A LECTURE FOR YOUNG PEOPLE





A Study in Thought

sa039



by





Marius Heuff

Chapter 1

Content

The meaning of a lecture.
An excercise in thinking.
Differences and similarities between people.
The problems of our parents.
We all feel tense and frustrated, at times.
How much we accept as true, without any thoughts or questions.
We are always "on the go".
The privileged and the poor.
The childishness that comes with being born into affluence.
Lecturing the lecturer.
The short-comings of the adult generations.
Many questions.
A look back to the time, when adults were young.
A shift in the priority of our problems and concerns.

Please, do not worry. I am not going to give you a long lecture about what you should or should not do; what you should or could know and learn, or, how you should behave. I am not going to tell you, how you should look at life; your own life or the life of anyone else. I am not going to tell you, what you should or should not believe. A lecture means something else. It is a piece of writing that is worthwhile to read, and, I hope, of course, that you will say to yourselves, after you have worked your way through this lecture, that it was indeed worth the effort, and, that it made a lot of sense. Actually, that is, indeed, what it is all about; a lot of common-sense; just plain and clear thinking about a lot of questions and problems, in particular, the questions and problems of young people all over the world.

I am not going to tell you what to think, but, I am going to tell you how I think about these matters. I am going to tell you, what, I think, the human beings is; where we come from; what happens when we die; why we have to die; why there is so much misery and suffering on earth, and, why we also have good reasons to be happy and thankful for the fact, that we are alive.

We all live under different circumstances. Sometimes, we live and think so differently, that we speak completely different languages. We may even eat, dress and react differently, and, we often have difficulties understanding each other's behaviour. We even have difficulties understanding and knowing each other, when we do speak the same language.

There are marked differences between people, even, within a small community. Some of us are strong, healthy, popular, talented, leaders; others are shy, more reserved, dream a bit more about things we do not like to talk about. Some of us feel inadequate or a failure, and, we are unhappy with ourselves.

Some young people have an advantage, because their parents are rich and well-known, or, they have a good job or a position of prestige, and, some of us come from a family where the parents quarrel constantly. Perhaps, father has left home, drinks heavily, or goes out with other women. Perhaps, mother is having her problems, too. She may be drinking or using drugs. She may be always on the go, looking for a happiness she can not find, anywhere.

Yes, if you look around, it is easy to see, how different we are, even, if we live in the same community, go to the same schools, or speak the same language. You may ask yourself, from time to time, what a chance it was to have been born into the family you come from. You may consider yourself lucky, if you can be proud of your parents and the family you come from, or, you may ask yourselves, why you had the misfortune to come from a broken home; to come from a family or a social grouping that is not well-liked by others; perhaps, even, looked-down upon.

You may wonder, why you are not talented in sports, the arts, or in learning at school. You wonder, why you are not a leader to whom other people look-up. Why are people so different? Why do some smoke and drink, or live without any apparent rules, while other youngsters are kept quite strict by cautious and unbending parents?

Regardless, whether you are popular and successful or somewhat lonely and shy, you all experience, from time to time, the feeling, that you like to have answers to a lot of questions. From time to time, we all feel that we are missing something. We feel tense and frustrated, as we are hemmed-in by rules and regulations we do not understand. We feel angry and sorry for ourselves, if we think about the things we miss and about the difference between what we are, and, what we would like to be.

We feel angry and frustrated, if we are treated unjustly, or think, that we have been treated unjustly. We feel disappointed and somewhat bewildered, if we notice, that our parents lie to us, occasionally, or, do not seem to be able to give honest and straight-forward answers. We are disappointed, when we see, that the older generations tell us what is right and wrong, how to behave and what to believe, but behave themselves in a way that does not correspond to what they preach.

On the other hand, we may sometimes think for a moment about all the things we have been taught; by our parents, at school, or, by other members of the community. We wonder, for a moment, how we know, whether it is all true, what they tell us. For a few fleeting moments, we realise, how much information has been accepted and taken for granted as being true, without giving much thought to the question, why we have accepted all the things we have been taught or told to believe.

Usually, These thoughts do not last very long, because, as young people, we do not sit still long enough to think, thoroughly, about such matters. We are always on the go; we meet our friends, go here and there, play games or sports, joke around with the girls or the boys, and, we have always a few problems to take care of. We have to make sure, that we are home in time for supper or the evening dead-line. We have to watch our step a little, when we carry-on in a group, because other people may get angry, when we ruin something or break the rules.

There is work to be done at home and at school. Teachers and parents have to be placated. We can not afford to fail a grade . We may have to fight with another group or gang in the next block or a neighbouring village. We have to worry about torn clothes, scraped knees, the cigarette we smoked, or the bottle of beer we drank.

Of course, I can only describe, vaguely, and in general terms, the life of a young, healthy, and, in essence, very privileged adolescent, growing-up, rather care-free, in an affluent society, where there is plenty of food and money, as well as lots of freedom. Children remain children, and, they may remain so somewhat longer under such privileged circumstances, because children who grow-up in poor countries or deprived circumstances, have little time to play around or carry-out pranks of one sort or another.

The children of the really poor often go hungry. They have little hope or knowledge about how to escape from their miserable poverty. These youngsters may be dreaming about the time, that they will have a really good meal, with so much to eat that their bellies feel full. "When are we going to live in a real house, rather than this drafty and leaking shack? When will be able to have running water or a real bathroom? When can we get clean clothes, so that we do not have to fight, constantly, the pests and parasites?

The world of the really poor child and the world of affluent and privileged children, rarely meet, and, rarely do we, in the affluent world, give any thought to the question, what it would be like to go hungry, without a home; to be filthy and diseased, and, not to have any reason to believe, that it is going to get better in the future. What is it really like to grow-up with the feeling that nobody cares, whether you live or die?

Too many of us in the wealthy nations have become entangled in problems of our own making, and, we have no time or energy to really think about those, who have been born into the poorer nations of the world. Too many of us, fortunate people, never have to worry about being hungry or unable to get what we need. We never have to worry about having a home to go to, or a place to get out of the cold. We do not have to worry about getting an education or finding work. Too many of us throw away our fortunate circumstances by foolishness; by getting hooked on alcohol or drugs; by getting into unnecessary troubles, because we forgot, how much we have to be thankful for, especially, if we compare ourselves with youngsters born into poor nations or under-privileged families within our own country.

"Ah", you say, "you are preaching and you promised, that you were not going to give us a lecture. You were going to talk to us about common-sense, you said. We have seen the programs on television about the poor people and the poorer nations, but it is not our fault that they are poor. How come their parents and their own governments have not done something about their poverty? Why do they not restrict the growth of their population, if there are too many people? We know, that there are great disparities on earth, as well as grave injustices in the way people have to live. How come, you, grown-ups, have not done something about this?".

"There was great disparity between the peoples of the world when you were young. Now, you are old, and there is still disparity, perhaps, even, more so than before. Is it not during your generation that man has invented the atomic bomb? We have now so many nuclear war-heads in the world, that all the peoples of this planet could be killed many times over."

"Is it not your generation that has let the gap between the rich and poor grow ever wider? Is it not your generation that let the big companies get even bigger, so that they have become multi-national giants? Is it not during the last generation, that more and more of the wealth of the earth accumulated into the hands of fewer and fewer people? Is it not during your generation, that the scarcities of petro-chemicals and other resources have become gold-mines of exploitation and profit-taking, with the concentration of capital into the hands of a small elite, making them rich and powerful to an extent that boggles the mind?".

"You should not talk to us about our drug problems, unless your generation acknowledges, that alcohol is as much a drug as any other. How come, you let the government sell alcoholic drinks in their own stores, while frowning upon the habit of smoking grass? Besides, what has your generation really taughts us? What do you teach us in your schools? The only thing we seem to have learned from you, is the fact, that one has to get through exams in order to get into the really high-paying jobs.".

"You are teaching us, that we learn and go to school only for the purpose of obtaining an easy and well-paying job. What do you do for those youngsters, who do not have the brains to become a professional in one field or another? How many of them have to look for jobs in a haphazard manner, without much guidance and without being taught a job before leaving school?".

"What have you done with the income-taxes you collected from those who got the high-paying jobs? What has happened to all the public monies that have been spent? Can you account for every penny? What have you done with our currency? How come it is not keeping its value? How can you expect us to save for a rainy day, or, for a place of our own, if the value of our currency is constantly being eroded by inflation? How come, your generation still does not understand what inflation is, what it does to the confidence people are supposed to have in their governments? How come, your generation has still not found a way to preserve people's wages or earnings, so that one knows that it makes sense to save? Does it make sense to save money, if you notice that you can do less with it, next year, than you can do with it, now?".

"Do not blame us for the confusion, the sense of frustration, the anger and helplessness we feel towards the older generations of our affluent societies. Sure, we still have something to eat. We have a home to go to, and, we can afford many luxuries, if we spend everything we earn. We did not create the chaos and confusion of spiraling inflation, or, the ever-increasing discrepancies between the rich and the poor, the giant corporations, or the ever-escalating arms-race between super-powers, nor are we responsible for the steadily worsening problems of air, sea and land pollution.".

I agree that it is a disgrace, a tragedy, a crime, that, in spite of all the abundance on earth, so many people go hungry, and so many people live under conditions that are inhuman. Yet, we, young people, can not feel responsible for it, because under the previous generations, the circumstances and conditions have become worse rather than better. If you, older generations, have not done much to prevent this mess, how, then, can you preach to us about being thankful? You would like to place the burdens of the chaos you created, on us, don't you? Do not let me hear you preach again!".

I am sorry, and, you are right. We, the older generations, do have a tendency to preach to the young people about the attitudes we should have, the things we should do, and the ideals we should adopt, without having accomplished much ourselves. You are right, we do this, because we are placing the burdens of our problems upon you, the younger generations. We have no choice; a life-span is short. It is only a short while ago, that we were young ourselves, and, we reacted very much in the same manner as you are reacting now. We also rebelled against our parents, as they tried to teach and preach to us about right and wrong, our duties and responsibilities, and the tasks ahead. We also reacted with scorn and disbelief, because we pointed-out, just as you are doing now, how little they had accomplished themselves.

When I was young, the world was plunged into the Second World War by the generation of our parents, and, we reacted with bitterness and anger to their preachings. How was it possible for our parental generations to cause such unbelievable misery and suffering amongst the hundreds of millions of people who were affected by the war? How was it possible, that the parental generations had still not learned to get along together? How did they have the nerve to teach us the virtues of love and Christian charity, while they killed each other on the battle-fields? How was it possible to believe in truth and justice, when we saw that each side invoked the blessings of the same God, before they went to war?

We had many questions, and, we have to admit, now, a generation later, that we have not accomplished all that much. But, I think that it is fair to say, that we have accomplished a few things. I speak, now, very generally for those generations that grew-up during the Second World War and are now approaching their fifties and sixties, nearing the end of their most productive period.

Yes, I think, that the picture is not entirely bleak, but it is true, that we have also created or aggravated many problems that were not so apparent before, while we may, perhaps, claim a modest success in solving, or, at least, alleviating other problems, which seemed to be the most urgent, when we were reaching adolescence.

.......

Chapter 2

Content

The younger generations during and after the Second World War.
The horrors of war, and the promise of affluence for everyone.
Strictly guided economies, and the freely enterprising societies.
The mixed economies, and the blessings of a fair and efficient system of progressive taxation.
Avoiding a rapid polarisation of society.
The problems of establishing an efficient and fair central bureaucracy, before the advent of the computer.
Problems with the principles of free-enterprise; multi-national corporations and organised crime.
Brain-washing the people with commercial propaganda.
Voluntary slavery.
The disastrous effects of constant commercial propaganda.
Differing ideas about human rights.
The dangers of egocentric, consumerist attitudes have to be understood and acknowledged, but can not be suppressed by laws.
The lure of a flamboyant life-style.
Great scientific insights and technological innovations are able to secure the future of mankind.
The problems of pollution and contamination.
The problems of hatred and cynicism.
The timid doctor.
The decaying influence of corruption and incompetence.
The possibilities for an open, competent and trustworthy society.
The surprising benefits of universal openness in the transactions and activities of human beings.

It is probably fair to say, that those young people who were intimately involved in the horrors of the Second World War, were primarily concerned with preventing such a disaster from ever happening again. We saw, clearly, the horrible consequences of extreme nationalistic sentiments, and, we saw the terrifying results of an elitist and racist philosophy, when the Jewish people and other undesirables were systematically exterminated by Nazi Germany. The survivors of the War, as well as the younger generations, believed strongly in the ideals of world-wide cooperation and the rebuilding of devastated economies.

Many of us were divided over the question, how economic restitution and expansion could best be achieved. Many believed, that a rapid and just growth in economic wealth and individual living standards could only be achieved by a centrally controled government bureaucracy, in order to ensure, that the economic expansion and the accumulation of wealth would benefit everyone, and not just an elite of clever entrepreneurs. Others felt, that a strictly guided economy would always lead to wasteful bureaucratic bungling, and, they favoured a much greater degree of freedom for enterprising individuals, where government involvement in the economy was limited to a system of fair taxation and a re-distribution of the economic wealth.

If we look at a number of developed and developing societies, it is clear, that all sorts of social, political and economic models have been tried, ranging from a tightly controled, State-guided economy, to a system of free-enterprise, where citizens were allowed to actively minimise government involvement in economic activities. A majority of countries adopted a position somewhere in the middle, where the system of free-enterprise was allowed and encouraged, as long as it did not come into conflict with the ideals and interests of a majority of people.

However, it became increasingly apparent, that governments had to regulate, guide or take-over those functions and activities in society, which provided essential services to the community, or the nation as a whole. A number of "mixed economies" arose, where governments had a great deal of influence upon the economic activities of society through a combination of complicated tax-levies and tax incentives, as well as a direct involvement in essential services. Certainly, some people would benefit more than others, and, some benefitted a lot more. Nevertheless, societies with a mixed economy avoided a rapid and disastrous polarisation of the population into a small and powerful elite of the rich, and a large majority of poor people.

The Socialist societies tried to regulate everything with a central bureaucracy, but, they ran into major problems with bureaucratic inefficiencies, the stifling of personal initiative and concern, as well as a low level of public scrutiny, discussion and criticism. Societies that allowed a great deal of latitude to business enterprises, grew economically the fastest, but, they also developed, most clearly, the problems that are always associated with a nearly unbridled free-enterprise. Huge business complexes, or multi-national conglomerates, came into being and tended to escape from effective public scrutiny and government controls. They became immeasurably powerful and influential as a result of their market monopolies and financial dominance over the mass-media, and, together with the rise of a powerful business sector, we see, invariably, the return of a wealthy and politically influential elite.

On other occasions, we have discussed the reasons, why commercial interests need to advertise their goods and services continuously, and, why they are always hungry for the earnings of the people. We have discussed, how these powerful interests have dominated the mass-media in countries that allowed a large measure of freedom to enterprising people.

