PRINCIPLES OF CULTURE AND EDUCATION







A Study in Thought

sa029



by





Marius Heuff

Chapter 1

Content

Confusion about the meaning of "culture".
Clarification is necessary before agreement is possible.
A definition of culture; culture is that complex of behavioural guidelines, which is not transferred by the genetic code.
Conscious and subconscious cultural guidelines.
A multi-cultural input for most members of modern societies.
Chance-encounters and the accidents of personal history.
The entrapment caused by a belief in absolute realities.
A relativistic way of looking at reality, and the need to be existentially secure before such a perception is meaningful.
The hypocrisy of praying for peace from a position of existential advantage.
The need to adhere to a social contract.
Relativistic aspects in the definition of "culture".
The deepest truths.
The search for cultural identity; reasons.
Equal rights for individuals, as well as cultural guidance-patterns.
The price of human rights.
The balance between rights and obligations.
The many ways we use and abuse our culture without realising it.
Culture; seen, not as a weapon, but as a tool for understanding.

My friend and dear reader, I sincerely hope, that you have a clearer concept in your mind about the meaning of culture and education than we have in our times. There is a gigantic confusion about the meaning of culture and the role of education, and yet, we are beginning to realise, how important they are for the continued well-being and survival of us all. We have to clarify the nature and function of culture and education, before we have a realistic chance to accomplish this elusive goal of global human harmony.

Perhaps, it is not surprising, that we are confused in these times, because we have discovered, only recently, the evolutionary nature of ourselves and our beliefs. We are still in the process of defining the concepts of culture and education, just as we are still defining the most elementary concepts to show us who we are. Most of us have a great deal of difficulties accepting the idea, that we are just one of the species' that evolved on our planet, and, few of us have any idea, how to visualise our ability to be aware, or, how we developed the ability to communicate or talk to each other about our environment, our experiences, our feelings and aspirations.

Probably, all these aspects of awareness will have become much clearer by the time you are reading this, and, you will, then, be able to see, much better than I can now, why we are so confused, and, why it seems to be so difficult to come to a commonly agreed-upon set of ideas and goals about our individual and social existence. Yet, I believe, that we have to try to orden the chaotic perceptions about culture and education, in spite of the fact, that it is impossible to know, what sort of ideas future generations will develop about these matters. You will know more about the direction of the future course of events (as seen from the time-period in which I lived), and, what sort of awarenesses have taken shape since I wrote. However, the same limitations apply to your contemporary interpretations as well, and, it is likely, that, a few generations hence, the ideas about reality in general, and culture and education in particular, will again be somewhat different.

While it concerns me, to some extent, into what direction human behaviour and reality perceptions are going to develop, my task is to orden the concepts that are current in my time. What do we mean by the word "culture", and, by posing this question, we unleash a flood of ideas, ranging from anthropological studies about specific and mostly isolated cultures, to a vast number of view-points that reflect contradictory contemporary interpretations and opinions about our own societies. Yet, do we really have an overall definition of culture to begin the task of ordening our ideas? Would it be useful, if we could agree about a statement like this; "culture is this complex of guidelines for the behaviour of an individual or a small social grouping, which has not been "given" or included in the biological instruction for the members of a species?"

At the present time, such a statement would be frowned-upon as strange or arbitrary, but, if we look closer at this definition, we see, indeed, that man's behaviour, including the artifacts of his endeavours, is guided, to a very large extent, by a set of awarenesses and notions that have not been directly given or shaped by our genetic constitution. There are tacitly accepted conventions and agreements, as well as a set of more explicit rules that determine how we behave, what we believe, what we like or do not like; what we strive for or avoid, what we find beautiful or repulsive. In part, these behavioural guidelines have been accepted from the cultural pool of a society as conscious awarenesses or verbalisable concepts, but, many, if not most of these guidelines and models of behaviour have been adopted subconsciously, and, we can only be aware of them, to a certain extent, if we spend a great deal of time and effort in a careful analysis and a concentrated reflection.

Nevertheless, it seems a useful way of defining culture, when we say, that "culture" represents the totality of man-made conventions for the conduct of our behaviour-patterns and relationships. These conventions have been partially elaborated as verbalised belief structures, but, they are also transmitted from one person to the next, and, from generation to generation, as attitudes; as unquestioned dogmas or taboos, and, these attitudes represent the essence of living within the cultural climate of the society in which we have grown-up. Nevertheless, we are unable to define or pin-point the totality of the fragment of the cultural heritage we have absorbed personally, and, which became part of our particular personality characteristics.

If we enlarge our concepts of culture to include, not only, the visible artifacts or achievements of a society and its inhabitants, but also, this large complex of attitudes, habits, mores and subconscious guidelines, we are better able to see, how important this cultural complex is for our individual and collective existence. Certainly, in our times, we can safely state, that, many of us are in contact with ideas, knowledge, attitudes and beliefs that have come from a variety of widely divergent cultural pools. Few of us remain the exclusive product of a distinct, localised culture, and, we should not lose sight of the fact, that we absorb our notions, ideas, beliefs and attitudes from the many sources we happen to be in contact with. It is still valid to conclude, that we are the product of our biological or genetic heritage, in combination with the totality of all these cultural guidelines that determine how we think, talk, communicate and behave.

Few of us will create a new idea or initiate a novel activity, and, therefore, few of us can claim to be original in what we have become. Certainly, we all choose, to some extent, the area and depth of our cultural acquisitions, and, some of us are well aware of the reasons, why we chose a certain cultural content. However, most of us do not guide ourselves with such a conscious and deliberate effort, and we become, then, the somewhat haphazard product of a series of cultural influences, which we have been exposed to in the course of our personal history with its many chance-contacts.

Why is it important, you will ask, to emphasise the fact, that we are an accidental product of our location at birth, together with the chances of contacts and events? Most of us have a vague feeling that this is indeed the case. Unfortunately, a large number of people are not able to see the relativity and haphazardness of their cultural make-up, since so many of us have become entrapped in the certainty of an absolute faith or belief. We have outlined, on previous occasions, why the belief in an absolute truth is, not only, logical, but, in many ways, unavoidable, because it is difficult and confusing to live with the idea, that, everything we have accomplished and believe to be true, is nothing more than an accident of history, which allowed the haphazard actualisation of the organism that constitutes, now, our particular existence.

We need certainty, at least, we need certainty in a pragmatic way. We need certainty in order to maintain our sanity and security, and, in such an existential interpretation of our convictions lies, at the same time, the possibility to come to a relativistic point of view. It becomes only possible and meaningful to reflect upon the haphazardness of our personal existence and beliefs, if we are reasonably safe and sheltered. We can only afford to explore the merits of a relativistic point of view, after we have acquired the basic necessities and feel reasonably secure about our future.

After a bit of thought, most of us could agree with the statement, that our individual existence is the result of an accidental chain of events, and, that it reflects a possibility of existence which happened to be realised or actualised in our particular being. Perhaps, we can agree, that this insight is a first step to an enlarged sphere of mutual concern and tolerance. We must not forget, however, that we all need existential security, before we can even become susceptible to the persuasiveness and beauty of an attitude that considers ourselves as a happenstance of nature, and, it takes wisdom and confidence to enlarge such a relativistic attitude into a broad sphere of concern for people we do not even know, personally.

It is irrealistic, as well as a sign of ignorance, to expect other people to be persuaded by our testimony about the beauty of an attitude of concern for others, if we forget to see, that many people are still struggling with a basic feeling of anxiety and resentment, or, if they have been trapped into a web of envy and rising expectations. This essential insight will help us to avoid the common pitfall, where we piously pray for peace and prosperity, while we are, in essence, looking for an easy way to maintain a position of security and privilege. We expect, then, subconsciously, that our adversaries will freeze their aspirations in a position of disadvantage, or, that they will accept, perhaps, even, a position of injustice. Therefore, let us fulfill, first, this basic social contract of essential equality, and, then, we can philosophise about a globally acceptable perception of reality.

You may want to remind me, that I am drifting away from considering a definition of culture. True, but I wanted to point-out, that the definition of culture implies a degree of relativity and wisdom that is only possible to accept from an existentially secure position, and, for this reason, the defnition of culture depends on an attitude of wisdom. Objective awarenesses, as well as balanced knowledge, are indeed not possible without existential security and an enlarged sphere of concern, and, progress towards a commonly agreed-upon definition of culture is, therefore, linked to progress in the objectives of essential equality and social justice on a very large scale.

An enlarged sphere of awareness and concern is also a pre-requisite for the concept, that truth is a somewhat arbitrary form of judgement. We have argued, before, that truth is nothing more than a tacit or explicit agreement amongst a group of people, such as the members of a specific community. A sense of truthfulness depends on the consensus, that it is useful to interpret a particular aspect of reality in a specific manner. The more we agree, the less we will feel a need for clarification or discussion, and, therefore, our strongest agreements are not the concepts we share as truths after a considerate debate, but, the deeper truths are represented by the unquestioned attitudes of righteousness we share amongst ourselves.

In our attitudes, we form the strongest bonds of togetherness or "cultural identification", and, any questioning of such a tacitly accepted validity will be felt as threatening and subversive. The roots of our desire for absolute truths lie deep, indeed, far deeper than the conscious awareness of truths we believe in with such an unshakable confidence.

It is, therefore, not surprising, dear reader, that it is difficult to reach a consensus about the nature and role of a "culture", since the level of objectivity and relativity implied in the definition I mentioned above, runs counter to our need and desire for certainty. Yet, we are all aware of the great misery, strife, death and destruction that follows, when two cultures meet in an attitude of confrontation; each side believing in the righteousness and absolute validity of its actions and perceptions. We know, now, that we have to become more relativistic, if we want to solve these contradictions, but, we have not quite recognised the price we have to pay for such a shifting and slippery point of view; nl., that we have to accept concepts and attitudes that may not be to our liking; at least, not at first sight.

We live in an age, where such a relativistic definition of culture seems a long way off from being acceptable to a large number of people. We are living in an era, where various ethnic groupings and nationalities are proudly reviving their cultural heritage. We do not seem to recognise at all, that we have to minimise our cultural differences, if we want to achieve a truly increased understanding for each other's problems and view-points. Yet, we should not despair about a trend, that seems to be running against the direction in which we have to proceed.

The reasons for the contemporary emphasis on cultural identity, as well as ethnic and nationalistic pride, are understandable, because they are, in part, an expression of the confusion we experience in our affluent societies. We do not have a commonly agreed-upon cultural core with which we can identify, and, this makes us defensive and uncertain. The renewed interest in cultural origins, together with the search for a cultural and ethnic identity, could be interpreted as the result of an increased awareness that all cultural identities have an equal right to exist.

Just as we have learned to formulate, tentatively, our first clear-cut ideas about human rights and individual dignity, as well as the need to satisfy a sense of justice for our social environment, so have we learned, also, to appreciate the fact, that one cultural structure is not necessarily superior or inferior to another, even, if a strange culture is somewhat incomprehensible and a little frightening. Let us acknowledge the possibility, that a revival of ethnic and nationalistic identification may be based on the awareness that all members of a family have equal rights of existence, regardless of inequalities in the power and persuasiveness of their personalities.

We have discussed, on many occasions, that we can not define human rights meaningfully, unless we also consider the obligations of the members of a society. Similarly, ethnic groupings have a right of existence, only, if they acknowledge the right of different groupings to exist in a position of essential equality, tolerance and mutual respect.

We focus our attention, so often, on one particular aspect of reality, especially, when we have just discovered a new dimension. Nevertheless, we always come to the conclusion, that a new reality perception will have to be placed in a balanced perspective. While we applaud the growing awareness that all human beings should be allowed certain inalienable rights of existence and security, we will have to come to the sober realisation, that we need to cooperate with each other, and, that we have to pay a certain price in order to bestow such rights upon each other.

We certainly can agree, already, that all cultures should have a right to exist, but, we will have to scrutinise each cultural complex carefully. We will have to examine, first of all, whether or not such a cultural complex satisfies the objectives we have formulated about individual human rights, and, we will have to make sure, that a cultural code does not violate the rights of other cultures or peoples. These are stringent criteria, indeed, but, unless we recognise the need to think logically and examine the situation carefully, we will not achieve the objectives of essential equality on a global scale. We can not accept any form of culture, that enslaves a segment of its population, nor, can we accept a culture that denies equal rights of existence to others.

If we accept the principles of equal rights of existence and cultural expression for peoples all over the world, we have to add the qualification, that, individual human rights are not violated, and, that other cultures and peoples, who fall outside a particular cultural sphere, are not oppressed or discriminated against. If we adopt such criteria as guidelines, we will see, that individual rights and cultural freedoms have to be tempered by checks and balances for individuals, as well as leaderships and groups of people, and, we will finally appreciate the fact, that individual and cultural rights are paid-for with the attitudes of respect, cooperation and tolerance.

We will leave this discussion about individual and collective rights as a pre-amble to our discussion about culture and education. I am not interested in a review of the myriad of opinions and meanings we attach in our contemporary world to the words of "culture" and "education". We know, how differently people think about these matters. Why should we recall the fact, that some think of culture as a means to exhibit their wealth in an art-collection, or, that they satisfy their sensual needs in the admiration of a variety of traditional symbols of beauty? Others use the search for excitement and distraction as a source of ruthless commercial exploitation, and, we see, how some seek to make a living as scholarly connaisseurs of the world of human artificts, thoughts and behaviour-patterns.

We all make use, in one way or another, of a part of the cultural store-house of our social environment. We have to fill our minds with the contents of knowledge and awareness. We have to compensate for our frustrations with an appreciation of beauty, and, we use the tools of our culture to secure a position of prestige. How often, do we not use our cultural identity to win the confidence of our fellow citizens in order to obtain a position of leadership and trust?

Yes, reader, we live in our culture, we use our culture, and, more often than not, we abuse our culture for egocentric gain. Yet, how often do we ask ourselves, what the real meaning is of this cultural pool we make so freely use of? How often do we realise, that this cultural pool is a magnificent tool to help us relate justly and fairly to each other? How often do we ask ourselves, whether or not we are excluding other human beings from our conscience and awareness, as we seek to nestle ourselves comfortably in the roots of our cultural identity?

It is time to see culture not, primarily, as a means to indulge in egocentric pleasures, or, as a weapon to compete with someone else, but, as a tool to understand each other and shape our behaviour-patterns into a cautious consideration for each other's needs and wants.

.......

Chapter 2

Content

What is culture, and, why are cultural guidelines so variable?
A stark contrast with our much more uniform biological heritage.
A short index of topics for discussion, and questions to think about.
Analysing reality into topics of discussion and foci of attention.
The earliest indications for behavioural flexibility are found in alternative pathways of movement.
Cultural guidelines need to be transferred by a process of learning.
A wide-ranging definition of "culture".
The fusion of territories with the emergence of a hierarchical order.
The simultaneous development of different behavioural trends.
The insect and its pathways of travel.
The simultaneous expression of territoriality, hierarchical ordening and equality under the law.
Why contradictory behavioural trends have been encoded genetically.
Why social instincts have a tendency to be over-powered by egocentric concerns.
A review of the functions of a cultural code.
Variations in the portion people absorb from the cultural pool.
Standardised guidelines for inter-personal contacts.
Explicit forms of behaviour are formulated, primarily, intuitively and pragmatically.
With a greater insight into the human personality, it should be possible to formulate a more systematic and generally acceptable code of behaviour.

We should look into the question how a culture develops. What are the reasons for the emergence of cultural guidelines? What is the function, or, rather, what are the many functions that cultural guidelines perform, and, how do they relate to the genetically inherited instructions for human behaviour? Our biological heritage is rather uniform, because we are, after all, a narrowly defined, single species, with precisely encoded genetic instructions for our anatomical structure and physiological capabilities, and, we have to ask ourselves, why the cultural patterns of various human groupings become so diversified, in marked contrast to our biological uniformity.

We will also analyse the inter-actions between our biological heritage and the behavioural "fine-tuning" that is carried-out by cultural instructions, and, we should, then, find an explanation for the question, why cultures differ so much. When discussing the aspects of social life, we will see, how cultural guidelines function, primarily, as a regulator of specific behavioural requirements; e.g., the protection against enemy attack, the provision of food or energy, shelter and other basic necessities. These existential needs require a communal effort and become regulated by a cultural code of behaviour. Similarly, we will see, how cultural guidelines influence our mating behaviour, and, how the biologically inherited tendency to form a hierarchical order becomes elaborated into a complex and varied cultural structure that determines channels of authority and divides the larger societies into a number of classes.

Social stratification is, originally, an expression of the requirements of task-division, but, the class-divisions of the larger societies develop, quickly, predatorial traits, where the powerful start to depend, like predators, on the contributions made by the lower classes. We will also discuss, how belief structures come-about; how the channels of authority are formed, and, we will discuss the requirements of social coherence, as well as this elusive factor; "the sense of justice". After the basic principles of a culture have been described, we will turn our attention to the need, as well as the methods, to reproduce these cultural guidelines from one generation to the next. This, of course, is the essence of every educational effort.

We have to separate the material to be discussed into a series of topics and questions for the sake of clarity and ease of comprehension, but, we should keep in mind, that no such separation exists in reality, and, we have to realise, that this series of questions and discussions represents a mental technique in order to grasp a fragment of reality. If we look e.g., at the integration of the pre-human animals, we see, already, how a variety of aspects intertwine and exist simultaneously, while we have to describe these features in a series of successive discussions or foci of attention.

Let us go back to some of the earliest indications, where the precision of genetic behavioural instructions is giving-way to an overall range or outline of behavioural instructions, while local "fine tuning" takes place according to the circumstances of the moment. This principle of "behavioural flexibility" develops slowly, but, in essence, it has been present since the evolution of uni-cellular life. We see, first, an individual adaptation to specific local circumstances, but later, when individual behaviour becomes socially integrated, flexible behaviour becomes a feature of the group as a whole. We have discussed, on previous occasions, how this experiment with individual variability leads to changes in the anatomy and function of the central nervous system because of the greatly enlarged demands made on the faculties of perception, interpretation and memory.

The need to vary, constantly, the behavioural response because of rapid changes in local conditions, as well as a changing "repertoir" of past experiences, places an enormous burden on the central nervous system, and, this system responds with an increase in connections and number of nerve-cells in order to make the functions of memory and recognition more capable. In stead of forming a precise, anatomical or physiological weaponry, evolution begins to emphasise the ability to remember an experience, and, to abstract from a series of similar experiences a common denominator. This makes the recognition and interpretation of an on-going event more relevant and appropriate.

We will not recapitulate these discussion here. Let us recall, only, that behaviour becomes more flexible, and, that the precise adaptation to local circumstances becomes possible through a process called "learning", rather than through a slow genetic adaptation of the structure and function of the body. While such a "learned adaptation" makes it possible for an individual to adapt quickly to rapidly changing circumstances, we have also come to appreciate the reasons, why such a learned adaptation can not be encoded as firmly as a genetic adaptation.

The transmission of a learned adaptation from one individual to the next, and, in particular, from one generation to another, requires a form of transfer that represents the essence of a "cultural code". Behavioural adaptation and viability are, then, not anymore determined exclusively by an evolutionary successful gene-pool or an anatomical-physiological adaptation, but, these features become the responsibility of a genetically given range of possibilities, including memory and judgment. These capabilities come to the fore in conjunction with a pool of acquired behaviour-patterns that have to be transmitted by some sort of a signal or communication from individual to individual, and, from one generation to the next.

While we limit, traditionally, the concept of culture to the human being, I think, that it is useful to define all non-genetic transmissions of behaviour-patterns as "cultural" in nature. Certainly, in the human species, we see an enormous elaboration of the cultural code by the development of symbolic representations and conceptual abstractions; first, in gestures, and, later, in a rapid flow of arbitrary sound-symbols, "speech", and, eventually, in recorded symbols, or "writing". Behaviour, then, becomes determined, in part, by the overall physiological and anatomical range, given as a genetically encoded set of instructions, but, the final, successful adaptation, (often deciding the difference between success and failure, or, even, life and death), starts to depend, increasingly, on a precisely adapted cultural code of behavioural guidelines and examples.

We see, therefore, that the cultural code for our behaviour is, in essence, an outgrowth of the ability to adapt individually, which is the hall-mark of behavioural flexibility. This ability becomes increasingly important to secure survival, in particular, when such learned adaptations begin to play a signifcant role for an entire community of behaviourally flexible animals. Here, we have all the relevant elements of a culture in front of us, and, we see an inter-play between the biological heritage of behavioural outlines, and the cultural pool of specific behavioural responses and instructions.

If the learned responses prove to be highly successful, they become widely accepted throughout a community. Such an acceptance is not possible without some form of communication, and, we see communications range from a simple pattern of instantaneous behavioural imitation, or synchronisation, (as we see in a herd or a flock), to the development of a large variety of concepts and ideas that open-up the possibility of task-differentiation, cooperation and long-term planning.

The instinct of territoriality becomes somewhat subdued with the emergence of the ability to form a hierarchical order, and, as we have discussed before, we may consider this development as a fore-runner of the mechanisms of secondary socialisation in the behaviourally flexible animals. We see, how hierarchical positioning in the social animal is based upon an empirical division of the members of the social environment into those, the individual can dominate, and those, who will dominate a particular individual. It should not surprise us, therefore, that cultural guidelines in the fine-tuning of the behavioural response take into account, not only, changes in the relationships between the individual and his natural environment, but also, the changing relationships between an individual and the other members of the group.

Before we go any further with our discussion, we should make it clear, that, as a general principle, many different evolutionary trends take place simultaneously. Consequently, we see, that, some sort of behavioural flexibility starts to take place, already, very early in the evolution of animal life. For example, we are justified to interpret the behaviour of an insect as the result of a precisely programmed piece of biological machinery, and, the mechanisms that regulate an insect-colony resemble much more the precisely programmed cellular communities of multi-cellular organisms, than the social organisation of flexible animals.

Yet, if we look at an individual insect, proceeding from one location to another, we see, that the animal is capable of finding an alternative route, if we place, suddenly, a pebble in its path. Eventually, the animal, or, rather a stream of insects, such as a colony of ants, finds its way surely and consistently around the obstacle. This is a form of "local behavioural fine-tuning", since the individual movements an ant has to make in order to reach a particular location, can be modified according to a change in local circumstances.

Whether or not we may consider this as evidence for a "memory function" is another question, since the paths of insects are likely to be "chemical trails", laid-down and re-enforced by the traveling ants. As a stream of ants finds its way slowly around an obstruction, we may see simply a change in the location of a chemical trail, which becomes ever more clearly established, as more and more animals find their way around the obstacle.

Yet, there seems little doubt, that an actual memory-function does take place in the more complex animals, and, it is clear, that such a complex animal can remember a maze and cross it in a consistent and efficient manner. Therefore, long before we see social functions that resemble the complex cultural guidelines of the human society, we can trace a gradual development of the faculty of behavioural flexibility, which starts, primarily, as a change in the motoric response. The functions of recognition remain, initially, more static than the motoric resonse, but, eventually, they too, become subject to change, as the possibilities of behavioural flexibility are explored more fully in this remarkable natural experiment with behavioural fine-tuning.

Let us go back to the consequences of the trend towards hierarchical ordening in the behaviourally flexible species'. We see, that the population-density starts to increase as the territories fuse and a communal territory emerges instead. Yet, we see, often, how both trends, territoriality and hierarachical ordening, remain in operation side by side, and may fluctuate in importance from one moment to the next. A dog may show, sometimes, strong territorial instincts, barking or growling at any dog that is coming close to its territory, but, if a larger dog approaches, the animal may suddenly stop growling and become submissive to a hierarchically superior, or, simply, stronger dog. We know, all too well, that the human beings shows, also, strong individual as well as communal instincts of territoriality.

Hierarchical ordening amongst human beings is, perhaps, more clearly seen in a "primitive" or small-scale social grouping, such as a "gang", or a group of friends, but, even, in a larger and more explicitly regulated society, we still see hierarchical strata in the form of classes with varying degrees of privilege and well-being. In the more sophisticated societies, there is a trend towards a partially tacit, partially explicit agreement to forego complex hierarchical relationships that require frequent testing and potentially damaging or weakening contests. These mechanisms are relinquished in favour of a system of essential equality in position, which is then maintained by a feeling or "sense of justice". These complex developments have been discussed before, but it remains useful to keep in mind, that the flexibility of human behaviour may show, simultaneously, the three aspects of essential equality, hierarchical stratification and individual territoriality. While neighbours may consider themselves as equals before the law, they will jealously guard their territory as they argue and squabble about the position of a fence, and yet, in the local community gathering, they may acknowledge each other's leadership or superior skills in one field or another.

Territoriality, hierarchical positioning and essential equality under the law, are attitudes that frequently come-through simultaneously in our behaviour-patterns, making the unraveling of motives difficult indeed. Many different evolutionary trends show-up in human behaviour, as well as in the make-up of our biological heritage. Many contradictory trends have been encoded in the genetic anlage of our existence, such as, e.g., the contradictory trends of aggression and submission, ferocity and compassion, because these contradictory behavioural trends have all been rewarded with a measure of viability, at one time or another. We have discussed, on previous occasions, how an aggressive, courageous, or, even, ferocious stance towards an intruder has been rewarded with viability, while a compassionate attitude to help a weaker member of the group also leads to an increased viability of the group as a whole.

It often remains difficult for us to see, clearly, the varying circumstances under which the various contradictory trends or tendencies are beneficial to the individual or the group. We see, that, courage and aggression towards the intruder may give-way to cowardice and cooperation, if negative, fearful or opportunistic stimuli over-power the moral and social instincts of an individual and stimulate a strong attitude of self-preservation. Similarly, we see, how a successful and forceful leadership or dominant class in society may begin to exploit and abuse their own members to the point of enslavement, and, in the process, the upper classes become dependent upon the lower classes to maintain their privileged position.

Therefore, we may classify the functions of culture into the following broad categories; first, it regulates the functions of the community, as the members go through their life-cycles from birth to puberty, to marriage, and, finally, to death and burial. Secondly, culture also regulates the daily behaviour of people within a social environment. It determines how we speak and think, dress and live, what we like or dislike; in short, it provides the contents of each individual's awarenesses and goal-patterns. Without our "cultural content", or the cultural characteristics we absorb from our environment, we would not be able to function as a human being, because we would not be able to speak or think. The importance of culture is so overwhelming for each and everyone of us, regardless how much of a hermit we may become later-on, that we can not imagine a human form of existence without a cultural input.

We also make use of cultural mechanisms to solve tensions within and between ourselves. The way we handle frustrations or conflicting tendencies and stimuli, depends, to a large extent, upon the cultural tools and characteristics we have absorbed from our environment. The differences in cultural absorption, from one individual to the next, depend, partially, on the accidents of contacts, and partially, on different affinities, either inborn or acquired, and, partly, these differences depend on a conscious, selective action of our will. In spite of our differences, which we tend to see far more sharply than our common grounds, we share a very large common cultural base, but, we are, usually, only dimly aware of this. How often do we realise the common bonds between us, such as our language, the information we absorb, the laws and customs we adhere to, the way we eat or dress, etc.?

While we should have few difficulties recognising the importance of the cultural content in our behaviour and awarenesses, we should not forget, that the content of the cultural pool of our society is just as important in determining whom we like or hate, what we believe to be true, and, whom we tend to regard as an authority.

Culture regulates all our inter-personal contacts, and, this layer of our cultural heritage is somewhat less variable compared to the cultural content we absorb for the completion of our personality characteristics. There is a large element of uniformity, and, therefore, a lesser degree of personal choice in the way we react to the laws and regulations of inter-personal contacts. In the sophisticated societies, many regulations have been consciously and explicitly formulated as laws, but, even, in the older or more "primitive" societies, customs and mores were often sanctified to a significant extent. This meant, that these regulations were above questioning, and, any deviation from these generally accepted behavioural guidelines would be considered a severe breach of conduct.

In the smaller and more homogeneous societies, there is less individual variability between the members, and, the greater unity and coherence of the cultural code makes it easier for each individual to know, exactly, what is expected from him or her. In the larger societies, where the cultural code becomes fragmented over many different ethnic groupings and social classes, the common bonds of the overall cultural core are often so vague and incoherent, that the leaders of such a conglomerate society experience a pressing need to formulate, consciously, a set of generalised but explicit guidelines, or laws.

However, the formulation of such laws and rules of conduct were, primarily, the result of a clever and sensitive pragmatism, and, they were based upon intuition, precedent and tradition. Now, we know a little more about the basic mechanisms of the human personality, together with the requirements of our sense of justice. It should, therefore, be possible to design a set of comprehensive guidelines for our behaviour, which could be acceptable to people with widely varing cultural backgrounds.

.......

Chapter 3

Content

Sexual differentiation; seen as the foundations for social inter-dependence and task-specialisation.
A comparison with cellular symbiosis, inter-dependence and differentiation in form and function.
A comparison of the regulatory mechanisms in "social animals" and "social cells".
A summary of the differences between the genetic and cultural codes.
Behavioural flexibility, and the need for a cultural code.
The disastrous effects of an escape from cellular control mechanisms.
Comparing the differences between a socially integrated group of people, and a cellular community.
Hierarchical positioning, task-differentiation, and the need for cultural regulators.
The beginnings of a differentiation into social classes.
The prelude towards the break-through of communications with symbolic representations, or "language".
The background of pre-human evolution.
A timid and outflanked creature.
The rewards of intelligence, quick adaptations and opportunism.
The development of contrasting behavioural traits.
Recalling mental images with the help of mimicry.
Memory-recall by symbolic representation frees the animal from the dangers associated with a memory-recall through the experience of an analogous situation in "real life".
Beginning to get a "grasp over reality".

We have to go back for a moment to nature's first tentative experiments with the possibilities of social inter-dependence. We have discussed, before, how acts of cooperation between the members of a community increase the ease of existence for everyone. This increase in viability is the crucial benefit associated with a measure of task-differentiation and mutual inter-dependence, because any form of socialisation comes-about as the result of a search for increased viability.

The most basic and oldest social organisation for the behaviourally flexible animal, is the family-unit, where a biologically given differentiation in reproductive tasks is mirrored in behavioural differences between the sexes. The maternal partner is concerned, not only, with giving birth and nourishing the newly-born offspring, (if we focus our attention on the mammals), but, we see, often, a long-lasting division of functions in the up-bringing of the younger generations. The mother is bound to the dwelling-place and becomes more concerned with the immediate needs of the young, the defense against intruders, and the search for food in the neighbourhood, while the male wanders further afield, providing the bulk of the food and functions as the first line of defense against enemy attacks.

From the biological origins of the socialisation of mammalian behaviour, we can trace a gradual development towards the more complex primate and human communities. However, it is useful to recall an even more striking example of task-differentiation and mutual inter-dependence, if we look at the mechanisms of cellular symbiosis, task-differentiation and organ-formation in the remarkable example of social inter-dependence between the cells of a multi-cellular organism. We have discussed these developments, in detail, on different occasions, and, we will, here, only remind ourselves about their existence. We recall the fact, that stringent regulatory mechanisms must exist in order to keep such a complex society of cells together as a well-integrated, multi-cellular unit.

If we look at similar developments in the socialisation of multi-cellular organisms, we can see a number of parallels, and, we recognise the need for regulatory mechanisms in order to control the behaviour of the members and ensure a viable entity. Yet, we see major differences as well, when comparing the inter-dependence of cells in a multi-cellular unit with the inter-dependence of large multi-cellular individuals of a socially integrated grouping. These differences have been elaborated before, and can be summarised as follows. The regulatory mechanisms that ensure the cohesion of a multi-cellular unit are genetically encoded, together with the instructions for cellular specialisation and organ-formation, but, such a genetic encoding is not possible in the socially integrated mammals, because no precise genetic instructions for regulatory functions and task-specialisation can be given to animals that adapt their behaviour according to the circumstances of the moment; based on a repertoir of past experiences.

Certainly, the ability to adopt "voluntarily" certain regulatory functions and behavioural specialisations is given as a genetic trait, and such a viable genetic "anlage" will penetrate throughout the gene-pool of a behaviourally flexible species that is experiencing an existential advantage when forming social relationships.

We have also discussed the reasons why flexibility of individual behaviour became a highly rewarded short-cut to increased viability. The reasons are found in the ability to adapt, rapidly, to fluctuating circumstances during the life-time of one individual or a single generation, by-passing the need for a large turn-over of generations in order to make genetic encoding possible.

Behavioural flexibility, together with the development of a cultural code that becomes super-imposed upon the genetic code in order to "fine-tune" individual and communal behaviour, are crucial differences between the inter-dependence we see in the cellular symbiosis of a multi-cellular organism, and, the social cohesion within a multi-individual society of behaviourally flexible members. The cultural code, which regulates individual and inter-individual behaviour for the society of behaviourally flexible organisms, is far more susceptible to rapid change and decay compared to the genetic code, because it is, after all, a product of behavioural flexibility and, often, it depends on a voluntary choice.

Similarly, the mode of transmission of this cultural code is vulnerable, because it takes place in the form of "education". We should not be surprised to see, therefore, that the stability of a social unit of behaviourally flexible organisms is not nearly as remarkable as the cohesion of a colony of cells, forming a multi-cellular unit.

We see, that the mechanisms of task-differentiation and inter-dependence between cells in a multi-cellular community take the form of anatomical and physiological differentiations, but, in the social unit of flexible animals, task-differentiation and inter-dependence are the result of a specialisation in learned skills and acquired behaviour-patterns. This specialisation in behavioural functions takes place after birth, and the potential to differentiate is given, by the genetic code, to all normally formed, embryologically healthy newborn members. It is the cultural code of the social environment that guides the subsequent specialisation of skills and behaviour-patterns, and, it is the purpose and function of the cultural code to organise these specialised members of the community into a viable social entity.

We see, how disastrous the effects are for the community of cells, if, e.g., a small cluster of cells, or, perhaps, even, a single cell, escapes from these stringent control-mechanisms and starts to grow and multiply independently from the needs and requirements of the organism as a whole. We are all aware of the devastating effects of such a neo-plastic or cancerous growth. In a society of social animals or human beings, we see a far less rigid control over egocentric tendencies, and, this contributes, to a large extent, to the fragility and evanescence of the social order.

Since the level of inter-dependence between social animals is far less than the degree of inter-dependence between cells within a multi-cellular organism, we do not see, as a rule, that the break-down of social order leads to the death of all the members of a social unit, as we see happening in nearly all multi-cellular organisms. Yet, we certainly notice that the break-down of social order can lead to a devastating internal strife, or, the take-over of the community by a predator-society. Such events cause an enormous amount of stress and upheaval, impoverishment and enslavement, but, rarely, the death of all the members of the dying and decaying society.

It is useful to keep in mind the parallels, as well as the differences between the organisation and function of multi-cellular organisms, on the one hand, and, the societies of socially integrated animals, on the other. A constant review of these similarities and differences will help us to understand the mechanisms of cultural regulator functions, as well as the natural history of human societies.

Let us come back, once again, to the phenomenon of hierarchical positioning. We have described, briefly, how territoriality had to give-way to a system of hierarchical positioning in order to accomodate the pressures of an increasing population density, but, this mechanism of hierarchical ordening also provided an opportunity for the experiment with task-differentiation and cooperation. Not only, will task-differentiation and the specialisation of skills need an elaborate network of regulatory mechanisms, but, the uneasy truce of hierarchical relationships requires, also, a remarkably intricate pattern of cultural regulators.

The most natural way to effect a harmony between hierarchical positioning and task-differentiation is to assign specific tasks to specific positions in the hierarchical ladder. This, of course, is not done consciously or deliberately, but evolves naturally. The leadership of the social groupings starts to direct the members of society into a variety of tasks and functions, where those, who are close to the leadership, will automatically assume positions of privilege, power and responsibility. It is, therefore, logical to see, that such tasks as the defense or the hunt will be occupied by the stronger and hierarchically superior members, while the gathering of fruits and nuts, the routine maintenance-chores, as well as the supervision of the young, will fall to those who are lower on the social ladder. Later, in the more complex societies, we see the development of a stratification of groups of people, rather than individuals, and, we have, then, witnessed the first tangible evidence for a division of society into classes.

We see another remarkable development early in the evolution of the human species, and, we may consider this development to be a corner-stone for our viability and dominance. We are thinking, here, about the mechanisms that led to the development of symbolic representations. We have traced these developments extensively before, in a speculative effort to sketch what may have happened, but, since these developments are so important for our understanding of the phenomenon of culture, we will, briefly, recapitulate these ideas, which cover the origin of language.

We visualise, that the pre-human animal was already living in small groups, organised, essentially, around the social unit of a family grouping. The males were, probably, the main hunters, while the females would be staying closer to home, caring for their offspring and gathering edible fruits, berries and roots. We remind ourselves, that the prehensile fore-limbs were occasionally used to wield sticks or clubs, thereby increasing, accidentally and temporarily, the strength and viability of the manipulator. We have to postulate that the use of weapons or tools must have occurred, sporadically, by many different anthropoid species', without any awareness of the monumental importance of such a type of behaviour.

The pre-human animal was part of an ecological balance, and, because of its rather under-developed anatomical and physiological "equipment" for warfare, it occupied a somewhat precarious niche at the edge of the great forests, bordering on the open plains. The anthropoids were pushed back, again and again, to the edge of the forests by the more powerful mammals of the plains, but, they faced, also, the many dangers from within the forests, and, they were masters nowhere.

We have discussed the idea, that a period of intense pressures constitutes a spur to evolutionary developments, and, we have seen, how the arboreal ancestry of the pre-human animal resulted in the development of a skilled coordination and a stereoscopic vision, as well as a set of prehensile limbs. With the retreat of the great tropical forests and the gradual enlargement of the plains, we see a proliferation of large and successful mammals, displaying a spectacular array of powerful anatomical weaponry and highly developed physiological capabilities. Here he was, this timid anthropoid creature, who, later, gave rise to the most spectacular evolutionary break-through in mammalian history. However, for the time being, he was watching, cautiously, the many powerful species' around him.

In almost all aspects, the pre-human animal was outflanked by other mammals, and, only agile adaptations to rapidly changing circumstances secured continued existence. Most likely, there was a fairly large variety of primates, all trying-out slightly different ecological niches. Some took the route of being satisfied with a vegetarian existence, and their timidity and docile characteristics made them, eventually, a victim of their more ferocious cousins. Some of these species' started to experiment, increasingly, with the use of sticks, clubs and stones, and became definitely hunters and predators. The task of hunting, especially, of the larger animals, was dangerous and arduous, however, and, quite often, this audacious creature became the victim of another predator, while searching for his prey.

A fortuitous combination of agility, a quick intelligence, the adroit use of opportunities that presented themselves, the ability to cooperate in the hunt, the use a variety of implements and weapons, an audacious and ferocious attitude, all these elements secured a precarious, but, steadily improving existence. Contradictory traits were developed during this period of rapid evolutionarychanges, because the most successful combination of behavioural traits included contradictory attitudes, or, rather, attitudes that differed markedly towards individuals outside and inside the group.

A most ruthless struggle for survival was going-on, and, the genetic instructions that were favoured, were those of agility, intelligence, ferocity, the ability to use weapons and tools, but, also, the ability to take care of the family, to protect the females and their offspring, as well as the ability to cooperate temporarily with others in the dangerous tasks of the hunt and the defense. These are the essential biological traits that were being developed during this pre-human period of evolution.

Intelligence, (defined, here, as the ability to predict the outcome of on-going events), resulted in a prolonged life-span, as well as an increased viability of the small family-grouping as a whole, especially, if the male leadership and the female guardians of the younger generations were able to remember, accurately, those circumstances, which provided them with food, water, shelter and safety. Cooperation, good parental care, as well as a willingness to mate, became crucially important factors in deciding the continued existence of the group.

Of course, we are setting the stage, here, for this momentous break-through, which, we know, must have happened. Unfortunately, the exact circumstances of the break-through of symbolic representation will never be known with precision, and, we can only try to reconstruct the circumstances as a plausible possibility in our minds. We have discussed, before, the enormous importance of the break-through of symbolic representations, which took place, when the recall of a mental image or an experience became possible by an act of mimicry or gesticulation. We have seen, how such an act of mimicry or gesticulation would lead to the recall of the mental memory-trace, or "memory", of an experience. This mental image-recall occurred, then, not by the actual or analogous experience, (which was often associated with danger), but, as the result of an act of imitation. The act of gesticular "reminiscence", or mimicry, was carried-out in relatively "safe" surroundings, after the hunt, and, probably, after a good meal.

The pre-human animal had now found a method to sharpen those useful mental images by frequent recall, freed from the existential dangers that would always exist, whenever such a mental image was evoked or recalled into the focus of attention by an analogous situation in real life. I like to emphasise, here, once more, how important this behavioural break-through was, and, how the frequent image-recall led, eventually, to the ability to manipulate, voluntarily, mental images with the help of mimicry and gestures, and, later, with sounds or pictorial symbols. The beneficial side-effects were gigantic, since the sharpness of the mental imagery improved continuously, and the pre-human animal community became ever more able to make use of fortuitous opportunities to secure food; to kill a large animal, and, to safeguard itself from predatory attacks, because it was engaged in developing what we can now summarise as "a grasp over reality".

.......

Chapter 4

Content

The importance of the break-through of symbolic representations.
A new thing to learn; the connection between symbol and meaning.
The earliest belief structures are reflected in burial sites.
The leadership of "story-telling".
Logic; the need to formulate clear-cut questions and find specific answers.
Cerebral and mental classification systems.
The foundation for the concepts of cause and effect.
Why a variability in symbolic representations leads to differing belief structures.
Cultural differences are due to varying experiences and interpretations.
The belief structure; a cultural phenomenon, inter-posed between the sensory and the motoric sides of our behaviour.
The explicit structure of beliefs, and the voluntary choice in collective behaviour, are gradually becoming more important.
Emotions are modified reaction-patterns, based upon biologically given instincts and drives.
The three dimensions of the human personality; the axis of egocentricity and altruism; the axis of emotionality and emotional neutrality or rationality; the axis of contradictoriness and harmony.
The dimension of time in the make-up of the personality; we exist, simultaneously, in the past, the present and the future.
The human infant.
The axis of positive-negative stimuli, and the monitoring of goal-patterns.
Positive or negative feed-back, giving rise to optimistic or pessimistic feelings.
The added dimension of responsibility with the possibility to make a conscious and rational choice that benefits someone else.

It is fair to say, that we can not overestimate the importance of voluntary image-recall, because this led, eventually, to the break-through of thought and speech. The development of voluntary image-recall has become the foundation for the human ability to experience a conscious awareness that can be brought under words. With the frequent recall of memory-traces, we become aware of our mental imagery. We notice, that it can exist apart from the imagery created by an actual sense impression, and, this mechanism of memory-recall, taking place outside the experience of an analogous reality, is the basis for the faculty of conscious awareness. So far as we know, no other living species on earth has developed, to any significant extent, this ability to recall and manipulate mental images with the techniques of symbolic representation.

Certainly, the pre-human animal, now rapidly becoming human, had found something new to learn and to remember. As the mimicry became more stylised, (and, therefore, more "symbolic" rather than representative), the members of the community had to learn, and memorise, the connection between a particular symbol and its meaning. Initially, the mental image-recall occurred, because the mimicry was so good, that it automatically recalled to the mind of the audience whatever the author of the mimicry had in mind, but, eventually, the number of images which the author wanted to convey, became quite large, and, the tempo of image-recall speeded-up as a result of "cutting corners" in the elaboration of the mimicry. The gesticular vocabulary enlarged and the flow of communications quickened, but, the audience and the author faced the task of agreeing amongst themselves upon an acceptable representation for a certain mental image.

It is probably fair to date the beginning of the human species to the time that symbolic representations became well established. Evidence for the faculty of symbolic representation can be seen in the way "human animals" would bury their dead or worship their ancestors, spirits or gods. The development of symbolic memory-recall facilitated further specialisations in function, because a new field of expertise was opened-up, and, those with an aptitude in this direction, became the first masters in "story-telling". Obviously, there was no conscious or deliberate effort to divide the communal tasks, and, we assume, that the leaders of a community were also the best communicators, as they had the clearest picture in mind how to lead the community through a maze of dangerous and difficult situations.

Later, as the groupings became larger, and the human species started to spread-out over the entire globe, we see ever more clear-cut evidence for the importance of symbolic recall. The ability to communicate symbolically led to the first manifestations of "logic". This is the need to formulate clear-cut questions and find specific answers. Then, symbolic representations flourished into a system of more or less coherent mental images, which began to form the first tentative outlines of a "belief structure".

We should recall another mechanism, here. We have discussed, how the faculty of memory developed in animal species' that were experimenting with an increased flexibility of their behaviour. This meant, that the brain, or, rather, the central nervous system, must have developed some sort of a system of classification, where the common denominators of similar but not identical experiences, were "abstracted" in a totally subconscious manner. This made it possible for an analogous experience to trigger the relevant memory-traces, and, we have argued, before, that we can not visualise the existence of sophisticated memory and recognition functions without such a "cerebral classification mechanism".

We see the development of a similar system of classification for those memory-traces that could be recalled, voluntarily, with the help of symbolic representations. The burden of having to know, and learn, a large number of somewhat arbitrary symbols for mental images, became unbearable, and, it became necessary to classify these mental images into categories of similarity. We have learned to see, that these mental awarenesses can now be grouped into a vast number of categories, and, we know, that the perception of time, as well as the mechanisms of causes and their effects, are based upon such mechanisms of classification, because they represent abstractions which functioned, originally, as classifying principles for the various categories of symbolically representable awarenesses.

The ability to classify the many symbols of awareness into a system of coherent relationships, is the key to the evolutionary success of the faculties of symbolic representation, and, it is not surprising to see, that the use of language became ever more important for the human species. Those close relatives, who failed to develop this ability adequately, lost the fight for continued survival. As a result, the ability to form and use language symbols became genetically encoded throughout the entire human species, but the specific ways in which an individual would develop this ability, depended upon the small community he or she had been born into.

The content, as well as the type of symbols used, constitute a "cultural heritage", but, the "anlage", or, rather, the ability to manipulate symbolic representations, (such as speech or writing), is given by the genetic code and is a part of our biological heritage.

We have summarised, here, briefly, a development, which has been given more detailed attention elsewhere. Our objective, here, is to trace the origins of the cultural code, as well as the guidelines that developed in conjunction with the evolution of speech and other symbolic representations. We have seen, that it became possible to orden a large number of symbolic representations into categories of similarity in existence or event. This is the basic ordening of awarenesses, which became the foundation of a rudimentary structure of beliefs.

Yet, the content of these mental images and their symbolic representations depended upon specific experiences. We know, that past communal experiences and interpretations determine, largely, the type and content of contemporary awarenesses. The way awarenesses have been woven into a structure of beliefs, depends, very much, on the historical development of these awarenesses. Therefore, the beliefs of a particular community may be quite different from the beliefs of another group, because these groups have gone through different experiences and come to different conclusions. Nevertheless, after reviewing a large number of such "primitive" or early human belief structures, we can see many similarities between them, but, these similarities are sophisticated, contemporary abstractions, and they were not a part of the awareness-content of the members of these communities themselves.

The point we want to emphasise, here, is the fact, that, early human communities began to diverge ever more widely in their behaviour because of the wide differences in the content of their beliefs, customs and mores, and, these differences were playing an ever greater role in shaping communal behaviour-patterns. An animal without a content of conscious beliefs will react, primarily, according to the physiological range of its instructions, modified, to a certain extent, by its past experiences, but, we do not see this same wide divergence, which colours the behaviour of people in different communities.

While the animal responds physiologically to its environment, the human being is strongly influenced by a set of ideas, which he believes to be true. Certainly, these beliefs are, initially, vague and undifferentiated, and, they would not be all that important in determining the shape of the behavioural response; at least, they played only a minor role, as long as the behavioural response was still predominantly instinctive in nature, but, as the quality and clarity of the belief structure improved, its importance as a contributor to human behaviour, grew accordingly.

Yet, we all know, that we are not only guided by what we believe to be true. In recent times, we have learned to verbalise, or to abstract into a conscious awareness, many mechanisms that show us, how much we are guided by emotional reaction-patterns. We still lack a clear and widely agreed-upon structure of the human personality, but I believe, that it is justified to see in our emotional reactions, the influence of our biological "anlage", or genetically organised behaviour-patterns. These emotional patterns represent instinctive models of behaviour that have been modified by the cumulative effects of our experiences. These modifications are the result of cultural regulators, such as belief structures, attitudes, notions and other cultural factors that influence and shape our behaviour.

In other words; instinctive drives are modified by learned and culturally transmitted behavioural regulators, and they become thereby transformed into emotional reactions. We see, here, a vast range of behaviour-patterns, fluctuating between responses that are almost emotionally neutral in character, and, reactions, where the influence of modifying factors is nearly completely absent; e.g., rage reactions. We see an enormously varied kaleidoscope of emotional reactions in the human being, which are coloured, in varying degrees, by complex and sometimes contrasting and contradictory cultural regulators.

Is it possible to create, again, some sort of order for our many confusing and complex awarenesses? Certainly, but, we will have to outline, first, several broad categories, which are not obviously related to each other. These broad classifications of awarenesses and observations will help us come to grips with human behaviour. We have outlined, briefly, the transition between a behaviour that is based on beliefs, and behaviour that is emotional or physiological in nature. We have seen, how people slide, continuously, from a zone that is more or less emotionally neutral, (where the aspects of conscious awareness, logical reasoning and intellectual fine-tuning dominate), to the phylogenetically older, more "primitive", more instinctive or emotionally charged behaviour-patterns, where the stimuli that have been encountered are judged to be quite significant for our existence.

The ability or tendency to dwell, either, in the intellectual, emotionally neutral zone, or, the more emotional zone of behaviour, differs markedly from one individual to the next; partly, as a result of cultural influences, partly, on the basis of differences in talent or inclination, and, partly, as a result of "historical accidents". By this, we mean, that an individual may have been rewarded in the past by a particular intellectual or emotional choice of behaviour, and, this success leads to a re-enforcement of the chosen behaviour-pattern. It is clear, that chance-circumstances determine, to a large extent, which approach seems to pay-off the best.

Here, we have sketched one way in which human behaviour may be categorised. The second method, intermixed and intertwined, yet, independent, like a separate dimension, is the direction or orientation of someone's attitudes. An individual's orientation may range from an extremely egocentric and defensive attitude, to an out-going, concerned and altruistic type of behaviour, but, almost all people function somewhere in between.

We have traced, on several occasions, the development of the human infant, and, we have seen, how an infant becomes slowly aware of its environment, where it exists, intially, in a state of complete dependence on its social environment. From a totally egocentric orientation, where the child seeks, blindly, possibilities of behavioural existence, (testing continuously the limits of tolerance of its social environment), it learns, and should learn, from an early age, that there are limitations to the degree of attention given and satisfaction received.

At the same time, the child will learn the satisfaction of receiving approval from its social environment; whenever it learns to curb its own desires and starts to take into consideration the needs of others. This, coupled with remnants of attitudes of trust, which are so totally dominant in early infancy, forms the basis for a personality development allowing the individual to slide, easily and naturally, along an axis of behaviour that is centered, either, towards an importance of "the self", or, towards the care and concern for others.

Here, in a nutshell, we have the basic axes around which human behaviour evolves. On the one hand, the axis sliding between emotional neutrality and emotional and instinctive behaviour, on the other hand, we see the axis between egocentricity and altruistically oriented behaviour. If we add to this the generally acknowledged awareness, that each individual will have to cope, almost continuously, with often severely conflicting impulses and contradictory trends and drives, we will have come to a fairly comprehensive picture of the human personality. The human personality is, therefore, dominated by three different dimensions; the scale of emotionality and rationality, the scale of egocentricity and altruism, and, the scale of conflict and tensions on the one hand, to harmony and ease of existence on the other.

Aside from these three dimensions, we can also describe the human being in terms of the past, the present and the future, because our reality-perceptions encompass always these three elements together. We see, how the human being is almost constantly engaged in the pursuit of a variety of goals as a result of his behaviour in the present. There are long-term goals, intermediate goals and immediate or short-term goals, which are accomplished routinely, with the help of experience. We note, that the human being monitors, continuously, the degree of progress that is being made. Sometimes, a measure of progress is emphasised, giving rise to a positive mood; sometimes, failures dominate, evoking a defensive, anxious or depressed mood.

Here, we are, back to the classification of positive and negative stimuli, which is, perhaps, the most fundamental classification of all, because all animal organisms are capable of this discriminatory function. A positive stimulus evokes a reaction or movement towards the stimulus, as the organism tries to capture a favourable circumstance for as long as it can, while a noxious, harmful or negative stimulus is avoided or resisted as much as possible. These basic classifications have all been discussed before, but it is useful to keep them in mind, while we try to become aware of the functions and mechanisms of the cultural content in our own personality as well as the personalities of the people in our social environment.

We have seen, how contradictory the criteria of viable behaviour become, when viability is, at times, enhanced by ruthless egocentricity, while, at other times, cooperation and care spell the difference between life and death. We have emphasised, how important it is to recognise these contradictory biological trends in the make-up of the human personality. The sliding scale between egocentricity and altruism reflects the contrasting demands of individual and social needs, while the sliding scale of emotional neutrality to instinctive behaviour reflects our heritage as a behaviourally flexible species. The third dimension of internal as well as external conflicts is a result of the fact, that we are a social entity of multi-cellular existence. We are a social unit; as a multi-cellular individual, as well as a member of a socially organised community of fellow human beings.

The other reason for the existence of contradictory tensions lies in the fact, that the complex sense impressions from the environment rarely give rise to a clear-cut interpretation of their existential significance. More often than not, the contradictory aspects are almost balanced, and, a discrimination between them becomes, then, a painful, agonising and uncertain choice. Here again, we see a linkage with the faculties of behavioural flexibility. The element of choice leads to the need for making a conscious decision in the organisation of our behaviour, and, this feature of conscious decision-making has become an extremely important mental or psychological tool; partly, because of the great reliance evolution has placed on the ability of behavioural flexibility and choice, and, partly, because the increasing importance of a conscious belief structure means, that we have to take a measure of responsibility for our choices.

.......

Chapter 5

Content

Hierarchical stratification as a substitute for territorial conflict.
Sexual behaviour, and the need to overcome, temporarily, the forces of competitive dispersion.
Hierarchical ordening, and the processes of functional specialisation
The inborn trends of socially integrated behaviour.
Social behaviour-patterns have to be rewarded and re-enforced.
Leadership and the price of responsibility.
A definition of loyalty.
The many faces of leadership.
The need to combine force and persuasiveness in complex leadership situations.
The fading meaning of hierarchical stratification with increasing inter-dependence.
The vulnerability of inter-dependence.
The most viable forms of inter-dependence have nearly equal existential advantages for all parties involved.
Success, strength and dominance over neighbouring societies introduce, once again, an imbalance in social relationships, as well as the beginnings of stagnation and resentment.
A review of the processes of social decay.
A definition of relative social health.
A brief review of topics that have been discussed.

Let us come back, for a moment, to this remarkable phenomenon of the hierarchical order, which became a substitute for an all-out territorial struggle. We see, that several important modifications had to take place in the basic patterns of individual behaviour, before hierarchical stratification became possible and meaningful. Without the mechanisms of social integration, the similarity of existential needs induces severe competitive pressures between the members of a species, and, we have described on previous occasions, how such a competitive atmosphere leads to a spreading or dispersion of the population, where each individual has to stake-out sufficient territory in order to secure an adequate supply of food or energy.

The sexual mode of reproduction is used, without exception, throughout the realm of multi-cellular life, and, it requires a form of behaviour that allows, at least, temporarily, an "approchement" or "coming-together" of two members of the oppositve sex. There are some bizarre examples, where this problem of competitive dispersion has been solved by crude and costly forms of suicidal behaviour by the male in order to ensure sexual contact. However, throughout most of the animal kindgom, we see less radical solutions to the problems of mutual hostility, but, there is, indeed, a need for strong and rigidly patterned codes of sexual behaviour in order to overcome the competitive dispersion between the members of a species.

In the mechanisms of social integration, territoriality gives-way to a mode of behaviour, where the individuals exist much closer together, and, the attitudes of tolerance are facilitated by exchanging functions and developing specialised skills. A successful process of socialisation increases the viability of the group as a whole, and, indirectly, the viability of its members. We should not forget, that success is the ultimate judge of the usefulness of every evolutionary mechanism. By giving-up a measure of "sovereignty", an individual gains the protection of a dominant member of the species, and, this is the basic exchange that makes the mechanisms of hierarchical ordening, viable.

In species' with a long history of socially integrated behaviour, we see, that this trend has become genetically engraved in the behavioural instructions of the members, and, there is a strong tendency for the majority of the members to give-up their sovereignty. The human species provides an example of a strong, inborn tendency or instinct to seek protection and leadership, and, most human beings are, not only, willing to place themselves under the leadership of a dominant member, but, they require, as a matter of urgent necessity, qualified leadership to maintain themselves in a state of good physical and mental health.

The initial steps towards social integration and hierarchical positioning must, indeed, have been fragile and tentative patterns of behaviour, forming and breaking-up many times, like polymers searching for a stable possibility of existence. Eventually, the processes of natural selection ensured for those species', where socialisation became a major contribution towards survival, a firm genetic encoding of suitable behaviour-patterns. Certainly, all human beings live in some sort of a small-scale socially integrated grouping, even, if it is possible, occasionally, for an individual to live, temporarily, a solitary life-style.

The submission of one individual to the leadership of another, has to produce positive results. Tacitly, or subconsciously, a submissive individual must experience a beneficial net-result from his attitudes. Nevertheless, once the instinct to seek protection becomes strong, we see, immediately, a measure of dependence come to the fore, and, a dependent individual becomes prone to being exploited. In the early stages of socialisation, it was still possible to "break-away" from society, and, an individual or group, experiencing an extra-ordinary level of pressure or exploitation, would decide, subconsciously, that it would be better of without this bond of social inter-dependence. As soon as the sense of benefit disappears, the domination by the more powerful and more privileged groupings is felt as a burden and an injustice, and, a feeling of resentment is the inevitable outcome.

This means, then, that dominance, the assumption of leadership over others, or, the excercise of power and the occupation of a position of privilege, have to be balanced, or paid-for, with an attitude of responsibility and concern for those, who are depending upon this leadership. In essence, this is a close parallel of the parental attitudes of care and concern, and, we see, that an egocentric attitude to abuse the position of power and privilege, or, any failure to take care of the well-being of followers, will lead to feelings of disloyalty and resentment.

Loyalty is the feeling, that it is beneficial and meaningful to cling to a leadership, and, loyalty induces an attitude of trust and good-will, which, in turn, places the vital energies of the submissive individual wholeheartedly at the disposal of the leadership. When this attitude of loyalty is eroded by abuse, mistakes or negligence, the attitudes change to mistrust, disenchantment and resentment, and, the individual will resist, increasingly, the guidelines and authority of the leadership.

Most people require continuous, explicit and detailed guidance throughout their lives, and, the mechanisms of disenchantment with an existing leaderhip will result in a vague and mostly intuitive search for a different leadership. For some, the awakening of their own powers may bring them to a greater degree of independence, and, their behaviour will become more self-assured. These people may start to function as a nucleus of guidance for others. Society is, therefore, not just a mass of followers under one form of explicit leadership, but there are many nuclei of leadership, often arranged, again in, some sort of a hierarchical order.

If an individual seeks leadership from someone else, it means, that this person needs a specific input or guidance for a variety of behavioural choices. If an individual feels, that he can make these behavioural decisions on his own insights and capabilities, the individual becomes a "non-conformist". If his own personal type of decision-making proves to be persuasive to others, and, if he starts to function as a valuable input for the behavioural decisions of other people, he is in the process of becoming a leader himself.

The essence of good, natural leadership is a large measure of persuasiveness, but, inevitably, the powers that fall to an individual in a leadership position, will be used, subtly at first, but more blantantly and brutally later, to exert pressure on unwilling followers to conform. Certainly, if a political leadership can only rely on loyalty and persuasiveness, its effectiveness and life expectancy in the more complex societies become severely limited, because in such large and complex societies it is impossible to galvanise the entire population into an attitude of active support. A judicious use of power to tie the leadership over a "rough spot" in its governing mandate is necessary, but, power should never be a substitute for persuasiveness, nor a means to cling to power, after a majority of the members have lost confidence in the political leaders of their society.

Hierarchical positioning is, therefore, at least, in its formative stages, an uneasy stand-off between suspicious individuals, who are ready to claim, again, full sovereignty and territoriality, as soon as their instincts of anxiety and self-preservation are getting the upper hand. Initially, hierarchical positioning is nothing more than a continuous search for a natural pecking-order, but, as soon as a measure of specialisation in behavioural functions starts to develop, we see, that individuals begin to rely upon each other's complementary functions, and, the uneasy truce of suspicion gives way, gradually, to a feeling of need, loyalty, trust, or, even, entrapment, whenever the relationships are beginning to sour.

Together with the development of an ever increasing process of inter-dependence, we see a blurring of the hierarchical order. This shows, that the mechanisms of hierarchical ordening are only an initial stage in the processes of socialisation. When the process of social development matures with the formation of strong bonds of inter-dependence, the usefulness of hierarchical differences disappears. After all, hierarchical positioning is a mechanism that is based upon the need to overcome the competitive drive, and, like so many mechanisms in the realm of the living organisation, we see, that its own success is the beginning of its disappearance.

Certainly, in a position of inter-dependence, the balance may be heavily weighted in favour of one party or the other, but, then, the bonds of cooperation become less meaningful for the party that is being exploited, and, we have argued, why such a development is self-limiting, since the exploited party will, inevitably, search for ways to end the relationships; often, in a violent and aggressive manner.

It is, therefore, an important observation, that the most stable and long-lived socially integrated systems are found, wherever the cooperating parties have a nearly equal existential advantage from the relationship. In a situation of nearly equal advantage, or, at least, an acceptable level of advantage for all the parties involved, the vital interests of all members in a state of social inter-dependence can harmonise with each other. Their goals and objectives coincide, and, the system becomes an ever more efficient channel for the dissipation of a biological energy-gradient, leading to growth, increased strength and vitality.

Such a growth in social inter-dependence and vitality also leads to dominance over other social groupings, and, this introduces, once again, a situation of inequality, because the neighbouring societies are, usually, ruthlessly exploited. Because of this growth in social strength and population density, as well as an expanding territory and increasing internal complexity, an ever larger part of the available energy-flow through society has to be spent in maintaining social order. Soon, growth stops and an equilibrium sets-in between the expansionist forces of growth and dominance on the one hand, and the resisting forces of internal frictions and inefficiencies on the other.

However, there is another mechanism that leads to a stagnation in growth, as well as an increased friction in the dissipation of biological energies. With increased security of the social system, the awareness of the need for coherence dims, and, the members are increasingly tempted to revert back to egocentric and uncooperative attitudes. Once the atmosphere of mutual trust and reliance starts to fade, the process is self-sustaining, because the orientation towards egocentric concerns starts to gather momentum as frustration and a wounded sense of justice increase steadily in strength.

As soon as the elan vital of the members can not be bundled anymore into a powerful, coherent stream, the goal-patterns start to diverge, and, since contradictory goal-patterns can not be realised simultaneously, some are blocked, leading to a sense of frustration for an enlarging segment of the population. Partly as a result of the increasing complexity of the social system, and, partly, because of the slowly rising level of frustration, the regulatory mechanisms begin to falter. Control mechanisms disappear, and, the integrity of the leadership and other individuals in positions of power and trust, crumbles. These people, then, start to abuse their positions for their own benefit, aggravating the feelings of injustice and mistrust.

Often, recently subjugated societies, that have been gathered into a large empire, remain a source of friction and resentment, since integration into the "master society" is incomplete, as these conquered societies have inevitably been exploited and still adhere to their original cultural guidelines.

We should discuss, in more detail, the origins of the sense of justice, or, the sense of "righteousness", and, we should look at the practical problems of implementing a contract of essential equality. As the social system grows in size, the detailed structuring of hierarchical positions becomes cumbersome, and, there will be a natural tendency towards a hierarchy of groupings, rather than a hierarchy of individual people. There will be a relative equality of the members within such a large grouping, unless there is a strong internal leadership structure that can manage all hierarchical disputes. The sheer size of a social system will lead to a "de-facto" equality between many of the members, and, we have also seen, how strong and beneficial inter-dependencies replace the attitudes of competitive strife with a sense of trust and loyalty, as long as these relationships remain mutually beneficial.

In a large and complex system, severe demands are, therefore, made upon the guiding and organising faculties of the leadership, as well as on the cultural pool of attitudes, mores, laws and customs. Every time someone violates these cultural regulators, especially, when in a position of power and trust, the other members are puzzled and feel exploited, short-changed, cheated and abused. In short, their sense of justice and trust has been wounded; their faith in society has been damaged, and, slowly, the egocentric anxieties come to the fore. Slowly, it starts to dawn on an individual, or a small group, that it would be better of to exist outside such a social environment, or, that it is necessary to change the leadership, and, perhaps, some of the laws guiding society. Tensions are mounting, and it does not take long, before the previously successful social system becomes stifled and paralysed by internal dissent, corruption, fear and mistrust.

The resistance of a sub-grouping within society is stimulated by corrupt and unjust behaviour of the leadership and its bureaucracy, and, the smouldering resentment resulting from a defeat and subjugation in the past, kept alive by legends and folklore, is waiting for a chance to over-power, or, at least, challenge a weakened central leadership, setting into motion the inevitable trends towards regional independence and local autonomy.

Every social system, and, certainly, the more complex systems, are, therefore, plagued by internal tensions and feelings of resentment, frictions and strife, and, the judgement of social success is, therefore, a somewhat arbitrary acceptance of a measure of social cohesion. It is a workable balance between the cohesive and the dispersive force-fields. Social health can neither be defined as a total absence of internal dissent, nor by an absence of all dominating forces, and, it has to be seen as a fortuitous balance between opposing forces, allowing a reasonable equality of existence for everyone.

We have reviewed, briefly, the mechanisms of the behaviour of an individual, as well as a social grouping, and, we should return to a review of this remarkable and complex structure, called "culture". A culture is such an important guiding element for social functions, that it determines the occurrence of success or failure, growth or stagnation, decay and death of a social entity. By including in our definition of culture all types of behavioural regulators that are not specified by the genetic code, we open a vast perspective indeed, and, we have mentioned, briefly, the inter-play between cultural regulators and the genetically encoded behavioural instructions, when we discussed the sphere of emotional reactions.

We have also touched upon the development of symbolic representations and verbalisable awarenesses, which led to the emergence of belief structures. As a result, man behaves, not only, according to his instinctive behaviour-patterns, but, he is guided, to a large extent, by what he believes to be true. In other words; if we want to understand ourselves, we will have to know, how a human being or a small social grouping sees itself, and, how people relate to their social and natural environments. The reality perception of a social group is, indeed, the dominant cultural feature of a society, and it determines, not only, how each member of society behaves, but, it has a direct bearing on the relationships between its members, as well as the attitudes and goals of the community as a whole.

An individual's sense of justice and self-esteem is based, in essence, on this communally shared reality perception, and, it reflects a vague social contract between people, as well as a personal judgement about one's "self-worth". This judgement of one's legitimate and just position in society applies, not only, to an individual, but, in particular, to the entire class an individual identifies with. We see, that social unrest is a reflection of the level of acceptance, or lack of it, of the status-quo of hierarchical relationships within a social environment. If the status-quo is challenged for whatever reasons, the reality perceptions of the various classes become incompatible with each other, and the status-quo beomes unacceptable to one group or another.

Similarly, if the behavioural regulators and attitudes flowing from a clear-cut and unquestioned reality perception, are operative throughout society, such as after a successful revolution, the various positions within society are readily accepted. People work hard and submit, wholeheartedly, to a believed-in authority, but, if the members become aware of violations of the social contract of essential equality by a privileged and powerful elite, the authority of the leadership disappears, and the sense of justice has been violated, leading, once again, to a resurgence of resentment, corruption, hatred and chaos.

.......

Chapter 6

Content

Leadership succession, seen as a measure of cultural quality.
Why religious reality perceptions are generally more attractive than scientific images.
The tendency of political leaders to place themselves under divine guidance.
The responsibilities of freedom and scrutiny.
The ability to prevent the chaos of unbridled freedoms with the tools of reasoned understanding and self-discipline.
The possibilities for a globally acceptable scientific reality perception.
Unwarranted faith in an absolute truth.
Relativistic interpretations are based on emotionally neutral observations.
The importance of the reality perception when formulating cultural guidelines.
Shifting perceptions, associated with specialisations in function and cultural differentiations.
The fragile balance of power in the practice of universal suffrage.
The incompetent heirs of an elitist class.
The financial dynasty; its birth and demise.
Cultural regulators are concerned with long-term social viability.
Why a cultural code has to be acceptable to all social strata as "just".
Varying solutions for the ever-recurring tensions in society; the Capitalist versus the Socialist solution.

The manner in which a society acquires its leadership and handles the succession of political power, is a good indicator of the wisdom and quality of its cultural code. If the succession of political leadership is chaotic, and reflects only a ruthless struggle for power, the cultural guidelines are still primitive and have not penetrated into the mechanisms of leadership succession. Such a society reflects, primarily, a primitive and suspicious hierarchical order, based on the mechanisms of force and intimidation. The society will fall-apart, as soon as the leadership fails to exert the necessary force to keep dissent and rebellion under control; assassinations and a displacement by force are the standard methods for a change in leadership.

Nevertheless, a society that is still chaotic and lawless in the way it changes its overall political leadership, may reach remarkably elaborate and complex reality perceptions, that are, nearly always expressed in religious belief structures. We have argued, before, why it was inevitable that early man would come to a religious interpretation of reality, but, even today, most people have a religious perception of reality, because the religious explanations seem most in line with the primary observations of our naked senses, and, they seem most suitable as a framework for authoritative cultural regulators.

We have discussed, on previous occasions, how the mechanisms of hierarchical ordening and religious beliefs make it logical, that the leaders of these early societies would submit themselves to the superior forces of nature, and, we have also discussed their enormous gain in power and authority, whenever leaders would rule under the auspices of divine guidance.

The ability and freedom to question authority is rarely accompanied by a sufficient awareness of the responsibilities associated with the privilege to scrutinise a social order and question the nature and authority of its leadership. Inquisitive people often fail to realise, that the scrutiny of a social leadership, inevitably, undermines divinely sanctioned religious beliefs and guidance-patterns. Such questioning will be resisted by the established members of every society, because it is felt as a threat to their security.

Sometimes, a fortuitous marriage between Reason and Faith took place and enriched the cultural core with a renewed awareness of the possibilities given by intellectual freedom and the ability to scrutinise. This freedom to scrutinise may become a lethal weapon, whenever the practices and beliefs of the ruling elite have become tainted by egocentric concerns and corrupt attitudes. Then, there will be a strong tendency to crush questions and abolish the right to investigate. We know, now, why chaos results, so easily, from unregulated freedoms, and, we understand, why a few people tend to obtain all the powers and privileges in society, unless society is guided by stringent rules and regulations, safeguarding against such a process of concentration of power into a few hands.

It was logical, that the rules and guidelines of society were enshrined by an aura of sanctity, because this used to be the only effective way to make everyone adhere to them. Questioning and scrutiny were automatically associated with a challenge to authority, and, it still requires a careful approach and a clear way of expression in order to avoid this linkage between scrutiny and attack. Ideally, scrutiny may just as easily fortify the validity of a rule or guideline as it may weaken it, and, careful scrutiny should be able to "wipe-off" the "contamination" of rules and guidelines, caused by slightly unscrupulous practices and attitudes. Then, a scrutiny is nearly always beneficial, because it tends to bring-out the original "luster" of a rule, or, it modifies a guideline in such a way, that it becomes a more useful tool for the social environment.

We know, now, how high the price is of a rigid, sacrosanct and absolute belief, and, how illusory the apparent intellectual and emotional stability really is. The tools of reason, scrutiny and scientific analysis have made it possible to construct a reality perception that could be remarkably persuasive to peoples all over the world, provided, that we are able to present the intellectual and scientific complexities in a careful, honest and consistent manner. The main obstacle preventing the scientific reality perception from gaining a prominent position in many cultural pools all over the world, is the fact, that contemporary scientific images are complex and fragmented.

It is still nearly impossible to summarise and grasp the essence of the sciences in a coherent and digestible fashion. Yet, even, if these realities could be grasped in a coherent, philosophic over-view, they will still require a considerable amount of study and effort, before they can be mastered successfully. The religious concepts are much easier to teach, because they rely on an attitude of acceptance and obediance to the teachings of an established authority, and inconsistencies in logic or gaps in understanding can be smoothed-over by the exhortation to accept the teachings as dogma, or as an "article of faith". As a matter of fact, the religious reality perceptions provide much more readily an image of reality that is emotionally acceptable and attractive.

We will not repeat, here, a discussion of the many similarities and differences we can see between a religious and a scientific reality perception. It is important, however, to emphasise, once again, that these two different ways of perceiving reality have far more in common than we realise. Even, if we have been schooled in a scientific discipline, it is not easy to see the relative truth of the scientific imagery, and, we still accept, mostly intuitively, this scientific imagery as a proven and absolute reality. By adopting such an attitude of absolute faith in the unquestioned truthfulness of the scientific reality perceptions, we miss an important opportunity to see this imagery as a useful product of our own minds; an imagery, that has been created by our minds in a zone of emotional neutrality.

As a rule, we fail to appreciate the degree of faith we have invested in our scientific beliefs. Therefore, science and religion become a battleground, where the mistaken but shared belief in the reality of an absolute truth, battle, once more, for supremacy. This has happened, often, in the history of clashing reality perceptions. However, if we would be aware of the way we build-up an image of reality, (based on the nature of our biological and psychological existence, as well as our place in the evolutionary spectrum of life on earth), we would be able to adopt a far more flexible and useful stance in relation to our scientific imagery. The irony is, that this same scientific imagery provides the foundation for our concepts of scientific relativity, while those of us, who are fervent believers in the absolute reality and objectivity of the sciences, adopt such an attitude on the basis of emotional or existential needs, and, not as a result of scientific logic.

In essence, the fervent believer in the scientific realities shares the same needs and instincts for absolute certainty with his brother, who has placed his Faith in the religious interpretation of reality; where man and nature are not seen as a spectrum of inter-dependent evolutionary changes, but as a series of creations by a Supra-human Intelligence.

Scientific reality images provide us with an unshakable foundation for the concept, that truth is a product of the human mind. There are a number of arguments we have discussed many times before, and, we have only recalled some of these aspects, here. The most important and dominating feature of each and every culture is the basic reality perception of its citizens. We want to emphasie, once again, how the fundamental perceptions about the nature of man and his surroundings permeate the entire cultural pool of a society. These fundamental perceptions regulate, not only, the relationships between the members or classes of society, but they also sanctify the patterns of growth, stagnation and decay, as well as the acts of war and the search for peace.

A clash of differing reality perceptions is, often, the immediate or apparent cause of a conflict, but, in a historical hindsight, we are often able to discern the existential motives of greed and opportunity behind acts of aggression and belligerence. We must make a distinction between our particular perception of past or present realities, and, the belief structures of the societies we are studying. We can not ignore a study of the motivations of a society from their point of view. If we fail to make a sharp distinction between our particular, contemporary interpretation of a historical event, and, the point of view that prevailed at the time, our grasp over history will remain vague and incomplete.

The reality perceptions of a society are important and should be well understood, if we want to grasp the reasons, why certain historical events took place, and, why some social groupings were so much more successful than others. In modern times, we have learned to interpret our motivations from a biological, existential point of view, and, we are beginning to interpret our collective history, quite successfully, with these same principles in mind.

The leadership functions of a complex society are spread-out over a large number of people and institutions, especially, when we consider, not only, the political and secular aspects of leadership, but also, the many educational tasks. The responsibilities of teaching the essential core of a relevant culture are often carried-out by religious leaders and their institutions, but, in a modern society, we see a bewildering variety of institutions that are concerned with the functions of government, law and order, the teaching of elementary, secondary or higher skills, the teaching of the arts and sciences, or, the transmission of the more specific religious heritage of a social entity or an ethnic sub-grouping.

As always, the least influential groupings in society are doing most of the hard work, even, if we see, in modern democratic societies, a serious attempt to give individual members an equal say in the affairs of government, regardless of status, power, wealth or political affiliation. However, we know, that the theoretical model of universal suffrage is only vaguely mirrored in a political reality, because there are numerous powerful factions, corporations, unions and lobbies exerting an influence upon government, which is far beyond the voting power of their numerical strength.

Artistic activities begin as an adornment of social functions and common tools. We see these activities in the elaboration of religious rituals or the ornamentation of all sorts of implements, and, these activities are important indicators of the way people see themselves. Later, with the increasing individualisation of the members in a complex social environment, art becomes a more personal expression of individual realities and experiences, relying on the common denominator of people's experiences to find a measure of resonance.

We remind ourselves, that the functions of society are centered around the need to dissipate, or utilise, the excess elan vital of the members in a constructive manner. The more privileged segments quickly turn to a competitive display of wealth, power or influence, which is absorbing all their energies, as well as the productivity of the lower classes. Such activities are unjustified, because they are wasteful and lead to further disparities between the rich and the poor. Besides, this ostentatious display of wealth and power leads to an ever greater dependence of the elite upon the labours of the productive classes, making the ideas and ideals of universal equality, impossible.

The ruling establishment is always conservative, because it profits from the status-quo. However, if the ruling elite becomes a hereditary elite, it becomes even more dependent upon this status-quo. Initially, the members of a ruling elite gained access to their positions of leadership, because they showed capabilities and personality traits that justified their position. Once the elite becomes a separate class, the members are born into a position of privilege. The justification for their position in society disappears, and, resentment rises in those born into lower social strata. Members of the lower classes are often far more qualified to become leaders than those born into privilege. The heirs of elitist positions become, therefore, defensive and begin to clique together. Tensions rise, and the obligations of leadership are forgotten. When a natural flow in positions of dominance and a mixing of the social classes becomes impossible, the society is stagnating and goes into a steep decline.

We see a similar mechanism at work, when we look at the financial elite. If the property laws of society allow an unbridled accumulation of wealth by lawful earnings, legal transactions and business deals, we see, that the road towards wealth and power becomes steadily easier, as capital starts to accumulate into the hands of a few families. As a rule, the founder of a financial dynasty works very hard all his life, as the initial stage of the road towards success is, by far, the most difficult. Even, if the founder "makes it" and becomes rich, his good working habits, his close contacts with the social class of his up-bringing, as well as a sense of justice and justification for the financial rewards of his hard work, make him into a respected, and, perhaps, somewhat feared citizen.

However, if his heirs can just walk into a financial empire because they have had the good luck of having been born into a wealthy family, the same qualities that made the founder successful, are not there, anymore. Invariably, the living conditions of the privileged child are much easier and softer than those of the founding father, and, it takes only one or two generations of privileged heirs to lose, completely, the qualities that founded a financial empire. We see, quickly, a life-style develop that is frivolous and wasteful, neurotically self-centered around trivial problems, and, eventually, we see a chronic anxiety and fearfulness come to the fore, because the heirs do not know how to survive without this abundance of money, luxuries and services.

If a society has not foreseen these trends clearly, and forestalled the accumulation of wealth and privileges into the hands of an elite, the results are disastrous. Quickly, the elite has to use its wealth to support a private army in order to protect its wealth and holdings form the frustrated masses. Unless a society safeguards itself against such a dead-end evolutionary trend towards civil war, its life-span is limited; social justice disappears, and the society and its cultural guidance-structures, will perish.

Enduring cultural regulators in society should be primarily concerned with long-term viability and strength, and, this means, that the society as a whole must be able to accept the status-quo as "just". This goal can be achieved, partly, by a program of indoctrination, where a dominant perception of reality is "forced" upon the population as an absolute reality. Then, the under-privileged are "taught" to believe and accept that their position is just. However, a far more viable way to convince the poor that society is "just", is to make sure, that, indeed, the advantages and burdens of belonging to society are distributed equitably.

Because the members of society are never in a position of equal power, the advantages will always shift to the more powerful members, and the burdens to the weaker segments, unless a stringent set of Constitutional Guidelines safeguards the social contract of essential equality and justice under the Law. In the world of today, most of the larger and more sophisticated societies have recognised the need for some sort of a social contract, which has to be maintained and safeguarded by fair and honest legislation and social institutions. Unfortunately, there are still many societies that show a lack of insight and awareness for the scourge of misery and ignorance, as well as the injustice of oppression, corruption and persecution.

However, even the more sophisticated societies have a long way to go, before they can claim an enduring success in their efforts to spread the benefits and burdens of belonging to society in an equitable manner. We see, on the one hand, an ever recurring temptation to rely on egocentric incentives to entice the members to work hard, and, on the other hand, we see, that a well-meant and stringent social contract of strict equality for all, is thwarted by an incomplete understanding of human nature. The maintenance of such a social contract is, then, sought in the strict adherence to an absolute reality, as well as an unswerving faith in Party Doctrine. We have to know a lot more about the human personality and the manner in which to safeguard a social contract from corruption and decay, before we can design a useful blue-print for the global society of mankind.

.......

Chapter 7

Content

A return to culture and its regulating functions.
The importance of education.
The genetic "anlage" of "education", or, "cultural transfer".
The vulnerability of the behaviourally flexible species'.
The art of making education relevant.
The advantages and disadvantages of an autocratic tradition.
The alertness that comes with multi-cultural diversity.
The dangers of a vanishing cultural core.
The need to create, consciously, a globally acceptable cultural core.
The possibilities for an attitude of scientific objectivity.
Social transparence, seen as a tool to create trust.
A network of computers to design a global standard of education.
The lean corporate structure is a useful model of organisation.
Education, and the ability to transform narrow economic goals into a greater sense of social responsibility.
The need for a consensus about the nature and content of our educational programs.
The need to understand the principles that lie behind the relativity of truth.
Disasters and tragedies.
The need to be frugal in life-style, and the ability to control our desire to experience triumph or victory.
Local leaders have to give-up some aspects of sovereignty.
Fostering attitudes of concern, insight and mutual respect.
The role of exemplary behaviour in education.
Trust needs tangible evidence to remain a viable attitude.
The clash between incompatible absolute truths.

We should come back to the function and meaning of cultural regulators in society, and, let us discuss the need to reproduce and safeguard the cultural code during the transmission from one generation to the next. This is, after all, the essence of education. We exist only for a moment as a torch-bearer of the cultural code of our society, and, we can not afford to neglect the obligation to prepare the younger generations for their task to become torch-bearers after us.

We have defined culture as a complex of behavioural regulators that evolve, primarily, beyond the voluntary control of the members of society. These regulators are represented by structures of belief, guidelines for behaviour, channels of authority, attitudes and customs, as well as a pool of poorly defined notions and ideas. As the criteria of social and individual viability are emphasising increasingly the quality of these behavioural regulators, it is logical, that the mechanisms concerned with the transfer of behavioural regulators from one generation to the next, become more important.

In the early stages of pre-human, mammalian development, the instinct to "educate", to show exemplary behaviour, became a significant feature in the genetically shaped code of parental care and concern. This feature became so important, that a lack of adequate parental care was incompatible with the survival of the gene-pool, and, such a community or family-grouping would be weeded-out by the ruthless processes of natural selection. We know, now, that the instinct to care for the offspring has been laid-down in the genetic code, but, we should remember, that, many details of the way this care is being given, and, what the younger generations are shown as "exemplary behaviour", depend on the local conditions under which the small community exists.

As always, the framework for a behavioural choice is given as a genetic instruction, but, the contents of this behavioural choice have to be filled-in, culturally. The genetic code encoded the instinct of parental care as a possible choice of behaviour, but this drive of parental care and concern has to be nurtured in the younger generations by the stimulus of adequate care and attention. If a generation is brought-up defectively, without adequate care and stimulation, it will show an equally defective behaviour of parental care, whenever it reaches maturity and parenthood. This shows the remarkable vulnerability of those species' that depend for their continued existence on the mechanisms of adequate parental care and education.

The type of behaviour that became the subject or content of exemplary behaviour was, of course, entirely beyond the grasp of voluntary control, or, any form of conscious awareness, but, with the development of a structure of conscious, symbolic awarenesses in the species of mankind, the mechanisms for a voluntary choice started to play an ever greater role in outlining the contents of exemplary behaviour, or, a deliberately shaped educational curriculum. Certainly, during the period of recorded history, education became an elaborate system of cultural transfer, that was, initially, only available to the offspring of the privileged elite, but later, under the influence of the concepts of essential equality, it became a right for every individual in society.

We are, now, somewhat more aware of the importance of education for the continued viability of a social unit, but, the adult educators face the difficult problem, how to make the cultural contents of an educational curriculum meaningful to the younger generations. In times of rapid change, the educational curriculum, (a reflection of well-established concepts and ideas), tends to lag behind what is considered to be relevant by the growing youngsters. In a stable, autocratic social system with a strong sense of absolute validity, these problems do not come to the fore, as the younger generations, properly impressed by the authority and sanctity of their cultural heritage, will absorb the cultural content with an attitude of awe and unquestioned acceptance.

Once society has become complex, culturally multi-centric, with numerous unresolved contradictions and tensions, the younger generations become more critical. The exposure to contradictory beliefs teaches them to question the validity of what is being taught. Then, youngsters may become a malleable receptacle for a blend of old and new values. However, the complexity of society may easily become confusing and paralysing for students and educators alike. The last strands of cultural coherence may be disappearing, and, the social system continues, then, to exist, only, as the result of a momentum of past vulnerabilities and existing inter-dependencies.

Under these circumstances, the cultural content of the educational curriculum crumbles quickly, and, schooling becomes merely a tool to gain skills and knowledge in the struggle for social status and financial income. The society has virtually disintegrated, but, let us acknowledge, that the actual moment of death for a social entity is, often, difficult to determine, since it may not be associated with a large number of individual deaths, as we see in the demise of a multi-cellular organism, where all its members, the cells, perish. This means, of course, that members of a human social environment have not become as dependent upon the existence of this social unit as the cells of our bodies, because they can not exist, anymore, outside the social structure that constitutes the living entity of a multi-cellular organism.

We have discussed, on previous occasions, why the cultural and social fragmentation of a society dissipates all feelings of mutual trust and identification, because these attitudes are only viable, as long as there is still a relevant cultural core. We have also discussed, how the process of identification with another person on the basis of cultural similarities, is a powerful way to extend the boundaries of this sphere of mutual care and concern, but, at the same time, the criteria of cultural identification determine our likes and dislikes, and, they define whom we consider to be friends or enemies.

The difficulties of establishing and maintaining a cohesive cultural core that is meaningful to the society as a whole, have been considered, and, the ever-present tendency for a large and conglomerate society to fragment into smaller cultural entities, should, therefore, not come as a surprise. Yet, we also know, that it is becoming ever more important to create a large, common cultural core with meaning for many diverse cultures and ethnic groupings all over the world. We have discussed the possibilities given by a scientific approach to reality, because the rigorous scrutiny of scientific thought seems to be one of the most effective ways to foster a less socio-centric and ego-centric attitude. Unfortunately, the sciences are still fragmented and incoherently presented to the peoples of the world. A lot of work has to be done to integrate the many aspects of scientific knowledge, and, we still have to come to grips with the concepts of a relativity in truth, which flow, so naturally, from a comprehensive appreciation of the scientific reality perceptions.

The very large societies have a natural tendency to fragment along cultural, ethnic or nationalistic lines, but, on the other hand, our increasing economic and technological inter-dependencies, as well as the unimaginable consequences of all-out war, have convinced many of the more perceptive members of the need to construct, in a conscious manner, a cultural core with a global relevance; together with a global standard of education.

We have elaborated, on various occasions, the urgent need for a greater degree of transparence in our societies, and, we have pointed to the problems of waste, inefficiency, corruption and stagnation. We have advanced the solution of a vast, integrated, computerised network of communications and data-processing, in order to achieve such a transparence in our social structures, and, we have argued, that such a transparence should include all transactions, including the government bureaucracies, as well as the activities of the leadership itself.

Without a development towards a greater degree of transparence, the level of crime and corruption will, eventually, be so high, that the last vestiges of trust and good-will disappear, especially, from our affluent and chaotic societies, and, we will then be faced, once again, with dangerous, explosive or uncontrollable levels of frustration and anger, threatening the stability of many societies and the lives of countless people.

We have outlined, how essential a computerised network of information is for the design of a proper educational system that can function, effectively, on a global scale. We have to regain the insight, that the major objective of education is not the acquisition of specialised knowledge to be used for egocentric gain, but, an overall view of the problems that are faced by the societies of mankind.

We can certainly learn some bureaucratic skills from the generally lean and efficient multi-national corporate structures, and, it may well be wise to use them as a model for the future integration of our societies. Of course, it will be necessary to enlarge the narrow criteria of economic viability, which these multi-national giants have to adhere to in order to survive. We have to infuse these corporate structures with a sense of global responsibility for the peoples they serve, and, we have to get-away from the rigid criteria of profit that guide these Capitalist structures at the present time.

There is no reason to believe, that a concerted, educational effort would be unable to succeed our stated goals, since young people, well educated and fully aware of the overall scope of the problems of mankind, will slowly filter into positions of influence in these multi-national giants, and, they may be quite willing and instrumental in transforming these corporate giants into socially responsible entities, functioning as bridge-heads between a variety of different cultures.

The task of convincing a majority of the people that it is possible to formulate a globally acceptable philosophy, as well as a generally acceptable state of essential equality, is a gigantic task, requiring several, or, perhaps, even, many generations of hard work. However, a number of disasters will remind us about our fragility, and, they will remind us to take these tasks seriously. Let us hope, that these future catastrophies are not so overwhelming, that the viability of the human species will have been seriously eroded, and, let us hope, that mankind will have a chance to work-out the philosophical ideas, as well as the political machinery, needed to safeguard the viability of mankind.

It is tempting to engage in exhortations and dwell upon a measure of hopeful expectations, but this is not necessary, and, perhaps, not even desirable, because these exhortations may weaken the awareness that we have to work hard to ensure beneficial future developments. If the gloomy alternatives to reaching a measure of global consensus and essential equality have finally penetrated into our conscious awareness, the mental imagery of a peaceful and just co-exisence, in contrast to the images of nuclear warfare and global destruction, will help to guide us through the many problems and disappointments we will have to face on the way.

In our future educational programs, we will have to lay the foundation for the attitudes of cooperation on a global scale, and, it is, obvious, that we have to start with a plan to reach some sort of consensus about what to teach our youngsters. We have to make them aware, first of all, of the magnitude and complexity of the problems we face, and, we have to provide a network of communications, where we can exchange opinions and ideas, while searching for an ever greater precision of the outlines for a global Constitution.

The philosophical principles of consensus will then be gradually translated into Constitutional Guidelines, which will become the major guidance-patterns for every society on earth. While these images may seem utopian and irrealistic at the present time, the gloomy consequences of alternatives modes of development leave us no choice, but to keep trying to begin the development of such a global system of awareness and education.

The educational programs of the future should start with summarising the outlines of all the relevant scientific insights, such as those of physics, biology, environmental sciences and the human personality in its many aspects. In this way, we can provide ourselves with a somewhat coherent picture of what we are, how we function, and, how we relate to our environment. It is also important to have a perspective of what has happened to previous generations, because we will have then a clearer understanding of the fact, that we are merely an arbitrary moment in the course of history and evolutionary change.

We should have a clear understanding about the nature and function of religious reality perceptions, and, we should be able to understand, why the human being has a strong tendency to behave religiously. If we are able to forge a coherent picture of the evolution of life in general, and the evolution of the human being in particular, we will have provided the foundation for a reality perception that should not have any insurmountable difficulties in becoming acceptable to us all. Once the idea of an overall, globally acceptable reality perception is gaining momentum, we can start to formulate more precise behavioural guidelines and political solutions to the many problems of inequality and injustice that will still exist.

Intellectually, the most demanding aspects will be a detailed comprehension of the concepts of a relativity of truth, and the consequences that flow from these insights. A truly broad over-view of the many scientific, historical and religious aspects of human behaviour will be a formidable task, but the ideals of human dignity and equality on a global scale, (paid for with an attitude of frugality in life-style and trustful cooperation with others), is not difficult to grasp, in particular, if people see exemplary behaviour from their leaders. The need for a global philosophy of justice and essential equality will then be beyond dispute.

The attitudes of local leaderships will remain a problem for a long time to come. It will require tenacious persistence to persuade local leaders and their institutions to give-up a significant part of their sovereignty, in order to shape their behaviour as cooperative members of the society of mankind. This change in attitude is somewhat similar to the transition from territoriality to a hierarchical order. This must also have been difficult and painfully slow, but the fusion of mankind into a global society depends on a voluntary choice and can not wait for the mechanism of natural selection to encode these behavioural guidelines genetically.

The egocentricity of local or national leaders is so difficult to overcome, because this egocentricity is sanctioned as a virtue by the local cultural code. This local culture makes the well-being of this particular society the center of its judgements of good and evil, or right and wrong, and, this is the reason, why these socio-centric attitudes are cloaked in respectability, because they are often presented and accepted as a "service", or, even, as a sacrifice for the well-being of the local community or national entity.

In overcoming our instinctive tendency to fight for local autonomy and socio-centrically interpreted situations of injustice, lies the most difficult fight for the acceptance of a global outlook, but, I believe, that it is possible to make the global philosophy so clear, so persuasive and transparent, so irrefutable and logical, even, for the ordinary peoples of the world, that, eventually, the peoples of the world will teach their leaders a lesson in cooperation and tolerance.

The ordinary people of the world will, eventually, tell their leaders how short-sighted and egocentric it is to cling to a position of local autonomy and sovereignty. They will teach the more dominant members of society, that their attitudes are incompatible with the destiny of mankind, and, that these attitudes represent merely primitive instincts of territoriality and elitism.

Obviously, under-privileged local autonomies will have less difficulties recognising the benefits of a truly global philosophy of essential equality, justice and transparence, because they will benefit, rather than lose-out in the processes of equalisation, but, they too, will have to learn to accept, and acknowledge, the many responsibilities that come with global integration.

Indeed, we have to pay a price for all these developments. Just as the early socialisation of behaviourally flexible animals required a willingness to forego, at least, in part, the attitudes of territoriality and sovereignty, so will existence in a state of global inter-dependence require major sacrifices in our desire to come to independent or sovereign decisions. We will also have to make other, primarily emotional sacrifices, in order to receive a global guarantee of human dignity, equality and justice. We will have to foresake our instinctive search for the heady feelings of triumph and victory, as well as other gratifications of an egocentric nature, which are incompatible with the principles of universal dignity and essential equality.

A frugal standard of living, means, that we have to accept a long-term and global balance between production, consumption and environmental stability. Equality, means, the renunciation of the lure of elitist privileges. Dignity, means, a belief, sustained by tangible evidence, that most people are committed to similar attitudes of mutual trust and cooperation. Respect, means, the resolute rejection of any opportunity to profit or take an advantage, and a sense of justice, means, the recognition, that, a desire to be treated justly by others, has to be earned by an attitude of justice towards others, irrespective of personal sympathies or antipathies.

The major thrust of an educational program will be to foster beneficial attitudes that will make, eventually, global integration possible. Yet, we also have to learn that attitudes are not transmitted by preaching or exhortations, but by genuine and persistent examples of meaningful behaviour. This type of education is slow, and, we have to recognise the fact, that the ability to set exemplary behaviour patterns has to be cultivated carefully, as soon as the level of mutual trust permits us to do so.

In essence we are all alike. We can be guided to acts of high moral courage and altruistic behaviour under the influence of appropriate guidelines and exemplary behaviour, but, if we are betrayed and exploited, we may just as easily retreat into a fearful and egocentric outlook, or, even, into criminal acts of violence. The saint and the sinner are, in essence, represented by the same individual. The only difference is the orientation of attitudes towards other people, as well as the judgment of the social surroundings.

If, indeed, people can be persuaded, by tangible evidence and good reasons, to be cooperative and trustful, they can overcome a natural bias towards personal existential concerns, and, it becomes clear, how important education is going to be in determining the overall outlook of human relationships. A narrow, fundamentalistic belief, regardless, whether it is clothed in religious or scientific terms, can not counter-act a sophisticated challenge with sophisticated arguments. All too often, a dogmatic point of view becomes a center of fearful, defensive and egocentric anxieties, and the challenger is condemned as "evil".

The primitive emotions of anger and fear lead to an unbridgeable rift between the challenger and the fundamentalist. We have begun to realise, how many people have suffered and died as the result of the emotions of hatred and fear, which were evoked by a clash of incompatible, absolute truths.

.......

Chapter 8

Content

Understanding the mechanisms of anger and anxiety.
Truth is a matter of opinion.
The central spectator in the Universe of our reality perceptions.
A shift in vantage-point.
A useful practical excercise that functions as the foundation for understanding the principles of relativity.
A rational approach to the problems of coping with differing view-points.
Giving-up the hope to find an absolute truth may bring us closer together than ever before.
A rigid empire of absolute truths.
The attitudes of relativity and trust can only be meaningful from a position of existential security.
The vague notions upon which most of our present thoughts and ideas about human rights are founded.
The need for a clear and precise analysis of our ideas about freedoms and rights.
The essentially social nature of individual fulfillment.
Broadening the relevance of a local culture.
The many layers of motivations.
Discrepancies in the rate of ageing between individual people and their social environment; a comparison with cells and inorganic molecules.
The need to learn as much as we can, in order to structure a coherent program of education.
The waste of an affluent life-style.
The conscious choice, and the deliberate creation of a viable cultural code with global relevance.

We understand the emotional mechanisms of defensiveness, fear and polarisation a little better in our modern times, and, we have traced, on several occasions, the reasons, why the undermining of security and certainty, either, by aggressive attitudes, or, by intellectual challenges, will cause powerful reactions of fear and hostility. We see, that, in the final analysis, all our beliefs have an existential significance. Some of them are obviously used as vehicles to sustain hope and endure stress, others, are more emotionally neutral, but, still, provide us with a quiet confidence and a sense of manipulative power. Regardless, what we believe to be true, a challenge to our beliefs will provoke a measure of anger and anxiety, even, if we understand, why such behavioural reactions take place within ourselves and the people around us.

Truth is, therefore, in essence, a matter of shared beliefs. The more convinced we are of the validity of a belief structure, and, the less questions or challenges we have to face, the more such a structure of beliefs functions as a truth. Then, it has a tendency to become an absolute reality. The interesting point, here, is the fact, that we always lose sight of the peculiarly egocentric nature of our reality perceptions. Whenever we are in a reflective mood, we may suddenly become aware of the fact, that we are, always, the central spectator in the totality of our Universe. However, most of the time, we are not aware of this, and, we assume, tacitly or implicitly, that our reality perceptions have an equal validity for everyone around us.

Certainly, many people share with us the same, or, almost the same fundamental reality perceptions, and, our tacit assumptions apply, to a large extent, to those, who are in agreement with us. However, those, who have a different perception of reality, may not share our basic assumptions at all, and, therefore, they will not share our ideas about the truth. Whenever we encounter such a situation, we come inescapably to the conclusion, that those, who do not share our reality-picture, are "wrong". From our point of view, they are wrong, and, we are right, but, we should not expect, that those, considered to be wrong by us, will see themselves this way. If we had the ability to place ourselves, at least, to some extent, in their particular world of reality perceptions, we may be able to perceive the logic or rightfulness of their point of view, and, we may come to the startling conclusion, that our views, seen from their perspective, may be just as wrong for them, as their position seems wrong to us.

We see, here, a useful, pragmatic excercise in relativity, which we should incorporate in our future educational programs, and, we should refine, very carefully, this technique of imagining ourselves to be in a different structure of beliefs. These experiments with shifting frames of reference may destroy some of our fundamental certainties, but, this does not mean at all, that we have to become confused or lost.

Excercises in attitudinal shifts will provide the basic foundation for the perception and understanding of the concepts of relativity. Not only, will it be a useful excercise to foster attitudes of tolerance and comprehension, but, we will learn to recognise, also, how much faith we place in our mental images, regardless of the question, whether this imagery happens to be scientific or religious in nature, or, perhaps, a combination of both. These excercises in shifting a point of view give us a "feeling" for the way mental images and beliefs develop, and, they are, therefore, essential for our efforts to understand ourselves and our fellow human beings.

Once we see the common bonds of existential usefulness in the various religious and scientific reality perceptions, we will be able to talk to each other with a calm rationality and a clear understanding, and, we may, then, transform the search for security, (which underlies our tendency to adopt an absolute scientific or religious truth), into a relativistic framework of shifting vantage-points. Such a realistic attitude will help us to construct a globally acceptable perception of reality.

By acknowledgeing the fact, that, thruth is only an expression of agreement between the reality perceptions of individuals or communities, we should be able to curb our emotional desire for absolute certainty or divinely revealed truths, and, yet, in acknowledgeing the need for a broad consensus, we may create a measure of uniformity in such a relativistic view of reality, which was not possible, when we searched, in vain, for universally acceptable absolute truths.

Ironically, then, by giving-up the idea of finding an absolute reality or certainty, we may be able to come much closer to the realisation of a commonly acceptable reality perception. Such a level of consensus will remain impossible, if we stay deadly divided in our rigid empires of absolute truths.

However, it seems certain, that attitudes of tolerance, compassion, understanding, as well as a flexibility in the belief of a truth, are only possible from a basis of secure and confident existence, where the sense of dignity and justice is intact. Such a system of relativistic beliefs and attitudes must remain incomprehensible, as well as a dangerous illusion, to anyone, who is still fighting for the basic rights of existence; who still feels wounded in his or her dignity and pride; who is still torn-apart by anger and hatred towards those, who have exploited him or her in the past. Therefore, basic equality and justice have to be secured, simultaneously, with efforts to convince people to see the beauty and logic of a relativistic point of view.

In many ways, a pragmatic recognition of relativistic principles has already become widely established in such concepts as freedom of religion, freedom of expression, as well as the formulation of individual human rights, regardless of race, creed or merit. Yet, these principles are based, primarily, on an intuitive recognition, that such freedoms are beautiful and desirable, and, that the extention of rights to every human being is an idea that goes a long way towards making the world less miserable and strife-torn. We still do not have an accurate formulation of relativistic reality perceptions, nor a precise awareness of the consequences of such ideas and attitudes.

Because of this intuitive reliance upon a sense of beauty and a remarkable degree of faith in the ability of society to withstand the divergent tendencies that arise from freely expressed but contrasting opinions, it has remained difficult for those, who are fully committed to such lofty and liberal ideas, to see, clearly, why these valuable freedoms lead, so often, to chaos and bitter disappointments. Our intuitive feeling that these ideas are good and beautiful, prevents us from scrutinising them thoroughly and honestly. This is one of the reasons, why it is difficult for us to point the finger at freedom as a "culprit" in the cause of chaos.

It is, indeed, difficult to scrutinise or disown our fundamental beliefs and hopes, without being thrown into confusion and despair. Yet, we have to accept the fact, that freedoms and tolerances of individual variability have to be examined and scrutinised with a clear mind and a fearless attitude, in order to explore and analyse all the ramifications of divergent as well as synergistic human behaviour. A coherent, relativistic reality perception should make it clear, what, exactly, we are trying to accomplish with the principles of tolerance, freedom of belief and expression, universal human rights, and the attributes of dignity and justice.

Only, when we keep in mind the essential features of the human personality, as well as the ever-present tendency to revert to a random search for possibilities of existence, only, then, will we be able to discern, clearly, when freedoms are being abused, and, when certain rights become an infringement upon the rights of others. Only, if we keep in mind the ultimate criteria of viability, will we be able to construct a pragmatic set of guidelines that let us function truly in mutual inter-dependence and trust; yet, with a satisfactory level of voluntary choice and a sense of individual fulfillment.

Only, if we realise, that there is no simple trade-off between individual freedoms or fulfillment on the one hand, and, social constraints and obligations on the other, only then, will we realise, that the fullest forms of fulfillment are found in a careful blend of security and opportunity, given to us by our social surroundings, together with the ability to work and contribute to society in accordance with our beliefs and talents. A sense of dignity and well-being in a state of full maturity will, inevitably, lead us to the conclusion, that the ultimate fulfillment of our existence is to be found in some sort of a socially oriented goal-pattern or attitude.

We have outlined these inter-relationships before, and, we have argued, how individual fulfillment is only possible within a social context. We only need to remind ourselves of the necessity to fill our conscious awarenesses with the cultural currency of our social environment, in order to see, clearly, that we would not even have the ability to be aware of our identity, if we would be unable to make use of the cultural tools of our social environment. If we become suspicious and distrustful, we may retreat into a fearful, defensive, and egocentric orientation, but we forget how much we owe to our social environment, as well as the generations that have lived before us.

Certainly, it may be quite legitimate to disagree with a particular cultural locale, in particular, when this cultural locale has sanctioned a narrow, socio-centric, ethnic or nationalistic outlook, but, then, our protest is not a retreat into an attitude of fearful egocentricity, but a courageous admonition to see reality on a broader scale, and, to enlarge our sphere of concern far beyond the boundaries of our particular cultural horizon. Yet, let us always scrutinise our motivations, and, let us honestly admit, if, and when, we pretend to rebel because of a wider or more broadly structured concern for others, while, in reality, we are satisfying our instincts for power, influence or prestige.

Human beings operate under many layers of motivations, and, we may have to strip-away the veneer of our superficial attitudes and professed goals, before we see the hidden and more primitive motivations that are the real guidelines for our behaviour. We are a complex creature with many levels of awareness, ranging from precise intellectual beliefs to vague notions and attitudes, as well as hidden fears and anxieties, and, we present an ever-varying face to our social environment. We are often devious and deceptive, searching for a position of advantage, yet, at times, we may be galvanised into remarkable acts of good-will, trust and brotherly love, radiating a glorious aura of energy, confidence and concern.

The human being, his many appearances, his complex motivations, as well as the many varying belief structures that guide his behaviour, have to be the central point of attention in our future educational efforts, and, from an insight into the way we function, we will come to insights about the way we believe and know. Areas of knowledge will become intertwined and correlated by the broad philosophical outlines of a relativistic reality perception. The specific information from the sciences, historical events, religions, as well as the many artifacts and results of human endeavour, will continue to influence the philosophical approach to our existence and our societies.

Not only, will we understand, how each human being finds its mode of expression and the content of its thoughts, awarenesses and attitudes by nourishing from the cultural pools of mankind, but, we will also see the relationships between tolerance and freedom, on the one hand, and those of obligation and sacrifice, on the other. We will learn to understand, not only, the individual in a moment of his existence, as well as in a pattern of relationships with his environment, but, we will take into consideration, also, the consequences of this remarkable discrepancy in the rate of ageing between the individual and his society. Eventually, we will be able to see ourselves, and our societies, as representatives of an arbitrary moment in a continuous process of historical and evolutionary change.

Just as the cells of our body, at least, in some of the organs, come and go, and, just as the inorganic molecules become part of our cellular structures for only a short period of time, so are we, as individuals, only part of our society for a short period of time. We grow, mature and senesce rapidly in a society with a rate of change, that is, as a rule, much slower than our own ageing processes. Even, if the rate of change in society is quick, resulting in disruptive tensions, the overall life-span of a society encompasses several or many generations. We have discussed, elsewhere, how we have to make use of the biologically given sequences of individual growth, maturity and decline, in order to achieve a state of justice and to make sensibly use of the available human resources.

We still have to learn more about the needs of people, as well as the contributions members of society can make during the various stages of their life-cycle. In our affluent societies, we still have a tendency to waste the incredible energies and potential enthousiasm of our young people. We sow the seeds for a defective cultural assimilation and a life-long suspicion towards the larger society, because we do not understand, how to teach and what to teach our young people. In our fearful anxieties, the middle-aged individual defends, at all costs, his position of financial and social security, often giving-in to slightly dishonest or wasteful attitudes.

We do not have to look very far, before we realise, how poorly we, as a society, understand ourselves. The way our society is structured, the way it functions, the organisation of the work that has to be done, the care and concern for the members; none of these features reflect any sort of conscious design, but, they represent, merely, a precarious tolerance that comes with a measure of inadvertent and, often, resented inter-dependence.

We let our young people wallow in idleness and irresponsibility, while the older generations stagnate in egocentric fearfulness and existential anxieties. We tend to forget our old people completely, except, when we are taxed to pay for their care. The meaning of life and society represents a question we do not even know, anymore, how to ask, let alone, how to answer. We gladly and glibly follow the lure of egocentric consumerism, and, we are constantly gratifying our desires; at least, this seems to be a predominant feature of our affluent societies.

Later generations, if they have the good fortune to exist, will ask themselves, how it was possible for such a large percentage of the common people in these affluent societies to be blinded by the lure of consumerist propaganda, but, then, they may, also, have a better insight into the reasons, why it was possible for large societies to become so dangerously entrapped.

A better insight into the reasons, why there is always the temptation for egocentric instincts to rear their head, will be a major factor in the ability of future generations to shape, consciously, as a deliberate choice, the type of life and the manner of social organisation they want. Their deliberate social designs will, finally, take into account the long-term requirements of human viability.

.......

Summary

1. Confusion about the meaning of "culture".
   Clarification is necessary before agreement is possible.
   A definition of culture; culture is that complex of behavioural guidelines, which is not transferred by the genetic code.
   Conscious and subconscious cultural guidelines.
   A multi-cultural input for most members of modern societies.
   Chance-encounters and the accidents of personal history.
   The entrapment caused by a belief in absolute realities.
   A relativistic way of looking at reality, and the need to be existentially secure before such a perception is meaningful.
   The hypocrisy of praying for peace from a position of existential advantage.
   The need to adhere to a social contract.
   Relativistic aspects in the definition of "culture".
   The deepest truths.
   The search for cultural identity; reasons.
   Equal rights for individuals, as well as cultural guidance-patterns.
   The price of human rights.
   The balance between rights and obligations.
   The many ways we use and abuse our culture without realising it.
   Culture; seen, not as a weapon, but as a tool for understanding.
   
   
   
2. What is culture, and, why are cultural guidelines so variable?
   A stark contrast with our much more uniform biological heritage.
   A short index of topics for discussion, and questions to think about.
   Analysing reality into topics of discussion and foci of attention.
   The earliest indications for behavioural flexibility are found in alternative pathways of movement.
   Cultural guidelines need to be transferred by a process of learning.
   A wide-ranging definition of "culture".
   The fusion of territories with the emergence of a hierarchical order.
   The simultaneous development of different behavioural trends.
   The insect and its pathways of travel.
   The simultaneous expression of territoriality, hierarchical ordening and equality under the law.
   Why contradictory behavioural trends have been encoded genetically.
   Why social instincts have a tendency to be over-powered by egocentric concerns.
   A review of the functions of a cultural code.
   Variations in the portion people absorb from the cultural pool.
   Standardised guidelines for inter-personal contacts.
   Explicit forms of behaviour are formulated, primarily, intuitively and pragmatically.
   With a greater insight into the human personality, it should be possible to formulate a more systematic and generally acceptable code of behaviour.
   
   
   
3. Sexual differentiation; seen as the foundations for social inter-dependence and task-specialisation.
   A comparison with cellular symbiosis, inter-dependence and differentiation in form and function.
   A comparison of the regulatory mechanisms in "social animals" and "social cells".
   A summary of the differences between the genetic and cultural codes.
   Behavioural flexibility, and the need for a cultural code.
   The disastrous effects of an escape from cellular control mechanisms.
   Comparing the differences between a socially integrated group of people, and a cellular community.
   Hierarchical positioning, task-differentiation, and the need for cultural regulators.
   The beginnings of a differentiation into social classes.
   The prelude towards the break-through of communications with symbolic representations, or "language".
   The background of pre-human evolution.
   A timid and outflanked creature.
   The rewards of intelligence, quick adaptations and opportunism.
   The development of contrasting behavioural traits.
   Recalling mental images with the help of mimicry.
   Memory-recall by symbolic representation frees the animal from the dangers associated with a memory-recall through the experience of an analogous situation in "real life".
   Beginning to get a "grasp over reality".
   
   
   
4. The importance of the break-through of symbolic representations.
   A new thing to learn; the connection between symbol and meaning.
   The earliest belief structures are reflected in burial sites.
   The leadership of "story-telling".
   Logic; the need to formulate clear-cut questions and find specific answers.
   Cerebral and mental classification systems.
   The foundation for the concepts of cause and effect.
   Why a variability in symbolic representations leads to differing belief structures.
   Cultural differences are due to varying experiences and interpretations.
   The belief structure; a cultural phenomenon, inter-posed between the sensory and the motoric sides of our behaviour.
   The explicit structure of beliefs, and the voluntary choice in collective behaviour, are gradually becoming more important.
   Emotions are modified reaction-patterns, based upon biologically given instincts and drives.
   The three dimensions of the human personality; the axis of egocentricity and altruism; the axis of emotionality and emotional neutrality or rationality; the axis of contradictoriness and harmony.
   The dimension of time in the make-up of the personality; we exist, simultaneously, in the past, the present and the future.
   The human infant.
   The axis of positive-negative stimuli, and the monitoring of goal-patterns.
   Positive or negative feed-back, giving rise to optimistic or pessimistic feelings.
   The added dimension of responsibility with the possibility to make a conscious and rational choice that benefits someone else.
   
   
   
5. Hierarchical stratification as a substitute for territorial conflict.
   Sexual behaviour, and the need to overcome, temporarily, the forces of competitive dispersion.
   Hierarchical ordening, and the processes of functional specialisation
   The inborn trends of socially integrated behaviour.
   Social behaviour-patterns have to be rewarded and re-enforced.
   Leadership and the price of responsibility.
   A definition of loyalty.
   The many faces of leadership.
   The need to combine force and persuasiveness in complex leadership situations.
   The fading meaning of hierarchical stratification with increasing inter-dependence.
   The vulnerability of inter-dependence.
   The most viable forms of inter-dependence have nearly equal existential advantages for all parties involved.
   Success, strength and dominance over neighbouring societies introduce, once again, an imbalance in social relationships, as well as the beginnings of stagnation and resentment.
   A review of the processes of social decay.
   A definition of relative social health.
   A brief review of topics that have been discussed.
   
   
   
6. Leadership succession, seen as a measure of cultural quality.
   Why religious reality perceptions are generally more attractive than scientific images.
   The tendency of political leaders to place themselves under divine guidance.
   The responsibilities of freedom and scrutiny.
   The ability to prevent the chaos of unbridled freedoms with the tools of reasoned understanding and self-discipline.
   The possibilities for a globally acceptable scientific reality perception.
   Unwarranted faith in an absolute truth.
   Relativistic interpretations are based on emotionally neutral observations.
   The importance of the reality perception when formulating cultural guidelines.
   Shifting perceptions, associated with specialisations in function and cultural differentiations.
   The fragile balance of power in the practice of universal suffrage.
   The incompetent heirs of an elitist class.
   The financial dynasty; its birth and demise.
   Cultural regulators are concerned with long-term social viability.
   Why a cultural code has to be acceptable to all social strata as "just".
   Varying solutions for the ever-recurring tensions in society; the Capitalist versus the Socialist solution.
   
   
   
7. A return to culture and its regulating functions.
   The importance of education.
   The genetic "anlage" of "education", or, "cultural transfer".
   The vulnerability of the behaviourally flexible species'.
   The art of making education relevant.
   The advantages and disadvantages of an autocratic tradition.
   The alertness that comes with multi-cultural diversity.
   The dangers of a vanishing cultural core.
   The need to create, consciously, a globally acceptable cultural core.
   The possibilities for an attitude of scientific objectivity.
   Social transparence, seen as a tool to create trust.
   A network of computers to design a global standard of education.
   The lean corporate structure is a useful model of organisation.
   Education, and the ability to transform narrow economic goals into a greater sense of social responsibility.
   The need for a consensus about the nature and content of our educational programs.
   The need to understand the principles that lie behind the relativity of truth.
   Disasters and tragedies.
   The need to be frugal in life-style, and the ability to control our desire to experience triumph or victory.
   Local leaders have to give-up some aspects of sovereignty.
   Fostering attitudes of concern, insight and mutual respect.
   The role of exemplary behaviour in education.
   Trust needs tangible evidence to remain a viable attitude.
   The clash between incompatible absolute truths.
   
   
   
8. Understanding the mechanisms of anger and anxiety.
   Truth is a matter of opinion.
   The central spectator in the Universe of our reality perceptions.
   A shift in vantage-point.
   A useful practical excercise that functions as the foundation for understanding the principles of relativity.
   A rational approach to the problems of coping with differing view-points.
   Giving-up the hope to find an absolute truth may bring us closer together than ever before.
   A rigid empire of absolute truths.
   The attitudes of relativity and trust can only be meaningful from a position of existential security.
   The vague notions upon which most of our present thoughts and ideas about human rights are founded.
   The need for a clear and precise analysis of our ideas about freedoms and rights.
   The essentially social nature of individual fulfillment.
   Broadening the relevance of a local culture.
   The many layers of motivations.
   Discrepancies in the rate of ageing between individual people and their social environment; a comparison with cells and inorganic molecules.
   The need to learn as much as we can, in order to structure a coherent program of education.
   The waste of an affluent life-style.
   The conscious choice, and the deliberate creation of a viable cultural code with global relevance.

.......