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

Back Issues

Backend News-feed (RSS)

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. 9

On Top: The Systems Transformation of Lewis Works

Main Article: "Symbolic Cognition & Human Knowledge Systems: The Noetic Revolution of Human Civilization"

Physical Systems: "Universal Features of Real Systems"

Biological Systems: "Human Biological Dominance, Global Circumscription & the Doctrine of Universal Natural Rights"

Human Systems: "Human Power Motivation and the Symbolic Transformation of Human Nature"

Announcements & Updates

12/03/04 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:

Criticisms/Comments, then Provide Feedback

On Top: The Systems Transformation of Lewis Works

Our little world has been turned upside down! Thinking through problems, especially complex issues, requires time, and time is a basic human resource we all squander and have precious little of leftover. We have arrived at a resolution to a general set of problems that is represented by a somewhat revolutionary reconfiguration of the entire Lewis Works framework. It will of course take much more time to work through the many implications and consequences of this revolution.

Working systems tend to go from simple to more complex, in the process becoming less and less efficient. This is certainly true of my web-system and also of this newsletter, which seem to grow more complicated with each passing day. Lately, as it undergoes yet another conceptual and organizational revolution, things Lewis Works have been getting a bit overwhelming, to say the least. There is emerging though some sense of order and semblance of a solution to the problems that building such a framework implies and has imposed upon my life this past half decade.

There have been many changes to our framework in the last several days. Basically, the dilemma has been that of a top-down, vertically constructed outline. This framework is ill-suited to web-system design, as people are relatively disinclined to surf multiple links into a site or set of sites. Hence, majority of content buried deeply within a site or system remains relatively unavailable, especially to first time and casual visitors. This is an obvious problem, but it becomes complicated by the concept of meta-systems design that attempts some level of comprehensiveness of design or information. In any direction of informational elaboration, there is a rapid exponential increase in knowledge as one descends into levels of greater specificity of detail. Thus, the explosion of information that occurs in the elaboration in any direction, becomes quickly overwhelming if one pursues multiple directions simultaneously. There becomes therefore, in the pursuit of some degree of comprehensiveness in systems design, between generality and superficiality, on one hand, and depth and detail in any particular area, on the other. This of course is nothing new, and is the problem of organization of information in the world at large, reflected for instance in the hyper-specialization and compartmentalization of expertise in formal knowledge domains.

Top-down, formal outline organization is a logically obvious way of addressing and attempting to resolve such a problem, as is an alphabetical arrangement of knowledge. But, again, this kind of solution is not entirely sufficient to the requirements or capacities provided by the web or by digital information management solutions. While this issue has been recognized for some time now, the general manner in how to deal with it has not been completely resolved. A functional organization of the framework that spreads the information out laterally, horizontally, allowing more to be available at the surface rather than remaining buried and relatively isolated underneath, may seem obvious. But how to do this in a way that retains the integrity of meta-systems design is a more subtle kind of problem.

We have thus been revamping our framework to address what have been central problems in its articulation, especially for the sake of resolving the informational bottleneck as a content-based and content development framework. These changes are reflected largely in moving some domains to the foreground and others to the background, and reassigning domains and domain names to new areas of the framework and hence new sets of functions and goals they serve. This being said, much of the functional reorganization is not reflected in this newsletter, as though the domains represented by this newsletter have been moved around, their functions more or less remain the same. We have added a set of sections below to reflect movement to the front and top of the framework three domains. We have strayed lately away from a strictly systems based focus in dealing with a number of peripheral issues, though these have proven well warranted excursions that have helped to reinforce the central framework. 

This Newsletter is rapidly differentiating and it is likely that in its current transitional state it is a precursor to a full blown on-line journal that would be published bi-monthly or monthly. As our framework shifts so also do the purposes of this Newsletter change. The Newsletter has become a stable form and function in the larger framework, and will continue to be developed in its own way. Because things have been developing so rapidly and so fundamentally within the framework, the outcomes of these changes in terms of this Newsletter or any other future periodical publications are not yet clear or certain.

I have finally managed to get my brain off the current affairs of domestic and international politics, and back into the groove of focused systems and related stuff. 

Main Article

The binding problem is a central problem in overcoming the mind-body dilemma in both philosophical perspectives of human reality and epistemology as well as in cognitive science and artificial intelligence models of the human brain and mental operation. Basically, we must ask how the brain organizes itself, and integrates its various networks and centers of neural activity, to achieve human consciousness and mind, especially in consideration of highly developed states of human reason and intellect. Analytical approaches have sought mechanical solutions to this central problem, in terms of neural networks and models of the neuron, but these solutions fall short of a complete solution to this kind of problem.

In the anthropology of knowledge there occurs a very similar problem in the question of  (1) linking human cognition to symbolic behavior and (2) extending symbolic behavior to the cultural construction of human reality and to definitions of human culture. This problem is not in fact unrelated, and the theoretical-methodological solution I developed for the latter question in terms of symbolic framing provides a potential solution for the former problem as well.

We may say at the outset that if the human brain is looked at from the standpoint of human systems theory, then we can understand clearly that the mind is the central emergent property of the integration of the brain, and the components of the brain maintain themselves in a complex and dynamic kind of equilibrium, involving normally a diurnal-nocturnal cycle of sleep and wakefulness. We can further say that because symbolic behavior and integration appears to be the uniquely defining characteristic of human mind, as opposed to that of other known animals, then we can understand that the emergent integration of the mind has to do with the mechanical organization of the brain to produce symbolic awareness. This symbolic awareness is behaviorally expressed and linguistically encoded and articulated. 

We can attribute by inference states of mind to other species of animal, especially obvious in highly intelligent animals. Experiments with primates teach us that primate intelligence is as sophisticated as human intelligence in many dimensions and shows many of the same basic components of symbolic self-awareness and self-reflection that is characteristic of human conscious awareness. Primates in captivity take readily to human cultural preoccupations and patterns, and primates in natural settings have demonstrated the emergence of rudimentary cultural adaptations and expectable variability of patterning between different groupings.

If we examine what is unique about human knowledge systems, and universal to these systems, compared to inferable animal states and systems of knowledge, we can apply primarily the trait of "world openness" to human knowledge systems versus what can be called an "Uexkullian closed world" of the animal. We may state a continuing human plasticity to learn and adapt to the environment on the basis of cognitive processing of perceptual inputs and behavioral interactions that continues throughout the life cycle. We can refer as well to what can be called the cognitively directed behavior that is relatively independent of instinctual constraints or basic drives, though obviously influenced by these drives. Human beings demonstrate a remarkable degree of voluntarism and arbitrary willpower, as well as a cunning of foresight and planning.

Human knowledge systems can be said to be symbolic systems of encoded signals that have a material form and that demonstrate basic design features of human language. We may refer to these as linguistically encoded cultural texts. These systems provide largely directive or alternative relative templates that are used for guiding human behavior, or alternatively for the symbolic justification and rationalization of events. In preliterate or oral societies, knowledge systems largely took the form of mythologies and associated magical lore that were utilized to explain and organize the world, including human social relationships. Story telling has been an important part of this process. Encoding often to the form of ritual performance and even architectural construction and aesthetic design in folk arts.

With the advent of systems of writing, attributed in the main to the need for record-keeping connected to the rise of large scale state-organized systems, and the advent of craft and labor specialization as well as the rise of a formal priesthood, human knowledge systems took on a sense of developmental differentiation that allowed a new level of understanding and comprehension of the world to be achieved. Associated with this is a sense of abstraction and awareness of conceptual independence of ideas from realities. Associated with this also is the classical idea of the "Birth of Tragedy"--the rise of an Apollonian virtue theory of the rule of law and order and the regulated organization of human society. Vast repositories of knowledge thus developed that represented organized collections of texts and these provided a framework for extended and systematic systems of knowledge transmission.  

The next revolution of human civilization arrived with the advent of mass printing technologies, which allowed the broad dissemination of texts and provided a basis for increasing rates of literacy. Associated with the advent of printing in Europe was the rise of the Renaissance as well as the early development of a form of market capitalism and early forms of craft and cottage industrialization. The key noetic transformation of human knowledge systems was at this period of time the rise of science and the rise of a non-idealized and naturalized view of humankind. With this came the active exploration of the world and of worldview, and the development of a broader range of alternative systems of knowledge. Associated with this was the questioning of basic precepts and dogmas by which traditional cultural knowledge and worldview had been organized, particularly as a product of a Medieval Scholasticism that was focused on the problem of the exegetical translation and interpretation of sacred texts.

The most recent revolution of human civilization has occurred essentially in the last fifty years with the rise of electronic broad-casting media and especially digital forms of knowledge recording and storage. I see the advent of the Internet and newer satellite based wireless technologies to be an extension of the same processes begun with the radio and television broadcasting of the previous era, as well as with photographic and film recording technologies. 

We are today in the midst of this newest knowledge revolution and we do not know the consequences of this in terms of the patterns of integration of our world. We may say clearly that we are dealing with symbolic and organizational structures in the world that are essentially obsolete and that are anachronisms of the past standing in the way of future progress. There is also no way to knowing for certain the outcomes of this direction of development. What can we expect from the future of development. I'm inclined to think that the next knowledge revolution of human civilization will be the achievement of comprehensive systems of integration that are fully automated and that might be based upon hybrid or exotic forms of quantum knowledge storage and manipulation.

Physical Systems

All real systems share a basic set of constraints that may be called universal and these serve as limiting factors in the articulation and phenomenal patterning of any system. A real system is any natural or human made system that occurs in objective reality, as opposed to non-real systems (i.e., abstract, conceptual or imaginary systems that lack any demonstrable basis in reality.) Non-real systems may be considered to be systems that are possible but as yet undemonstrated through experience. There is thus an overlap between real and non-real systems, and it is in this overlap that parallax and play exists for the emergence of new systems heretofore unrealized.

The universal constraints of real systems primarily involve energy exchange relationships upon a physical level. This energy exchange, of whatever kind of system, involves both inputs of one form of energy into a system complex, transformation of this energy along different pathways, and output of energy in one or more alternate forms, part of which is always the expenditure of heat. This thermodynamic model of energy exchange is really only part of the larger equation of energy transfer in real systems. It seems, all real systems are also subject to the constraints of gravity and gravitational energy, and these kind of constraints are not exactly thermodynamic by the conventional model. It is apparent also that other kinds of energy exchange transactions may be occurring in all real systems, albeit upon levels or in ways we have very little direct access to, observationally speaking, and at which we have not yet begun to understand what is really happening.

All real systems also contain, by virtue of their non-random organization of relationships, implicit information that is intrinsic to this relational patterning. Because an informational model is almost completely describable in terms of an thermodynamic analogy, many of the constraints that apply in the process of energy exchange transactions in system also apply to the informational carrying capacity of systems. We may venture the hypothesis in fact that all energy exchange events in the universe carry some kind of informational pattern in the structure of the event that is non-random. If this is true, we may further deduce that what is most characteristic of any system is its energy transactions, and all energy transactions in physical reality can be said to be relatively "systematic" in their occurrence. We know this for two sets of reasons. In the attempt to understand any energy transaction, we can always assume that there is always a net energy balance of zero in any equation we come up with, and this exact balance of inputs-to-outputs in any "energy" system is also directly analogous to a model of pure mathematical abstraction. At this point, pure energy transactions and naturally organized informational systems are directly correspondent with purely abstract mathematical models based upon logical equations. Of course, the complexity and chaos of underdetermined natural systems is virtually impossible to replicate by means of mathematical models, but the possibility for doing so is what drives the advance of supercomputing digital simulations of complex natural event structures like wave action or tornados.

What does all this mean? If we put aside the symbolic rhetoric of our own language and conceptual/ideological systems, and we approach any real system in its most basic terms, we can always find an exact mathematical model, however complex and relatively unavailable, that perfectly describes the deterministic behavior of the system in question in terms of its energy transactions. However chaotic and disordered an explosion might be, if we could replay the events in an exact sequence and simultaneously, we would be able to mathematically map the chain of energy reactions that composed such an event.

Some kinds of constraints are obviously connected to the energy transactions of systems--there is always a loss of heat energy in any real system, such that the efficiency of energy input to the used energy output is always less than 100%. And such a system can never be completely ordered in a non-random, deterministic sense, but its pattern will always contain some degree of random "noise" that is essentially unpredictable.

There are other related limitations we may find universal to all real systems. All real systems contain some degree of indeterminacy or variability built into it on a structural level. All real systems are subject to change and dynamic fluctuation over the long term. All real systems change along pathways that are paradigmatically predefined for systems of a similar kind and magnitude. Change in systems is inevitable. All real systems may be said to have a finite state-path trajectory that describes the life-cycle of a particular kind of system. The informational patterning associated with any real system is transformed on the basis of the stage of the life-cycle and the surrounding environmental events that occur to that system. 

All real systems achieve some stable, steady-state configuration in an intermediate phase of its development, which state configuration generally defines the system as such taxonomically and categorically. The mature or parent state of a normal system contains the general informational patterning that can be used in the classification and analysis of different kinds of systems. The fact of inexorable change of any real system imposes certain temporal constraints upon that system. Any system can last only so long before it perishes as such and its elementary components become recycled back into that huge physical cauldron of the universe. 

All systems, as systems, also have spatial constraints that limit their articulation. Real systems are not only bound in time, but in space as well. The reasons for the spatial constraint of systems are not so obvious as they might first appear to be. The best explanation I can make, and this is only hypothetical and tentative, is that in fact, in nature, we cannot have an infinite amount of energy in one place at one time, though we may have an extraordinary amount of energy thus concentrated in a finite area. Another way of looking at this problem, I believe, is to restate the idea that we cannot completely or clearly separate spatial dimensions from temporal event structures, and when we have the notion of space, we must include in the formula the problem of time. Hence, if anything is temporally limited due to change, that thing must also of necessity be spatially limited as well. The idea that any given spatial area, over a limited period of time, may contain only so much energy, and hence, information that is inherent to that energy patterning, sets limits as to the possibilities of growth and size of systems. 

Also, the idea that systems that depend upon energy transactions between an internal and external environment that are fundamentally different from one another, across some kind of  threshold, also entails that any real system can be only of finite 3 dimensional size. An infinitely large system could have no external environment with which to exchange energy. All energy would be contained within itself. I think another way of looking at this problem might be to state a precept like "an infinite amount of energy cannot be obtained from an infinitely small point in space-time." We cannot compress or squeeze all the energy of the universe into a single infinitesimally small "quantum" of space-time. We know that there are relativistic considerations increasingly at the lower known limits of size--there appears for instance to be increasing indeterminancy, intrinsic indeterminancy, of event structure on a small enough scale of measurement. I do not think the implications of this are completely understood, but it seems to me even "energy" as we understand this may be something completely different once we get to a small enough level of analysis.

Perhaps a simpler way of stating this is that all energy transaction events, and the systems they represent, occur in finite space as well as finite time, and thus require both limited space and time for their occurrence. 

We must ask, beyond space-time considerations of energy systems, what other constraints might all real systems share in common?

All real systems appear to maintain an indefinite internal state of dynamic equilibrium that is characterized by a gradient between a larger degree of energy contained internally within the system and the measure of energy outside of the system, which gradient is maintained and mediated by certain mechanisms, specific to each kind of system, that can maintain this gradient by transporting into the system greater quantities of energy per unit time and space than are lost from the system either by work, organization or entropy in the system. This state of equilibrium in a system may be maintained in a stable manner such that it will not be drastically affected by minor perturbations or fluctuations of energy levels or exchanges between internal and external environments.

As a function of the complex internalized organization of systems in a non-random, semi-deterministic manner, it may be said that any system exhibits in its patterning certain synergistic properties that are emergent from the behavior of the system as a system, and that cannot be attributed completely to any single components or set of components of the system. In fact, so much does this appear to be the case that all of nature, and all of reality, appears to have organized and stratified itself on the basis of emergent properties, that, upon finer analysis, simply disappear as a consequence of the disruption of the system that produces the property in the first place. This is as true of protons and electrons in an atom of hydrogen or a molecule of water, as it is in an multi-cellular organism or in a star.

We end up with a paradox of systems in a sense being built of a house of cards, or rather, systems composed of other systems, in turn composed by other systems, based on properties attributed only holistically to systems and never to the component parts of those systems. There is little beyond the enormous intricacies and beauty of natural systems that is more remarkable than how emergent properties attributed to systems integration at one level, becomes the basis for the construction of higher-order systems, and how, in such a way, nature seemingly has constructed itself, in all its intricacies, from apparently almost nothing, to what we know it as, including ourselves in that world.

I would not say that these are the only features that are universal to all real systems. They all share complex relationships between constituent components, and they all occur within an environmental context that is essential to the stability and continuation of similar kinds of systems. Systems cannot arise in environmental contexts that are not conducive to their occurrence and stability. While this may sound like a functional tautology, it is quite true that all systems are environmentally dependent upon the conditions that are conducive to their development as systems of a particular kind.

While it may seem self-evident to claim these kinds of features as basic to all real systems, less evident is the degree to which these same features may be used to describe, for instance, the functioning of human systems at the several levels that human systems articulate and in the contexts in which these systems have arisen and developed. Without the correct environmental conditions occurring, it is like that human systems, as cultural symbolic systems built upon the linguistic exchange and transmission of symbolic information, would have arisen in the way that they did, if at all. And we should pay heed ultimately to the same sets of constraints that drive our global civilization today, the insatiable demand for energy and the capacity to utilize this energy in effective ways.

Biological Systems

It is becoming increasingly apparent in the world, obvious to say the least, that the dominant life form on earth is the human being, Homo sapiens sapiens. How wise we really are remains to be finally answered, but to argue our relative dominance in contemporary global ecology is fairly absurd and represents a form of ideological denial of basic realities. Our ecological dominance is expressed in many ways. The manner of gravest concern is of course the rapid destruction and interference of natural ecosystems at many different levels, and what can be called the phenomenon of global circumscription by the human species. Circumscription is usually looked at from of the standpoint of the environment impinging upon human society--to look at circumscription as human society impinging upon the environment is to case a new light on an old problem, and to invert our sense of place and complacency in the world. The idea that increasing degrees and frequency of human circumscription of human systems, that human systems will continue to become more involuted with increasing growth.

We do not know what the carrying capacity of the natural earth is for human population. We are cresting seven billion people already. Carrying capacity largely depends upon our relationship to our environment and our capacity to manage both the environment and ourselves within it. But regardless of our management systems, systems theory determines that an increasing volume of human population, whatever the level of average consumption, etc., will result in increasing depletion of resources of the global system, and, in the long run, destructive consequences for natural ecosystems. There is no way that we can sustain a global ecosystem in a healthy state for the long run no matter what methods and techniques we might adopt to mediate this relationship.

The greatest likelihood of human systems in the future are that they will become increasingly self-destructive and destabilizing unless effective control structures can be developed that permit the sufficient mediation of human conflict. Beyond decrying an imperative for dramatic family planning and birth-control policies, internationally orchestrated, coupled with effective human development programs that are capable of raising the standard of living for most people and education people and providing them the necessary opportunities to escape the world prison of poverty, we must ask what measures can be taken to best contain the situation. Of course, no one has a complete answer to these difficult problems but this does not mean that we should ask and try to answer the necessary questions to get the job done right.

Beyond a rapid transformation to a hydrogen-solar based energy economy and the colonization of space, the most direct and effect means of forestalling these processes would be the broad-based institutionalization of programs geared at curtailing human population growth in non-destructive ways, educating people effective to live as global citizens in a responsible and enlightened manner, and the enforcement of temporary global moratoriums on a variety of human activities that have had the most destructive effects on the global environment. This would include a large number of fishing enterprises, deforestation and lumbering enterprises, particularly in tropical regions, and postponement of development and building projects, especially in peripheral zones where the relative degree of ecological impact would be the greatest.

Of course, the achievement of these kinds of programs would take a degree of collective will and government responsibility, across the board, especially by the leading powers, that has not yet been demonstrated in any serious manner. It is largely up to governmental agencies to set the tone and determine the climate of leadership in creating a sustainable human global ecology. Efforts toward achievement of such collective sustainability of and by the human population should not be construed as marginal or hostile to the collective order or sense of well being of established society, but as an intrinsic and necessary part of this order.

This consideration leads to the formulation of a doctrine of universal natural rights and responsibilities. We must understand that such a doctrine is human-based and centers upon human behavior and relationships with the world. Natural rights are not intrinsic to nature, they are what human beings, as stewards and parts of this world, must adopt and grant to the world. They are primarily aimed at the regulation of human behavior and the determination of the intrinsic value of non-human natural resources, including the holistic resource of global and natural ecology.

Basically, a doctrine of universal natural rights and responsibilities are an extension of the doctrine of human rights and responsibilities. I have undertaken to list such a doctrine in a permanent section below. I emphasize this doctrine as an extension of universal human rights because I believe it provides a meta-ethical platform for guiding the conduct of human affairs in a global context, and it provides therefore the necessary foundation for the reconceptualization and reconfiguration of the collective human relationship with its world. 

We can not any longer afford to treat the world and the natural environment as a fetish, as a possession, that is ours to do with as we please. Our sense of dominance and power over nature should not be allowed to continue unrestrained by own moral capacities for exercising judicial constraint and symbolic capacities for transcending our own natural limitations.

Human Systems

If we are seek a sense of universal motive in human behavior, whether we are referring to the behavior of people in collectives, or as lone-individuals, or as investigators or jurors in a adjudication of a crime, we must refer ultimately to the human drive for power, especially power that is expressed socially in terms of human relationships and symbolically in terms of the manipulation of the elements of one's life world.

From the standpoint of the anthropological relativity of knowledge in the understanding of human behavior, I would make a strong claim that all human purposive activity that involves even a minimal degree of intentionality and planning, is primarily and ultimately motivated by what amounts to a drive for power, whether this is expressed in social contexts or in personal ways. Therefore, almost all organized human behavior, and even much behavior that appears otherwise disorganized, is behavior that can be explained, motivationally speaking, in terms of the need for power and the sense of satisfaction that is gained from power.

This claim being made, it becomes incumbent to define "power" in a way that is relevant to our argument. In a fundamental sense, I would say that power is the ability to control change in a deterministic manner, especially as change relations to other people and to social relationships. In social terms, power translates into a sense of status and a sense of control that is gained from the ability to determine a course of events, especially as these events affect other people. 

The drive for power can be largely unconscious, and yet remains a prime mover in the organization of behavior. Because the sense of status and control that is achieved from power is symbolic, it becomes a powerful psychological motivator and inducement for behavior, so powerful in fact that it may override almost any other drive or human need that may be claimed to occur. Because power is at the basis of  the symbolic transformation of the human psyche, as the source of will and driver for purposive determination, and because symbolic experience allows for the flexible encoding and analogical transference of value and meaning from one form into a variety of alternate forms, the drive for power is very plastic and very malleable and itself can be sublimated and transformed in very different and often interesting if not completely frightening ways.

The drive for power has one central weakness--it is largely a vicarious and fleeting, impermanent experience. Once having achieved power through the actual determination of an outcome, the experience, status and sense of satisfaction gained quickly dissipates, lost in the stream of on-going experience, and hence, as the sense gained from the achievement of power sinks back below the surface of conscious awareness, the need to regain this sense of power arises back up in however a rationalized and convoluted a manner.

It is apparent too that the drive for power is largely an insatiable and unending need, and the achievement of power induces an even greater need for gaining more power. We can speculate therefore that at the core of the need and drive for power, especially when this appears to occur in an extreme or inordinately large degree, is a deep seated and fundamental sense of dissatisfaction and insecurity of one's own sense of ego identity in the world. This sense of deep dissatisfaction I believe comes from the experience of the loss of control, and the achievement of vicarious or displaced symbolic control, in one's early years of development, mediated as these experiences are by significant others and the often uncontrollable vicissitudes of one's effective environment. We might relate this deep need to a sense of separation, loss and rejection experienced by an immature ego, especially in relation to significant others, and the inability to effectively compensate for this sense of loss by replacement with others or displacement onto healthy forms. We may suggest a fundamental sense of discrepancy in the personality and character of an individual human being, bifurcated between a largely unconscious, libidinally driven, power hungry persona, and a weak and fragile sense of ego that is incapable of controlling the "controller." 

In making these remarks I do not separate qualitatively or distinguish clearly between what I would consider to be normal cases and examples of the need for power and what can be considered clinically or criminally pathological drives for power. The differences seem to be in the degree to which this drive for power becomes the controlling factor of one's behavior, and the manner in which this drive is symbolically transformed and transferred onto a larger set of relationships in the world. In this sense, writer who lives through the characters and plot structure of a novel may be working with similar drives as a dictator who lives through the suffering and repression of an entire nation, or a sadistic sexual psycho-path who lives vicariously through the torture and cruel suffering of their victims.

What this drive for power is critically linked to, at least in terms of human systems theory, is what I have elsewhere referred to as the symbolic transformation of human nature that is most marked by the idea of world openness and the lack of instinctive or other forms of natural constraint upon human behavior. Human behavior is invariably transformed and becomes symbolically expressed and mediated. Because it is highly plastic and highly volatile, it is capable of being manipulated symbolically in a wide variety of ways, often in ways that may be considered extreme, bizarre and naturally perverse. Human behavior frequently shows signs of symbolically transformed perversity largely not encountered in the natural animal world. Our tendency towards aggressive action and violence, especially in group contexts, is therefore probably not the show of an instinct for natural aggression arising for instance from intra-specific agonism, nor can we attribute it to some genetic predisposition per se. Rather, it is evident, that human aggression in the forms it takes and in the ways we are familiar with it especially in modern social contexts, is largely the result of the lack of natural mechanisms of control over human "nature" and the consequences of the symbolic transformation of this "nature" in ways probably not intended by nature.

The plasticity by which this drive for power can be shaped in so many divergent forms, and the degree to which the symbolic displacement and transformation of human character can take, even to the point of overriding what can be considered natural sexual urges and other natural drives for food, a stable body temperature, etc., is indeed quite remarkable, and I believe a very strong case can be made for the influence of hormones and also the release of endorphines and other psycho-active agents as a by-product of the quest and actual achievement of a sense of power. These "psycho-somatic" side-effects of the drive for power may be the essential component that predisposes humanity to a chronic abuse of psycho-tropic drugs and narcotics and what is considered by some the universal need for the achievement of alternative states of consciousness. This need for periodically experiencing alternative states of consciousness, however induced, including various forms of hallucination as well as hyper-suggestive states of trance and other "out-of-body" experiences, seems to me to be a consequence of the symbolic possibilities of the active human brain that quickly finds tedious and monotonous the pace of normal experience.

If we watch animals in their sleep, we an have little doubt that they are dreaming and that the subjective experience of their dreams is very like the way in which we experience our dreams. Dreaming serves therefore a very fundamental purpose for the active mammalian brain. The functions of dreaming are not well understood, but must have a lot to do with the reorganization of the brain, the filtering and integration of new experience, and the symbolic processing of new experience in relation to old experience that is stored as forms of memory or possibly posited in the neural encoding of the brain itself. But it becomes equally evident that dreaming for human beings takes on an entirely different level and order of meaning than it does for instance in dogs, and that for human beings, states of waking consciousness can at times become confused with dream states, the two commingling at the edge of conscious awareness. Not to revisit old stereotypes, but in severe schizophrenics we find people who are awake and yet who are as if in a dream world of their own making. If schizophrenia occurs in dogs in a manner and degree we find it in human beings, it would be a surprise to me as I've not seen a dog yet I would call schizophrenic. But then we can assume that dogs are more instinctively bound to nature, to a closed Uexkullian world of "dog nature" than human beings seem to be.

It is not my intention here to rhetorically belabor a scientific argument with only anecdotal evidence and an appeal to common sense. I would say that the drive to some kind of power is resident in many forms of animals, particularly in animals we refer to as active predators. The capacity to control the outcomes of events in the world are a direct extension of the capacity to control one's own behavior in response to events in the world, however this is achieved, whether by instinct or by symbolic construction. Biological survival, and an "instinct" to live, especially for animals, is predicated on the capacity to interact with a world in terms of one's behavioral controls. This "instinct" even supercedes and hence precludes any drives toward reproductive success, which in its way can be considered an extension and further expression of the self-same set of instincts for survival. We may call it a "natural" will to live or will to survive. This drive exists within us whether we are challenged by our environments in any critical manner or otherwise. It seems often in ordinary life, many of these kinds of rudimentary challenges are removed by design, by cultural preference and by social directive, and often as not, with little to replace it in any ordinary sense of lived experience. But whether suitable contexts exist for its expression or not, the need for its expression may continue doing its own thing regardless.

There is one last point that I must question in relation to this thesis about the universality of the human drive for power and the symbolic transformation of human nature, and this has to do with what can be called a preoccupation for death and, possibly the fear or at least sense of symbolic marginalization that comes from the experience of death, the threat of death, or even just the existence of death. A perverse fascination with death, with killing and the dead, seems to psychologists to be a pathological expression of innate curiosity in life, and of a need to control one's experiences of life. The preoccupation with death and dying seems to me to be a rudimentary expression of the drive for life and survival. In living systems, and especially I think in living systems as sophisticated as human systems, there can be no greater expression of power than the control of life or death over another living being, for death is not just final, ultimate, irreversible, but, I think often overlooked, it represents in a fundamental sense a "win" in a kind of zero-sum game of living and an essential form of competition between organisms. In this sense, the taking the life of another, whether this is done on a field of battle, in a robbery, or as a consequence of a psycho-pathic perversion, represent what might be referred as a presymbolic affirmation of one's own life experiences and chances for success in life. This is by no means a justification of why it is humans so commonly and frequently take the life of other organisms, not just humans but of many forms of life, and appear often to be fascinated by this scenario in their life such that they would want to watch it over and over again played out in movies or on television or in the news media. It is rather merely an attempt to understand how it is that we can be thus fascinated by such a perverse and seemingly destructive interest on such a basic level, and an at least tentative explanation of why this just might be so.

Perhaps needless to conclude, the drive for power is in all of us and may become expressed in many different ways. Many ways are in fact constructive and healthy, and many other ways are obviously not. To become psychologically and behaviorally caught in a particular trajectory of development of this drive for power and its behavioral and social expression in the world, versus some alternative pathway, is critical to answer and yet probably so complex and multivariate that it is impossible to answer in any final way. Whatever trajectory we achieve in the course of our life, and in the course of events in our life, we get caught into what can be called a "circle of power" in which one set of events leads to another, to social consequences and reactions, that in turn drive the need for power to even greater heights, and power can become both psychologically and sociologically amplified thereby.  I'm exhibiting my need for power in writing this overwrought essay, and, if you have read thus far, you are probably exhibit some will for power in reading it to the end. The proverbial slave exhibits power through the dependency of the master on the slave's powerlessness. The will to power takes many forms symbolically in human behavioral response in the world. It is shaped, harnessed and made available to the world by the society in which we are a part and in which we enact our parts.

It is something of a mistake to cast the drive for power as an abnormal or pathological characteristic of human nature, and to portray it only in terms of sociopaths and other criminals. The drive to power characterizes all human beings both equally and in uniquely individual ways. We all manifest this drive, more or less, along a multi-dimensional continuum of its expression in terms of strength, direction and transformation of affect, aggression, activity and rationalization. 

I am of the opinion that human achievement motivation (McClelland et. al.) that in the modern global system is primarily expressed by means of money, that translates into resource acquisition and appropriation, is what can be called a structurally and socially normalized extension of fundamental human power motivation, and the neverending quest to make money and to get rich is merely one more culturally and socially sanctioned form of the manifestation of the drive for power.

I think, as a refrain, that it is easy to overlook the motive of power in our lives and in our world, especially if we are caught up in the grip of power and its circles in our lives. We can repress our confrontation with it, attempt to stifle, manipulate, alter or even extinguish it, not only in ourselves but in others around us. We can especially rationalize its ends and means in our life in practically any manner we choose to see it in, thereby justifying it to ourselves in a satisfactory way if not completely to others in the world. We can act out the drive and fantasies that the need for power manifests itself in, and we can vicariously displaces and project it out onto the world in all kinds of ways. I would even say, that in some social settings, the drive for power can become so manifest and so overwhelming in social life, that it must needs thereby be denied or ideologically justified in a collective manner that not only "makes sense of it" but serves to neutralize or remove any possibly negative consequences that apperceptive realization of its possibilities (and potential horrors) might bring. As it has been said recently, the fish rots from the head down. I think it is in this regard, in a sense of projective symbolic displacement, much easier to recognize the true intent and designs of power in others than to see and acknowledge how it may play out in our own lives. Our ability to symbolically manipulate and transform power is a form of power itself, uniquely human it seems.

Omniprise.net

We are announcing here the pre-launch of a new meta-systems framework at Omniprise.net to provide a wide range of web and knowledge resources to other web-based interests.

Omniprise.net Links:

The primary purposes of the Omniprise framework are as follows:

• To provide an alternative meta-systems framework, independent of Lewis Works that serves as the functional basis for content management and development and for integration of a wide range of alternative web-sites. 

MyNewsMedia

We are announcing here the pre-launch of a new web forum at MyNewsMedia, which will serve as a central portal system for Lewis Works.

MyNewsMedia Links:

The primary purposes of the MyNewsMedia framework are as follows:

• To provide a picture window onto the whole wide world and to provide a central portal for the development of a global and realistic collective worldview
• To provide an open and unrestricted forum for the free exchange and interpretation of information on all subjects under the human sun.

Lewis Works

Lewis Works as a systems-based framework has been undergoing major structural renovations in the last couple of weeks, though there appears now to be the proverbial light at the end of our long and narrow tunnel. The structural instability of the system is a consequence primarily of not having had achieved a true working solution to the central problem such a framework represents. 

Key main pages we will be developing in the next few months will increasingly be "compressed" vertically and the number of pages associated with any particular domain name will be dramatically reduced. Compression will be achieved by reduction of the amount of graphic contents except in designated areas, and the reliance primarily on textual presentation of information in a scrolling manner of organization.

Lewis Works Links:

Currently, Lewis Works is represented primarily by four main on-line portals that are quite stable as anchors and pivot points for the rest of the framework. These are listed in the links below, and include this newsletter.

Main Page

About Lewis Works

Newsletter

System Map

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.

Xyztems

Xyztems has been moved from the background to the top of the Lewis Works framework for the sake of functionally shifting this framework. Xyztems was set up last year primarily as a backend extra-net that would confidential sharing of files between members and partners of our framework, thereby facilitating and coordinating common effort on the Internet. Beyond this, certain security features were intended to be associated with this domain name, and it was largely not meant for public use or exhibition. I have decided instead to bring this domain forward, and, due to certain virtues of its name, to make it a primary domain interface for the Lewis Works framework. I have set under this site the domains Lewis Modeling, Lewis Systems Works and Lewis Business Net, as these constitute the main domains of basic development systems.

The primary purposes of Xyztems are as follows:

• To provide a centralized system of project planning and operational management
• To provide centralized control to the Lewis Works framework that is independent of any other areas of the system.
• To provide basic frameworks in systems-based consulting and related research design and implementation.
• To provide heuristic frameworks for design of alternative applied systems.

Lewis Modeling has been set up for the purposes of promulgating in a cost-effective way basic designs and for heuristic exploration and manipulation of these designs. This is seen as a central and instrumental part of project-planning, and a necessary precursor to any project development cycle that we might undertake.

The primary purposes of Lewis Modeling are as follows:

• To provide a basis for creative heuristic design development in a cost-effective and efficient manner.
• To establish a general modeling studio for experimental construction and manipulation of a broad range of applied systems design, and for representation of patterns in the world.
• To provide auxiliary materials and facilities for purposes of general modeling and simulation.

Lewis Systems Works provides central logistical and operations management framework for the Lewis Works framework, largely because this framework is distributed across a number of different domains and is organized to work a number of different project undertakings concurrently.

The primary purposes of Lewis Systems Works are as follows:

• To provide a centralized system of logistics management and resource platforms for project organization and implementation.
• To provide any auxiliary or peripheral support systems to the normal operation and continuing development of the Lewis Works framework, for any component or offshoot of this framework, as well as for any extraneous frameworks that may be critically related to Lewis Works.
• To provide and develop improved operational and organizational management solutions to particular problem sets, including problems of storage, recycling and conservation of resources and products.

Lewis Business Net has been around for over a year and was the first effort to set up a shopping cart and on-line store. The purpose of Lewis Business Net has been to offer a range of business-related services and products in a central forum as well as to provide alternative forums for more specialized business frameworks that serve the larger Lewis Works framework.

The primary purposes of Lewis Business Net are as follows:

• To provide a business framework for profitable operation of the Lewis Works framework in relation to specific project/product lines. 
• To provide and develop marketing contexts for the realization of profits and increase in value of Lewis Works project/product lines.
• To provide specialized and general marketing frameworks for the facilitation of the production and distribution of goods and services in the world.
• To provide frameworks for capital investment and development.

Net-Maker

The primary purposes of Net-maker are as follows:

• To provide a central framework for content management, presentation and development in the Lewis Works system
• To provide alternative forums for the publication and presentation of different forms of media
• To develop the structural basis for a functional web-system and related services, as well as extensible application frameworks in alternative software and hardware design.

Lewis Micropublishing continues to be developed in terms of its basic modules. There is a real trade-off between putting as much as possible on the front-page and offering a simplified outline framework and navigational structure for users. This problem is one that goes round about and oscillates from one end to the other. Lewis Micropublishing has been essentially pushed down one tier, and consequently the functions it serves have been more narrowly focused and defined than previously. Lewis Micropublishing still remains in a relatively ambiguous position because it remains an alternative main DBA name for Lewis Works, and its name has been already branded in a number of ways with my own writing and publications.

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.

At this point, Lewis Micro remains in a relatively ambiguous and unstable configuration. It remains to be seen how this will play out, but we ask you to look back in next week for updates in this section.

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.

Lewis Notes has been moved up one tier and now sits in its own domain space. It has taken over many of the publishing functions previously assigned to Lewis Micropublishing due to the displacement of these functions as a consequence of the shift of Lewis Micropublishing to as an central interface system for the Lewis Works framework. In addition Lewis Notes includes basic help and about systems assigned throughout this framework, as well as additional knowledge resources that are otherwise peripheral to this framework.

The main objectives of Lewis Notes are as follows:

• To regularly publish and provide relevant textual publications, in a variety of media formats, in a timely manner.
• To maintain operational systems of information that reflect the status and nature of the Lewis Works framework and the varied components of this framework.
• To provide hardcopy printing and publication services both for in-house purposes in the Lewis Works framework and for profit-based external services in the larger world.
• To provide informational and textual collections and compendiums that provide reference resources for as wide and diverse a target population as possible.

Global Meta-systems

Global Meta-systems has been reassigned to the purposes of a main department of the Lewis Works framework and serves at the primary integrated project development platform for Lewis Works. 

