IN SEARCH OF REALITY III



The Perception of Reality





A Study in Thought





by





Marius Heuff

@M.Heuff

Chapter 1

The reality perception.
Egocentric attitudes.
The world of concepts and ideas.
Familiarity and the unexpected.
Vagueness and definition.

How real is the world around me, or, how real is the world within me? Is the world around me exclusively a product of my mental imagery, and, does the world within me, all my ideas, emotions and behavioural impulses, only have a reality insofar as I am aware of these processes? Can we know the world "as it is", granting, without any hesitation, that the world each one of us can know, is only a small fraction of the totality of the world that can be known? What is knowing? What do we know; to what extent does our knowledge correspond with a reality that is independent of our mental imagery?

Let us see, whether we can develop a somewhat coherent picture and conceptual grasp over these questions. The meaning of the word "reality" indicates, first of all, an awareness of ideas and concepts that reflect, accurately, the reality we are in contact with, but, we are also aware of feelings, notions, premonitions, expectations or fears, which we accept unquestionably as "real", even, if we acknowledge, that their content may not be accurate or reliable as a framework for formulating our behavioural responses. This means, that we accept these experiences or notions as meaningful and trustworthy, even, if we do not always rely upon them, consciously or subconsciously, when formulating our behavioural responses.

Within our every-day, routine environment, we move, live and work amidst a myriad of familiar, reliable and trustworthy objects and personal relationships. By and large, we take the mental imagery of these familiar objects and personal relationships for granted, and, we only start to think and reflect about them, if there is a discrepancy between the expected appearance of familiarity and the perceived reality of the moment. With our object-environment, we have, usually, little trouble. The familiar objects will, day in day out, present the same image to us. We react in the same way to them, but, even, in the inanimate world of the more complex objects, such as the modern tools of technology, we are frequently confronted with sudden changes in behaviour or deviations from the expected results, whenever we are trying to manipulate an unfamiliar tool, or, when a complex instrument breaks-down for one reason or another.

In spite of our familiarity with the members of our family, friends and social contacts, or the familiar domesticated animals and cultivated plants, we are far more often confronted with an unsuspected reaction or outcome when dealing with living organisms compared to our interactions with inanimate objects. Consequently, our ideas about them, no matter how familiar they appear to us, and, regardless, how routinely we manipulate or shape our responses according to these ideas, our awarenesses and concepts about many familiar human beings and living organisms are frequently vague and imprecise.

Many of our mental images and, especially, the more complex concepts, seem to have a central core of precision, but there is also a much larger shell of meaning that is interpreted differently by the various members of a community. We notice this discrepancy, as soon as we try to communicate the symbols of knowledge and notions between ourselves. I mean this; if we communicate with our closest friends and relatives about the most common and best-known situations we are likely to encounter, we communicate in concepts that seem to be understood by every member of the immediate social environment in a nearly identical manner. Then, the need for communication and conceptual elaboration diminishes, and we often use a compact, reduced set of symbols, as a sort of "abbreviated vocabulary core", in the quick and intimate contacts of people who know each other well. The fact, that we all understand more or less the same by the use of a certain word or expression, or the use of a specific gesture or attitude, leads to this feeling of "unquestioned familiarity" with our environment, and, in particular, it leads to a sense of familiarity with the behaviour patterns of the people we are in close contact with.

It is important to remind ourselves, here, that all conceptual development takes place as a dialogue between people, and, sometimes, this dialogue occurs in the form of contacts that extend over great distances or periods of time. This is possible with the help of a written record of concepts and ideas, or, more recently, with the help of a sound recording of the spoken word.

Language is, in essence, the verbal communication of sophisticated symbolic representations of our conscious awarenesses, and, we will outline and emphasise, on many occasions, the significance of this concept. The main feature in every language or conceptual communication is the experience, that there is no absolutely rigid meaning for any of our concepts or language symbols. There is a marked variability in precision and rigidity of meaning when comparing different categories of concepts. We see the existence of a sliding scale, here, ranging from an almost perfect precision of mathematical concepts to the vague meaning of justice, love, inequity, suffering, beauty, etc.

If we accept, that the conceptual development of an individual human being depends, to a large extent, on his contacts with the society he has been born into, we can appreciate the mechanisms that show us, how individual variability in the meaning or interpretation of many conceptual awarenesses occurs as a result of a slow differentiation of a more precise, individualised interpretation from a pool of vague, commonly shared notions and awarenesses. In the course of our contacts, we gradually become more aware of differences, discrepancies and imprecisions in the meaning of the various word symbols we use, and, after a while, the existence of a discrepancy and the need for increased precision or a more precise definition of a word symbol, become accepted throughout the community. Then, a new idea or concept will have been born, and it is beginning to find a measure of acceptance and reality within a particular community.

We know, now, that there is no absolute precision or permanently fixed definition for any concept. This is not surprising in view of the essentially organic, biological nature of our mental images, because these mental images are born, grow to maturity, get old and die, like any other living entity. The more an awareness is scrutinised, the more precise the meaning of such an awareness may be defined, and, we need, then, an ever larger vocabulary of language symbols in order to describe all the different variables or aspects of the idea or concept that is in the focus of our attention.

If it is correct to see language and concepts differentiate out of a prodromal stage of vague feelings and imprecise notions, then, the question of correlation between a concept or mental imagery on the one hand, and an external, extra-human reality on the other, becomes easier to answer. We have indicated, that the validity of a concept or idea is greatly enhanced, if we discover, that we are able to "perform" better or manipulate with greater ease the circumstances of our environment, whenever we rely on these images and concepts. In short, we are able to relate or respond better to our environment, whenever we experience a certain concept to be reliable, and the experience of reliability generates a sense of credibility or validity of the concept or belief structure we adhere to. A series of related concepts becomes a "structure of belief", and, this structure of beliefs may assume the certainty of an "absolute truth" as a result of the mutually enforcing relationships between reliability and credibility.

Often, this reliance becomes so complete and instinctive, that we lose sight of the empirical nature of our concepts. If there are no observations, for a long period of time, to indicate any discrepancies between a concept and the reality it describes, the feeling of truthfulness will be enhanced to the point of an absolute reliance on this imagery. If we, as a community, become increasingly dependent for our behavioural responses on the trust and reliance we have placed in a particular concept, this structure of concepts and ideas becomes elevated to a deeply convincing "truth" that is not questioned or scrutinised any further.

The degree of trust that has been placed in the truthfulness or reliability of a concept becomes, often, a matter of life and death, and, when such a subconscious, emotional investment has been made, especially, when it has been made by the community as a whole, the concept becomes, not only, a very highly regarded reality, shared by all, but, to question the validity of such a reality perception becomes an act of sabotage or subversion.

The stronger a community relies on the validity of a certain belief for which it has suffered, and, in which it has invested emotionally, the more rigid and sacrosanct such a belief becomes.

.......

Chapter 2

Rigidity, and the sanctity of beliefs.
The ageing of a belief structure.
Cultural transmission and emotional investment.
The balance between flexibility and rigidity, or adaptability and reliability.

When we review the many, varied belief-patterns of human societies, (in particular, the wide spectrum of beliefs of early civilisations and tribal communities), we seem to become aware of a common feature; nl., the sanctity of certain concepts and beliefs. When an idea or belief becomes "sacrosanct", it has become so valuable to the group, that, to question it or to behave in a way that contradicts these commonly held beliefs, is tantamount to undermining the psychological security of the entire community.

Before it was possible to formulate a common belief in rather precise conceptual language symbols, the mental imagery of a commonly accepted truth was expressed, predominantly, by a reverent attitude towards an object, an animal or a person, or, it was expressed by the solemn and reverent performance of a "ritual"; a stylised and solemn act of stereotyped behaviour. A commonly adhered to and unquestioned reliance upon a particular mental image carried, necessarily, the quality of an "absolute" reality.

How is such a community going to respond, when, inevitably, sooner or later, discrepancies between belief and reality experiences will become apparent? Whatever image man has had, be it in the antiquity of the pre-historic past, or in a modern, contemporary society, sooner or later, even the most relied-upon images will show their age and vulnerability by a growing number of discrepancies between belief and experience. We will review the innovative and adaptative responses of human beings as they are trying to cope with a rigid but ageing belief structure, and, it will become clear, why the cautious individual has learned, a long time ago, that the cost may be very high, when investing, so heavily, in the validity of a particular structure of beliefs.

Let us go back to consider what happens, when a rigid belief structure begins to show defects as a result of the fact, that circumstances and perceptions have changed. Whenever ideas and beliefs were transmitted in the form of direct symbolic communications between living people, such as a story, a song, or a re-enactment, the mental imagery would be transmitted in conjunction with the appropriate attitudes of reverence. These mental images would be transmitted with illuminating examples of courageous behaviour that have paid-off and support the validity of the commonly held beliefs. Every sacredly held belief becomes, therefore, invested with acts of courage and sacrifice, and, this enhances, ever further, the authority and sanctity of such a belief. This is an example of an "emotional investment" that slowly, and, sometimes, rapidly, strengthens a belief into a structure of concepts that is adhered-to with a fanatic intensity.

When a belief structure acquires a long tradition of sanctity, it imposes on the members of society a set of formal rituals and stereotyped attitudes. This means, that the structure of beliefs remains rigid and unscrutinised by the weight of authority and tradition. Therefore, questioning these beliefs becomes increasingly difficult. Then, it becomes easier to gradually or quietly abandon such a rigid belief, whenever it has become apparent that it has outlived its usefulness. Indeed, a rigid structure of beliefs can not be adapted anymore to radically different circumstances. Often, a belief disappears, after a society has been absorbed into a new social order by a larger and more dominant society. This happens, for example, when societies meet and merge through the vagaries of conquest and defeat.

Eventually, every belief structure will perish and give way to new ideas, but, occasionally, we see an amazing tenacity of certain concepts and ideas, and, we see a variety of perplexing, fanatic, uncompromising and polarising attitudes associated with such rigidly held views. The cost in suffering and death will be staggering, on many occasions, but it seems so difficult for man to avoid adopting rigid beliefs and fanatic attitudes, because, as we will discuss, these rigid beliefs and uncompromising attitudes are, at the same time, a pre-requisite for vigorous social growth and stability, as well as the origin of tension and conflict, misery and death.

We have traced, somewhat summarily, the growth pattern of a concept; its gradual birth from an indistinct notion or feeling; its rise to familiarity and the occasional acceptance as a highly trusted, sacredly held idea with great value. The increasing rigidity of older concepts and beliefs passing through successive generations, is a result of an ever increasing emotional investment, as well as an authoritative, intellectual elaboration of these structures of belief.

However, a belief structure may also begin to play an ambiguous role. On the one hand, it may be in danger of being scrapped as useless, when, inevitably, it starts to show a measure of inaccuracy or irrelevance, but, on the other hand, the increasing obscurity or irrelevance of a structure of explanatory beliefs may be protected from scrutiny by being enshrined as a "divinely ordained order". Then, it continues to acquire an ever greater investment of emotional commitment and sacrifice, in spite of the fact, that the belief may have become intellectually untenable. The horrifying consequences of all fanatically held belief structures have been richly documented in the history of human behaviour.

The emotional investment that is being made in the truth of a particular concept, idea or belief, is the main reason for its increasing rigidity and the feeling of "absolute truthfulness", because it becomes ever more difficult to acknowledge that these beliefs are wrong and have outlived their usefulness. A strongly held belief gives a remarkable "directional stability" and cohesion to the elan vital of a community or an individual, but the inevitability of serious conflict, (be it as a clash of beliefs or as a conflict of interests), is the price that has to be paid for the strength of conviction which an absolute truth always brings to the fore.

Less rigidly held ideas have been less heavily invested with emotional commitments, and, they can, therefore, adjust easier to changing circumstances. However, fluid ideas are necessarily relied-upon to a lesser extent compared to those with a strong emotional commitment. We will much easier discard an emotionally neutral idea, but the reasons for abandoning it may be frivolous and essentially erroneous, and, we may run the risk of a real loss of direction, or a missed opportunity to enhance our well-being.

The flexibility of emotionally neutral ideas can be a source of strength, however, especially, when seen in a larger perspective, because such a flexibility in beliefs allows the community, or the individual, to mold these ideas according to changes that have been taking place in the circumstances and conditions of existence. Stressful tensions may be minimised by a fluid, utilitarian approach to the perception of reality. Yet, a fluid or pragmatic approach is always associated with a lack of certainty, and, these ideas are, therefore, much less persuasive and appealing to the average members of society, since they are difficult to comprehend or feel affinity for.

Every society that allows a large body of flexible and, necessarily, somewhat contradictory belief structures "in circulation", runs the risk of fragmentation and internal strife, especially, when locally held beliefs, (diverging from, and conflicting with, other, locally current beliefs), gain in strength and rigidity over the more flexible ideas that govern the framework of the larger society.

.......

Chapter 3

The development of individualised thinking.
Reflection, and the challenge to social cohesion.
The need for communal recognition of the judgement of validity.
The emotional investment of personalised efforts.

We have concerned ourselves, so far, primarily, with the communal aspects of concepts, ideas and beliefs, and, this reflects the important fact, that, every conceptualisation takes place within a social framework, and, consequently, the aspect of individual variability in the perception of reality, (the sense of personal identity and the formulation of personalised conclusions), is a relative late and fragile development.

However, late or not, it certainly has been recorded since early human history, that, now and then, an individual, living within a specific society or community, developed a strong reflective tendency and started to question the reality aspects of the world he lived in, as well as the concepts and ideas that were current in his social surroundings. We must assume, that the main motivation for such a turn towards introspection, was an increased awareness of discrepancies between the experienced realities and the commonly accepted beliefs.

From such reflective activities, pressures arise within a community challenging the established beliefs. If these challenges receive a wide measure of support, a pressure is exerted upon the established and officially sanctioned belief structures to adapt and change in response to these challenges. Most of the time, the pressures for change will be rejected by a majority of traditionally thinking members, but, occasionally, these pressures for change become so convincing, that they are generally accepted, at least, to some extent; especially, when the need to adapt to new circumstances becomes acknowledged by the social leadership. If these reflections and challenges to the "established" notions and concepts find a favourable response, it means, that a new generation of ideas is being born from the vague notions and ill-defined feelings and experiences that were developing as a result of changing circumstances; and, when generally accepted, a legitimate and valid articulation of dimly experienced discrepancies will have taken place.

Again, we come to the conclusion, that, even the most introspective and individualistic activities or expressions must find a sounding board within the community, before they can be adequately articulated. Penetration of new ideas and expressions into the social surroundings will be quite varied, and, interestingly, the meaning of a new idea, as originally expressed by the reflecting individual, may well be different from the meaning it receives, eventually, from the living generations of a specific social environment.

Individual reflection shows, here, its essentially social function, but, it often requires a certain isolation and freedom from stress, before the reflecting individual is able to let the myriad of vaguely perceived notions and ideas ferment into an intelligible, persuasive and articulate concept.

Individually articulated ideas may, quickly, assume powerful reality feelings for the reflecting person, especially, when, after a long and arduous search, an individual experiences a "flash of insight". The total commitment to the task of articulating an idea, and, the hard work necessary to bring this process of articulation to perfection, have a tendency to form deep, personal convictions and constitute, therefore, a considerable emotional investment. It is not surprising, therefore, that such convictions, which are not necesarily shared by the community as a whole, show, so often, a quality of rigid unquestionability, even, before they have been born and accepted by the community at large.

.......

Chapter 4

Exploring the relationships between beliefs and a reality "as is".
Possibilities for a non-human, alien reality.
Boundary considerations.
The essentially human nature of any concept about an extra-human reality.
The factor of "focus" in human reality images.
Limitations of personal familiarity.
The role of a reality perception in the light of behavioural plasticity.
Behavioural fine-tuning.
Learning and the perception of reality.

Is there any reason to believe, that a rigid idea or a strong sense of familiarity with, and reliance upon, a particular concept, would guarantee, or indicate, conformity with an "absolute reality"? Would there be any reason to believe, that an idea or concept would correspond with a reality "as it really is"?

Let us first try to agree about the concept, that all our thinking and reflecting, all our arguments, descriptions and insights are mental mechanisms, and, let us agree, that we have no idea, really, in what way a totally alien, non-human form of intelligence can exist. Any comprehension of the world as we know it, would cease, if mankind would cease to exist. However, this does not mean, that "nature", (where man is just a specific manifestation as one of its lifeforms), would also disappear. Certainly, there would not exist, anymore, a nature "as we know it", after man has disappeared from the earth, but, whatever remains can not be grasped, anymore, by a human, conceptualising intelligence.

The question presents itself as follows; if "something" remains, even, when all human intelligence has disappeared, what, then, does remain? If we try to answer this question, we form, again, a concept of reality, that is, in essence, a product of human intelligence, and, this concept, whatever it may be, would also disappear with the disappearance of the human race or species. Any conceptualisation of the external, extra-human reality is, therefore, a man-made concept, and, even the delineation of what is knowable and un-knowable will make use, subconsciously, of some ideas we have about this unknowable reality.

Is nature "as it is", including the reality of man himself, then, unknowable to us, or, does it conform, in one way or another, to our conception of reality? We may have an inkling about the alien aspects of such an extra-human reality, (not focussed by the conceptualising or summarising functions of the human mind), when we explore the great variability of concepts we can form, now, about a single object, or a small random sample of nature. The modern sciences have shown us, not only, the feasibility, but also, the need to question the reality of any sense impression, because these scientific methods of investigation have shown us the validity, as well as the importance, of seeing these same sensory data on a totally different scale, whenever we examine the subject of a sense impression with the help of sense-enlarging instruments.

Therefore, the single concept of, e.g., a pencil, or a piece of paper, can be analysed at microscopic or ultra-microscopic levels, and these descriptions have little in common with the ideas we gained from our macroscopic world of direct sensory experiences, where we formulated the concept or word "paper" from the direct sense impressions we formed with the naked senses. By analysing commonly used and familiar objects on a different scale or magnitude of observation, we are made aware, quite convincingly, that our overall concept "paper", (summarised by a word or name given to a piece of paper, or, to any other object we use in our daily existence), is purely a man-made abstraction. This synthesised concept or unified idea behind the name or word "paper" necessarily disappears, whenever we are not there to give the object its name. In addition, every named object of common use implies, always, the existence of a class or a category of similar but not identical objects. This indicates, that a name is, not only, a symbolic representation, but, an abstraction or generalisation as well.

The fact, that the actual name of an object will be different from one language to another, or, from one society to the next, is obvious, but we should not assume, that this is just a matter of translation; of applying the equivalent name to a concept or an object that is identical from one social environment to the next. The variability in lifestyle and the many different objects of common use, point to the likelyhood, that some, or, perhaps, even, most of the objects we are familiar with, (and whose existence constitutes a large part of our reality experiences), are meaningless for countless other human beings.

If the use of daily objects, as well as the familiar way of life and mode of interacting with other people, are largely dependent on the existence of our own being, as well as the cultural code we have assimilated from our specific social environment, what then, would be the nature of a reality that is common to us all; shared by the whole of mankind?

When trying to answer this question, we become quickly aware of the fact, that we have to concentrate on the common denominators of man's experiences and behaviour patterns. It will be difficult, at this point in our stage of cultural development, to agree amongst ourselves about such common patterns of behaviour, or, human "common denominators", but, by remaining very much generalised in our statements, we may agree with each other, that the common features of man include, e.g., the ability to form concepts, ideas and structures of belief, as well as the need to communicate our mental imagery with our social environment.

The reason, why we are endowed with the ability to form concepts, seems to be related to the remarkable plasticity of behaviour which we have inherited with our genetic endowment. This faculty is subjectively experienced as a "freedom of choice". We become aware of this faculty, whenever we feel the need to come to a deliberately designed behavioural response. Indeed, we seem to share the need for a well-defined system of mental images and ideas about reality, and, this common need is related to the fact, that we have to guide our lives with the help of a multitude of deliberately formulated behavioural choices, regardless of the specifics of the culture into which we have been born.

We will later analyse, in detail, the reasons for this generalised conclusion, since it has, indeed, become a truly remarkable focal point in our attempts to understand ourselves. We will, also, have to elaborate the plausibility of a further generalisation or conclusion, which we will state, here, simply, as a summary. The remarkable range of behavioural responses we are capable of as heirs to the faculty of behavioural flexibility, as well as the subjective awareness of the need to evaluate the relative significance of contradictory sensory information, have a long biological history. The existential significance of such a capability is related to the need to "finely tune" our behavioural responses in accordance with rapidly varying circumstances, and, man is, indeed, the most conspicuous example of this biological experiment with finely tuned behaviour as a means to maintain viability.

This faculty of "behavioural flexibility", or, the ability to learn from our experiences, allows for a much faster rate of adaptation to environmental changes compared to the slow processes of natural selection; where the genetic code has to be changed, and, where it is necessary for large populations, in countless generations, to live and die in order to select the traits that form the most advantageous adaptation to a particular circumstance or change in environmental conditions.

Altering or selecting the most favourable behavioural traits by naturally selective mechanisms, means, that the gene-pool of a particular population of organisms is slowly being changed in such a way, that desirable genes, (genes that lead to desirable structural and behavioural characteristics of the individuals of such a group), are becoming widespread and dominant in the gene-pool. The adaptation becomes, then, rigidly fixed into the genetic code of the individual organisms, and, the constitution of this genetic code can only be changed, once again, slowly, by similar processes of natural selection in the succession of subsequent generations.

The ability of an individual organism to learn from experience by-passes the need for its death, and, it allows an adaptation to take place within the life-span of a single generation. An adaptation through experience is, therefore, much faster, because there is no need for several or many generations to succeed each other. The latter is necessary with the genetic method of encoding a more appropriate behavioural response to the prevailing circumstances. However, the "learned adaptation", or, the acquired behavioural response is not transmitted genetically to a new generation, and, every useful, learned adaptation, has to be "taught" or culturally transmitted to the following generations.

We have, here, the beginning of a "cultural code" in its broadest and most useful definition, in spite of the fact, that it is customary to associate the word "culture", only, with the various artifacts of human beings. In the broadest definition of the concept of a cultural code, many of the animal species', especially, the larger mammals, have also developed a remarkable ability to adjust behavioural responses on the basis of past experiences, and, therefore, they also have some kind of an "educational system", or, some sort of a "cultural transmission", where the young can learn the ways of the parental generations.

.......

Chapter 5

Animal learning.
The need for a sheltered environment for the behaviourally flexible species', especially, during childhood and adolescence.
The trade-off between behavioural fine-tuning and a vulnerable flexibility.
A review of the mechanisms of learning and concept formation.
Cerebral and conceptual classification systems.
Categories of similarity in existence and event.
Individualised recognition of a named object, seen as a function of cerebral classification systems.

It is doubtful, however, that the non-verbalising, behaviourally flexible animals have developed a conceptual mode of communication in their "cultural" contacts between successive generations, or, between the members of the same generation. Yet, there can be no doubt, that important abilities of the animal's behaviour, necessary for a successful competitive effort in the surrounding world, have been "learned"; or, rather, these abilities have been taken-over from the older generations as behavioural examples through a process of "imitation", probably, without any form of conscious awareness or conceptual image-formation.

A reasonably sheltered period for the younger generations of behaviourally flexible animals provides an opportunity to experiment with various behavioural responses, and, the learning animals can find out, by a rapid process of trial and error, which behavioural responses are acceptable to their peers and the other members of the social environment. By providing a relatively sheltered environment, this learning process can be accomplished in a "play-like" atmosphere. The enormous advantage of sheltered surroundings lies in the fact, that a mistake or mishap would not be as easily fatal as a mistake or mishap taking placing in the unsheltered "real world".

The "fine-tuning" of behavioural responses with the help of a process of "learning" is, therefore, an important existential experiment of the forces of natural selection. The chances for enhancing the criteria of viability have been increased by the possibilities flowing from such a rapid fine-tuning of the behavioural response to changes in the prevailing circumstances, but, the need for a learning period makes these younger generations vulnerable during this stage of learning. There exists, therefore, a precarious balance between the advantages and disadvantages for a species that has been given the genetic possibility, and responsibility, to engage in such a remarkably individualised choice of the behavioural response.

The wide range of human behaviour is a direct result of nature's experiment with behavioural fine-tuning by individualised learning, and the purpose of this experiment is, as always, to explore, relentlessly, various existence possibilities. The reasons, why such a naturally selective force exists, (exploring blindly the possibilities of existence for a myriad of different life-forms), will be considered elsewhere. Let us concentrate, here, on the fact, that the human being has developed, to a remarkable extent, the ability to finely tune its behaviour through a process of learning and cultural transmission. The capabilities of memory, evaluation and prediction developed to such an extent, that it became possible for the members of the human species to actively manipulate the environmental circumstances to their advantage, rather than to react only passively or defensively to change.

This manipulative expansion of human behaviour is the key to our understanding of the human being, and, we must conclude, that this ability to manipulate our environment underlies, as a common denominator, the existence of all human beings. In conjunction with simultaneous genetic and physical adaptations, (such as bi-pedal locomotion and the development of grasping hands), the ability to form concepts or mental images that can be communicated through signs, gestures or verbal symbols, has been the crucial development on which our rise to dominance rests.

Adapting to environmental changes by learning, and, the ability to forecast, anticipate or manipulate changes in the outcome of events by "understanding" a series of cause-effect relationships, lie at the root of understanding our mental machinery. We learn to see, through a process of classification, the similarities between past and present experiences, and, the fact, that our memory enables us to recall previously experienced similarities, means, that we, (or, rather, our central nervous systems), classify all contemporary sense impressions into related categories. Without such a mechanism, memory would be useless. If we would not have the ability to be aware of a common denominator between similar experiences, our memory would not be able to play a role, since a particular memory-trace could not have any relevance for a subsequent experience without some sort of linkage through the presence of a common denominator.

This crucially important ability to classify sensory experiences into categories of related or similar experiences, is implicit in all behaviour that is guided by plasticity or flexibility, and, this mechanism is, therefore, not uniquely human. However, the awareness that such a biological process of classification into categories of similarities in existence or event takes place, (and the ability to abstract this awareness into a communicable language symbol), seems to be a uniquely human characteristic. A rudimentary awareness of the existence of a cerebral classification system for related experiences, may well be present in closely related life-forms, (such as the still living anthropoids), but we have no evidence to believe, that the ability to communicate such awarenesses has been developed to any extent in other species'. Animals can certainly communicate a variety of existentially significant awarenesses in the form of "emotional states" or "attitudes", and this form of communication plays an important role in human contacts as well, as we will have an opportunity to discuss on several occasions.

The ability of the human being to classify experiences into categories of similarity in existence and occurrence is the foundation for our orientation in space and time. The fact, that we are continuously evaluating all incoming sensory data against a repertoir of past experiences, is the reason for our sense of familiarity and our confidence in dealing with a situation, and, it is, at the same time, the basis for our anticipations of what may happen next.

The inescapable consequence of checking present sensory data agaist our recollections of relevant memory-traces, (together with an evaluation of the meaning of the sense-data we are receiving), is the fact, that we perceive contemporary sense-data in a scheme of existential cause-effect relationships. We sense, therefore, often quite accurately, what the consequences of certain incoming sense-data will be for our existence in the immediate or near future. An evaluation that seems to indicate a beneficial change or happening in the near future, will give us a sense of confidence and ease of mind, or, even, a feeling of elation, aggressiveness or exuberance. An evaluation to the contrary, however, will make us defensive, anxious, uncertain, depressed.

The universal registration and interpretation of sensory data in categories of similarity in existence and occurrence, is the basic, common denominator of all human experiences, and, this mechanism would, therefore, qualify as the most reliable basis for a reality perception about which we could all agree.

It is clear, that this common denominator refers to the remarkable biological similarities in the structuring and functioning of all human beings. This similarity forms a shared mode of human behaviour patterns, regardless, whether we relate to our natural or social environments, and, it is, at the same time, an eloquent testimony to the existence of a common, biological heritage, but, it does not indicate any evidence to support our hopeful expectations, and efforts, to deduce the nature of an external, extra-human reality.

.......

Chapter 6

The biological common denominators of human existence.
Enlargement of the reality experience with the help of instruments.
The scale of knowledge.
Hypothesis and the area of "not-knowing".
Changes in the field or scope of perception.
The inevitability of simplification.
The non-focussed aspects of a postulated extra-human reality.
Anthropomorphic reality images.
The fallacy of any claim to have "broken-through" the boundaries of human limitations.
The purpose and effort of finding a globally acceptable reality perception.
The utilitarian aspects of such an image.
The benefits of widespread acceptability.

The remarkable success of our technological dexterity rests on scientific insights, and, these insights have led to an increased ability to comprehend ever larger areas of conscious awareness and incorporate them into a precise and coherent thought-structure. The ability to agree amongst ourselves about the validity of scientific images is based upon our common biological heritage. The successful manipulation of natural mechanisms and circumstances suggests, inevitably, that these scientific mental images are "real"; yet, at the same time, we can always note, that the boundaries of every field of knowledge slide into "grey" areas, where opinions start to diverge, and, eventually, every field of scientific observations slides into an area that is essentially unknown.

A close look at any one of our scientific images reveals, invariably, that this imagery is a gross over-simplification of an infinitely more complex set of possible awarenesses and observations. We are always able to focus on a particular detail of the overall structure of knowledge, and, we can always find a new world of intricate relationships within the realm of what is humanly knowable.

This brings us back to the human being, who is always classifying information into categories of similarities in existence and event. We have good reasons to believe, that these categories are, indeed, a product of the interacting human being, since the framework for such a reference system of categories of similarities and cause-effect relationships, depends, entirely, on the scope of the field of vision. When contemplating cosmic happenings, we employ different concepts, different reference points, different "laws of nature", compared to our macroscopic or microscopic fields of vision.

Certainly, it is truly remarkable, that we are able to apply concepts developed in the study of the sub-atomic world, to events that are taking place on a cosmic scale, and, it is equally remarkable, that many cause-effect relationships seem to hold true in different fields of scientific vision. However, we must not forget, that we are manipulating generalisations with an unimaginable complexity of inner structural relationships, and, we would do the same, on a much smaller scale, if we would conceptualise the seas on our planet to be merely a confluence of water-droplets.

We glibly accept the generalisation of a star as a conglomerate mass of hot gases, affected by enormously high pressures and temperatures as a result of the vaguely understood force of gravitational contraction. The enormously large differences in the scale of our conceptual portraits, between the size of a star and a molecule of hydrogen gas, are conveniently forgotten, or minimised, since a contemplation of these large scale differences tends to confuse our thinking. Indeed, we have to focus our field of vision upon a specific imagery when thinking about reality, and yet, there is nothing to suggest that any sort of "focus" is present in a truly objective, non-human reality; a focus, which the human mechanisms of comprehension and conceptualisation always seem to need.

There is no reason to believe, that the condensation of all these happenings, energy-fluxes and transformations between energy and matter particles into the concept of a "star", is a valid point of view, if one would attempt, (again in vain), to build-up an imagery of absolute validity. We call this complex a "star", because we experience an urgent need to reduce the myriad of reality aspects into a single, manageable concept, in order to be able to start, once again, the process of building a new conceptual structure on a different level of mental integration or "comprehension".

Since the process of classification depends on cerebral and mental mechanisms, it is reasonable to conclude, that there is, probably, a complete absence of any classification in the external, absolute reality, and, this brings us to the conclusion, that the existence of any form of classification in such an external, extra-human reality is only an apparent reality, caused by our human interactions with this reality. Therefore, cause-effect relationships, or categories of similarities, have been conceptualised as human conceptualisations or abstractions in order to develop a mental grasp over these phenomena. However, these concepts or abstractions have, in all probability, no counter-part in a non-focussed, extra-human perception of reality.

Whatever the existence may be of such an absolute, unknowable reality that is independent of human existence, it becomes clear, that it has to be totally alien to our way of thinking. There is no reason to maintain, that such a reality does not exist, because we have ample evidence in the observations of human interactions with the environment, that these interactions do not depend on the presence of any particular human being. For example, we can see a human being interacting with his or her environment. If this human being dies, the same environment is still there, even, if the mental imagery of this particular human being has disappeared. However, the reality perception that shows this to be the case, depends on the existence of another human being, an observer, and, this reality perception will be lost, if the observer disappears, unless there is, again, another observer, observing the first observer, etc.

If there is a humanoid intelligence, observing mankind in its interactions with the environment, then, it is obvious, that the disappearance of mankind will be analogous to the death of only one human observer who has been interacting with his environment. The perception of reality, (which is essentially similar to our own reality experiences), is then preserved in the reality experiences of this anthropomorphic intelligence, but, if such an intelligence does not exist, the nature of the reality when mankind has disappeared, is totally unimaginable for us. At least, we have to come to such a conclusion at this time.

It is certainly not important for us to try to form a concept of this independent, non-human reality perception, since we know, that such an attempt will, necessarily, be another human concept, and, we may safely return to a concern that deals exclusively with human realities. However, we hope, that this discussion will lay to rest the ill-understood and interminable arguments about the existence of any "external reality".

The reality, we, as human beings perceive, depends on the facts and nature of our existence, (in whatever sense we do exist), but, the existence or possible existence of a non-human reality, (whether unfocussed or focussed in a different type of intelligence), can not be denied, but it is unknown and essentially inaccessible to us. The intrinsic impossibility to outline or comprehend a reality-picture outside the possibilites and limitations of our human existence, is futile for one reason only; any form such an attempt or analysis may take, has to be human; it has to reflect the possibilities and limitations of our own existence, and, it does not reflect, therefore, an extra-human or independent type of reality perception.

This does not mean, that we should not think about the limitations and boundaries of our faculty of knowing, because, in doing so, we amplify and explore the range of human possibilities of understanding. However, any claim to have "broken-through" the boundaries or limitations of human understanding, must be rejected as utter nonsense, since it implies a profound illusion and misunderstanding of the essential functions and limitations of our faculties of understanding. Our search for reality will, therefore, have an exclusively utilitarian purpose, even, if this purpose appears ambitious in scope.

We propose, nothing less, than an attempt to create a valid picture of ourselves and our behaviour patterns, in the belief, that it is possible for a very large part of mankind to concur with such an imagery, or, at least, to find in such a conceptual picture a stimulus to further reflection, as well as a refinement of our common, human reality perceptions.

The immense importance of the development of a universally acceptable image of the human being, (even, if such an attempt may be considered naive and irrealistic by many), lies in the fact, that costly mistakes, strife and misery can be avoided by the development of a commonly shared reality perception. Even the misery and agony of dying can be conquered; not, by trying to negate one of the most basic aspects of living existence, but, by accepting the fundamental, internal logic of the life processes in an emotionally neutral sphere of understanding.

There is no reason, why we could not accept death, at least intellectually, as readily as we accept life, joy and happiness, or, as we accept the fact, that we can not be in two or three different places at the same time. We should be able to accept death as the price we pay for being alive, and, we should be able to accept, eventually, the fact of death, not only, as an intellectual resignation to an inevitability, but also, with a full understanding of our emotional needs. Then, we will understand at least some of the mechanisms that play such an important role in shaping our structures of belief.

.......

Chapter 7

Collective and individual needs for reliable reality perceptions.
A review of behavioural developments with an accent upon the positive-negative classification of sense impressions.
The reality of the need to choose.
Various degrees of voluntary involvement in selecting the behavioural choice.
Routine versus troublesome choices.
The varying aspects of the "free will".
The validity of the subjective experience as a common reality.
The choice of judgement.
The occasional need to obscure clear-cut behavioural choices.
Polarising developments.
The inevitable emotional input into voluntary decision-making processes.
The reality picture as a behavioural tool.

In our search for reality, we express, either individually or collectively, a deep need for a system of interrelated facts in which we can put our complete trust. Upon reflection, it becomes apparent, that the human organism needs such a system of mental images and concepts about himself and his environment, in order to guide him, as well as his social environment, through the myriad of decisions that have to be made.

All living organisms, even the more primitive lifeforms, respond to stimuli we have learned to classify, roughly, into positive and negative categories. These stimuli are perceived, either as beneficial, or as harmful. The response to a stimulus by a primitive animal organism is quite stereotyped. It tries to prolong the duration of the beneficial stimulus by a move towards it, or, by an alteration of its chemical reactions-patterns, designed to benefit maximally from favourable circumstances.

When there are negative, harmful or potentially harmful stimuli coming from the environment, the organism will try to avoid or minimise exposure; either by moving away, or, by shutting-down its metabolic machinery. The movement away from the harmful stimulus is often insufficient, and, sometimes, completely inadequate. Then, the organism will try to change its behaviour to one of maximum resistance to the harmful stimulus.

We will not trace, here, the complex but illuminating processes of natural evolution, which seem to connect all lifeforms into a coherent conceptual scheme of developmental relationships. We will certainly outline, at a later stage, the conceptual framework that lets us see the human organism as a pathway for evolutionary experiments with possibilities of existence based on a flexible response. Let us assume, here, that we, human beings, indeed, have a biological heritage of genetically endowed physiological and anatomical possibilities of existence, and, it will become clear, on numerous occasions, how the concepts of a natural evolution of the human organism will help us orden an apparently confusing and unoverseeable variety of observations.

It is clear, not only, from an evolutionary point of view, but also, from our daily experiences, that we are, almost continuously, involved in a process, which, we feel, at least subjectively, to reflect a "concious behavioural choice". The reasons for the predominance of this feeling, be it apparent or real, will become clear, after we have reviewed the concepts that are available to us at the present time.

The experience of having to make a choice, or, rather, many choices, throughout our existence, is so overwhelming, that we do not need to substantiate this observation. Suffice to say, here, that we are, usually, only aware of a fraction of all the choices we have to make, and, we concentrate, almost exclusively, on those choices that give us difficulties. We usually do not experience the "routine" choices of daily life as choices that deserve a deliberate attention, since they are, so often, made without any significant conscious effort. However, in becoming aware of the routine choices we make, every day, it becomes apparent, that these choices are, indeed, voluntary. We become aware of the fact, that we could, if we wanted to, make a different choice from the one we made, and it is, therefore, quite clear, that the variety of voluntary choices or decisions that could be changed, if we wanted to, are so numerous, that they seem to take-up a good deal of the mental activities we can observe in our daily existence.

As we have mentioned, we are almost exclusively aware of the choices that give us trouble. These choices and decisions may be represented by many different categories of behaviour, and, they range from choices related to practical problems, (such as those related to work, finance, family, etc.), as well as those, regulating our attitudes towards other people, members of our immediate social environment, our public institutions, and, the commonly accepted beliefs of our society, etc.

We often consider the latter choices to be moral or ethical in nature. It is difficult to define, precisely, at this point, what we mean by a moral or ethical choice of behaviour, but, it may be justified to make, here, a generalised statement about moral or ethical choices. In all choices with an ethical or moral implication, the advantages and disadvantages of the choice, as well as the expected results, are taken into consideration. We review, therefore, consciously or subconsciously, the forces and pressures we will unleash with a certain choice, and, in an ethical choice, we balance the advantages for us, personally, against the possible disadvantages or harm such a behavioural choice may cause to people in our social environment.

We are becoming increasingly aware of the immense complexity and multitude of contradictory impluses and considerations that play a part in such a choice of moral behaviour, and, it is, therefore, not surprising, that, occasionally, the process of making a choice takes years, or, is never fully made and executed.

The need to make a choice, at least, from time to time, is virtually undeniable, at least, as a subjective experience. What is often denied, however, is the reality of this subjective experience of having to make a "free choice", or excercise a "free will". This interpretation of reality seems to disappear, quite easily, when we look at it from a different vantage-point; for example, from the point of view of an external observer. There is certainly suggestive evidence, that, seen from such an external point of view, the choice is little more than a series of predictable reactions to a variety of contrasting stimuli, and, it appears, that the resulting behavioural choice is not a freely willed decision or voluntary choice, but, resembles the outcome of a vector-diagram of contrasting force-fields. Then, the mechanisms resemble the "algebraic summation" of a large number of positive and negative impulses or stimuli.

This observation, however, does not invalidate our subjective experience, or conscious awareness, that we undergo this process of "evaluating contrasting stimuli" as the making of a voluntary choice. Certainly, the conscious evaluation of such divergent impulses and stimuli is often a difficult, or, even, an agonising process, and, making a choice, making-up our mind, and, choosing a decisive and sometimes definitive type of behavioural response, is the essence of our concept of a "free will".

Let us agree, then, at least, for the time being, that our experiences, our mental processes, thoughts, feelings and emotions are all tied-together, almost intextricably, in a process we experience as making some kind of a voluntary decision about our response in a particular set of circumstances. At the same time, let us also agree, that we often hope to avoid making a clear-cut, unambiguous choice, because the commitment to a very precise and decisive behavioural response cuts us off from alternatives. It leads, often, to a polarisation of feelings and an antagonism of interpersonal relationships, which may lead, quickly, to confrontation and violence.

The very fact, that we, intuitively, and, often quite deliberately, try to obscure the precision of a response, be it in action or opinion, points to the reality, that, in many instances, we do not have a clear judgement about the contradictory forces and impulses at work. As a matter of fact, we rarely make such a clear-cut judgement about the value or merit of opposing forces, since we all have learned, mostly subconsciously, the high price that has to be paid for the polarisation of conflicting opinions and attitudes. Yet, in many circumstances, we are forced, often by social pressures, to come to such a judgement and to make a clear-cut choice. Because of the likelyhood that there will be significant consequences from such a choice, we want, and we need, a belief structure to guide us in making these difficult behavioural choices.

Every behavioural choice has certain consequences of harm or benefit, and, the making of a choice, or the formulation of a judgement, involves us emotionally, or, rather, existentially. Indeed, almost all behavioural choices affect our well-being in one way or another, and, it is therefore understandable, that our emotional reaction-patterns come into play. The understanding of these emotional reactions will require a careful analysis and evaluation, and, we will see how important it is for an understanding of ourselves to come to grips with this large and confusing field of "emotions".

Let us just say, for the time being, that, in general, emotional feelings and reaction-patterns play a role, whenever the safety and security of an individual are at stake. However, emotions play a role, not only, in defensive situations, whenever the organism is threatened. Emotions are also coming to the fore, when the organism experiences victory, or a sense of success and well-being. We will come back to this complex of evolutionary early, mostly biologically determined behaviour patterns. Here, we only want to allude to the existence of emotional reactions that are intertwined with the processes of decision-making, or "choice-making", on a more rational or deliberate basis.

It is actually very difficult to differentiate in this process of decision-making, factors we would call rational from those which are coloured or influenced by an emotional state. We can only say, at the present time, that it seems possible for the individual human being to evaluate contrasting forces in a way that is emotionally remarkably neutral. This state of "emotional neutrality" is, often, quite fleeting and many people experience difficulties, when they try to function in a state of emotional neutrality.

Probably, this difficulty reflects the fact, that, in the majority of our choice-making decisions, we are guided, to a large extent, by our emotional status of the moment. We are guided by an emotionally coloured feed-back into our decision-making processes, because the anticipated benefits, or difficulties, are being "foreseen". These anticipations arise from a "projected" or hypothetical behavioural choice and the subsequent course of events, because the projected results are foreseen in our minds as the consequences that are likely to follow, if we would indeed make this particular choice. This feed-back from our expectations and anticipations, (coloured positively or negatively), seems to be a major, often dominant element in our decision-making mechanisms.

As we have mentioned before, the choice we have to make may represent an attitude, an opinion, as well as a behavioural act. The most difficult choices seem, indeed, to be related to opinions, judgements or structures of belief, which serve, in turn, as a guide for a whole series of subsequent behavioural sequences.

We are slowly coming back to our opening statement, where the need for a strong belief in the truth or reality of a certain concept or set of "facts" was acknowledged. It is clear, that we need a reliable reality perception or imagery about ourselves, our nature and our society. We need a clear picture of our realities in order to guide us in the choices we have to make.

.......

Chapter 8

Social aspects of the reality image.
Individualisation, seen as a function of differentiation from social uniformity and perceptual synchrony.
The reality perceptions of historic cultures.
The apparently logical aspects of older, non-scientific reality perceptions.
The fragmentation of the reality image in the complex, multi-cultural society.
Advantages of living in a confusing social conglomerate.
The harmful aspects of a rigid, nationalistic reality perception.

We have good reasons to assume, that structures of belief are formulated by a dialogue between the members of society, rather than by the reflections of a lonely individual. Yet, the actual articulation of a belief or faith that becomes, eventually, a guiding principle for the entire social environment, is, often, accomplished by a small elite, a priesthood, or, even, an individual genius, who is able to express, most clearly, the sentiments and beliefs of the people in his social environment.

The community as a whole tends to express and re-enforce the loyalty to its beliefs by establishing sacred institutions and rituals of worship, clothing the attitudes of individual members with a measure of piety and devotion. These attitudes result, as a rule, in an unquestioned acceptance of the prevailing belief structures. Why this should be so, will be a subject for further analysis, and, our ideas about the development of a measure of social cohesion have been derived from insights into the phenomena associated with the synchronisation of belief structures. Observations of primitive or aboriginal societies, and, to some extent, studies of the socially integrated and behaviourally flexible animals, seem to indicate, that, individualisation, or, rather, the emergence of a distinct, individualised personality is characterised by the a slow process of differentiation from a state of social uniformity or conformity.

Certainly, what we understand and feel, today, as the essence of our individuality, (such as a strong sense of individual rights and a lesser developed feeling for the rights of others), are complex and sophisticated concepts that take shape rather late in the development of a social entity. The fuzzy and undifferentiated appearance of many early belief structures is, indeed, difficult for us to grasp. The conceptual differentiation of ideas, as well as the ability to communicate subtle and widely divergent shades of meaning, have reached such a point of individualised expertise, that it is difficult for us to visualise the dim outlines of early beliefs with their often illogical relationships between the many forces at work, together with the apparent contradictions inherent in many notions and ideas.

Let us not forget, however, that these contradictions within early beliefs are, primarily, a perception of our own minds. They come to the fore as a result of our contemporary efforts to recreate, in our modern minds, some of the reality perceptions that must have been a part of these ancient civilisations. These contradictions must have been absent, or, at least, they must have been much less obvious to the people who were making use of them. In spite of the difficulties we have understanding what people have thought and felt in these strange and far-distant times, we may, nevertheless, state, with confidence, that all these societies of early mankind developed some kind of a conceptual imagery. This imagery helped people in their business of daily living, their situations of conflict and disaster, their joys and miseries.

In spite of the fact, that the imagery is difficult to deceipher, and, often, difficult to feel affinity with, we assume, that, for these ancient civilisations, the images of their beliefs were as real as our realities are real for us, today. As a matter of fact, it would not be difficult to argue, that reality for many so-called primitive civilisations was far more "real" than our contemporary realities are real for us.

The problem with an increasingly complex and large society is the development of an ever more varied pool of opinions, beliefs, customs and attitudes, resulting in a confrontation between many contradictory or incompatible notions and ideas. This has a strong tendency to undermine any claim to the absolute validity of a particular truth.

However, the clashing of ideas within the context of a large society has the advantage, that a lack of credibility of a particular structure of beliefs is, usually, expressed as suspicions and arguments, rather than the more primitive, and, often, inevitable solution of violent conflict. Within the context of a larger society, such as an empire, internal strife and violent conflict will be prohibited; at least, it will be suppressed to the point of avoiding the devastating and weakening effects of all-out internal warfare.

The conquest of a number of differing societies, and the dominance by a vigorous, but, often, intuitively flexible "master-society", leads, amongst other developments, to increased contacts between the previously rather isolated cultures. It may well be argued, that the process of individualised thinking and the resulting expressive capabilities of individual people, became only possible, when the fertilising effects of forced intermingling became a reality with the establishment of the first truly large social entities.

Artistic progress and a proliferation of ideas seem to follow, quite frequently, an enforced co-existence of differing cultures, but the processes at work are complex and not easily summarised. A large area of vigorous inter-human contacts needs time, as well as a measure of social stability in order to flourish into a vigorous and viable culture. Too rapid a process of intermingling and successive conquests, (with the inevitable miseries and upheavals associated with rapid social changes), leads to chaos and confusion, followed by the development of a defensive, rigid and divinely ordained exclusivity of a segment of such a chaotic social conglomerate, as we see, e.g., in the disastrous outcome of the nationalistic and elitist Yahwist belief structures of the Hebrews of Palestine.

........

Chapter 9

Questions of balance during the development of reality perceptions.
Analysing historical events within a generalised framework of understanding.
The conflict situation and the solution of armed combat.
Factors leading to a social break-through towards vigour and dominance.

Let us come back to our efforts to establish generalised insights about the development of structures of beliefs. As a generalisation, we can say, that small groups, (such as tribal societies living in a precarious balance between the challenging forces of nature and the regenerative powers of their own existence), have often a rigid structure of beliefs leaving little room for individual variability. These cultures are stagnant, especially, when they have been isolated for a long time. A balance between nature and society is maintained, with some difficulties, and the status-quo is, therefore, not easily challenged or changed from within.

When different tribes are in frequent contact and conflict with each other, the rapidly varying circumstances are a challenge to the faculties of adaptation and innovation, and, the accompanying exchanges of ideas and technological advancements, which are, invariably, associated with a period of social upheaval and violent conflict, tend to provide a nourishing environment for a spurt of cultural evolution. However, after every break-through, an equilibrium tends to set-in again, but, it is not surprising, that the major adventures of mankind since the beginning of recorded history reveal an unending series of contacts and conflicts between societies, as well as an unending series of changes and transformations of the existing cultural code.

The complex patterns and force-fields that operate in human history can not easily be summarised or generalised, and, on many occasions, we will go back to look at what happened to us in the past. There is little doubt, that we will always look at history with differing viewpoints. Often, we will come to widely diverging conclusions about what happened, and why. However, we may well be able to see, in the near future, regularly recurring patterns in many historical events. Then, we are likely to see these common patterns much more clearly than we can at the present time, and, we may, then, grasp what has happened in more easily handled concepts with broader principles of operation.

We will go back to analyse historical events from time to time, when it seems to be relevant to our quest for an overview of human existence and experiences. It is likely, that such a generalised approach will become attractive and useful, if it helps us to understand ourselves as we are now, and, if it helps us to understand, why we believe the way we do. It may be appropriate to start our inquiries about the origins of our beliefs by analysing, how we exist, now. One way to show a plausible picture of how we believe, and, how we evaluate reality, is to assume that the common, everyday experiences of people everywhere have many aspects in common, and, we may assume, that people have a common repertoir of experiences from where we can begin to construct an abstract reality perception that could, indeed, be valid on a very large scale.

History shows us, on many occasions, how conflicts and battles have raged because of the belief, on both sides, that God's Cause was being served. In a broader sense, however, conflicts were often fought, because the reality perceptions of the two sides in conflict with each other, were, in essence, incompatible. The belief of what was right and honourable for a particular social entity, was, often, so rigid, that no common ground or compromise could be found, when these structures of belief came into conflict with another culture with similar, equally rigid beliefs about what was right and wrong.

Of course, an ideological conflict does not explain all incidences of violent confrontation, but, if we take the term "ideology", not, in the sense of a consciously formulated doctrine that has to be propagated and prosetylised as an absolutely valid truth, but, if we understand the term "ideology" as a sub-conscious self-image of a social entity, then, we will see, that the expansionism of the vigorous and growing society finds its justification in the ideas and visions a society has about its role, its message for, or its destiny in, the contemporary world.

It would be an interesting excercise, if we could trace the growth and development of the reality perceptions of people who are on the verge of engaging in expansionistic efforts. The prologue seems to be, quite often, a sharpening of beliefs, as well as a hardening of attitudes. Then, we see the emergence of a vigorous social nucleus, where the conditions of existence and the mechanisms of internal population pressures begin to exert an ever greater influence, or coercion, on the environment, leading, inevitably, to a resistance of, and conflict with, the peoples of the surrounding areas.

If we could correlate the self-image and reality perceptions of a group of vigorous and ebullient people with the forces of the elan vital, (such as growth, the drive to unfold potentials, the mechanisms of exuberance and maturity, decline and death), we may be able, eventually, to generalise with ease and confidence about these mechanisms. Certainly, we would be generalising within our particular and, perhaps, peculiarly human reality perceptions that concern themselves with the force-fields within and around us.

........

Chapter 10

The validity of commonly accepted reality perceptions without the hope or effort to find an absolutely valid interpretation of reality.
A re-iteration of the essentially utilitarian aspects of all beliefs.
An analysis of the reality picture, obtained with the help of the scientific, emotionally more or less neutral method of observation.
The scientific method of observation, seen as a generalised approach to the perception of reality.
The success of recent scientific developments as a function of a renewed objectivity in the art of observing and communicating.
The biological nature of beliefs.
The parallels between biological aspects of social integration and the perception of reality.
The need for accepting a transitional period of confusion in order to obtain an increased cohesion and an enlarged scope for our reality perceptions.
The focus of attention.

For the time being, let us go back to the reasons, why we believe the way we do. How, and why, do we develop a sense of truth, and, what is the function of a reality perception? Right from the start in our inquiries about the nature of our reality perceptions, we will have to come to grips with an important question. When building-up a picture about reality, we will come to the conclusion, that it is impossible to obtain any form of absolutely valid knowledge or insight. This conclusion will be discussed extensively, but it raises the question about the validity of any attempt to obtain a generally valid reality perception. Let me make it therefore clear, from the start, that I entertain no hope or illusion, of formulating a doctrine or sketching an idea representing, in any way, an absolute reality, regardless, how broad and relativistic it may turn out to be. Nor, will I attempt to introduce a reality picture that has subversively been disguised as "transient", but is, in essence, believed to be real and valid to a larger extent than has been indicated. We will have to accept the fact, that any attempt to understand can, at the most, hope to make a temporary contribution in the development of mankind's thinking.

Let us first consider a special group of modern, remarkably valid and clearly defined reality perceptions. These are usually called "facts", and, they reflect the strong credibility of the sciences. There will be little argument about the validity of the scientific method, which is a carefully balanced evaluation of evidence; be it from observations of nature, from man himself, or, the artifacts of man. The process of scientific evaluation and the classification of "data", (observations made, either directly, or, via the technological media of sense-enlarging instruments), is essentially similar for all the sciences. We will have many opportunities to examine the relevance of scientific findings and interpretations in differing fields of knowledge and expertise.

Let us consider, for a moment, the essential features of the scientific methodology. We see, that science is, in essence, nothing more than the accurate and detailed description of "data". Data are objective and generally agreed-upon observations, but, implied in this definition of a "fact", is the inevitable use of language or conceptual symbols to describe a find, a fact, or an observation. Therefore, every observation has to reflect, at least to a certain extent, the educational background, the intellectual capabilities, as well as the emotional condition of the scientist who is concerned with the task of describing an observation scientifically.

Not only, will a scientist describe facts or observations in terms of his knowledge and training, but, he will, inevitably, have to make a number of primarily subconscious decisions during the act of describing. He has to make decisions about what is relevant, and, what relates or does not relate to each other. The belief structure of the scientist plays, therefore, an important role in the scientific description, but we have learned, at least, to some extent, to exclude a number of personal view-points or emotional influences from a scientific evaluation.

The description and analysis of a fact, or a number of facts, or data, is, therefore, tentatively related to a coherent framework of causal relationships. The combination of a categorical classification of static facts and a classification of events in causal relationships, is one of the most powerful tools of our human intellect, and, these tools of classification facilitate the ability to conceptualise and communicate. It is a powerful tool, because the ability of the human mind to retain "data" or observations is significantly increased, whenever data can be linked together into a unifying concept. In stead of having to remember a series of apparently unrelated data, by linking these data together into categories of similarities and cause-effect relationships, the human mind can comprehend a complex situation and deduce the individual data by "logic"; by analysing the relationships contained in a unifying concept.

We will give examples of what we have in mind, later, but this generalised description of the scientific methodology is well accepted and does not really require extensive persuasive evidence. Let me emphasise, however, that this mental technique is not limited to the realm of what we would now call "contemporary science". The human being has always employed the methods of logical classifications and correlations in order to comprehend what was happening to him. Some of the older conceptual models of classification, (which we can discern in our studies of well-established religious beliefs in the far-distant past), seem strange and often illogical to us, because we have been able to formulate a different system of cause-effect relationships compared to these ancient cultures. Yet, let me add, that the cohesion of the modern, scientific system of explanatory correlations is not readily apparent to most people, even today. It is very likely, that the average individual in our modern societies has a less coherent picture of the various realities he is confronted with, compared to the generations of the past.

The Age of Faith in medieval Europe seems to have had a somewhat enviable "certainty of the truth", as well as an unshakable picture of a sharply etched and strongly unified religious or metaphysical relationships. The price, though, for such a strong religious structure of beliefs was high, and, we may come to the conclusion, that, in many ways, we should not be too unhappy with our confused modern times.

The success of modern science and technology is due to a combination of factors, and, we may summarise them, briefly, by saying, that the most important reason for the successful and persuasive development of modern science was a return to direct observational methods. These methods freed themselves, by and large, from the influence of pre-conceived ideas of a religious or metaphysical framework of explanations. This, combined with a fortuitous succession of technological inventions, provided man, for the first time in history, with a large arsenal of instruments through which he could enlarge his field of observations almost indefinitely. We are still in this phase of applying ever more sophisticated and complicated technical instruments to one field of observation after another, and, we are trying to assemble the stream of data into an ever greater variety of specialties and sub-specialties.

Yet, we should not neglect to mention another, equally important aspect of the development of science. Not only, was the impact of pre-conceived ideas lessened by the loosening of strictly adhered-to religious ideas, but, it also became possible for people with similar ideas and inclinations to discuss and examine their observations and ideas more freely.

It is not my intention to review, here, any specific example of this period of cultural change, when a well-established, somewhat static and dogmatic point of view was beginning to show its age. People became ever more aware of apparent discrepancies between a well-established conceptual framework of beliefs on the one hand, and the experiences of many keen and observant people who were living in a rapidly changing world. These discrepancies became the source and motivation for a renewed effort to re-examine the perceptions of reality. Here, we will only emphasise, in a general overview, the biological nature of all our structures of belief. Just like a social entity, (as well as any other living organism), a belief structure seems to be born, experience a period of growth, and then, it establishes itself in various locations. If successful, it may become officially accepted and sanctioned, but, eventually, it is always overtaken by other concepts and ideas.

It would be wrong to compare the analogy of a living structure of beliefs, too strictly with the precise reproduction of an organism that has been constructed by a rigidly transmitted and faithfully reproduced genetic code. Rather, the growth and decay patterns of beliefs, concepts and ideas mirror, far more closely, the birth, growth, vigour and stagnation, decay and death experienced by the vagaries of the cultural code, and, by implication, they reflect the same mechanisms as the societies of mankind. The variability of cultural expressions is so great, that some ideas and societies hardly seem to get born at all, while others are revived many times after an apparently fatal blow. Nevertheless, it will be interesting to keep in mind the general biological aspects and features we are able to discern in this complex, multi-individual organism; the human society, together with its behavioural guidance patterns and the structures of common beliefs, summarised under the concept of "the cultural code".

The boundaries of a "cultural organism", like a social entity or a structure of beliefs, are much vaguer than the clearly circumscribed unit of social integration as represented by the multi-cellular individual, but, this apparent lack of organisation and genetic reproduceability of the human society should not be a reason for rejecting, out of hand, the possibility of obtaining fruitful insights from such a comparison.

We will concern ourselves in some of the other sketches with a review of the mechanisms that give us a feeling for the reasons, why we need to develop concepts and ideas with a strong sense of truthfulness and reliability. It will become evident, that such a review will have a strong tendency to make us doubt any reasoning process or sequence of conclusions, and, a feeling of bewilderment or loss of orientation will, indeed, be unavoidable. Probably, this feeling of rudderlessness; this confusion arising from the abandonment of our trusted reality perceptions, is necessary, before we can begin to comprehend a relativistic approach to our ideas about reality.

We should be careful, however, not to start considering the concepts of a relativistic truth as an absolutely valid reality, because we would hasten a process of premature crystallisation. These useful ideas may grow to a fuller bloom of generalised appeal, if we let them ripen slowly, without pressures, and, without giving-in to ever present temptation to use every concept to our own advantage.

Any attempt to outline an idea, or a series of ideas, will need a somewhat arbitrarily chosen framework of sequential introductions, as well as a system for classifying the ideas that will be presented. Every description, analysis, synthesis or review, will show an artificial juxta-position of concepts and ideas, while, in essence, we are describing a simultaneous reality that knows no fragmentation into chapters or paragraphs. Yet, we know, that, even, in our own mind, a complex idea is reflected upon by concentrating on its varying aspects in a methodical sequence. We have to illuminate these aspects, one after the other, since the ability to comprehend a number of aspects, simultaneously, in the sharpest focus of our thoughts, is quite limited, indeed.

.......

Summary

 

1. The reality perception.
   Egocentric attitudes.
   The world of concepts and ideas.
   Familiarity and the unexpected.
   Vagueness and definition.
   Conceptual differentiation as a function of dialogue.
   Extending the range of dialogue with writing and the recording of sounds.
   Truth and the need for reliable images of reality.

2. Exploring the relationships between beliefs and a reality "as is".
   Possibilities for a non-human, alien reality.
   Boundary considerations.
   The essentially human nature of any concept about an extra-human reality.
   The factor of "focus" in human reality images.
   Limitations of personal familiarity.
   The role of a reality perception in the light of behavioural plasticity.
   Behavioural fine-tuning.
   Learning and the perception of reality.

3. The development of individualised thinking.
   Reflection, and the challenge to social cohesion.
   The need for communal recognition of the judgement of validity.
   The emotional investment of personalised efforts.

4. Exploring the relationships between beliefs and a reality "as is".
   Possibilities for a non-human, alien reality.
   Boundary considerations.
   The essentially human nature of any concept about an extra-human reality.
   The factor of "focus" in human reality images.
   Limitations of personal familiarity.
   The role of a reality perception in the light of behavioural plasticity.
   Behavioural fine-tuning.
   Learning and the perception of reality.

5. Animal learning.
   The need for a sheltered environment for the behaviourally flexible species', especially, during childhood and adolescence.
   The trade-off between behavioural fine-tuning and a vulnerable flexibility.
   A review of the mechanisms of learning and concept formation.
   Cerebral and conceptual classification systems.
   Categories of similarity in existence and event.
   Individualised recognition of a named object, seen as a function of cerebral classification systems.

6. The biological common denominators of human existence.
   Enlargement of the reality experience with the help of instruments.
   The scale of knowledge.
   Hypothesis and the area of "not-knowing".
   Changes in the field or scope of perception.
   The inevitability of simplification.
   The non-focussed aspects of a postulated extra-human reality.
   Anthropomorphic reality images.
   The fallacy of any claim to have "broken-through" the boundaries of human limitations.
   The purpose and effort of finding a globally acceptable reality perception.
   The utilitarian aspects of such an image.
   The benefits of widespread acceptability.

7. Collective and individual needs for reliable reality perceptions.
   A review of behavioural developments with an accent upon the positive-negative classification of sense impressions.
   The reality of the need to choose.
   Various degrees of voluntary involvement in selecting the behavioural choice.
   Routine versus troublesome choices.
   The varying aspects of the "free will".
   The validity of the subjective experience as a common reality.
   The choice of judgement.
   The occasional need to obscure clear-cut behavioural choices.
   Polarising developments.
   The inevitable emotional input into voluntary decision-making processes.
   The reality picture as a behavioural tool.

8. Social aspects of the reality image.
   Individualisation, seen as a function of differentiation from social uniformity and perceptual synchrony.
   The reality perceptions of historic cultures.
   The apparently logical aspects of older, non-scientific reality perceptions.
   The fragmentation of the reality image in the complex, multi-cultural society.
   Advantages of living in a confusing social conglomerate.
   The harmful aspects of a rigid, nationalistic reality perception.

9. Questions of balance during the development of reality perceptions.
   Analysing historical events within a generalised framework of understanding.
   The conflict situation and the solution of armed combat.
   Factors leading to a social break-through towards vigour and dominance.

10. The validity of commonly accepted reality perceptions without the hope or effort to find an absolutely valid interpretation of reality.
    A re-iteration of the essentially utilitarian aspects of all beliefs.
    An analysis of the reality picture, obtained with the help of the scientific, emotionally more or less neutral method of observation.
    The scientific method of observation, seen as a generalised approach to the perception of reality.
    The success of recent scientific developments as a function of a renewed objectivity in the art of observing and communicating.
    The biological nature of beliefs.
    The parallels between biological aspects of social integration and the perception of reality.
    The need for accepting a transitional period of confusion in order to obtain an increased cohesion and an enlarged scope for our reality perceptions.
    The focus of attention.

@M. Heuff

.......