The consequences of a constant barrage of consumerist enticements and a ceaseless stimulation of the desire to buy or consume something, to be thrilled or excited, (be it by sex, violence or a combination of both), are nothing short of disastrous; at least, in my opinion. I am convinced, that future historians will be able to see, far more clearly than we can now, how strongly the commercial interests have influenced and dominated the attitudes and outlook of the people in affluent societies after World War II. I am convinced, that they will be able to see, how the health and vitality of affluent people were constantly eroded by the artificial stimulation of egocentric and short-sighted desires. They will point-out to their contemporary audience and pupils, how we went back to slavery without realising it.

We have become slaves again. We are slaves to our instincts and passions, and, we are enslaved to the banks, the finance companies and the world of business, because we have been trapped by this constant barrage of commercial propaganda. You and I, including the younger generations behind us, we all are being indoctrinated, many times a day; we should have this or that; we should be so and so; we can not be happy, unless we spend everything we earn; we are failures, unless we live a life-style of affluent display.

Even the practice of borrowing money, the worrying about monthly payments and an endless series of bills to pay, all these features of enslavement have been presented as normal, or, even, desirable signs of modern life in a sophisticated society.

Success in a modern, affluent society seems to imply the need to immediately gratify every desire and a willingness to enslave ourselves, financially, for the rest of our lives. Success seems to mean a willingness to live, chronically, in fear of losing our job; of not having enough money; of not being a sexual hero, or a super-attractive girl. Success seems to mean a bland obediance to the taste of the mass-media, the record and video companies, the big promotors, the merchants of pornography, and all the other sharks around us.

Let us not forget, that they all are after the little money we have to spend, and, those, who are able to sell us one thing or another, are stimulating one desire after another. They do not care, whether or not we make more commitments than we can afford. They do not care, whether or not we ruin our health. As long as they can persuade us to buy, to consume, and pay for their products, they are happy, because all these merchants, be they big or small vendors of goods and services, they all need our money to survive.

Yes, I know, our generation has allowed these developments to happen. It is primarily my generation, that has championed the philosophy of ever faster economic expansion, and, only now, are we beginning to realise the consequences of ruthless, unbridled economic growth. Only now, are we beginning to realise the pernicious influence upon our minds and the decline in the quality of life, which have come-about as a result of commercial pressures and constant advertisements. Only now, are we coming to the conclusion, that our attitudes, outlook, goals and sense of happiness and justice have been poisoned by the constant stimulation of egocentric desires and demands. Only now, are we starting to realise the enormous price we have to pay for subscribing to a consumerist outlook on life. Only now, are we beginning to realise, to what extent our affluent societies have been invaded by organised crime, the pushers of dope and other racketeers.

The severe, chronic frustrations of the younger generations, the bitter senselessness of modern affluence, the cynicism and the examples of corruption and incompetence, all these factors are related to the mistakes we made. We abandoned, clearly, the elitist philosophy of the Nazis, but we entrapped ourselves in the erroneous philosophy of consumerist indulgence. We have solved, to some extent, the problems of extreme nationalism and racist attitudes, but we have undermined the ability to be vital, vigorous and concerned human beings.

We have solved, to some extent, the problems of human rights; at least, we have been able to agree amongst ourselves, by and large, that each human being does have rights by virtue of having been born a human being. Certainly, we do not agree very precisely about these matters. Some of us emphasise the right to work, the right to equality in living standards, and the right to be protected from commercial exploitation, while others emphasise the right to criticise, to dissent, and to enterprise freely.

Obviously, the diverging political systems of Socialism and Free-Enterprise do not understand each other, as yet, and, they use the issue of human rights as a weapon to discredit and ridicule each other. Yet, there is a growing awareness amongst the peoples of the world, regardless of the political systems they are governed by, that it is senseless to engage in all-out warfare, because we all have recognised the fact, that our weaponry has become too large and too devastating to be used as a tool in a power-struggle between fragile human beings, living in an equally fragile terrestial environment.

My generation has contributed something to the solution of the problems of the past. It has carried the momentum of technological and economic development to the point, that most nations have become linked into a network of communications and trade relations, but, we have seriously undermined the attitudes of people in the free-enterprise and Socialist societies alike, by infecting them with the "virus" of selfish consumerism and egocentric pleasure-seeking.

It is likely, that the most affluent nations will suffer most seriously from this disease, and, we hope that the developing nations will recognise, clearly, the dangers of egocentric consumerism. Yet, we hope, also, that these developing nations will not use the ineffective tools of censorship and cultural isolation in a well-meant but futile attempt to prevent people from adopting the pernicious attitudes of consumerism.

It is ludicrous to believe, that, poor and hungry people will forego, voluntarily, the drive to consume, whenever and whatever they can, or, that they will be able to control the drive to consume, because others have done so, too. However, it is possible, that, satisfied and healthy people, with an excellent insight into the overall problems of human existence, will come to the conclusion, that it is important to forego the temptations of a consumerist life-style in order to preserve the dwindling resources and the precarious eco-systems of our planet.

Yet, such a benevolent and magnanimous attitude is only possible, if everyone is enjoying a status of essential equality. People will recognise the fact, that the conditions of peace and justice are irrevocably related to each other, because a condition of peace without the justice of essential equality, is merely a frozen status-quo that benefits an established elite.

Peace and justice can not be maintained in a condition of relentless competitive strife. A condition of peace and justice, means, that every individual is clothed, fed, housed and educated adequately, and, that every citizen can see that his or her government is honest and efficient in carrying-out its tasks and duties as it is supposed to, and, that one has a similar duty, as a citizen, to be as honest and competent as possible.

My generation has provided scientific insights into many fields, but, I agree with you, that most of these insights are still poorly coordinated. They are fragmentary and confusing to those, who are not experts in the fields in which these insights have been developed. We have seen great bursts of development in our understanding of nature, of life, of the Universe, and, we have also seen a phenomenal development of technological mastery, e.g., in the use of nuclear power, computers, as well as all sorts of machines that can be used for war or pleasure; for the benefit or the devastation of human life in our fragile terrestial environment.

As a result, we have become involved with a great number of questions and problems we hardly foresaw or knew about, as recently as fifty years ago. Now, we are more familiar with the dangers of nuclear explosions and radio-active fall-out, and, we know a little more about the contamination of the earth's surface with an ever expanding number of pollutants. Somehow, we will have to learn to clean-up or control all these pollutants, before they make life miserable, or, even, impossible.

Rather suddenly, we have come to the realisation, that the earth is not a limit-less waste-basket into which we can throw our junk and dangerous by-products. We have recognised the need to worry about the earth's capability to absorb it all. We have seen, that, even, the oceans can be polluted by man-made activities, such as oil-spills from tankers, the blow-out of underwater oil-wells, or, the dumping of toxic and radio-active waste. We know, now, about the dangers of smog and other air-pollutants, which may cause all sorts of serious diseases. We know about the acidification of our fresh water systems, the erosion of our soil, the disappearance of wildlife and endangered species', as well as the enormous waste and devastation caused by short-sighted industrial exploitation.

True, our technological break-throughs have created more problems than they have solved, and, the rapid economic expansion, the attitudes of enslavement to consumerism, as well as the development of gigantic commercial interests, have contributed to a widening gap between the rich and the poor.

We still have little insight into the mechanisms of frustration and pent-up hatred, of cynicism, despair and violence, and, we are virtually helpless in the face of overwhelming corruption, organised crime and large-scale exploitation. Our larger societies are rapidly being torn-apart by these forces, but our leaders do not know what is happening, let alone, how to correct these processes.

Time and again, we see our leaders groping for the platitudes of exhortation; we should do this or that; we should love in stead of hate, we should build in stead of destroy, but, unfortunately, they hardly know anything about the major motivations that entice people to seek an escape from their frustrations in sex, drugs or violence.

Our leaders have no solutions, because they still have not been able to assess, realistically, how fragile and corrupt the world of affluence has become. Our leaders usually mean well, and, they are, by and large, honest and decent people, but, they have a tendency to avoid making a cold, clinical diagnosis of the ailments of society, because they fear, that, by exposing, rigorously and ruthlessly, all that is rotten in society, the last vestiges of cohesion holding their societies together, will fall-away. Yet, we know, that a doctor who is timid in treating a rotting sore, will only make matters worse and will not cure his patient!

The problems of pollution and resource exhaustion are compounded by a deteriorating performance of leaderships and citizens alike. Whether we are government officials, elected representatives, business people, professionals or tradesmen, an atmosphere of mutual mistrust and incidences of injustice lead to increasingly selfish attitudes, and, those in power, authority and prestige will use their powers and privileges to look, primarily, after their own interests. Corruption becomes rampant, and society quickly decays into a seething mass of frustration and confusion, ready to erupt into violence and rebellion. But, does it have to be this way? Is it inevitable, that society decays after it has reached maturity and old-age? Is it necessary for corruption to become rampant?

I have always felt, that such a course of events was, indeed, inevitable, since history presents an un-ending series of examples to our scrutinising minds. We see how societies are born, grow and flourish, but then, stagnate, decay and die. I still believe, that this course of events is the rule, and not the exception, but, I also believe, that we have, now, the potential to shape the course of events more consciously and deliberately than we ever could before.

We have recently acquired the ability to shape the destiny of our societies, as well as the future of mankind as a whole. With our conscious will and insight, we can influence the course of events to an extent that was never possible before, because we never had the technological means of information and communication that have become available with the possibilities of the electronic media and the data-sorting capabilities of the modern computer.

It is possible, now, for the first time in history, to shape and construct a truly efficient, open and non-corrupt bureaucracy, because the same electronic information and communication technologies that are now being used for commercial propaganda, are able to handle a complex bureaucracy efficiently; something, that would have been impossible and unimaginable, before the advent of the computer and related electronic techniques.

Bureaucratic bungling, inefficiency and corruption have always been aggravated, or, even, caused by the fact, that it was impossible in a large bureaucracy to effectively check and oversee the efficiency and integrity of all officials. Now, we can do it. Now, we can create a completely open, informed and highly efficient network of bureaucratic channels, if we build a computer network in such a way, that each one of us can ask pertinent questions, at any time.

If I can ask what a government department is doing; who is doing what; how the public monies are being spent; how taxes are collected; how much my neighbour earns, and, how much income-tax he pays; if I can scrutinise the assets, powers and influence of every member in society; if I can ask these questions, and, if I can believe, that the information I obtain is complete, accurate and honest, I will be inclined to be less suspicious. I will be inclined to have more faith in my government, and, I will be more willing to cooperate with my government and with the people around me, because I can trust them, as well as the information I receive.

The point, here, is, indeed, this attitude of trust, because any society will disappear, in essence, and remain, only, as a fragile shell of external appearances, if trust disappears from the relationships between people. If we all look with a great deal of suspicion at each other, we have ceased to be a social entity. We are ready to explode, and the only reason why we go through the motions of belonging together, is related to the fact, that we need a job to make money and pay-off our debts.

.......

Chapter 3

Content

The possibility to use, or abuse, every form of knowledge and manipulative ability.
Science may become man's un-doing, as well as the crux to his survival.
A sense of awe, when understanding the principles of life.
Knowledge is used, so often, as a tool to take an unfair advantage.
The fragmented imagery of the sciences.
The narrow and haphazard focus of the specialist.
A declining prestige of the sciences.
A resurgence of religious and pseudo-religious cults.
Religion, nor science, possesses an ultimate, absolute truth.
Religious beliefs were a logical and inevitable result of trying to explain the world as seen by our naked senses.
An audacious scientific concept; abandoning the idea of a Creative Intelligence in favour of a predictable principle of Evolutionary Change.
A review of our ability to observe and classify.
The abstraction of common features as classifying principles.
The utilitarian nature of the selection of classifying criteria.
The phenomena of nature, as we can see and experience them all around us.
The remarkable concept of a revolving earth.
The evolution of scientific technology and instrumentation.
Science, seen as a system of coherent causes and their effects.
The reasons behind the process of scientific specialisation.
Limitations in the knowledge of a specialist.
The difficulties for ordinary lay-people, as well as specialised professionals, to form a coherent picture of reality, as it can be known with scientific methods of investigation.

Science gives rise to technology, and, technology leads to the possibilities for economic exploitation, pollution, multi-national giants and a pernicious atmosphere of consumerism, greed and mistrust. However, science has also given us the possiblity to understand each other better. It has given us the mass-media and global communications to advertise our products or spread superficial propaganda, but, the mass-media can also be used to talk sensibly to each other, and learn about our differing societies on a scale that has never been possible before.

The computer is also product of modern science, and, here again, we can abuse the information-gathering and -classifying capabilities of the computer to maximise corporate profits, spy upon competitors, or guard the secrets that give us a competitive advantage, but, we can also use the computer to build a comprehensive inventory of natural and human resources, to stream-line the bureaucracies of complex governments, and to give our leaders and their staff instantaneous access to a mass of well-organised information.

As always, the development of man's technological capabilities reveals the potentials of abuse, corruption, chaos and destruction, but, also, the possibilities of increased viability, justice, openness and happiness. Man's death or extinction may well come-about as a result of our technological mastery, but, let us not forget, that these same technological inventions, as well as the scientific insights that lie behind them, may also provide us with a measure of fore-sight and wisdom, as well as contentment and comfortable living conditions.

Scientific knowledge or insight can, therefore, be used or abused, depending upon what we do with it. If we use our knowledge to gain personally, it becomes a weapon, feared and distrusted by others, but, if we use our scientific insights to understand, better, who we are, how we function, and, what effects our existence has upon the environment, we may develop an attitude of concern and compassion that is beneficial and confidence-inspiring to the people around us.

The images we have developed about the origins of life, the functions of a living cell, or the structure of a complex multi-cellular organism, such as ourselves, gives us a feeling for the fragility of life, as well as the similarities between human beings and all other living organisms, because all organisms display, essentially, similar needs and requirements in their search for viability. Yet, so often, we use the imagery we acquired in the study of science, only, to find a job, or to impress our colleagues, or, we use scientific knowledge to capture a prominent position in the social hierarchy. We can use everything and anything we have learned for the purpose of personal gain, or, as a basis for a broadened understanding and concern for the conditions of human existence.

The imagery of the sciences has been fragmented over a large number of branches and their many experts, who rarely communicate with each other, and, logically, the sources of scientific information for interested lay-people are scattered and difficult to put-together into a coherent entity. These conditions are a serious stumbling block for our efforts to make the overall imagery of scientific knowledge relevant to a large majority of ordinary people. It is certainly difficult for anyone, who has not been trained in a scientific discipline, to know, what, and whom, to believe, when trying to form a somewhat coherent picture of the sciences. Even those, who have been trained in a particular field of science, fail, by and large, to develop a coherent imagery that lets them see their particular field within a broader perspective.

At this contemporary period of our history, the schooling within a particular scientific discipline is, nearly always, used to gain personal status, a professional position, to make money, or, to benefit a specific social grouping. In addition, the narrow focus of our particular scientific discipline leads to the temptation to use this focus as the center of our sphere of reality perceptions. Such an attitude of misguided and arbitrary importance of a particular field of knowledge adds to the confusion of a fragmented scientific imagery and authority, because many professionals and scientists occupy a position in society, where their opinions and advice about the broader aspects of life are given a measure of credence that extends, often, well beyond the confines of their expertise.

I believe, that, during my life-time, public confidence in the ability of the sciences to provide useful answers for the problems in society, has been declining. People have lost confidence about the ability of scientists to find convincing and widely acceptable solutions to the many important social, environmental and economic problems. Probably, this decline is a continuation of a process that had already started when I was young, but the level of confusion, the chaos, the social problems, as well as the tendency for young people in affluent societies to escape into a variety of dream-worlds, seem more pronounced today, compared to the time when I was young.

Perhaps, the increased confusion of our reality perceptions, the decline of confidence in scientific solutions and political leaderships, as well as the widespread use of escapist drugs, are, indeed, responsible for the resurgence of a variety of religious cults and the revival of fundamentalistic religious beliefs, together with a mixture of oriental and pseudo-oriental meditative practices. All these trends flourish commercially, because there are always people around, who exploit the opportunity to make money off someone else's anxieties.

Future historians may see this phenomenon as a logical extention of the exploitation of emotional sentiments and needs. While the business of pornography, violence and crime, of excitement and escapism preys upon our willingness to pay dearly for a few hours of oblivion and submersion into another world, the increasing confusion, chaos and fears that are being aroused by these trends, are exploited by those, who sell peace of mind and absolute truths in an attractive package of religious or pseudo-religious beliefs.

"Do I condemn religious beliefs and guidelines?", you ask. Let us examine, what kind of belief structures the word "religious" implies, and, how it compares with a scientific perception of reality. Let me make it clear, however, that I do not condemn religious beliefs, nor, do I elevate the scientific imagery as an absolute truth. Far from it. We will see, that science and religion are not nearly as far apart as we think.

We will see, how man has always tried to answer the questions about his nature, existence and destiny to the best of his abilities, and, how these answers became, nearly always, religious structures of belief, because man saw himself as a small and humble part of a much greater and unfathomable "Intelligence". Religious beliefs and attitudes acknowledge a very sensible and intuitive conclusion, which is the feeling, that man's intelligence and understanding are limited, and, that our intellectual faculties can only see a fraction of the realities that are present. We will see, indeed, what a curious and audacious belief structure the sciences have become, because the whole idea of an observable "Creative Intelligence" has been abandoned in favour of a spectacular, but, often, incredibly complex network of evolutionary changes.

These developments in our thinking are so important, and, they have made such an impact upon our outlook on life, that we should discuss them in some detail. Let us focus our attention, first, upon the question, what the essential differences are between a religious and a scientific perception of reality. What is science, and, what is religion? We have to arrive, first, at a fairly clear definition of these different ways of looking at reality, before we can tackle the question, what differences there are between them.

Science is the formulation of knowledge that has been obtained by looking at nature "objectively". By carefully describing everything we can see, hear or observe, we hope to come to a classification of all phenomena in such a way, that we can detect a general principle to help us orden all these awarenesses. We may try to classify, for example, the various types of rocks, or the different life-forms we can see all around us, or, we may try to classify any number of the many phenomena we can observe; e.g., the weather, the sun and the stars, etc. We may try to understand the phenomena of light, motion and gravity, and, we may even make an attempt to explain the nature and behaviour of living organisms.

The term "classification" represents two broad objectives. We may try to classify a group of phenomena or observations that are relatively static in appearance, or, we may classify a series of "events" showing a significant component of change. For example, when classifying a number of rocks, stones or pebbles, or, the leaves of a variety of plants and trees, or, the bones of animals, we are concerned with the task of grouping together a number of relatively static items of existence into classes with similar characteristics.

If we can find a "common denominator", (which is an aspect that is shared by some, but not all the specimens we have collected), we may use this common denominator, or common aspect, as the criterium to group a certain number of specimens together. In this way, we "abstract" a common feature as a classifying principle for this particular class or category of items, and, our justification for putting a number of specimens together in one class is then based upon the demonstration of a particular aspect they all have in common.

A common criterium or denominator may be the size or shape of a number of rocks, or, we can use their colour or weight, their smoothness or texture as the classifying principle. We may also use the evidence for the way these rocks have been formed as the common denominator for a classification. For example, do they show evidence of having been formed by the solidification of lava or molten rock, or, were they formed by sedimentation on a seabed?

It is obvious, that we choose these criteria of classification according to our needs. If we need to collect a number of rocks or stones to build a wall, we select them according to size or shape; if we want to understand, how they were formed, or, where they came from, we tend to select criteria that differentiate between the various sources of origin.

In the art of making scientific observations, we generally select those criteria for classification which help us understand how these specimens or items of existence came-about, and, this introduces another broad category of classification, where we group-together phenomena that display an element of change. If we look, for example, at the phenomena of day and night, the rise of the sun and its disappearance behind the Westerly horizon at night-fall, we are naturally inclined to ask ourselves why the sun rises and sets. We are inclined to find an "explanation" for these observations, just as we are inclined to find an explanation for the observation that the moon changes constantly its appearance and timing. We begin to wonder, why all the stars revolve around the sky, and, we may have noticed a curious point or star in the night-sky around which all the stars of the Universe seem to rotate.

We notice the rise and fall of the tides, the progression of the seasons, the bursting into life at spring-time, the ripening of the harvest in the summer, and the falling of leaves in the autumn, as well as the remnants of dead vegetation in the cold winter months. In short, man has always noticed a variety of regularly recurring phenomena that are characterised by a series of changes with time. This is the essence of an "event".

Man noticed the miracle of the birth of his own offspring, as well as the changes from infancy through childhood and adolescence into adulthood, old-age, disease and death. Man noticed the animals around him; how they moved, hunted or were being hunted themselves; how they lived, cared for their off-spring, but were always overtaken by sickness and death in the end.

Only later, was it possible for man to abstract the concept or principle of "gravity" from the fact, that, each and every object falls back to the earth when released or not supported, and, only in very recent times, has man been able to analyse the phenomena of light, sound, motion, fire, energy, lightning and thunder, the motions of the sun, the moon, the stars and the currents of water in a more or less comprehensive framework of causes and their predictable effects.

This type of reality perception has been called a "science", and, indeed, the major developments of scientific insights and knowledge that became possible in the last few centuries, occurred in those phenomena that could be measured precisely and relatively easily. Therefore, man's attention was first directed at the sky, where the motions of the sun, the moon and the planets could be measured with a variety of simple instruments. These measurements led, eventually, to the epochal insight and revolutionary conclusion, that the earth was, after all, not the center of the Universe; that the motions of the sun, the moon and the stars were not real, but, were due to the fact, that the earth itself rotated around an axis, like a spinning ball, and, that it, therefore, appeared to us, as if the sky was revolving; that the earth was not flat as it appears to our eyes, but represented, in reality, a sphere or a globe.

Science became really successful, when technological developments gave man all sorts of tools to measure and examine phenomena we could not observe, measure or record, accurately, without such tools. In this way, the scope of our observations and the precision with which we could make observations, enlarged dramatically, and, with it, we developed ever more coherent and complex systems of classification and explanation, where we could formulate the relationships between a variety of occurrences and items of existence in terms of causes and their effects.

But, there also developed a tendency for people engaged in this type of scientific work, or "research", to specialise. To master all these technical scientific instruments was difficult and time consuming, and, the field of observation became so large and complicated, that scientists quickly became specialists, concentrating on one particular field or another. This relieved them from the burden of trying to understand the entire field of science, and, it let them concentrate on learning how to handle a particular scientific technique or instrumentation. However, the undesirable consequences of a division of science into a large number of diverging disciplines, were reflected in the fragmentation of scientific understanding.

People, who are not engaged in scientific work, may still be interested to know, what the scientists have learned about a particular field, but, ordinary people, like you and I, have to rely upon the ideas, understanding and mental imagery, which the scientists have developed and conveyed to us. As lay-people, we are not able to scrutinise, in detail, whether or not the scientific expert has come to a justified conclusion in his or her field.

When scientists are working separately from each other in different fields, they tend to develop different languages, and, they also tend to "explain", or, relate the imagery of explanation and understanding to different frames of reference. For example, someone studying the weather will explain the events he is studying to the occurrence of areas with a differing atmospheric pressure, caused by unequal heating of the earth's surface, and, with this type of cause-and-effect explanation in mind, the meteorologist can give us some insights into the logic and reasons for the varying weather-patterns we are confronted with.

However, if we ask a meteorologist, what sunlight is; how it is produced by the sun; what light is; where the earth's atmosphere and water came from; why the earth is rotating; if we ask him these sort of questions, he will answer, that they fall outside his field of expertise. We will have to ask a cosmologist or astro-physicist about the nature of the sun, the stars and the Universe, and, we will have to ask a geologist, where the earth's atmosphere and seas came from. We will have to ask a nuclear physicist, if we want a detailed explanation about the nuclear reactions that take place in the interior of the sun, as well as all other stars.

In short, it has become very difficult for us, ordinary people, to obtain clear and coherent answers from our scientists, because we have to consult so many different groups or individuals, before we get the answers we are looking for, and, the situation becomes even more difficult, if we try to form an imagery about the way all these explanations and images "hang together".

.......

Chapter 4

Content

A scientific interpretation of reality becomes more difficult in the phenomena of life, and, in particular, of human life.
The baffling range of human behaviour-patterns.
A large number of questions.
An honest scientist has to say, often; "I do not know".
There is a lot known about our origins, and the evolution of life.
Life is a specific organisation of life-less matter.
The living cell.
Studying dead and stained cells.
The possibility to obtain a coherent picture of the functions of living organisms.
Scientific investigations of human behaviour; a more difficult terrain.
A lack of agreement about fundamental concepts.
Science and art, leading to philosophy.
What is "the truth"?
An attempt to outline the major differences, as well as the common roots of science and religion.
Religion; an explanation of nature without the help of scientific tools, as well as an attempt to influence the willed forces of nature to our benefit.
Science; an attempt to analyse and explain nature in a way that is emotionally as neutral as possible.
Technology; the manipulative powers resulting from a useful scientific interpretation of reality.

The situation is difficult enough, if we try to obtain a clear and coherent picture about the non-living aspects of nature, but, the problems become far more complex, if we ask scientists a few questions about the nature of living existence, including the nature of our own existence. Where does life come from? Where do all these species' come from? Where does man come from? How do we develop from a fertilised egg-cell into a baby? What makes us grow and mature? Why do we have to die, when we get old or become ill? Why do we behave the way we do? Why do we sometimes fight and kill, while, at other times, we may feel a great friendship, or, even, a sense of love for each other?

Are we good, or bad, or partly good and partly bad? What are good and evil? What is right and wrong? What is God? Has God revealed Himself to man? Can we know God? Can we pray to God, and, is God going to help us when we are in trouble? How come, some people believe in God and others do not? Why do so many people, who believe in the same God and belong to the same religion, still quarrel with each other? How is it possible, that people, who believe in God and Christ, have killed each other for the sake of their beliefs? What is truth? How do we arrive at a conclusion or believe that something is true? Why are we able to agree, at times, about what we believe to be true?

These are all legitimate questions, but, every honest scientist is going to tell you, quickly, that he can not answer many or most of them. He will tell you, that the study of man himself is one of the most difficult and controversial subjects for scientific study, because we disagree about even the most fundamental aspects of human existence, and, there are so few parameters we can measure or describe with great accuracy. The scientists will tell you, that there is still no clear picture about the nature and personality of the human being.

Yes, we can now answer some of the questions about man's origins, and, we have some ideas, how life developed, but, you have to remember, that the overall picture of the evolution of life, as well as the emergence of mankind, is only now emerging, slowly, from the observations and conclusions in the fields of anthropology, archeology, biology and geology. Even the fields of chemistry, biochemistry and physics are helping us to understand, how it happened, that life developed about four billion years ago, and, how the first billion years were necessary to develop the uni-cellular organisation. This uni-cellular organisation of living existence was able to survive and reproduce. It constituted a cellular organisation that contained, already, the potentials for differentiation and multi-cellular organisation that characterise the remainder of the evolutionary history of life on earth.

We are beginning to understand some of the biochemical mechanisms that regulate the duplication of a cell, or, an entire multi-cellular organism, and, only now, are we beginning to unravel some of the structural and functional characteristics of this marvelous and awesome structure; the genetic code, or blue-print, which is an indispensible feature for the organisation of a complex, living organism.

From a large number of careful and painstaking fossil examinations, we have been able to trace a lineage of human development that goes back approximately ten to fourteen million years. That far back in time, the human lineage merges gradually with a variety of man-like creatures, or "anthropoids". Most of these species' have become extinct and, we know them only from the few skeletal remains that have been found. These anthropoid species' formed a transitional life-form between the human species and the anthropoids that still exist today, such as the chimpanzee, the gorilla and the orang-oetang.

From the biochemical and physiological sciences we have learned, how certain chemical compounds or substances may become incorporated into the structure of a living cell. We have seen, how the components of a cell are themselves not "alive". They are chemical structures; some are fragile and exist only temporarily, others, are more stable and durable, but all molecules and ions within a cell are, by themselves, not capable of exhibiting a set of behavioural characteristics, which we have defined as the criteria of living existence.

We have come to understand, that life is, in essence, a complex organisation of a large variety of specific, "organic-chemical" components. The organisation of these components determines what functions can be carried-out by the organisation as a whole, and, it is this organisation, together with the supply of a suitable form of energy, which gives the cell the characteristics of a piece of living, biochemical machinery.

This is similar to any other piece of functional machinery, such as an internal combustion engine or a radio. The components themselves do not constitute the machine that can perform a specific function, but, if they are properly organised and function together as a unified complex with access to a suitable source of energy, the unit as a whole can perform functions, and maintain a measure of stability, which is beyond the capabilities of each individual component.

The living cell is nothing more than an organisation of chemical components. These components are able to carry-out the functions of the cell by virtue of their organisation, as well as the ability to utilise a suitable form of energy. The organisation of the cell is encoded by genetic instructions that are carried by the chromosomes, or genes, of the cell, and, during the process of cellular reproduction this genetic blue-print organises a series of processes in such a way, that a new cell is formed with its own set of genetic instructions.

The machinery of a living cell has many fragile components that need to be repaired or renewed, continuously, and, this is the reason, why a living cell requires a constant flow of suitable energy in order to prevent irreparable damage and disorganisation. If such a state of irreversible, irreparable damage occurs, the cell disintegrates. It loses its structural and functional integrity, together with all the characteristics associated with the status of being alive. The cell is then "dead", but, often a shadow of the structure of the cell can be preserved by chemical impregnation, and we can study the structure of such a dead cell under a microscope, in particular, if the various components have been stained, and, if the tissues containing these dead cells have been sliced thinly.

Modern techniques have also made it possible to study living cells under the microscope, in particular, free floating or "swimming" uni-cellular organisms, but, their lack of contrast under an ordinary light microscope makes it difficult to study them, unless we apply refined techniques, such as "phase-contrast" microscopy, where the differences in light refraction, caused by the components of the living cell, are enhanced artificially.

The sciences of biology, physiology, anatomy, and many others that deal with normal and abnormal living structures, together with the applied sciences of medicine, have shown us a rich variety of organ-systems in the multi-cellular organisms. Multi-cellular organisms are composed of a variety of "organs". These are specialised cellular communities that perform specific functions, and, we have learned to analyse the existence and behaviour of the human organism in terms of organ-systems with their normal and abnormal patterns of behaviour.

If a part of the body, such as the central nervous system and the many memory-traces that have been stored there, fail to function in a "normal" manner, we begin to see deviations in the functions, structure and behaviour-patterns of a multi-cellular organism, like ourselves, and, we are then dealing with some sort of a disease process. The art and science of medicine is concerned with the accurate diagnosis of what has gone wrong, as well as with the institution of a variety of measures that can assist the physiological repair mechanisms of nature.

The study of the processes that cause diseases, or abnormalities in form and function, represents the "diagnostic" aspects of medicine, while the measures taken to restore health are called "therapeutic". If these measures are chemical manipulations, the therapy is "medical", and, if they are mechanical, we call them "surgical". In the term "surgery" we imply measures that entail the opening-up of a part of the human body in order to remove something that should not be there, or, to remove a part of the body that has become severely infected, altered or diseased for one reason or another.

We do not want to elaborate, here, on the philosophy of medical skills. We want to emphasise the fact, that we use the mental images from a large variety of scientific disciplines to build-up a coherent picture of the structure and function of the human body. We use these scientific images to understand, how the body works normally, and, what went wrong, when the body got injured or sick.

However, the sciences have also attempted to unravel the nature of human behaviour. Behaviour is a complex of reaction-patterns, which our body and mind carries-out in response to stimuli and experiences that have been received in the physical and psychological spheres of our existence. The sciences have approached the study of human behaviour from a number of vantage-points. Some have tried to describe, classify and categorise the phenomena of human behaviour, by studying and recording what a human being does or says; how he reacts, what he dreams about; what he wants or fears, what he can see, hear, think, speak or do. This, in very general terms, is the science of psychology, but one of the major difficulties of the science of psychology is the absence of a coherent framework of agreed-upon, basic mental structures of the human being.

In spite of all the studies that have been carried-out, we still do not really agree amongst ourselves, how we should interpret or record the many aspects of human behaviour, because we can interpret the meaning of an observation in various ways. We may be talkative or boisterous, or, quiet and thoughtful, axious and fearful, confident and aggressive or tender and caring. In all these different moods and modes of behaviour, the meaning of what we say, think or do, will be different.

As a result, the science of psychology has concentrated, mainly, upon an attempt to measure man's faculties; to measure his ability to see or speak, to orient oneself, to read, to differentiate between right and left; to remember words, numbers or events. However, the imagery of the way the human mind functions, is still incomplete. Scientists still do not agree amongst themselves, what consciousness is, how a man can speak, how he forms concepts, how he remembers, what moods or motivations are. We still do not know, how the brain forms mental images; how the faculty of conscious awareness arose, or, how the ability to speak became an inborn and inherited potential for every human being; a potential that requires, nevertheless, a long learning period in a suitable environment, before it becomes an actualised reality.

The study of man, as he lived in the societies of the past, is the science and art of history, while the study of contemporary social groupings has been divided amongst the sociologists, the social anthropologists and the political sciences.

"What is a science, and what is an art?", you ask. When do science and art blend together? We can not go into details, here. Let us just say, that science is an explicit, verbalised image of reality that concentrates on a coherent framework of causes and effects, while art is a more intuitive imagery of reality that is conveyed by presenting some sort of a "portrait". However, such a portrait may not have to be visual. It may make use of words, like the portrait of a novelist or dramatist, or, it may make use of sounds, like the works of art created by a musician or composer.

The sciences are still far from giving us a coherent answer about the nature of human existence and its many behaviour-patterns, but, I am convinced, that we have, now, so many fragments of this jig-saw puzzle at our disposal, that it is worthwhile to try to fit the pieces together.

"Allright", you will say, "it may be possible to fit the pieces together into a larger and more coherent framework of understanding, encompassing many fields of science and welding them together into a harmonious imagery, but is such a picture then "true"? You have been talking about scientific images that seem only to have a reality in so far as we are aware of them, and agree about them amongst ourselves. What is then "the truth"? Is there a truth, and, how do we relate scientific images to the images that are taught to us by our religious leaders? You have given us an idea what science is, but, what, then, is the essence of a religion, and, what are the differences between the scientific and the religious belief structures? You started to ask this question yourself, and you promised us an answer.

Right; let us define the essence of a religion and compare the imagery of the sciences and the religions, before we dive into a discussion about "truth". The first thing we notice, is the fact, that man's religious beliefs and attitudes are, probably, as old as man himself, in spite of the fact, that we have only an inkling about man's beliefs, before the time that man learned to read and write. On the other hand, we notice, also, that the sciences, certainly the modern sciences, are extremely recent in their origin, but, if we scrutinise history, we see, that, in many societies of the past, people have tried to form an imagery of reality that was based on rational observations and clear thinking, rather than on the acceptance of traditional beliefs and inherited cultural guidelines.

However, for the great majority of social and individual reality perceptions, the distinction between a religious and a scientific reality had little meaning, because there was no sharp distinction between the various ways a reality perception could come into being.

Let us trace, briefly, the overall outlines of religious beliefs and attitudes, and, you will see, that religion is, in part, a system of beliefs, explaining to the people of a particular social environment, how they have to see the nature of their existence, as well as the relationships with the many forces they come into contact with. But, religion is more than just an explanation of man's origins, destiny or relationships. Religion also implies an attitude. It is often a reverent and fearful attitude towards a variety of forces and powers, which are essentially inscrutable and awe-inspiring, because they are so much greater than the powers of man himself.

While there is a strong tendency for man to submit himself in a humble and religious attitude towards the superior powers around him, we see, also, that man tries, by supplication and appeasement, by prayer and sacrifice, to manipulate these powers to his own advantage. Man is the manipulator, par excellence, from the beginning of his evolutionary development. When man's interpretations of nature, as well as of his own existence, became a complex and confident system of religious beliefs, he tried, naturally, to influence these forces by elaborate rituals, magical manipulations, and reverent attitudes, etc.

When man began to explore the possibility of building-up a system of interpretations based upon an attitude of "emotional neutrality", man began to manipulate his environment in an emotionally more or less neutral manner. The result is, then, a "technological" or "technocratic" form of manipulation, which is based on the existence of predictable, stable and constant force-fields. These force-fields are characterised by the fact, that they do not have the voluntary features of a religious or anthropomorphic force-field.

We will take an imaginary trip through man's earliest mental and psychological developments. Because of the fact, that we have few factual records to show us, how man lived, and, in particular, how man thought, our descriptions will be largely speculative. However, these speculations are based upon scientific evidence, such as fossil findings and habitation sites, as well as upon observations of still existing, primitive social environments, which may, at least, to some extent, mirror the conditions of human existence as they existed, before the advent of the Great Civilisations of the last ten thousand years or so.

.......

Chapter 5

Content

A short review of the evolution of conscious awareness.
Speculative images.
Evolution versus Creation.
The concept of "Original Sin".
The struggle between good and evil is the central idea of "Creationism", while the struggle to survive is the central explanation of living existence in the imagery of natural evolution.
The logic of explaining the force-fields of nature along the lines of man's own "willed force".
A vague distinction between living and non-living force-fields.
Man's religious explanations and attitudes are entirely logical, when taking the absence of scientific concepts into account.
The progression from polytheism to monotheism.
The need for a set of rules to guide human behaviour.
The inter-wovenness of explanations and exhortations in the religious interpretation of reality.
Modern science explains the events and phenomena of nature in concepts that can be verified by anyone who wishes to do so.
The role of authority in religion and science.
An opportunity to think for ourselves.
Be aware of "authority".
A series of questions about the Christian Faith.
The emotions of suspicion and hatred, evoked by persistent and fearless questioning.
Touched by the spirit of good-will.
What is truth?
We all live in a world of mental images and ideas, and, all questions regarding the nature of the truth lie in this mental sphere.

Since we have good evidence to believe, that man differentiated, slowly, from a group of anthropoid species', it is reasonable to assume, that the specifically human ability to be consciously aware and put a name on such awarenesses, also arose slowly. By giving a name to a specific awareness, observation or experience, man is able to communicate this awareness to other members of the small community in which he lives. The ability to represent an awareness by a name or symbol, such as a gesture or a word, is called "symbolic representation", and, we have described the evolution of this capability more fully in other essays.

The ability to speak is, therefore, only the latest and most efficient form of symbolic representation. The significance of the ability to give a name to an awareness, or, to represent it with a written symbol of one sort or another, lies in the fact, that it allows the mental imagery or memory-trace of an experience or observation to be recalled into a focus of attention. By uttering the representative name or symbol, or, by exhibiting the appropriate gesture or written symbol, an onlooker is able to recall more or less the same imagery, which the communicator or author of this symbol has in mind.

How man came to develop this ability is a fascinating question, which we may have an opportunity to discuss more fully in another lecture. The mechanisms of such a development are still speculative, and we should concentrate, therefore, on the idea, that such a development must have taken place, in one way or another, rather than on the manner in which it took place.

It is, probably, justified to consider the development of symbolic representations, and, in particular, its most sophisticated form, language, as the main reason for the differentiation of "Homo Sapiens", (mankind), from the other anthropoid species'. This ability began to set the species of mankind apart from the other anthropoids, and, this led, eventually, to a specific path of evolutionary developments.

Certainly, we are referring, here, to the imagery of the sciences, and, we see, here, one of the most distinct differences between the scientific imagery about the nature of man, and the religious imagery, which, invariably, presents the concept of a "created" origin of man, as well as a created origin for the other species' of life. If we look, e.g., at the concepts of the three great, monotheistic religions of Christianity, Judaism and Islam, we see, that they all share a common belief about man's origins. In these belief structures, man does not develop gradually from an animal ancestor, but, man has been created by God, who is the Creator of all living and non-living existence. Man has been created, in essence, in the image of the Creator Himself, and, this implies, not only, that man came into existence, suddenly, with all the faculties he now has, but, man had, originally, a far greater understanding of God, Creation and the Universe than he has now.

In the imagery of "Original Sin", man is visualised as a creature that could converse with his Creator directly, and, presumably, man had no questions at all about the nature of his existence, or, the nature of anything else. When man sinned against the Commandments of his Creator, he lost this privilege of complete and perfect understanding, and, man, together will all his descendents, became subjected to a life-long struggle between the forces of good and evil. Man, together with his descendents, was plunged into a perpetual round of agonising choices, many mistakes, the inevitability of death, severe suffering, and, often eternal damnation in Hell.

While many modern theologians are trying to soften these harsh and somewhat simplistic concepts of man's origins, nature and destiny, they remain an essential element in all three religions. Every major religion considers man to be, in one way or another, a "fallen creature", who has forfeited a blissful existence of happiness and perfect knowledge on account of an act of sin.

Together with elaborate regulations and precepts for good behaviour, (which is a prominent feature in all three great religions), the concept of the sacrifice of Christ at the Cross makes only sense, if man is interpreted as a creature that has been tainted by sin, and has to struggle between Good and Evil. Indeed, the imagery about man's origins is so important, that we can only understand the fundamental differences between the religious and scientific perceptions of reality, if we keep these radically different concepts about man's origins clearly in mind.

It is clear, that man had to rely, entirely, on the observations and awarenesses of his naked senses, before he was able to build-up an imagery of the world around him with the help of instruments that enlarged his scope of vision, together with the modern methods of measurement and registration made possible by a large variety of sophisticated instruments and devices. Without modern technology, the notion, that the sun and the stars do not revolve around the earth, is preposterous, because our sense experiences tell us, unequivocally, that this is the case. Without modern scientific insights, the idea, that the earth is a round globe, is nonsense, and, it is logical, that man interpreted the world around him in the way he did; before the advent of technological instruments made it possible to construct a more sophisticated imagery of the realities we are exposed to.

Man saw the sun, moon and stars move, every day and every night, and, he experienced the forces of the wind and the rain, thunder and lightning, the changes of the weather and the seasons. He was subjected to quick, disastrous flash-floods, earth-quakes and forest fires, and, he noticed the birth, growth and death of the members of his own small community, as well as the animals around him.

Man became aware of quick changes in the circumstances of his existence. One moment, there would be an abundance of food, whenever he was successful in the hunt, while a few days or weeks later, he would be faced with the threat of starvation, if the hunt had been unsuccessful, or, if the herds would fail to show-up in the expected places.

Man experienced quickly changing conditions; from mastery, triumph and abundance, to hunger, thirst and weakness, and, we should not be surprised to see, that man interpreted the happenings in nature along the same kind of forces he could exert himself. Man could "will" the death of his prey by going out and hunting it, or, he could care for the younger and weaker members of his own community. He could kill his adversary, or, he could form a bond of intimate friendship with those he liked.

Is it surprising, then, that man saw similarities between the large-scale natural force-fields, and those he could exert himself in the small community? Is it surprising, that he saw similarities between his own willed actions and the behaviour of the large animals around him?

I am convinced, that man hardly made a distinction between living and non-living existence. All events and things that changed were "powered" by a force-field that was akin to the forces of his own existence, and, it is logical, that man populated the skies, the forests, the animals, the rapids and the rivers, the seas and the winds, with a large variety of "spirits". These were forces that could harm or help him; forces, which he tried to placate and master, somehow; by sacrifices and rituals; by strict adherence to a code of conduct, and, by the attitudes of reverence, fear and submission.

If you think about it, you will come to the conclusion, that man could not explain his experiences and awarenesses in any other way than by the formation of a large and often complex pantheon of spiritual forces. Man was not in any way "illogical", "un-informed" or "superstitious", but man's belief structures were, under the circumstances, completely logical and inevitable.

When man's level of awareness rose and his contacts with other communities increased, man began to realise, slowly, that there were many different ways to explain the course of happenings and events, and, as a result of a greater degree of security that comes with living together in larger groupings, man began to make the pantheon of spiritual forces more coherent.

It became clear to early man, that the many spirits he had created in his interpretation of the surrounding realities, were also structured into a hierarchy, just like his own community, and, it is logical, that man came to the conclusion, that all existence, including all awarenesses, problems and miseries, was, in essence, under the control of one, all-powerful, inscrutable but just and all-seeing God.

The progression from poly-theism to mono-theism was inevitable with the ever-expanding ability of man to ask questions, formulate awarenesses and voice the questions about suffering and defeat. It is interesting to note, how the attributes of a mono-theistic God changed from a towering, wrathful God, to a God, who loves, and, eventually, sacrifices his own Son in order to atone for the sins of mankind.

From the beginning of the rise of conscious awareness, man noticed, not only, a need to explain the many forces, events and happenings he was subjected to, but, man also realised, that his own actions ranged from the extremely valuable to the extremely harmful. Man realised, from the beginning, that there was a need to regulate the conduct of the members of a community. Of course, man did not say consciously to himself; "I need a set of rules to regulate the behaviour of myself and my fellow members", but, man became aware of the fact, that certain forms of behaviour, such as rivalry, jealousy, treachery, cowardice or stealing and lying, would jeopardise the security of the small community, while other forms of behaviour, such as strength and courage, loyalty and care, friendship and honesty would tend to fortify the bonds between the members and make the social unit stronger and more viable.

We can be sure, that all these aspects were not clearly separated from each other. We can verbalise them, now, with the help of modern insights, and, we can classify these awarenesses and observations into the motivations and emotions of human behaviour, but, the way man started to orden his awarenesses, and, the way he began to formulate a conscious perception of the realities around him, represented a subconscious search for the best possible way to organise the community and make it as strong and as viable as possible.

This meant, that man's attempts to find explanations would help him, not only, to understand, why, and how, certain events were happening, or, how the forces of nature were operating, but, these explanations would also help him and his follow members to adopt attitudes and modes of conduct, which would strengthen the group as a whole, and, thereby, increase the viability of each member of the group.

I think, that we see, here, another, very important difference between religion and science. In every religion, the explanations about nature, including man's origins and destiny, are interwoven with regulatory mechanisms for man's behaviour. Every religion tells us, not only, how we are created, and, how the world came into being, but, it tells us, also, how we have to behave; how we have to choose between good and evil, and, how we have to live in order to find a happy destiny when we die. Every religion gives us a set of rules to abide by, as well as a set of things to do when we are in trouble. It gives us a structure of beliefs as well as a series of behavioural examples to follow, whenever we are miserable, or have lost a dear friend or relative.

Modern science started from a completely different objective, because science does not want to tell man what to do, what to believe, how to get along together, or, how to cope with misery and stress. The sciences try to give us a picture of reality that is based, as much as possible, on an objective type of observation, where the conclusions can, ideally, be verified by anyone, who has a difficult time accepting these observations and conclusions through the mechanisms of communication or cultural transfer.

The sciences try to stay-away from indoctrination on the basis of authority, where its observations and conclusions are believed on the basis of a teacher with authority and credibility. Science tries to make us think, and, find out for ourselves, what is the best way to interpret the realities around and within us.

This is a difficult approach, because most of us do not really want to make the effort to verify everything the sciences tell us. Most of us do not have the skills, knowledge or the opportunity to question everything the scientists tell us, but, let me assure you, that most of us could make an effort to judge, whether or not it is reasonable to believe, what we are being told.

For example, by thinking about what we hear, we can formulate a question. This question may be an effort to clarify a particular aspect of what we have heard, or, the question may be about something else we know or heard about; something, that seems to contradict what we are being told.

If you ever run into a scientist or teacher, who does not want you to question, what he or she is telling you, you are quite justified to consider everything you hear with a great deal of skepticism. The reluctance of a teacher to answer all sorts of questions, may be the result of a lack of understanding and knowledge, and, if such is the case, your teacher is not really competent to carry-out his job of instructing others in a particular field of knowledge and skill. Of course, no teacher will know everything, and, you can never expect a teacher to know every answer to your questions, but, a good teacher will tell you honestly, if he or she does not know the answers, or, if he or she is not familiar with the subject you have brought up. It should, then, be a joined effort, by you and your teacher, to come-up with a satisfactory answer to your questions.

Unfortunately, every form of teaching shows a marked tendency to make use of the force of authority. Authority is the weight given to a statement by the position of being an officially recognised teacher. If people or students approach a teacher with the attitude, that, everything the teacher says, must be true, you lose a golden opportunity to think for yourself and learn things in more detail, or, to a greater depth of understanding.

Many teachers, and, in particular, the leaders of a community will insist, mostly tacitly or subconsciously, that you do not question, what they tell you. They will show irritation if you do, or, they may imply, that you accuse them of lying . They may feel offended, when you question them in detail about what they are telling you.

Let me assure you, again, (with a certain sense of authority which you are invited to scrutinise in as much detail as you can), that such an attitude of authority is often harmful to the community as a whole. It is harmful to you, because it makes you lazy in your thinking, and, you lose the ability to judge for yourself, whether or not your leader or teacher is making a mistake. It is harmful to everyone else, because people may be swept into an attitude or belief that is erroneous or harmful to themselves as well as other communities. Finally, such an attitude of unquestioned authority is harmful to your leaders, because they become lazy, too, and they are inclined to think, that they know it all, if they are not kept on their toes by persistent and intelligent questioning.

If a leader is not scrutinised and questioned, continuously, he may easily think, that he is absolutely right, and, that he has the right to do whatever he wants with "his community". Anyone, who thinks about such a situation, will come to the conclusion, that such a degree of authority can easily lead to injustice and oppression, especially, if the members of the community have lost the ability to correct the behaviour of their leaders.

Be aware of authority. Understand authority, and, make sure, that the attitude of respect for an authority is given as a conscious and free gift by you, as well as the other members of a community. Authority is a gift from the people to their leaders for having received beneficial and truthful leadership, but, we have to make sure, that authority is applied justly and fairly to everyone.

I am not saying, that you should fight authority, or the laws of society, at all costs, but, you owe it to yourself, and to others, to understand the reasons for the authority that exists in your community, and, you owe it to yourself, as well as to your community, to question any authority that seems to abuse its powers for the benefit of a few people or a privileged elite.

Unfortunately, science has also become entrapped in authoritarian attitudes, just like most other forms of teaching, but, the ideals of scientific endeavours clearly invite us all to verify, for ourselves, the justification for the scientific conclusions that are being presented. Most of the time, we are unable, or too lazy, to make this effort, and, we gladly accept whatever seems reasonable to believe.

We have touched, here, upon another important difference between science and religion, because in a religious belief structure, we are, as a rule, not free to question, in detail, what is being taught to us. In particular, the fundamental questions about a religious belief are looked upon with a great deal of suspicion, especially, if we state these questions forthright and without hesitation. For example, if we ask our religious teachers, how they know, that God exists, they will often be somewhat at a loss to answer you. Ask them, why they believe, that the Scriptures are God's Word; how do they know, what is meant with these words and sentences, stories and pronouncements, and, how is it possible, that people interpret these Scriptures in so many ways! Then, you will find out, that your questions are not welcome.

If you ask such questions, you will be branded as an unbeliever, and, in stead of an explanation, you are likely to receive an attitude of hostility. But, the question remains. Who can really substantiate the claim, that one is an authority in understanding and explaining God's Word? How can Christ be God's Son? Was he really born without being conceived? What is the truth behind the stories of the Bible? Why would the Romans crucify Christ, if they thought that he was nothing more than a religious fanatic? Is it reasonable to believe, that Pontius Pilate would have been swayed by the Jewish clergy to have Christ crucified? What picture can we form about Pontius Pilate from other historical sources?

Under what circumstances were the gospels written? Where did Paul, the Apostle, come from? Where did he get his ideas about the universality of Christ's Sacrifice? Are there reasons to believe, that the interpretation of Christ's role and function by Paul, the Apostle, was at odds with the Christian community in Jerusalem?

Of course, questioning may not lead to alienation, and, sometimes, your questions may receive illuminating answers, and, you may be touched by the spirit of good-will, forgivenness, trust and friendship that is residing amongst a community of true believers. You may experience emotions or happenings that are interpreted as a gift from God or Christ. You may consider these experiences as a sign, that you are on the right track, and, you may become absolutely convinced about the beautiful truth of your Faith. You will then have become a convert, and your questions will melt-away, as you see, ever more clearly, how the Truth of a Faith hangs together.

Your attitudes may show a dramatic shift towards helping others, and, you become a good, honest and useful member of the community. You may find the strength to break bad habits, or, to face a difficult road ahead. The struggles you engage in for the sake of Christ, and your belief in Him, may make you stronger and more confident than you ever thought possible. You may feel "reborn", and your Faith will be unshakeable as it grows day by day.

If you experience such a conversion to a deeply believed-in truth, and, if you commit your life increasingly to the service of this Faith, it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to ask yourself the question, whether or not your beliefs represent a truth. Your commitment and struggles are so great, that you feel only a sense of bewilderment, or, even, anger, if anyone asks you, in all sincerity, whether or not you think, that your beliefs represent an absolute truth.

Yet, what is truth? The time has come to tackle this most difficult question of all the questions we can ask ourselves. How do we approach this problem? Let us, first, try to state the obvious, because the obvious represents aspects we can easilly agree upon. I think, that you will agree with me, if I state, that we are dealing in all our discussions about truth and reality with concepts or mental images. Concepts are mental structures made-up of ideas, which we can bring under words in a variety of ways. Our entire world of experiences, awarenesses, concepts, thoughts and language symbols consists of mental mechanisms. There will be little argument about this, but the crux of the question is, whether or not these mental images, concepts and beliefs, reflect a reality "as it really exists", independent from any human existence.

.......

Chapter 6

Content

Somewhat baffled by the question, whether or not there is a relationship between "the truth", and, what we believe to be true.
Science and religion converge in the assumption, that their interpretations mirror, to some extent, an absolute truth.
Does the existence of the moon depend on human existence?
Scrutinising our sense of logic.
Man's senses, and the conclusion that reality perceptions are based upon man's physiological capabilities.
The evolution of the brain; a response to needs and requirements.
A quick sketch of man's evolutionary history.
Verifiable images that are well-accepted by the sciences.
The tendency to believe what suits us best.
The pen, and the idea of a unifying concept.
A fragile and evanescent appearance of our familiar realities.
The function of naming objects.
The central criterium of "usefulness" when constructing our reality perceptions.
The importance of shared experiences for our sense of truth.
Multiple levels of abstraction.
A pragmatic ability to manipulate the environment enhances the intuitive feeling, that our mental images mirror an external, absolute reality.
Yet, a look at history shows us the fallacy of this intuitive conclusion.

I have the impression, that, by far, the majority of people, all over the world, assume, that such a correlation between our mental images and the reality "as it is", indeed exists. Most people would be astonished, if you question, whether or not the reality images they have about the world and themselves, correspond with a reality "as it exists", independent from their own existence.

The religions teach us, that we have only a shadowy and imperfect knowledge about the ultimate realities of God and the Universe, but, we can obtain a greater degree of perfection in our knowledge of God, if we live a virtuous life of study, prayer and good deeds. This concept implies, that we approach, indeed, an ultimate or absolute reality in our mental imagery, and, we assume, that there is, at least, some correlation between the way we perceive reality and the Reality "as it exists" in or around God.

This assumption is shared by a majority of scientists, because, they too, assume, that the sciences are slowly unveiling an ultimate and absolute reality to mankind. No honest scientist will underestimate the difficulties of this task, nor, the long and arduous road we have to travel, but, the steady progress of the sciences, as well as the slowly enlarging grasp over our scientific realities, gives us the feeling, that we are, indeed, lifting the veil of secrecy that hangs over nature.

Confident scientists correlate the slowly changing scientific ideas of mankind with an equally slow and gradual fusion between our knowledge about nature, and, the ultimate reality of nature "as it really exists", independently from any human existence.

I see you raise your eyebrows, and, you want to make a few comments here; "Well, do you want to deny, then, that the moon exists, regardless of the fact, whether or not anyone is looking at it? As a matter of fact, the moon and the earth existed long before the species of man arose, and, you are not claiming that the existence of the moon or the earth depends on human existence, are you?".

Indeed, for our feelings of logic, it seems absurd to question the fact of the existence of the moon or the earth, and, it seems utterly useless to maintain or entertain the idea, that the existence of the moon or the earth depend upon the existence of a thinking and reflecting human being. As we saw, even, the sciences agree with the religions about this aspect of reality. They disagree, mainly, about the concept, whether the items of existence, (be they living or non-living entities), have been evolved by natural forces in an essentially predictable chain of causes and their effects, or, have been created by an Intelligent Being. None of these schools of thought, and, none of the religions or the sciences are insisting, that the reality of existence depends upon the existence of man himself! "What, then, are you driving at?", you will say. Is this not a philosophical splitting of hairs; a sophistry, trying to trick us into believing nonsense by clever arguments? What do you have in mind?".

Yes, on the face of it, the argument, that human reality is entirely a product of human existence, and, that we have no idea, whatsoever, whether or not this human reality corresponds, in one way or another, with an absolute, external non-human reality, seems doomed from the start. Nevertheless, let us explore this avenue of thought, because the consequences for our attitudes and ideas are enormous, indeed, if we can master the somewhat intricate thought-patterns of a relativistic perception of reality.

We have to go back to our concepts about the nature of the human being. We can do this by looking at it from an "objective" point of view. If we look at the human being, as we would look at any other phenomenon of existence, we see, that man is a living organism, endowed with many sense-organs, such as hearing, vision, equilibrium, smell, taste, touch, etc. Man shares with other living organisms the need to search for food and shelter, to reproduce, as well as the chances of getting sick or wounded. There is an inevitable progression of time, leading, eventually, to old-age, feebleness and death; at least, if man has not met his death earlier, for one reason or another.

We see, that man has learned to hunt his prey, and, that he became able to hunt very large and powerful animals with the help of weapons and tools, as well as with the help of his fellow members. The ability to cooperate and communicate, to make tools and weapons, to anticipate where a hunted animal would go, to drive it into a trap, all these abilities made the human being a supremely successful and viable "creature" of natural evolution, leading to a complete dominance over all the larger animals, as well as a rapid increase in the population of its own species.

From our studies in the sciences of anatomy and physiology, we see, how the central nervous sytem, including the brain, responded to the demands that were made upon the actualised members of a species, generation after generation. These constant pressures and demands shaped the form and function of an organism, and the brain is no exception. Seen from this point of view, we have good reasons to state, that the functions of the human organism, including the brain, were developed because of the need to survive.

We also know, that all mental functions of man, including the ability to think, feel, speak, cooperate, be violent, compassionate or kind, all these characteristics and abilities of the human organism, and the brain, were developed under the pressures of the struggle for survival. Of course, this is scientific imagery I am using now, but, these ideas are so well established, and have been so well documented, that I invite all of you, who doubt these statements, to study and verify them. Please, do not believe on authority, but look and think, study and search for yourself.

Let us continue our train of thoughts, because we have come to a crucially important conclusion. Man's abilities, all his abilities, including the ability to believe in God and pray, or, to develop a scientific insight, can be explained on evolutionary grounds as consequences or possibilities that developed in the search for survival. Let us not forget, that millions of years ago, man was a timid and fragile creature, precariously trying to stay alive amongst a very large fauna of great and powerful animals. The dinosaurs had disappeared, but, many large and ferocious mammals ruled the great plains of the earth.

I realise, that this picture of reality is in stark contrast with the traditional religious images of the origin of man, and, the only advise I can give you, here, is to really scrutinise the evidence we have for considering ourselves as a creature that is part and parcel of the processes of natural evolution on earth.

If man's abilities were developed in order to enhance his viability, we may also explain the existence of all man's beliefs, perceptions of reality, as well as his attempts to explain the phenomena he sees and experiences, as a function to help him maintain his existence in the best and most advantageous way possible. In other words, we have to analyse the beliefs of man in terms of existential needs; e.g., does man ease the problems of his existence, if he believes in a certain picture of reality, and, can we find evidence in the history of man's beliefs, that these belief structures did help him to ease the burdens of his existence?

To make a long story short, I am convinced that we see evidence for this all around us. Each one of us can see evidence for this in others as well as in ourselves, whenever we are honest. We always tend to believe that, which constitutes a solution; what makes it easier to fight-off the enemy. In short, our beliefs have always a strong component of benefit for ourselves, or the community we belong to, and, this key in our analysis of beliefs will show us, time and again, how a belief is, often, nothing more than an attempt to cope with the problems at hand.

We have strayed a little from the question, whether or not reality is mirrored in our ideas, be it in an imperfect or shadowy manner. Or, is our perception of reality entirely dependent upon our human constitution and the conditions of our environment? Let us take a simple example. If I look at the pen I am writing with, I can see numerous details, which I usually do not pay any attention to, and, if we want to use modern technological instruments, such as a microscope, or the tools of chemical and X-ray analysis, we notice, that we can analyse each and every familiar object of daily use into an enormously vast and unmanageable quantity of bits and pieces.

This means, that the names we give to each object around us, represent a single, unified concept for a very large number of detailed structures. We see, that the whole idea of a "pen" disappears whenever we look at it very closely, and, we come to the conclusion, that the name "pen", (the unity it represents for us as users of such an object of familiarity), is, in essence, created by us. We use this object as an entity of existence, and, many, if not most of the names we give to the objects around us, show this emphasis upon the characteristic of "usefulness".

We manipulate, with great ease and confidence, a large number of objects, structures, ideas and phenomena, but, when we look at each of these structures in detail, we see, that the unified concept we so confidently handle or manipulate, disappears as a mirage.

We can also describe an object in terms of "qualities", such as colour, consistency, smoothness, weight, etc., but, each of these qualities are mental abstractions, or, rather, they represent mental principles of classification, and, they, too, seem to disappear, whenever we examine these objects in great detail.

Such a casual reflection upon our daily realities brings home the awareness, that the reality of our daily environment is rather fragile, and disappears, whenever we shift our scope of vision or focus of attention. It also shows us, clearly, that all the names we give to the objects around us, represent, in reality, a class of similar but not identical objects. I may pick-up another pen, but, almost certainly, this pen will not be identical to the first one; yet, I call it also a pen, and, I am hardly aware of any differences, unless it does not write as well, or, perhaps, it may write even better, or, it shows a different colour of ink or thickness of its stroke.

When we think about these observations for a moment, we notice, how strongly the naming of objects and the awareness of noticeable differences, depends on the question, whether or not this difference is important for us. If the differences are irrelevant for what we use the object for, we tend to gloss over such differences, but, if the differences are important, we begin to notice them, or, we make a deliberate attempt to study them. We begin to give different names to differing details or qualities.

Again, let us emphasise, once more, how closely our conscious awareness, as well as the activity of giving a name, is related to the criterium of usefulness and relevance in relation to what we do or want to do, and what we do or want to do, is, inevitably, linked, in one way or another, to the tasks we have to perform in order to exist comfortably and happily. In other words, our whole structure of awarenesses, concepts, ideas, interpretations and beliefs can always be related to our existential needs and concerns. (The word "existential" refers to the complex of concerns, goals, motivations, drives and activities reflecting our "needs". We have to fulfill these needs in order to exist easily, comfortably and in harmony with our environment and the people around us).

The behavioural act of naming the things we see and use is based, primarily, upon the capabilities of our senses, and, these senses or sense-organs have been developed by the forces of natural selection in order to make it possible for us to maintain our existence. Once we reach the stage, where we have a large number of awarenesses with a name, we experience the need to classify and orden these awarenesses into categories, and, we look for a principle that lets us carry-out such a classification. In this way, we form mental images that are "abstractions" or generalised principles, and, they are used in the classification of objects, phenomena or events.

All qualities represent such secondary abstractions, and, we learn to abstract or verbalise, eventually, also some of the awarenesses we experience within our emotionally coloured behaviour-patterns. We have learned to abstract such concepts as "love and hate", "peace and aggression", "justice and injustice", "frustration and happiness". All these qualities or sensations have gradually been given a name and a definition, because people, who were communicating with each other about what they saw, heard or felt, also recognised, that they shared, at least, to some extent, the feelings that are associated with a certain emotional state.

This leads us to the next important conclusion. Not only, is our entire world of mental awarenesses, of words, concepts and ideas, strongly influenced by the needs of our existence, but the perception, refinement and definition of all our concepts and ideas take place through a process of communication.

If I have an awareness that no-one shares, I have great difficulties convincing others, that I really had such an awareness. I have even greater difficulties expressing what I experienced, if others can not relate to a similar awareness or experience. Eventually, I am inclined to question how real my experience was. Perhaps, I was tired, or I mistook a certain awareness or sense-impression for a reality that was not there.

In short, the reality feelings about an experience or an awareness are strongly enhanced, if we can get a group of people to agree with us, and, we tend to question the reality of an experience, if we fail to do so. Reality is, therefore, strongly dependent upon a measure of agreement between people.

If I believe, that my pen is a pen, I do so, because all the people around me also call this, and similar objects, a pen. If I show my pen to someone who has never seen a pen, this individual will not only fail to call it a pen, but, he or she does not know what it is used for, and, the whole object will be meaningless; a non-entity.

You may, rightly, get the feeling, that the reality of your everyday familiar environment is not as secure or absolute as you thought it was, and, this feeling of caution about our sense of certainty in our familiar and every-day reality perceptions, is going to be very useful for our attempts to understand each other. We have seen, so far, how strongly our reality sensations or experiences are determined by personal needs, as well as the needs of the community we live in. We have seen, how, even, the most concrete objects are conglomerates, which have been given the aspect of a single entity by the fact, that we have given this group of items or awarenesses a specific name.

All our names represent, in essence, classes of similarities, and, all our awarenesses, names and concepts are linked together by an elaborate system of multiple levels of mental abstractions. These are concepts and ideas that regulate the classification of all our awarenesses, and, these concepts and ideas form a coherent structure of explanations in the form of a network of causes and their effects.

Now, we come back to the fundamental question, whether or not we are, slowly, approaching a reality "as it really exists". Or, are we dealing with a specifically human manner of inter-acting with our environment, leading to mental images, concepts and ideas, beliefs and interpretations, reflecting our physical and psychological existence, as well as the experiences and awarenesses we have been exposed to over the years?

It seems logical to say, that our ability to form such a coherent structure of mental images about the reality that surrounds us, means, that we are, finally, learning to see the reality "as it really exists". How would it be possible to grasp a reality with our faculties of understanding, and, how would it be possible to manipulate nature so successfully with our technology, if our understanding would not mirror, quite closely, a reality "as it really exists?".

Yet, if we look at man's history, we can be reasonably sure, that man's explanations of reality in the early stages of human development were just as convincing to man, then, as our reality images are convincing for us, now. Probably, man's perceptions of reality in the stone-age were less clouded with a huge variety of hypotheses and uncertainties, and, we are on quite safe grounds, if we state, that the realities for the communities of early man were far more convincing and absolute than our reality images are today. Yet, in retrospect, we can also say, that our ability to manipulate our environment is incomparably larger, and much more sophisticated, than it ever was in the past.

What right, then, do we have to believe, that we are, now, indeed, close to understanding the reality "as it really exists"? A few generations from now, man may think so differently about himself and his experiences, that future generations may consider our beliefs and reality perceptions as erroneous or primitive.

.......

Chapter 7

Content

The final argument; before we can say, that our reality perceptions approach, or mirror, an ultimate, absolute reality, we have to know something about this reality.
Yet, all our concepts about such a reality are mental images, and we have no guarantee, that these concepts correspond, in any way, with such an absolute reality.
The "alien" aspects of a non-focussed reality perception.
The pragmatic importance of understanding these ideas.
A note of caution about being totally committed; questions.
The importanc of thinking clearly and honestly.
Finding much less resistance from those, who used to be implacable enemies.
The beauty of reasoned arguments and balanced judgements.
Few people are totally bad, or totally good.
The religious creed, and a congregation of the faithful.
The potentially coherent imagery of the scientific explanations for human behaviour-patterns.
The mechanisms of hierarchical positioning.
Why small-scale social evolution has been encoded in the make-up of the human personality.
Our enemies are people, just like ourselves.
Human rights.
The poor and the oppressed are becoming aware of their position of injustice, and, as they get stronger, their reactions will become more violent.

There is one final argument, here. We can all agree about the statement, that, all ideas, concepts, awarenesses and forms of knowledge have to fall within the possibilities of the human mind and its powers of imagination. We do not know, what the boundaries are of human imagination, but, all our ideas about God, the Universe, the mysteries of Creation or Evolution, about Absolute Reality, all these ideas are clothed in the concepts of a thinking, human mind.

We have seen, how the human mind needs a process of unification. It needs to form a conceptual entity about an enormously vast number of separate details and potential bits of awareness, and, we have seen, how this process of unification, simplification and approximation works through into many levels of abstraction. This means, that we always work with a specific focus of attention; a limited field of vision, as well as a process of conceptual contraction.

We have no reason to believe, that, any sort of abstraction, contraction or visual focus takes place in a reality that is not human, because these processes are a result of the limitations and specific characteristics of human existence. Consequently, a reality that is not conceived by the human mind, and does not possess these specific possibilities and limitations, is so alien, so unimaginable, and so completely foreign, that it seems reasonable to say, that we can not have any concept about a reality that is independent from human existence.

Everything we may imagine such an alien and absolute reality to be, is, still, a product of human imagination, and, it falls, therefore, within the sphere of a human reality perception, or, rather, "reality imagination". If you ask me, again, whether or not we mirror in our human concepts a large, absolute, divine or cosmic reality, I ask you in turn; how can we know, whether or not our concepts and beliefs mirror such a Universal Reality, unless we have some idea what this absolute reality is? Since we can not know what this absolute reality is, we are also unable to determine, whether or not our human reality perceptions mirror an Absolute Reality.

You may come to the conclusion, that the discussion we have just concluded, is rather esoteric and irrelevant, but, I assure you, that a clear awareness of these mechanisms is of the utmost importance to us all, since the ideas and concepts about human reality perceptions influence, profoundly, our attitudes towards the sciences, the religions, and, most importantly, towards each other. If we agree, that, all reality perceptions are a specifically human tool to solve our problems and ease the burdens of existence, then, we are a little more skeptical, and thoughtful, before accepting the images of the religions, or the sciences, with an absolute faith and an unquestioned fervor. We should, then, be able to evaluate with a measure of intelligence, whether or not the images that are presented to us, represent a "useful truth".

I know, that I am raising a few eyebrows by questioning the value of being committed to a worthwhile Cause. "How can you question", you will ask, "the value of being committed to do good, to achieve a worthwhile goal, to help other people, to help the cause of justice and well-being for us all? How can you question the commitment to the service of God and mankind? Is the main problem we face not the fact, that so many people do not dare to commit themselves to what is good? Are most of us not hesitant to dedicate ourselves to a particular cause, because of the fact, that we are afraid to lose whatever we have? Is not one of the main reasons why we continue to experience misery, poverty, disparity and wars, the fact, that so many of us lose the zeal and the courage to fight for what we know is right? How can you question or, even, condemn the thousands of honest and fervent believers, who have sacrificed so much in order to help the poor, the sick, the starving and the under-privileged? You can not be serious!"

I do not condemn any enthousiasm for a cause, which we feel in our hearts to be right and just, but, I urge everyone, who is inclined to commit him- or herself to a particular Cause, to examine, carefully, the goals of this Cause, and, to scrutinise the motivations behind this Cause. Upon what beliefs and assumptions are our goals based? Why do we want to help others, the poor? Why are they poor? Do we really know what God wants us to do? Do we really understand the meaning of our religion?

What are the effects of our actions? What are the effects of the actions of those, who have already committed themselves to the same Cause? Why do I believe to be right? Why am I convinced that my beliefs are true? Why do I feel an urge to fight for justice and freedom? Why do other people not share my beliefs and my enthousiasm? Why are some people, even, outright opposed to what I believe in, and what I want to do? Why are there always enemies to any Cuase I think to be so good and noble?

Why is there still so much misery and suffering in the world, after two thousand years of Christianity? Why have people killed in the name of their Faith? Are we right in condemning those, who oppose our opinions and beliefs? Are we right to consider these people to be completely wrong, because they do not share our convictions?

Am I causing harm or injustice, in spite of the fact, that I have the best possible intentions? Is it possible, that I am mistaken, and, that the others are right? Is it possible, that I have not understood, properly, what God wants from me? Am I being manipulated by others, e.g., the leaders of the movement I belong to? Are they telling us the truth? Are they looking at all the aspects of a problem? Am I allowed to voice my doubts and raise my questions?

I want you to think about all these questions, before you jump into action, and, before you commit yourself, completely, to any particular Cause, I would like you to be able to discuss all these aspects calmly, without getting upset or angry. I even want you to be able to discuss, calmly, all these fundamental question with those, who oppose your goals and beliefs. Above all, I want you to develop the art, and wisdom, the patience and strength of mind, to discuss, honestly, and with understanding, all the contradictory arguments and aspects that can be discerned in every situation.

Then, if you decide, after careful considerations about what you can contribute to the well-being of the world, or, to the enjoyment and understanding of other people; if you decide, after a careful search in your soul and a calm and open discussion of all the features of a complex situation, that you can do something that is good, right and not harmful to others, then, I want you to go ahead with all your youthful enthousiasm. You will find, at the same time, that you have, then, a far greater understanding of the forces that tend to oppose you, and, by understanding, and, even appreciating the point of view of your opponents, they will cease to be your enemies.

I assure you, that your effectiveness and impact is, then, far greater, and far more beneficial, than, when you forge ahead in a somewhat blind enthousiasm of total commitment and unquestioned righteousness. The world does not need fanatical commitment to any Cause; not to revolutionary zeal, nor, to religious fanaticism. The world needs, most of all, people, who are able to listen, calmly, and with an open mind, to all the arguments and aspects of a conflict-situation. We need people, who are able to discuss all the contradictory elements and considerations of a complex problem or situation.

I know; it is far easier to become committed to a set of straight-forward beliefs and objectives, and, then, forge ahead with your youthful strength, but, if you do so, be not surprised, that, sooner or later, you will have to ask yourself, whether or not you were right in what you did; whether or not you have really done the good service you set-out to do, or, did you cause only havoc, injustice and untold harm by your rash decisions and bold actions, as well as by the unquestioned faith in your particular truth?

The beauty of reason and consideration, of thought and discussion, of honesty and openness in our attempts to communicate with each other, is represented by the discovery we all make, time and again, that our enemies are just as human as we; that there are very few people, who are really bad or evil, and, that, we, ourselves, are, so often, tempted to behave in a way we condemn in others.

The beauty of reason and insight, of learning about the imagery of the sciences and religions, is the discovery, that it is possible to understand ourselves, and our enemies, much better than we thought we could, but, it takes a litte effort to accomplish this objective.

Before we learned about the forces of life, and about the structure and function of living organisms, man had no choice, but to see himself as a creature, torn between the forces of good and evil, and, the beauty and wisdom of most religions lies in their deep and honest attempts to teach man the way of cooperation, tolerance and brotherly love. However, the reasons, why man should cooperate, rather than fight, should love, rather than hate, should behave honestly, rather than treacherously, had to be clothed, by and large, in a set of divine commandments or inspiring behavioural examples.

Therefore, the ethical guidelines and rules for human behaviour fostering mutual trust, understanding and respect, were based upon the acceptance of a religious "creed"; a set of beliefs binding the faithful together in a community of their own. Unfortunately, this grouping-together of the faithful became, often, the dominant aspect of religious behaviour. People began to group-together, because they found happiness and security in a group of people who believed the same, and, the outside world became a world to be looked-upon with a measure of suspicion, or, even, hatred and contempt.

However, in the imagery of the sciences and their evolutionary patterns of change, we have now a different way to interpret human behaviour. We can see, now, why a very large part of our human behaviour-patterns has been inherited as a "biological heritage", reflecting our evolutionary past. We are aggressive, and, we revel in triumph, because we are predators who have to kill in order to survive, be it animal or plant life. We had to fight against those animals that preyed upon us, and, we had to fight other human beings, who competed with us for territory or food.

A conflict in nature is, often, settled by a fight to the death, but, long before we became fully human animals, with the abilities of speech and thought, we also inherited a trend to engage in socially integrated behaviour-patterns, because natural selection favoured the existence of a small group of socially behaving pre-human animals. Mutual cooperation and protection were, then, rewarded with viability, while the attributes or qualities of aggressiveness and fearless ferocity were primarily directed to individuals outside the group.

Sharpened by natural selection, we learned, as socially integrated animals, (long before we became the thinking, human animals we are now), to group ourselves into a hierarchical structure, rather than fight to the death, whenever a dispute over dominance or territorial control would erupt. In a hierarchy, we submit to a leader, as well as to those, who are more powerful, and, we dominate those, who are weaker than ourselves. This remarkable development or adaptation in the behaviour of the territorial instinct made social integration possible for the complex, behaviourally flexible species', and, the mechanisms of hierarchical ordening became, thereby, a foundation for the processes of mutual inter-dependence and task-differentiation, which are the corner-stones of each and every social organisation.

We have no time, here, to trace these developments in detail, but, it is clear, that the human being inherited, as part of his evolutionary history, a behaviour-pattern that is predominantly aggressive or defensive in relation to strangers, while it is remarkably caring and trusting towards the members of his own group.

The instincts of parental care and compassion for a vulnerable offspring lie at the root of man's innate ability to be tender and caring, at times, while man's daring aggressiveness towards the larger animals and his innovativeness in the development of tools and weapons, made man the ferocious, cunning and violent creature he so often is. I can only trace, here, very summarily, a portrait of man's character, based upon insights into the history of natural evolution. In many other writings, these ideas are discussed far more extensively. Let me only say, here, in conclusion, that it is now posible to trace a coherent picture of man, and, that most people, throughout the world, could, eventually, agree with an evolutionary and scientific portrait of man's nature.

We can find a place for the many religious beliefs man developed, and still adheres to, within the context of such an evolutionary imagery of man's essence. It is possible to explain, logically, the many reasons, why man has a strong inclination to behave and believe religiously. We have learned from this evolutionary and relativistic imagery of human nature, that man's beliefs are primarily geared towards helping him to live, either as a single individual, taking care of his personal problems, but, more often, as a member of a small, tightly-knit community that is facing a considerable threat to its existence.

We have also learned, that the differences between ourselves and other people are so small, that they are almost insignificant, and, we have discovered that our enemies are people, just like ourselves, who are only our enemies, because their goals and aspirations came into conflict with our own.

We have come to the conclusion, that the great religions, almost always, try to teach man to be tolerant, forgiving and cooperative, but, often, a sacred belief becomes a source of conflict, just as the possession of any other treasured property may become a source of friction and strife, especially, if this treasured possession is desecrated by ignorant attitudes or hostile actions. Yet, how often do we ask ourselves, whether or not we may have been destroying or damaging, inadvertently, something that was valuable or sacred to someone else, or some other group of people?

We have learned, that, we, as living organisms, have certain needs and wants in order to live a decent life. We have realised, now, by and large, that all human beings should have basic rights by virtue of having been born a human being. What, exactly, these rights are, is still a matter of extensive discussions, but, it seems fair to conclude, that, each and every human being should have enough food and educational opportunities to live a healthy life; that everyone should be free from intimidation and oppression, and, that we all should have the right to be treated fairly and equitably under the laws of our social environment.

What this means, exactly, in terms of a standard of living and social or political organisation; in terms of access to information, education, social services and natural resources, will have to be discussed and thought-about for generations to come, but, we can be sure, that the tensions, frustrations, anger and hostilities between people and groups of people are only going to increase to the boiling point of revolt and armed conflict, unless there is a dramatic and lasting progress in the equalisation of living conditions throughout the world.

We can be sure, that the peoples of the world are rapidly learning about each other, but, this means, also, that many of the poorer and under-developed nations will feel increasingly frustrated and angry, as people become more aware of the disparities and injustices that still exist throughout the world.

As long as you can hide from your neighbour the fact, that you live in opulence and extravagance, while he starves, he will not develop any significant feeling of resentment or anger, but, as soon as he is aware of this disparity, and, in particular, if he sees, how you squander the resources of a heritage to which he feels heir as well, he is going to stop you, and, he is going to stop you with force and violence, if he has to. As long as he is sick, weak and ignorant, there is not much he can do, but once he gains strength, you better watch out!

.......

Chapter 8

Content

The irony, that attempts to help overcome disparities are likely to increase tensions and frustrations.
The two stable points of existence; either, the loser is eliminated permanently, or, adversaries learn to live in a state of inter-dependence and essential equality.
Learning to see all the consequences, whenever we opt for the solution of violent conflict.
Will man learn to break the cycle of grabbing an unfair advantage, whenever possible, and the inevitable suffering resulting from retaliation and eventual defeat?
The need for a truly global code of conduct.
Learning to diagnose the feelings of injustice and oppression.
The ability of people to agree about a structure of common-sense ideas and concepts.
No birth-right to a position of privilege and advantage.
No inalienable rights of ownership.
No inviolable national boundaries.
The fallacy of trying to use the instinct of competitive strife as a source for social harmony.
Pre-occupation and inertia; why the affluent nations are so insensitive.
Family relationships.
Similar principles play a role in human relationships; at the level of the family, as well as the larger nation.
False promises.
The game of acquisition.
The responsibilities of leadership.
A series of considerations and questions.
Education, or the competent transfer of a viable cultural code; the crux to survival.
No choice, but to accept responsibilities as they come your way.
My hopes and wishes.
There is beauty in understanding.

In a way, it is ironic, that, any attempt to correct injustice and give the poor and oppressed a greater measure of health, freedom and education, leads, almost invariably, to an increased pressure upon those, who were beginning to share their positions of privilege and wealth with them. Help to the poor and oppressed will evoke, momentarily, a feeling of gratitude, but, as the poor become better educated, they also become more aware of the extent of existing injustices, and, their burgeoning energies demand, with increasing effectiveness, the abolition of every undeserved position of advantage and disadvantage.

These developments show us, clearly, that there are only two stable points of inter-personal relationships. The winner eliminates completely his competitor from the scene, or, adversaries learn to live within a condition of essential equality. The latter condition makes social harmony, cooperation and inter-dependence possible, and, potentially, durable, because it eliminates the most important factors that challenge social stability.

Every attempt to subdue an enemy permanently is a primitive, but natural attitude, which we have inherited as a biological heritage from our evolutionary past, but, we should have learned, by now, that the solution of combat and ruthless victory, with an elimination of the loser, perpetuates the miseries of war, suffering and future defeat as well, because, invariably, other enemies will come to the fore. We may be victorious now, but, sooner or later, our position will deteriorate through complacency and moral decay, and, our enemies will try to defeat us, whenever they see an opportunity to do so.

Even within the framework of an existing social organisation, some leaders and privileged groups still try to eliminate the opposition by force, leading to acts of brutal suppression and violations of human rights. It seems so difficult for those who occupy a position of privilege, to understand, that such primitive practices only hasten the down-fall of the social organisation upon which they depend.

Political leaders are still tempted to grab power by force, and, to re-enforce their position with intrigues and assassinations; with nepotism and the banning or elimination of those they fear or mistrust. Yet, for every opponent banned or slain, ten silent enemies are made, and, a position of power can never be secured for any length of time by the tactics of ruthless oppression and a rule of terror. A leadership that occupies its position by force invites to be overthrown by force, either, from the inside or, with the help of a neighbouring power.

When will man learn, that the instruments of force and the abuse of power only perpetuate the cycle of suffering and defeat? Once we learn to see, clearly, that it is impossible to exterminate all those, who oppose us, and, who challenge our positions of wealth and privilege, we may also learn, that it is possible to obtain a measure of harmony and reduce tensions by searching for a practical implementation of the ideals of essential equality on a global scale.

A lot of people will have to give-up their privileged positions, as well as their powers of sovereignty and independence, and, we can only expect them to be, at least, somewhat sympathetic to the ideas of essential equality on a global scale, if they can trust to be treated fairly and equitably, and, if they can trust, that they will not be made the scapegoats for acts of injustice and oppression that have taken place in the past.

Why would any human being be inclined to hate his neighbour, kill his fellow human beings and start revolutions, unless such an individual or small group is motivated by a deeply felt sense of injustice, for which there are, usually, good reasons? Of course, their ideas and ideals may be mistaken; their point of view may be narrow and elitist, and, these fanatic people may, erroneously, consider themselves as social reformers and disciples of an absolute social or religious truth, which society has been waiting for.

Some people may not be able to resist an opportunity to grab an unfair advantage, and, they may seize power by undemocratic means, or over-run another society for the sake of gaining a strategic advantage, additional territories, or abundant resources. But, leadership on the basis of opportunism is rare, and, it certainly lacks the staying power of those, who are fanatically committed to a Cause. It is, therefore, justified to conclude, that, in nearly every persistent situation of strife, the underlying causes of the struggle can be found in attempts to correct a perceived situation of injustice, rather than in the motivation of a tenacious opportunism.

I am convinced, that, most people, who are reasonably healthy and educated, and, who are able to think rationally, will recognise the fact, that a feeling of injustice is the main motivating factor behind every situation of conflict. The wounded sense of justice lies also behind the fragmentation of social units on account of mounting disparities. Most people recognise the fact, that they invite retaliation in the future and make unnecessary enemies, if they behave in an opportunistic manner, trying to take an unfair advantage whenever possible.

A majority of conflicts are caused, because people feel, rightly or wrongly, that they have been treated unfairly, either in the past, or the present, and, their hostilities are motivated by this feeling of injustice. They may feel to have been exploited in the past, but, now, they are in a position to do something about it, and, they will do something about it.

If the poor rise against the wealthy, it is not because they want to steal or take advantage, whenever they can, but, because they have learned that it represents a fundamental injustice for some people or some nations to live in extravagance, while others starve.

The poor do not recognise the birth-right of those born into wealthy families or wealthy nations. Why should such a disparity be justified by the chances or misfortunes of birth? Poor nations do not accept the notion, that the natural resources of the earth are the sole property of those, who happen to have abundant resources within their geographic boundaries or political jurisdiction.

The poor do not accept the argument, that the rich have worked hard for their riches. The poor struggle incomparably harder just to stay alive. The poor do not accept unquestionable national boundaries, nor do they accept unlimited rights to ownership of lands, capital and other assets, because the accumulation of wealth and power in the hands of an elite always leads to a return of the conditions of injustice and disparity.

The poor and oppressed do not accept the doctrine, that, those, who are clever and make use of every opportunity to accumulate wealth and power, should be allowed to do so for the sake of social well-being and economic growth. There is no justification for the belief, that a society develops in the most advantageous way, if its members are allowed or encouraged to engage in a life-long and ruthless struggle for power, wealth and prestige.

How can you expect a society to stay together, if you systematically teach its members to compete and struggle with each other, rather than to cooperate and become inter-dependent upon each other's activities? How can you expect a society to stay together, if you actively promote an ever-widening gap between those, who are successful, and those, who are not? How can you expect those, who lose-out and become slaves to the banks, finance companies, or, to their consumerist instincts and the constant lure of commercial propaganda, to recognise that their enslavement contributes to the economic health of the nation? They may recognise, that they have become, unwittingly, victims of the financial needs of commercial enterprises, but their sense of justice will certainly not be satisfied by such a recognition.

How can we expect people to become responsible and informed citizens, if they are being taught by commercial interests to be constantly pre-occupied with egocentric attitudes or selfish instincts? The wealthy nations are so pre-occupied with maintaining their wealth, satisfying the ever-rising expectations of their own peoples, as well as the fulfilment of their financial commitments, that the peoples and leaders of these affluent nations have little time to be concerned with the plight of the poorer nations in the world.

Within a family, the relationships between its members can only be harmonious, if all members are treated equally and justly; if everyone understands the reasons for the rules and regulations that guide the behaviour of this family unit, and, if all members have the right to voice their opinions; to be listened to, and, to ask any question they want.

Honesty and openness in our relationships is a necessity, before we can satisfy the requirements of justice and equality. At the same time, we see, that members will gladly contribute to the common good, whenever necessary, if they feel, that they can trust the leadership, as well as each other, and, as long as they know, that they will receive a fair deal.

The sense of justice is then satisfied, not only, by a feeling that each individual has received equitable treatment from the leadership, but the sense of justice is also satisfied, whenever an individual experiences the fact, that everyone is treated equally, and, that every member shares equitably in the benefits, as well as the burdens of belonging to society.

It is actually so simple to solve the problems of society, if we are willing to think, clearly, about the factors that create stable, healthy and harmonious family relationships. The situation in the family-unit is seldom completely ideal, and, similarly, we should not expect the situation in society to be ever completely without tensions, problems or lingering feelings of injustice or conditions of inequality.

The world at large is not really any more complex than the world of human relationships on a much smaller scale. Certainly, it is not as easy to get a grip on everything that is going-on, because the number of events taking place in a complex society, is so much larger than in a small family-unit. We should not forget, however, that the same attitudes and temptations play a role, regardless of the size of a social entity. If people can be pompous or hungry for power and prestige on a small scale, so are leaders or prominent citizens in large societies tempted to behave in the same manner.

The problems, as well as the possibilities for social harmony are more complex, when we compare a large social unit with a small one, but, in essence, the same mechanisms play a role. It is not difficult to understand the world of high-finance and economic growth in a large social conglomerate, if we realise, that the assets of every social unit are limited and have to be managed carefully and wisely, in order to avoid waste and poverty. The phenomenon of inflation is easily understood, if we compare it with the idle promises by the head of a family, who is unable to make good on his promises. No wonder, such promises are, eventually, looked-upon with suspicion, and, it is not surprising that these promises are considered to be worth less than the nominal value guaranteed by a leader. Is money anything else than a promise by the government of a country to honour the nominal value printed on its paper currency?

Competitiveness between the members of a family is fine, as long as it remains a game. In a game, we can discuss, first, the rules of the game, in order to make sure that everyone has a fair chance of winning, and, when the game is over, everyone reverts back to his or her usual position, which is one of essential equality. In the game of accumulating wealth, there are few rules. The game is life-long and affects, permanently, the social status of everyone involved.

If inequalities in the ability to gather capital are allowed to persist throughout life, some members will have accumulated everything of value, and the rest will be poor and financially enslaved to their creditors and employers. While the original players in the game of capital accumulation may acknowledge, that they have lost-out on account of their own stupidities and short-comings, their children will feel it as an injustice to have been born into a position of poverty and disadvantage.

Competitiveness in society, in particular, when we have to compete with each other to ensure our basic existential requirements, leads to a pre-occupation with instinctive drives. This leads to an attitude of suspicion, together with an egocentric orientation of our activities, and, we will regard any opportunity to make money and become successful, as a natural right.

We have to learn to see, how important the attitudes of mutual respect, trust and cooperation really are, but, this means, also, that we all have to be honest and efficient, regardless of the positions we occupy, or the work we do. We have to be willing to be criticised for our mistakes, inefficiencies or failures. If we, as leaders, succumb to the temptation to suppress criticisms and dissent, to isolate ourselves in an ivory tower of privilege and power, to hide in a secret life-style of advantages and comforts, we can be sure, that the people will lose all faith and trust in the honesty, intentions and competence of their leadership.

Just as a family leadership can be honest, efficient and open, so can the leadership of a nation be efficient, open and just. With the help of modern technology, the leaders of our society are able to construct a network of bureaucratic channels that could gather and distribute information, and monitor events and happenings, in a way that has never been possible before. Such a network would make governing a truly informed excercise in wise management, provided, that the information would be available to everyone and could not be abused in one way or another. Then, there would be no need for this anxious groping for answers, as the leadership and its community stumble from one crisis to the next.

Just as a family leadership has the responsibility to educate and guide its members, so has the leadership of a society the responsibility to make sure, that our youngsters receive a carefully constructed package of guidelines, information and answers to their many questions. Then, young people can become aware of the monumental problems that have to be tackled, and, they would experience the fact, that they are needed, and, they would be well prepared to continue the task of caring for the community of mankind.

Our leaders have the task, as well as the responsibility, to make sure, that all members understand what a society is all about; what roles individuals play, what rights and safeguards members receive from their social environment, and, what obligations and contributions have to be made in return. If our youngsters are confused and do not feel wanted; if they do not know, what to do, and, if they are only encouraged to look anxiously for employment, (which may or may not be there), then, we have failed miserably in our efforts to educate the young people for their tasks and responsibilities of the future.

If our young people get the impression, that their society is rotten to the core, and, that man is going to destroy himself with his polllution or nuclear war-heads; if they experience a sense of hopelessness and have a tendency to "escape" into a world of drugs, sex or violence, we can be sure, that, we, the older generations, have failed miserably. If our young people have no idea, what life is all about, and, if they are ignorant about society, other peoples, as well as the history of mankind, then, we can not expect these youngsters to find any meaning in the world of the adult.

If we tell our youngsters, that, the only reason why they should do well in school, is to find a well-paying job, how can we expect them to develop a sense of social justice; of trust and compassion for their fellow human beings? If we tell our youngsters to be only concerned for those who belong to the same Church, or, who speak the same language, how can we expect them to find solutions to the problems of global injustice and disparity?

If we teach our youngsters to be completely committed to follow zealously the commandments of God or Revolution, how can we expect them to become broad-minded and intelligent citizens, who understand the value of evaluating all contradictory aspects of a problem or situation of conflict?

If we teach our youngsters not to trust those "mad scientists", how can we expect them to understand anything at all about human nature and the insights of evolution, and, if we force them to choose a narrow and absolute belief in a particular reality, we are sowing the seeds for intolerance and future warfare.

If we teach our youngsters to be pre-occupied with pleasure, with the emotions of sex and excitement, how can we expect them to be sensitive to the needs of others? How can we convince them, that a constant pre-occupation with the desires and pleasures of consumption has a weakening effect upon their minds?

How can we teach our children and youngsters to respect human life, if we teach them, that we are completely sovereign over our own body? How can we convince them, that a human child is just as human and has just as many rights, before it has been born, as when it has left the mother's womb? How can we teach our youngsters that an unborn child is not responsible for the way it was conceived? How can we teach them a sensible approach to the conflicting feelings and emotions of sex and violence, unless we give them a clear understanding of our biological heritage, our social requirements, our evolutionary developments, and the faculties of reason and understanding? How can we teach our children respect for their parents and peers, unless we give them an honest and clear picture of what we have learned, and, what mistakes we have made?

In short, it is clear, that education is the crux to the strength and stability of a social environment, because, a few generations that have been poorly or haphazardly instructed in their cultural heritage, are sufficient to imperil the vitality of an entire nation. A chain is only as strong as the strength of its weakest link!

Therefore, it is clear, that you, the young peoples of the world, have no choice, but to become, soon, the adults of the world, and, you will have to take the responsibilities and burdens of continuing the search for viability, whether you want it or not. Like every generation before you, and each generation after you, for a short period of time, the full responsibilities for the future of the human species will rest upon your shoulders.

You can blame the generations before you for innumerable mistakes and stupidities. No-one is going to argue with you. When your generation has become the older generation, I hope, that you will be able to look back upon your life and activities without too many regrets for having lived and worked the way you did. I am sure, that you will feel, just like I feel now, that you could have done more; that you have solved a few problems, but, that you have created or aggravated many others.

My fondest hope is, that you will have developed the skills of a well-balanced discussion and a reasoned judgement, and, that you have learned to see, how much alike we all are; how similar our wants, needs and conflicts really are. I hope, that you have argued with me about many of the statements I have made, and, that you have learned to think for yourselves, but, I hope, also, that you are able to agree with me, that the ultimate solution of global harmony amongst human beings is represented by a status of cooperation, trust and mutual respect, made possible by a scrupulously honest, efficient and open government, promoting justice, essential equality, health and understanding for us all.

There is beauty in understanding. Perhaps, the most profound feelings of beauty come with a balanced and rational understanding, and not with the emotional surge of a flash of ecstasy. Let us work, constantly and diligently, to preserve our human heritage, with health and viability, for many, many generations to come.

.......

Summary

1. The meaning of a lecture.
   An excercise in thinking.
   Differences and similarities between people.
   The problems of our parents.
   We all feel tense and frustrated, at times.
   How much we accept as true, without any thoughts or questions.
   We are always "on the go".
   The privileged and the poor.
   The childishness that comes with being born into affluence.
   Lecturing the lecturer.
   The short-comings of the adult generations.
   Many questions.
   A look back to the time, when adults were young.
   A shift in the priority of our problems and concerns.
   
   
   
2. The younger generations during and after the Second World War.
   The horrors of war, and the promise of affluence for everyone.
   Strictly guided economies, and the freely enterprising societies.
   The mixed economies, and the blessings of a fair and efficient system of progressive taxation.
   Avoiding a rapid polarisation of society.
   The problems of establishing an efficient and fair central bureaucracy, before the advent of the computer.
   Problems with the principles of free-enterprise; multi-national corporations and organised crime.
   Brain-washing the people with commercial propaganda.
   Voluntary slavery.
   The disastrous effects of constant commercial propaganda.
   Differing ideas about human rights.
   The dangers of egocentric, consumerist attitudes have to be understood and acknowledged, but can not be suppressed by laws.
   The lure of a flamboyant life-style.
   Great scientific insights and technological innovations are able to secure the future of mankind.
   The problems of pollution and contamination.
   The problems of hatred and cynicism.
   The timid doctor.
   The decaying influence of corruption and incompetence.
   The possibilities for an open, competent and trustworthy society.
   The surprising benefits of universal openness in the transactions and activities of human beings.
   
   
   
3. The possibility to use, or abuse, every form of knowledge and manipulative ability.
   Science may become man's un-doing, as well as the crux to his survival.
   A sense of awe, when understanding the principles of life.
   Knowledge is used, so often, as a tool to take an unfair advantage.
   The fragmented imagery of the sciences.
   The narrow and haphazard focus of the specialist.
   A declining prestige of the sciences.
   A resurgence of religious and pseudo-religious cults.
   Religion, nor science, possesses an ultimate, absolute truth.
   Religious beliefs were a logical and inevitable result of trying to explain the world as seen by our naked senses.
   An audacious scientific concept; abandoning the idea of a Creative Intelligence in favour of a predictable principle of Evolutionary Change.
   A review of our ability to observe and classify.
   The abstraction of common features as classifying principles.
   The utilitarian nature of the selection of classifying criteria.
   The phenomena of nature, as we can see and experience them all around us.
   The remarkable concept of a revolving earth.
   The evolution of scientific technology and instrumentation.
   Science, seen as a system of coherent causes and their effects.
   The reasons behind the process of scientific specialisation.
   Limitations in the knowledge of a specialist.
   The difficulties for ordinary lay-people, as well as specialised professionals, to form a coherent picture of reality, as it can be known with scientific methods of investigation.
   
   
   
4. A scientific interpretation of reality becomes more difficult in the phenomena of life, and, in particular, of human life.
   The baffling range of human behaviour-patterns.
   A large number of questions.
   An honest scientist has to say, often; "I do not know".
   There is a lot known about our origins, and the evolution of life.
   Life is a specific organisation of life-less matter.
   The living cell.
   Studying dead and stained cells.
   The possibility to obtain a coherent picture of the functions of living organisms.
   Scientific investigations of human behaviour; a more difficult terrain.
   A lack of agreement about fundamental concepts.
   Science and art, leading to philosophy.
   What is "the truth"?
   An attempt to outline the major differences, as well as the common roots of science and religion.
   Religion; an explanation of nature without the help of scientific tools, as well as an attempt to influence the willed forces of nature to our benefit.
   Science; an attempt to analyse and explain nature in a way that is emotionally as neutral as possible.
   Technology; the manipulative powers resulting from a useful scientific interpretation of reality.
   
   
   
5. A short review of the evolution of conscious awareness.
   Speculative images.
   Evolution versus Creation.
   The concept of "Original Sin".
   The struggle between good and evil is the central idea of "Creationism", while the struggle to survive is the central explanation of living existence in the imagery of natural evolution.
   The logic of explaining the force-fields of nature along the lines of man's own "willed force".
   A vague distinction between living and non-living force-fields.
   Man's religious explanations and attitudes are entirely logical, when taking the absence of scientific concepts into account.
   The progression from polytheism to monotheism.
   The need for a set of rules to guide human behaviour.
   The inter-wovenness of explanations and exhortations in the religious interpretation of reality.
   Modern science explains the events and phenomena of nature in concepts that can be verified by anyone who wishes to do so.
   The role of authority in religion and science.
   An opportunity to think for ourselves.
   Be aware of "authority".
   A series of questions about the Christian Faith.
   The emotions of suspicion and hatred, evoked by persistent and fearless questioning.
   Touched by the spirit of good-will.
   What is truth?
   We all live in a world of mental images and ideas, and, all questions regarding the nature of the truth lie in this mental sphere.
   
   
   
6. Somewhat baffled by the question, whether or not there is a relationship between "the truth", and, what we believe to be true.
   Science and religion converge in the assumption, that their interpretations mirror, to some extent, an absolute truth.
   Does the existence of the moon depend on human existence?
   Scrutinising our sense of logic.
   Man's senses, and the conclusion that reality perceptions are based upon man's physiological capabilities.
   The evolution of the brain; a response to needs and requirements.
   A quick sketch of man's evolutionary history.
   Verifiable images that are well-accepted by the sciences.
   The tendency to believe what suits us best.
   The pen, and the idea of a unifying concept.
   A fragile and evanescent appearance of our familiar realities.
   The function of naming objects.
   The central criterium of "usefulness" when constructing our reality perceptions.
   The importance of shared experiences for our sense of truth.
   Multiple levels of abstraction.
   A pragmatic ability to manipulate the environment enhances the intuitive feeling, that our mental images mirror an external, absolute reality.
   Yet, a look at history shows us the fallacy of this intuitive conclusion.
   
   
   
7. The final argument; before we can say, that our reality perceptions approach, or mirror, an ultimate, absolute reality, we have to know something about this reality.
   Yet, all our concepts about such a reality are mental images, and we have no guarantee, that these concepts correspond, in any way, with such an absolute reality.
   The "alien" aspects of a non-focussed reality perception.
   The pragmatic importance of understanding these ideas.
   A note of caution about being totally committed; questions.
   The importanc of thinking clearly and honestly.
   Finding much less resistance from those, who used to be implacable enemies.
   The beauty of reasoned arguments and balanced judgements.
   Few people are totally bad, or totally good.
   The religious creed, and a congregation of the faithful.
   The potentially coherent imagery of the scientific explanations for human behaviour-patterns.
   The mechanisms of hierarchical positioning.
   Why small-scale social evolution has been encoded in the make-up of the human personality.
   Our enemies are people, just like ourselves.
   Human rights.
   The poor and the oppressed are becoming aware of their position of injustice, and, as they get stronger, their reactions will become more violent.
   
   
   
8. The irony, that attempts to help overcome disparities are likely to increase tensions and frustrations.
   The two stable points of existence; either, the loser is eliminated permanently, or, adversaries learn to live in a state of inter-dependence and essential equality.
   Learning to see all the consequences, whenever we opt for the solution of violent conflict.
   Will man learn to break the cycle of grabbing an unfair advantage, whenever possible, and the inevitable suffering resulting from retaliation and eventual defeat?
   The need for a truly global code of conduct.
   Learning to diagnose the feelings of injustice and oppression.
   The ability of people to agree about a structure of common-sense ideas and concepts.
   No birth-right to a position of privilege and advantage.
   No inalienable rights of ownership.
   No inviolable national boundaries.
   The fallacy of trying to use the instinct of competitive strife as a source for social harmony.
   Pre-occupation and inertia; why the affluent nations are so insensitive.
   Family relationships.
   Similar principles play a role in human relationships; at the level of the family, as well as the larger nation.
   False promises.
   The game of acquisition.
   The responsibilities of leadership.
   A series of considerations and questions.
   Education, or the competent transfer of a viable cultural code; the crux to survival.
   No choice, but to accept responsibilities as they come your way.
   My hopes and wishes.
   There is beauty in understanding.

.......