic systems grow into increasingly expensive and inefficient, self-sustaining, and somewhat parasitic structures that eventually incapacitate the adaptabilities of a society to meet new challenges or to respond effectively in local behavioral settings. Hyper-coherence and meddling both refer to the tendencies for government bureaucracies to grow in time in control of increasing details of a larger system, to the point of destructively interfering in the day to day details of the articulation of the system. The theory is, that in all its complexity and over-control, a system that is too hyper-coherent and too meddling in local affairs, is likely to break down in the structure of the long run, to suffer unpredictable "critical events."

The kind of system that has been created parallels, on some levels even exceeds, that that the Chinese have concocted, it seems, for surveillance and control of their own people, for cultural espionage abroad, and for control and manipulation of Chinese cyberspace and for digital espionage of the global Internet.

My concern is the rise of what I refer to as modern, post-industrial, administrative authoritarianism. How to define this new form of social authoritarianism? It invariably involves some level of coercion of authority--the principle modality of this coercion is not through threat of force, but through economic persuasion and exclusion. The bigger the government, the bigger the money it can throw at a problem, and the bigger the problems associated with the money thrown at the solution and the bigger the business needs to be that stands behind the government in both the problems it deals with and recognizes to be important, and the kinds of solutions it devises to solve these problems. So, we get a really Big Deal going.

The problem I have had with all this is the question, who is profiling the profilers? Who is holding whom to account in the administration of public or increasingly, private-based public affairs? At what point does the idea of public interest and public based or public derived control come back into a bureaucratically convoluted formula--or is the notion of control and accountability just some administrative "Catch 22" kind of euphemization of a tangle of manipulative power and misinformation, of closed doors behind a secretary behind a secretary behind a secretary behind a phone in front of a human being with a problem or a real need to be addressed.

I would define administrative authoritarianism, especially in the American context, as a centralized system of regulative social control based upon the arbitrary manipulation and management of redistributive resources, including vital and strategic information, and screens of opportunity within an exclusively capitalist state system. This social authority is reinforced primarily through a system of socio-economic exclusion, disenfranchisement and penalization, and through the manipulation and differential enforcement of legal systems to favor the interests of those in control over those being controlled, and to preserve the status quo of such structural and social asymmetries. Increasingly, the use of covert investigative and paramilitary agencies as a means of coercive control become depended upon in such systems in order to maintain a facade of social normality in the system. Such a system of social discrimination rests upon a framework of nomothetic typologization and categorization of people along different dimensions of cleavage and stratification, and is reinforced symbolically and legitimized by means of academic sanctioning, manipulation, publication and control of specialized knowledge. Routinization of these mechanisms of typological classification and control serve to background and embed the framework as a form of indirect constraint that is culturally sanctioned. Thus, such control is "normalized" as intrinsic to the order of the system. Presentation of class attitudes, values, and conspicuous consumption serve to behaviorally reinforce class-bias and class-based discrimination in such a system. Symbolic ascriptions and attribution of personality traits, of psychological attitudes, conditions and "states," serve to reinforce such a system socially and behaviorally. Within such a framework, the differential exercise of human rights becomes situationally relative to the identity, positionality and control mechanisms that are used to reinforce social control. 

The consequences of the rise and socio-structural embedding of such administrative authoritarianism is the closed stratification of society and its polarization between the systematically enfranchized and disenfranchised. The danger of such a pattern of development is the consistent undermining of the legal and political foundations of an open, democratic society, namely the exercise of blanket political equality and the social and structural reinforcement of social inequalities under a blanket ideology of social or communal based equality. Control over the results of open elections is largely achieved through the pre-selective manipulation of the items and individuals that are found upon a ballot, and through the persuasion of mass communications media that cultivates an atmosphere of social conformism, hierarchy, in-group/out-group identification and and a generalized sense of social insecurity. 

Being able to vote for one's own best interests on any ballot depends on having one's best interests represented on the ballot and knowing what one's best interests may be and how they might be served or not served by a particular ballot item. This is all well and good, but being able to vote on any ballot makes little difference at the end of the day if one receives a notice that one has been "downsized" or otherwise euphemistically disenfranchised from socio-economic and political economic participation within the system. 

Administrative control in the articulation of the American system is generally limited only by the bureaucratic delegation of negative authority and power and by legal precedents and liabilities in a common law system. Conflict resolution is always negotiable in such a framework. This control is not normally subject to the same kinds of structural constraints of government defined by the constitutional separation of powers, and the rise of a single party framework across all three branches of federal government will tend overall to blur and confuse the boundaries of such separation. We can in such a scenario expect that the processes of development of increasing administrative authoritarianism based upon class stratification to continue and the actual practice of democratic institutions in society to be further eroded as a consequence.

