JUSTICE AND PEACE








A Study in Thought

sa037



by





Marius Heuff

Chapter 1

Content

Difficulties with the concepts of justice and peace.
A series of questions.
Freezing a favourable status-quo.
The restless nature of human existence; objectives and ambitions.
Is peace only attractive and meaningful to those, who are weary and tired?
More questions.
Understanding some of the difficulties in bringing-about a condition of justice and peace.
We, and "the others".
Cultivating friends and connections.
Security, and our never-ending efforts to secure positions of power and privilege.
A definition of a Saint.
A dialogue with those who are privileged.
Superficial opinions and solutions.
Laziness, and the problem of rebellious hot-heads.

We all agree, that it is desirable, and beautiful, to have a situation of justice and peace, and yet, why, then, are the actual fulfilment and maintenance of these goals of social harmony so difficult, and, so full of disagreements and disappointments? Is it merely a question of definition? Are justice and peace only a matter of interpretation, or a situation that applies to some, while, for others, it means exploitation and resentment? Are justice and peace, merely, a smoke-screen, a euphemism for the privileged to hold-on to their position by freezing a favourable status-quo?

Is, on the other hand, the obsessive rebellion of the fervent revolutionary motivated, only, by the objective, rather than the practice of justice and peace for all? Is their rebellion, merely, a reflection of the same old struggle for dominance or power, and, will it, inevitably, lead to a new hierarchy of exploitation and inequities?

Are we always destroying our conditions of tranquility and prosperity by boredom and restless agitation, because we forget, so quickly, that the status-quo of "intolerable boredom" is the same status our forefathers fought so hard for?

Are we only interested in justice and peace, after we have grown weary of struggle and war, and, do we always yearn for the excitement of competitive strife, whenever our abundant vitality is unable to find a suitable channel to dissipate its energy during times of relative security and prosperity? Obviously, the conditions we idolise, or yearn for, in times of stress and weariness, are fragile and temporary in nature, and, the conditions of peace and justice are, often, a projection of our hopeful expectations, rather than a clear and realistic mental imagery of the requirements for social harmony.

When do we recognise to be in a situation of justice and peace? Or, can we always find an excuse to complain about something? Can we always find a feeling of dissatisfaction, that will make us yearn for something else? Can we always find a reason to feel wronged? Are we deceiving ourselves, if we say, that we want justice and peace? Are we, in essence, happier, when we struggle and fight against our enemies, preferring to see the conditions of justice and peace as abstract goals, rather than actual coditions we want to live under?

Are we, then, only looking for a reduction in stress, whenever we are tired, and, are we looking for stress, whenever we are full of vigour and vitality? Are we yearning for peace and justice only, when we feel challenged or threatened in our status-quo, and, are we inclined to bring our particular conception of justice and peace with force and violence, whenever we feel, that we have the strength and the opportunity to impose our will upon others?

Perhaps, all these questions are useful to make us realise, why the conditions of justice and peace are not so easily obtainable, in spite of the superficial platitudes we all agree upon. Unless we learn to see these difficulties, clearly, together with the reasons, why these conditions remain so elusive, we will keep shrugging our shoulders in disbelief and incomprehension about the stupidity of other people.

The problem is, that, by shrugging our shoulders in disbelief, we understand absolutely nothing, and, we only perpetuate the myth that "the others" are the stupid people, not us. We agree, that there should be justice and peace, and, we can see such blatant violations of the laws and moral codes of society by "the others", that it is obvious, to us, why justice and peace are impossible. We say to ourselves; "Others have to realise, just like we do, that we have to cooperate and refrain from criminal practices, before we can achieve this elusive harmony of justice and peace", tacitly assuming, of course, that the violations of accepted norms of behaviour are entirely the fault of "the other side".

When accepting the ideals of justice and peace, we rarely acknowledge, that our own attitudes, actions and positions of privilege may be serious obstacles in the fulfilment of the conditions of justice and peace. How often are we willing to examine, carefuly, whether or not our position in society is a reflection of a situation of justice? Do we, perhaps, occupy a position of privilege that is a source of resentment to others? Do we enjoy an income, that is, perhaps, somewhat larger than we really deserve? Do we perpetuate or fortify our positions of privilege and power by cultivating connections with influential people, as well as by our defensive opinions and attitudes, which are, unthinkingly and unquestionably, in support of a favourable status-quo?

"There is nothing wrong with cultivating friends and connections, and adhering to the law and order of our society", you will say. "As a matter of fact, we are behaving as responsible and informed citizens, communicating with those, who are also informed and concerned about the maintenance of the social order. Of course, we consider ourselves good citizens, and, we work hard to bring-about and maintain the social conditions of justice and peace, as well as those of law and order."

Yet, have you asked yourself the question, whether or not the maintenance of the status-quo is, indeed, synonymous with justice and peace? Is the cultivation of your connections, friendships and channels of influence not dominated by a feeling of togetherness with those, who are also in a privileged position? Do you look with some suspicion, or, even, a judgement of disapproval at those social elements, who are rebels and radicals, attempting to overthrow this comfortable social structure?

We can be sure, that we, who are occupying a position of privilege, power or wealth, are always tempted to use our position and influence, our contacts and activities, to maintain, secure or fortify these positions. If we look honestly at ourselves, and, if we examine our attitudes towards people we do not like and do not understand, we notice, that, we are, indeed, constantly fighting for, or, at least, concerned with, the maintenance of a privileged position in society.

Show me one person in a position of power and privilege, who has fully recognised the egocentric orientation of his or her activities and attitudes, and, who agrees about the inherent injustice of these activities and attitudes, and, you will have shown me a Saint. Of course, it is natural, as well as an expression of a normal biological instinct, that we want to hold-on to a privileged position, and, we can often point with a certain pride to the hard work we have carried-out, or, the risks we have taken in accomplishing what we have achieved.

We feel justified in defending this position of advantage against envy and attack, and, you will point-out, that others have just sat-back, enjoyed a leisurely life and spent wastefully whatever income they had, while the successful individual worked and saved hard. "Now, I own a little more than they do. Now, I have a little more than those who did not live frugally, saved consistently or worked hard, and, you come along and say to me, that I am not justified in defending my hard-won earnings or savings, or, the property I own? You say, that I am perpetrating an injustice by defending my holdings against those lazy free-loaders, who have done nothing, saved nothing, and, who are now jealous of my accomplishments. You are out of your mind, if you think that it is "just" to be completely passive and to let others take, whatever industrious people have gathered with many years of hard work".

"Justice is the right to hold-on to the fruits of my labour and the right to relax, now, after I have reached my goals. Justice is, to have some security for my family; the ability to enjoy life after many years of hard work; to see my children succeed with a little help from me, whenever necessary. This is justice, and, if you do not agree with that, you are a leftist revolutionary, who wants to rob the assets of the wealthy with the power of the gun, rather than work for it."

I do not disagree with you at all. I only want to point-out, that we use, invariably, our positions of achievement or privilege to secure a continuation of this condition. I am not judgeing, at all, whether or not this is right, nor, am I judgeing to what extent anyone's position reflects the fruits of personal merit, or the help from family and friends. I only want to emphasise the fact, that we are, so often, not aware of our attitudes and activities, and, that the search for justice and peace is complicated by the entrenched positions of power and privilege that are a feature of every social environment.

We often have superficial solutions for the problems of those, who live in poor and under-privileged circumstances. "Let them work for a change", we say, "let them save and work hard, just like we did, and, the people who are now poor could be just as well-off as I am now. If they were not so lazy, they could have the same privileges I enjoy now", and, usually, we think, that we have thereby solved the problems of disparity and poverty, or injustice and resentment.

If we adopt such an attitude, we are really saying that all peoples, at least, a large portion of those who are poor, deserve their poverty. There is then no reason at all for those, who have less than we, to be resentful or violent. Justice and peace are really so simple, and, we do not understand these revolutionary hot-heads, who risk their lives, and our's, with their pernicious violence. We wished that our governments would be tougher with them and shoot them all! "Where are peace and justice", we ask, as we grow somewhat tired and introvert as a result of the continuous pressures upon our assets and privileges.

.......

Chapter 2

Content

A closer look at those revolutionary hot-heads.
The variable concept of "hard work".
Differences between rebels and opportunists.
The fragile conditions of justice and peace.
A broad look at the relationships between large groups of people.
A wide-ranging field of causes and their effects.
An optimistic outlook on future developments.
A review of the force-fields involved in the events of life.
The "freedom of choice" that is available to the members of mankind.
Why a definition of justice depends, strongly, upon what we believe to be true.
Changing aspects of what seems "just".
Confusing the concept of justice with "advantage".
Looking as an outsider upon a situation of conflict.
The art of judgeing fairly.
The crux of a satisfactory judgement.

Indeed, let us look at the enormous commitments and risks these revolutionary hot-heads take upon themselves. "If they would put this energy to work to make a living, like the rest of us, the world would be a lot better place to live in", you may say, "but, they do not want to work. They fall for the temptation to grab power with weapons, rather than with hard work. They do not seem to believe in peace at all, only in victory and power, and, they would, probably, massacre all those reactionary elements which have defended, for so long, their positions of wealth and privilege!".

It seems that the fruits of hard work, the right to hold-on to the fruits of one's labours, as well as the concepts of justice and peace apply only to those, who have been successful. What about those who did not succeed? Do you think that those, who were too lazy to work for a living, could be persuaded to risk their lives for a revolutionary cause? No, they may be looters in a mob, secure in the anonymity of the multitude, but it is inconceivable, that the attitude of opportunism would sustain anyone in a revolutionary struggle. Opportunists do not have a deep commitment, because they are dull and too complacent, and, they actually like their easy-going life-style and modest requirements.

Society would never be severely challenged by the few lazy people who rather accept social assistance than work. We can not explain the existence of enormous social tensions on those dull and unimaginative people. Besides, we can not really explain, why most people would rather be lazy than work, unless we have let many jobs deteriorate to the point, that no-one could find any satisfaction in them.

If we want to understand the requirements of a harmonious society, and, if we want to understand the reasons, why the conditions of justice and peace are so fragile, we will have to know a little more about the major drives that shape our personality. If we really want to understand what justice means, we will have to be able to analyse, frankly, the mechanisms that play a role in society, and, we should resist the temptation to call, simplistically, for peace and justice, while we are, in essence, only interested in freezing a favourable status-quo.

If we really want to understand the meaning of justice and peace, we will have to look, not only, at the tensions within society, (between those who are privileged, and those who are under-privileged and exploited), but, we will also have to look at the relationships between societies on a global scale. Just as the contacts and inter-actions between the privileged and under-privileged segments of a society always lead to severe tensions and confrontations, so are the increasing contacts between societies, as well as the rising awareness of divergent circumstances and living conditions, a source for tension and strife which has to be resolved by the mechanisms of justice, before we can have peace.

Justice and peace will find their answers in an understanding of the force-fields that lie behind the many psychological mechanisms of the human being, but, these same forces of cause and effect operate on a variety of levels; from happenings on a molecular, cellular and multi-cellular scale, to those within the human individual, the small social grouping, or, between societies on a global scale.

These mechanisms are inter-woven and inter-related, and, it is not easy to grasp them, but, once we have a fundamental understanding of the various forces at work, we will also have a better grip over the mechanisms and happenings that take place between people and their societies. Eventually, we will interpret our own existence in such a broad light of understanding, that we will ask ourselves, how it was possible not to have seen these relationships before.

It is becoming clear, then, that we have to ask ourselves, how people can cooperate and work together in a social context. We have to ask what the driving forces are that lead to the ever larger and more complex social entities of "civilisations" and empires. What are the reasons that such a condition of social cohesion falls easily apart, again, breaking-up into smaller, antagonistic elements? As we have outlined and discussed these questions before, we will only review them briefly, and, at the same time, we will also review the broader questions that relate to the mechanisms of growth and organic complexity, as well as the life-processes in general.

We will, again, lay a strong emphasis on the concepts of energy, as well as the changes that occur as a result of pressure- or tension-gradients. Perhaps, this emphasis on force-fields and logical cause-effect relationships will obscure, to some extent, our abilities summarised under the concept of the "freedom of choice", which is, after all, an essential element in the development of the human personality. We certainly will not forget to look at the human faculty to choose freely and arbitrarily a course of action or events, because this characteristic is, indeed, the crux of the quality of "behavioural flexibility". However, we will see, that, a "free choice", or "free will", does not mean, that an individual or social grouping is going to use this ability completely arbitrarily, because such an arbitrary use of the ability to choose a behavioural response would go against common-sense judgements and evaluations, and, it would lead, eventually, to a loss or deterioration of the quality of viability.

A member of a flexible species may use the faculty of behavioural freedom to make a mistake", inadvertently, as the result of an error in judgement, and, it will, then, learn from this mistake, or, it may make a wrong choice as the result of a mental illness; e.g., when a human being is severely depressed and may harbour suicidal or homicidal tendencies. Indeed, this is a diseased state of the mind, but such states occur, individually as well as collectively, and, we have to analyse them and take them into account in order to make sense out of human behaviour.

If one attempts to define a condition of justice, it becomes apparent, that there are great difficulties for our efforts to come to a widely acceptable definition. The reason is, that the concepts and contents of a state of justice depend, nearly exclusively, upon the belief structures and the tacitly accepted norms or behavioural guidelines accepted by an individual or a social grouping. For a Christian, it is justice, that the sinner who has rejected his God, will suffer eternally under the most horrible conditions, but, for the individual, who does not accept these Christian beliefs, such a definition of justice seems incompatible with those same Christian beliefs that portray God as the embodiment of Eternal Love and Wisdom.

For the individual who has worked hard and is proud of his achievements, any attack upon his fortunes or property will seem unjust, but, the worker who has toiled in near-slavery conditions for his employer, sees the accumulation of such riches as the fruit of his sweat and labours. To the clever merchant, who sees an opportunity to buy cheaply and sell dear, such a practice and its financial rewards will appear as a "just remuneration" for his efforts and good judgement, but, for those, who see their natural resources dwindle rapidly, such a practice is considered to be an act of exploitation and is close to outright robbery.

The subtle shift in alignment of one nation in relation to another, may be interpreted by one side as a realistic appraisal of changed circumstances, but, it may be viewed by the other party as a treacherous breech of contract or confidence. What is considered to be clever and in the best of interests of one nation, may pose a threat to, and evoke a hostile attitude from, another social entity.

The guidelines and laws of most democratic societies are designed to ensure equal opportunity and treatment for all citizens, and, yet, these same laws become, almost always, a tool for egocentric advantage-seeking in the hands of clever opportunists, in particular, when specialised knowledge of the law is primarily available to those, who can pay a high fee. We see, then, that the competitive search for viability, opportunity or dominance, creates, necessarily, diverging interpretations and conflicting existential signals for the parties involved. What is advantageous for one, is, almost always, to the detriment of someone else.

Too often, we confuse the concept of justice with the search for an "advantage". Too often, we call justice what we should call, really, the consolidation of a position of privilege. We really do not know, what justice is, except for the fact, that we all experience a curious awareness that both parties are wrong, (or, that they are right, to a certain extent), whenever we observe a conflict-situation as an outsider.

This outside position gives us a chance to perceive the reality in such a way, that we see, more clearly, the objective or impersonal forces at work in this conflict-situation, and, if we are perceptive and hard-working as a mediator, we are sometimes able to find a position, an opinion, or a judgement allowing us to solve the conflict peacefully. However, a mediated solution or proposal may not satisfy, entirely, the sense of justice of the opponents in a situation of conflict. Often, this judgement satisfies one side more than the other, and, the least satisfied party is likely to feel, that the mediator has not listened to, or weighed carefully enough, the evidence or arguments of its side.

Nevertheless, a review of a large number of such empirical mediation efforts or judgements to settle a situation of conflict, shows, on the whole, that it is possible to defuse many serious conflict-situations by a diligent and careful scrutiny of the antagonistic view-points, and, when it is possible for an intelligent and sensitive judge to reason and explain, convincingly, and in great detail, the methods and mechanisms of his judgement, a sense of satisfaction and understanding may pervade both sides in the conflict, and, they may, even, be able to see, at least, to some extent, the validity of each other's view-point.

This leaves us still in the dark about a satisfactory definition of justice, even, if we acknowledge the intuitive art, or skill, of a satisfactory act of mediation or judgement. The crux of a satisfying judgement seems, indeed, to be the skill and persuasiveness with which an arbitrator or judge is able to discuss and relate the various arguments before him. The attention given to understanding, clearly and precisely, both sides of the dispute, and, the ability to show both parties the misconceptions and egocentricity of their view-points, together with a careful reference to the accepted behavioural codes of society and a sympathetic, if intuitive, understanding for the many emotions that play a role, all these characteristics describe a good judge, but, they do not bring us, as yet, any closer to a satisfying, generalised statement about the nature of justice.

.......

Chapter 3

Content

A look at the requirements for the judicial settlement of a dispute.
A review of mechanisms playing a role in a small unit of socially integrated animals.
The "natural leader".
The phenomenon of the hierarchy, or "pecking order".
The evolution of leadership structures and functions in the larger social environment.
A shift from a hierarchical stratification of individuals to groups of people.
The origins of class-divisions.
A review of early cultural developments in the human society.
A variety of "break-throughs".
The exploitation of labour.
Justice is the ability to avoid a debilitating internal strife; by making most people feel, that they genuinely benefit from belonging to their social environment.
Judicial settlements, originating from precedents and pragmatic examples, as well as generalised principles of conduct.
Behavioural guidelines are always formulated with the needs of society as the central organising principle.
The patriotism of an alien invader.
Complex societies need a definition of justice that can satisfy a large number of different cultural or ethnic groupings.
The first pragmatic steps towards formulating relativistic guidelines.
The problems of defining an attitude of "good-will" without a firm theoretical foundation.
Human rights and obligations.
Behaving collectively as a somewhat spoiled child.
The balance between rights and obligations is, in essence, the balance of an energy-equation.

Let us look at the circumstances under which a judicial settlement is possible. First of all, both parties have to be willing, or be compelled, to submit their dispute to a Court, and, the crux of the situation lies in the fact, that the Court of Law has been given the authority, by society, to impose a settlement. The right to settle a dispute between members of a community is excercised by imposing a binding judgement, and, this imposition of a binding judgement does away with the need, as well as the possibility, to settle a situation of conflict by an armed confrontation. This constitutes, indeed, a fundamental change in the mechanisms of settling a dispute, because, without a judicial settlement, there is only the right of the strongest.

The benefits of a judicial settlement for society lie in the fact, that such a settlement avoids the weakening effects of serious internal strife or outright combat. These primitive and primordial methods of settling a conflict of interest with violence have been made superfluous by the judicial process and the imposition of a settlement, provided, that the settlement can, at least, to some extent, be accepted by both parties as fair and just.

The roots of the judicial settlement go back to the early hierarchical groupings of the socially integrated, behaviourally flexible animals, where the natural leader, (the individual who is able to dominate all others and impose his will), often prevents, with force, a serious fight between the members of his group. It is very likely, that the natural leader has "appropriated" the group by virtue of his territorial instincts, as well as the territory as a whole. The leader considers the entire community and its territory as "his domain", and a serious squabble or fight would pose a threat to the strength and sovereignty of this domain.

This process, where the leader prevents a serious fight and imposes a settlement in a dispute between the members of a socially integrated unit, enforces the mechanisms of hierarchical ordening, where, grudgingly, a rudimentary social harmony and cooperation is made possible by curbing and controling the instinct to settle a dispute with an all-out fight. However, in the hierarchical order, the settlement is imposed without any rules or regulations, and, the empirical position within a hierarchical order, determined by "test-fights", is the only yardstick by which the "fairness" of such a settlement is intuitively judged.

The "hierarchical ordening" reflects, therefore, a situation, where the members will tolerate the authority of those, who have been found to be stronger, and, in turn, they will impose their will or dominance upon those, who are weaker. This is the essence of the well-known "pecking order", and these basic biological mechanisms made the entire process of secondary socialisation possible in the first place. It is no surprise, then, that these mechanisms still play a significant role in the inter-actions taking place in the human society.

We have discussed the reasons, why the growth in size and complexity of human societies required a sophisticated, multi-individual leadership structure, leading, eventually, to confusing and, often, chaotic institutions and bureaucracies. We have also seen, that the enlargement of the membership of a social entity makes a clear-cut hierarchical differentiation between the members more difficult. We have discussed these developments extensively before, and, we have seen, how, eventually, the positions of many, if not most members of a large social unit become "essentially equal". Interestingly, in the large and complex social environment, the hierarchical stratification is, then, more apparent between groups of people, rather than between individuals, and, this tendency for the various sub-groupings within a complex social environment to position themselves into a hierarchical stratum of diverging classes, is a fore-runner of the hereditary class-divisions, which, so often, lead to violent upheavals.

We have also discussed, how the aggregation of people into fertile land-areas forced the development of complex inter-dependencies and cultural innovations, such as an enlarged leadership structure, the formulation of more precise behavioural guidelines, better articulated beliefs and explicit laws. We have also advanced the view, that a particularly fortuitous and successful development in any of these areas would have a remarkably beneficial effect upon the function or viability of the social grouping as a whole, and, such social experiments form the basis for a possibility to grow and expand, if the society is healthy and vigorous.

Sometimes, such an innovative "break-through" would occur because of a particularly successful leadership behaviour or leadership organisation, with, e.g., improvements in administration or tax-collection. Or, the break-through may be a particularly satisfying belief structure, resulting in a strong morale and a tightly-knit social unit, together with an absolute and unquestioned faith or belief in the interpretation of reality. However, such a break-through may also take the form of a satisfying method for solving internal disputes. As a generalised principle, we may say, that a cultural break-through, or innovation, is particularly viable, if a large segment of the population experiences a sense of belonging to this society as a result of such a break-through mechanism.

Therefore, a "break-through" in the form of a parasitic mode of behaviour by the ruling classes, (by exploiting the labours of the lower strata), always resulted in high levels of resentment and tension, which would, eventually, tear the society apart through the mechanisms of violent confrontation, or, more slowly, in the form of social decay. This shows us, clearly, that some changes and innovations have a long-term benefit, often surpassing the life-span of a particular social entity in which the change was pioneered, while other changes may give rise to a temporary viability for a part of society, while reducing and, eventually, destroying the viability of the social unit as a whole, such as, e.g., the parasitic mode of behaviour, exploiting the labour and productivity of the lower classes.

We should also mention this important category of technological break-throughs, (such as improvements of tools and weapons), which allowed a society to increase its power and dominance over neighbouring societies. In particular, innovations in weaponry, methods of conducting acts of warfare, new building techniques, the development of food-storage and preservation, irrigation, cultivation and the domestication of plants and animals, all these developments were break-throughs, allowing a society a larger and more easily sustainable flow of energy, and, as we have seen, such an enlargement of the ability to dissipate energy would lead to a more secure existence. In other words, it represented an increase in viability for the entire social unit.

Justice is, in essence, the ability to avoid debilitating internal strife and conflicts, and, justice represents the ability to prevent the build-up of dangerous and paralysing levels of resentment and mistrust. Mechanisms of justice are, therefore, an important avenue through which a society can increase its viability. The principles of justice were slowly formulated from a long series of practical experiences with the settling of disputes. These formal statements represented verbalised abstractions of common attitudes, feelings and tacitly accepted behavioural guidelines, and, they became open and explicitly stated guiding principles, whenever applied in a judicial settlement.

In spite of such a summary description of social evolution, it is clear, that justice is, indeed, nothing more than the formulation of generally acceptable principles of conduct. This fact is evident in the practice of referring to a long series of actual judicial settlements of the past during a specific Court case, and, it is also clear from a historical review, that these references were, often, imprecise, vague and tentative; insufficient to cope with new types of disputes, as new or different situations of conflict would inevitably arise in a changing world.

The behavioural guidelines of a society had to be centered around the well-being of this society, and the practice of justice in the settlement of a dispute would, therefore, always reflect the prevailing beliefs and opinions of a specific social environment. The laws and guidelines of society reflected the current opinions about what was considered beneficial and harmful, and all behaviour would be judged from the point of view of accepted norms.

If a foreigner, a visitor from another society, would carry-out an act reflecting his particular interests, or, the interests of the society he came from, he would, necessarily, be judged as a traitor by the "host" society, and yet, in the eyes of his own society, he may well be considered a patriot and a hero. The main problem we face, (if we try to define justice objectively and relativistically and not centered around the existential concerns of any specific social environment), is the fact, that a specific judgement is always "socio-centric", reflecting the interests of a particular group or society.

In our times, contacts between people are expanding rapidly, often, on a global scale, and, we feel a great need to formulate a more generally acceptable concept and definition of justice, in order to develop ways to administer the principles of justice internationally. In a way, the needs of all people, and not just those of one or other social grouping, should be reflected in the concepts and definitions needed for the administration of justice. Therefore, we have to face, not only, the fact, that, people's beliefs may be quite different from one social grouping to the next, but, there is an even more difficult task to generalise the system of justice to such an extent that it avoids a local bias, and yet, does justice to the many local variations in circumstances and beliefs.

Within the large, multi-facetted societies of modern times, there are already tentative developments towards dealing with these problems on the basis of relativistic principles, because the large nations of today, (as well as the larger civilisations and empires of the past), embody so many beliefs, so many different interests and divergent behavioural guidelines, cultures or ethnic groupings, that a consensus of justice is not possible anymore on the basis of a common denominator of these beliefs.

This leads to the interesting tendency, (at least, in some of the larger and more sophisticated societies), to separate, quite clearly, the content of a belief from the manner of behaviour. The particulars of an individual's beliefs, in particular, religious beliefs, are, then, considered to be "optional" and variable, while the laws governing behaviour come to rest upon practical considerations and principles of common-sense. These generalised and relativistic laws and guidelines regulate, then, the relationships and transactions between the members of society, and, these generalised and relativistic guidelines take precedence over the precepts of specific religious beliefs or local customs and judgements.

This is a first, pragmatic step in formulating a common concept of justice and essential equality, with an intuitively relativistic attitude towards the particulars of our beliefs. One of the problems we see with such a trend towards a pragmatic and relativistic attitude towards the principles of justice, is the fact, that the moral judgements of what is good and what is bad, are becoming somewhat vague, as the religious and philosophical beliefs underlying these judgements, lose their importance and become somewhat irrelevant.

We should not forget, that all our concepts of justice are based upon the ability to differentiate between what is right and what is wrong. At the present time, many people of good-will emphasise the concepts of individual human rights as a basis for moral and legal judgements, without a clear philosophical awareness of the consequences and limitations that are associated with an unbridled application of the principles of individual human rights. While we have been able to formulate a rather attractive package of principles and rights, we still do not perceive, clearly, the need to formulate a package of obligations as well.

We all are eager to accept a gift from society, (very much in line with the free-for-all philosophy of a consumer-oriented outlook on life), but, we are far more reluctant to consider, in detail and with stern logic, where this gift is going to come from. We understand, even less clearly, that we have to accept a package of obligations in order to make it possible for our societies to give each individual the gift of human rights, and, these difficulties become enormously complex and unoverseeable, if we try to visualise the gift of human rights on a global scale of essential equality.

We all are eager to receive the benefits of belonging to our social environment, and, we are quick to clamor for these benefits as a right of being a citizen, but, we are less eager to contribute our taxes and best efforts towards the same society. We still delude ourselves with the erroneous and pernicious beliefs, that we can afford to give as little as possible, and take as much as we can get hold of. Of course, there are many good reasons, why we do not trust our society to make good use of our taxes, but we should also mistrust, then, the ability of this society to provide us with the benefits and rights we have come to expect and rely upon.

Collectively, we still behave, so often, as a somewhat spoiled child, because we have very little difficulties taking for granted the fact, that our security and energy requirements are provided for by benevolent parents. But, spoiled children, often, have a hard time understanding, that, eventually, these benefits which are so easily taken for granted, have to be earned. The energy-balance has to be maintained. Something can not come from nothing, and, this applies to our societies as well, but, we find it difficult and unattractive to think about all the consequences and responsibilities of our actions and demands.

However, we know, that, in the final analysis, the energy equation has to be balanced. If we fail to look after this aspect of our existence, at some time in the future, we, or our off-spring, have to repay the debts, often at a high price, indeed.

.......

Chapter 4

Content

The beginnings of a global standard of justice.
Why hierarchical in-fighting is futile in a large society.
Differentiations on the basis of an essential equality in status and opportunity.
A statement of basic human rights.
The responsibilities of leadership.
The administration of justice is a leadership function.
The qualities of a good judge.
A greater role for judicial settlements in the future.
The need for "distance", when arbitrating a dispute; various difficulties.
The jury-system.
Offenses against the basic values and beliefs of a social environment.
Difficulties with obtaining strict impartiality.
Justice is a fickle and difficult instrument.

The current ideas about the need for universal human rights are helpful, in spite of the fact, that they are incomplete and give rise to somewhat irrealistic expectations. At least, there is a beginning for a set of guidelines that can be elaborated into a global Constitution of laws and regulations for the administration of a globally valid system of justice. We may not fully understand, as yet, that we have to earn these rights, and, that we have to fulfill our obligations to society in order to make it possible to receive these rights, but, we may look upon the concepts of universal human rights as a basis upon which we can begin to discuss the needs and outlines for a globally applicable body of law.

We know, now, that the enormous multitudes of human beings make the mechanisms of hierarchical posturing completely unworkable, at least, for our inter-actions on a large scale. An awareness of our common biological needs and drives, as well as the relatively small differences that exist between us, make the hierarchical order, (representing a biological experiment with some sort of mechanism to overcome destructive forms of competitive strife), futile and counter-productive for the large and very large social entities.

Certainly, people become very different in the course of their lives, and, we have discussed, before, how this tendency to differentiate can be a great advantage and enrichment for society, provided, that we are able to keep the basic needs and requirements satisfied for everyone. In other words; becoming different through a process of task-differentiation and specialisation in function should lead to a status of mutual inter-dependence, while maintaining a position of essential equality for our existential requirements and inter-actions. A differentiation in functions and skills should not become a mechanism for exerting power for our own benefit, leading to the exploitation and enslavement of those, who are more vulnerable and less competent.

The basic similarities in wants and needs of human beings, make us increasingly aware of the inevitability to accept the concept of a basic or essential equality in existence for us all. Essential equality of the right to exist, to fulfill the basic requirements of life, to be free from hunger or pain, to be free from exploitation, abuse or slavery, and, to be well-informed, are concepts and ideas we all can identify with. This means, that, in the course of our existence in society, some of us will become influential and inspiring leaders, while others find their role in life as followers or supporters. This type of differentiation is natural, and, it is a sound biological and sociological phenomenon, but the power of leadership and the positions of authority have to be safeguarded, constantly, from being abused for egocentric purposes.

Nowhere should it be more obvious than in a position of leadership, that power and privilege have to be earned with hard work, an attitude of responsibility, as well as an outlook of compassionate concern. If the social leadership forgets the natural balance between authority and responsibility, the society under its jurisdiction is doomed, as we have argued before. If a leadership forgets the basic reasons for its existence, such a leadership is corrupt, and, the social unit is, in the long term, unviable.

The members of society are usually not clearly aware of their obligations and responsibilities towards society for the care and the benefits provided to them as a package of birth-rights. But, then, how can people be aware of these responsibilities, unless they have been taught, clearly and comprehensively, by a comprehensive educational curriculum, which is, in essence, a function of social leadership? The responsibilities of social leadership are immense, and, we see, more clearly all the time, the inextricable relationships between the quality of social leadership and the stability and viability of our large-scale social entities.

We do not want to elaborate, here, on the qualities and qualifications necessary for a beneficial social leadership, because we have done so before. Here, we want to focus our attention upon an outline for a world-wide system of justice, as well as the ways and means to get some sort of a consensus about what this system of justice should look like. We know, that the administration of justice is a leadership function, which has been delegated to a specialised branch of the leadership, the judiciary, and, at the same time, we have also established the fact, that the assumption of such a specialised leadership function carries the same responsibilities as all other functions of leadership. This is the reason, why it is so important to use the opportunity of each and every judgement in a Court of Law as a forum for teaching and instructing those, whose disputes are being settled, and, to instruct all those, who are connected with the case, or, who are attentive by-standers, fascinated to see justice in action.

Regardless, how routine or apparently trivial the dispute, the judge should make each time an effort, with fresh energy and an open mind, for the numerous subtleties and variations of each case, in order to understand and "feel" the dispute or the problem at hand. Nowhere in society has an individual the opportunity to influence as much the attitudes and beliefs of others than there, sitting as a respected judge in the leadership function handed to him by society, where he is called-upon to make a wise, just, careful and compassionate judgement.

Unless the judge tries, in each case, to understand the feelings and attitudes of the people involved, he betrays the awesome responsibilities society has bestowed upon him. A bored, tired, careless and insensitive judge is a misfit, just like a tyrant is a misfit. A shirked responsibility, or, a fraudulent attitude towards the obligations of fairness and impartiality can only make a mockery of the social institutions that have been created to dispense justice. In stead of dispensing justice, an unsuitable or corrupt judge would dispense hatred, resentment and contempt, contributing to social decay, rather than providing one of the most powerful avenues to secure social cohesion and mutual trust.

Certainly, similar considerations play a role with most professionals, who have been given a mandate by society to carry-out a responsible function in an atmosphere of complete reliance and trust, and, as a rule, the glamorous relationships of trust and competence that play a role in the contacts between a physician and his patients, are more easily dramatised and publicised. However, the trustful relations between a physician and his patients have, usually, only the health of one individual at stake, but, the competence and impartiality of the judiciary is the main life-giving institution that looks after the health and well-being of an entire community.

I am convinced, that, in the future, the role of the judiciary will be even far more extensive and important than it is now, because the range of disputes that will come under the jurisdiction of the Courts will be greatly enlarged. At the present time, the traditional roles of the judiciary are fairly narrowly defined, and have been divided into the realm of "criminal law", (where an individual or group has acted against society or another individual in a way that is a direct violation of the laws of society), and, the realm of "civil law", where disputes between members of society can be settled with the help of the Court. In the latter case, the dispute does not involve a criminal offense against society or an individual.

Impartiality in judgement is only possible, if the individual charged with the responsibility to judge, is not in any way involved in the dispute. If the judge is involved, or, if he has pre-conceived opinions about the case, then, there is a conflict of interest, and, such a judge should withdraw, voluntarily, from the case by disqualifying himself. If the society is large, it should be possible to find someone competent to judge; someone, who is completely uninvolved with the dispute.

If such a dispute arises between a member of society and a member of the legal profession, the situation is more complex, since the judge or the judgeing official is, at least, in our modern societies, always a member of the legal profession, and, the distance between the judge and the disputing members may not be as large as desirable.

When a member of society has offended or violated the traditions or interests of the society as a whole, a somewhat similar difficulty arises, since the members of the judiciary are also members of society, and, they share, by and large, the same beliefs, attitudes and opinions as the rest of the established members. To a certain extent, such a difficulty can be overcome, if the offending party and the society are both represented by a skilled member of the legal profession; e.g., the Council for the Defense and the Crown Prosecutor. These professionals argue the merits of the case in an emotionally more or less neutral manner in front of a judge, who is often assisted by a jury or a number of colleagues.

The jury system is an interesting participation by lay-people in the judicial process. A group of lay-people, (members of the society at large), are carefully selected in order to prevent, as much as possible, a bias in attitude on the basis of a prejudice or fore-gone conclusions. This jury has the task to agree, unanimously, about a verdict of guilty or not guilty of a charge, or a number of charges, and, the jury only listens to the display of the evidence taking place in the Court room by the legal representatives of both parties under the guidance of the judge.

If a member of society has violated sacredly held beliefs, customs or generally accepted attitudes, the anger and emotional responses of the people involved reflect, often, an attitude that is more emotional than desirable for a reasoned and impartial judgement. Therefore, the case of treason against the State, or, the uttering of an opinion held as detestable or blasphemous, are cases, where the defendant will find it difficult to receive a truly impartial hearing and judgement. Emotions play so easily a major role, then, and, it becomes difficult for the judge to remain objective and see the arguments and motivations from both sides.

What judge will consider the merits of the patriotism displayed by a member loyal to a foreign and potentially hostile power, when considering the facts in a case of treason? What judge and jury can withstand the pressures of partiality and the emotional feelings of horror, when a defendant is accused of refuting or overturning a sacredly held concept or mode of conduct? How can a violent revolutionary, who wants to overthrow the entire system of authority, expect an impartial hearing from a member of the same authority, he is fighting so hard to destroy?

In many cases, therefore, complete judicial impartiality is impossible, but, we see, that, it is, often, difficult for the judge and jury to realise, to what extent their impartiality has been compromised. Many subtle, intuitive and emotional factors are at work, and, most of the time, we are only vaguely aware of the notions, attitudes and behavioural guidelines we generally subscribe to as members of a specific social environment.

Justice is, therefore, a fickle instrument, and, it is a specialised and delegated function of the social leadership. The leadership of every society is primarily concerned with the interests of its particular social environment, as well as safeguarding its authority and leadership institutions. Seen in this light, we recognise, more clearly, the possibilities and limitations of the institutions of the judiciary and the administration of justice under the prevailing laws.

.......

Chapter 5

Content

The "sense of justice"; a review.
The differences between a threat and a disappointment.
A review of the basic classification of sensory stimuli.
The break-through of predation.
Maintaining the basic distinction between positive and negative stimuli.
Confusing and contradictory stimuli.
The emotions of resentment, anger, and a wounded pride.
Multiple codes of behaviour.
The hunter and his prey.
All-out combat.
Tacit agreements or codes of behaviour.
The act of favouritism; tampering with a hierarchical status.
The "near-leader" is likely to be feared and denied access to power.
Polarising force-fields within a social environment.

Let us look, again, at this remarkable phenomenon we all seem to display so well; nl., the sense of justice, or, perhaps, it is much easier for us to recognise a feeling of having been wronged, than it is to recognise, accurately, what course of action or mode of behaviour constitutes a situation of justice. Let us analyse, therefore, the reasons and circumstances, why we may feel wronged, as distinct from being threatened or dominated.

If we experience an acute anxiety or threat, a variety of defensive reactions are mobilised, but, when we feel to have been wronged, we experience a powerful mechanism of anger and resentment, in spite of the fact, that there may not be any significant threat to our existence. What, then, are the mechanisms that lie behind our perception of justice, or injustice; of being wronged, or, at least, what lies behind the subjective impression to have been wronged? How do the mechanisms of anxiety and anger differ?

If we observe the behaviour of a variety of animals, in particular, the more primitive life-forms, we see, that their behaviour can be described by a fairly simple system of discrimination, where sense impressions or stimuli are classified into positive and negative categories. We have discussed these mechanisms extensively elsewhere, but, we should recall to the focus of our understanding and conscious awareness, how life is, in essence, a fluid system of ever-changing biochemical relationships, which has found a possibility of existence by virtue of the ever-present flow of a stream of biochemical or biological energy. The ability to secure a constant flow of biological energy is an important step towards a state of enhanced security, because the organism will, then, be less sensitive to fluctuations or interruptions in the supply of life-giving energy.

The act of predation represents a specific example, how an organism may fulfill its energy requirements, and, we understand, now, much better than ever before, how this evolutionary development has dominated the manifestations of life on earth. Every animal has to be a predator. This means, that, every animal has to ingest pre-fabricated organic materials, be it plant or animal in origin, because the mobility of the animal life-form has made it possible to abandon the somewhat cumbersome processes of photo-synthesis.

In the world of the living organisation, almost all species' serve, therefore, as a source of food for one or other animal, because all animals hunt or gather food. (The hunt represents the process of gathering food in the form of another animal, and, this process requires a more skilled and complex pattern of behaviour compared to the gathering of vegetative life-forms, or, plant-food).

Nevertheless, the basic classification of behaviour-patterns remains based on a discrimination between positive and negative stimuli, and, for this reason, it has been possible to classify animal behaviour into three broad categories. First, there is the aggressive or positive category of looking for food. The corollary is the negative or defensive category, where an animal tries to prevent being eaten by a predator, and, thirdly, there is a somewhat separate and often complex category of behaviour associated with the functions of sexual contact and reproduction.

These categories are visible, even, in the uni-cellular animal, where the organism develops the capability to distinguish between a positive or beneficial stimulus, (which it will try to maintain as long as possible), and a negative or harmful stimulus, (which the organism will try to avoid or resist). This basic pattern persists in the more complex animals, in spite of the enormous elaboration of the range of behavioural responses.

All animals analyse the incoming stimuli into categories of similarities, which are, then, compared to an innate or an acquired system of reference of existentially significant stimuli. We have discussed, before, how many stimuli or groups of stimuli are being received by the more complex organisms. These stimuli may well be contradicting each other, and, this makes the choice of an adequate response much more difficult. When we look at the animal species' that are closely related to us, we see, that their behaviour-patterns are becoming increasingly more complex, but, we still do not see, to any significant extent, the many features that have become so important in our own behaviour. We do not really see the emotions of resentment, anger or a wounded pride, which are such important behavioural organisers for us, human beings. Can we trace the origins and development of these, apparently, rather specifically human behavioural traits?

In response to this question, we may summarise our conclusions by saying, that the social organisation of human beings evolved complex and overlapping codes of behaviour. These are mainly subconscious agreements, well below the level of abstract thought and verbal expression. If these codes are violated, we develop a sense of anger, resentment and mistrust, and, we will trace these mechanisms in more detail, because they are essential for an understanding of the mechanisms or requirements of a condition of justice and peace.

When an animal hunts its prey, we see, that it anticipates a good meal, and, usually, the predator shows an ebullient confidence in the success of the hunt. The hunted prey exhibits an extreme form of anxiety, organised into a wild flight or a desperate last stance. In neither animal can we see any behaviour that resembles, even remotely, a feeling of "resentment" or a "wounded sense of justice". The prey does not feel "wronged" by being hunted, nor is the hunter bothered by any feeling of "conscience", or a sense of having done something wrong. The reasons are, that neither animal violated any sort of agreement or code, because there are no agreements between the hunter and its prey.

Similarly, two men in an all-out combat-situation are fighting to the death, and the loser expects to be killed, while the victor finds it completely natural to slay his enemy, whenever he can. Again, there is no violation of any agreement in such a situation, and, both sides expect, at least tacitly, this type of behaviour. Both sides accept the results of a battle, even, if the disastrous consequences of a defeat and certain death are rarely scrutinised, clearly, before-hand, since such a reflection upon possible disaster would evoke alarming, or, even, paralysing levels of fear.

However, a measure of tacit agreement has been reached by a group of people who have positioned themselves into a hierarchical order. The order has been formed "naturally", and, it reflects accurately each individual's capabilities. After such a tacit and completely subconscious "contract" has been reached in the process of "secondary socialisation" of the complex, behaviourally flexible animals, any deliberate violation of such a hierarchical order will be resented. For example, if the leader or leadership of such a group brings another member into a position of artificial prominence by an act of favouritism, the status or position of power which such an individual assumes, exceeds, then, the natural abilities of this member, and, this means, that he or she occupies a position within the group on account of a special, favoured relationship with the leadership, and not on the basis of his or her own abilities as a personality.

This artificially elevated position has to be continuously protected by the leadership, and the relationship can be terminated, arbitrarily, at any time. Usually, there is an exchange of favours at work in such a situation of favouritism. In return for the special status of favour or prominence given to an individual or a small group, the individual or group will have to be extra-ordinarily loyal, or, even, enslaved to the leadership.

The elevation of a favoured but weaker individual is, therefore, brought-about by a tacit agreement. Elevation in status is paid-for by unswerving loyalty and devotion, and, this bond of enslavement may lead to all sorts of acts that serve the egocentric needs of the leadership. In the complex, modern societies, we see such acts as spying or the carrying-out of military services. The leadership of society, often, pays a high price for such services, especially, if these services are geared to the needs of the leadership, rather than the needs of society as a whole.

The leadership may fear a competitor; someone, who is only just below the hierarchical position of an established leader, and, by favouring a group of less powerful individuals, the leadership tries to fortify its position against the probable challenge of those, who have aspirations to become leaders themselves. This mechanism is so common, that we may safely state, that, nearly every leadership makes use of this technique, be it mostly subconsciously. Every leadership surrounds itself with trusted allies and advisors. The stronger elements within a social grouping are then actively pushed back or aside, because they are feared and mistrusted by the established leadership, and, this is one major reason for the deep divisions of so many social groupings, especially, when the members of society become polarised by strongly antagonistic leadership candidates.

The great wisdom of an elected leadership resides in the fact, that the struggle for power and the maintenance of a position of leadership are changed from a ruthless, primitive and violent battle, to a contest or race for popular support and confidence. Indeed, this has been one of the most valuable cultural innovations of all times, and, this mechanism allows for the dissipation of powerful energies, as young and ambitious people search for a position of prestige and influence.

.......

Chapter 6

Content

A "clash of personalities".
The near-leader as a leader of a sub-grouping.
The many roles of the members of society.
Democratic mechanisms grind to a halt through corruption and inefficiencies.
A basic injustice; the abdication of leadership responsibilities.
The road towards interminable squabbling.
Constitutional Guidelines; only a meagre beginning, so far.
The lack of insight.
The requirements for future Constitutional Guidelines.
The widespread practice of favouritism.
The need to become more aware of harmful attitudes and practices that are still considered to be normal or, even, desirable.
The under-privileged youngster.
Hypocrisies.
People live in only a very small segment of their society.
The widespread experience of discrimination.
Discrimination, sliding towards corruption.
The poorly defined concepts of justice.
Practices of injustice.

We like to focus our attention upon one of the most common and important causes of resentment, anger and frustration. For example, a powerful, highly placed individual, a near-leader, is barred from access to, and cooperation with, the established leadership, because he is feared by the leader, and, the near-leader or competitor shows, often, a measure of contempt for the established leader. This is a classic situation of conflict, which is somewhat vaguely described as a "clash of personalities".

In the complex societies, these near-leaders often form their own sub-groupings and they function, then, as a leader for a sub-grouping. Interestingly, these sub-groupings develop all the trappings of a leadership structure with its own hierarchy. Ironically, these near-leaders become established leaders themselves, even, when in opposition to an established leadership. They may function, officially, as an "opposition leader" in a politically pluralist society, or, they function as a revolutionary leader, whenever the mechanisms of the democratic process have reverted back to the use of raw power.

The mechanisms of challenge, with the danger of further fragmentation, repeats itself, because we are dealing, here, with basic behavioural characteristics in the struggle for power. Society, therefore, has a tendency to become a complex mosaic. There is an established, overall social leadership with multiple governmental or bureaucratic channels, and, there is always a tendency for some members of this bureaucratic structure to assume leadership roles themselves. People in a position of near-leadership and responsibility will show varying degrees of allegiance to the overall leadership, and, they have a tendency to structure around themselves a replica of the same channels of leadership and leadership challenges, as we see in the larger society.

Similarly, throughout society, many of the members may play a role in one or other sub-structure, functioning in varying degrees of harmony and dissent with the established leadership institutions of the overall society. Many members fulfill various roles of leadership and near-leadership, and, they participate in all the machinations and intrigues that are associated with a struggle for power.

The feelings of resentment that arise, whenever a talented and ambitious individual has been snubbed and replaced by a clique of loyal favourites, can be alleviated, to some extent, if the society has the ability to absorb dissent and provide for an outlet to voice differences of opinion and approach, as we see in the multi-Party systems of politically pluralistic societies.

However, the ultimate ambition of many vigorous and talented people is represented by the drive to become the overall political leader of a large society, and, if the democratic mechanisms grind to a halt by corruption and inefficiency, the forces of dissent will, inevitably, opt for a violent challenge to the established leadership and its entourage of favourites. Attitudes of resentment, together with the feelings of a wounded pride and justice, are powerful emotive forces in all of us, and, they result from broken agreements, as well as unauthorised changes in the basic mechanisms of hierarchical ordening, which reflects, in essence, a differentiation on the basis of individual merit.

The consequences of a leadership that has become increasingly egocentrically motivated, are far-reaching, and, it is fair to say, that the abdication of leadership responsibilities is the main reason for social tensions in each and every society. In a way, it is justified to call this the fundamental cause of injustice. It is an unforgivable fault, always made and always repeated by people in a position of power and responsibility, because these consequences and mechanisms have never been fully recognised and acknowledged.

The reason, why this "basic injustice" of tampering with the natural hierarchy of personal merit and strength causes such strong emotional reactions, lies in the fact, that the practice of favouritism is an offense against our primary biological heritage. We have seen, how nature has carefully prepared the social animals for a role in a socially integrated grouping; by exploring the mechanisms of a natural hierarchy, together with the functions of small-scale social leadership with its many explicit and implicit responsibilities.

In fairness to many of our modern insights, we should acknowledge, that these mechanisms have, at least, been recognised intuitively, and, the practice of allowing opposing political Parties that are represented on the basis of a popular vote in a Parliament or a House of Assembly, to openly debate with each other, is an essential step forwards towards avoiding a dispute from deteriorating into a clash of arms. At the same time, the formation of a majority or coalition government, (if necessary), goes a long way to alleviate many of the severe stresses within a society, resulting from diverging opinions and conflicting interests. These stresses are aggravated by artificial hierarchical displacements and leadership favouritisms, which are an inevitable by-product of the excercise of leadership powers from a position of incompetence.

However, it is possible, and, even, likely, that such a democratically constituted government will quickly lead to interminable squabbling and chaos, unless precise Constitutional Guidelines guide the elected representatives and their leaders through the maze of functions that have to be carried-out, in order to secure the continued survival of society and its representative leadership. Unfortunately, these Constitutional Guidelines are still lacking in precision and scope, because we, the peoples in democratically governed societies, have still not become sufficiently aware of the many important functions a Constitution has to carry-out, and, we are also insufficiently aware of the many responsibilities we, ordinary citizens, have towards our democratic societies.

In most politically pluralist societies, the Constitution has begun to regulate, in broad outlines, the basic inter-actions of a society and its people, and, this Constitution describes, at least, to some extent, the structure of government. It does not describe in sufficient detail, however, the long-term objectives of a society, or the relationships with its neighbours, and, it leaves almost untouched the questions of mushrooming bureaucracies, fiscal policies and responsibilities, economic goals and priorities, governmental and leadership practices with their tendency to secrecy and incompetence. Nor, does the Constitional Guidelines address the many aspects of "national security", the level of transparence that is desirable in society, and the rights of citizens and officials to know about what is going-on. We have outlined many of these aspects before, and we will not pursue this line of thought any further.

We have discussed one of the major sources of resentment, anger and a wounded sense of justice, nl., the practice of leadership favouritism and hierarchical displacement from a position reflecting personal merit or achievements. However, we should not come to the erroneous conclusion that only leaderships are practicing favouritism. The practice of favouring our friends, relatives and children is so widespread, that, in many instances, we do not even recognise this as a favouritism or an injustice. On the contrary, we accept and actively propagate such practices as examples of responsible and concerned parenthood; as examples of loyalty and friendship; as mechanisms of a natural trust in kinship relations. Yet, if we examine these conditions carefully and objectively, we must come to the conclusion, that all these attitudes are nothing more, and nothing less, than favouritism, extended from a privileged position to those, who are closest to us by kinship or friendship. As a result, we by-pass many strangers, who may well be more capable and more deserving of a helping hand than our own children, relatives or friends.

It is perfectly natural for anxious parents to want to help their children in the struggle for a position in society, in particular, when society encourages competitive strife, but, we should realise, that we destroy the principles of equal opportunity for everyone, if we give-in, even, if only in minor forms, to the desire to see our children begin life with a head-start. We have argued, before, how children from successful parents have already an edge over those born into slums or disadvantaged social conditions, because of the fact of having received a valuable parental example and a better educational input. Almost invariably, children born from successful parents have a better formal education, and, they have much better access to institutions and influential people. Often, they have a financial advantage as well. Equal opportunity for all is an attractive catch-phrase, but few of us are, really, willing to look seriously at all the implications such a concept entails.

Look at the intelligent but under-privileged youngster, who is growing-up under disadvantaged circumstances, and, who is easily somewhat ashamed for the failures of his parents. He learns and experiences, every day, that he is somewhat discriminated against, and, that he is often feared and mistrusted by those who come from the comfortable establishment. Growing-up in an increasing awareness of the hypocrisy of the professed ideals and beliefs of society, the under-privileged youngster can not help but feel a sense of resentment and anger, because he knows, that the mere fact of his place of birth and racial origin, his manners and dress, his education and associations, are going to make it more difficult for him to succeed and gain access to the traditionally desirable top positions in society.

Hierarchical displacement and favouritism are practiced by us all, because the moment our disadvantaged youngster has fought himself into a position of relative power and influence, he will be favouring those of his own background; at least, he should, if he wants to be considered as a decent human being, and, by this time, he will have accepted the hypocrisies of his society. It is certainly true, that the very large and fluid societies have, now, so many possibilities for so many different cultures and ethnic groupings, that it is difficult for any particular group to maintain a privileged position for any length of time. However, it is not difficult to recognise, that these mechanisms of favouritism and hierarchical displacement still occur, and, the hypocritical discrepancies between the realities of social life and the professed beliefs in a universal and equal opportunity for all members, are clearly visible to us all.

The effects of discrimination may be "smoothed-out", somewhat, in the overall complexity and diversity of a large society, but, we should not forget, that people do not live "all over a country". They live and grow-up in a particular locale, and, often, their cultural horizon is small and their real opportunities are limited, in spite of a theoretically nearly unlimited field of opportunities to "make it" in the society at large.

The experience of anger, resentment, frustration, discrimination or a wounded sense of justice, is so widespread, that we are all familiar with these feelings; even those, who have experienced a smooth acceptance into the world of "the establishment". The nature of the human being is such, that, regardless, how privileged one is, or, how close to the source of power one has come, one will always experience the fact, that someone is afraid, and, it is natural to see the mechanisms of envy and fear trying to block the rise of an individual by favouring a competitor, or, by favouring someone, who is willing to be a docile and loyal follower.

The practice of favouritism may involve the dispensation of official duties within society. A bureaucrat has been given a position of power on the clear understanding, that he or she should administer and distribute the serivces of the State even-handedly amongst the people. If one violates these self-evident guidelines, a condition of corruption occurs.

In corruption, favouritism is often dispensed in exchange for monies, and the subject of favouritism is, then, not the product of hard-won earnings or a natural leadership position, but, the abuse of an entrusted public position or function. Any entrusted legacy, be it from an individual or a group, may be abused by the corrupt and illegal "sale" of this legacy to the highest bidder, and, this is a direct violation of the intentions and instructions given to the agency or people who handle this legacy. This is corruption, fraud, theft, abuse of a privileged position or privileged information, and, the ramifications are endless. Yet, in many societies, throughout history, these practices were so common, that the disastrous nature of these attitudes and practices was not recognised, until the consequences of corrupt practices had become widespread.

Even, now, we hardly recognise the many subtle forms of corruption and injustice we all practice. Often, we honestly interpret a slightly corrupt or unjust practice as "normal" human behaviour, without realising the potential for harm to the people, and society as a whole, if these slightly amoral practices are allowed to dominate the attitudes of everyone.

The definition of justice, as well as the practices of just behaviour, are so ill-defined, and, the affront to our sense of justice, is, therefore, so widespread, that we have hardly begun to recognise all the instances of injustice and corruption, and, we see, therefore, that the practice or situation of injustice merges imperceptibly with conditions that are genuinely considered normal, or, even, desirable.

......

Chapter 7

Content

We have a lot to learn.
Mechanisms associated with a wounded sense of justice.
A few curious examples.
Jealousy and envy; pre-judged attitudes and activities.
Deception and contempt.
The mechanisms of "treachery"; an abuse of trust.
Treachery, seen as a revenge.
The potential to understand human motivations.
The hidden fight; fighting from a position of weakness.
Sibling rivalry.
The difficulties associated with accepting failure.
A summary of basic emotional mechanisms.
Guidelines for "acting-out" a conflict.
A look at sports and games.
The importance of precise, open and scrupulously impartial rules.
The "win", seen as a reflection of skills, as well as an object of admiration.
The game, compared with the game of living in society.
The conflict, seen as a "game that went wrong".
The decay of guidelines, and its effects upon social behaviour-patterns.
The blurring between right and wrong.
Society; a brittle shell without strength or resilience.
When open hositlities and armed conflict are just around the corner.

We have a lot to learn. Let us consider a few other mechanisms, where the sense of justice can be injured. Undoubtedly, one of the largest groups we have just discussed, but, there is, for example, this rather curious situation, where the sense of justice is increasingly irritated, while the actual circumstances for the individual or group may not be deteriorating at all, but, may, actually, be improving. We are thinking about the situation, where a previously exploited and enslaved community is in the process of liberating itself. The rapidly rising level of awareness and education amongst the more perceptive and impatient members, creates an ever greater awareness of the indignity and injustice under which the people have existed for so long. The expectations about improvements, as well as the judgements about the level of affront against the sense of justice, are rising faster, than the rate of actual improvements, and, as a result, the tensions rise, rather than diminish, in spite of the fact, that conditions and circumstances are getting better.

A somewhat similar situation exists, when we look at a generation that has been enslaved by a conqueror. They have been spared their lives, and, these people feel a sense of gratitude towards their "masters", but their children, born in bondage, can only see the unfortunate accident of their birth in comparison to the children born to their masters. Inevitably, attitudes of deep resentment develop, together with a wounded sense of justice, in spite of the fact, that these children may be much better of than their parents.

We should have a look at the mechanisms of jealousy or envy, because they are, often, closely associated with a wounded sense of justice. Jealousy and envy are negative attitudes and behaviour-patterns; at least, they have been judged negatively by observers in the social environment, and, these attitudes can easily cause a situation of injustice for those who become the target of such attitudes. These behaviour-patterns are often associated with deception and contempt. (Deception is the hidden fight of a weaker member against a more powerful opponent, when open hostility is impractical and would only lead to disaster).

Great damage and harm can be done, when leading an individual or a community astray by an act of deception, which deliberately falsifies the reality perceptions of such an individual or group. This deliberately induced error of perception and evaluation may lead to a logical behavioural sequence that ends in disaster, often, to the glee and satisfaction of the deceiving individual.

This type of abuse of the function of trust is deeply resented by the victim, and it provokes a deeper feeling of hostility and hatred for such treacherous behaviour than an open act of rebellion or hostility. Again, we see, here, that an agreement has been broken. This is the tacit agreement, or assumption, that communications should be as truthful as possible.

The motivation for perpetrating an act of treachery and deceit is, often, based on some sort of revenge, and, it becomes, then, a reaction to the wounding of a sense of justice. We see, therefore, long and complex behavioural sequences at work, in which the sense of justice, as well as varying injuries or infringements upon these emotional evaluations, play a major role. However, if we analyse human behaviour carefully, and, if we make sure, that we grasp accurately, at least, the main motivating factors, human behaviour becomes a great deal more understandable and predictable than our first impressions would let us believe.

Exploitation, abuse, dominance, and, in particular, a trampling of the sense of dignity, the abuse of trust, and the taking of an unfair advantage, are behavioural acts that profoundly shake the sense of togetherness of a community, and, such acts and attitudes create a deep feeling of frustration and resentment, because the situation does not allow for a quick and easy counter-attack or punishment of the perpetrators, and, it is not surprising, therefore, that an act of treachery is revenged with an equally treacherous or deceitful act. Here, we find the causes for a series of destabilising, cunning and treacherous behaviour-patterns. In the words "envy" and "jealousy", we imply, already, a judgement, because these concepts indicate, that the behaviour of the individual to whom these descriptions apply, is considered to be wrong. We have, here, an interesting example, where a behavioural act is named and judged at the same time.

If we leave the aspect of judgement aside, for a moment, we see, that the emotions or behavioural complexes we label as envy or jealousy, are generated as a reaction to some sort of a perceived injustice. The envious person or child behaves in such a way, because he or she feels, intuitively, and, often, quite accurately, that someone else, a sibling or close relative, a friend, or someone else in the small community, has received a measure of recognition or success that is not deserved, or, that it is the result of an erroneous and biased judgement of the social environment. The reaction of jealousy and envy indicates, therefore, that the individual has not accepted the social judgement and the accompanying change in social status. Obviously, this reward, whatever it may be, has been highly valued by the person who is jealous, and, often, a great investment of effort and hard work has been made to obtain the rewards that have gone to someone else.

The acceptance of failure is difficult, and, the feeling of resentment and anger, disappointment and envy, may not be associated with a clear and rational ability to explain or describe, precisely, why the judgement is felt to be unfair, superficial or biased. The intensity of the emotional reactions prevents an individual from analysing and perceiving the reasons, why he or she feels this way, but, later, after a feeling of exhaustion and relaxation has set-in, when the emotions have been vented in tears or wild accusations, then, it is often possible to argue sensibly and convincingly about the reasons and background of such a reaction, and, many people will be able to agree, that the feelings of disappointment and frustration were, at least, to some extent, justified.

Perhaps, we can summarise these somewhat confusing conceptual relationships as follows; in the primitive biological struggle for survival, the competitive effort is totally without guidelines or agreements. Therefore, primitive combat is not guided by any rules of conduct. The winner takes all, and, it is, therefore, not possible for the loser, (who usually loses his life anyway), to feel cheated, robbed, unfairly treated or wounded in his sense of justice. In human conflict or combat situations, we see, at least, in the most primitive and savage forms of confrontation, also, a remarkable absence of any rules of conduct; at least, the loser, if captured, does not even expect to live. The conflict is "all-out", mobilising all the possible energies, and, this leads, most often, to this primitive but effective solution of an unbridled conflict-situation; the survival of the strongest.

However, in every situation, where there is, at least, some social integration, conflicts, as well as other mechanisms that dissipate the energies of confrontation, have developed certain rules or guidelines in which the conflict and its solution are to be "acted-out". This may range from a modern Court-room battle, (either, as a criminal prosecution, or, a civil law-suit), to a variety of imposed settlements or controled and ritualistic fights. In every case, the conflict becomes clothed with a set of guidelines to which the participants are expected to adhere.

In the voluntary games of sport's and athletic contests, we see, most clearly, how a carefully constructed and completely transparent set of rules and guidelines allows competitive drives and pressures to unfold themselves in a framework of friendliness and mutual respect, because the outcome of the game does not, nor should it, have any lasting existential significance; as long as the competitive act is carried-out in strict accordance with relevant rules and regulations; a condition, every competitor or spectator can and does verify for himself, even, if he or she does so, mainly subconsciously.

It becomes, then, possible for everyone to accept the victory of the winner as proof of superior skills, and, the win can be acknowledged and admired, usually without too large a feeling of disappointment or resentment. Any suspicion, however, that victory has been obtained by a circumvention of the rules, will cause, immediately, a wave of protest and a feeling of anger and resentment. An agreement has been broken; trust has been abused, and the sense of justification for the victory of the winner has been shattered.

While competing voluntarily in a game is, primarily, an enjoyable test of skills, with an emphasis on a fair victory according to the rules, we can see in most conflict-situations of "real life" a mixture of existential factors. On the one hand, there is a far stronger emotional involvement, since the conflict is not based upon a voluntary agreement to test a certain skill, but reflects a conflict of interests that arises from the need to exist. Nevertheless, in a social entity, the parties recognise, at least, subconsciously, that an all-out fight to the death would be inappropriate.

The conflict often stems from the feeling, that one of the parties has gained an unfair advantage, and, that it has violated the many tacit and explicit rules and guidelines that are functioning in society. The conflict is, therefore, in essence, based upon a "game that went wrong", and, the solution is arbitration; not a fight to the death, unless the mechanisms to impose justice and arbitration have already crumbled. Then, conflict situations between individuals or groupings within a social environment deteriorate rapidly towards a primitive, all-out fight for power and control. The sense of justice, then, fades into the background, as the framework of rules and regulations has also been pushed into the background.

Let us see what happens, if a large and complex society starts to lose the clarity of its behavioural guidelines; this structure of rules and regulations upon which social cohesion has been based, and, which allows the mutual relations of trust and good-will to flourish. Obviously, the distinction between what is right and wrong becomes fuzzy. The people become confused about what they can or can not do. The whole concept of what is criminal and what is not, fades into a bewildering uncertainty, where the nagging feeling may arise, that those, who are considered criminals, are merely people who have opposed the arbitrary powers of those who are excercising power, and, that more criminal elements are outside the prison walls than within.

If such cynical attitudes reflect a widespread perception of the realities of life amongst the ordinary people, then, society has already deteriorated into a fragile and brittle shell, without any strength or resilience. It has become a structure, held together, only, by the massive momentum of economic inter-wovenness, and, it will completely collapse and disintegrate, as soon as it experiences significant external pressures or internal violence.

Existential anxieties increase sharply, as soon as mutual trust disappears. A blatant egocentric orientation becomes the only meaningful attitude, and, the processes of social decay are accelerating, as internal tensions mount rapidly. Confidence in the fairness and competence of the leadership and its governing institutions are quickly fading; corruption spreads rapidly and openly; armed conflicts, political assassinations, brutality and torture are just around the corner, and may become widely used, as soon as the society has become a battlefield for insurmountable tensions and warring factions.

.......

Chapter 8

Content

Justice can not exist without a social structure.
Trust, and the ability to communicate.
The inertia of social mechanisms, including the "economic momentum".
Rising tensions, enslavement, and a helpless and hopeless outlook.
The soothing effect of dreaming about pleasures and money.
The use of sense-dulling drugs in a decaying society.
Corruption, misery, violence and exploitation.
A bursting bubble of lethargy.
Surrender.
The shifting balance of power.
A gloomy picture, and the anger or anxiety it may provoke.
A series of questions.
Questioning the beliefs of the Christian Faith.
An invitation to consider the concepts and imagery of natural evolution.
The limited benefits of a religious belief structure.

Justice can not exist without a social structure, and, it vanishes as soon as social guidelines crumble. We have outlined, before, how closely the process of justice is linked to the existence of agreements. Even the experience of a wounded sense of justice disappears, as people resign themselves to the inevitability of war. Then, there is no other solution besides all-out conflict, since the mechanisms of trust and arbitration have disappeared, and, with the disappearance of mutual trust, we also lose the ability to communicate and understand each other.

How can I understand you, if I do not trust what you say? I am not sure what you mean, and, I am only concerned with safeguarding myself against deceit or attack. At the same time, I am constantly searching for a weakness, an opening, an opportunity to attack you, whenever I get a chance. How can we communicate or understand each other in such an atmosphere of distrust?

It is remarkable, how far social decay can progress, with an almost total disappearance of moral and behavioural guidelines, and yet, externally, the social structure still exists. The nation is still intact. There are enormous tensions, and distrust has become the norm. Public taste and opinion reflect an indifference to the attitudes of corruption and egocentricity, and, there is a widespread pre-occupation with sensual pleasures and the gathering of money. The concepts of right and wrong have become blurred. Justice and punishment for wrong-doings have become empty slogans. Success is measured in the level of power and wealth one has obtained. How this success was accomplished becomes irrelevant. Yet, outwardly, the society carries-on. Its lumbering government institutions carry-on. Its businesses and political leaderships carry-on. Everyone carries-on, because we have no choice. We have entangled ourselves, economically or financially, for the next twenty-five years or so.

I am convinced, that, many of our modern, affluent societies have decayed and crumbled to a point, which would normally have resulted in a violent upheaval, a long time ago. However, the relatively widespread affluence and its entrapments, the financial enslavement of a large part of the population, the worlds of business and the bureaucracies, they all form some sort of a "cementing substance" that keeps these societies together, but, not indefinitely. As inflation or unemployment rise, the burdens of financial obligations become precarious, or, even, hopeless, and, people may suddenly give-up the endless search to get money together and go on a rampage.

As long as the dream of egocentric affluence and sensual pleasures continues to satisfy most of us, we will continue to lumber-on for a few more decades. However, the crunch will eventually come, because the expectations are still rising, and, we are rapidly reaching a point, where such a localised affluence and wasteful life-style, seen from a global perspective, become intolerable to the lean, vigorous, intelligent and informed peoples of the world, who have matured in austerity, while we, affluent nations, have decayed in luxury.

The frustrations and confused attitudes of a restless people, bewildered by the collapse of their social guidelines, can be soothed, for a long time, by the dreams of pleasures and the availability of money, or the euphoria of drugs and other distractions, and, it is not surprising, that we are witnessing an enormous growth of the illicit traffic of drugs, supplying huge quantities to many desperate and hopeless people in these decaying, affluent nations. This trade, with its unstoppable appeal of instant wealth and an escape from drudgery and anxiety, lures millions upon millions of people to the use and sale of drugs, exploiting, ruthlessly, the gullible and vulnerable members, who have become hooked on drugs of one sort or another.

These people are willing to enslave themselves even further, because their existence is, in essence, already hopeless and meaningless, and, they might as well pass the time with a few moments of euphoria and oblivion. Corruption, misery, violence and exploitation contribute to the disappearance of the last vestiges of moral strength and human dignity. The opium dens of a corrupt and stifled Orient of the past, so prevalent only a few decades ago, are repeated on a gigantic scale in the West. It does not take long to make the transition from master to slave; a few generations is sufficient.

What happens, when this bubble of lethargy and euphoria bursts? What would happen, if the future poverty of the still affluent nations makes it impossible to afford these drugs? What would happen, if, finally, these generations wake-up, and realise, that everything has been lost? It is likely, that, even, the will and opportunity to fight a Revolution for a better society will have been lost. The confusion and misery, the degeneration and decadence may be so deep, that millions upon millions of people will gladly surrender to an alien power without so much as a whisper of resistance.

"Would that not be a desirable and peaceful solution to the problem of decadence and corruption?", you may ask. Rather than fight a hopeless struggle, why not give-in, because in our collective awareness we may already have come to the conclusion that we deserve to be conquered. However, we may tacitly assume, that such an alien power will let us continue our existence in euphoria and oblivion. This may not be the case, unless it is the permament oblivion of mass-extermination.

While the developing nations are taking a short-cut to power and independence by adopting all the useful features of Western technology, they must be watching with a certain glee the increasing pre-occupation of these Western nations with the demoralising consumption of drugs and all sorts of sensual pleasures. They know, that, in another generation or two, the West can be taken-over, without spilling a drop of blood. They know, that, with time, they can just walk-in and take possession of the lands as well, after they have already taken control of industries and economic enterprises.

Is this too gloomy a picture? Is this angering you as a reader, or, are you angered, because your fears have been aroused? Are you angered and upset, because the prospect has been raised of an ignominious demise of your security? Are you angered, because you have no defense to cope with the idea, that such a catastrophe may happen?

If you are, you are in good, or, at least, you are in common company, because, very rarely, has an affluent society been able to cope or foresee the on-going destruction of its existential security. It is easier and, probably, far more practical to reject such ideas or doubts as nonsense, and, to hide or suppress the fears that have been aroused, momentarily, by such unsettling thoughts and speculations. Such an attitude would be easier and, indeed, it would, probably, be the only realistic way of coping with the dreadful prospect of a disaster that can not be avoided, since the confused thoughts of our societies do not provide, anymore, a rational and clear answer to these developments; let alone, to the projected results and potential events resulting from these trends.

If you are angered by these thoughts, because you think that they only help to precipitate a crisis as a self-fulfilling prophecy, then, there is a certain truth in that. It is, indeed, dangerous to bring, more fully, the existing confusion and level of decay into the focus of our attention, since the level of frustration and despair will only increase, as we recognise, more clearly, the uselessness of our euphoric dreams and pleasures.

If you are angered, because you feel, that I have not made a distinction between the wicked world of the Devil and those, saved by the power of Christ, then, I tell you, that your beliefs and Faith have had a chance, now, for almost two milennia, to establish a better world, and, indeed, the Christian Faith has become an important contributor to our ideas about man and his existence. It has given us a meaning for suffering, but, the faithful have also killed and fought in the name of Christ.

You have tortured and executed people in the belief, that you were saved and served the Will of your all-loving God. If you, believers in Christ, have not been able to save mankind, but, only a handful of chosen ones, I strongly advise you to examine and re-examine, very seriously, what you believe and understand. Do you really understand your Faith? Do you understand yourselves? Do you really think, that you can ignore the ideas of evolutionary growth, the force-fields of solar radiation, or the idea of an energy-dissipating system? Do you really think, that you can continue to cling to the idea of an all-loving God, Who creates, or, at least, tolerates a mighty Evil Force in order to tear the souls of human beings apart? Do you really believe, that it is sensible for an all-loving God to create billions of human beings, generation after generation, and to continue to condemn by far the majority of them into an eternal existence of pain, suffering and despair?

Will you, please, consider the possibility, that the unwillingness on your part to learn, to think, to question and to examine, to open your hearts for all people, and, not just for a congregation of the faithful; will you, please, consider the possibility, or, even, the likelyhood, that you and your fellow believers share a part of the blame for affluence, corruption and decay? Will you, please, consider the implications of relativistic ideas, where the concepts of truth, belief and existential needs are linked in a framework of evolutionary developments, which is solidly based upon observations that can be verified by each and anyone, who wishes to do so?

We do not want to accuse or to lay blame. We understand, on relativistic and evolutionary grounds, why belief structures develop, and, why they are important to people. We know, that these beliefs function, primarily, as a behavioural tool in our efforts to cope with existential anxieties and demands. We know, that the structures of all religious beliefs, including those of Christianity, are primarily a framework for the organisation of a behavioural stance, and, therefore, a belief benefits the believer, but, rarely anyone else.

.......

Chapter 9

Content

The pitfalls of a strong belief in an Absolute Truth.
Facile exhortations and a hopeless outlook.
Further questions about the ability to really believe in the religious imagery.
Peace is a conscious pact between people with differing points of view and diverging interests.
Are the wrongs of society to be left to the Will of God?
The temptation to freeze a favourable status-quo.
Recognising the mechanisms of social decay, before we can understand the requirements for social stability.
Learning to understand and acknowledge each other's basic requirements.
Peace on earth is not an impossibility, nor an achievement against great odds.
Peace on earth will soon be a necessity for survival.
The price of peace.
The difficulties for privileged people to give-up their privileges and powers.
A definition of peace.
The price under-privileged people and groups of people have to pay for an atmosphere of genuine peaceful co-existence.
Is the idea of "essential equality for all" only a myth?
A review of the needs and requirements for a successful differentiation or divergence; healthy inter-dependencies.
A look back upon the simple game.
The game of life.
The ability to be a "winner", once in a while, for nearly everyone.
The need for transparent and globally valid rules.

Why is it so difficult for fervent believers to understand the requirements for a just peace for everyone? They always seem to fall into facile exhortations of good-will and a feeling of despair at the wickedness of the world. How is it possible for these religious believers to ignore the fact, that their particular vision of peace and justice puts them at the center of God's Kingdom, and discriminates, thereby, against "the others"? How is it possible to really believe, that they, the fervent religious believers, know the Absolute Truth and Reality of it all?

Each one of them knows, that no two religions or groups of religious people can agree amongst themselves about the Will of God, and yet, each one of them knows, with such absolute certainty, what God wants or has decreed. It is unbelievable, how ignorant such attitudes are, and, how simple-minded these reality perceptions appear to those, who do not share these beliefs. Religious people are usually the last to notice, that their efforts at obtaining peace are, in essence, an attempt to obtain a "freeze", where a privileged position becomes sanctified into a divinely ordained status-quo.

Unless we learn to accept, that peace is a condition, where nearly all the people of a community, (be it the members of a family, a society, or the member-nations in the community of mankind), agree, honestly, that they can accept the status-quo as fair, the conditions of justice are not fulfilled, and, the sense of justice has not been satisfied. Consequently, there will not be peace.

What kind of peace can be expected from an attitude, where the wrongs of society are left to the Will or Judgement of God? Do religious people really think, that the other people in society will quietly accept such a passive attitude and nebulous answer to the problems of justice? What kind of peace is it, to freeze the status-quo by claiming it to have been ordained by God, while the affluent believers continue to gorge themselves in comsumerist dreams of wealth, sensual pleasures and egocentric concerns? What kind of a peace is it, that allows the ruthless and the powerful to siphon-off an ever greater portion of the wealth and earning-powers of a population, while feeding the people junk-dreams and junk-drugs?

What kind of a peace are we dealing with, if it makes the wealthy wealthier, and the powerful more powerful? How can we expect the tensions of frustrations and inequities, injustice and expoitation to be resolved by praying that the Will of the Lord be done? How can we be so ignorant of the simple truth, that peace is a pact between people, between groups of people and between nations, where an attitude of genuine cooperation on the basis of essential equality and mutual respect is adopted by all the parties involved?

Unless we recognise the mechanisms of social decline and decay, we will not understand, what it takes to have a truly peaceful state of co-existence. Unless we learn to recognise and acknowledge, frankly, a position of privilege whenever we see it or experience it, we will not be able to reach a genuine understanding with those, who are less privileged. Unless we learn to recognise, that we all are sensitive to the emotions of anxiety and resentment, we will not understand peace. If we do not recognise those who are powerful, wealthy and reactionary as ordinary human beings, anxious about losing their security and reacting very much like we would under similar circumstances, we will not understand the requirements of peace.

Peace is not a situation or circumstance, frozen into immobility by the power of the gun, or the persuasiveness of money. Peace can not be established by appealing to the egocentricity of us all, nor can it be established by condemning or exorcising as evil the egocentric traits of human existence.

Only careful study, a broadly based understanding, as well as a patient analysis will lay the foundation for equality of existence and dignity for us all, and, careful and honest study is the only mechanism to provide ourselves with the basis for a consensus about viable attitudes and a necessary course of action.

The process of bringing a real and lasting peace to the world is not something that should be considered as impossible, nor, should it even be considered as an achievement against enormous odds. It is not an achievement that exists only in utopian dreams or tired and exhausted minds. Peace on earth, as well as a general well-being for all of mankind, are objectives that are conceptually and technically well within reach of the present generations, and, soon, these objectives will become a necessary condition or achievement upon which our survival is going to rest.

A seemingly interminable series of conflicts, wars and atrocities should not lead us to the erroneous conclusion that peace is impossible. We just have never been able to fathom or understand what the requirements for a truly peaceful co-existence really were. Even, if we understood, sometimes, at least, to some extent, the necessary requirements, we were never, really, willing to pay the price for a true peace. The crux of the difficulty in reaching peace is the fact, that we all have to pay a high and unpleasant price.

Those, who are privileged and wealthy, are naturally fearful and anxious about losing this protective shield of wealth, because of the probability that they will be reduced to poverty, despair and destruction. Powerful people never listen to those who have no power, and, they would never consider it necessary to pay the price of relinquishing this power, together with the satisfying feelings of security that are associated with the excercise of power. Yet, this is what essential equality means. Essential equality means, the acceptance of the need to abolish a privileged position.

How difficult is it for the wealthy to give-up their accustomed luxuries, and, how difficult is the adjustment to an average, but viable level of existence! Yet, once the step has been taken, almost always forced by the circumstances, the people, who were previously wealthy and powerful come to the conclusion, that they can survive without their wealth, and, that life is not as bad as they feared.

Similarly, equality means, also, the abolition of a privileged position of power without wealth. As long as those who carry guns, believe, that they can ensure peace, equality and justice by the power of their arms, they are deluding themselves, and, they are only sowing the seeds of resentment, rebellion and mistrust. Peace is an agreement; an agreement between us all, agreeing, that we will live and work together within a contract of essential equality. It is an agreement, that we will work together for the betterment of our collective existence, as well as the existence of future generations. That is peace. That is all it is, and, we have to find out, what prevents us from coming to such an agreement.

We will, often, disagree what equality really means, and, often, we will be horrified to learn what sort of price we have to pay. We will also have to learn, that, those, who are in a privileged position, can only agree, voluntarily, to pay the heavy price of relinquishing their positions of power and privilege, if they can place a large measure of trust in the justice of their society and the coming power-structure. You can not expect a privileged man to give-up, voluntarily, his wealth and security, if he knows, or fears with some justification, that, after he has done so, he will be discriminated against and be under-privileged.

It is often difficult for those, who have been abused and exploited for a long time, to forego the heady feelings of victory and revenge, but, I tell you; those of you, who are under-privileged, will have to pay a price as well, if you want to have true peace. If you are only going to replace one system of inequities with another, or, if you are going to assume a position of privilege yourself, in stead of those hated enemies, you are not contributing to a peaceful solution, and, you can not expect those, who are privileged now, to relinquish, voluntarily and trustfully, their positions and cooperate with you.

Peace has a high price to exact from us all, if we want to participate in its benefits, and, the problem is not, that we have absolutely no idea what is necessary for Peace to flourish, but, that we are not willing to pay its price. In stead, we opt for a pseudo-peace; the freeze of the status-quo, and, then, we sit-back, blissfully ignorant of the problems that are still to come, and, we indulge in a satisfied feeling of accomplishment and self-worth. For most of us, the concept of peace means, the desire to hold-on to what we have, and, we must acknowledge, that the idea to give-up, without a struggle, all those things for which we have often worked so hard, would be a serious and unacceptable insult to our sense of justice.

Is the idea of essential equality for all human beings, then, only a myth? Is it an unworkable idea, that is only useful as a starting point in a debate about life and society? We should not have any difficulties accepting the basic justification of the point of view, that every child, born to mankind, should have, at least, an equal opportunity to succeed in the struggle of life and social success. The inevitable divergence that is going to take place during the game of life, is a result of the undeniable fact, that we all react differently. We all have differing talents, different ambitions and varying degrees of perseverance and good luck, but, let the divergence of people not be determined by the chances of birth, race, or economic and educational disparities. Just as in a game, any game, there will be those, who will do well and those who will do poorly. How are we going to reconcile these inevitable divergencies with the ideas and concepts that let us structure a peaceful and harmonious society?

We will find an answer by looking, once again, at the mechanisms of a simple game. We see an important and somewhat startling result. If we observe, closely, the reactions and attitudes of the participants, we see, that, in a game, where every participant adheres scrupulously to the rules, everyone, even, the losers will have few difficulties accepting the fairness of the results. The winners, or, those who did better, are not looked upon with envy or mistrust, but with admiration and a full acknowledgement of their achievements. How is this possible, while, in society, the divergence of the classes leads, so quickly, to jealousy, distrust, alienation and hostilities?

The answer is complex, but it is worthwhile to analyse these problems and questions in detail, in order to see, whether or not we can apply the conclusions to constructing a framework of rules and regulations, which could guide us in the game of life throughout the societies of mankind.

The first observation we can make when we look at a truly satisfying game, where the winner can be freely admired without any insult to the feelings of justice of those who have lost, is the fact, that the security or social position of the participants does not really change significantly as a result of this game. Certainly, a win in a popular game will make the winner an idol, a model to be emulated, a hero, and, he or she will serve as a powerful source of inspiration. The accomplishments, then, function as a "behavioural organiser" for those who admire the winner. The winner will have an aura of prestige and influence, and, his position in the hierarchy of friends will be elevated, but, the winner does not have any significant increase in wealth or power, and, his living standards should not increase to any significant extent.

Often, the fame or prestige of a winner is short-lived, because there are numerous games, with many different winners. These many different games will test and reward differing skills. Nearly every human being has an area of endeavour or skill in which he or she will do well, better than most of his or her friends, and, therefore, almost every human being has the ability to shine or excel in one field or another, and has the chance to be a winner, at one time or another.

We see, that those, not gifted in athletic or physical skills, do usually quite well in an artistic or intellectual field, and, vice versa. In the enormous variety of games and skills that can be tested with transparent and uniformly applied rules and regulations, every normal and healthy human being can do reasonably well in one field or another, and, everyone has, therefore, the potential to feel a sense of satisfaction; of having accomplished something; of having been an object of admiration and attention, regardless, how short-lived such an experience may have been.

.......

Chapter 10

Content

A win does not have to lead to feelings of resentment or anger in those who lost.
The winner, seen as a symbol for individualised goal-patterns and behavioural choices.
A review of the conditions for a beneficial structuring of the "game of life".
Maintaining basic security and essential equality.
A review of territorial behaviour-patterns and leadership responsibilities.
Adjustments of the hierarchical order in a small-scale social environment.
Human societies will never be free from tensions or challenges, but adequate and efficient mechanisms should be able to resolve these tensions and challenges in a non-destructive manner.
A review of the enlargement of leadership structures and cultural guidelines.
A review of the current state of social developments.
Efforts to harnass egocentric behaviour-patterns for the good of society, and, efforts to suppress divergence and differentiation by a program of strong ideological indoctrination.

The main point we want to emphasise, here, is the fact, that a divergence of accomplishments as a result of diverging skills and talents, is not necessarily a source of resentment, or an insult to the sense of justice, provided, that all participants in a game or contest can experience and agree about the fact, that the judgement of excellence and the choice of the winner have been carried-out entirely within justified rules and a fair application of guidelines. This type of win or accomplishment carries with its approval the stamp of justification. Those, who lost, feel, that the winner deserved to win, and, there is nothing to indicate, that the winner will be a source of envy, jealousy or tension. On the contrary, the winner, or the individual who excelled in a particular field, becomes a beacon; an example, a goal for those, who admire his or her accomplishments.

The conditions for such beneficial and harmonious attitudes are the following; a complete transparence and a clear understanding of the rules, as well as a perfect transparence of all the mechanisms of the game, allowing each participant or spectator to form a definitive judgement, whether or not the win or reward was justified. Certainly, in many areas of testing skills, the judgement processes are somewhat vague or subjective, but, there can be little doubt, that, in all forms of contest, the judgement can be made to appear fair and impartial, if the organising body pays scrupulous attention to the many possibilities of an intentional or unintentional bias.

Another important condition is the fact, that the results of the contest or game do not alter the basic security for any of the participants. The game is a voluntary participation. A loss only means, that there is another chance to do better, next time. Or, a loss may be an indication to try to develop a different skill or capability; one, that is more in line with one's talents or affinities.

From these observations, it becomes clear, that we do not have to fear the divergence of skills or personalities, as long as we recognise and understand, clearly, the conditions and safeguards that are necessary to keep the processes of divergence within the boundaries of justice and essential equality. We have seen, that the most basic form of divergence in society is the hierarchical ordening. We know, that hierarchical positioning is the first major step in the evolution of individualised behaviour-patterns, allowing the experiment of social integration to take place. These roots developed long before the emergence of the species of mankind.

In the mechanisms of hierarchical ordening the territories of a number of animals fuse, and, the more dominant members of the group assume a claim towards the entire territory. This trend is most clearly seen in the behaviour of the overall leader, but, at the same time, the other animals can only accept this dominance of the leader and his associates, if there are benefits to compensate for the loss of sovereignty and territory. We have seen, how these benefits are embodied in the protection given by the leaders to the rest of the small grouping, and, how the leader's responsibilities include the defense of the territory, as well as the other members of the social unit under his jurisdiction.

Since hierarchical positioning takes place by a process of spontaneous test-fights, the position each member occupies in this hierarchy is a direct result of a practical experience; each animal classifies the others in roughly two groupings; those, who can be dominated, and those, who will dominate this particular individual. The "rules", so to speak, are the invariant rules of nature, and, acceptance is, merely, a recognition of a balance of powers. The moment an animal feels, that it can dominate another animal that is placed higher in the hierarchical order, it will challenge this animal to a test-fight, and the results will be reflected immediately in the hierarchical order.

In the social units of human beings, similar mechanisms still play a role. Some people have the ability and the skill to dominate. These capabilities are, usually, a complex combination of physical skills and strengths, intellectual abilities, as well as the skill to persuade others and understand them, psychologically, in an intuitively clever manner. However, even, in the game of human hierarchical positioning, we see, that, ideally, the "winners", or, the leaders, occupy their position by virtue of a "natural play", or, an open contest of these skills and capabilities. In this case, the group will recognise, intuitively, that it is just for the leader to occupy the position he does, and, that the position of each human being in the social hierarchy is just and fair as well, because it is based on the qualities of personal skills and individual merits. Certainly, changing circumstances will bring changes in hierarchical relationships through the same mechanisms of open competition.

A society or group of human beings, determining its hierarchical order through a mechanism of jockeying for position, is, therefore, never free from challenges or tensions, but a viable and harmonious society will allow these tensions to dissipate with a minimum of serious conflicts. This can be done through fair, open and uniformly administered, but, often, tacit standards or rules of conduct. These mechanisms may be ritual test-fights and other contests of skills, such as tests or examinations, which, then, determine the hierarchical positioning of the people within a specific grouping.

We have outlined, on several occasions, the transitions that have to take place, whenever the group or society becomes much larger. We have examined the reasons, why the leadership functions become much more difficult and complex, and, how the leadership becomes a multi-individual institution with an "out-going" or executive arm, as well as an information-gathering or "in-put" arm. We have seen, why the processes of hierarchical ordening break-down in the larger societies, and, why they have to be replaced by the principles of a social contract of essential equality. We have discussed the severe limitations placed upon the mechanisms of mutual recognition and familiarity with each other's behaviour, which also pose a strain on the mechanisms of social cohesion. We have discussed, how cultural traits, such as speech and other, specific characteristics of behaviour start to serve, then, as aids in this process of mutual identification, and, we have seen, how "cultural identity" becomes the mechanism, par excellence, for the cohesion of the larger grouping.

We have discussed the gradual emergence of guidelines and "behavioural organisers", which are, at least, initially, primarily tacit and sub-conscious principles of conduct, which have been inter-woven with the structures of belief and the perception of reality. These guidelines function, then, as mores, customs, shared attitudes, etc. Later, the pressures of increasing social complexity and the need for an explicit formulation of guidelines, led to a system of verbal abstractions, or "laws", and a formalisation of the processes of settling disputes; the judiciary and its many institutions.

However, the emergence of larger societies also created other problems, such as corruption and class-divisions, internal exploitation of one group by another, the fading of relevance of guidance-patterns and beliefs, ever-changing social circumstances and environmental conditions, as well as changing contacts between large societies with their conflicts of interest and the tensions of suspicion and deceit.

We are still grappling with these problems, because we face, now, a need to formulate explicit guidelines for communal inter-actions on a global scale. Finally, we have reached the stage, where we have learned to accept, at least, to some extent, the need for a sphere of global concern, and, we have learned to formulate some principles of justice that may be applicable on a world-wide scale.

The problems of social divergence, the seemingly inevitable development of mutually hostile groupings in a large social conglomerate, the irrepressible tendency of man to exploit or deceive each other, the difficulties of finding a common ground for beliefs and judgements, all these aspects make it clear, that we are still far from understanding, let alone agreeing, what a stable and viable structure of social guidelines looks like, and, what it needs to remain stable and viable.

Some of us have tried to harnass man's competitive instincts for the good of society, while others have tried to eradicate the processes that lead to mutual alienation; by suppressing class-divergence and individual variability. Both efforts have shown a measure of success, but, both approaches have also shown severe limitations, because it has become clear, that the theoretical and ideological foundations for these social experiments lack a truly comprehensive understanding of the nature of man and the structure of his personality.

Nowhere, do we get a clearer and more coherent picture about man, together with the reasons for his behaviour, than in the imagery of natural evolution. Let us look, again, at the game, and, let us see, whether or not we can use the game as a model to design a structure of rules and guidelines that is able to ensure a harmonious and viable way for people to live together in large and complex, globally interwoven societies. There are many factors we will have to take into account. One obvious difference between the game of life in society, and any other game, is the fact, that the human being is born into a society and has no option to withdraw from the game of life, even, if an individual transfers, voluntarily or involuntarily, to another social environment. One still has to participate in the business of making a living.

.......

Chapter 11

Content

Outlets for rising social tensions.
Territorial and economic expansion; factors, that have fallen-away as useful outlets for frustrations and tensions.
Why social environments have a tendency to crumble.
The many short-comings of Capitalist and Communist systems.
An emphasis upon the mechanisms of differentiation and mutual inter-dependence.
The blessings of truly gifted and inspiring leadership.
The unbreakable links between privilege and responsibility.
The spoils of a victory, seen, as a gift from society.
Further comparisons between living in a social environment and the playing of games.
How to counter-act the dangers of a reactionary egocentricity.
A further elaboration of the principles of mutual inter-dependence in a position of essential equality.
The convergence of altruistic and egocentric motivations.
The need for mechanisms of control.

During the early stages of social evolution, a natural possibility existed to pick-up and leave, and, to start a new social nucleus, whenever some members felt, that the disadvantages of belonging to society outweighed the advantages. Eventually, the available territories were taken-up with the settlements of many small, nomadic groupings, because these early societies required a fairly large territory to sustain themselves, and, we have discussed, how an increase in size tended to de-stabilise the natural social grouping because of the tendency to develop an unoverseeable complexity. The pressures to live closely together in ever larger groupings were forever increasing, because unoccupied, inhabitable territory was rapidly disappearing. When this happened, there was no opportunity for a group of people to break-away from the main body of society and start a new life on their own, unless they were prepared to conquer these territories from inhabitants that were already there.

The success of the recent North-American colonisation by Europeans settlers was largely due to the fact, that a dissatisfied individual or group of people could, indeed, move-away from the European homelands and settle into the territories of the native North-American peoples, because the white settlers had a far superior weaponry. This, together with the fact, that, ever more rapid economic growth provided a cushion against rising dissatisfactions and resentment, were the two main factors explaining, why such a remarkably unstructured society grew rapidly into a powerful nation.

Yet, these two factors have fallen-away. Territorial expansion has come to and end; colonial and neo-colonial exploitation have also come to an end, and, we are, finally, realising, that the dream of ever increasing economic growth as a panacea for all social ills, has become a dangerous illusion. No wonder, the tensions are rising dramatically, and, it is not surprising, that the North-American society is bewildered, confused and chaotic, since it never developed a social structure that was capable of containing all these diverse groupings and trends, without the outlet of territorial or economic expansion.

The fervor of nationalism or patriotism as a means of increasing social cohesion on a large scale, has also worn thin, as more and more people begin to ask themselves, what their society has to offer besides a deplorable spectacle of big-business advertising and shallow, consumerist philosophies. The myth that competitive, egocentric divergence can be harnassed for the benefit of the entire society, still lingers-on, but its credibility is being challenged, continuously.

The game shows, clearly, two features; first of all, the win and its price have to be obtained with fair rules and transparent methods, which are scrupulously equal for everyone who is participating, and, secondly, the results should not have a lasting existential significance. In both aspects, we see the Capitalist philosophy falter completely. The rules and regulations that allow the individual to gain the reward of capital assets are increasingly obscure, vague and variable, blurring the distinction between legitimate and illegitimate means, and, the results of economic success have an enormous and permanent consequence for the existential circumstances of the individual, or, even, an entire class of people.

Not only, is the reward of Capitalist success kept for life, but, it is often transmitted to the offspring of rich and successful people, giving them an unfair head-start and a significant advantage over others. Besides, the power of capital makes it easier and easier to amass further capital and property, leading, quickly, to a marked disparity in living standards and life-styles.

The laws of a Capitalist society, rewarding the spoils of capital in perpetuity to an individual, his family, or the company that looks after his special interests, tend to destroy the principles for an essential equality in opportunity for all youngsters, which, as we have seen, were the basic solution to avoid the need for disruptive hierarchical "corrections". The legalisation of the possession of wealth and power makes the challenge to such a position of privilege extremely difficult, and, the legalisation of a status of wealth and privilege immobilises the status-quo into a social pressure-cooker of frustration and resentment. As we mentioned, the only factors that slowed-down such an explosive rise in resentment and feelings of injustice, were the possibilities for territorial expansion and economic growth, because these mechanisms allowed those, who lost-out, initially, to seek their fortunes elsewhere.

On the other hand, the Communist ideology was, and still is, heavily flavoured with revolutionary objectives and strident goal-patterns. Socialism, and, in particular, its dogmatic form, Communism, is, in essence, a philosophy of strife, and not of peace. Therefore, after it has been able to galvanise the people for a Cause, which is, usually, quite just, this ideology is successful and meaningful during the period of the struggle, but it falters and fades, significantly, after the struggle has been won.

Communism has not yet come to grips with the reality of human divergence and social stratification, after the war of the classes has been won. This attempt to hide or negate the reality of the divergence of people and the emergence of differing opinions, qualities and ambitions, leads, always, to attitudes of resentment and pressures for change, because people sense, quickly, when an ideology has become shallow and dishonest. Communism has still not acknowledged the fact, that it is futile to try to suppress honest dissent.

The failure of the non-democratic form of Socialism, Communism, to deal effectively with the realities of the human personality, including the divergence of individual capabilities, gives rise to severe tensions. These tensions are being soothed by the same remedy as the tensions within the Capitalist societies; nl., an ever-rising level of expectation and consumption by a majority of the people. Needless to say, that these solutions are pseudo-solutions, only delaying the inevitable crisis of social dissent. The practice and ideology of Strict Socialism always becomes secretive, oppressive and dishonest, whenever the ruling Party is put under severe pressures for which it has no immediate answers.

The answer to solving or, rather preventing these problems, lies in a clear understanding and acknowledgement of the fact, that, individual divergence can be acceptable, and, that it can even be appreciated by everyone, if the rewards are seen to be won fairly and openly, and, if the basic security of other "players" in society is not disrupted by the winners and their rewards.

Therefore, those individuals, who have leadership qualities, should and will, inevitably, occupy positions of power and privilege, but, if the degree of privilege and power remains clearly visible and scrutinisable, the rest of society will feel, that such a position is, not only, justified, but, people will look with hope and expectation to these gifted and inspiring individuals, in the reasonable expectation, that such leaders will truly lead the people and their societies onto a path of mutual benefit and social harmony.

The moment a leader starts to hide his privileges, there will be mistrust, and, the temptation is always there for these privileged leaders to use their position of power to further their own existential concerns. The burdens of responsibility are so easily shirked, whenever they can be hidden behind a shroud of secrecy.

No game can be played successfully, if the rules and the results are becoming clouded in secrecy. Transparence is the crux of the sense of justice, and, a position of leadership is, invariably, linked to the burden of responsibility. The moment this burden is relinquished in an attempt to hold-on to the trappings of a privileged position, we see the beginnings of corruption, social decay, injustice and rising tensions.

This link between privilege and responsibility is also reflected in the game. It is certainly true, that the winner is justifiably recognised for a fair win, and, that this win reflects his personal efforts and capabilities, but, let us not forget, that, it is the society of friends which has made this game possible. It is the willingness of other competitors to put-in their best efforts, which made it possible for the winner to excel. Similarly, the regulations and judgements of the game are functions carried-out and made possible by the cooperation of many people. We may, therefore, state, that the spoils of the win, the prestige and acclaim that come with the recognition and acknowledgement of a victory, are as much a gift of society to the winner, as it is a deserved reward for the efforts of the winner. (We do not even consider, here, the fact, that most winners in a game of sports or artistic competition, have received very extensive support and help from their social environment in order to make their achievements possible).

Similarly, the win of a financial award in the Capitalist society, is as much a gift from society, as it is a recognition and result of the efforts of individual enterprise. The gift of security by society continues to safeguard the spoils for the winner, because the winner is given the protection of the laws of society, which all people are expected to recognise and obey, regardless, how large the discrepancies between the wealthy and the poor have become.

Besides, the spoils of Capitalist success are, often, the acquisition of property, land, as well as the fruits of other people's labours, and, we have to question, seriously, to what extent an individual can claim as his property, the essentially communal resources of a society, or, the labours of its people. Yet, in our egocentric drive for success and security, we forget, all too often, the fact, that our property and wealth is an accumulation of goods and services provided by other people.

In a way, the winner of the Capitalist game has collected all the prizes and contributions that the competitors in the game of life brought to the scene of the game. Capitalist success is only in part the result of individual skills; it is as much the result of a clever use of the laws and rules of society, which led to a flow of capital into the hands of a few clever entrepreneurs. It is clear, that such developments are quickly destructive to the mechanisms of social harmony, in particular, when the flow of money-energy available for dissipation, has become stagnant or insufficient, meaning, that some people have become excessively wealthy, while others could not even scrape the bare essentials together.

How can we counter-act the tendency towards reactionary egocentricity, if we allow the members of society to differentiate on the basis of individual skills and merits? We hope to make it clear, that the process of individual differentiation, in particular, in the form of complementary functions and inter-dependencies, is, not only, inevitable, but, it is one of the most powerful ways to establish harmony. The suppression of individual differentiation aggravates the tendency to competitive strife, just as a community of single cells remains fiercely competitive in its relations with each other, as long as there is no development towards differentiation and mutual inter-dependence.

The need for equality of existence, as well as a harmonious way of life for all human beings, are not helped by a uniform development of everybody, nor, by an attempt to indoctrinate people. The disruptive forces of egocentric orientation and competitive strife are not suppressed by enforcing a marked degree of uniformity in individual existence. As a matter of fact, similarity in existence and outlook only foster competitive strife, since we do not rely upon each other, and, we are not inter-dependent upon each other, as we would be, if we could differentiate into complementary modes of existence.

If I develop my talents or interests, and, if you develop yours, I can perform for you whatever you require in my field of expertise, and, you can do for me whatever function or skill happens to be your particular forte. In such a relationship of inter-dependence, I need you and you need me, and, it is in each individual's interest to ensure the well-being of the other. It is in my egocentric interest to make sure, that you, not only, continue to exist, but, that you exist well enough to be able to carry-out the functions which I, and others, need and rely upon.

Here, we see a remarkable convergence of egocentric and altruistic interests. In this remarkable phenomenon of mutual inter-dependence of the cells of a multi-cellular organism, we see, how this inter-dependence has progressed to the point, that the death of a small segment of this multi-cellular community, (e.g., the cells of the heart-muscle or the kidneys), lead to the demise of all cells. Similarly, a human society, where each individual or sub-grouping is performing a vital function for the society as a whole, will show the most dramatic form of harmony and efficiency, as we can see in many small, tightly organised expeditions or special task-forces.

In the multi-cellular organism, we see complex and stringent control mechanisms at work, in order to ensure the cooperation of the individual cellular communities, and, similarily, in a human society, a stringent control is necessary to ensure, that the individual sub-groupings function in a way that reflects the needs of everyone within this social environment.

.......

Chapter 12

Content

The dangers of an escape from control mechanisms.
The Constitutional Code.
A review of the requirements of justice and Constitutional control.
Avoiding local "hot spots" of power.
The need to excercise the faculty of conscious awareness.
The need to teach the importance of each individual's efforts and contributions.
Existential anxieties remain always close to the surface.
Collective leadership and Parliamentary Assemblies.
Contributions to society have to be organised according to the natural phases of an individual's life-span.
Strikes against society.
A few questions about privacy.
Various forms of privacy.
The right to know, and the obligation to inform.

As soon as some individuals, or small groups of people, escape from an effective social control, they start to function only for their own benefit, and, they will exploit the labours of others, if they get a chance to do so. The multi-cellular community has the advantage, that its control mechanisms have been shaped by evolutionary or naturally selective mechanisms, and these controls have been encoded into the nearly immutable genetic instructions that are present in each and every cell of this community. In contrast, the social guidelines are not genetically encoded, but, they have been shaped, tested and transmitted by the cultural code of society, and, we have outlined, on various occasions, how fragile and transient this cultural code really is.

Yet, if we understand, better, the importance of this cultural code, and, if we are better informed about the basic functions of these cultural guidelines, we have an opportunity to duplicate, at least, to some extent, the more durable genetic methods of encoding. This can be done by formulating and recording a precise and detailed cultural code; by writing a Constitutional Code that is safeguarded from rapid and whimsical changes. We can do this by encoding a carefully regulated procedure for changing, gradually, the Constitutional Code.

We have discussed all these aspects before, and, we are only reminding ourselves about the importance of the Constitutional Code, if we want to satisfy the conditions of peace and justice on a very large social scale. We need a comprehensive Constitutional Code with global relevance, if we reallly want peace and harmony, and not just the maintenance of an advantageous status-quo.

The Constitutional Guidelines of a society have to ensure, therefore, that the development of talent and individual differentiation takes place within a framework promoting mutual inter-dependence, and, we have to make sure, that these guidelines are able to avoid a slide into a parasitic form of dominance by one group or another. The moment one segment of the mutually inter-dependent society has more power, is given more power, or, is allowed to accumulate and consolidate this power, such a group will, inevitably, assume an elitist and parasitic role, where the achievements and efforts of others are being exploited.

It is so important, therefore, to make sure, that, in any relationship of inter-dependence, the balance of power is maintained with scrupulous precision. One group should not be more dependent upon others, than others depend on it. The level of reliance upon each other should be slowly and equally advanced, always on guard to avoid imbalances, and, ready to correct local "hot-spots" of power, because of the increasingly egocentric orientation that flows from such a localised excercise of power.

The Constitutional Guidelines should ensure, that the basic existential requirements of all members are fulfilled in equal measure, and, they ensure, that, nowhere, an individual or group has to struggle for survival in competition with another group. Each individual or group should be taught, however, to recognise the obligation to contribute to the needs of society according to its capabilities, talents and opportunities, in return for the services and support it receives from other groups in society.

The Constitution of the future will guarantee each socially integrated member the possibility to develop talents, interests or knowledge according to one's capabilities and inclinations, yet, the Constitution will also require, that each member is aware, and remains aware, of the fact, that society is, in essence, a mutually inter-dependent structure.

It is very easy for a single member or a small group to forget, that the vast and often enormous powers and resources of a large society are there, only, because of the contributions made by countless others; members, just like oneself, apparently insignificant and seemingly powerless in isolation. Nevertheless, all functions and capabilities of society, all the regulatory structures, behavioural guidelines, social, academic, artistic and leadership institutions with their myriad of functions and services, all these benefits and rights are based upon the contributions made by ordinary members of society.

These people live, or have lived in the past, in a social context, just like you and I. Perhaps, some lived a long time ago, perhaps, somewhere, in a, for us, nebulous past, or, they belonged to a strange and nearly forgotten civilisation, but, in essence, all the accomplishments and features of society are a result of prolonged and tenacious efforts made by many people, working and living together in search of social harmony, as well as the possibilities for a tolerant and just existence.

It is difficult for a youngster, who is trying to absorb the vast quantities of information, happenings and events that are thrown at him or her every day at school, to realise, that, without the contributions of people like oneself, society would not be there. Nothing would be there. Human life, as we know and experience it, would not be there. Regardless, how insignificant the efforts of one single individual appear to be, we should never forget, that all achievements and contributions were made by ordinary people, either, individually, or, by a small, dedicated group.

It is so easy to become fearful and anxious, whenever we experience the relentless pressures of change and innovation. We tend to forget, that, usually, society does not age as quickly as we do. While we are becoming increasingly set in our ways, we can not avoid a slight feeling of mistrust and regret, if we see new developments take place that are alien to our comfortable routine. New ideas, new experiments with a variety of social functions, new forms of expression, the mistakes, inexperience and reckless boldness of the younger generations, all these factors and events may appear frightening and tiring to us, and, it is easy to feel apprehensive, conservative and reactionary, as we are getting older and lose some of our flexibility.

These factors are the reason, why we have to rely increasingly upon the wisdom of Constitutional Guidelines, as well as the efforts of the elected, collective leadership of a Parliamentary Assembly or Council of Regents, rather than the intuitive wisdom and conservatism of individually respected and experienced leaders. We have outlined, before, how we visualise the wisdom and experience of old-age to have a voice in an advisory capacity, such as a Senate, but the stress and rigours of active decision-making belong to this period of our individual life-span, where we are experienced, yet vigorous and flexible, so that we can manage the overwhelming complexities of the social reality experiences.

The Constitution will teach us, how the circumstances of our own existence, our education, the development of our talents and interests, are gifts and opportunities our society has made possible. We may enjoy the fruits of our talents and labours; we may enjoy the experience of being healthy, alive and well-informed, but, we may never forget, that the prizes we receive in the games of life have been given to us for the purpose of contributing to society.

Just as we are hardly aware of the numerous social functions we rely upon in order to maintain our existence and live in health and comfort, so will it be difficult for us to appreciate the significance of our own contributions. Let us accept, in gratitude, that, indeed, these contributions flow in a complex exchange-pattern as anonymous gifts to each one of us. We do not know, who looks after the flow of electricity or water as it comes to our homes. We do not really know, who makes it possible to go to the store and buy our food and clothes, or the fuel for our cars. The inter-dependencies we rely upon are already complex, and, we are painfully reminded about their importance, if one or other grouping deliberately withholds a vital function to the rest of society in an irresponsible act of egocentric pressure-tactics.

Our future Constitutions will make it, not only, unnecessary, or, even, impossible to take such hostile actions against the social environment, but, the Constitution of the future will teach us, also, the criminality of such acts and attitudes. It will show us, how we rely upon each other's contributions to society in an act of trust, but, it will also teach us to take notice of, and look with concern at, the position and function of each individual and grouping within society.

At the present time, we do not have the machinery, nor the insights, to make it desirable, and possible, to monitor the status-quo of each and every member or organisation in society. If such would be possible, it would not be necessary to band-together in anger and use the weapons of harm in order to draw attention to our alleged situations of injustice. Our Constitution will then provide the ideas, as well as the mechanisms, to monitor, closely and constantly, the existential requirements and circumstances of each individual and sub-grouping.

"What about privacy", you ask? Well, what about it? What is privacy? Privacy is a vague and poorly delineated notion, that an individual in society has the right to keep certain facts about his life a secret from others. Few people will argue with the idea, that an individual needs to have a place where one can relax and perform certain physiological functions in a measure of solitude. No-one will dispute the fact, that one needs to be alone with oneself, once in a while, digesting one's thoughts and experiences, and, that one has to have periods, where one is undisturbed, in order to do whatever one pleases, as long as these activities do not interfere, in any way, with the rights of other people. If that is your idea of privacy, then, I agree wholeheartedly with you.

However, if you understand under privacy the right to keep secret your financial income, the source or magnitude of this income, the extent of your assets, possessions or debts, your opinions about society, certain individuals or institutions, your contacts with other people, or, your plans and activities, in particular, if they involve the rights and concerns of others, then, I have to disagree with you. Just as you have the right to know what is happening within society, what your leaders are planning or doing, what your neighbours are up to, so has your country, your neighbour and your leadership the right to know, who you are, what you are doing, how you make a living, what your source of income is, and also, whom you know, whom your friends and acquaintances are, and what your attitudes and activities entail, especially, in so far as they concern the well-being of others.

Would you not agree with the statement, that you can only place a certain amount of trust and confidence in your society, if you could verify, at all times, that everyone is "playing by the rules"; that there is no cheating, corruption or nepotism, and, that your neighbour earns his money honestly? Would you not agree, that you can only know, whether or not the laws and rules of society are applied fairly to everyone, if you could verify the income and assets of others; if you could find out, how, and why, certain people get the good jobs, the high positions or the lucrative contracts in the world of business?

Well then, your right to know, as well as the mechanisms of transparence, require, that you participate in this process of openness. Besides, why should anyone be ashamed of disclosing his earnings, his holdings, connections or plans, if there is nothing to be ashamed of? Such a radical shift in attitudes from the commonly accepted and unquestioned wisdom of the right to privacy, is necessary, not only, to generate, finally, the social conditions that will make it possible to trust each other and our leaderships and their institutions, but, it is the only way to get a firm hold on the rampant criminal activities that are going-on, continuously, in the complex and affluent societies of today.

.......

Chapter 13

Content

The extent of criminal activities in affluent societies.
The extent of social decay.
Large numbers of people may adapt quickly to a new social order.
Painful upheavals, but not necessarily a loss of viability for everyone.
The difficulties of a coordinated defense.
Revolutionary fervor, and the creation of an unnecessary resistance to change.
A revolution can only be called "just", if it avoids replacing one set of inequities with another.
An essentially optimistic expectation about future developments.
The ultimate tragedy.
Possibilities for learning.
A case of chronic, compulsive and obsessive behaviour-patterns.
The corporate dinosaurs, and the large energy-rivers of the protoplasmic primordium.
The superior viability of the small, efficient unit of the living cell.
The obligatory dependence of giants on a large and continuous influx of energy.
The likelyhood, that corporate dinosaurs will eventually merge with social leadership institutions.
The need to plan and coordinate research-efforts.
Work, seen as a privilege in the just societies of the future.
Like the living cell, a society will die, if it fails to repair itself continuously.

The extent of crime, (defined, here, as all activities and attitudes that exploit the weakness and vulnerability of gullible people for the sake of egocentric, primarily, financial gain), is so widespread, so unbelievable in scope and penetration in the affluent societies, that we may safely say, that no-one is completely free from an attitude or activity that is somewhat harmful or detrimental to the interests of others. The laws and accepted norms of behaviour do not even begin to cover the range of activities and attitudes that contribute, every day, to a further accumulation of injustice, as well as an insult to the dignity of those who are most vulnerable in these affluent waste-lands.

The modern, affluent societies are based on a crumbling philosophy of free-enterprise, as well as the fallacious and naive hope, that egocentric activities can, somehow, be harnassed for the benefit of society. These societies are crumbling, and, in spite of the lingering outlines of a gigantic economic and social structure, the inner strength has disappeared to an extent few people realise or dare to admit. It is only the economic momentum which keeps this structure together, and the collapse may come, suddenly, at any time.

I fear, that it is not possible to revert this process of decay, even, if a widespread recognition would take place of the wrongs and errors upon which the affluent societies have based their existence, but, I do foresee the possibility, that, many of the people, now trapped and living in the shadow of a disappearing free-enterprise economy, may adapt, rather quickly, to a new social order, where the illusions of consumerist salvation and perpetual sensual gratification have been replaced with a more sober and realistic appreciation for the immediate problems and difficulties at hand.

In the future we will know ourselves much better, after we have educated ourselves and taken control, again, over the media of communication. We will recognise the importance of the sense of justice, and, we will be able to design guidelines, safeguards and controls, which will make it possible to live in a society with a reasonable level of justice and essential equality. The changes, dislocations, shifts of power and adjustments in life-style and living-standards will be so dramatic, and so swift, that many of these changes will be felt as painful upheavals, and a feeling that the world has come to an end.

It is not a foregone conclusion, that these changes can only come with the power of the gun. Certainly, it will be difficult for those in positions of power and privilege to give-up their privileges, but, it may well be, that a sense of futility will prevail, making it difficult for those in a position of power to defend themselves convincingly and with determination. The structure of cohesion may have crumbled to such an extent, that there is very little resistance to a radical change in the organisation and structuring of the affluent society.

Any group, impatiently longing for the fall of the affluent world, would do well, however, to consider the enormous influence of a persuasive idea, as well as the probability, that a large part of the decaying society will be willing to cooperate and help in the construction of a new social order. Those, who are contemplating, impatiently, a violent over-throw, may do well to consider the marked resistance such a take-over will create, especially, if those, who are going to lose their positions or privileges can only expect revenge, perhaps, even, death. Revolutionary fervor is, so often, the cause for an act of desperate resistance and unnecessary bloodshed, while a little patience would have brought the same changes, more smoothly and relatively peacefully.

Let the revolutionary, in his eagerness to restore the wounded sense of justice, not make the error of wounding the sense of justice of his enemies and potential victims. How much bloodshed and misery can be avoided, if this simple truth and logic would be understood and practiced by those, who are going to be the conquerors of the future!

If a revolution is ever worth to be called "just", it should replace a society that has a poor record of justice with a society that has a far better system of justice for everyone. To trampel the rights of those who did a poor job while in power, may satisfy the feelings of revenge, but, we should realise, that such attitudes only replace one injustice with another.

There can be little doubt, that the future societies of mankind will be far more transparent and open than they are today. We have outlined, how we visualise modern computer techniques to play a crucial role in establishing the future channels of communication and information, which will make even a large and complex society, transparent and manageable. We have also outlined, how the existence of mutual trust and confidence has to be based on openness and the ability to scrutinise everything that is going-on within a society. We have outlined, why it is necessary for each individual to be able to verify, at any time, the justification of his attitude of trust. We have discussed, how such a complete openness and transparence, together with the guarantee of basic existential rights, should make it possible, for the first time in history, to overcome the problems of corruption, crime and inefficiency.

We will not repeat these ideas and arguments, here, but, we want to emphasise the fact, that it is possible to design a far more just and harmonious society than we have been able to, so far. There is good reason to believe, that we will, finally, conquer the perplexing complexities of human behaviour, if we start to understand, far more comprehensively, how we fit into the organisation of living existence. As we learn to understand, why a human being may, at times, be motivated to behave very much to the benefit of others, while, at other times, the attitudes and behavioural acts are ruthlessly destructive, egocentric and cruel, we may have a chance to harvest the more beneficial motivations and control those that may lead to injustice, or, even, disaster.

We may be able to overcome the problem, how to control our impulses, but, on the other hand, we may not. As we have discussed several times already, there may not be enough time to learn about ourselves and implement all the safeguards and Constitutional Guidelines we are going to need in order to have a chance to ensure the continued viability of human existence. If we do not make it as a species, let us not consider it to be the ultimate tragedy in the Universe, but, let us also avoid reckless and suicidal attitudes, because, even, a momentary loss of control over a very small group of determined people, may be sufficient to trigger a holocaust that is byond our powers of imagination, and, may well be beyond our capabilities to recover from.

We may learn about ourselves, and, we may be successfully implementing Constitutional Guidelines for a globally integrated society of mankind, leading to unimaginable possibilities of achievement and understanding. We may learn about the requirements for global justice, and, we may learn to accept, realistically, the price we have to pay to achieve a condition of real peace on earth. Eventually, we may, even, want a true peace; a true harmony, and, not the pseudo-peace of a frozen status-quo.

We may learn to appreciate the extent of our popular misconceptions. We may come to the conclusion, that the haven of consumerism is not so attractive or satisfying after all. We may learn to relinquish our compulsive obsession with the consumption of all sorts of pleasurable stimuli. We may develop some insight into the reasons, why so many of us are obsessed with the desire to satisfy our sensual demands. We may learn to see, why, and how, we exist in a gigantic cauldron of boiling tensions and frustrations, floating helplessly and endlessly, hopelessly and blindly, on the swirling streams of emotions and motivations.

Rarely have people suffered so chronically and on such a large scale from a neurotic fixation as in our affluent, consumerist societies, and, we will, eventualy, acknowledge, how we have been sucked into this condition of mental slavery by the clever conditioning techniques of the large corporate structures and their commercial interests. We are living in the Age of the Corporate Dinosaurs, and, we are ruled by them. Justice is on the verge of disappearing, because it is in the vital interests of these dinosaurs to enslave more and more people. Their voracious appetite for this never-ending stream of cash is growing all the time, and, these dinosaurs are becoming increasingly dependent upon a continued expansion of the flow of cash.

It is remarkable, how much this picture of corporate giants, weaving their tentacles of influence throughout the nations of the world and sucking-up the energy of money through their muli-national inlets, reminds us about the speculative images we have developed about the giant rivers of energy-dissipation that were formed by the biochemical pathways of the primordial protoplasm.

We have discussed, why every form of gigantism has a limited life expectancy. The giant rivers of biochemical energy-dissipation, as we described in the essay "Energy and Growth", have long since disappeared, but the nimble, microscopic and efficient pathways of metabolism and catabolism have been preserved in the protoplasmic interior of contemporary, living cells.

A long time ago, a tiny, microscopic particle of the organisation of living existence became the sole survivor of these gigantic energy-pathways. The reason, why giants become so vulnerable, is always the same. They become increasingly dependent upon this gigantic flow of energy through their systems. Just as the large energy-rivers disappeared, when the primordial protoplasmic seas changed their conditions of existence, so were the reptilian dinosaurs vulnerable to slight environmental changes, which, immediately, threatened their large and continuous need for energy.

Similarly, corporate dinosaurs are extremely vulnerable to even slight changes in cash-flow, caused by minute changes in public taste or governmental attitudes, as we see in the changes of consumer spending habits and political controls. This vulnerability to changes in the public taste and governmental policies is one of the main reason for their relentless search for control over the societies they exist in. It is possible, that, eventually, many of these giants will disappear, or, that they will develop into socially more responsible and responsive structures, merging with the leadership institutions of society, and, hopefuly, injecting a healthy dose of efficient and computerised management into the political and governmental bureaucracies.

However, we are speculating, here, and, this, we do not want to do, because we have speculated extensively before on the possible and probable course of future social developments. The main feature of future developments in human societies will be a carefully scrutinised choice, rather than a blind search for existence possibilities, as we see, now, when an ever-enlarging segment of the population finds a niche of existence possibilities in government bureaucracies.

Certainly, there will always be a need to research or develop a certain product or function, but, before we start to research or develop anything, we will have a good idea, why we want it, why we need it, and, how we are going to coordinate all the necessary man-power and facilities to make the act of research and development, a coordinated and efficient adventure; an act of our collective and informed will, and, not the unbridled search for possibilities of making a living, fueled by the existential anxieties of those who have become involved with these activities.

In a just society, work will not be motivated, anymore, by the anxiety of having to make a living, but, by a sense of responsibility for the tasks that have to be accomplished, the problems that have to be solved, as well as the decisions that have to be made. In a peaceful and harmonious society, mutual dependence, individual differentiation and specialisation in function will flourish, because these factors will have been precisely integrated by Constitutional Guidelines, and, the watch-dog of collective conscience and scrutiny will guard against the development of parasitic dependencies, the temptations of egocentric exploitation, or, the build-up of serious resentment and frustration by a chronically wounded sense of justice.

Society will never be free from tensions. It will never be free from worries, or, free from the need to marshall the good-will of the people, and, it will always be necessary to emphasise the importance of individual awarenesses and contributions. We will always have to be alert, awake, constantly aware of the collective and individual efforts that are necessary to keep society in a state of reasonable vitality, harmony and good health.

A living cell will die, if it ceases to repair itself. Similarly, a society will die, if it fails to maintain, with vigilance and justice, the conditions of peaceful co-existence, based on a satisfied sense of justice and a contract of essential equality.

.......

Summary

1. Difficulties with the concepts of justice and peace.
   A series of questions.
   Freezing a favourable status-quo.
   The restless nature of human existence; objectives and ambitions.
   Is peace only attractive and meaningful to those, who are weary and tired?
   More questions.
   Understanding some of the difficulties in bringing-about a condition of justice and peace.
   We, and "the others".
   Cultivating friends and connections.
   Security, and our never-ending efforts to secure positions of power and privilege.
   A definition of a Saint.
   A dialogue with those who are privileged.
   Superficial opinions and solutions.
   Laziness, and the problem of rebellious hot-heads.
   
   
   
2. A closer look at those revolutionary hot-heads.
   The variable concept of "hard work".
   Differences between rebels and opportunists.
   The fragile conditions of justice and peace.
   A broad look at the relationships between large groups of people.
   A wide-ranging field of causes and their effects.
   An optimistic outlook on future developments.
   A review of the force-fields involved in the events of life.
   The "freedom of choice" that is available to the members of mankind.
   Why a definition of justice depends, strongly, upon what we believe to be true.
   Changing aspects of what seems "just".
   Confusing the concept of justice with "advantage".
   Looking as an outsider upon a situation of conflict.
   The art of judgeing fairly.
   The crux of a satisfactory judgement.
   
   
   
3. A look at the requirements for the judicial settlement of a dispute.
   A review of mechanisms playing a role in a small unit of socially integrated animals.
   The "natural leader".
   The phenomenon of the hierarchy, or "pecking order".
   The evolution of leadership structures and functions in the larger social environment.
   A shift from a hierarchical stratification of individuals to groups of people.
   The origins of class-divisions.
   A review of early cultural developments in the human society.
   A variety of "break-throughs".
   The exploitation of labour.
   Justice is the ability to avoid a debilitating internal strife; by making most people feel, that they genuinely benefit from belonging to their social environment.
   Judicial settlements, originating from precedents and pragmatic examples, as well as generalised principles of conduct.
   Behavioural guidelines are always formulated with the needs of society as the central organising principle.
   The patriotism of an alien invader.
   Complex societies need a definition of justice that can satisfy a large number of different cultural or ethnic groupings.
   The first pragmatic steps towards formulating relativistic guidelines.
   The problems of defining an attitude of "good-will" without a firm theoretical foundation.
   Human rights and obligations.
   Behaving collectively as a somewhat spoiled child.
   The balance between rights and obligations is, in essence, the balance of an energy-equation.
   
   
   
4. The beginnings of a global standard of justice.
   Why hierarchical in-fighting is futile in a large society.
   Differentiations on the basis of an essential equality in status and opportunity.
   A statement of basic human rights.
   The responsibilities of leadership.
   The administration of justice is a leadership function.
   The qualities of a good judge.
   A greater role for judicial settlements in the future.
   The need for "distance", when arbitrating a dispute; various difficulties.
   The jury-system.
   Offenses against the basic values and beliefs of a social environment.
   Difficulties with obtaining strict impartiality.
   Justice is a fickle and difficult instrument.
   
   
   
5. The "sense of justice"; a review.
   The differences between a threat and a disappointment.
   A review of the basic classification of sensory stimuli.
   The break-through of predation.
   Maintaining the basic distinction between positive and negative stimuli.
   Confusing and contradictory stimuli.
   The emotions of resentment, anger, and a wounded pride.
   Multiple codes of behaviour.
   The hunter and his prey.
   All-out combat.
   Tacit agreements or codes of behaviour.
   The act of favouritism; tampering with a hierarchical status.
   The "near-leader" is likely to be feared and denied access to power.
   Polarising force-fields within a social environment.
   
   
   
6. A "clash of personalities".
   The near-leader as a leader of a sub-grouping.
   The many roles of the members of society.
   Democratic mechanisms grind to a halt through corruption and inefficiencies.
   A basic injustice; the abdication of leadership responsibilities.
   The road towards interminable squabbling.
   Constitutional Guidelines; only a meagre beginning, so far.
   The lack of insight.
   The requirements for future Constitutional Guidelines.
   The widespread practice of favouritism.
   The need to become more aware of harmful attitudes and practices that are still considered to be normal or, even, desirable.
   The under-privileged youngster.
   Hypocrisies.
   People live in only a very small segment of their society.
   The widespread experience of discrimination.
   Discrimination, sliding towards corruption.
   The poorly defined concepts of justice.
   Practices of injustice.
   
   
   
7. We have a lot to learn.
   Mechanisms associated with a wounded sense of justice.
   A few curious examples.
   Jealousy and envy; pre-judged attitudes and activities.
   Deception and contempt.
   The mechanisms of "treachery"; an abuse of trust.
   Treachery, seen as a revenge.
   The potential to understand human motivations.
   The hidden fight; fighting from a position of weakness.
   Sibling rivalry.
   The difficulties associated with accepting failure.
   A summary of basic emotional mechanisms.
   Guidelines for "acting-out" a conflict.
   A look at sports and games.
   The importance of precise, open and scrupulously impartial rules.
   The "win", seen as a reflection of skills, as well as an object of admiration.
   The game, compared with the game of living in society.
   The conflict, seen as a "game that went wrong".
   The decay of guidelines, and its effects upon social behaviour-patterns.
   The blurring between right and wrong.
   Society; a brittle shell without strength or resilience.
   When open hositlities and armed conflict are just around the corner.
   
   
   
8. Justice can not exist without a social structure.
   Trust, and the ability to communicate.
   The inertia of social mechanisms, including the "economic momentum".
   Rising tensions, enslavement, and a helpless and hopeless outlook.
   The soothing effect of dreaming about pleasures and money.
   The use of sense-dulling drugs in a decaying society.
   Corruption, misery, violence and exploitation.
   A bursting bubble of lethargy.
   Surrender.
   The shifting balance of power.
   A gloomy picture, and the anger or anxiety it may provoke.
   A series of questions.
   Questioning the beliefs of the Christian Faith.
   An invitation to consider the concepts and imagery of natural evolution.
   The limited benefits of a religious belief structure.
   
   
   
9. The pitfalls of a strong belief in an Absolute Truth.
   Facile exhortations and a hopeless outlook.
   Further questions about the ability to really believe in the religious imagery.
   Peace is a conscious pact between people with differing points of view and diverging interests.
   Are the wrongs of society to be left to the Will of God?
   The temptation to freeze a favourable status-quo.
   Recognising the mechanisms of social decay, before we can understand the requirements for social stability.
   Learning to understand and acknowledge each other's basic requirements.
   Peace on earth is not an impossibility, nor an achievement against great odds.
   Peace on earth will soon be a necessity for survival.
   The price of peace.
   The difficulties for privileged people to give-up their privileges and powers.
   A definition of peace.
   The price under-privileged people and groups of people have to pay for an atmosphere of genuine peaceful co-existence.
   Is the idea of "essential equality for all" only a myth?
   A review of the needs and requirements for a successful differentiation or divergence; healthy inter-dependencies.
   A look back upon the simple game.
   The game of life.
   The ability to be a "winner", once in a while, for nearly everyone.
   The need for transparent and globally valid rules.
   
   
   
10. A win does not have to lead to feelings of resentment or anger in those who lost.
    The winner, seen as a symbol for individualised goal-patterns and behavioural choices.
    A review of the conditions for a beneficial structuring of the "game of life".
    Maintaining basic security and essential equality.
    A review of territorial behaviour-patterns and leadership responsibilities.
    Adjustments of the hierarchical order in a small-scale social environment.
    Human societies will never be free from tensions or challenges, but adequate and efficient mechanisms should be able to resolve these tensions and challenges in a non-destructive manner.
    A review of the enlargement of leadership structures and cultural guidelines.
    A review of the current state of social developments.
    Efforts to harnass egocentric behaviour-patterns for the good of society, and, efforts to suppress divergence and differentiation by a program of strong ideological indoctrination.
    
    
    
11. Outlets for rising social tensions.
    Territorial and economic expansion; factors, that have fallen-away as useful outlets for frustrations and tensions.
    Why social environments have a tendency to crumble.
    The many short-comings of Capitalist and Communist systems.
    An emphasis upon the mechanisms of differentiation and mutual inter-dependence.
    The blessings of truly gifted and inspiring leadership.
    The unbreakable links between privilege and responsibility.
    The spoils of a victory, seen, as a gift from society.
    Further comparisons between living in a social environment and the playing of games.
    How to counter-act the dangers of a reactionary egocentricity.
    A further elaboration of the principles of mutual inter-dependence in a position of essential equality.
    The convergence of altruistic and egocentric motivations.
    The need for mechanisms of control.
    
    
    
12. The dangers of an escape from control mechanisms.
    The Constitutional Code.
    A review of the requirements of justice and Constitutional control.
    Avoiding local "hot spots" of power.
    The need to excercise the faculty of conscious awareness.
    The need to teach the importance of each individual's efforts and contributions.
    Existential anxieties remain always close to the surface.
    Collective leadership and Parliamentary Assemblies.
    Contributions to society have to be organised according to the natural phases of an individual's life-span.
    Strikes against society.
    A few questions about privacy.
    Various forms of privacy.
    The right to know, and the obligation to inform.
    
    
    
13. The extent of criminal activities in affluent societies.
    The extent of social decay.
    Large numbers of people may adapt quickly to a new social order.
    Painful upheavals, but not necessarily a loss of viability for everyone.
    The difficulties of a coordinated defense.
    Revolutionary fervor, and the creation of an unnecessary resistance to change.
    A revolution can only be called "just", if it avoids replacing one set of inequities with another.
    An essentially optimistic expectation about future developments.
    The ultimate tragedy.
    Possibilities for learning.
    A case of chronic, compulsive and obsessive behaviour-patterns.
    The corporate dinosaurs, and the large energy-rivers of the protoplasmic primordium.
    The superior viability of the small, efficient unit of the living cell.
    The obligatory dependence of giants on a large and continuous influx of energy.
    The likelyhood, that corporate dinosaurs will eventually merge with social leadership institutions.
    The need to plan and coordinate research-efforts.
    Work, seen as a privilege in the just societies of the future.
    Like the living cell, a society will die, if it fails to repair itself continuously.

.......