THE PROBLEM OF COMPLEXITY


the need for a manageable synthesis




A Study in Thought

sa041



by





Marius Heuff

Chapter 1

Content

Reflecting upon the background of our aspirations and objectives.
Questions about our leaders.
Why it may be dangerous to ask too many question.
The importance of asking pointed questions.
The perception of reality.
The link between social cohesion and the perception of reality.
Religious and philosophical interpretations of reality experiences.
Often, behaviour comes first, and later, we think about our actions.
A form of "preventive philosophising".
The nature of thought.
The need to constantly refine the perception of reality.
Is there anything wrong with challenging authority?
A good leadership will benefit from a thorough inquiry.
The need to manage complexities.
The need to know, as well as to be open and honest.
The importance of mutual trust and efficient leadership.

Have you ever stopped long enough to ask yourself, what you are doing? You have probably some idea, why you are doing what you are doing, because most of us work towards a goal that has been formulated more or less clearly in our minds. This goal may represent a personal ambition, conceived after a fairly long search for the really important priorities of life, but, most of us have been persuaded to work towards a goal whose importance has been determined by our social environment. Then, we work, usually collectively, in an atmosphere of mutual trust and enthousiasm, believing in the objectives our leaders have outlined. Our leaders will constantly remind us, how important these goals are, yet, from time to time, we notice major discrepancies between the goals we work towards, and the effects of our efforts and hard work. Then, we may sit back for a moment and reflect upon what went wrong.

How come, we did not achieve what we set-out to do? How come, some of us became discouraged or disloyal to the Cause? Were our leaders right in setting the objectives they did? Did they guide us correctly, or, have they themselves lost, to some extent, the belief in, and the enthousiasm for, the goals they so anxiously impressed upon us? Are our leaders honest? Are they working as hard as we do? Are they profiting in one way or another from our labours?

These are questions our leaders do not like to hear, and, many of them will go to any length to squelch such questioning, even, if it means oppression, injustice, incarceration, exile, or, perhaps, even, death for those, who dare to persist with such questions. Yet, even those of us, who have been given a position of responsibility, or, who have taken upon ourselves the responsibilities and burdens of leadership, we will have to ask ourselves, from time to time; where do we go from here; were we right in what we tried to do? Are we still honest and fervent believers in the Cause, as we tell our followers we are? Are we getting discouraged or frightened by the rumblings of dissent, scrutiny and disappointment under our followers? How far have we succeeded in our efforts to provide equitable leadership and justice for all? Have we committed acts of oppression, and, have we stifled dissent, because we feared the corrosive effects of opposition to our objectives, or the methods we used to implement these goals?

What went wrong? How come, we are in the malaise we are in? Did we make mistakes in the way we visualised the future for our society and the obstacles that lay in the way? Are the people we have been trying to lead, ungrateful and gullible; fickle, resentful and distrustful, like a spoiled child? Have the people forgotten, how much we have done for them?

Questions, questions, and even more questions. Unless we are going through a phase of extensive expansion and confident aggression, there will always be questions. Questions amongst the leadership, as well as the people; at least, amongst those who are perceptive. In the process of threshing-out all sorts of questions and their answers, we form and reshape the perceptions of a reality that turned-out to be not quite as accurate and useful as we thought.

From the questions that arise when the experienced reality starts to diverge significantly from our expectations, we forge, slowly, a complex and ever-changing perspective of expectations. This perspective forms the basis for our attitudes and goal-patterns, and, it determines, to a large extent, how we inter-act with others. It guides our personality development and regulates our reality perceptions. This perspective upon reality forms the basis for our judgement about what is right and wrong, and fortifies our resolve, when we have to face adversity and suffering.

We act and react first. We only ask questions and form a more refined perception of reality, later. If we are successful, we do not ask too many questions. Why should we? In our moments of confidence, we are convinced, that the reality we believe to exist, corresponds, exactly and unquestionably, with the reality as it exists, independently of our existence or the existence of anyone else. Our reality feelings have, then, a sense of absoluteness, or unquestionability, and, this framework of unquestionable reality perceptions forms the foundation for our confidence and decisiveness.

If these reality perceptions remain satisfactory, the social unit will remain strong, coherent and confident, but, if they begin to show short-comings and unexpected failures, the atmosphere of confidence is replaced by a feeling of confusion. It becomes, then, much more difficult to lead the community, and, there is a significant danger, that the various sub-groupings will begin to quarrel and drift-apart.

The most conscious and explicit belief structures are forged into a more or less coherent point of view. Such beliefs are usually religious in nature, but, occasionally, (as we see, for example, in the doctrines of Socialism), a non-religious or non-metaphysical perception of reality may begin to function as a useful guideline for individual and collective behaviour-patterns. Ideological guidance-patterns of a philosophical rather than religious nature are still an exception, however, since a philosophy has rarely sufficient authority and simplicity to guide the behaviour of a large majority of people in times of crises.

We are not attempting, here, to construct an over-view of the various guidance or belief structures that have been at work in societies all over the world, but, we want to emphasise the idea, that a structure of beliefs, (a conscious set of related images about the nature of reality), develops as a result of unexpected problems we encounter in our inter-actions with the social or natural environment. We behave first, and think about it later, whenever we assess or re-assess what has happened.

Certainly, in the behaviour of modern man, many of our individual and collective goal-patterns are extremely sophisticated, and, they have been made possible, because we have inherited a rich cultural pool of concepts and guidelines that are the result of a long period of experiences and thoughts. Yet, even the most sophisticated goal-patterns that take into account the ideals of social justice, individual dignity and human destiny, are likely to experience unexpected problems and disappointments, and, this confirms the fact, that our reality perceptions are always undergoing a process of change, and, often, a process of divergence as well.

We hardly realise, how important it is to ask ourselves questions. Most of the time, we are forced by the circumstances to ask questions, whenever we run into difficulties and our security and comforts are being threatened, but, perhaps, we could anticipate and avoid a lot of these problems, if we learned to think and ask questions, before we were forced to do so by the circumstances; a form of "preventive philosophising", so to speak.

Unfortunately, most often, we consider it a waste of time to think before we have to, and, we feel it as a burden, if we are finally forced to think, because, intuitively, we suspect, that the best time for thought and corrective action has already past. Equally unfortunately, our leaders often feel threatened, if their followers begin to ask questions, because, they, too, act and react first, and, they think, only, if they have to.

How important is it to ask questions? We may say, without exaggeration, that we would not be where we are today, and, we would never have become the species we are, if we did not have a strong urge to think through and raise questions, whenever we feel, that our perception of reality is not as refined or precise as it could be.

We have become the thinking species, par excellence, because our ancestors, in those dim beginnings of conscious awareness, have constantly sought to understand what was happening to them. From the beginning of the ability to represent awarenesses with a symbol, man experienced an urgent need to put this rapidly enlarging repertoir of symbolically representable awarenesses within a coherent framework, and, man's earliest attempts at understanding his perceptions of reality were woven into a tapistry of stories, legends and beliefs, trying to make sense of this constant stream of perplexing, and, often, contradictory awarenesses.

As a result of the need to continuously remodel and refine his reality perceptions, man learned to verbalise a more clear-cut awareness of what he did not fully understand. The precise delineation of an area of awareness that did not seem to fit into the established scheme of interpretations, was a slowly developing skill, but, rarely has man realised, how important it was to refine, deliberately, the art of asking and formulating questions.

Even, now, most of us do not realise, how important it is to pursue a question diligently. How many of us take the time, and make the effort, to verbalise, precisely, what we do and do not understand? The reason why we are, so often, fuzzy in our beliefs, is directly related to an under-developed capability or motivation to ask questions. If we do not precisely know, what we believe, we also do not precisely know, what we do not understand, and, the reason, why many of us go happily and uneventfully through life, is related to the fact, that we often do not need to know, with any degree of precision, what we believe, understand or do not know.

Indeed, our leaders often discourage us from trying to formulate a more precise belief structure, since a question may become a weapon to challenge authority. Often, our civic and spiritual leaders are trying to conceal inconsistencies in structures of belief or communal goal-patterns, and, they fear that an ability to formulate precise and incisive questions, could be turned against them. A penetrating line of inquiry may attack, or, even, destroy the authority and power of the leadership, because it is often not easy to justify this position of power and privilege in the face of persistent and fearless questioning.

A challenge to the power and authority of a position of leadership is often associated with a threat to the security, prestige and well-being of the leader, and, therefore, it is not surprising, that an inquiry or an attack upon the foundations of this security is feared, and will be suppressed. If a question scrutinises the foundations of commonly accepted customs and beliefs upon which the feelings of confidence and righteousness rest, then, such questioning will be felt as a threat to the security of the community, and, it will be condemned as "subversive".

With the emergence of structures of belief and tacit assumptions, or subconscious agreements in matters of grave existential importance, the art of questioning and scrutiny became a powerful tool to challenge authority, and, it is indeed often used this way. But, what is wrong with challenging authority? What is wrong with forcing a leadership or leadership institution to justify its position of authority? We should, as members of a community, not only, have the right to question the basis upon which authority has been founded, but, we should encourage each other to do so.

An intelligent and confident leadership will encourage and educate its members to question and challenge the common assumptions of belief and authority. There is a great advantage in doing this. If a leadership is successful in encouraging and educating people to become inquisitive and thinking members, most of them will be able to recognise the wisdom and justification of the common beliefs and existing channels of authority within the community.

Certainly, there is always a danger, that certain aspects of the leadership will be found to be inadequate or defective, but, then, such a discovery can only strengthen a just and concerned leadership. After the defective aspects have been corrected, and, after the removal from power of those who are not measuring-up to high standards of performance and integrity required for a position of overall leadership, the leadership will win a renewed and more meaningful approval and support from the membership.

In a society with a measure of complexity, the freedom to ask questions and to express opinions freely will, invariably, reveal marked divergencies in opinions and beliefs, and, this divergence may provoke heated discussions. If not controled properly by a wise but firm leadership, such heated arguments may lead to open hostilities, or, even, violence. Here, a leadership receives a golden opportunity to guide a heated debate and intense scrutiny in such a way, that both sides in a dispute realise, that a compromise or a limit on goals and aspirations is, not only, a practical necessity, but, that it is essentially just; that it is a civic obligation to accomodate each other's wishes, needs and points of view as much as possible, because such an attitude will force both sides to see their reality perceptions in a light that reflects the common interests of the members of a socially integrated entity.

Why should a leadership that is worth its salt, as well as its position of authority and trust, have to fear the inquisitive mind of its members? Each time a question is asked and challenges the basis of authority, or the existence of unquestioned opinions and sacred beliefs, the leadership receives an opportunity to express its reasons for the guidance and leadership it provides. Such a leadership can thereby educate the people, and, this will cultivate a better understanding and appreciation for the leadership.

No competent and legitimate authority should have to fear any questions about its authority or legality. If a leadership has difficulties with certain questions, it would do well to examine, carefully, these questions, and ask itself, whether or not the implied criticisms have some justification.

Following the same arguments; why would a legitimate and competent authority have to fear any form of verbal criticism? Surely, it should not be difficult to refute the arguments if they are erroneous, and, if the arguments are difficult to refute, or, if they prove to be embarrassing, the leadership should examine itself thoroughly, and, it should ask itself, whether or not it is living-up to the high standards of conduct and integrity the people expect from their leaders.

Any leadership that tries to suppress criticisms or questioning, is, in essence, a bankrupt and illegal leadership, unfit for the community, and, often, it becomes a scourge for its members, as well as the surrounding communities.

Why should you not scrutinise everything you want to question? Why should I not question, how my neighbours live, what they do, what they earn, what connections they have, or, what sort of privileges they receive? Why should we not question, in detail, what our leaders own, where their allegiances lie, what they do and think, whom they know, who their relations and relatives are? Why should we not know, how they spend the public monies, who gets paid from the public purse, and, how much. Why should we not know, how they spend their time, what they earn and consume? Why should we not be able to have access to every detail of the government bureaucracies and their leaderships?

After all, government is an institution created by the people, for the people, and, each one of us has a perfect right to scrutinise its finest details, in order to make sure, that government decisions and bureaucratic functions are carried-out efficiently and fairly.

How can I trust my government or the people around me, unless I can investigate, at any time, whether or not everyone is treated equally and fairly; whether or not everyone is contributing as he or she is supposed to; whether or not everyone is playing by the rules, just as I play by the rules of my society?

However, am I indeed playing by the rules of society? Am I above board? Am I scrupulously honest and efficient in whatever tasks I have to carry-out as my civic duties or responsibilities? My neighbour may have some doubts, and, if I want to have the right to satisfy my doubts about my neighbours, I have to agree that he has the right to satisfy his doubts as well, even, if his questions concern me personally.

Mutual trust and efficient leadership are completely impossible, unless we teach everyone to use the power of inquiry and scrutiny to the fullest. We all have to understand the essentials of citizenship, and, we have to understand, what it means to form a society. We all have to be free from fear to ask any question we like, but, we also have to accept the responsibility to answer each and every question honestly and publicly, regardless, what we may be asked to answer.

.......

Chapter 2

Content

What is privacy?
The complex and fragile nature of our certainties.
Diverging reality perceptions.
Plowing-under the weeds of our treasured beliefs.
A definition of the sphere of reality experiences.
The mechanisms of an explanation.
Generalising and classifying principles for ordening our sense impressions.
Cerebral classification mechanisms.
The nature of the function of memory.
An optimum range of recognition-patterns.
A parallel system of mental classifications.
The nature of an abstraction.
Cerebral classification systems are genetically encoded and "species-specific", while mental classification systems are "culturally specific".
The search for a possibility to exist.
The zone of emotional neutrality.
The increasing importance of "cultural modifiers" for our behavioural choices.
Cultural modifications of emotional behaviour-patterns.
The remarkable qualities of behaviour in a zone of emotional near-neutrality.
The existential concerns of professional scientists.
The need for a specialisation in function and expertise.

"What happened to privacy", you ask in horror, but, I ask you; what is privacy? Is privacy the right to do, secretly, whatever you would like to hide from other people? Is privacy the right to enjoy a hidden privilege or advantage? Is privacy the right to exploit someone else, or make use of an opportunity, which you are somewhat ashamed of? Why would you hesitate to tell others, what you earn, what you owe, what you think, or, what sort of questions you have? If you are not ashamed of what you are doing, you have no reason to fear openness and honesty.

We have discussed the limitations and legitimacy of certain forms of privacy before, and, we do not want to elaborate these arguments, here, because our main theme is to illustrate the powerful impact of the art of incisive and honest scrutiny. We want to trace the link between the art of asking pointed questions, and, the awareness that reality is complex. We want to show, that, intelligent questioning and scrutiny leads us, invariably, to the realisation that our certainties and realities are, in essence, complex and fragile. We want to show, how instinctively and primitively we behave, whenever we believe to act and think intelligently. We want to show, how similar we all are, especially, in our readiness to fight and destroy each other, and, how egocentric our motivations are, whenever we pride ourselves to be good Christians; how weak, vulnerable and ignorant we are, when we think, confidently, to be smart and well-informed; how we all have our weak and strong points, while we think, that we are so unique; how much we behave in the same manner, in spite of the fact, that we can always find numerous differences to distinguish ourselves from others.

Why is it, that each one of us perceives reality somewhat differently, even, if we live together and communicate in the same language? Let us stop and think for a while. Let us allow ourselves a number of questions. If we take the time, and make the effort, to think and reflect for a moment, we will see, how easily our certainties and prejudices, our beliefs and expectations, our priorities and goals can be stripped-away, leaving us somewhat confused, frightened and depressed.

"Why should we engage in such a foolish activity of reflecting and questioning everything, including, what we are certain of, if it only leads to confusion, depression and insecurity?", you ask. Fortunately, we do not have to remain in a state of confusion and uncertainty. The stripping-away of our common platitudes, dogmatic beliefs, unquestioned truths and thoughtless attitudes, may cause us problems, sometimes, serious problems, but, we may also become convinced, that it is necessary to put ourselves through such a mental purge of beloved certainties, especially, if we want to reach for solutions that seem to be out of sight. We have to plow the weeds of our treasured beliefs deep under the ground; at least, we have to do this, once in a while, in order to be able to plant the seeds for a larger framework of understanding.

It is good for us to realise, that reality is far more complex and far less certain than we thought it to be. It is good for us to strip-away our worn interpretations and have a fresh look at the perplexing and complex realities of our existence. We need to re-assess our solutions and commonly accepted goal-patterns, at least, from time to time, otherwise, we will, inevitably, repeat the same cycle of mistakes and miscalculations that always come to the fore, as soon as our expectations and experiences begin to diverge significantly.

Let us define reality as a sphere that seems to extend around each one of us. Each one of us appears to be in the center of our sphere of reality perceptions. We are aware of the existence of space around us, and we experience the passage of time. With the passage of time, things change, sometimes quickly, sometimes slowly, but there is always change, and, because of our ability to retain some sort of an imagery of the realities we have experienced in the past, we begin to see a certain continuity or predictability in the occurrence of many events. This experience lets us classify happenings in similarity of events, and, we are able to abstract generalised principles that "explain" these happenings in terms of causes and their effects.

Similarly, we are able to classify many phenomena and predominantly static items of existence in terms of similarities in appearance, where the generalising and classifying principles also become verbalised as a separate awareness. These generalising and classifying principles become abstract concepts and function as common denominators that tie-together a class or category of similarities.

The classification of occurrences in time, with the help of a system of explanatory cause and effect relationships, is based upon the function of memory. This function may take place as a detailed registration of a specific event, but, since the human organism receives a large and nearly continuous stream of varied sense impressions, impulses and awarenesses, most events or happenings are not recorded in great detail, but are classified as they are taking place. This happens through a cerebral or neurological mechanism registering, "automatically", without the help of any conscious decision-making process, the common denominators of these sense impressions.

Only those aspects of a sense impression or experience that appear to be existentially significant, or difficult to classify immediately, are registered in some detail; at least, they are kept in the memory-repertoir for a period of time, until their significance has been determined.

On previous occasions, we have discussed these concepts more in detail. Let us only summarise these ideas by recalling, that, any form of useful memory, (at least, for animals that rely upon the ability to modify their behavioural response on the basis of past experiences), has to have an organic, inborn, neurological system for the classification of such experiences. Not only, would the capacity of a central nervous system to retain memory-traces quickly be taxed to the limit, if an efficient system of classification would not be available, but, also, a referral to stored memory-traces in order to evaluate the nature and significance of an incoming sense impression, would be difficult without classifying principles.

An event happening now, may not be identical to a previously experienced event, but, it may be similar to an occurrence that happened in the past. If the brain would not be able to "abstract" the essential or common features of similarity in occurrence between one event and another, the memory-traces of a past event would not be able to influence the behaviour of the organism in the present, and the organism would not be able to experience the sense impression as "familiar".

We have discussed on previous occasions, why too broad a generalisation of similarities between occurrences would lump-together, in one class, events that may have an entirely different existential significance, and, the "similarity criterium", (abstracted by the central nervous system, not as a conscious awareness but as a modifier of the behavioural response), would then be useless. At the same time, too specific or restricted a criterium for the judgement of similarity would reduce the ability to recognise a similar event as familiar, and, this would lead to missed opportunities to find food, shelter or security, or, it may interfere with an efficient recognition of dangerous or threatening situations.

Too broad or too narrow a level of abstraction of the similarity criteria would be harmful to the individual organism, and, we may safely assume, that the processes of natural selection favour a mechanism of neural or cerebral classification allowing a member of a species to maximise its capabilities to react appropriately in the light of past experiences.

We have also discussed, how, in the human species, the ability to recall a memory-trace voluntarily, by means of a communicable symbol in gesture or sound, led, quickly, to an unmanageably large repertoir of symbolically representable and communicable awarenesses. Then, the human organism had to search for a solution of this problem in order to maintain the existential advantage of using symbolically representable awarenesses. This solution has been found in a system of classification for these symbolically representable awarenesses, mirroring the classification system of the central nervous system.

The classification of symbolic representations is a process that is, indeed, very similar to the mechanisms of neurological classification, because common denominators of similarity are formed and eventually verbalised as "abstractions", and, these common denominators tie a whole class of similar awarenesses together into a single category.

A category of awarenesses may have a dimension of time, and, it represents, then, a category of similarities in event, where the principles or criteria of abstraction are verbalised as a theory of causes and their effects, or, as a similarity in profile. If the classification does not have an element of time or change, it can be classified as a similarity in existence. Here, the common denominators are abstracted as "qualities", or features, that characterise a class of phenomena. The class is then an entity, because the members of this class resemble each other by virtue of a common denominator.

Let us remind ourselves, here, that nearly all awarenesses have been named as a representative of a class of similarities in existence or event, rather than as a single item or a unique event, and, for this reason, the primary abstraction took place in the naming of an item or event. The grouping-together of a number of named items and events represents, therefore, a secondary level of abstraction.

Verbalisable awarenesses are classified in a mental system of classification, where the guiding or generalising criteria become conscious awarenesses that have obtained their own representative symbol. Almost all these secondary principles or criteria of classification are taught to us as part of our cultural heritage. In this way, we learn to interpret reality according to the beliefs, notions and insights of the cultural pool of the community we happen to have been born into.

In contrast, the cerebral classification system, which plays a role in the human organism, as well as in all the behaviourally flexible animals, is completely sub-conscious. It is genetically determined by the way the central nervous system is formed and "wired together" under the direction of the genetic code. The cerebral classification system is fairly specific for a particular species, but, in the human being, reality perceptions are greatly enlarged by the super-imposition of a sphere of conscious reality perceptions. This sphere is ordened by this mental classification system of verbalisable awarenesses, which is culturally specific, because it is regulated by structures of beliefs.

However, a perception of the mechanisms with which we interpret reality does not allow us to remain at this somewhat facile stage of understanding, because, as always, a closer look reveals many more variables and shades of differentiation, than a first glance would indicate. Refinements of this imagery come from several sources.

As we have elaborated many times before, we have to see behaviour on a sliding scale of emotions and motivations; from exuberance, aggressiveness and confidence, through a zone that is more or less emotionally neutral, to a zone of defensive behaviour, which ranges from mild caution and concern to deep anxiety, panic and despair.

This sliding scale of behaviour-patterns seems to be in operation for all living organisms; from the most primitive organisms to man himself. In the animal kingdom, the emotionally neutral zone is, usually, a condition that favours sleep, but, in man, emotional neutrality has been discovered as a highly desirable state of alertness, especially, if we want to create ideal conditions for accurate observations and clear thinking.

In the emotionally neutral zone of alert observations, the value of classifying behaviour-patterns on several sliding scales comes clearly to the fore, because, such an interpretation allows a firm grasp over the phenomena of behaviour. We know, that we are often subjected to behaviour-patterns that take place in an emotional zone. This reflects the fact, that we are an evolved species of life. We know from observations within ourselves, and, in particular, from a retrospective analysis of our behaviour in the emotional zone, that, during the time we behave emotionally, our reality perceptions are heavily influenced or coloured by an emotional state.

We seem to "filter" our sense impressions through a selective mechanism of "emotional bias", emphasising and registering our perceptions of the moment in a light that is coloured or determined by our emotional outlook.

We have frequently outlined our ideas about the mechanisms of emotional behaviour, and, we will only summarise, briefly, the major conclusions we have reached. We consider the extremes of emotional behaviour, such as panic, rage or ecstatic frenzy, to be a form of behaviour that is primarily determined by genetic factors, and, it is, therefore, quite similar from one human being to the next. In addition to the strong similarities of highly emotional behaviour-patterns, we have also discussed the fact, that all our physiological activities are, essentially, the same.

In the adult, all behavioural reactions are, to some extent, influenced by a cultural input and environmental contacts, but, we still note, that the most emotional behavioural expressions are remarkably similar throughout the spectrum of human existence. As we slide, gradually, into the less emotional range of human behaviour, cultural influences, such as notions, beliefs and attitudes, play an ever more prominent role in determining the behavioural expression of an individual. This applies to both sides of the emotional scale. As we approach the zone of emotional neutrality, we see the most varied forms of human behaviour come to the fore, and, we remind ourselves, that, by far, the greatest time of our lives is spent close to this sphere of emotional near-neutrality.

However, very rarely, are we really emotionally completely neutral, and, we have elaborated, on different occasions, how true emotional neutrality is a conceptual abstraction, rather than an observable and obtainable reality. Most of the time, we behave in an emotionally coloured state, swinging quite slowly and gently around this labile balance-point of emotional neutrality. Some of us swing quite rapidly and wildly, others move very little and seem "stone-faced" in the steadfastness of their appearance. Yet, even, here, we recognise, that the extent to which people allow themselves to be moved between the positive and negative poles of the emotional scale, is strongly influenced by the notions, mores and customs of a particular culture.

Occasionally, a strong emphasis will be placed on the desirability of a stoic appearance, even, if the appearance of emotional neutrality is then more a question of behavioural control, rather than a true absence of emotional arousal. At other times, wildly fluctuating emotions are encouraged, but, usually, emotional volatility is controled rather rigidly, by allowing it a measure of freedom, at certain times, and, under certain circumstances.

Some societies have practiced a repression of certain emotions by making their expression taboo. The emotion, or, at least, the expression of fear has sometimes been ruthlessly suppressed. At other times, sexual arousal has been suppressed, because it is considered to be an emotion that should only be shown in the privacy of one's home, or, it has been found to be socially rather disruptive, if its expression is allowed too freely in public.

Sophisticated and psychologically clever structures of belief have glorified the emotion of tenderness and the attitude of compassion. Other beliefs emphasise martiality, as well as an unshakeable and unquestionable faith in an Absolute Truth.

Throughout the history of man, we see, in an ever varying kaleidoscope of cultural guidelines, that, almost all human expressions and variants of the emotional scale have, at times, been glorified and propagated, or suppressed and ostracised.

There is one very remarkable form of behaviour that springs-up, now and then, within a large variety of cultural climates. This form of behaviour is remarkably similar from one individual to the next, and, it allows for a measure of intellectual agreement, if it is successfully practiced by its disciples. Its practice is difficult, because the required emotional state is not easy to maintain. We are talking, here, about a state of strict and deliberate emotional neutrality, with its potential for careful and accurate observations, extensive and honest debates, as well as the slow and careful development of a coherent framework of cause and effect relationships.

This, of course, is an imagery of the ideal conditions under which scientific investigations can be carried-out, but, this ideal is rarely mirrored in the practices and living conditions of the people who are engaged in such activities. While careful, accurate and laborious scientific work will, eventually, create a great sense of persuasiveness and beauty, there are several serious difficulties preventing the implementation of such ideal, scientific working conditions.

The problems are associated with several major facts of life. First of all, scientific endeavour has become, almost exclusively, a "professional occupation". This means, that it has severe and immediate consequences for the financial and social well-being of the individual. Somewhat paradoxically, therefore, the ideal of the scientific work-method requires, on the one hand, an atmosphere of studious devotion to objective scientific work, together with an attitude of emotional neutrality in every phase of scientific endeavour. On the other hand, the ruthless competitive atmosphere of a University position, together with the hierarchical jockeying that takes place with the search for recognition, reward and security, introduces a strong emotional ground-tone in the work-environment of a scientific worker.

Another major factor is the fact, that, reality perceptions always allow an increasingly narrow and more specialised focus of attention, leading, quickly, to an overwhelming complexity of reality, especially, for those, who are trying to maintain an overall view. This fragmentation of the scientific imagery will lead to a sense of paralysis and helplessness, unless we take careful and deliberate steps to avoid such a situation.

Like species' diverging into slightly differing ecological niches in order to minimise the pressures of competitive existence, so is there a strong tendency for scientists to specialise and sub-specialise ever further. This trend is fueled by the search for security, recognition and relative tranquility within a recognised position of authority, as well as by considerations of manageability of the numerous data that have to be integrated into a framework of coherent knowledge. After all, if the area of responsibility has been narrowed to a small specialty, the amount of data and the complexity of the reality perception have been reduced for this particular field. However, the complexity of reality has increased, whenever we face the task of integrating these fields of specialised knowledge into a coherent and manageable over-view.

The trend towards a condition of intense competitive strife in the scientific work-environment, as well as the tendency towards fragmentation of the scientific reality perceptions, are two major factors clouding the potential for understanding made possible by thought and observation in the zone of emotional neutrality.

.......

Chapter 3

Content

Two major factors behind the drive to specialise; security and manageability.
The trend towards team-work in research efforts.
The scientific task-force.
A square meter within a scientific field of several hectares.
The need to retain a coherent over-view.
The "quilt" of scientific endeavour.
The household of the State; a definition of political leadership.
Science, and the trend towards egocentric behaviour-patterns.
The significance of specialisation is linked to sharing the chores of survival.
Living and working in a city.
The meaning of society.
Social cohesion, and the need to perceive reality coherently.
Social fragmentation, when there is a lack of direction.
The vicious circle of social decay and crumbling reality perceptions.
Mechanisms of social decay.
Escapism.

The tendency towards ever increasing specialisation in scientific and technological fields of endeavour, is only partly motivated by existential concerns, because there is also the persistent problem of rapidly accumulating facts, or information. Just as we have postulated, how, in the early history of human development, a rapidly enlarging repertoir of verbalisable concepts initiated a search for generalising principles, so is any field of endeavour, be it a fundamental science or the broad fields of technology, quickly accumulating a large variety of facts, concepts and ideas.

This accumulation is not limited to an enlargement of the conceptual vocabulary, (which is due to an elaboration of the images of understanding), but, the proliferation of awarenesses is even more prodigious, whenever we look at the large variety of technological instruments that are necessary in almost every scientific field. The combination of a rapidly developing and ever more complicated arsenal of technical instruments, the proliferation of data and observations, as well as the continuous fragmentation of the scientific imagery as it unfolds in the wake of increasingly intense and localised scrutiny, all these factors contribute to the need for a narrower scope of scientific vision.

Of course, these trends are logical and unavoidable, but, they are not specific for the needs of a detailed scientific vision. There are good reasons to believe, that the fragmentation into numerous small specialties is also brought-about by an inefficient structure of scientific and technological research. There is already a significant trend towards a team-approach to research in major scientific and technological projects, where a group of technical specialists handles the instruments and a number of scientists design and run the experiments.

A team-approach helps us to overcome the draw-backs of too narrow a specialisation, because it provides the possibility for a transparent coordination between the various activities of research. In other words, a team-approach has a chance to be better coordinated compared to a series of individualised efforts, where communication and coordination are often limited to the presentation and discussion of research papers at seminars and conferences. This trend towards an effective organisation and integration of scientific endeavours has to continue, until virtually all scientific research programs are coordinated by a competent board of directors, who can evaluate and place the significance of each scientific effort, or result, into a useful and coherent perspective.

Certainly, a group of scientists becomes, then, a "task-force" that has been given a specific project as a "sub-contract" within a much larger overall framework of research efforts, and, such a regimentation may dampen, to some extent, the possibilities for initiative and the feelings of freedom and excitement, unless a persistent effort is made to keep everyone informed about the overall purpose and significance of the project as a whole. This requires continuous contacts between the various groups of individuals, as well as a constant reminder about the overall objectives and the progress made, so far. It also requires a sensitive attention to professional and personal problems of the people involved.

Not only, would such an approach avoid the wasteful duplication of efforts, as well as the failure of many promising avenues of research, but, it would also allow a much broader perspective to be kept in mind by everyone concerned. A small group may then be investigating only a "square meter" within a scientific field representing several hectares, but each worker could retain an overall imagery of this entire field by virtue of the coordinating and educating functions of the regulating body.

In other words, we have to forge a living organisation of the numerous small scientific enterprises that are going-on at the present time, until they fuse into a functional "multi-cellular" unit of global dimensions. Such a transformation can only come-about slowly, and, if successful, it will save unnecessary efforts and expenditures. Besides, the enormous technical problems of the future will make the fusion of multi-centric research-efforts a necessity, since the ability to cope with these problems individually, or by people working in small, isolated groupings, will be lacking.

Apart from the practical need to coordinate all scientific and technological efforts in the near future, we would like to emphasise, here, another beneficial aspect of a team-approach. It will make it easier to develop the art of constructing accurate and relevant "over-view images" of the realities we are confronted with, and, this emphasis on a broad and well-integrated reality perception must be beneficial for our efforts to retain a confident grasp over the ultimate questions of human existence.

One of the problems with scientific work at the present time, is the fact, that it is tempting for the specialist to remain content with a classification-system, integrating the findings of his field, or his own research, to a set of references that is specific for this particular specialty. Because the specialist is, by definition, not interested, and, often, not capable of carrying the synthesis or generalisation beyond the confines of his own field of expertise, our perception of the sciences, especially, as outsiders or non-specialists, becomes a "patched quilt"; a fragmented and disjointed imagery, where the boundaries between adjacent scientific fields are fuzzy and without understandable or logical connections.

The specialised fields become "worlds on their own", where the boundaries seem to recede far-away into an enormous and unmanageable complexity, and yet, from a distance, from a layman's point of view, many of these worlds of science are so close together, than one becomes baffled and frustrated by the inability to grasp this scientific imagery as a unified entity. Consequently, the scientific imagery that is emerging from this multi-centric quilt of scientific enterprises, is confusing and nearly useless as a framework for broad understanding.

This scientific quilt has to be organised and put into a coherent order. The overall lines of cohesion and relevance have to be sharpened, and, this large variety of specialised scientific fields has to be fitted into a structure of relevant relationships. The scientific specialist will become a far better informed member of society, if he or she has been educated adequately in the overall relationships of science. This means, that the scientific efforts have to be related to the rest of society, as well as to the other sciences.

It would also be a great help to inquisitive citizens and their non-specialised leaders, if the relevance and significance of each field of endeavour could be evaluated, accurately, with the help of a structure of general criteria or overall relationships. Certainly, there is already a trend into this direction, but, unfortunately, the overall framework of relationships is still so fuzzy, tentative and hesitant, that most people can not see it at all, and, they can certainly not derive any help from it, as yet.

Is it possible to sketch a few suggestions for the outline of a useful coordinating structure bringing order to this "quilt" of scientific reality perceptions? I think, that this is indeed possible, in particular, when we remind ourselves that our social and scientific reality perceptions are merely efforts to cope with a confusing and complex set of reality perceptions.

Just as we have seen, that the business of political leadership is nothing more than a running of the "household of the State", so is scientific and technological endeavour nothing more than a collective exploration of the possibilities of understanding and manipulative mastery.

In contemporary, affluent societies, the fruits of science and technology are, nearly always, monopolised by a large variety of commercial enterprises, but, unfortunately, the lure of financial profit has obscured the real purpose and usefulness of scientific reality perceptions and technological possiblities for manipulative mastery. The lure of financial profit has become a major pre-occupation of people in afffluent societies. Clever entrepreneurs capitalise on the gullibility of ordinary people, and, they abuse their skills and powers of persuasion to make people buy and consume items they do not really need. The practice of exploiting desires and dreams, hopes and fears, as well as the temptation to appear to be a little more powerful and successful than is really the case, has corrupted the essential attitudes of social cooperation and mutual trust, which have been replaced by the attitudes of competitive strife or an escape into a world of day-dreams.

Academic institutions, professional people, as well as other specialists, reflect these powerful and generally accepted trends of the affluent, free-enterprise societies. It is logical to see a persistent pre-occupation with egocentric concerns, if a society has sanctioned such attitudes in the belief, that a fierce competitive struggle between the members will, somehow, benefit society. The main point we want to make, here, is the fact, that the many functions and specialisations within a complex society are then only a reflection of the common existential needs and motivations we all are subjected to.

In a way, we all have become somewhat specialised, because we rely, in one way or another, upon the products or services of someone else in order to function in society. No-one is able to produce all his food, clothing, tools, shelter or services, and, many of us, in particular, in urban and sub-urban areas, rely completely on others for all the aspects of life that fall ouside our specific field of expertise.

We do our job, whatever this may be, and, we are seldom concerned about the question, whether or not our work is really good or beneficial to other people. As long as we can count on this regular pay-cheque, we spend it all on rent, a mortgage, the facilities we need, on food, clothing, transportation and entertainment. We hardly do anything else besides going to work, cash our cheque, and spend our income on the things we need, or think we need.

We have discussed, before, the dangers associated with such a complete reliance upon social inter-dependencies, in particular, if we adopt a cynical attitude and try to scrape from society all we can get, or get away with, without concerning ourselves in the least about the effects such a collective attitude of exploitation has on the well-being of society.

However, if we learn, once again, to see, that society is nothing more, and nothing less, than a collective search for viability, we may understand some of the basic foundations upon which social health has been based. We will learn, once again, that a community consists of a group of people, who have experienced, at some time in the past, and, often, forgotten or ill-perceived at the present, that it is easier to maintain viability by living and working together; by organising the collective chores of acquiring, maintaining and defending a territory, or, by organising collectively the activities needed to sustain the existential needs of a community.

These collective chores of survival can be taken-care of by dividing the necessary chores amongst ourselves in a tacit pact of mutual reliance and trust, and, it is not difficult to see, that an attitude of ruthless competition will quickly erode the attitudes of cooperation, necessary to take care of these collective chores of survival.

Once again, we will learn to see, that the power and privilege of leadership is nothing more, and nothing less, than a position of responsibility and trust, which has been given by the members of a society to a few of the most capable and socially concerned individuals within their midst. The leaders of society will, either, enhance the viability of society by a reign of responsible fairness towards everyone, fostering attitudes of loyalty and cooperation, or, they will precipitate the collapse of society by a reign of terror, injustice, fearful egocentricity and blatant corruption.

Just as a multi-cellular organism dies and disintegrates, whenever its coordinating structures have become severely defective or damaged, so is the viability of a social entity dependent upon the competence and fairness of its leadership structures and bureaucratic institutions.

How, you will ask, does this lead us to an understanding of the ways and means to construct a coherent structure of relationships between the numerous isolated patches of the scientific quilt? We see, indeed, that this structure of coherent relationships, is, in the final analysis, only possible, if the people and their leaderships have a clear-cut idea, how they should interpret the situation they find themselves in. If there are clear-cut moral, philosophical or religious guidelines for an overall interpretation of individual and collective existence, then, it is easier to see scientific and technological endeavours as a servant to the overall awarenesses and needs of society.

Such a society will have a better idea into what direction it wants to develop its sciences and technological powers, but, if such an overall reality perception is lacking, we see, that the many groups of scientific and technological workers begin to explore ways to maintain their positions and defend their existential security. The direction of science and technology becomes confused, dictated by the existential needs of the individuals involved, as well as the commercial possibilities opening-up within society. We can understand, then, why a lack of philosophical, moral or religious directives leads to an unbridled search for consumption, the accumulation of assets or powers, as well as the enticement of wage-earners to enslave themselves financially, benefitting the commercial enterprises.

Some of us may be convinced that we understand, fairly clearly, the reasons for social decay and chaos, as well as the fragmentation of the scientific reality perception under the influence of existential anxieties and an overwhelming accumulation of verbalisable awarenesses. However, it is also clear, that, few people within such complex and chaotic societies are able to agree amongst themselves about what is happening; let alone, why it is happening. This brings us to the conclusion, that each one of us has very different perceptions of the realities around us, and, these differences are difficult to reconcile. Such diverging interpretations of reality contribute to difficulties in communication, education, as well as the construction of effective leadership and bureaucratic channels.

We can not expect to have coherent guidance structures for our societies, if we still diverge significantly in the perception of our realities, and, at the same time, we see, that we can not expect the members of a social entity to have reasonably similar reality perceptions, unless there exists a coherent, persuasive and just leadership, with a governmental structure that is capable of providing the necessary channels for communication and education.

This is the reason, why the processes of social decay seem to be, almost always, irreversible, once a definite trend towards disorganisation has established itself. Disorganisation corrupts the leadership and its institutions, diminishing their authority and persuasiveness, contributing to cynicism, distrust and a resurgence of egocentric attitudes and beliefs. Yet, exactly this trend towards egocentric behaviour and mutual distrust leads to ever widening differences in the perception of reality, making the process of organising the people into an effective and coherent unit, increasingly difficult.

These difficulties lead to frustration and despair amongst the leaderships and their officials, who are then tempted to give-in to practices of corruption, egocentric opportunism, as well as the exploitation of official positions for personal gain. The process is a vicious circle, feeding on itself, until the tensions within society reach the point of violent outbursts, or, an equally lethal stage of stagnation, inertia and apathy.

Our collective or social reality perceptions become, not only, confused and chaotic to the point of being unmanageable, but, our individual reality images are so divergent, that they become fuzzy, disorganised and incoherent, because most of us rely heavily for the organisation of our reality perceptions on the social and cultural input from our environment. The more we have become socially integrated, the more we have become dependent upon the input from others for many existential requirements, and, this applies, also, to the "consumption" of reality perceptions.

We rely upon scientists for our scientific imagery, and, we rely upon community leaders and politicians for our perceptions of, and attitudes towards, society. These factors determine, how we see society, and, what needs to be done. We rely upon religious leaders to provide us with answers for questions of existential concerns, and, for support in our moments of distress. We rely upon a large variety of experts about what is wrong with our machines, appliances, as well as our own body, and, as a result, we become extremely vulnerable to the effects of chaos and decay, as soon as all these supportive functions begin to deteriorate.

It is not surprising, therefore, that social decay and the crumbling of leadership functions cause a great deal of anxiety and uncertainty. We feel trapped and exploited, and, we become increasingly driven into an attitude of fearful egocentricity. We want to escape from this constant atmosphere of uncertainty and anxiety. The arts, the sports, as well as the liquor outlets, flourish. We numb ourselves, and, we forget the time. Our reality perceptions become increasingly blurred, as we drift towards a catastrophic collpase for which we have no defense.

.......

Chapter 4

Content

The reality-image, seen as a behavioural tool.
Difficulties predicting the time-span of a course of events.
The individualised search for survival within a decaying social environment.
A short summary of what has been discussed.
The importance of congruent reality perceptions.
The framework of familiarity.
Genetic and cultural influences.
A gradually enlarging intellectual horizon.
A brief review of the grasp over nature's complexities.
The need to have a globally acceptable image of ourselves.
The differences between behaving and observing.
An emotional ground-tone for our reality perceptions.
A short review of the mechanisms of comprehension.
Why we have to create a basis for agreement.

The perception of reality functions, indeed, as a behavioural tool, and, if this tool becomes defective, and, if we are incapable of repairing or re-programming it, we tend to neglect it, and, we begin to create a fantasy world of pleasures and dreams.

The phenomena associated with a decaying society are logical, understandable and predictable, and, it should not be difficult to grasp what is going-on. What is difficult, however, is to foresee the time-span in which these phenomena take their course. Sometimes, a society may linger for generations, dying slowly, almost imperceptibly, merging gradually with a renewed and invigorated society that has gone through a remarkable cultural, economic or political metamorphosis, without the convulsions of civil war or an invasion from the outside. Sometimes, the events of social decay follow a rapid, even, explosive course, when an empire is born and dies within the time-span of a few decades.

The decay of a society, as well as the crumbling of a collective and increasingly irrelevant reality perception, may not be disastrous for everyone. Those, who live on the fringes of society and are used to a life of frugal near self-sufficiency, will suffer much less from the mechanisms of social decay, and, these flexible individuals may be the first to capitalise on the opportunities of changing or changed circumstances.

The opportunities that are opening-up as a result of on-going changes, may be exploited in a ruthless and primitive struggle for power, leading to fragmentation and armed conflict between antagonistic groupings, but, occasionally, the processes of social and cultural renewal come from these fringe areas within society, which have been rather untouched by the mechanisms of decay and an unhealthy dependence upon the mechanisms of social integration.

The death of a society is, therefore, not the same as the death of a highly organised, multi-cellular animal, where its death brings-about the death of all cells. Society is a more loosely organised and tentative structure, where major changes in leadership, governmental institutions and collective reality perceptions can occur, without loss of viability for everyone, while providing a chance for the mechanisms of regeneration.

Certainly, there are often dramatic shifts in hierarchical relationships, but, the existence possibilities of individual human beings are not necessarily lost, as long as people have the ability to adapt to the changing circumstances, and, as long as their viability is not dependent upon complex technical life-support systems, resulting from a severely polluted environment.

We have discussed the deterioration and confusion of reality images as a result of crumbling social guidelines, a defective cultural transmission, or an overall neglect of our educational responsibilities. We have seen, how the scientific imagery is made possible by concentrating the activities of observation, analysis and thought in this remarkable zone of emotional neutrality, and, we have discussed the fragmentation of the sciences into ever smaller fields. We have seen, how the cohesion of a reality perception depends on the level of social organisation within a social environment, but, social coherence depends, in turn, on the level of agreement between the members of society about interpretations of reality and priorities of action.

We should look, in detail, at this aspect of agreement or "congruence" in reality perceptions. The perception of reality extends as a sphere around us. We create this sphere, and, we organise and orden the mental imagery with the classifying functions of our mind. The conscious or verbalisable sense impressions are largely made-up of stimuli that come from the external environment. The stimuli from the environment inter-act with our sense organs, and, they are transferred to, and classified by, the central nervous system. The nature and location of these stimuli determine the content of our sphere of perceptions.

We learn, from our social environment, how to name these perceptions, and, how to bring them into a more or less coherent framework of relationships. The level of coherence gives us a feeling of "grasp", and, this feeling is enhanced by the experience, that we can manipulate our environment successfully on the basis of such a "conscious grasp". The feeling of control over objects and events re-enforces the validity we attach to the interpretation of our sense impressions, and, as we have discussed before, we only learn to re-examine and re-evaluate sense impressions, whenever manipulations and predictions fail to satisfy our expectations.

The familiar environment is endlessly varied, from moment to moment, and, from person to person, and yet, by virtue of the ability to abstract the common qualities or features of objects, people and events, we communicate effortlessly with each other, and, we experience a steady sense of familiarity, in spite of the fact, that circumstances are changing constantly.

This means, that our daily, routine reality perceptions and behavioural responses take place within a fairly narrow range of familiar experiences, and, the numerous, momentary fluctuations of the environment evoke a nearly automatic repsonse, without any effort or conscious attention. The framework of familiarity consists of a set of constants in language, interpretation, beliefs and attitudes. This framework of familiarity is a cultural product, because its contents are based upon local conditions and prevailing circumstances.

The mechanisms that lie behind the sense of familiarity are themselves poorly conceptualised, and, they operate, largely, on a level of tacit agreement and subconscious recognition. Our feelings of familiarity, predictability and confidence depend upon the constant experience of this set of cultural constants, but we would be at a loss, if we would be asked to name these constants. We have even difficulties realising, that such a set of constant recognition-patterns is at work.

When we are in contact with people we do not know well, or, if we encounter circumstances that fall outside the sphere of our daily routine, we begin to lose the comforting guidance of this framework of familiarity. We feel an acute need to know more about the people or circumstances we encounter. We look for specific sources of information, in order to obtain guidelines for dealing with unfamiliar situations. In this way, we master, gradually, a larger sphere of contacts. Potentially, we can enlarge our horizons throughout life, but, most people settle, eventually, into a comfortable niche without any further changes in their perceptual horizon.

Some of us, endowed with a reflective nature, begin to realise, eventually, after many years of learning, that our sphere of reality perceptions has become complex, indeed. We notice, that we can focus our attention on numerous details, only to find a new world of observations and relationships. We have learned something about the molecular and atomic structure of matter, as well as some of the complexities involved in the relationships between matter and energy. We know, that matter is an unbelievably complex structure of physical and chemical relationships. We are beginning to formulate ideas and mechanisms that describe the organisation of living existence, and, we are getting a feel for the endlessly varied manifestations of life.

We have extended our sphere of reality perceptions to the stars and galaxies of the Universe with the help of a variety of optical and radio-astronomical tools, and, we are understanding, at least, to some extent, how the forces of gravity, together with incredibly high temperatures within stellar interiors, mold and fragment the elements of matter, until the atomic structures are unable to resist the enormous pressures and temperatures that exist within these stellar interiors. Stars and stellar complexes may, then, burst apart in gigantic explosions.

We have come to realise, how exceptional our terrestial circumstances are, especially, when we compare them with the conditions of space, stars and other planets, and, we have developed a "feel" for the fragility and transience of the living organisation on earth. We have also formulated a daring hypothesis, relating the diversity of life to the phenomenon of fluidity, which enables the living organisation to search for possibilities of existence while making use of the subtle force-fields that are available in its immediate environment.

We see ourselves mirrored in the behaviour of other people, and, we are perplexed by the variability and range of our sense impressions. Sometimes, we see remarkable similarities in structure, function and behaviour from one human being to the next, but, at other times, we only notice the precious uniqueness and value of individual human existence.

We marvel at our ability to understand, and, we are trying to unravel the mechanisms whereby we create, collectively and individually, this great panorama of diverse belief structures, notions and attitudes. We are still groping for a more or less coherent vision of our existence and our place in the spectrum of life, and, so far, we have not yet succeeded in formulating a coherent and persuasive imagery of ourselves that is acceptable and attractive to most of the members of mankind, regardless of their cultural specifics.

We notice with amazement, the differences that exist between professed beliefs and actual behaviour-patterns. We see, how narrowly focussed and selective awarenesses can be, especially, if they are compared to the totality of observed behaviour. Consequently, we are begining to realise, that, we, as the creator of our own "Universe of Reality", form only a small speck in the reality-image of someone else. We reflect, soberly, on the liklyhood, that our own reality perceptions are often just as narrowly focussed and selective as the perceptions of others, because we feel, at least, intuitively, that the observer and the observed can easily change places.

Time and again, we come to the conclusion that the perception of reality can best be explained as a behavioural tool, but, to our surprise, such an uninspiring interpretation of the nature of reality perceptions opens-up unexpected possibilities for widespread agreement amongst ourselves.

If we interpret reality perceptions as a behavioural tool, it becomes understandable, why there is such a divergence in perceptions and interpretations between people, and, it also allows us to understand, how reality images and interpretations are heavily coloured by emotional under-currents. This type of approach gives us a tool to unravel the relationships between awareness and behaviour, and, it explains the remarkable egocentricity of the sphere of our reality perceptions. We understand, now, how reality is created by a living human being in contact with others, and, how the world we know, is, in essence, a world of human names and abstractions, where the ability to relate awarenesses in structures of cause and effect, or, in categories of similarity in existence, is guided by pragmatic criteria and culturally transferred tools of conscious awareness.

We realise, now, a little better than before, how our judgements of right and wrong, good and evil, beauty and disgust, are based upon a fragile and ever shifting balance of interests. This is a balance between individual existential requirements and the existential concerns of others. We have learned to interpret motivations and drives as a reflection of these existential requirements. These motivations and drives represent genetically outlined patterns of behaviour that are projected into the world of conscious existence. We have some ideas about the way all sorts of awarenesses are able to acquire a representative symbol.

We know, now, that we have to scan the world of verbalisable realities by shifting the focus of attention from one item to the next. We know, that the sharpest focus of attention is capable of handling only a limited number of awarenesses simultaneously. We have to analyse and record these awarenesses, as we go along, from point to point, re-structuring, eventually, these awarenesses into a comprehensive framework of conceptual relationships. The techniques of recording verbal symbols has opened a new dimension in communication and understanding, but, we have also discovered, that the world has become increasingly more complex as a result of the ability to record and store data.

There is a constant need to summarise and generalise, unless we are prepared to capitulate and acknowledge that we have to remain completely ignorant of large areas of knowledge that could be known. We have learned about the dangers and difficulties, when diverging into a large number of specialised fields of awareness. Such a fragmentation into specialised fields of knowledge diminishes the degree of congruence between our spheres of reality, and, this makes the process of communication more difficult.

In spite of the ever-recurring complexities in our reality perceptions, and, in spite of the fact, that we all have to accept marked limitations in our grasp of detailed knowledge, we have come to the realisation, that a measure of congruence in reality perceptions, especially, in the important area of accomodating each other's existential needs, is crucially important for collective and individual well-being.

.......

Chapter 5

Content

An endless complexity, and the ever-present possibility to come to a manageable synthesis.
The need to know, precisely, what we want.
The specialist and the generalist.
A philosophical background for the essential questions about life.
A series of questions.
We only ask questions, when the problems begin to hit home.
Fear, and the shrinking sphere of concerns.
Desperation, and the grab for arms.
Why there are diverging perceptions of reality.
A study of assumptions.
Assumptions in the sphere of routine behaviour.
What a question reveals about the "questioner".
When the question is used as a weapon.
Assumptions about people.
The waste of time and money, when designing a scientific investigation based on erroneous assumptions.
The opinion poll.

We have discovered, that there is an apparently endless complexity, whenever we scrutinise a specific detail of our awarenesses, but, at the same time, there is no reason to fear any limitations of the ability to generalise and summarise details, while keeping the overall structure of coherence in sight. Certainly, accurate and useful generalisations are not easy to obtain, and, we often make the mistake, that we do not conceptualise, clearly, what we are trying to do, when formulating a generalised image of reality.

If we want to carry-out a detailed investigation of a particular area, we will, obviously, not be interested in generalisations. Such generalisations within our field of vision will appear, then, as somewhat shallow platitudes, and, those summarising concepts that fall outside our fields of concern, are, usually, considered to be irrelevant.

If we want to understand the relationships of a panoramic view that is far larger than can be described by a single field of science, we have no choice, but to work with generalised concepts that leave-out a lot of details. Details become irrelevant, whenever we are interested in tracing overall patterns of coherence and organisation. This is an entirely different form of knowledge, than the detailed grasp of a small field of expertise.

Unless we keep these different objectives of analytic and synthetic knowledge in mind, we will perpetuate useless discussions between the "generalists", and those, looking for details within a certain field of vision. Let us emphasise, first, the differences in objective, and, we can argue, later, whether or not we already have a grasp over the broad patterns of coherence.

Scientifically schooled people often assume, that we all are familiar with these overall correlations, and, they tend, therefore, to neglect them. Unfortunately, such a casual attitude towards the importance of a clear over-view leads to misconceptions and thoughtless attitudes, and, we all would benefit from a re-examination of our ability to grasp matters in an overall view.

As always, the criteria for judgeing the validity of reality perceptions are largely empirical and intuitive. Would it help us to bring these criteria into the open, and, let them be guided by a specific framework of overall beliefs? Yes, indeed, and, we are back to the ability of conscious scrutiny.

Let us examine, whether or not such an excercise in delineating the criteria of value judgements will help us understand these matters more clearly. We see the need for such an overall framework of interpretation in the following questions. What is life? What is the nature of human existence? Why do we have to suffer and die? How is it possible, that the human being can be compassionate, tender and concerned, one moment, and swing into a cruel rage of hatred, destruction and bloodshed, a moment later? What does it mean to belong to a society or a community? What does it mean to be socially just and essentially equal? Why are there, so often, great disparities between societies, as well as between the classes within a complex social environment?

Is it necessary, that, nearly a quarter of the world population has to suffer from chronic starvation, poor education and a stunted physical and mental growth? How come we believe in God, or, sometimes, do not believe in God anymore? Why has man, throughout recorded history, and, obviously, long before this period as well, fought and killed other human beings? Are we a cursed species, or, are we on the verge of experiencing one of the most magnificent break-throughs in understanding?

If man has been created in God's image, how come, he is so sinful, and, if he is a product of natural evolution, how come he can be ethical in his behaviour?

We see, here, that a wide range of questions touch upon the fundamental concepts of human existence, social organisation, man's origins, the nature and meaning of life, as well as the nature of all existence. We see, then, how man's questions may be formulated from a religious or a scientific point of view, but, most of the time, our questions are not sharply outlined in philosophical or religious terms. Most of us are too pre-occupied with the problems of our own existence, and, we only ask ourselves, why we have to suffer and die, after we have experienced severe stress.

At times, we realise, that we may be the main contributor to our problems, and, we may ask oursleves, why we made such foolish decisions, such gross mistakes; why we were swept-off our feet by the passions of our emotions and instinctive drives; by the feelings of hatred for those we disliked, or, by a blind devotion to an irrealistic goal.

Sometimes, we ask ourselves, why we are so tired and discouraged, ready to give-up and die, or, resign ourselves to a hopeless existence in squalor and poverty. We look with pity and concern to our children, already doomed to follow the same path of poverty and misery, or, we may watch, anxiously, how they slide into an environment of crime and corruption.

Indeed, it is natural, that we begin to ask questions as a result of stressful experiences. If we are not well educated, and, if we are oppressed and fearful of the powers that have a hold over us, we do not even dare to ask too many questions, and, we are afraid to examine questions about social justice, or, about the justification of those who are in a position of power. We know, that too many questions will increase our suffering and may endanger the lives of ourselves and those close to us.

Yet, all questions related to personal existence, our drive to live, to be healthy, to know and explore, to build a little haven of security and tranquility, a modest shelter for our family and friends; all these questions of social and individual existence require extensive thought, before they can be formulated with precision and answered with clarity.

Are we ready to grab for the gun and "go underground" in a desperate act of resistance against an oppressive ruling elite? Often, it seems the only answer left, as we realise, finally, that we have nothing more to lose, except our lives, and, we may as well try to break-out from this hopeless situation by attacking the forces that cause all this misery.

For those of us, who are somewhat more privileged, such a radical solution is rejected in horror, because we have too much to lose. As a rule, we hide the real motivations for our reluctance behind pious exhortations for a "peaceful solution". However, are we honest enough to ask ourselves, why we sat-back and did little or nothing to change the forces of injustice around us? We may be able to acknowledge, that we were reasonably comfortable, and, that we were not going to risk our life and property for the sake of providing justice to the poor and under-privileged.

Were we justified in doing nothing? Are we guilty of complicity with the forces of injustice? What is guilt? What is commitment? Is it always right to be committted, and, is it always wrong to sit on the fence? When do we look-out for ourselves, and, when do we sacrifice our security and peace of mind for the sake of others?

Questions, questions, questions; ethical, social, moral and philosophical questions, and, as we analyse the assumptions that lie behind these questions and answers, we come back, each time, to the conclusion, that we need a coherent picture of our existence. We need to know about the role and function of the individual and his society, the concepts of justice, peace and harmony, the solutions of compromise and armed conflict.

We have to understand ourselves, and, we have to understand some of the psychological mechanisms that play a role, whenever we try to understand and form a picture of reality. We have to be aware of the factors that shape our reality perceptions, and, we have to come to grips with the fundamental problems that prevent us from dealing effectively with the complexities of this reality.

We have to investigate the nature of this complexity, the variability of the scope of vision, as well as the intensity of the focus of attention, and, we have to appreciate the influence of the filtering mechanisms that colour our perceptions according to the emotional state we are in. We have to learn to see ourselves as an individual, whose wants and needs are essentially similar to those of millions of other human beings. Nevertheless, in some aspects, we are justified to consider ourselves to be a unique individual, because no two people are exactly alike.

Let us investigate, for a moment, the idea, that we can always discern a number of assumptions behind each question, and, that the usefulness of trying to answer a question depends on the accuracy and validity of these assumptions. We notice, immediately, that we have opened-up a hornet's nest, here, because an analysis of the assumptions behind a question leads, quickly, to disagreement. We still lack the conceptual tools to carry-out such an analysis with precision and conviction.

Even the most routine questions can reveal a number of assumptions that may not be correct. If I ask my wife, where my socks are, or, any other article I may be looking for, I may assume, that she knows, but, this may not be the case. I may also reveal in my questions the assumption, that she has put them somewhere, which may be equally incorrect, and, if I imply in my questions that she should know where they are, she may forcefully object to such an erroneous assumption.

Questions in the sphere of our familiar surroundings and routine events may reveal, not only, erroneous assumptions, but, they may reveal, also, a mood. A question may be asked impatiently or accusingly, or, a question may reveal an unwarranted optimism. If my daughter asks for the car keys, she may already have assumed, that she is allowed to take the car, and, if this primary request has not been made, or, if the assumption that permission has been granted, is incorrect, the question may arouse a measure of suspicion or irritation.

A question may embarrass someone intentionally, and, it is then used as a "weapon". The art of "needling", or asking embarrassing questions, has been perfected by some people. A question may be "rethorical", meaning, that an answer is not expected, or, it may reflect an attempt to begin a conversation. When we are asked to pass the salt when seated for dinner, the response is tacitly assumed to be affirmative, and, when we ask our neighbour how he is doing, or, what he thinks about the weather, the question is merely an opening towards a casual conversation.

Some questions may be considered an invasion of privacy, or, they are "socially clumsy", especially, when it is felt, that the topic raised by the question is not appropriate under the circumstances. Nevertheless, as a rule, questions and answers in the sphere of routine existence are "easy" and flow quickly, with hardly any conscious attention being paid to them.

Sometimes, questions are not so easily answered, e.g., when an observant child begins to ask the many questions that reveal its desire to become more knowledgeable about the world around him or her. We may be asked, why the sun shines, how rain is formed, or, why the tides go in and out. We may also be asked about the reasons for many behavioural phenomena; why a male dog sometimes mounts another dog, why there are differences between the sexes, where babies come from, or, why mom and dad are fighting with each other. We may be asked, why people are different, and, why some are rich, while others have nothing. We may be asked anything and everything, and, often, honest and complete answers are not easy to give.

The questions of children are more straightforward and have less of a bias of assumptions than the questions of older people. This is due to the fact, that the reality perceptions of a child are less complicated. The questions of an adult will reveal a much larger number of assumptions, because an adult has already a well-developed structure of beliefs with which he classifies his sense impressions, and, it is logical, that questions reveal, at least, some of the beliefs of the questioning individual.

Some questions may reveal a measure of envy or anger, in particular, if the questioner does not understand the mechanisms of success, of saving and self-discipline, or, the fruits of freedom and independence that flow from such attributes. In short, any question, but, in particular, those concerned with the behaviour of other people, or the relationships between people, will reveal a number of assumptions, suspicions, attitudes, motivations, as well as incidences of judgement and ignorance on the part of the questioning individual.

We have often discussed the legitimacy and reality of many feelings of suspicion and envy, especially, when a society is plagued by disparities and corrupt practices. A complete openness in matters of financial status, income and ownership of property, will allow anyone to scrutinise the reasons, why a certain individual seems to have been successful in life, while others have failed miserably. Only with openness and access to information is it possible to differentiate between justified and unjustified positions of privilege.

Scientific questions are shaped by a framework of basic knowledge in a certain field, as well as by a number of "working hypotheses". These are generally accepted theories about certain mechanisms which have not been "proven", as yet, to be "scientific certainties". If the field of study is complex and poorly supported by a solid framework of basic knowledge, we see, time and again, how a great deal of time, effort and money is wasted on unproductive research.

While the intentions of the researchers are often honest, the uselessness of their work is the result of an inadequate analysis of the assumptions that lie behind the formulation of a scientific question or research-project, and, for this reason, a research-project should never be designed by inexperienced people.

Let us look, for a moment, at the pitfalls of sampling public opinion. Is the inquiry designed to ask people a simple question; e.g., whether or not they will vote in an election, and, if they plan to vote, what their preference is at the moment the question is being asked? Are we interested in the reasons for their conclusions or political opinions, or, are we satisfied to merely record an opinion? Are we sampling a representative portion of the population, in order to give an accurate prediction, how the population as a whole will vote in the upcoming election or referendum? How should we shape our questions, if we want to get some idea for the reasons, why people vote in a certain way? Does their vote represent an active choice for a candidate or political program, or, is it a protest-vote against the authorities and leadership in power? How much do we have to know of each individual's background, before we can adequately evaluate the reasons behind a specific opinion?

To what extent have the people who have been interviewed, a coherent idea about the nature and purpose of society? How do they see society? What is their background, profession, assets, beliefs, loyalties and prejudices? Are they working, doing well, or, are they out of a job? How do they see society and its political spectrum. Are they interested in politics and questions of public concern? Are they honest and knowledgeable in their answers?

Do people know what society is all about? Do they have the well-being of the entire society in mind, or, are they only looking for a political candidate who will give them what they want? Is opposition to a political Party or a proposed policy due to traditional attitudes and beliefs, or, is it based on ethnic or economic factors?

We come to the conclusion, that it is so easy to question the meaning of an opinion-poll, especially, if the poll has been designed to get a "feel" for prevailing attitudes and opinions amongst a complex population. However, if the opinion-poll is designed, merely, to predict how large a percentage of the popular vote will go to a specific political Party or candidate, such an opinion poll is, not only, useful, but, often, remarkably accurate.

.......

Chapter 6

Content

The need for a coherent theory of human existence.
A look back at the basic functions of making observations and keeping records.
Uncomfortable surroundings for people whose training has been too specialised.
Scientific and artistic methods of observation; each with their own opportunities for making a contribution.
Progress on the road towards verbalising non-neutral behaviour-patterns.
Communicating with the mechanisms of "emotional resonance".
The conscious, the sub-conscious, and the "non-conscious".
Mechanisms of a "vertical exchange".
A large body of water, and its analogy with the regions of the mind.
Individual specks on a sea of collective awarenesses.
Individual spheres of reality perceptions.
Awareness is a behavioural tool.
Difficulties evaluating the level of significance.
Ambitions that frighten; why we have to shape our goals and objectives within a socially acceptable framework.
The usefulness of a well-ordened reality perception.
The aggressive attitude is an inalienable part of our biological heritage.
Why it is important to see similarities between our enemies and ourselves.
An increasing complexity.

We are able to find-out, quite accurately, how a population is going to vote, but, the reasons, why people vote the way they do, is another matter. The scientific measurement of sociological and psychological mechanisms is, indeed, difficult in the absence of a coherent imagery of human existence. The science of psychology has recognised the complexity of human behaviour, and, because of the difficulties obtaining firm data with studies of human behaviour "in the field", a strong trend developed to isolate psychological phenomena and analyse them in their most elementary forms. It was hoped, that the components of a behavioural response could, then, be analysed in an artificial but rigidly controled laboratory environment.

Nevertheless, only limited answers arose from such an approach. While certain basic, physiological activities could be analysed quite well in this manner, the artificial circumstancs of the laboratory and the focus upon such a small, and, perhaps, arbitrary detail of the behavioural complex, led to a plethora of information that still did not explain much about human behaviour, or, it led to a documentation of observations that were already accepted as known facts of common-sense.

Then, we saw a swing back towards the observation of behaviour in a natural setting. This is more difficult to measure and quantitate with strict and precise scientific techniques, but, such a method provides the keen, intelligent and innovative observer with a great oportunity to see behavioural phenomena in a coherent context. Without sophisticated equipment, except, perhaps, a camera or tape-recorder, we are back to primary methods of observation; looking, listening and recording what we see and hear.

However, many people, reared in modern schools of high-technology, are not comfortable with such a "primitive" scientific work environment. The scope of vision is too broad. There are too many variables, and, there are not enough experiments to test hypotheses. The circumstances vary all the time, and the areas of observation and interpretation are disturbingly intuitive and artistic in nature, and yet, common-sense observations of behaviour in a natural environment have given us remarkably fresh and worthwhile insights.

These methods of observation provide, indeed, a bridge between science and art, and, they show us, once again, that art is, in many ways, the most fundamental manner of observing and describing human experiences. Artists have given us many valuable insights into the phenomena of human behaviour, in spite of the fact, that no distinction was made between a factual record and a dramatic accentuation. While the artistic portrait is easily disturbed by fashionable trends and the lure of commercial exploitation, the genuine artist makes a contribution to the reality perception of man by searching for a valid expression of a perceived truth.

True, the judgement of truth is personal, and, often, intuitive, and, the cultural specifics of such a reality perception often hamper the recognition of such a portrait across wide cultural landscapes, but, on the other hand, the portrait may reflect aspects, values and experiences that are recognised widely as genuine, without the ability to substantiate or prove, with clinical precision, why such is the case.

You may question the wisdom of blending the scientific and the artistic methods of describing reality. It is certainly valuable to keep the differing roles of science and art clearly in mind, when elaborating and communicating our perceptions. We know, that the careful, rigorous and scrupulously honest scientific description may elucidate and illuminate certain aspects of our reality perceptions in a manner that can not be obtained by any other means. We also know, that the scientific method of observation may clarify mechanisms of behaviour to the point, that we experience a sense of beauty when we recognise their accuracy and precision.

We are slowly progressing on the road of verbalising, precisely, many intuitive and subconscious mechanisms, but, the artist has grasped many aspects of human existence in a subconscious manner, and, he has been able to portray truths that have been generally recognised, long before the method of scientific analysis was able to put a more precise verbal label on these mechanisms. The verbalisation of intuitive notions or sub-verbal awarenesses has become possible, because we have learned to observe and describe these phenomena in the emotionally neutral zone, but, we all know, how difficult it still is to pinpoint the essence of an artistic master-piece in such an analytic and intellectual language.

This brings us to another area of the sphere of reality perceptions. The emotionally neutral zone, with its potential for keen observation, provides the sharpest and most detailed picture of a verbalisable reality, in spite of the fact, that the fields we try to grasp have to be scanned sequentially by the focus of our attention. Every field of knowledge fades into hypotheses and the unknown, regardless, where we look. The periphery of a field of knowledge always fades from view into the unknown, and yet, from a different perspective, we see, that many of these fields are closely adjacent to each other.

In addition to the emotionally neutral zone, we are also aware of a zone of reality perceptions that are coloured by notions and motivations, giving rise to a number of emotions and attitudes, such as fears, hopes and expectations. Such emotions are being communicated by the mechanisms of "emotional resonance", and, these mechanisms came to the fore, long before the technique of symbolic representation came into being. This form of communication and expression through emotional resonance is, indeed, quite vague and consists of emotionally coloured behaviour-patterns that blend with equally imprecise and existentially significant experiences and memory-traces from the past.

It is important to keep in mind, that the zone of "subconscious awarenesses" is not sharply delineated. It fades, on one side, into an area of the totally unaware, while it blends, imperceptibly, on the other side, with the sphere of conscious or verbalisable awarenesses.

The sphere of reality can be visualised as a body of water, like the sea, containing several layers. The upper layers are clearly lit-up by the light of the sun, allowing great clarity of vision and a refined discrimination of numerous small particles. The deeper layers receive gradually less light, making objects more shadowy, until we reach a layer where the light has faded all-together.

There is a constant vertical exchange going-on. Most of the awarenesses we experience during our existence, sink, slowly, deeper and deeper into the sea of our mind, and, they become less and less clearly remembered, until we have only a vague and ill-defined notion of them. The trivial and unimportant experiences may reach the zone of total darkness and are lost forever from the sphere of our conscious awareness, but, those with a measure of significance linger in a twilight zone. They may suddenly be brought upwards towards the brightly lit zone through the recall-mechanism of an associated thought, or an analogous experience. Afterwards, they sink again, slowly, into the subconscious layers of this sea of mental awarenesses.

We can extent this imagery to the sea of human existence as well. We float as individual specks in a sea of collective awarenesses, and, we illuminate a small fragment of the sea of human existence with a sphere of individualised reality perceptions. We illuminate reality with our presence in a radius around ourselves. On the surface, our reality-sphere is clear, and, it is demarcated on all sides by our personal horizon. Details blur and clarity fades, as we look further and further away from ourselves. Beneath us, our less precise awarenesses blend with the zone of the subconscious and the non-conscious of many other people, because the mechanisms of experience and classification are so similar as a result of our common biological heritage.

In our sphere of reality perceptions, we see numerous other people with their particular sphere of awarenesses, but, curiously, we often see a totality of behaviour more clearly within our emotionally neutral zone of observations, than the observed individual is able to see of his own behaviour.

Our individual spheres of reality meet and resemble each other, especially, when we have assimilated the same symbolic representations, guidance-patterns and organising principles from our cultural environment. After we have become aware of the fact, that, common principles of perception lie behind our routine experiences and observations, we also discover the possibility for a measure of congruence. This measure of congruence may not depend upon a common cultural heritage, but may reflect a common heritage of biological or genetically endowed factors.

We have spent a fair amount of time sketching the nature of our reality perceptions, and, we have considered many different aspects. We should discuss the relevance of these ideas for the management of complexity. In the most familiar zone of reality perceptions, (our daily environment with its many routine decisions), the problem of complexity seldom arises, but, even so, many perceptions are not clearly formulated, because our behaviour is guided, to such a remarkable extent, by unquestioned and subconscious assumptions or cultural guidance-patterns.

Most of us are also engaged in activities that transcend the routine and familiar environment. We may have ambitions and long-term goals that require planning and a sustained effort, but, they also require a frequent analysis of the problems and obstacles that lie in our path. Here, the management of complexity is not so easy, and, the nature of the problems we encounter, is often poorly understood.

It is especially difficult for us to realise the difference between what we are really capable of, and, what we think we can do. We may overestimate or under-estimate our potentials and abilities, and, we may, also, have difficulties evaluating, accurately, how we are perceived by others. We frequently under-estimate or over-estimate the importance of the way we are perceived by others, and, this adds to the difficulties of accomplishing what we set-out to do.

Our hopes are frequently dashed, partly, because we did not analyse the reality of the circumstances accurately, and partly, because we got discouraged and confused by a seemingly never-ending series of obstacles. During our younger years, we tend to have an abundance of energy, but our goals are often ill-defined, and they are shifting continuously. As a result, we squander our energies into many different directions. This is logical, because we reflect, primarily, an abundant elan vital during our younger years, but, our egocentric ambitions may be somewhat frightening to others, and, we will encounter an ill-understood resistance to the fulfilment of these ambitions, frustrating our intentions and causing a great deal of anger, because we feel, that we can do the job better than those, who are preventing us from reaching our goals.

It is therefore helpful, if we learn, from an early age, about the mechanisms of competitive strife and living existence in general, because a good grasp over the forces involved in competitive strife, (e.g., the elan vital of youth, the qualities of health and exuberance, the defensiveness of the established life-forms, as well as the forces of social integration), all these insights will help us to shape our ambitions realistically, and, they allow us to surmount the problems of complexity in the most efficient manner possible.

A clear perception of the force-fields involved in living existence, will also help us to formulate collective goals and guide the organisational requirements for a healthy social environment. We are beginning to realise, that, social cohesion makes only sense, if every member benefits from a state of inter-dependence. As a result, it becomes easier to recognise the requirements for efficient and transparent bureaucratic channels and leadership institutions. At the same time, a clear insight into the fragile balance between competing factions, as well as the temptations of opportunism and exploitation, make it clear, why a society with lax or defective guidelines will fragment, inevitably, into warring factions.

Whenever we understand the reasons, why a society grows and prospers, we understand, also, why it stagnates and declines, and, we begin to recognise the importance of a well thought-out structure of Constitutional Guidelines. We are learning to ask penetrating questions about the status-quo of social existence, and, we may become a constructive force for beneficial social change. Sometimes, we will be forced to adopt a revolutionary stance, whenever a leadership structure has become completely entrenched and isolated from the rest of society, but revolutionary change is only justified, whenever the mechanisms of change through the ballot-box have become completely stifled.

The complexity of a sphere of reality perceptions certainly increases, whenever we resist the tendency to classify every awareness or event as "good" or "bad", right or wrong, black or white. It is much more difficult to acknowledge as legitimate in our competitors, the behavioural manifestations we exhibit ourselves when searching for a possibility to exist. Once we have acknowledged the fact, that the belligerence of our enemies towards us is matched by the belligerence of us towards them, we may be ready for the insight, that there must be a better way to solve the tensions of competitive existence than by trying to destroy each other.

Eventually, we may be able to acknowledge, that the world is not divided into friends and enemies, but, that each and everyone of us may become a friend or an enemy to others. Social relationships are enhanced by the attitudes of trust and mutual concern, but, each and everyone of us may also be aroused into a defensive and egocentric attitude of suspicion and mistrust.

Our real enemies are, therefore, not other people who compete with us for the available possibilities of existence, but, our real enemies are those destructive behavioural forces that can be unleashed in each one of us. These forces are, potentially, so destructive, that collective human existence is endangered, if they are not controled by mechanisms of insight, compromise, and the implementation of a contract of essential equality.

Rather than persecuting egocentric attitudes as an all-out evil, it would be better to understand, why these trends and attitudes exist, and, why it is advisable to allow egocentrically oriented drives of self-fulfilment to unfold themselves within the confines of carefully drawn Constitutional Guidelines.

We have argued before, how we can solve the apparent contradictions between egocentric and socially integrated behaviour-patterns, if we see the drive to self-fulfilment, not only, as a legitimate aspect of our biologial heritage, but also, as a manifestation of our vital energies. This drive could guide an individual into a direction of task-differentiation and mutual inter-dependence, if we could channel these mechanisms into mutually beneficial relationships.

If we can give the growing individual sufficient security and guidance for a smooth unfolding of the personality, together with some of its talents, we should be able to avoid the extremes of competitive strife and aggressive posturing, which come so easily to the fore, if this youthful elan vital is being frustrated or inadequately guided.

True, the complexity of our sphere of reality increases all the time, as we try to find a viable way of living together in ever greater numbers, as well as in more complex social relationships. But, there is no reason to despair, and, there are good reasons to believe, that we can solve these problems, if we are willing to learn from our experiences and relinquish our preconceived notions about friend and foe, good and evil, right and wrong. The "easy" solution to the problem of complexity, is to select what appeals to us and condemn the rest as wrong or evil, but, the "real" solution is to search, diligently, for a reality perception that harmonises the complexity and contradictory awarenesses, as well as the competing and contradictory requirements of people who have to live close together.

.......

Chapter 7

Content

A difficult diagnosis of "social chaos".
Existential anxieties, and the facts of inter-dependence.
Jobs in affluent societies.
Consumerism; entrapment in an affluent life-style.
Detrimental monetary policies.
The influence of business mergers and special-interest groupings.
Questions about large-scale social leaderships.
The bureaucratic mushroom, and the anxious bureaucrat.
The bureaucracy acts as a "cementing force", as long as it promotes inter-dependence.
When the central nervous system of society begins to fragment.
The changing effects of the collective work-stoppage.
A decline in public confidence.
The shrinking sphere of reality perceptions.
Holding-on to a favourable status-quo.
The complexity of chaos.
The burden of complexity, and the solution of contracting the sphere of concerns and reality perceptions.
Relief in an attitude of euphoria.
Aggressive and defensive adaptations.

The diagnosis of social chaos is not as easy as it may seem, because there is a tendency to become emotionally involved, whenever we come to the conclusion that the social environment is crumbling. The reason is, of course, that social chaos affects the security of each and everyone of us. Let us examine the question, how we judge the events that are taking place around us, and, when do we come to the conclusion, that the social environment has deteriorated?

We all live and work within a social organisation, and, we all depend on this organisation, be it in varying degrees. We have a job, at least, most of us have a job and a regular income, and, we quickly place ourselves in a position, where we count on this regular income from our job. Often, we have moved to a city, because it is easier to find work there, and, we have bought or rented accomodation. We depend on retail outlets to buy our food, clothing and other necessities. We all know, but hardly ever give it any thought, how dependent we have become upon this regular income and the facilities and consumer goods we can buy with our pay-cheque.

In affluent societies, we have been indoctrinated, for more than a generation, now, to buy, whatever we can, and, we have been taught, that it is right, as well as a sign of social success, to display a high level of affluence and ostentatious spending habits. The availability of consumer goods and steady work depends on the willingness of people to spend their earnings, we are being told. Governments learned from the Great Depression of the late twenties, how to stimulate economic growth by expanding the supply of money; by borrowing money and creating jobs for the unemployed. Through such measures, the ordinary people were given the means to buy and consume.

What are the results of such policies? First of all, it led to a constant pre-occupation of the working classes with the consumption of material goods, sometimes, even, before the basic necessities had been taken care of. This pre-occupation led, quickly, to a competitiveness in status-display, ever-rising levels of expectations, as well as an urgent need to earn more money. It also led to an ever rising rate of "economic expansion", with a depletion of natural resources, in particular, the non-renewable and semi-renewable energy-resources. We have now arrived at the situation, where we are beginning to see the disastrous consequences for the terrestial environment, whenever millions of people are consuming far more than is necessary.

Pollution, environmental damage and impoverishment, a scarcity of precious commodities, water and air pollution, and, perhaps, even, detrimental climatic changes, will be the legacy for future generations, as a result of many decades of high levels of consumption and a wasteful way of life. Let us also be aware of the fact, that only a fraction of the world population has been able to adopt such a consumerist life-style, and, even so, the consequences for the environment are devastating.

The borrowing practices of governments and corporations, and, lately, of most wage-earners in affluent societies, are also beginning to show their detrimental effects, resulting in a constant lowering of the buying powers of the currency in which the working people are being paid. It is logical, that a constant influx of money that is not really worth the value it is supposed to represent, leads to a reduced buying power.

Constantly shifting values in currencies and commodities open the doors to huge profits and losses for powerful business corporations and financial institutions. The world of business becomes a jungle, where the clever and agile entrepreneur may reap quick wind-fall profits, while others suffer great losses as they misjudge the rapidly fluctuating circumstances on the financial markets.

The widespread practice of buying on credit has caused severe tensions as a result of chronic financial burdens, and, these tensions cause a measure of social instability. By and large, governments profit from the fact, that they can repay their debts with devalued money, in spite of the fact, that a price has to be paid for borrowing money. People have also learned the rationale of borrowing now and paying back later, since the rate of inflation, or devaluation of the currency, works, at least, in theory, to their advantage.

Any notion of frugality becomes meaningless, as the ordinary citizen experiences the fact, that savings are constantly being eroded by inflation. Often, the rate of inflation is higher than the return in interest monies. However, if one borrows to the hilt, one becomes completely enslaved to the system. Debts accumulate rapidly, and, every individual is tempted to spend more than he or she can afford.

By getting deeper and deeper into debt, a chronic feeling of anxiety and entrapment is created, as the individual realises, finally, that the stability of one's job and earning powers is not as secure as it seemed. Many people see the dream of owning their own home recede further and further into the future, as prices escalate beyond the rate of increase in their own earning powers.

Frustrations and tensions mount. People become weary and suspicious, in particular, when they become aware, how the world of free-enterprise is rapidly taken-over by giant corporations. Incredibly large spheres of wealth, power and influence are coming into being. They are, still, largely hidden from view, because many corporations present a diversified image to the public on account of the separate names of their subsidiaries. Huge corporate profits are occasionally disclosed, but, for most people, the world of big business and high finance is a closed book; a world, that is incomprehensible and seemingly far away from the daily concerns of the average person.

An occasional glimpse into this world of big business shows a disturbing trend towards mergers and monopolies. The power of money begins to merge with the powers of public office, and, the political structures of our affluent societies become ever more dependent upon the world of big business. Too often, political leaders disappear into the high-paying jobs of big business, and, too many political candidates come to the fore as a result of access to lots of money.

To what extent are politicians influenced by the prospects of well-paying jobs in industry or business, after they leave public office? How do they reach their decisions while in power? What lobbying groups are at work, and, who is getting the lucrative government contracts? How are these contracts awarded, and, to what extent are the Party faithful rewarded over and above the average citizen? What pressures and obligations are at work, and, how do they influence the decisions of our political leaders? What sort of people and corporations have supported them in their election campaigns, and, who are expecting a reward for their efforts and contributions?

Who has control over this jungle of government institutions? These bureaucracies have mushroomed to such an extent, that no-one is able to oversee their functions or streamline their structure. Most political leaders do not come to grips with the existing bureaucracies. Even, if there is no obvious corruption or misappropriation of funds, who is able to judge, whether or not the bureaucratic machinery works efficiently?

Unfortunately, we often lose control over the unbridled growth of government bureaucracies, and, they become a world unto themselves, siphoning-off ever larger amounts of tax-payer's monies into inefficient structures of officialdom. The average bureaucrat is a civil servant who has also been caught-up in the spiral of spending and borrowing, and, his anxieties about job security and earning powers are increasing, too. This is the reason, why it is so difficult to streamline the bureaucracies, since all members will stick together in order to protect their jobs. This is the reason, why it is so difficult to get an accurate picture of what is going-on in the various bureaucracies, because any scrutiny will cause a great deal of resistance and resentment from those, who are fearful of being made redundant by budget-trimming "experts".

Most affluent societies have bureaucracies that are so large and complex, that no-one has any idea about their overall extent. It is like a growth that has penetrated all segments of society, and is present in even the smallest and remotest corners. When one starts to tug and pull at this structure, it becomes clear, that it holds together whatever is left of society. If one would tear it apart, the social fabric would disintegrate as well. We are becoming aware of the cementing influence such a massive bureaucracy can exert as long as it helps to spread the benefits of belonging to society, but, we should also become aware of the enormous costs of such a bureaucratic structure, as well as its ability to frustrate the drive to change and reform.

Whenever the bureaucratic structures and functions have been eroded by a loss of leadership, these institutions begin to fall-apart, ever so slowly. Here and there, and, eventually, everywhere, local initiatives and regional interests begin to dominate the attitudes and practices of bureaucrats, and, the level of inefficiency and corruption increases prodigiously.

The gradual deterioration of this social nervous system hampers, of course, the functions of political leadership, as well as the ability of the leadership to know what is going-on. The feed-back between the leadership and the people falters. The leaders become increasingly isolated and confused, and, they begin to concern themselves, primarily, with their own existential concerns, aggravating the process of break-down in the leadership and bureaucratic institutions of a crumbling society.

Large business interests merge and become huge conglomerates, virtually beyond any government control, and, also, very much outside the public eye. Scrutiny of what is going on becomes increasingly difficult. Not only, is the business world slowly being transformed into a play-ground for a few, very large corporate dinosaurs, but, we see, how other special-interest groupings become large and powerful as well.

Labour unions become almost a State within a State, where the allegiance of the worker becomes, primarily, oriented towards the labour unions, at the expense of the overall interests of society. The weapon of the "strike" is being used with increasing frequency against public utilities and institutions, since they are still "labour intensive", while industrial processes in the private sector are becoming increasingly automated. The intensity of labour disputes mounts, and, voluntary settlements become much more difficult, as the strike deteriorates into a primitive struggle for power. Wage increases and other benefits are now extracted by holding the public to ransom, and, the disparity between the workers themselves begins to increase.

The whole atmosphere in society deteriorates, as the social relationships reflect, increasingly, the mechanisms of raw power, and, as a result, the attitudes of fairness, justice and mutual respect are being submerged in a morass of hostility and frustration. The general public is now held to ransom more frequently than ever before, as people become increasingly dependent upon the services of government. Even such essential emergency services as fire-fighting, police protection, ambulance services, air-traffic control, medical and nursing services, or public transportation, they all are brought to a halt by collective work-stoppages and other disruptions. Each time this happens, the trust and faith of the average individual in his society has been lowered one more notch.

I am convinced, that most affluent nations show only a fragile semblance of coherence. They seeth with frustrations, violence, anger and cynicism, and, we see a dismal picture of social ill-health, which is reflected in the many criminal activities and organisations that flourish, so rampantly, in these affluent societies.

Most of us will not have any difficulties recognising the validity of this imagery, but, we should also realise, that the deterioration of social relationships, the disappearance of an ideology, the lingering togetherness because of a web of financial entrapment, will cause a marked shrinkage in the sphere of our concerns, and, consequently, a shrinkage in the sphere of our reality perceptions.

Very few of us really care anything at all about the society as a whole. The idea, that the society as a whole has any meaning for us, personally, has long since disappeared. We are almost exclusively concerned with our own personal well-being, or, the small group of people upon which our well-being rests. Most of us manage and adapt, somehow, and, if a particular action or attitude on our part seems to strengthen our position for the time being, we become more confident and a bit more relaxed and optimistic. Whether or not such an attitude has harmful effects for the other members is of little concern to us.

We do not even recognise most people as members of the same society, and, we certainly do not recognise any need to concern ourselves about them. We have been indoctrinated, (largely, as a result of the ideology of free-enterprise), that it is right and beneficial for society, if we work hard to better ourselves. "God will reward those, who help themselves", and, we conveniently forget the reasons, why a number of generations ago, the puritan work-ethic was indeed successful in opening-up the North-American Continent. During this time of rugged pioneering, the individualistic and egocentric efforts of the pioneers were tempered, at least, to some extent, by generally accepted principles of fairness and essential equality. These ethical and religiously inspired guidelines have been eroded, at least, for a large majority, and, it is a small step from a competitive society, held together by a loosely coherent set of principles of Christian morality, to a society, that is nothing but a jungle of primitive survival mechanisms; a survival of the fittest; no holds barred; without restrictions upon ways and means to get a competitive edge over others.

We have discussed, several times, how the philosophical principles of free-enterprise have been severely eroded by the twin developments of the merger of workers, as well as the merger of enterprisers and their companies. There is no truly free enterprise, but, only, a gigantic struggle between corporate dinosaurs. There is a precarious and fragile existence of the small business enterprise, as well as a massive congregation of people into special-interest groupings, including those of organised crime.

The veneer of social cohesion is still there, but, it is punctuated by violence, crime, strikes, disruptions, revolts and other evidence of social chaos. Our spheres of reality let us only see a very small fragment of what is going-on, and, if our personal circumstances are manageable, we tend to deny any overall trend towards chaos and disorganisation, because we are profiting from the prevailing circumstances, and, we want, subconsciously or consciously, the status-quo to continue, because we are feeding upon the society as its exists, including its mechanisms of chaos and decay.

However, in a moment of reflection, most of us should be able to see a glimpse of the larger realities, and, we should be able to realise, that the present trends and developments are not conducive to a stable social environment. Indeed, we have great difficulties seeing our own actions and reactions in an overall light of social requirements, in particular, when a larger social coherence is beginning to fragment into smaller, antagonistic factions. We still practice the attitudes of loyalty and mutual trust within smaller social groupings, because we realise, intuitively, that our security rests upon the strength and viability of the small social grouping we belong to. We synchronise our hostilities upon surrounding communities, and, we see, everywhere, tangible proof, that we are subjected to hostilities from people and communities around us.

Within a society that has embraced the mechanisms of competitive existence as a sign of social health, each individual has to participate in this struggle for survival. Who, then, is able to recognise the overall trends and the processes of fragmentation that are taking place within the larger social environment? Obviously, such a reflective individual must have secured a measure of independence and freedom, and, he must have been able to avoid this gigantic web of entrapment into which most people have been caught. Nevertheless, we all depend, at least, to some extent, upon a functioning social environment, and, each one of us feels a twinge of anxiety, whenever we see the processes of decay and disintegration at work.

The diagnosis of social chaos and a thorough analysis of the processes of decay in our own society, are, indeed, easily coloured by emotions. A comprehensive over-view of what is happening is made even more difficult, because the information is fragmentary, and, the communication of this information is always coloured by fears or expectations, as well as by diverging existential interests.

Even the analysis of the break-down of a society in a historical perspective is difficult, because, from the complex data that are available, we have a tendency to filter, subconsciously, a pattern of facts that fits our preconceived notions about the reasons for a specific incidence of social demise. We also colour the significance of an event by the school of thought we have been brought-up with.

Again, we are dealing with the difficult question, how to construct a coherent set of relationships from a complex and often vague conglomerate of perceptions. Complexity in our reality perceptions is a burden, and, time and again, we give-in to the temptation to solve, at least, partially, the problem of complexity by shrinking the size of the sphere of reality perceptions, until we are exclusively concerned with our own problems. We gain, thereby, a measure of energy and freedom, which can be focussed upon our immediate problems, but, we lose the ability to analyse and solve a problem in the fundamental aspects of large-scale social mechanisms.

We may gain an immediate benefit by a more egocentric orientation, removing the clutter that is associated with a concern for others, but, we pay a price. The price is an increasing lack of understanding about what is happening to us and our social surroundings, until we find ourselves in an inescapable web of pressures and obligations, which we wove ourselves during our desperate but futile attempts to solve problems with close-range reality perceptions.

The solution of a shrinking sphere of reality perceptions, as well as an increasingly egocentric orientation of our attitudes, is a logical but primitive solution. It works only temporarily, and, it compounds the problems in the long run. We may adapt to such chronic pressures and essentially insolvable problems in a variety of ways. We may become predominantly defensive and introvert. We may become pre-occupied with our own problems, and the level of anxiety becomes, then, chronic and intense. This leads to a feeling of depression, punctuated by restlessness and agitation; a state of activity that is profoundly unproductive and solves nothing. The escape into alcohol and drugs becomes, then, almost inevitable, weakening our viability and entangling our existence even further. We undermine our physical and financial health, ruin family and social relationships, and, we experience ever increasing difficulties carrying-out our duties and responsibilities.

It is not surprising to see this course of events culminate in a collapse of physical and mental health. The reality perceptions become somber and depressed. Life becomes hopeless, and, together with the devastating effects of alcohol on the central nervous system and other organs, we see severe distortions occur in the perception of reality. The break-down of a useful outlook on life occurs, therefore, as a result of chronic and severe stress, aggravated or precipitated by drugs and a weak or confused personality.

An individual with a greater degree of vitality may channel the frustrations associated with a chronic deterioration of social relationships into a more aggressive mode of behaviour, be it ruthless and cunning, or exploitative and violent in nature. The ruthless and cunning attitude provides, as a rule, a remarkable, if temporary gain in viability, because such an attitude results in an increased exploitation of the weaker members of society, resulting in increased possibilities to "make money"; at least, in a competitive society that condones such practices. Certainly, a ruthless, cunning and unscrupulous attitude causes harm, and, quickly, the activities of such an individual or group will create a resistance and a feeling of hatred or contempt from its victims.

We see, clearly, how both "solutions" are contributing to a further break-down of social well-being. The "defensive solution" of anxiety and depression is, primarily, harmful to the individual and his dependents, but, it also harms the immediate social surroundings, because of the tensions and frictions caused by a severe depression and the use of drugs.

The "aggressive solution" is more harmful to the society at large, and, of course, to the victims of ruthlessly aggressive and unscrupulous behaviour. These attitudes hasten the break-down of social relationships, because they increase the disruptive tensions of mistrust and hatred. The end-result is, inevitably, violent conflict, as well as the suffering of innocent bystanders who have become caught-up in an armed struggle.

This is a retrogressive step on the ladder of social integration, but, on the other hand, the death of a social structure that has failed the test of viability by allowing corruption, inefficiency, injustice and oppression to flourish, is also a natural course of events. Once again, the search for a new framework for social relationships begins, from scratch.

.......

Chapter 8

Content

A search for social harmony makes only sense, if we have relinquished the solution of violent conflict.
When the factors of conflict are not hidden any longer.
The balance of force-fields in a condition of social justice, and the cleansing attitudes of openness and trust.
Territorial rights; a number of questions.
Questions about national boundaries and the quality of sovereignty.
The cycle of birth, growth, vigour, maturity, senescence, death and decay.
The price we have to pay, if we want to break through the cycle of conflict and destruction.
A short review of our evolutionary past.
The powerful, but primitive lure of violent behaviour.
Re-channeling the energies of our instinctive drives.
A rapidly deteriorating terrestial environment.
A common enemy in the future of mankind.
A plea to use the faculties of emotional neutrality and emotional control to the fullest possible extent.
A relativistic truth.
A new perspective on the age-old principles of common-sense.

A persistent search for harmony, viability, essential equality and social justice, only makes sense, if one has come to the conclusion, that the primitive solution of violent conflict is no longer acceptable. It is the desire to avoid the recurrent tensions of competitive strife and all-out combat, which fuels the search for solutions in a large-scale social context, and, it is for this purpose, that we make the effort to wrestle with complex problems.

If we are secretly convinced, that we can win an armed conflict, we may, at best, pay lip-service to the ideals of compromise and a negotiated settlement, or, the ideals of social harmony and essential equality between the peoples of the world. Indeed, if we believe, in the deepest corners of our intuitive feelings, that man is not equal, and, that the strong and clever deserve the privileges they can obtain, then, of course, all our scrutiny and thoughts about justice and essential equality, will not make much sense.

If we have forgotten, once again, that, sooner or later, a position of power and privilege will be challenged by our adversaries, then, we tend to sit-back, defend our position, and feel no sense of injustice or shame, if others are living under less privileged circumstances. Yet, a generation or so later, when the pressures mount and the position of power and security has been eroded by affluence, indulgence and smug complacency, we may, suddenly, ask ourselves, why we have become a target of violence and hatred. In our confusion and non-understanding, we may again turn to our God, and ask ourselves the eternal question, why man has to suffer and die a violent death.

Emotionally, a revival of religious beliefs and a purge of the feelings of sin, may be a satisfactory answer to our problems, but, it would have been far more satisfactory for our enemies, if we had understood the long-term consequences of an elitist attitude, as well as an undeserved position of power and privilege.

Let us make no mistake. The reasons, why man confronts man, often violently, are there for all of us to see. They are not hidden, anymore, in a religious mystique of Original Sin, nor, do they represent the design of an inscrutable God, but, these mechanisms and events can be examined in a clear framework of causes and their effects. But, we can only see, clearly, the relationships between all these happenings and events, if we resist the temptation to let our sphere of reality contract to purely selfish concerns.

It is natural and understandable, that our sphere of reality perceptions has a tendency to contract around our own well-being, especially, when we have lost faith in our social surroundings. However, if we really want to keep an atmosphere of trust and good-will alive while living in a large social conglomerate, we have to analyse, objectively and accurately, the reasons, why an atmosphere of trust and good-will begins to crumble. We can only do this properly, if we learn to extra-polate the phenomena of strife, which are so clearly visible amongst other people who are at odds with each other, to our own conditions and behaviour-patterns. Our emotionally neutral observations show us, clearly, how antagonistic behaviour fuels the feelings of mutual distrust and hatred, leading to hostilities and violent confrontations. It is not difficult to see, how the emotions of resentment and the attitudes of intransigeance are inflamed by hostile acts and belligerent attitudes on both sides.

From a position of emotional neutrality and non-involvement, it is so easy to see, that a conflict-situation can never be grasped adequately by simply condemning one party or the other. We can always see a number of forces at work, which are often complex and not easily analysed. One party to a situation of conflict may have become more vigorous over the years, leading to different existential requirements. The population may have increased faster than in a neighbouring society, and, quickly, the society with a rapidly expanding population begins to eye the territories and resources of its neighbours.

Then, it is easy to find an excuse to exert pressure upon a weaker neighbour, and a struggle for power and territorial control has then already begun. There may be sound arguments, why a vigorous and expanding society should be allowed to expand its territorial jurisdiction and its control over resources and trade, but, it is also reasonable to expect, that a weaker and less efficient society is anxiously holding-on to its assets and territories.

An analysis of the factors playing a role in the build-up of a struggle for dominance and control, has to answer the fundamental question, whether or not a territory belongs, unquestionably, to the people who happen to live there. Is it justifiable for a weak and inefficient society to hold-on to an easy way of life by virtue of a privileged geographical position with plentiful natural resources, while another society has to work much harder to provide its citizens with an equal measure of affluence?

On the other hand, we may ask ourselves, whether or not it is justifiable for a stronger society to make use of its newly found strength to invade a neighbouring society and expropriate or enslave its inhabitants. If we allow the law of the jungle to operate, we will always see a perpetuation of this vicious circle, where a growing and vigorous society will expand, dominate and suppress the surrounding societies, until it grows affluent, lazy and decadent itself; ready to be challenged or taken-over by a new center of vigorous growth and expansionist ambitions.

If we opt for the primitive mechanisms of competitive growth, we can not escape the horrors of warfare and destruction which are inevitably associated with these mechanisms. The only viable alternative is to merge into an ever enlarging unit of social inter-dependencies, where the leadership extends its rule of fairness, concern and essential equality to an ever enlarging structure of social relationships.

This conclusion always appears utopian and irrealistic, because we have never experienced a stable example of such an enlarging entity of social justice and essential equality, but, I keep repeating the argument, that there is no viable alternative to stable, just and peaceful relationships on a global scale. We have no other choice, but to curb and control this cycle of vigorous growth, warfare, maturity, decay and collapse. The costs are becoming too high, since the devastation and destruction associated with all-out warfare is becoming so gigantic and disastrous, that, literally, our existence as a species is at stake.

We do not readily seek, or accept, alternative solutions, if we remain convinced that we can win and profit from an act of warfare. We resign ourselves only reluctantly to the need to relinquish this primitive but emotionally satisfying method of settling disputes by a show of force. It is not easy to give-up, or control, the drive to settle a situation of conflict by violent means. We have a long biological and evolutionary history, where acts of violence and violent confrontations have been rewarded, time and again, with viability. Since the surviving members give rise to the next generation, the trends towards violent behaviour is inevitably enhanced, if it leads to survival. We all stem from a gene-pool that has been shaped, over countless generations, by the evolutionary pressures of naturally selective mechanisms, and, as a result, the rewards of violence, cunning and tenacity have been firmly entrenched in our genetic endowment.

Only in the last few decades of human existence has it become clear, that the ultimate solution of a fight to the death, is an evolutionary "dead-end". Only recently, has it been possible for clear thinking minds to perceive, that all-out warfare is a sure road to extinction. Yet, we are still subjected to the behavioural trends that have been shaped over all those previous generations, and, which have been so successful in the struggle for survival during the past.

We still experience the lure of victory, and, we still glorify the violent overthrow of our opponents. It will do us no good to deny, that we all have a strong inclination to fight and use whatever powers we have at our disposal. If we try to deny this trend, we are deceiving ourselves, and, we will be surprised, time and again, when violence erupts in the final resolution of tensions and frustrations.

We are violent creatures of natural evolution, and, it is futile to deny this biological fact of our existence, but, we also have the ability to control our frustrations and violent tendencies. We can channel our energies into less destructive, and, perhaps, somewhat less appealing activities, such as those of hard work and careful thought. However, none of these projects for diverting the forces of violent aggression are going to be of any use, unless we learn to correct the basic mechanisms of injustice, which lie behind the attitudes of aggression and the behaviour of violence.

If we have been taught by our over-confident leaders, that we are a super-race, privileged and born to dominate others, we will consider it a fulfilment of justice, if we over-power and dominate weaker societies around us. If we believe to have been chosen by our God for a special purpose, we can not help but feel elitist and show our elitism in our attitudes and contacts with others. If we believe to possess the ultimate truth, revealed by the Lord Himself, we can not help, but try to impose our interpretation of the truth upon others, and, we can not avoid the need to condemn all those who oppose us.

If we fervently believe in the rightfulness of our beliefs, we can not help but think, that we give God a hand in his eternal struggle with the forces of Evil. If we believe, in all sincerity, that we have found the perfect formula to organise society, we have to be intolerant of those who do not agree with us.

In every instance, it is so clear, that our belief structures and reality perceptions determine, largely, what kind of a war we are going to fight. And, fight we will. Soon, we will have to fight our common and most persistent enemy. Soon, we will have to fight against an increasingly dangerous deterioration of terrestial conditions. It may well be, that man will only be able to forge the final bonds of social justice and world-wide solidarity, as he is fighting his last and, probably, futile battle against a rapidly deteriorating ecological niche.

The way we see our environment, other people, other societies, and ourselves, determines, what we think is right and what is wrong, and, the stronger we believe in an absolute and unquestionable truth, the more ready we are to do battle, and, to kill or perish for the glory of our nation, our culture, and our God.

Yet, we also have developed the ability to analyse and scrutinise, with great care and pain-staking precision, a set of complex arguments, where we deliberately delay the judgement of right and wrong, true or false, until we have fully grasped and understood all the factors involved. This is the attitude of emotional neutrality, scrupulous honesty, a search for balanced arguments, coupled with an atttitude of hard work and emotional control.

There is no reason to doubt, that, eventually, we will make remarkable progress in emotionally neutral observations of human behaviour, and, that we will have the courage, and the insight, to apply all observations and conclusions to our own existence. There is no reason to doubt, that man will be able to create, collectively, the conditions of insight and essential equality which will make it possible for every human being to understand some of the requirements of social harmony and justice.

There is no reason to doubt, that man is able to grasp the concepts of a relativistic truth, where we see all our behavioural aspects in a light of varying, and, often, conflicting existential requirements. While it is irrealistic to expect, that, everyone will be able to grasp the detailed aspects of a difficult and complex way of looking at ourselves, we have good reasons to believe, that everyone in a position of leadership and responsibility will be able to grasp these principles. At the same time, we will discover, perhaps, somewhat to our surprise, that these principles have been fore-shadowed in many societies as common-sense attitudes and practices.

The common denominators of common-sense experiences converge, regardless of widely varying cultural specifics or conditions of existence. Indeed, all our efforts at understanding illuminate, in essence, a truth, or, a way of seeing ourselves, which had already found a measure of recognition in the past, but, we have to re-discover these truths, again and again, and, we hope, that these discussions will bring the principles of common-sense, once again, into a fresh perspective.

.......

Summary

1. Reflecting upon the background of our aspirations and objectives.
   Questions about our leaders.
   Why it may be dangerous to ask too many question.
   The importance of asking pointed questions.
   The perception of reality.
   The link between social cohesion and the perception of reality.
   Religious and philosophical interpretations of reality experiences.
   Often, behaviour comes first, and later, we think about our actions.
   A form of "preventive philosophising".
   The nature of thought.
   The need to constantly refine the perception of reality.
   Is there anything wrong with challenging authority?
   A good leadership will benefit from a thorough inquiry.
   The need to manage complexities.
   The need to know, as well as to be open and honest.
   The importance of mutual trust and efficient leadership.
   
   
   
2. What is privacy?
   The complex and fragile nature of our certainties.
   Diverging reality perceptions.
   Plowing-under the weeds of our treasured beliefs.
   A definition of the sphere of reality experiences.
   The mechanisms of an explanation.
   Generalising and classifying principles for ordening our sense impressions.
   Cerebral classification mechanisms.
   The nature of the function of memory.
   An optimum range of recognition-patterns.
   A parallel system of mental classifications.
   The nature of an abstraction.
   Cerebral classification systems are genetically encoded and "species-specific", while mental classification systems are "culturally specific".
   The search for a possibility to exist.
   The zone of emotional neutrality.
   The increasing importance of "cultural modifiers" for our behavioural choices.
   Cultural modifications of emotional behaviour-patterns.
   The remarkable qualities of behaviour in a zone of emotional near-neutrality.
   The existential concerns of professional scientists.
   The need for a specialisation in function and expertise.
   
   
   
3. Two major factors behind the drive to specialise; security and manageability.
   The trend towards team-work in research efforts.
   The scientific task-force.
   A square meter within a scientific field of several hectares.
   The need to retain a coherent over-view.
   The "quilt" of scientific endeavour.
   The household of the State; a definition of political leadership.
   Science, and the trend towards egocentric behaviour-patterns.
   The significance of specialisation is linked to sharing the chores of survival.
   Living and working in a city.
   The meaning of society.
   Social cohesion, and the need to perceive reality coherently.
   Social fragmentation, when there is a lack of direction.
   The vicious circle of social decay and crumbling reality perceptions.
   Mechanisms of social decay.
   Escapism.
   
   
   
4. The reality-image, seen as a behavioural tool.
   Difficulties predicting the time-span of a course of events.
   The individualised search for survival within a decaying social environment.
   A short summary of what has been discussed.
   The importance of congruent reality perceptions.
   The framework of familiarity.
   Genetic and cultural influences.
   A gradually enlarging intellectual horizon.
   A brief review of the grasp over nature's complexities.
   The need to have a globally acceptable image of ourselves.
   The differences between behaving and observing.
   An emotional ground-tone for our reality perceptions.
   A short review of the mechanisms of comprehension.
   Why we have to create a basis for agreement.
   
   
   
5. An endless complexity, and the ever-present possibility to come to a manageable synthesis.
   The need to know, precisely, what we want.
   The specialist and the generalist.
   A philosophical background for the essential questions about life.
   A series of questions.
   We only ask questions, when the problems begin to hit home.
   Fear, and the shrinking sphere of concerns.
   Desperation, and the grab for arms.
   Why there are diverging perceptions of reality.
   A study of assumptions.
   Assumptions in the sphere of routine behaviour.
   What a question reveals about the "questioner".
   When the question is used as a weapon.
   Assumptions about people.
   The waste of time and money, when designing a scientific investigation based on erroneous assumptions.
   The opinion poll.
   
   
   
6. The need for a coherent theory of human existence.
   A look back at the basic functions of making observations and keeping records.
   Uncomfortable surroundings for people whose training has been too specialised.
   Scientific and artistic methods of observation; each with their own opportunities for making a contribution.
   Progress on the road towards verbalising non-neutral behaviour-patterns.
   Communicating with the mechanisms of "emotional resonance".
   The conscious, the sub-conscious, and the "non-conscious".
   Mechanisms of a "vertical exchange".
   A large body of water, and its analogy with the regions of the mind.
   Individual specks on a sea of collective awarenesses.
   Individual spheres of reality perceptions.
   Awareness is a behavioural tool.
   Difficulties evaluating the level of significance.
   Ambitions that frighten; why we have to shape our goals and objectives within a socially acceptable framework.
   The usefulness of a well-ordened reality perception.
   The aggressive attitude is an inalienable part of our biological heritage.
   Why it is important to see similarities between our enemies and ourselves.
   An increasing complexity.
   
   
   
7. A difficult diagnosis of "social chaos".
   Existential anxieties, and the facts of inter-dependence.
   Jobs in affluent societies.
   Consumerism; entrapment in an affluent life-style.
   Detrimental monetary policies.
   The influence of business mergers and special-interest groupings.
   Questions about large-scale social leaderships.
   The bureaucratic mushroom, and the anxious bureaucrat.
   The bureaucracy acts as a "cementing force", as long as it promotes inter-dependence.
   When the central nervous system of society begins to fragment.
   The changing effects of the collective work-stoppage.
   A decline in public confidence.
   The shrinking sphere of reality perceptions.
   Holding-on to a favourable status-quo.
   The complexity of chaos.
   The burden of complexity, and the solution of contracting the sphere of concerns and reality perceptions.
   Relief in an attitude of euphoria.
   Aggressive and defensive adaptations.
   
   
   
8. A search for social harmony makes only sense, if we have relinquished the solution of violent conflict.
   When the factors of conflict are not hidden any longer.
   The balance of force-fields in a condition of social justice, and the cleansing attitudes of openness and trust.
   Territorial rights; a number of questions.
   Questions about national boundaries and the quality of sovereignty.
   The cycle of birth, growth, vigour, maturity, senescence, death and decay.
   The price we have to pay, if we want to break through the cycle of conflict and destruction.
   A short review of our evolutionary past.
   The powerful, but primitive lure of violent behaviour.
   Re-channeling the energies of our instinctive drives.
   A rapidly deteriorating terrestial environment.
   A common enemy in the future of mankind.
   A plea to use the faculties of emotional neutrality and emotional control to the fullest possible extent.
   A relativistic truth.
   A new perspective on the age-old principles of common-sense.

.......