A LECTURE FOR LEADERS







A Study in Thought

sa045



by





Marius Heuff

Chapter 1

Content

We are leaders, whether we want it or not.
Leadership, the ultimate instrument of viability.
We have to choose our leaders carefully.
The reasons for corrupt practices and egocentric attitudes.
Collective attitudes of suspicion and mistrust.
We have to know, who we are.
The dangers of opportunistic solutions to our problems.
We all need a lecture, once in a while.
We all have to make a contribution to collective survival.
An endless treadmill of self-righteous attitudes.
How many have died in vain?
The power of collective reasoning.
The pitfalls of elitist attitudes.
We all can become a responsible leader for our thoughts and actions.

"I am not a leader, and I do not want to be lectured to", you will think, and, you may be inclined not to read any further, but, I assure you, that, on both accounts, your conclusions are erroneous. In contrast with a lecture in a class-room, with a written text you are perfectly free to skip sentences or whole pages, or, to stop reading all-together. Secondly, you are a leader, regardless, whether or not you consider yourself to be one, because we all have to perform leadership functions at one time or another, even, if it is only to give direction and form to our lives and thoughts.

Let us consider in the following pages all the aspects of leadership and leadership objectives, and, we will come to the conclusion, that these aspects are crucially important for all of us. We may state, without exaggeration, that a well thought-out, healthy and sensible leadership determines, not only, the viability of the community we live in, but is, in the final analysis, the principle factor deciding the viability of each and everyone of us, individually.

We can not over-emphasise the importance of having a clear idea what leadership is all about, and, it will become increasingly clear, that we, the average people of our societies, have a grave responsibility in the selection and education of our leaders. It may seem strange, and, it is, probably, not immediately apparent, but, we determine, collectively, the quality and behaviour-patterns of our leaders. This seems strange, because too many of us still consider our leaders as people we look-up to; as people, we receive guidance from, or, as people we dislike and try to avoid or replace.

Yet, none of our leaders, even, those, who still grab power with the brute force of a military take-over, would last any length of time, if we did not give them at least tacit support. As ordinary, law-abiding and productive citizens of our society, we have a remarkable influence upon the course of social events; at least, collectively, we have a remarkable influence on the type of leadership our society has.

We may as well inform ourselves, to the best of our abilities, about the safeguards we have to construct around the instruments of leadership, in order to ensure, that our leaders do not lead us astray as a result of unbridled powers, collective ignorance, or primitive emotions and motivations.

We have to choose our leaders carefully. We have to give them clear-cut guidelines within which they can excercise their talents and fulfill their ambitions, and, above all, we have to make sure, that they understand, fully, the awesome responsibilities associated with being a leader.

We have to make sure, that our leaders are fully informed about the many decisions they have to make, and, we have to make sure, that we are fully informed about all the decisions, actions and plans of our leaders. We, the people, have to give our leaders the opportunity, as well as the capability, to institute completely open and non-corrupt government functions, and, this means, that we have to place at the disposal of our leaders a bureaucratic system that is highly efficient and transparent in all its operations.

Are we skething dreamy and utopian conditions of existence that can never be realised because of the inherent mechanisms of human nature? It seems, that we always seem to revert back to secrecy, corruption and egocentric advantage-taking, whenever the opportunity presents itself. Is it impossible to have honest, open, efficient and compassionate leadership that is able to endure a period of adversity?

By adopting such pessimistic attitudes about our capabilities, we may, unwittingly, contribute to a disastrous deterioration of our leaderships and government institutions. It would not be wise to jump to the conclusion, that it is impossible to reach such a healthy state of affairs, just because, we think, we know human nature, and, because history shows us an apparently endless succession of societies that are born, grow to a certain state of health and vigour, but, invariably, fragment under the forces of corruption and decay.

True, human nature will always revert to egocentric opportunism, whenever the circumstances are conducive to do so, but, let us consider, seriously, the techniques and insights that could prevent such a seemingly inevitable deterioration of leadership functions. Let us explore the conditions that are necessary to motivate the human being to well-organised acts of considerate and compassionate behaviour. Let us see, why corrupt practices and egocentric attitudes emerge, and, we will see, how important the factors of openness and mutual trust really are.