Lewis Micropublishing

The modules for the front-end have been set up in basic form. Each will be developed in its own way, and all should become increasingly integrated together into a single "meta-systems" framework as they are individually developed. Work on the front-end is mostly on schedule, though recently delayed by other concerns. Already I'm seeing results from the installation and redesign of modules for the front-end, as traffic has jumped up significantly and the flow pattern of traffic through the system has shifted toward the modules with increasing frequency. We will shortly be adding news feeds to our portals and developing our main news media site at:

  http://www.mynewsmedia.com

The primary purposes of Lewis Micropublishing are as follows:

• To provide an integrated front-end interface for the Lewis Works framework that is fully extendable and distributable to all people, areas and localities of the earth.
• To provide auxiliary back-up and heuristic short-cut resources at the front-end of the framework in order to resolve the information bottle-neck at this point in the framework.
• To develop real-time and real-estate front-end resources on behalf of the Lewis Works framework for the purpose of providing presentational legitimacy and branded leverage for the various parts of the framework.

Lewis Works

The primary purposes of the Lewis Works framework are as follows:

• To provide a coherent strategic and project planning framework to meet the main points of the mission statement of this framework through profit-based and non-profit applications focusing on key problems of alternative development in the world.
• To provide central control functions for the entire framework and all areas of its active extension.
• To provide a refined set of research, consultancy, planning and implementation resources to assist other interests in configuring alternative systems-based development.

Meta-Culture

The primary objectives of the Lewis Meta-culture are as follows:

• To provide textual and graphic publication and other media production resources both for other areas of the framework, and as its own productive system.
• To cultivate values and aesthetic sensibilities that can be referred to as earthbound and meta-cultural in orientation.
• To develop a framework for alternative environmental design in mediation of human culture with the natural world.
• To develop an effective system of human anti-structural activities that effectively mediate conflict and the basis for conflict in the world, and that provide an effective means for symbolic-behavioral rehabilitation and remediation for people.

Lewis-Micro

What's in a name? A Domain by any other name would be as virtual as the day it was registered! We haven't registered many new domain names of late, but we have reassigned values and locations to the domain names that have been registered. Lewis Micro is one of them, and though its status is still in a pending mode, it has temporarily been reassigned to this major sub-heading. Lewis Micropublishing, and all the Lewis Micropublishing tld's, have been reassigned as well, for much better effect.

All the naming can be confusing, conflating and even at times misleading. I've lately come around to the realization that names must brand themselves in the imagination of the potential customer or member, and that in order to do so they must be linked to a product or service, or directly to something that the user will concretely relate to and associate with. This was perhaps obvious to everyone else except myself, all the alliteration aside.

The naming issues in the system have not been resolved, but only time will tell. On one hand, the ambiguity and ambivalence surrounding key names especially undercuts a received sense of legitimacy and credibility in the mind's eyes of potential players in the system, as well as to the general web world at large. At the same time, it has created an inherent flexibility in the organization and reorganization of frameworks that permit its accelerated development, and indeed, in many instances, facilitate this development. Thus there is a trade-off between, on one hand, branding a unique sets of names to one's identity, and to being able to use those same names in a taxonomic and conceptual manner to reflect the complex structure and nature of a systems-based framework. Domain names chosen are usually compromises, and rarely if ever those that one plans or desires to have in the first place. They approximate the purposes they serve in the framework, but only in an approximate manner.

The main objectives of Lewis Micro are as follows:

• To provide a full range of web-resources, services and products for all the areas of the framework as well as an independent set of business services offered to the larger web world.
• To develop and maintain the central web-system by which the Lewis Works framework articulates upon the world wide web.
• To develop and publish advanced software integration solutions.
• To develop comprehensive informational resources available through the Internet
• To develop alternative hardware computing and automation solutions for a wide range of developmental applications.

Meta-Systems

Working meta-system theory at different levels came without preface, and begged the still insufficiently answered question of what is in fact a "meta-system." The most succinct answer to this is that a "meta-system" is a "system of systems" and points up the idea that systems in reality cohere into other, larger scale systems--bringing to mind as well the complementary ideas of integration and developmental differentiation. But a "meta-system" also becomes what can be called "general systems philosophy" or the philosophical perspective of general systems. In this it is something very akin to the philosophy of science, and science, conventionally conceived, and systems, share many of the same theoretical presuppositions, methodologies and operational-empirical areas of knowledge. I see science and systems theory as two sides of one coin, as entirely complementary to one another--with the former tending to be analytic and the latter primarily holistic and synthetic. But I see the concept of the "meta-system" as something even more than a philosophy of systems, as it is in a sense a philosophy of the philosophy of systems of all kinds, and even, the knowledge of the philosophy of such philosophical systems, etc. We stand back at the edge of an infinite regress of meaning when it comes to meta-systems. 