The primary purposes of Global Meta-systems are as follows:

• To provide a framework for natural systems research and related meta-systems design development.
• To provide an integrated global-to-local framework for the promotion and design of alternative systems-based development projects
• To provide alternative frameworks for development of product-service development cycles and associated program development focusing on critical problem areas in alternative development.
• To provide frameworks for participation and membership and for development of opportunity and resource structures in relation to alternative development projects and programs.
• To provide alternative media production frameworks for purposes of informational dissemination and anti-structural conditioning.

Lewis Meta-systems has been moved down one level and its functions thus more specialized and focused than previously. This framework remains critical to the design development of applied projects and systems in the world.

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.

Lewis Meta-culture has been reassigned laterally as a result of the reconfiguring of Lewis Micropublishing and related frameworks, and its functions also more specifically focused and defined. Primarily, Lewis Meta-culture expressed an interest in extended aesthetic productions and designs involving alternative forms of media.

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 development systems represents the framework for extended development platforms for project-product and service development cycles. We will be developing this section extensively in future newsletters.

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

* We are announcing the pre-launch of two entirely new and refurbished websites, www.omniprise.net and www.mynewsmedia.com that are completely independent of the Lewis Works framework.

*We are announcing changes in the configuration of the main structure of Lewis Works, designating as the main departments Xyztems, Net-maker and Global Meta-systems, and lining up a third tier and fourth tier of domains beneath these.

*We have added new domain names at the third tier of the framework and increased the number of domain names visible at the second tier. 

*The addition and development of new content-based modules in the Lewis Micropublishing interface has had a direct effect in substantially increasing both traffic flow, web-play and interaction through the system, especially in these pages.

*We have added a new advertising section at the bottom of this page, and will add advertising/affiliate sections with buttons and links along the left margin.

*We have added a new section, Doctrine of Universal Rights & Responsibilities, below.

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.

Universal Rights

Universal Human Rights & Responsibilities

All programs and projects conceived and carried out by or in the name of the larger Lewis Works framework will be done so in accordance and respect to this basic doctrine of human rights and responsibilities within the following meta-ethical paradigm:

1. Basic Human Rights and Responsibilities are interpreted in dynamic balance with one another, and there are many derivative rights and responsibilities that are forthcoming from their interpretation that apply in limited contexts and cases.

2. Human violence is defined as the unnecessary use or threat of destructive force, social constraint or coercion/persuasion in the violation of basic human rights and responsibilities.

3. The central agenda of this doctrine is the realization of greater human potential and possibility through universal tolerance of human difference and the active promotion of human development, both individually and upon collective levels of human social organization.

4. For every rule stated, there are an unknown number of possible exceptions, conditions, extenuating circumstances, and resulting interpretations and applications that nevertheless do not violate the spirit of the implicit principles involved.  

5. There is therefore mandated by the doctrine of human rights and responsibilities a general attitude and behavioral predisposition of generosity, openness, respect, tolerance and forgiveness.

It should go without saying that one's own rights generally leave off where another's responsibilities begin, but this is a central point in the balancing of rights and responsibilities that many people and governments seem to have forgotten. It is true for instance that in some "rights-based" societies like the US, criminals with high-priced lawyers often gain greater attention to their rights and interests than their victims, because there has not been a balanced definition or emphasis upon human responsibilities. On the other side of the coin, in some traditionally "responsibility-based" societies like China and India, individual human rights are frequently sacrificed and violated, and even go unrecognized or tabooed, for the sake of the preservation of a strong sense of social responsibility, which by the way becomes chronically violated anyway by the abuse of privilege and power and the maintenance of double-standards and hypocrisy of office.

It also remains quite true that these rights and responsibilities may be variously interpreted by different people with different backgrounds and orientations. It becomes therefore the case that the gray areas of the interpretation of these basic sets of rights and responsibilities serves as both a ground of contention, possible conflict, compromise, exploitation, violation and even misappropriation, misrepresentation and the dysphemization of the actual exercise of human rights and responsibilities in applied settings. 

The "Right to Life" is a wonderful example of an inherently ambiguous basic statement that can be used by ideologically vested and closed interests to promote their own agendas in the world.  The interpretation of these rights and responsibilities therefore becomes more critical to their realization and the promotion of human development than their legal codification and formal definition. 

The answer to this kind of dilemma is the realization that the basic doctrine of human rights and responsibilities serves not only as a basic anthropological charter for humankind, but as a general ethical code of conduct in which rights and responsibilities, variously interpreted, variably expressed under conflicting and existentially uncertain circumstances, constitutes a kind of meta-ethical system for individual and community behavior. It therefore provides a template for human social action, organization, relation and definition of well being, and at least implicitly sets the standards for defining and measuring relative human well being, conduct and its consequences in the world.  For instance, promotion of human development, both individually and collectively defined, emerges in this framework as a certain high priority that cannot be responsibly ignored in the world.

Different rights and responsibilities of self and others operate and condition one another in a complex way in variable settings and under different sets of conditions. The system in part or as a whole always remains open to interpretation, discussion, revision conflict-resolution, adjudication, legislation and compromise.

Universal Natural Rights & Responsibilities

The doctrine of universal natural rights represents a meta-ethical and logical extension of the doctrine of universal human rights. As with everything else, things can be argued both ways and nothing is incontrovertibly set in stone. There are of course gray areas in the articulation of development that will be manipulated by interests capitalizing on development.

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.

For external topic-organized links, we recommend our Link Module

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. 

Advertisements

est. 1987

Advanced Technology in the Science of Skin Care for Horses and Dogs

An Amazing Breakthrough by Skin Specialists!
Faster Results € Gentle Solutions € EASY to Use!

Contact

Subscribe to our Newsletter below: