IN SEARCH OF REALITY XI





Games

A Study in Thought

by


Marius Heuff

@M.Heuff

Chapter 1

Content

Games and their rules.
The honouring of agreements.
The relatively weak existential significance of the outcome of competitive games.
A comparison with the "real-life" game of living in society.

In the games we play, we can see many indications, how we could work and live together, and still retain a great deal of individual freedom. We are not thinking, here, about the formless plays of frollicking youngsters, but, we are referring to those games, where the participants accept, voluntarily, a set of rules that apply to everyone in equal measure and serve as a framework for the development of individual differentiations during the course of a game.

In the agreement to adhere to the rules of a game, there is always the tacit or explicit assumption, that all participants take part on an equal footing. Everyone has exactly the same opportunity to win, even, if the capabilities of the participants are not equal. If the capabilities of the participants are too divergent, the outcome will be a foregone conclusion, and those participants, who have no chance of winning, will be discouraged and lose interest. Therefore, in many games, the rules provide for a handicap system in order to equalise the opportunities to win, whereby additional accomplishments are assigned to those, who have a marked advantage in skill.

At other times, the element of personal skill is so stifled by the rules of a game, that individual variability would be lost completely, unless re-introduced by chance; by fortune; by a roll of the dice. This provides for a more or less neutral factor in deciding the winner, but it is interesting to note, how often a win or loss under such conditions of chance, is considered to be a personal victory or defeat. We seem to have no difficulties appropriating fortunate circumstances as a personal accomplishment, or, even, as a "right", in spite of the fact, that we know, in the back of our minds, that victory did not come because of personal skill or merit.

In a game, the results of victory or defeat have a temporary significance only. The consequences of the outcome of a game have no lasting significance for the individual, because basic security is not endangered by a loss, and yet, the gain in confidence and prestige from winning may be significant.

The game also provides an opportunity for those who lost, to accept defeat graciously, with magnaninity, and, by learning to suppress feelings of disappointment and hostility, the individual recognises, on the one hand, the relative validity of the competitive act, and, on the other hand, he underscores, subconsciously, the bond of having agreed to the game. One emphasises, thereby, the bond of participation over the divergence of competitive results.

Such an attitude is intuitively recognised as valuable and is appreciated as "good sportsmanship". The victor does not feel threatened in his victory by too serious an attitude of jealousy or disappointment of his defeated opponents, and the losers regain their resilience by acknowledgeing to themselves, that it was only a game; that, next time, the results may be different.

This good-natured atmosphere, created by a graceful acceptance of defeat, coupled with a somewhat discrete and modest acceptance of an honest victory, is only possible, if there is a complete trust, that the game has, indeed, been conducted in absolute fairness and adherence to the rules. There can not be any suspicion, that the winner has had an unfair advantage, one way or another. Then, it becomes relatively easy to accept the accomplishments of the winner, and the sentiments of jealous envy may quickly change into admiration and respect.

What would the atmosphere be like, however, if a suspicion would arise, that the rules had been secretly violated, and, that the win was a win by cunning, rather than skill; that the victory was a fraud, a victory by cheating, rather than accomplishment?

Equal opportunities are relatively easy to establish in the simple and translucent agreements between the members of a small group of people who want to play a game, and, the results are transient, without any serious consequences for the participants. The emotional involvement in the game is, sometimes, artificially enhanced by making the consequences of the game more lasting; by introducing an element of real-life significance in the outcome of the game. Such is the case, when we change a game into a form of gambling. Then, the increased significance of the outcome of a game is reflected in the emotional titillation so many people seem to need. The excitement of the hope to "win big", is paralleled by the excitement of the fear to lose everything, and, the willingness to accept such a short-lived excitement reveals an essentially depressed outlook on the future.

If the game becomes a spectator sport, it ceases to be a game in the true sense of the word. It becomes a "show", where the prime objective is to give the public a satisfying return for its money. Sometimes, there is a strong temptation on the part of the participants to add a measure of excitement to the game by engaging in fights. In some spectator sports, the public seems to want this extra measure of excitement, and, the willingness of the public to be stimulated by real violence, may be exploitated by the unscrupulous merchants of public entertainment.

In many spectator sports, the participants become full-time, professional employees of a club. Here, we have another example, where the original purpose of the game within a strict framework of honoured agreements has been replaced by a situation, where the financial security of the participants is very much determined by their performance in the game. The rough and tumble of heated conflicts and brawls reflect the serious, real-life significance of a professional sport, and, it becomes, then, an additional attraction, apparently satisfying the undifferentiated emotions of many spectators.

When a game becomes perverted from its original intentions, the pressures to win at all costs increase in proportion to the increased existential significance of the game. As the game grows closer to a primitive and ruthless struggle for existence, the atmosphere of the game and the attitudes of the participants deteriorate, logically, to a situation, where they resemble nature`s struggle for competitive survival.

.......

Chapter 2

Content

The motivations behind the playing of games.
Designing the rules.
Mutual trust and scrupulous adherence to the rules.
Social aspects of games.

But, why would people, children, adolescents or adults, want to play games in the first place? In essence, a game is the result of an intuitive recognition amongst people who like to be together, that it is fun and relaxing to engage in a friendly competition of skills. In order for this competitive effort to remain friendly, people have recognised, that it is necessary to agree upon a clear-cut and strictly adhered-to code of behaviour. This code must ensure, that no permanent changes in security or well-being follow from the results of a game, and, that no harm comes to any of the participants. In this way, a differentiation into winners and losers can take place without a loss of friendship.

The code of behaviour that has been adopted by all participants, must give each individual an equal opportunity or chance to win, and, it must disqualify those, who do not adhere to a commonly agreed-upon set of rules or behavioural guidelines. The objectives of the game have to be accomplished with strict adherence to the letter and spirit of these rules, and any infraction will lead to a quick and unanimous outcry of disapproval.

We see, often, how a small group of friends squabbles endlessly over the definition of the rules. We see the interplay between the dominant and the more submissive members of the group, as the leadership of a small community of friends tries to outline the rules of play. If the dominating individuals try to create the rules too much according to their own capabilities, the others lose interest and the game is off. The leaders have to persuade the other participants that the rules are fair, and, that they, themselves, will obey the rules scrupulously. A failure to stimulate the group of friends into an attitude of agreement and cooperation, undermines their position of leadership, and, we see in the flexible leadership positions of a group of friends, a playful rehearsal for the serious hierarchical struggles that will take place within the society of adults and occupy the members for a major part of their lives.

A true game provides for a remarkable measure of joy, fun, relaxation and education. Not only, are the participants learning to develop their individual skills, but they grow into more mature and confident personalities, as they learn to accept defeat gracefully and acknowledge the relative importance of the outcome of a game. At the same time, they learn to appreciate the importance of equal opportunity, honest competition, and the honouring of agreements.

Here, we see all the important factors that are necessary for a successful social organisation, but, in society, we have to cope with real-life existential anxieties that are associated with the maintenance of a position of security. In real life, the game is never finished. The stakes are high, the community is large, and there is no possibility to opt-out. There is no voluntary choice about participating, and, there is no opportunity to change or reject the rules of the game. It is not surprising, therefore, that the games of life are not as joyful as the games of friends.

You may think, that it is naive to compare the games played by friends with life in the societies of mankind, but, we should not forget, that we all start our existence in the small communities of relatives and friends. We all play the games of friends, before we embark upon the conflicts of enemies. Yet, even, then, while absorbed in the games of honourable friendships during our younger years, on occasion, we will be goaded by our leaders, or our own combative instincts, to embark upon the thrills of gang-warfare and test our skills in the battles and fights between neighbourhood groupings.

In part, this is still a fight with, at least, some rules of conduct, but, at times, the occurrence of treacherous behaviour and despicable tactics on either side, may lead to a deterioration of these gang-battles into an all-out expression of mutual hatred. We have witnessed, then, a fundamental fact of human strife, where, even, in its adolescent expression, the reversal of the mechanisms of alienation and mistrust is difficult, if not impossible. Mutual hatred is only reversed, after a sobering process of destruction, wounding and bloodshed has brought the combatants to their senses.

We may justifiably laugh at any simplistic attempt to exhort and preach, and, we may scoff at any effort to persuade man to be friends, especially, if we do not know, what binds people together into bonds of friendship, or, what separates them into violent enemies. Since man has a strong tendency to seek security in small groups, almost all his acts of warfare are carried-out communally, in various sized groupings. We have discussed, before, how the resonance effect of mass-emotions with a reverberation of the attitudes of hostility and belligerence, can lead to a total suppression of the ability, and willingness, to come to a balanced judgmement or point of view.

Yet, we have insufficiently emphasised, here, the extreme pressures that are exerted upon individual people within a belligerent social environment, whenever such a mass-synchrony of emotions starts to develop. There is just no room for dissent. There is no possibility to avoid participating in the fighting, and, then, the ever-recurrent cycle of warfare and bloodshed has started its inexorable course, once again.

Just as cheating in the rules of a game is absolutely taboo, so is dissent from a strong communal commitment to the emotion of hostility not tolerated by a belligerent majority. Just as the righteousness and infallibility of the rules within a society of friends, are absolute and sacro-sanct, so is the attitude of belligerent solidarity and hate towards the common enemy completely above question. Hatred towards the stranger is, often, the price to be paid for social cohesion and the comforting feelings of being between trustworthy friends. This price leads to rigid feelings of contempt and exclusivity, as well as the impossibility to avoid strife, conflict and, perhaps, even, death.

We have to look towards the larger and more differentiated societies for the development of the skills of compromise and negotiation, as well as the concepts of individual rights and justice, because large societies are less prone to emotional synchrony, and, many people find their viability in attitudes of tolerance and reasoned judgement. After all, in a larger social environment, we have to learn to get along with people who are essentially strangers.

There is no doubt, that the right to individual differentiation and the processes of communication and interaction between people with differing backgrounds or attitudes, are far more easily safeguarded in the larger society than in the small, cohesive groupings, which are prone to develop elitist attitudes and emotional reverberations. We will come back to these developments, when we consider the advantages and disadvantages of the demands for "local autonomy", representing a measure of self-government for a people or a region within a larger social entity.

In addition to the temporary and explicit, but, often, arbitrary rules of games, the society of friends operates on a less explicit, more emotional code as well; a code of likemindedness and loyalty. In such a group of friends, we notice a hierarchy of dominant and more submissive members, and disputes amongst friends are, often, settled with this curious mixture of authority and friendliness, which is excercised by the leaders over the other members of the group.

The functions of authority and leadership take place in an emotional synchrony of loyalty and a spirit of sharing. Privileges and possessions are shared in a rough sense of justice, which needs to be enforced by the leaders, whenever quarrels tend to disrupt the unity of the group. Internal activities and emotional experiences are synchronised in games and adventures, while feelings of hostility are vented upon rival groups of friends in the neighbourhood.

.......

Chapter 3

Content

The larger society, and the emergence of articulated rules and guidelines for socially acceptable behaviour.
The encouragement of individualisation as a result of "lawful behaviour".
Social stratification and the laws of society.
The dilemmas for Socialist and Free-enterprise systems.
The growth and changing fortunes of the larger societies.

The somewhat larger adult societies are held together by bonds of kinship and a shared way of life, the common territory of occupation, as well as the cooperative activities that are needed for security, food-gathering, tillage and hunting. These activities require a more organised bond than the emotional bonds of friendship can provide. A definite hierarchy develops, composed of leaders, or elders, who have a generally recognised authority in all matters of dispute and communal concerns, and this authority is supported by traditional rituals and beliefs that are embodied in the legends and customs of the small community.

In such a small-scale social grouping, we still see a great demand for individual conformity, and, severe penalties are handed-out for any break with the traditions and customs of the tribal community. Only in the much larger, conglomerate societies, where many different tribes and ethnic groupings live together, do we see the need for formalised judgements and explicit guidelines, regulating the numerous complex and wide-ranging disputes between the members.

The law becomes, eventually, a more or less coherent set of behavioural guidelines, which has been abstracted from a heritage of previous disputes and their judgements. Society becomes regulated, at least, to some extent, by a code of behaviour that can be expressed in clearly verbalised concepts. However, the process of leadership succession and the conduct of the entire society when dealing with its adversaries, often remains a primitive struggle for power, and, the motivations of opportunism and revenge, or, the primitive drive for dominance and conquest, determine, frequently, the course of history for a number of social entities in close, competitive contact with each other.

If the rules for behavioural conduct and the judgement of disputes are well articulated, a much clearer definition of the rights and obligations of individual members comes to the fore, and, this tends to protect the individual from an emotional prejudice or attitude of hatred, which a segment of society may show towards the stranger in their midst.

A variety of behavioural modes, or cultural codes, which are essentially "strangers" to each other and are based on different lifestyles and belief-patterns, become, then, protected under the laws and guidelines of the larger, overall society, as long as the various forms of behaviour are not felt to be a threat to the leadership, or, the larger society as a whole. As a result of individualised protection and tolerance of diverse behaviour patterns under the laws of the larger social entity, internal hostilities and attitudes of prejudice are softened, and, the prolonged contacts, resulting from living together at close quarters, may become a source of innovative and invigorating behaviour, which is a frequent by-product of a broadened exposure and wide-ranging experiences.

The protection of the individual resulting from an enlightened and fair application of generalised laws and objective judgements, allows the development of a process of "individualisation", which is the right to be somewhat different from the others. This process forms the basis for the divergence of individuals, as well as groupings or classes of people within the larger society.

The rules of games are comparable to the laws of the larger society, and, these rules assure, ideally, everyone an equal opportunity from the start, but, during the life-long game of living in society, widely divergent abilities and motivations lead to markedly different lifestyles, attitudes and positions of prestige and affluence. These divergencies are accentuated, if the laws of society allow the accumulation of power, wealth and prestige, especially, if the laws allow a transfer of these privileges to the offspring of the successful members of society.

Every society that has developed trade, barter, industry or other patterns for a voluntary exchange of goods and services, has experienced the split between the rich and the poor, but, even non-industrialised and feudal societies developed, quickly, to the point, where the wealth and power of society became concentrated into the hands of a small, land-owning aristocracy, while the rest of society slid, rapidly, into a position of virtual slavery or servitude.

From time to time, the enlightened leadership of a benevolent society experimented with ideas of "essential equality", where its members were provided with the basic necessities, and yet, all these experiments resulted in failure, because of the inevitable growth of an ever enlarging, stagnating, and, eventually, corrupt administration of these complex principles of essential equality.

The dilemma seems to be, how to prevent the divisive divergence between the rich and the poor in a society that leaves its economic development in private hands, and, how to prevent a stifling, corrupt bureaucracy, whenever a government-regulated economy tries to provide for all the members of society on an essentially equal basis. The answers to this dilemma will concern us many times, as we attempt to outline a system of ethical conduct with global relevance. There is no reason to believe, that this dilemma can not be solved, but there is no reason to think, either, that a solution is simple or easy, because the experiments of past civilisations do not provide us with ready answers.

We have outlined, before, the reasons, why every society is inherently unstable, and, we have considered the effects of rapidly changing internal and external circumstances upon a growing society. We have looked into the difficulties related to a reality perception that is lagging behind. We have also discussed the reasons, why a vigorous and growing society attempts to dominate or conquer its neighbours. I like to emphasise, here, the idea, that we can not explain this trend satisfactorily by pointing to an "inherent need" to dominate or conquer.

Sometimes, internal dissent can be transformed into a unity of communal hostilities directed at a neighbour. At other times, a variety of egocentric or "socio-centric" interests are at work, whenever a rich, strategically located society becomes a tempting target for annexation or confiscation. Occasionally, influence is obtained by diplomatic tactics; by promises or threats, or, by a veneer of "assistance", but, in every instance, we can be sure, that the "protector" has an egocentric objective in mind, and will benefit more than the society that is being "assisted".

A society that grows through involuntary integration, annexation or domination, experiences a constantly increasing burden of "law-enforcement" and bureaucratic administration, and, eventually, an equilibrium is reached between the energy available for growth and expansion, and, the energy required for the maintenance of a status-quo. Growth ceases, and a period of stability sets-in, where the vastly increased opportunities of communication and trade enrich the cultures of all the regions involved in the federation of an empire. Slowly, but surely, with the disappearance of even-handed leadership and the rise of inefficient bureaucracies, the processes of mistrust and discontent resume their work of decay, and tensions between the various federated regions begin to mount.

Regional and ethnic entities begin to grow apart. The divergence of the classes becomes more accentuated. Discrepancies between the rich and the poor, the powerful and the vulnerable, the indigenous population and the "foreigners", the free citizens and the slaves or serfs; all these mechanisms of difference become accentuated, and, these factors lead to further tensions that dissipate themselves, occasionally, in the convulsion of a class-war; a rebellion, or a full-scale revolution. At other times, these tensions are mitigated by the resurgence of an enlightened leadership and a re-establisment of the mechanisms of justice and essential equality, or, the renewed infusion of wealth by economic growth or the exploitation of a new and promising territory.

......

Chapter 4

Content

Mechanisms of modern industrialisation.
Labour unions and the merger of business enterprises.
The undermining of the free-enterprise philosophy.
Reasons for the need for continuous economic expansion.
The dogma of economic growth, and the faith of economic salvation.

If we look, for a moment, at the industrialisation that has taken place in many societies all over the world, we see, indeed, that a revolution occurred in the lifestyle and expectations of the people as a result of mechanisation and a greatly increased rate of production and consumption. The philosophy of "free-enterprise", and the lawful protection of legitimately accumulated wealth and privileges, resulted, once again, in quickly diverging social classes, where the workers became enslaved to an urban existence, close to the factories, because of their increasing dependence upon a regular cash-income.

The exploitation of human labour reached, once again, appalling levels in the near slave-labour working conditions of many men, women and children during the early phases of mechanisation or industrialisation, and, it became obvious, that collective bargaining for wages and working conditions was the only way, (in addition to protective legislation), to secure better working conditions and a fair participation in the rising affluence that was being generated by trade and industry. The history of the work-force, with its unrest, revolts and an ever more effective organisation into labour unions, is well-known, but we should realise, and acknowledge, that one of the pillars of the doctrine of free-enterprise had been destroyed with the development of labour monopolies.

The essential doctrine of a free-enterprise economy is the assumption, that, a free competition between manufacturers and tradesmen for markets, and work opportunities, will result in the offering of a product to the public at the most economical level possible. According to free-enterprise thinking, a free competition for markets and jobs would ensure the survival of the most efficient way to produce an item or provide a service, but the price in human misery and injustice was high.

The entrepreneur, as well as the workers offering their time and skills, became quickly committed, financially and economically, to the job or enterprise they had undertaken, and failure, or near-failure, would cause untold hardships. It also became clear, that an entrepreneur, starting a factory with the mass-production of a specialised product, had far more leverage to get what he wanted than an individual worker, and, consequently, the worker was exploited and abused in order to extract the maximum possible time and effort from him. The only way the worker could improve his deplorable situation and exert a counter-pressure on the employer, was by collective negotiations and the threat of a collective work-stoppage; a mode of behaviour that was slowly made acceptable by protective legislation.

Over the past few decades, the competitive struggle of numerous small factories and business enterprises against much larger companies often led to failures, and, a logical trend towards amalgamation into ever larger companies led to the development of multi-national corporations. These became giants of economic strength, virtually escaping from effective political and legislative controls by the social environment in which they were operating.

With the development of labour unions and multi-national corporations, the fundamental concept, and theory, of the free-enterprise philosophy, was, in essence, defunct, but these ideas lingered-on as dreams about personal freedoms and the opportunities provided by ambitious initiatives. On the one hand, there are, now, powerful, politically influential, and, sometimes, governing bodies that have been based on labour unions. These are political Parties that are closely associated with the labour unions. These labour unions or "Labour Parties" have varying degrees of influence on the political leadership of a country, depending on the percentage of the popular vote they have been able to attract.

On the other hand, we see in many Capitalist societies a phenomenal concentration of power and wealth into the hands of a thousand or so multi-national corporations, which are spread all over the world, and, whose policies and financial powers are, often, hidden behind an impenetrable screen of secrecy. No single nation has complete access to, or information about, these giants, and, almost all the major technological and economical developments on earth are now influenced by such multi-national corporations.

The motivation for every business activity is "profit"; an increase in income, assets, wealth and power, because these are the conditions that will make a business less vulnerable to a set-back. A mere balance between earnings and expenditures is hazardous to the continued viability of a business organisation, and, the one persistent and overriding goal every business venture has to have, is making a profit and increasing its security by growth and an enlarging influence or share in the market place.

Many governments and semi-official institutions of communal interest, such as pension-funds and religious organisations, are intertwined with the functions and aspirations of these ever enlarging organisms of economic wealth and power. The reason, why the people of affluent nations have, for decades, been exposed to the persistent, and, often, pernicious stimuli of commercial advertisement, (leading to ever rising expectations, ever increasing wants, as well as an artificial stimulation of every kind of desire or sensation), is the fact, that business enterprises, including the giant corporations, always need more money, more power, and more growth. The affluent world is, now, so locked into a continuation of economic growth, (with an ever increasing rate of depletion of non-renewable resources and ever more pressing problems of pollution), that, even, a modest slow-down or zero-growth of "the economy" is considered a major disaster.

People have become so enslaved to a continuously rising level of consumption and personal expenditures, that almost everyone seems to be caught in a frantic scramble for work and money in order to pay for debts and recurrent financial obligations. The dogma of ever increasing economic growth as the salvation of mankind, is, at the present time, so strong, that any question about the advisability of cutting-back consumption and reducing economic production, is, immediately, stifled by howls of protests against the prospect of rising unemployment and falling living standards.

When do we start to think, really seriously, about this insanity? Where do we begin to correct this momentum of profit, growth, consumption and luxury? It is, indeed, remarkable, that, in spite of all these economic activities, a large percentage of people in the affluent societies would, indeed, be severely distressed, if there would be a marked slow-down in economic growth and the flow of money.

.......

Chapter 5

Content

The pitfalls of modern economic doctrines and their varying projections.
The weight and power of the "economic momentum".
Defensiveness and frustration caused by an entrapment in affluence.
A lack of mutual trust as the major cause of affluent paralysis.
The inability to admit a lack of faith in the economic doctrines.
The entanglement of us all.

We will not consider the question, here, how to change from a dependence upon affluence and economic growth, to a healthy and sustainable way of life, ensuring a basic equality for all. That it can be done is certain, but, whether it can be done without war, suffering and destruction, remains to be seen. Let us assume, at this point, that it is possible for everyone to live a healthy and frugal lifestyle, without starvation or being deprived of essential needs. Let us acknowledge, that, in the near future, mankind must find an equilibrium between the level of consumption and the rate of depletion, contamination and pollution the earth can sustain. Let us agree, that it would be totally impossible for everyone to live a lifestyle of wasteful luxury, so many of us, affluent people, indulge in, at present.

It may not be correct to assume, that the under-developed countries will aspire to the same, insane consumerist lifestyles we have developed in our affluent nations, but, it is safe to assume, that they want a fair share of the world`s wealth in order to exist in dignity, free from hunger, sheltered, healthy and well-educated; with an opportunity to develop some of their potentials.

How can we accomplish such a transformation from over-heated pockets of unnecessary consumption and inexcusable waste, to the wisdom of a global frugality in harmony with the eco-systems of the planet? This question requires expert thought and discussion, in order to make it persuasive and plausible as a realistic objective. Let us pause for a moment, and think about the direction of our actions and the forces we are subjected to. After all, we have to diagnose a problem accurately, before we can hope to find an efficient solution.

If we acknowledge the fact, that our affluent lifestyle leads to a rapid depletion of the earth`s resources, and an increasing pollution of the terrestial eco-systems, and, if we are aware of the fact, that, vast numbers of human beings still live under sub-human conditions of hunger, disease, deprivation and ignorance, then, it is not difficult to come to the conclusion, that our affluent, consumerist lifestyle can not last. Few of us in the West will actually disagree with such a conclusion, but, equally few of us will care to think about the drastic consequences, that flow from such a perception of the fundamental realities affecting us all.

Our societies have fragmented into individualistic pockets of despair, where frustration hides in consumption, and, where insanity and stupidity evoke only a response of laughter or cynicism. These attitudes lead to a generalised feeling of helplessness and paralysis. None of us, not even large, influential groups, are able to change the course of collective consumerism. Our political Parties compete in a game of Santa Claus, and they try to out-do each other in promising more and more benefits and consumer items to the electorate. All of us agree, in principle, that it can not last, but, we are not going to make any sacrifices ourselves, because we are suspicous about our fellow human beings. "Perhaps, I am the gullible person, who will be taken for a ride, while my neighbour laughs and benefits, secretely, from my acts of good-will".

Trust has been replaced, almost completely, by cynicism and suspicion. Competence in government has deteriorated into an incredible bureaucratic redundancy or a bungling inefficiency, and, at times, into outright corruption. Governments maintain themselves, precariously, by constantly adjusting to pressures and by responding from one crisis to the next.

We, as democratic governments, pacify and yield to pressures, everywhere, in the affluent, Capitalistic societies. There is no real leadership, only an acrobatic juggling of forces, and a prayer to the gods of economic recovery, in the hope, that they will, soon, mitigate the severity of the dissenting pressures that are rising-up, everywhere, from the crumbling, affluent societies.

Let us not make the mistake to think that this cynicism is widely realised or openly expressed. There is a good reason to suppress the acknowledgement of this feeling of hopelessness and the threat of collapse, because we believe, passionately, in an ever expanding economic "momentum". The logical conclusion, that such a faith is based, in essence, upon a pipe-dream, is rejected out of hand, just as all logical arguments against the inconsistencies of any passionate belief are always rejected emotionally, rather than refuted intellectually.

In our world of affluence, we all are dependent, at least to some extent, upon the perpetuation of the economic momentum. How many of us are trapped into social and financial obligations that would destroy completely our security, if we would ever lose this source of income? Can we afford, then, to admit to ourselves, that our jobs are useless, superfluous or redundant? Can we admit to ourselves, that we push hard, ever harder, to sell our products, because, if we fail to to do so, we will lose our income? Can we admit, that we are providing services that are not really needed; goods that are unnecessary; that we carry-out functions and studies that are meaningless? We all have become dependent on this colossus of the "economic momentum", and, we worship it, even, if we may admit, privately, to our friends, that we do not believe in what we are doing or saying.

Look at the massive bureaucracy of government; that entire complex of civil services; how much of it do we really need? The larger and more inert the system becomes, the more studies we need in order to avoid making decisions. The less decisions we make, the less vulnerable we are, and, as bureaucrats, that is what we want. We want to become less vulnerable, and, we spend all our time and energy justifying our positions and clamoring for an assistant to help us consolidate our positions.

What about the inertia and momentum of our academic institutions? Our professors, lecturers and assistents are also caught in a savage struggle for academic survival, and, their energies are, often, dedicated to justify their existence, their projects, their positions, their salaries, grants and bursaries; just like the bureaucrats.

How often are our physicians engaged in providing an unnecessary service? Sure, one can always argue, that a neurotic complaint or an anxious, insecure personality needs a physician, but, in order to survive economically and satisfy financial obligations, the physician has to produce a constant stream of patients through his office.

How often are we getting a poor service for our car or our complicated appliances, and, how often, have we been taken for a ride by unneccessary work, poor workmanship or exorbitant fees? If we sell our home, the lawyers and real-estate agencies pocket their fat fees with little justification in relation to the skill and effort of their work. We have the feeling, and, we know, that we are being defrauded, almost everywhere. However, can we honestly say, that we do not try to earn a quick and easy dollar ourselves, once in a while, in particular, if the bill is footed by the public purse or a third party, like an insurance agency, towards whom we have no feelings of loyalty or responsibility?

.......

Chapter 6

Content

Mechanisms of decay in the affluent society.

Our workers are always clamoring for more wages, and, they are applying destructive pressure-tactics with strikes and slow-downs against companies, and, increasingly against society itself. The blatant egocentricity of their attitudes and the undifferentiated desire for more wages and less work, without any consideration about quality, productivity or responsibility, is complacently accepted by a majority of the people, since most of us have already adopted, tacitly, the same strident egocentricity in a silent conspiracy against the other members of society.

Our politicians and business executives are feasting in arrogant luxury with their lavish, tax-deductible accounts at the expense of the tax-payer or the company, and, they huddle together in an elitist exclusivity, condemning, superficially, everyone, who dares to question or challenge their interests. Can we really expect these politicians and the business enterprisers to denounce the god of perpetual economic growth? Can we really expect from the workers of society an awareness of the fallacy of our affluent lifestyle, when we are all, so clearly, dependent upon a continuous flow of money?

Pessimism about the direction our societies are taking, has to be muted, therefore, and, any questioning of the doctrine of economic salvation, together with the holy spirit of free-enterprise, will raise many eyebrows, and, often, an angry protest as well. Our societies will, therefore, continue to search for increasing economic expansion, and, by maintaining this economic momentum, we will post-pone, but not avoid, the decline of our societies into chaos and internal dissent.

We are chained by the shackles of financial obligations, as well as by a leadership that depends for its political survival on promises of ever increasing affluence. We are chained by the autonomous, multi-national corporations and their propaganda, and, we can not escape the self-perpetuating bureaucracies of government and academia. None of us have the freedom, nor the courage, to become aware of the course we are drifting. Who will cry-out and say; "Let us forsake our luxuries and our mutual deceit. Let us abandon the useless efforts and redundant jobs, that guarantee us an income but prevent us from performing a really useful function" We can not do this, because we do not have the financial security to say so. We can not afford to lose our jobs and our income. We can not afford to make ourselves superfluous.

How many people would be unemployed, if we would abandon, overnight, every unnecessary consumption, unnecessary service and unnecessary job? Chaos would be complete, and anarchy would quickly destroy the remnants of our affluent civilisations. We do not want to precipitate such a chaos and destruction by too rapid and too radical a change, and yet, we can not condone an inexorable drift into a collision course with global pollution and an ever widening disparity between the rich and the poor. Even so, the collapse may come earlier than we think, whenever the pressures and demands for equality from the poorer nations gather momentum, and, sooner or later, we will have to face the reality of injustice and resentment. Changes will come, regardless, how much hardship these changes will cause.

The arts tend to bloom in times of chaos and turmoil, when we have lost our sense of direction and pride. The arts bloom, when blatant egocentricity, corruption and fraud are on the loose. People want to forget their sense of hopelessness and frustrations in the sensual attraction of what they like to see and hear. People stop planning and thinking for the long-term future, and, they add to their diet of consumptive habits the pleasures of escapist arts and sports.

.......

Chapter 7

Content

Lingering attitudes of idealism and hard work.
Exceptions to the rule.
The overall outlook versus localised aspects.
The need for a new perspective and corrective measures.
Human motivations; a review.

Many young people, even in the affluent societies, enter the field of their chosen profession with a measure of idealism and enthousiasm, before they are caught in a web of aspirations and obligations, and, indeed, many people work hard to accomplish their goals. Unfortunately, their ideas and ideals are often frustrated by cynical counter-forces within their social environment, as well as by the strife and struggle of competing interests and diverging requirements.

We can never deny the existence of hard-working and good-willing people, even, if the overall impression of a society is stagnant and depressing. Societies disintegrate, but, even during the demise of a decaying society, a discriminating observer will find some evidence of value. Some people are doing a good job, and some strength and idealism remain, but it is not sufficient to penetrate the whole of society and turn around the course of social events. The existence of a few, hard-working, idealistic people in society, today, does not invalidate the gloomy overall impression of a decaying, affluent social conglomerate. The fact, that numerous people in the affluent Western societies are quite willing, and able, to live a life of fruitful frugality in a simple and sensible lifestyle, does not invalidate a judgement of overall weakness and enslavement to consumerism.

Just as we can always find exceptions to the rule, the exception, by virtue of being an exception, confirms the rule. In pointing to the bright side, we can not deny the existence of a darker side, but, neither can we ignore the existence of contrasting facets and circumstances when pointing to the darker aspects of social trends.

The judgement of one`s own social surroundings must, necessarily, remain a matter of opinion, and, this opinion can only be validated, or rejected, by a different social environment, in a retrospective view, at a later date. Seldom will a sweeping, contemporary view-point appear as a voice of persuasion; certainly not, if the judgement is negative. How can we all agree about a disastrous trend, without inviting further chaos and endangering our collective security? How can we acknowledge to be useless in our functions and fraudulent in our dealings, unless we recognise it, first, in others, and, belatedly, in ourselves? Therefore, a negative judgement about a contemporary social environment can never be an end in itself, and should, certainly, not be based on a feeling of personal disappointment. If, however, a negative judgement is seen as a warning; as an effort to make ourselves aware of a somewhat painful reality, we may be able to influence the momentum of a disastrous trend to the point that we can avert its worst effects.

By acknowledgeing that we have become a society of egocentric consumers, shorn from all collective strength and idealism, we may be able to expurgate a feeling of suppressed hopelessness and invigorate our social environment, until it is ready to turn into a new direction. It is never our purpose to condemn a social trend without understanding its causes and without pointing towards new possibilities for development.

A common belief in our contemporary, affluent societies, is the assumption, that man`s main, if not exclusive motivation to work hard, is the desire for personal profit or financial gain, and, that our societies will benefit from this drive, if we leave the individual free to pursue his personal fortunes in an essentially unregulated enterprise. We have discussed, briefly, the fallacies of this notion, and, we have seen, how, both, the bonding of the worker into unions and the amalgamation of enterprises into large corporations, have destroyed the theoretical basis for the mechanisms of a competitive leveling of prices and wages.

The invariable result of unbridled free-enterprise activities is the accumulation of wealth and power into the hands of a privileged elite, and, this development has forced governments to interfere, increasingly, in the mechanisms of free-enterprise. This is done by various taxation methods, but, also, by legislating beneficial working conditions and regulating the mechanisms of merger between business enterprises; by the selective stimulation and protection of some enterprises with tariff barriers, grants and tax-concessions, and, through the participation of governments in the market process; by wage and price controls, as well as the establishment of crown-corporations or semi-government agencies.

It is, therefore, wrong to see the economic development of the modern, Western societies as pure examples of a free-enterprise system. The complexity of an affluent society, as well as the ever increasing need for governments to respond to inequalities of income and disparities in lifestyle within these social conglomerates, have made most nations of the democratic, free-enterprise world, in essence, "mixed economies", where governments intervene, all the time, in the economic mechanisms, be it in many different ways.

Nevertheless, the lure of the philosophy of economic free-enterprise persists, and, it is generally considered better for a society, if a government interferes as little as possible with the economic and industrial processes, because it has frequently been shown, that government intervention in the form of taking-over management, leads to inefficiencies, high costs, or, outright bureaucratic bungling.

Socialist philosophers favour, by and large, an increasing managerial control of government over key industries, in particular, those enterprises that provide essential services to the people, and, certainly, those industries that have become monopolies in the hands of private individuals.

In most Socialist societies, the entire process of economic planning and execution is handled by the government, and, as a result, the government of the people is the only significant employer. Certainly, many examples of bureaucratic inefficiencies can be cited, but we should also acknowledge, that, only recently, has it become technically possible to manage such huge and complex systems as the economy of an entire country. Only now, are we beginning to realise, to what extent computer technology enables us to get a grasp over very complex events.

It can not be denied, that the ingenuity of man has been motivated, often, by the desire to make a profit, and, this has resulted in remarkable technological advances. However, the question we have to ask ourselves, here, is, whether or not we still need a somewhat random development of such technological innovations. Perhaps, it is much more desirable to become very selective in choosing and developing those aspects of technology that will help us build a just society, able to benefit every member of mankind; a mankind, that will be in harmony with itself and in a durable equilibrium with its environment.

By adopting a philosophy that takes into account the long-term, overall goals of mankind, we automatically take the direction of economical and technological developments out of the sphere of private profit, and, we place it, squarely, into the considered opinion of a well-informed electorate. However, we have to make sure, that there is, indeed, a well-informed public, as well as an efficient, competent and honest government able to do the job, efficiently and properly.

The idea that profit is the single, dominant motivating force in man`s behaviour, is widespread, but essentially erroneous. Profit, or the lure of financial gain, may have become a specific substitute in the search for man to express himself, whenever other avenues of expression have been frustrated or muzzled. However, there is no justification, whatsoever, to believe, that man can only be galvanised into action, or "hard work", by dreams of wealth. History shows, with abundant clarity, that a variety of motives activate man; from the primary drive for dominance and power, to the lure of prestige and acclaim, as well as ideals of aesthetic and moral perfection, or, dedication to a believed-in Cause and a fervent belief in an Absolute Truth.

.......

Chapter 8

Content

Profit motives and frustrated drives.
The enslavement caused by our drive for power and prestige,
entrapment, and the blunting of our concerns for others.

It is not easy to analyse and understand human motivations, and, we have discussed these complex problems before, together with the formation of intricate goal-patterns and the primary drives and desires that shape human behaviour. In childhood and adolescence, our goal-patterns are formed, primarily, by a process of identification with an admired person, but later, more abstract objectives come to the fore, as the grasp over reality increases in the adolescent personality. Certainly, the acquisition of personal toys and tools is essential for the mechanisms of maturation, because these objects are necessary for the development of the personality. However, the competitive drive to equal the possessions of someone else, leads to the hoarding of objects, material goods, or "wealth". This leads to a level of acquisition that goes far beyond what is needed for our personal use and the maintenance of our well-being.

In an environment of mutual trust, there is a tendency to share communally, and, if the quantity of goods is limited, this drive to acquire possessions is frowned upon and actively suppressed. However, when existential anxieties replace the feelings of mutual trust, we relapse into an attitude of competitive strife, and, we begin to gather possessions and influence as a means to exercise power, find prestige, or, acquire a measure of freedom and security.

Many young people enter their affluent societies with a dream to do something about the problems of the world. At the same time, they hope to realise some of the potentials of their talents, but soon, elements of frustration and boredom become a predominant experience, even, in the most envied professions. Quickly, young people come to realise, that affluent societies are, in essence, not interested, whether its members pursue lofty goals of wide-ranging concerns, or, an egocentric self-fulfulment of their potentials.

The affluent societies teach, constantly, to be concerned about our own personal success, and, this accentuates the feelings of existential insecurity and sharpens the drive for prestige, consumption and a liberal cash-flow. The overall direction of the forces within an affluent society compel people, especially, young people, to become egocentric consumers, frustrating, quickly, any inclination to develop into a different direction. The forces of the economic momentum win out, time and again, over the forces of good-will and mutual trust. Of course, there are always exceptions, as we mentioned, but these exceptions remain exceptions, and there seems little hope, at the present time, to halt the pressures of greed and exploitation.

Money provides, not only, power and influence, (if possessed in really large quantities), but, even, a good, above average income provides the means to fill leisure hours with exciting travel, or the use of many toys, cars, gadgets and other objects to play around with. The ability to buy all the luxuries of yesterday, (which have become the necessities of today), is a strong but temporary antidote for the experience of frustration, and, it is also the main source of the experience of prestige. Consumption soothes, for a moment, the turmoil and tensions that have to be tolerated in a complex and stagnant social environment.

We have discussed, how the feelings of frustration can be softened, at least, temporarily, by an increased consumption or "spending spree". Consumption may take various forms. It may be, literally, "eating oneself into obesity", or, it may mean the acquisition of goods and satisfying the need for exciting stimuli. We have also seen, how the vicious circle of further enslavement entraps us, whenever we accept ever increasing financial obligations. Yet, this willingness to accept financial obligations forms the cornerstone of modern economic expectations. In addition to our efforts to release tensions by material acquisition, mental escapism, and the pass-time of eating, we use drugs and alcohol to soothe our tensions, again, at the price of further enslavement.

Most people, in particular, those in positions of responsibility, earn a good living, certainly, by international standards, but they live and work at the price of chronic frustrations and tensions. These tensions are relieved, temporarily, by alcohol and an affluent lifestyle, but these methods of tension-relief lead to an ever deepening dependence on a generous financial income. A dependence on a high income is, actually, the immediate cause for the accumulation of intractable frustrations, since an individual is not able to forfeit this income in order to escape from the mounting tensions and frustrations. One is, generally, not in a position to risk losing one`s job by being critical or innvovative, and, even, to admit to oneself the futility of a job, is a dangerous act, since it undermines the strength to cope with the tensions of the job, as well as the willingness to continue to make the necessary efforts.

Here, again, we see the reasons, why we can not criticise, fully, our own society or way of life. As we mentioned before, almost all of us have become so dependent upon a continuation of the economic momentum and our cash-income, that we are unable to analyse the factors involved with objectivity and emotional neutrality. We have to keep accepting the pressures from "higher-up", and, we have to keep pushing our sub-ordinates, all for the sake of maintaining the momentum of a cash-income.

It is, therefore, not surprising to see the dream of wealth and freedom come to the fore; the dream of being able to opt-out from the rat-race through a position of financial independence, so that we can disappear from the scene of interminable pressures and frustrations. This dream is, now, a widespread phenomenon, but, it is shared, probably, less intensely by those who are still young. Young people, still, have less financial pressures to deal with, and, they are, still, rather mobile, with a variety of job opportunities in sight, provided, they have acquired a skill that is in demand. But, the dream of financial independence is shared by most people in society, as we see in the enormous popularity of lottos, draws and other gambling attractions.

Yet, if there is a chance, how many people really dare to take the plunge to an escape from the status-quo, and, how many people are able to accept, voluntarily, a marked drop in income? Very few, because most people have become so used to the addictive habits of affluent spending, that true freedom is felt as a threatening emptiness; as a loss of direction; a frightening inability to fill one`s time without spending money.

Most of us, then, persist in our positions. We cope with the pressures, grumble and complain, cautiously, within the limits of social tolerance. We spend our money and drink our whisky, while waiting for what? We do not know. We may dream of the new house, a new car, a vacation, etc., until we get what we want, you think? No, we keep wanting more. Our goal-patterns keep receding, until we realise, some day, that we always long for what we do not have, and, think of that, which does not exist.

We have become a slave to our drives, and soon, we are too old to change. Our children have grown-up, behaving just like us. Soon, we will have our first heart-attack, and, it will not be long, before we leave our earthly existence. What have we accomplished then? We have paid lip-service to the problems of the world. We have felt compassion for the poor, for a little while, after we saw the program on television, but, soon afterwards, we were back to worrying about our financial obligations, our marital problems, feeling somewhat guilty about our behaviour, and, we take another drink. Soon, it will be vacation time again, and, we are busily planning our trip to one resort or another, so we can show our slides and have something to talk about at the next social gathering.

Others have depicted the endless activities of non-achievement better than I can. Others have shown the hollow uselessness of being trapped, and, they have shown the facile piety of affluent Christianity and fashionable social concerns. It is not my task, here, to draw a picture we all know. We have to change, and, we are going to change, whether we want it or not. No situation in nature, or human history, has ever remained the same for any length of time. Everything changes, always, and, we are, as human beings, the supreme tool of natural selection to cope with the phenomena of change, because we received in our biological heritage the ability to adapt to change and manipulate the environment according to our needs.

.......

Chapter 9

Content

Individual versus collective resilience.
The futility of trying to predict the immediate future of affluent societies.
The pitfalls of a doctrine of inevitable dominance, strife and misery.
The Christian Faith and its ethical guidelines; contributions and weaknesses.

Individually, we can be remarkably resilient, resourceful and adaptable, but, as a large social conglomerate, we do not seem to be able to foresee changes to any significant extent. Which society in the past has really seen and acknowledged its decay as it was taking place? Which civilisation has truly acknowledged, that it had become stifled and stagnant, poised to be over-taken by another social entity, or, to be destroyed by internal dissent?

We have outlined the reasons, why a society is inherently incapable of acknowledgeing its own decline, because such an acknowledgement would remove the last defenses that are still standing. Let me not give the impression, here, that I believe Western societies to be rotten to the core. I have no way of knowing, whether we are just going through a phase of worship to the gods of affluence, or, have we, indeed, lost all regenerative powers, all leadership in the evolution of the species of mankind?

The white race has held the torch of leadership, now, for quite a while, and, it would not be a complete miscarriage of natural justice, if our technological societies would be taken-over by the more vigorous, developing nations. Before those of us gloat over the gloomy picture painted about Western societies, let us not forget, that the infectious desire for affluence seems to spread rapidly to the poorer nations as well. Of course, there is nothing illogical about this, and, it is normal human nature to see a measure of envy and suspicion, whenever children of the same family have to live under such markedly different conditions.

Those, who have been poor and ignorant for centuries, have woken-up, and, they have heard and understood the lofty ideas of essential social equality and the dignity of all human beings. We may still show leadership by relinquishing, voluntarily, and, on a significant scale, some of our affluence. We may still be able to make a last and lasting contribution to the species of mankind, besides those of atomic power and the possibility of total annihilation. However, we have to know, again, why we should care for the rest of the world, and, we have to realise, that our present position in life is not a final and divinely ordained situation, nor is it hopeless to fight against enormous inertias and the facile, fashionable opinions about human nature.

We have to know, that it is, not only, a natural result of our biological heritage to be selfish, to be divided into rich and poor, privileged and enslaved, success and failure, but, it is, also, part of human nature to want to learn and understand, to avoid mistakes, to learn from the past, and, to continue the evolution of compassionate understanding and individual freedom under conditions of essential equality. One of the main misconceptions we have to overcome, is the assumption, that human nature is always competitive, and, that it will always lead to a dominance by some people over others. We have to overcome the misconception, that freedom for the privileged, means, inevitably, oppression for the enslaved; that affluence for a small segment, means, invariably, poverty for many others; that someone`s death is, always, someone else`s big oportunity.

This is all true, to a certain extent, but it is not the entire truth, because there is more to the characteristics of human evolution than a fatalistic acceptance of an exclusively predatory human nature. Strife, misery and bloodshed recur, all the time, because we have not learned, as yet, to see, which factors make us behave with anxious and primarily egocentric attitudes, and, we have not learned, as yet, what it means to live under conditions of trust, justice, essential equality and mutual respect.

In a discussion about the natural evolution of ethical behaviour patterns, we will try to show, that there is another side to human evolution. However, we will not try to deny the natural tendency for the human being to be egocentric in his outlook, and elitist in his social relationships. It would be wrong, and, essentially impossible, to try to eradicate this bological heritage in a concept of Original Sin. The enormous influence and contribution of the Christian Faith upon our outlook on life will be discussed, frequently, and, we will see the unmistakable refinement of attitudes and the increased awareness of human dignity, which comprise the legacy of Christianity. We are aware of the fact, that the Christian Faith contributed, greatly, to a widened sphere of mutual identification across cultural barriers. However, we should not shy away, at this point, to indicate some of the weaknesses of the Christian Faith as well.

Not only, are there intellectual weaknesses, (which have come to light during the development of our scientific insights and understanding of the nature of living existence), but, we should, also, focus upon some of the ethical weaknesses that seem to be associated with Christian concepts and beliefs. In essence, these weaknesses are not specific to the Christian Faith, but, they are inherent to any dogmatic belief in an Absolute Truth. We will touch upon these aspects many times, once we start to formulate the ethical evolution of the human being, as well as the options and choices that are open to us, at this point in the history of mankind.

.......

Chapter 10

Content

A sermon for lesser developed nations.

We understand, why the poorer members of the family of mankind are motivated by resentment towards the more affluent nations, and, why they are trying to take their fair share of the terrestial resources, but, let those of us, who have no affinity for the decaying, affluent West, not gloat in self-righteousness and a sense of triumph. The leadership and government institutions of many of the lesser developed and under-developed nations are backward, and, they allow an even greater degree of disparity between the rich and the poor than is the case in many of the affluent societies.

Power is often in the hands of people, who have appropriated the instruments of government by force. Sometimes, these military or revolutionary dictators are enlightened and genuinely concerned with the well-being of their people. Often, however, corruption is rampant, and the dignity and rights of ordinary people are concepts of luxury and irrelevance. Many of the starving peoples of the world have their own leaders and governments to blame for their inadequate existence. Their physical and mental depravity is made worse by an insensitive bureaucracy and a totally inadequate social infra-structure, as well as the attitudes of ignorance and fatalism, which a majority of people and their officials show towards the problems of suffering, hunger and poverty.

The developing societies of mankind will have to take their technologies, as well as their philosophies and insights about the dignity and rights of individual existence, largely from Western sources, together with the techniques of government and popular representation. The technology for the development of the impoverished and backward areas of humanity will have to come, mainly, from the affluent nations, which, only a short while ago, contributed to the exploitation and economic enslavement of many of these areas during the era of "colonialism".

Those of you, who scorn the god of affluence to which we have become enslaved in our affluent ways of life, are you worshipping the god of social dogma? How valuable is individual human life in your martial rigidity and idealised conception of "the State"? How tolerant are you about the mechanisms of individualisation and the tendency to question those, who are in power? How do you cope with dissent, or, with incipient affluence? How do you reconcile the rigid dogma of social equality with the tendency of people to think just a little bit differently?

How do you, worshippers of the class-struggle, avoid a class of "true believers" in the social dogma, stealthely increasing its powers and privileges? You, who worship the communal State, are you aware of the potentials of individual human existence? How do you solve the problem of individualised differentiation, a problem you will inevitably face, sooner or later? Do you solve this problem by oppressing dissent, or, by tolerance, and, by understanding the natural trends of human existence?

How can you ever hope to create a really satisfactory form of government, if you try to control the flow of information? How can you ever expect your members to mature and contribute to the State, if you prevent them to ponder and wonder, to discuss and debate? How can you hope to be persuasive to the rest of the world, if you do not allow yourselves to understand man and the world of his mind? You withold information, bombard the individual with facile propaganda, you proclaim a rigid belief in absolute truths, and, you show a suspicious hostility towards any deviation from the narrow path of virtue; how can you expect such a situation to last?

The Catholic Church has lost the same battle several hundreds of years ago, and, she had the advantage that she could explain inconsistencies and points of doubt with the concept of a "divine mystery". The authority for the religious beliefs of the Church came from God, (according to the Church), but, the many philosophers, scholars and thinkers working on the Faith of the Social Dogma have no divine authority to back them up.

It is unfortunate, that the thinker, the scholar and the individualist are still looked upon, so often, with a great deal of suspicion by those, who believe in the absolute righteousness of the social dogma. It is true, that individualists are tempted to adopt elitist attitudes, and such attitudes pose, occasionally, a threat to the unity of society, but, let us then formulate, clearly, the difference between the elitist attitude of scorn and privilege, and the attitude of intellectual honesty, where popular and fashionable ideas are rejected in favour of a deeper understanding and a more searching criticism.

There is a great deal of appeal in the dogma of essential social equality, the attitudes of mutual respect by men and women all over the world, and a lifestyle of care and conservation, but you, the passionate believer in the class-struggle, you have to realise, that your ideas are still tinged with the primitive passions of violence and revenge, rather than understanding and persuasion.

Certainly, Christianity became institutionalised and elitist, and, it did not support the political struggle for social reforms when it was most necessary to do so, but, at the present time, many Christians have acknowledged the validity and necessity of social reforms. However, many of them, in particular the clergy, struggle with the discrepancies that are apparent in the social dogma. On the one hand, it is a beautifully persuasive ideal of equality and dignity of all human beings, but, on the other hand, it represents a passion for violent struggle and a ruthless suppression of anyone who dares to dissent.

If the people of the social dogma would study the history of mankind carefully, and, if they could relax their fear for dissent and individualisation; if the peoples of the social dogma would allow themselves to think about the nature of man and the essential dignity of the individual human being, then, there would be no society on earth that had a chance, nor a good reason, to withstand the pressures of such a persuasive philosophical view-point, together with its system of ethical guidelines.

Let us not be afraid for information, and, let us trust the common-sense of people. Let us counter-attack the dissenter, not, with the force of a gun or the threat of imprisonment, but, let us encounter the dissenters on their own terrain. Surely, if a critic can be plausible in his or her criticisms, it will be wise to learn from him, and, if he is mistaken in his assumptions and attitudes, we should not have any difficulties showing the people, where the dissenter is mistaken in his opinions and attitudes.

There is always the possibility, that the dissenter of the social dogma appeals to the egocentric instincts of the people. True, this happens all the time, and, we should acknowledge that this appeal is always possible, because egocentric behaviour represents a basic, biological instinct, and, it is part of our biological heritage. An appeal to our egocentric instincts should not arouse a reaction of angry suppression, in spite of the fact, that we know, how difficult it is to control our egocentric instincts. The appeal will only grow, if an egocentric attitude is suppressed in anger and fear. Let us, patiently, counter-attack the appeal of a strongly egocentric orientation by showing, with historical examples, what happens to people and societies that blindly follow their egocentric instincts.

Let us patiently show the people, how we all benefit, when we control our egocentric instincts, and, how important it is to avoid a division into social classes, with its jealousies, rivalries and inevitable incidences of injustice. Let us acknowledge, that these instincts are there, ever-ready to re-assert themselves, and, let us learn, how we may use these instincts to guide a process of individualisation, where the potential of a personality is developed within a framework of acknowledged and accepted social guidelines.

Let us study and explore possibilities for the expression of individual talents and abilities, developed within, and thanks to, the security provided by the State. Let the State not be jealous and suspicious of the mechanisms of individualisation, but proud and watchful over the unfolding of a personality, and, let us never cease to wonder and think about the enormous complexity and variability of the human mind. Let us not suppress these capabilities of the human mind out of suspicion and fear, because, in doing so, we only show our own ignorance and rigidity in attitudes and beliefs.

.......

Chapter 11

Content

Local autonomy within the larger society.
A parallel with the development of individualisation within the context of a tolerant social environment.
Requirements for a successful, contributing and integrated local autonomy.

As part of the continuing need to reflect upon the requirements of the individual and his social surroundings, we should, also, consider the parallel phenomena of local autonomy and regional government within a larger framework of "the State". If we are correct in the assumption, that we will see, eventually, an ever greater integration and interdependence of nations, fusing, imperceptibly, into a global network of civilised interactions, we should see, clearly, the similarities between individual human rights and obligations, and, those of a population or a nation within the context of a global community.

At the present time, many of the larger nations struggle with the problem of political unity in the face of divergent demands for more local autonomy by various regions or ethnic groupings within the larger, national entity. Historically, such developments were decided by the balance of power. If the central leadership of a State, or empire, had the will, the energy, and the means, to enforce a unified central government, we see a relatively weak demand for local autonomy from the various regions, but, if the competence and energy to control, effectively and equitably, all the regions of an empire began to falter, demands for local autonomy would immediately resurface. This would, often, signal the beginning of internal conflicts, revolts, civil wars, and the impending disintegration of the State.

At times, a remarkably far-sighted and enlightened central leadership would result in an unusual level of prosperity, together with a flowering of trade, commerce and the arts. Often, these beneficial conditions were far beyond the experience and expectations of the local regions, and, under such happy, but short-lived conditions, the clamor for local autonomy would be markedly subdued. Inevitably, however, the situation would change. Succession difficulties would lead to less competent rule. Taxation would be increased for the maintenance of expensive bureaucracies, as well as frivolous adventures and building projects. Discontentment invariably mounted, and the usual struggle for local independence resumed its logical but fragmenting course.

We may safely say, that these processes of social decay are always at work, whenever the central and local powers are continuously struggling for dominance. Whenever there is a weak, ineffectual, uninspiring central government, the local people are easily swept into a regional or separatist fervor, and, they are exploited by promises of freedom and self-determination. The central government is, often, unable to counter-act such emotional demands effectively, because of a lack of clear ideological objectives and a competent, persuasive leadership.

Local or regional leadership tends to be emotional, and, it is more likely to be corrupt and harshly suppressive towards dissenters compared to a somewhat lax, centralist government. The local leadership is, by necessity, strongly "localo-centric" in its outlook and cements the people together by heady emotions of independence, which, often, cover-up appalling conditions of incompetence and corruption. It is logical, that a local government is far more likely to be incompetent compared to a central government from a large State, because of the small number of people the local or regional leadership has to come from. The political opposition is ineffectual as a result of the intimate ties and relationships between the "upper crust" of such a small-scale social environment. This leads to introvert and parochial attitudes, as well as a strong tendency to be suspicious towards outsiders.

Technical and administrative expertise is frequently lacking, since a local government does not have the technical and financial resources to research their decisions carefully. The hiring of outsiders as "expert advisors" leads only to expensive post-ponements of necessary decisions, and, it is clear, that complete local autonomy may not be beneficial to the people, in spite of the emotional appeal of a sense of sovereignty or independence. The beneficial aspects of large nations, where a central government has to consider the many diverse cultures within a nation or empire, are lost in the local power-structure. It is, in essence, a return to tribal attitudes, where the focus of concern becomes, once again, narrowed to a small, local environment.

The one major development, however, that makes the resurgence of diverging local autonomies lethal to the existence of the larger political entity, is the inevitable sharpening of frictions between the various regions. These frictions may burst into open hostilities, escalating, often, into outright civil war. On the basis of our observations, we must come to the conclusion, that, as a rule, the resurgence of complete local autonomy is a step backwards. It is an invitation to chaos, conflict, corruption, incompetence, as well as a suppression of individual differentiation. It is a return to the fragmentation of tribalism with the inevitable corollary of inter-tribal conflicts and severe local codes for behavioural conformity, stifling individual initiative and peaceful interactions between ethnic groups or regions.

It is surprising to note, however, how poorly the drawbacks of local autonomy are appreciated. Few people see the dangers of too large a measure of local independence and complete responsibility for the status of well-being. It seems, that the trend towards local autonomy induces short-sighted and hypnotic emotions of euphoria and elation, and, the process of ruthlessly suppressing any dissenting opinions starts already, when this heady feeling of impending freedom and independence does not tolerate an opposing point of view.

In short; the trend towards increased local autonomy is, usually, a sign of decay of the larger State, and, it becomes a fore-runner of increased internal strife and conflict. The only exception to this process of an escalating tug-of-war between central and local powers, is the deliberate decision of a strong and confident centrist leadership to delegate a measure of responsibility to local authorities. Then, the local government remains carefully scrutinised and answerable to the central government. If the delegation of certain responsibilities is made carefully, it becomes possible for a region to develop itself efficiently. It becomes possible to be more finely tuned to local opportunities, without developing the oppressive local bureaucracies of incompetence and nepotism that are, inevitably, associated with the complete independence of a very small region.

The supervisory function of the central government has to remain concerned with two main areas of control over the responsibilities it gives to a limited form of local self-rule. These responsibilities center around the need for a careful maintenance of general principles of conduct. It is imperative, that local governments do not encroach on the rights of the citizens of the State, and, on the other hand, the central authorities have to ensure, that local governments do not assume attitudes of an elitist exclusivity, disregarding the needs and rights of other regions within the larger State.

Only under such stringent controls can local autonomies be beneficial for the regional population and the society as a whole. Only then, is it possible to maintain mutual trust and respect. Only then, is it possible to counteract belligerent localo-centric attitudes firmly, but wisely. The benefits of a carefully guided local autonomy are an increased sense of awareness and responsibility, when people are given a say in the management of local problems and concerns, and, at the same time, the tasks of a central leadership are made somewhat easier, if the leadership can rely upon informed opinion and advise from the various regional governments.

These trends and attitudes will also sharpen the awareness that government represents an effort by the leadership to benefit all citizens. It is, then, less likely, that a central government becomes a source of abstract, distant and high-handed power, far removed from any particular locale. It will help to educate and shape the attitudes of the people, when they work for themselves, and for each other, by participating in an excercise of local self-rule.

The development of responsible, individualistic and regional attitudes, requires, however, a constant educational effort in order to ensure, that people keep the larger concerns and objectives of the State, as well as the family of nations, in view. There will always be a need for intense vigilance against excessive local pride and elitist aspirations of an ambitious regional leadership. There will always be the temptation to slide back into localo-centric or ego-centric attitudes, and, to opt, once again, for strife, conflict and warfare.

.......

Chapter 12

Content

Our biological heritage.
The need for vigilance to avoid disruptive forms of local autonomy and individualisation.
Global integration; a preliminary review of requirements and mechanisms.

The last sentence of the previous chapter refers to our biological heritage of instinctive tendencies, and, the moment we forget, or deny, that many of our behaviour patterns are a result of biological drives, we will lose the ethical foundation upon which we have to construct a global society.

If local autonomy is carefully guided and supported by the people of the nation as a whole, and, if a local community behaves within a clear and carefully crafted ethical code of conduct, a local autonomy may be a valuable supplement to the rule of central government. However, a local autonomy without such a code of guidelines to ensure development within the framework of the larger society, leads to fragmentation and competitive dispersion into warring factions. We will come back, later, to the requirements for establishing successful local autonomies, just as we will come back to the requirements for developing successful, individualised personalities.

As a parallel to the development of the individual personality, we hope to show, convincingly, how freedom from existential anxieties may lead to a "true flowering" of regional potentials within a framework of local autonomy. This unfolding determines, in essence, the "individuality" or personality of a group of socially integrated people.

If we think in purely legal terms about what is right and what is wrong, we may come to the somewhat superficial conclusion, that older regional or local governments would have a greater right of existence than the more recent, central governments of large federations. However, the logical extrapolation of this argument, shows, that every society, at some time in the past, conquered the territories and its previous inhabitants. Even the "natives" of many areas have fought wars amongst themselves and displaced each other. An existing tribe or ethnic grouping can always discover, that it did obtain its territory by displacing other people. The removal of the original inhabitants, either by extermination or assimilation into the existing social entity, does not invalidate their claim to priority, and, this shows, how the legalistic argument does not give us practical answers.

We will have to conclude, that, in the final analysis, the distinction between right and wrong, is made by communal decisions and attitudes. What counts, are the ethical opinions and considerations of the people who are living now, and, who have to deal with contemporary problems. This brings us to the interesting question, what the rights and obligations will be of those nations, (existing, now, in a state of legal independence), when they are being integrated into a global federation of the world community. To what extent do we have to change our ideas about the rights and attributes of national sovereignty and independence, whenever we look at the need for guidance and widely acceptable decisions during this process of increasing interdependence and eventual integration?

The need to equalise human conditions of existence within social entities, the processes of economic interdependence that are already taking place between societies, as well as the equalisation of educational standards and production methods, lead to a de-facto integration of many national groupings into an international, conglomerate society of the world community of nations. Do individual nations, then, lose, in some way, the right to an unquestioned sovereignty of their regional or national governments? In my opinion, yes, but, the give and take that will be necessary during the long and slow process of developing into a world community, will leave many opportunities for flexible and pragmatic solutions to local concerns and specific circumstances.

The most important foundation for the development of a world community will be the widely shared realisation, that we need an ever increasing measure of cooperation and equalisation of living standards, as well as an equalisation of opportunities for the unfolding of the human personality. We need these conditions for the sake of individual human dignity and a widely recognised status of social justice. We need an elaborate and clearly thought-out philosophy in order to make such a development possible, because we will have to agree, first, what sort of world-society we want, and, then, we will have to generate sufficient mutual good-will and trust to make these changes possible.

Therefore, global integration is not really possible, unless we see, indeed, an increasing awareness of these ideas, as well as a sharing of these objectives between the many nations on our planet, and, especially, between the peoples of the world. We will have to recognise, and control, the instinctive drive to establish or maintain a type of complete regional autonomy that operates in many local and central governments, today. Just as we will, eventually, recognise, that true freedom is only possible, if we accept equitable and commonly shared guidelines for our behaviour, so will the local group, political entity, or ethnic community, eventually, come to the conclusion, that its fullest development is only possible in the conscious acceptance of globally valid guidelines for social conduct.

All this may sound naively utopian to you, as we are anticipating, here, the outlines for a global ethic, as well as the results that will flow from the evolution of globally acceptable ethical guidelines. The task, now, is to provide a persuasive basis for the acceptance of such an idea-structure, and, we have to show, that it is really possible to develop a logical, natural ethic, which will be irrefutable from a moral, intellectual and existential point of view.

This is an enormous task that will not be accomplished easily, and the process of its acceptance will be painfully slow. Let us proceed in the following essays with an effort to lay the foundation for such a natural ethic. Let us sketch the reasons, why such an ethic is possible, and necessary. In the last few essays of the series "In Search of Reality", we will try to outline practical applications for these ideas, and, we may be persuasive enough to indicate, where we could start the process of change from the present circumstances.

Let us not close our minds by the prejudice of cynicism and disbelief in the possibility of such an accomplishment. Even, if history takes a totally different course, and, even, if the idea of global integration remains unfulfilled, there is nothing to lose by considering these ideas seriously, because they may still make a contribution to our well-being and a decent standard of human life on our planet.

.......

Summary

1. Games and their rules.
   The honouring of agreements.
   The relatively weak existential significance of the outcome of competitive games.
   A comparison with the "real-life" game of living in society.
   
   
   
2. The motivations behind the playing of games.
   Designing the rules.
   Mutual trust and scrupulous adherence to the rules.
   Social aspects of games.
   
   
   
3. The larger society, and the emergence of articulated rules and guidelines for socially acceptable behaviour.
   The encouragement of individualisation as a result of "lawful behaviour".
   Social stratification and the laws of society.
   The dilemmas for Socialist and Free-enterprise systems.
   The growth and changing fortunes of the larger societies.
   
   
   
4. Mechanisms of modern industrialisation.
   Labour unions and the merger of business enterprises.
   The undermining of the free-enterprise philosophy.
   Reasons for the need for continuous economic expansion.
   The dogma of economic growth, and the faith of economic salvation.
   
   
   
5. The pitfalls of modern economic doctrines and their varying projections.
   The weight and power of the "economic momentum".
   Defensiveness and frustration caused by an entrapment in affluence.
   A lack of mutual trust as the major cause of affluent paralysis.
   The inability to admit a lack of faith in the economic doctrines.
   The entanglement of us all.
   
   
   
6. Mechanisms of decay in the affluent society.
   
   
   
7. Lingering attitudes of idealism and hard work.
   Exceptions to the rule.
   The overall outlook versus localised aspects.
   The need for a new perspective and corrective measures.
   Human motivations; a review.
   
   
   
8. Profit motives and frustrated drives.
   The enslavement caused by our drive for power and prestige.
   entrapment, and the blunting of our concerns for others.
   
   
   
9. Individual versus collective resilience.
   The futility of trying to predict the immediate future of affluent societies.
   The pitfalls of a doctrine of inevitable dominance, strife and misery.
   The Christian Faith and its ethical guidelines; contributions and weaknesses.
   
   
   
10. A sermon for lesser developed nations.
    
    
    
11. Local autonomy within the larger society.
    A parallel with the development of individualisation within the context of a tolerant social environment.
    Requirements for a successful, contributing and integrated local autonomy.
    
    
    
12. Our biological heritage.
    The need for vigilance to avoid disruptive forms of local autonomy and individualisation.
    Global integration; a preliminary review of requirements and mechanisms.

    
    
    
    .......