In a physical sense, a "meta-system" is entirely equivalent to the total universe, if we can conceive of this as a single meta-state system itself that encompasses and includes all of physical reality. It stands to reason that if this is a correct definition to hold of the entire sphere of our physical realities, then we would ultimately be bound by this physical state of affairs and unable to at least scientifically think beyond its framework but only in terms of it.

The issue of meta-systems is the relativity of our knowledge of systems, and ultimately, of our capacity to step outside of the systems that we are bound within. It is difficult even to speak in a completely objective manner about systems if the language that we use are also defined by such systems. Knowledge itself becomes relative to the meta-systems context we seek to understand and explain. Therefore, how do we get out of such a conundrum?

A meta-system comes to imply, somewhere along the way, a taxonomy of different kinds of systems, and the natural stratification that occurs between these different systems. A taxonomy of systems in turn implies structural relations that occur between types of systems, and a typology of systems based in part upon such structural relationships. Somewhere along the way of explicitly defining "meta-systems," we go from merely talking about a system of systems to trying to map out a framework of structural relations that bring different systems, and especially, different kinds of systems, into the same operating theater. This is an important transition to make. 

The concept of a "meta-system" also carries with it a connotation and a use as referring to the functional and relational context in which a particular system, or certain set of systems, is articulated, and the holistic relationships that occur in that environment that affect its overall patterning and its constitution by subsystems. It allows us always to situate a system in its natural or logical context, as both a concept and as a model of a real working system, rather than to divorce or alienate a system from its context.

The primary objectives of the meta-system department are as follows:

• To provide a comprehensive meta-systems framework including theoretical, methodological and operational resources, for the contextualization of all project undertakings and activities in the framework.
• To provide consistent and coordinated research & design-development resources organized on the basis of natural and real systems stratification for exploration of structural meta-systemic relationships occurring in the world.
• To provide and support auxiliary frameworks, peripheral facilities and external programs that serve to promote and develop a working meta-systems framework in real time in the world.

Development

The central concept concerning the development systems framework is the general idea of "alternative development." Alternative development broadly defined consists of any form of working program or project for the design and implementation of applied systems that are not currently extant in the world, and that do not necessarily fit the predominant structure of systems in the current order. This includes projects and productions of a "qualitative" nature, those that focus human development factors that are not necessarily measurable in any quantitative manner. We have defined an outline of alternative development projects that are of greatest interest to our framework. The relativity of general systems design entails that projects are organized in a meta-systems framework and sub-projects are nested within larger scale project designs.

Briefly, my current key project outline of greatest interest at this time consists of the following:

A. Lewis Micropublishing

1. Global Interface

B. Lewis Works

1. Systems-based Consultancy

2. Xyztems Centralized Control

C. Meta-culture

1. Publication Frameworks

2. Graphic Production Frameworks

3. Earthbound Systems

D. Lewis Micro

1. Web-system Development

2. Microsoft Project

E. Meta-Systems

1. Meta-Systems Primer

2. Modeling Studio

3. Meta-systems Laboratory

F. Development Systems

1. Logistical-Operational Framework

2. Lewis Business Net

3. Alternative Educational Framework

4. General Production Shop

A number of subprojects are defined within these main areas. Each subproject, as it develops, will differentiate further into other alternative projects. We may define, for all alternative systems, a general model of an input-output feedback loop between production and consumption, mediated by a working project model of any possible form, resulting in some form of positive feedback that results in increasing productivity and or efficiency of production. Outputs are generally defined as products/service lines that are construed of some positive value to a potential consumer, especially in terms of further integrating that individual into a systems framework and in the distribution of value created by such a framework. This model may include as subsystems any number or kind of alternative feedback loops that result in the stabilization, differential development and growth of the model overall and increased net productivity or efficiency of productivity overall.

Beyond rhetoric about alternative development, the basic issue of a development framework is in the initial stage launching a true business cycle off the ground, one that actually involves the sale of goods and services that are unique to the framework, and providing the infra-structural means for the organization and integration of the framework as a real working, project-based system that goes after hands-on designs. At some point, these two goals should become interconnected, and should in the longer run form the foundation for building a larger and more sophisticated development framework. Foundational work has been now almost a year tardy, though the situation is not seen as being too late or entirely unsalvageable or unmanageable. Many business activities have been deliberately postponed, largely depending development in other areas of the framework that would be sufficient when the time came to actually fly the business end in terms of specific branded goods and services.

The primary purposes of the Lewis Development framework are as follows:

• To provide the operational basis for the articulation of the entire framework and its various subsections in both profit and non-profit based contexts, as well as to provide an alternative and expanding range of business-based and non-profit options in support of the framework and its mission.
• To provide a framework for alternative human development, especially through education, information transmission and aid programs targeting critical problem areas that are linked to alternative development.
• To provide the resources and foundation for the development of alternative structural frameworks in the world for the facilitation of alternative development.
• To provide frameworks and platforms for human organizational development, networking and efficient realization/mobilization of human resource potential in the world in service of alternative development.

Announcements & Updates

Announcements of recent updates in our framework

* Notices of recurring fraud based upon identity theft this past week has forced a delay in things and has resulted in the needing to change basic information across a number of accounts we hold. It seems likely that the incidence of this kind of Internet based fraud will increase in the future, and people are well advised to take extra precautionary steps to protect against such victimization.

*We have weathered the yearly storm without too much loss to our system. The bottom line is that I will be able to carry on with the framework, unforeseen events like a North Korean holocaust or a fire or major So. Cal. earthquake notwithstanding. Though we are in a temporary lull, this is only the qualm before the real storm arises.

*Development of our primary interface and its various modules and portals is on track and on schedule. 

Mission Statement

Lewis Works is dedicated to realizing new human adaptive possibilities in order to create alternative long-term frameworks for human & biological systems development on earth and beyond.

The primary mission of Lewis Works is to fundamentally empower all human beings, without regard or reference to their individual or cultural differences, so that they may function in a more constructive and non-violent manner by means of their integration within an applied systems framework that enables them to contextualize and focus their independent developmental efforts toward comprehensive solutions to common problems in resource distribution, environmental adaptation, and social-structural interaction.

Lewis Works Ten Point Mission Statement

• 1. Lewis Works seeks alternative meta-systems based development through applied general systems with the main goals of:

• a. Achieving a mutually stable and harmonic balance between future human systems and earthbound biological systems.

• b. Providing all human beings in unbiased structural or cultural contexts the alternative systems-based frameworks for their individual & social development by means of increased opportunities, productivity, security and resource availability that they would not otherwise have in conventional frameworks.

• c. Developing the infra-structural context and means for the regular extension of human and biological systems beyond the boundaries of the earth.

• 2. Lewis Works is dedicated to achieving a better world for all people and for all life-forms through the implementation and articulation of an applied general systems framework to general and specific problem sets that occur in the adaptive organization of human behavior in a shared natural environment.

• 3. Lewis Works is non-exclusive, open, non-authoritarian, philanthropic and pacifist in orientation.

• 4. Lewis Works pursues a combination of both profit and non-profit programs and projects to the achievement of its main goals.

• 5. Lewis Works protects and promotes universal human rights and human responsibilities throughout its various programs and projects by the systematic pursuit of human development strategies.

• 6. Lewis Works is law abiding and honest in all its dealings and transactions in all contexts, and respects and honors the customs and manners of all peoples and all ethnocultural groupings.

• 7. Lewis Works protects and promotes the confidentiality and legitimate interests of its clients and customers under all circumstances and in all cases.

• 8. Lewis Works seeks to efficiently provide a comprehensive range of profit-based services and related product lines within an open, web-based forum of exchange that is global in scope, regional in character, and local in focus, and that serves as the basis for the development of a structurally open meta-systems based context in the world transcending local, regional and national identities and affiliations.

• 9. Lewis Works seeks to promote non-profit programs in alternative human development for the sake of alleviating human suffering, educating people openly and in an unbiased manner, and promoting pro-social human development.

• 10. Lewis Works seeks to create trans-national meta-cultural orientations in the world through various organizational frameworks that promote open, democratic principles of government, fair-play and the rule of just law, and through the development of anti-structural multi-media based systems that provide humanity a common symbolic context for their meta-cultural integration.

Products & Services

Lewis Works strives to offer a genuinely comprehensive range of services and products for the global e-consumer in an informed, non-aggressive manner. It has taken us time to develop our resources into an integrated framework that will provide largely automated self-service to our members and other customers, bolstered by one-on-one account management and attention to personal details. But persistence & a great deal of patience is finally beginning to pay-off in terms of the emergence of a real web-system with an active presence on the Internet.

We act both as a reseller for other providers, and we also are increasing the product range that we actually own or buy ourselves wholesale and then resell. We also provide a range of peripheral options through associate/affiliate accounts. 

We seek to be as honest and transparent in our dealings and relations with the world as possible, putting as a premium in our transactions building the values of trust and reliability.

We also recommend our current Link Palette for related links & portals, though most of these are as yet unfinished.

For external topic-organized links, we recommend Hugh's Hot Links

For popular, top-search links, we recommend Haut Lynx

Query us for advertising on our Advertising Pages that are shown throughout our web-system on more than a eleven hundred distinct URLs.

Feedback

This Newsletter is published at 4:30 PST each Friday afternoon. 

Contact

Subscribe to our Newsletter below: