completed by our prior observation that just bringing the chaplain in with prayer allows transitioning from the policy infrastructure to the trust infrastructure, where the reliance on others is enhanced and brings the group to a better survival position. Finally, we wouldn’t want to stop our investigation before introducing again the idea that prayer must be providing positive chemical releases in the brain on the road to ecstasy, which is both a reward in itself and a necessary ingredient in the trust ritual that we just discussed.

Now, we’re not really seeking to delve into the specific effectiveness of prayer within any religion. That would take us full tilt into the tumult of trying to determine how best to evaluate a process, through anecdote or through statistics. From a societal perspective, we’re all familiar with the anecdotal recounting of the power of prayer; and, the fact that prayer seems to have been with us, as a species, for as long as religion, would seem to lend some credence to a statistically significant belief in, if not objective observation of, the power of prayer. Certainly, we should note that prayer really does seem to be a common denominator among religions. But, our purpose is to consider the concept of prayer as a springboard to establishing the conceptualization of a social ecosystem from which can be derived the more detailed aspects of a generic ontology, or, in simpler words, a formal model of society. We would expect to be able to place trust and policy infrastructures in this ontology, which we will proceed to do further down in this chapter.

It is illuminating to note that prayer offers an excellent model of the appellate process of the United States judicial system. The Congress and the President ostensibly form the ultimate policy purveyors of this social ecosystem. The Supreme Court, as the highest court involved in policy adjudication, comprises the ultimate policy arbiter of the social ecosystem. However, through its preeminent right to interpret the Constitution, the Supreme Court also comprises the ultimate trust arbiter of the system. The illustration gets even more compelling. In certain instances, the Supreme Court can also effect profound changes in the policy infrastructure; in essence, it becomes in such cases the ultimate policy purveyor as well. The closing admonition of Supreme Court decisions is obviously telling in this regards: “It is so ordered.” The fact that there is no redress, short of an Amendment to the Constitution, for such a pronouncement from the Supreme Court also suggests that it can function as the ultimate purveyor of trust within this social ecosystem. Such would be the act of God within a monotheistic religion. To illustrate this point, it is interesting to consider one of the predominant issues of our times regarding governance within the United States’ primary policy infrastructure, the Supreme Court opinion in the case of Roe versus Wade.

This opinion was the end result of an appellate process concerning a case of a woman’s access to abortion services. We would suggest that the initial class action suit from which was promulgated the ultimate ruling could be properly construed as petitionary prayer. While precipitated within the policy infrastructure, its clear goal was the ultimate trust arbiters of the entire social ecosystem; that is, an interpretation by the Supreme Court of the United States’ Constitution. An opinion was issued by the Supreme Court on January 22, 1973. While volumes have been written regarding this case and the resulting decision, from our perspective two points emerged that are central to a model of social ecosystems. First, the opinion confirmed the primacy of the United States Constitution and its interpretation by the Supreme Court as the ultimate trust authority inasmuch as the result was to overturn a decision based on law under the State of Texas Constitution. Second, through the mechanism of this opinion, a new basic tenet was recognized as being contained within the Constitution, a Right to Privacy that had not been previously recognized in an explicit fashion. The majority on the court would likely suggest that the right was always there; it simply required the actions of someone able to read it. The fact that the decision was a seven to

Book available at Midori Press (regular)
Book available at Midori Press (signed)
Book available at Amazon (regular)