Let us examine our own attitudes and prejudices. Let us see, whether or not it is, indeed, correct to see the attitudes of trust and compassion as temporary attitudes or emotions, occurring only sporadically towards the members of our family or closest friends. Let us see, whether or not it is, indeed, correct to consider a large majority as people we have to look upon with suspicion, and, whom we may take advantage of, whenever such an opportunity presents itself.

Let us consider, whether or not our pessimism about a healthy and durable, large-scale society and its government bureaucracies is rooted in our own collective attitudes of suspicion and mistrust, rather than upon a fatal flaw in the nature of man.

We will have to understand ourselves far more clearly than we are generally capable of at the present time, because we still have to develop a clear insight into the full potential for change that comes with a truly broad understanding of ourselves, and the mechanisms of life in general.

In these writings, we will keep the focus of our attention upon the function and definition of leadership, but, we will constantly refer back to the general principles and ideas that describe an evolutionary interpretation of the living organisation, and, of the human personality, in particular. We will see, as we have discovered so often before, how remarkably fruitful an examination of our own existence becomes, whenever we are willing to explore, fully, the possibilities of understanding that are given by the evolutionary imagery of life in general, and mankind in particular.

We will see, again and again, that a thorough and logical consideration of the many ideas that are available to us, now, will give us a valuable insight into the way we function as human beings. We will see, how leadership evolves from an intuitive and genetically based pattern of behaviour, to a leadership that is profoundly influenced by clearly conceptualised perceptions of human realities.

We will see, that it is only possible to think productively about the requirements and conditions for good leadership, if we have a clear idea about the question, who and what we are. We will see, that we can only formulate a sensible guiding framework for our leaders, as well as for the overall development of our social environment, if we start to consider ourselves as a unit of mankind, bound together by the nearly identical requirements of our existence. We have to become aware of the similarities of our hopes and aspirations, as well as the near-identical way in which we function.

The problem of leadership is, in essence, the problem of our own existence, but, in contrast with a rather theoretical and leisurely approach to the elucidation of the fundamental problems of reality perceptions and the leadership of individual existence, in the question of communal leadership, we are dealing with existential and practical considerations that lend a sense of urgency to these matters.

Let us not deceive ourselves. If we only look for practical or pragmatic solutions, we will never overcome the stage of facile, tentative and temporary adjustments to the problems that confront us. We have no chance to formulate a satisfactory, long-term objective, unless we are able, and willing, to make a serious effort to come to terms with the fundamental aspects of our existence. On the other hand, if we retreat into an abstract consideration of philosophical niceties, we may slide into an irrelevant discussion, where we can comfortably and narrowly busy ourselves with theoretical trivia, blissfully unaware of a rapidly declining viability of our existence; be it collectively, individually or both. Only, if we are willing to wed a philosophical effort in building a solid theoretical foundation to the practical concerns of existence, will our efforts be meaningful.

Let us not forget, that the ultimate judge of all our efforts is the criterium of viability. What do we gain with a perfect understanding of human reality perceptions, if we lose the ability to survive? What will be the outcome, if we continue to seek short-term viability in opportunistic solutions, if we fail to realise, that we sow, with each temporary solution, the seeds for future conflicts and aggravate the problems of survival? Let us really dig into the problems of leadership, and, let us refrain from the temptation to find, either, easy or somewhat superficial solutions, or, busy ourselves, exclusively, with those questions we feel a certain affinity for.

You, my dear reader, will be led through a wide vista of ideas, and, undoubtedly, you will have to work, here and there, for a firm grasp over these concepts and ideas. In the long run, we will all benefit from a well-developed ability to discuss these aspects, and, we may, even, come to the conclusion, that our collective security depends upon it. In a way, these writings will indeed turn-out to be a lecture. A lecture to each and everyone of us, and, in particular, a lecture to those, who have taken upon themselves, (or, who have been given the responsibility), to lead a community of people. The term "lecture", means, that I am convinced that these ideas are of the utmost importance; that we all should pay attention to these concerns, and, that we all have to develop some sort of an opinion about these matters, including the question in what way we want the future of mankind to unfold itself.

We can not afford, any longer, the attitude, that these problems are exclusively the concern of someone else. We have to acknowledge the fact, that we all have to make a contribution to the viability of our social environments, and, that we are a detriment to the continued viability of ourselves and future generations, if we allow ourselves to live in a state of egocentric ignorance about the requirements and necessities of leadership functions and requirements.

We will never know, what our influence upon the events within our social surroundings has been, unless we learn to discuss and perceive some of the ideas which we are going to elaborate, here. We will never know, how much we contribute to injustice and corruption, if we allow the sphere of our concerns to remain narrowly egocentric, restricted to a few of our nearest friends and relatives. We will continue the endless treadmill of complaining self-righteously about the ills of the world, without having any idea about our own contributions to these ills, unless we shake ourselves awake and begin to work on a clear image of honest understanding.

How many of us have died in the facile belief of a self-righteous place in Heaven, while our attitudes and actions have perpetuated the ignorant elitism of a divided and competitive mankind? How many of us have died in the belief of having found acceptance in the eyes of our God, while we were considered to be the children of Satan by our enemies? How long will it be, before we explore, finally, the possibilities of rational thought and understanding, without creating a meaningless cacaphony of sophistry and confusion?

When will we learn to acknowledge the price we have to pay for collective viability? When will we learn to see, that true individualised development and personal fulfilment will only come as a gift of security and trust from a compassionate society? When will we learn to acknowledge, as individuals, our debt to the societies of mankind, and, when will we learn to avoid the temptation of elitist isolationism, whenever our anxieties and suspicions have been aroused?

When will we acknowledge, that we create our own reality perceptions and belief structures as a result of our existential needs. We still have to acknowledge, that these reality perceptions and beliefs are based, exclusively, on the possibilities of natural evolution and living existence, as they unfolded themselves in the human species. When will we learn to see the common denominators of human existence, as well as the ever increasing price of competitive strife and consumerist attitudes?

Yes, we will lecture; not in the sense of exhortations or the enumeration of a set of simple dogmas of what to do and what not to do. We will lecture you, because we believe, that it is important to think and understand. We will lecture you, in order to make you see, how important your individual contributions are, even, if you may despair about the futility and insignificance of your efforts. We will lecture in the hope of making you into a thinking and fully human individual; with a broad insight into the numerous forces we all are subjected to. We hope to turn ourselves into human beings who can formulate clear-cut ideas that take into account the needs of us all. After all, this is the essence of leadership.

.......

Chapter 2

Content

A short review of the essence of the living organisation.
The nature of "anxiety".
A "bias" in the perception of reality.
Classifying behaviour-patterns on the basis of what is "good" and "evil" for the social environment; a few examples.
The trend towards social integration; seen as a "yielding" to existential pressures.
Enlarging the possibilities of existence for all the members of a social entity.
Cultural evolution is only possible within a social context.
Our indebtedness to human beings of the past.
The importance of a cultural heritage.
The futility of trying to lead with the instruments of force and oppression.
Each one of us can be a saint or a devil.
A fortuitous balance of positive and negative influences is necessary to develop into a healthy, well-balanced personality.
The vitality and importance of the average citizen.

First, we should discuss a most fundamental characteristic of all life-forms, including the human being. This is the need to channel some form of consumable energy through the living system in order to sustain the life-giving organisation of this system. As an inescapable corollary of this need, all life-forms have a tendency to react in such a way, that their existence remains secured, as long as possible. All life-forms exhibit this search for possibilities of existence, and, in the human species, a variety of elaborate behaviour-patterns come into play, whenever the circumstances begin to exert a pressure upon these possibilities of existence.

We have learned to abstract and verbalise these basic reaction-patterns in the concept of "anxiety". Together with accompanying feelings or emotions, a large variety of motivations and behavioural reactions can be set into motion, whenever the security or comfort of an individual has been threatened. This is normal, and, it is logical to consider this pattern of behavioural reactions as a biological legacy from our evolutionary heritage.

This multitude of species', forming the spectrum of living existence, would not have evolved, if the individual organisms of each and every species did not possess a basic drive to search for a continued possibility to exist. Just as the sensation of pain functions as a warning-signal that a part of the body is being harmed, so is the reaction of anxiety an essential physiological or psychological reaction that is invariably aroused, whenever the possibilities of existence are being threatened. Of course, in the human species, the perception of conscious or verbalisable awarenesses contributes to this inborn, physiological "decision", whether or not an instinctive reaction or pattern of anxious behaviour will be set into motion.

From an outsider's point of view, we may disagree with the reality perception of a particular individual. We may come to the conclusion, that the reaction of anxiety is unduly easily aroused, and, that the situation is not nearly as threatening as it is perceived. Then, there exists a "bias" towards suspicion or defensiveness; at least, this bias exists in the opinion of an observer, and, we often see, how such a bias may, not only, be unwarranted, but, it is often harmful because of the strongly irrational behaviour-patterns that are associated with such an inborn or instinctive reaction of fear or anxiety.

The irrational pattern of anxious or defensive behaviour may reach extreme proportions, such as in a panic. On the other hand, we may see an attitude of recklessness, in particular, in younger and less experienced people, whenever the potential danger of a situation is, in our opinion, insufficiently recognised or appreciated.

Many patterns of behaviour share this egocentrically oriented attitude of anxiety or defensiveness as their origin, and, many of these behaviour-patterns may become harmful to others, as well as the individual who displays such an instinctive reaction. The attitudes of anxiety and fear hamper a smooth inter-action and cooperation between people, in particular, from the point of view of society, and, we see, therefore, that, most communal belief structures, (which have been developed as cultural regulators by all communities, large and small), try to minimise or suppress such egocentric, anxious and paralysing behaviour-patterns. These behavioural reactions are often condemned as "bad" or "evil". Such behaviour-patterns are considered to be a product of evil influences and they are judged to be despicable, unworthy and loathesome; to be avoided at all cost.

As always, we see, that guidelines for ethical or communally acceptable behaviour-patterns are based on the needs of the community as a whole. These guidelines are based upon the shared aspects of the "common good", and, it seems unavoidable for a community that is fighting for its existence, to exorcise certain biologically normal patterns of behaviour as evil or despicable. The suppression of normal behavioural reactions always causes severe tensions, in particular, when the origin of these anxieties has not been clearly understood.

Besides, there arises, also, an ill-perceived but intuitively felt ambiguity in the judgement of the various instinctive behaviour-patterns of the human being. While internal disputes or open conflicts between the members are regarded as evil, disruptive and detrimental to the common good, a synchronised, communal hostility towards an external enemy or internal scape-goat, is often regarded as perfectly acceptable.

While stealing, treachery and violence are frowned-upon when it occurs between the members of a social entity, such behavioural acts, carried-out by the community as a whole, are, often, glorified as a patriotic duty, or, they are considered to be a sacrifice for the common good during a violent confrontation with a neighbouring society. Similarly, a narrowly egocentric attitude of an individual towards the members of his own community is, rightly, considered as a selfish and irresponsible act of egotistic behaviour, but, a complete disregard for the needs of a neighbouring society is considered to be a legitimate concern for the self-interests of the community as a whole.

These few examples show, clearly, that the ethical principles of a society are always centered around the existential needs of a specific social, cultural or ethnic entity, but, seen from an overall, outsider's point of view, these communities behave towards each other in a primitive, lawless and opportunistic manner, oblivious of the ethical principles and guidelines they have formulated for their own members. Communities tend to obey, therefore, the primitive, evolutionary mechanisms of the survival of the fittest in their competitive contests with each other.

One of the great insights which the evolutionary interpretation of reality has given us, is the realisation, that, all living systems exhibit, and have to exhibit, this primary, primitive drive to search for a possibility to exist, and, to mobilise their defenses, whenever they perceive a threatening situation. From an evolutionary point of view, we see, not only, the logic and reasons, why we share this basic biological drive with all members of the human species, including our enemies, but, we have also learned to recognise, that socially integrated groupings of human beings exhibit exactly the same behavioural characteristics.

As members of a social grouping, we have to develop a measure of tolerance and mutual recognition at a communal level, if we want to build a viable, large-scale society, integrating many diverse communities. We have to develop a way to settle communal disputes without violence, because the existence possibilities of every community, including the community of mankind, would be severely undermined, if its members continue to disregard their inter-dependence.

Throughout the development of life, we see, that living systems are grouping themselves into ever larger units. There is the conglomeration of biochemical inter-actions into the unit of a cell, the integration of a larger number of cells into the unit of a multi-cellular organism, or, the grouping of multi-cellular organisms into a unit of secondary social integration. This trend of socialisation or mutual interdependence between ever larger socially integrated groupings must have a significant advantage for the maintenance of viability, otherwise, it would have been weeded-out by the ruthless mechanisms of natural selection a long time ago.

Indeed, we see, invariably, existential pressures behind the tendency for individual members to group-together, and, to secure the requirements of existence as a cooperative unit. By grouping-together, the members enlarge, collectively, their possibilities of existence far beyond the possibilities available to them individually.

This principle of seeking a state of enhanced viability through the mechanisms of social integration is clearly illustrated in the mechanisms of biochemical reaction-patterns. On our contemporary earth, such a reaction would be virtually impossible without the shelter provided by the unit of a living cell, and, we see, how quickly, this conglomerate of biochemical reaction-patterns runs-down to its lowest energy-level in the processes of decay and entropy, after a cell has died. Similarly, we see, how a community of cells explores possibilities of existence in the form of a multi-cellular individual. These possibilities would be completely beyond the reach of a single cell, and, here too, each cell in a multi-cellular entity will die, if the unit as a whole dies.

We may extend this parallel to the human community, and, it becomes clear, how the existence possibilities of the human being have been spectacularly enlarged by the tendency to live and work together. Without this strong social instinct, man would, probably, never have become the dominant species it now is, because none of the developments of technology and science, language and thought would have taken place, if our ancestors had been solitary animals.

Most of us realise only vaguely, how dependent we are upon the mechanisms of cooperation, since the processes of cultural transfer are largely taken for granted and become easily defective. The ability of a human being to assimilate a significant fraction of his cultural heritage, makes it possible to survive under ever changing social and environmental circumstances. Even, if our society, community, country or nation disintegrates, we are able to survive, because we can form temporary bonds of common interests with other survivors, as long as we do not lose, completely, our sources of knowledge and technology, and, as long as we do not lose the ability to sustain ourselves physically during periods of great chaos and social decline.

Indeed, we often rely for our survival, not so much on a particular social entity, as well as on the accumulation of learned and culturally transmitted patterns of behaviour, which form a haphazard, vague and ill-defined body of knowledge and experience. Yet, this body of knowledge and cultural guidelines is not enough to secure our survival in the long run, because, it is easy to acknowledge that we all would have perished, if our parents and immediate social environment would not have given us prolonged and adequate shelter during our earlier, formative years, and, if the larger, communal and natural environment would not have taught us the skills to provide ourselves with this essential energy-flow, or sustenance, we need to stay alive and well.

Our indebtedness to human beings of the past, to civilisations that are only an imagery in our minds, becomes clear, as soon as we start to think about the mechanisms of cultural transmission, and, as soon as we realise, how lost and helpless we would be, if we would have learned nothing at all. We may safely conclude, that no human being could survive without this combination of parental care and a basic package of knowledge and skills, transmitted as a cultural heritage through our human environment.

These considerations show us, how the human being has, on the one hand, a strong, egocentrically oriented drive to maintain his existence when threatened, and, on the other hand, we see, how dependent this same human being is on some form of social organisation, especially, during infancy, childhood and adolescence. It is safe to state, that, as a result of evolutionary developments, the drive to social integration has become part of man's biological heritage, just as his earlier biological heritage emphasised the primary drive of individual survival, which preceded the evolution of the anthropoid species'.

Rather than trying to solve the ever-present tensions between conflicting drives by suppressing behaviour that is judged to be undesirable under the circumstances, we should be able to form a far more coherent and meaningful picture of the human being and his behavioural characteristics, if we acknowledge, frankly, this dual and contradictory biological heritage as an inalienable part of our nature.

Let us, therefore, not condemn as evil or satanic, man's tendency to cowardice, treachery or abuse, but, let us understand the reasons and mechanisms, why everyone may be tempted to behave in an anti-social manner. Neither should we glorify the tendency towards socially responsible behaviour and interpret it as evidence for a "divine spark", because this leads, so often, to somewhat elitist atittudes and becomes, frequently, a source of confusion and tension. The "duality" of man's nature is best interpreted as a set of contradictory behavioural trends, rather than the concept where man's nature is considered to be the result of a fusion between a mortal body and an immortal soul.

Let us explore, calmly and pesistently, the nature of man, and, we will understand, why, sometimes, the leadership can galvanise a group of divergent people into a viable and socially responsive unit, while, at other times, a leadership only fragments and shatters an existing social unit by ignorant and incompetent behaviour-patterns, unleashing the emotions of suspicion and hatred that lead to social decay and widespread suffering.

Each one of us can be a saint or a devil. Each one of us can be stimulated into a suspicious defensiveness or an attitude of trustful altruism. While there may be some differences in the constitutional "anlage" of a human personality, there are good reasons to believe, that our early childhood experiences determine, to a large extent, our outlook on life, as well as the way we behave in relation to other people.

If the ability to form trustful relationships withers-away in a cold, harsh and unjust childhood, we naturally grow-up to be a child of the jungle, but, if our experiences are tempered with beneficial and trustful relationships with others, we may be less defensive and more willing to accept the risk of trusting other people. However, if we grow-up in an over-protected environment, we will have very little knowledge and insight about the full range of human emotions and relationships, and, we remain a child; easily frightened and inclined to withdraw from a bewildering world.

Neither a complete lack of trust, nor a complete lack of exposure to the harsh realities of life, will lead to useful insights and a sense of responsibility, and, fortunately, a majority of average people in society is exposed to a mixture of trustful relationships and harsh realities.

We come back, once again, to the importance of the average individual, who is so easily inclined, in the enormity of a complex and chaotic society, to conclude, that, he or she is a powerless individual, incapable of exerting any real influence on the course of events. Yet, time and again, a study of human events and happenings in a historical context will show us, that the resilience and viability of a society depended on the vitality and quality of its average citizens.

A flamboyant leader may get the attention, and, he may think, that he deserves all the credit for the good that has come forth in the society under his jurisdiction, but, he can only lead and get results, if he can tap into this most important resource within a society; the trust and good-will of ordinary people.

.......

Chapter 3

Content

The biological energy-gradient.
Adaptability of the living organisation is based on the fluidity and transience of biochemical reaction-patterns.
Complex predatorial behaviour-patterns.
The concept of a gene-pool.
Tolerances for internal tensions, or thresholds for disruptive events; concepts, applicable to living and non-living systems alike.
The emergence of goal-directed behaviour.
The concept of a "free will" or a "a voluntary choice".
Personal leadership over a conglomerate of contradictory impulses.
Every member of society has to experience the benefits of "belonging".
Personal leaderships are ethically further developed than collective leaderships.
Socialising trends start from scratch, after a successful level of integration has been reached.
"Fine-tuning" flexible behaviour-patterns.
Genetic and cultural codes; the insect colony.
The emergence of early man; a summary description of evolutionary developments.

We have mentioned, briefly, how the tendency to form conglomerates or communities of socially integrated members in the evolution of living existence, reflects a continuous search for possibilities of existence. We will not re-iterate the basic concepts that lie behind an understanding of the organisation of life. Let us remind ourselves, merely, that non-living matter exists, also, as a result of possibilities of existence, and this becomes obvious, whenever we look at the flow of stellar or cosmic events.

The living organisation depends, in essence, on the energy-gradients contained in high-energy electro-chemical bonds. A specific, biologically useful energy-gradient is created by the capture of solar energy in the form of high-energy electron bonds, and, the living organisation, from the simplest biochemical pathways to the highest forms of multi-cellular existence are an expression of the search for a channel to dissipate this energy-gradient. The phenomenon of adaptability, which is a feature of every life-form, is related to the fluidity or transience characterising biochemical chain-reactions.

We have discussed, before, the development of the predatory forms of life, where the functions of photo-synthesis have been relinquished in favour of a development emphasising a motoric ability, which is then used to capture another life-form. The captured life-form becomes then a source of ready-made food-stuffs, or energy, for the hunting or grazing animal life-form.

Human existence, including the organisation of internal organs, the central nervous system, as well as a variety of innate or instinctive behaviour-patterns, is also based upon an animal way of life, or predatory heritage. The need for an animal to organise a highly complex behavioural act in order to satisfy its energy requirements, (or, to frustrate the attempts of another predator to use the individual as a source for its energy needs), leads to the well-known, basic behaviour-patterns of animal existence, which can be divided into an aggressive or "hunting" type of behaviour, a defensive or "avoidance" type, as well as a highly complex pattern of behaviour that is centered around the objectives of reproduction.

We have discussed, on various occasions, the concept, that the gene-pool is the object of survival in the socially organised animals. Just as the entire individual, (the cellular community of a multi-cellular animal), has to survive in order to participate in the reproductive processes, so is it necessary for a community of socially integrated beings to survive more or less intact, in order to ensure a continuous flow of generations, necessary to maintain the existence of a gene-pool, which represents a genetic spectrum of possibilities of existence.

At each level of organisation, it becomes possible to conceptualise or abstract a measure of unity. While we are dealing, here, with a specifically human perception of reality, we are, nevertheless, able to synthesise or create a remarkable degree of predictability by interpreting the integration of a group of individual members as a functioning unit.

On the one hand, we see, and, we should never lose sight of the fact, that the reason for the existence of a multi-individual unit is an increase in existence possibilities for each and every member of this unit or entity, but, on the other hand, we see, also, that, some behavioural trends and tendencies have to be curtailed and regulated in order to make the unit a smoothly and efficiently functioning entity.

In simpler systems, such as an atom, a molecule or a single cell, we tend to describe the cohesion of the unit in terms of static principles, or tolerances of energy relationships. If these tolerances, or thresholds of internal energy-tensions, remain within certain limits, the system remains intact and relatively stable. The principles of tolerance apply equally to living, as well as non-living systems. The differences between living and non-living systems are, therefore, differences in organisation, as well as differences of internal stability, because a biochemical energy-gradient is extremely labile and transient compared to the stable, largely crystalline and oscillatory energy-forms of inorganic matter.

In the animal type of multi-cellular organisation, the range of behaviour-patterns of the multi-cellular community as a whole becomes so large, that we see a multitude of goal-directed behaviour-patterns emerge. These may be stimulated into action by a variety of more or less specific circumstances. As a further step in the development of animal life-forms where the influence of past experiences and specific local circumstances becomes an important factor, the behavioural response assumes, increasingly, an aspect of a "willed" or deliberate choice.

The human being is an example, par excellence, of this trend towards excercising a freely willed behavioural choice, because its behavioural range has become so large, and has come so much under the influence of specific circumstances and experiences, (often specific for a particular individual), that, often, the behavioural response has to be "composed" by a deliberate and voluntary act of "decision-making".

Certainly, this "will", or freedom of choice, displays itself against a background of biologically inherited patterns of behaviour, and, the concept of a "free will" depends, to a large extent, upon our point of view. However, this experience of having to make a deliberate choice in our behavioural responses is so common to all of us, that we have come to regard this experience as one of the fundamental aspects of human existence.

In a way, we, as an individual, are excercising or coordinating a leadership function over a mass of divergent and, often, conflicting impulses and evaluations that are gong-on in our brain, and, in this sense, we are truly excercising leadership over our individual existence. As individuals, we have to coordinate our conflicting tendencies and impulses in order to make an effective and viable behavioural choice possible, and, as a community, we also have to coordinate the often conflicting and diverging trends of individual members.

The nature of leadership is essentially the same in both cases, but the focus of our attention, as well as the orientation of our attitudes become different, because in personal leadership, the orientation is centered around the requirements of our own existence, but, by virtue of our existence in a society, such an egocentric orientation has to be tempered by a set of behavioural guidelines that find their origin in the needs of the community as a whole.

Similarly, the leadership of a community is centered, primarily, around the needs of this particular community, and, it is, therefore, "socio-centic", but, it is so easy to forget a basic principle; nl., that the meaning of a social organisation rests upon the experience and judgement of all members that they belong to this social entity, and, that they benefit from belonging to it. It is so easy for a segment of society to dominate the others to the point of exploitation; to the point, that the dominated segments come, intuitively or consciously, to the conclusion, that they would be better of outside or without this particular social structure.

Another aspect that is so often forgotten by everyone, including the leadership of a community, is the fact, that the needs of other societies in the neighbourhood are similar to those of the community in question. We have elaborated all these aspects before, and, it is, therefore, not difficult to come to the conclusion, that, in most instances, the breadth and scope of communal leadership can not begin to compare with the leadership excercised by an average individual over his own contradictory impulses and awarenesses.

The personal leadership of most ordinary citizens is far more finely tuned to the needs of others, and, it is, therefore, ethically far more developed compared to the leadership of the community as a whole, especially, when the communal leadership deals with neighbouring communities. Besides, a personal leadership will never recklessly exploit a part of its own body or resources, as long as the individual is healthy and sane, but, how often, do we not see, that a communal leadership becomes blatantly oppressive or exploitative in its dealings with certain segments of its own membership? Often, this exploitation is so common, that it becomes accepted as "the norm", and, it is not even recognised as a diseased form of social leadership.

Yet, this lack of insight should not surprise us, because it illustrates the general principle, that, every process of socialisation on a more complex plane always starts from scratch. For example, we see, how the competitive nature of biochemical reactions slowly fades into the background with the emergence of a cellular unit, but the cells, themselves, are fiercely competitive and territorial in their behaviour, until they, in turn, begin to explore the possibilities of existence given by socialisation or mutual inter-dependence in the unit of multi-cellular existence.

The multi-cellular unit becomes a successful form of existence as a result of cellular cooperation and inter-dependence, or "symbiosis", while multi-cellular individuals start-out, once again, as fiercely competitive territorial organisms. We have described, briefly, the exploratory phase in the socialisation of multi-cellular animals, but, in spite of the many similarities in the repetition of the road from territorial competitiveness to symbiotic harmony, at each level, we see, also, many differences and variables in the manifestations of life's search for a possibility to exist.

There is one very important difference in the evolutionary development of the multi-cellular animals, compared to the inter-dependence of the cellular protoplasm or the multi-cellular unit. Let us by-pass the differences between animal and plant life, and, let us concentrate on the differences between the precisely programmed or genetically instructed mechanisms of inter-dependence, and those mechanisms of cooperation, where the living members of a socially integrated entity retain a large measure of variability or flexibility in their behaviour-patterns.

In a way, this development is a "recognition" by the forces of natural selection, that, adaptation by genetic transformation is too slow to make fully use of the rapidly fluctuating circumstances that take place during the life-cycle of a large animal. Nevertheless, these rapidly fluctuating circumstances could be of crucial importance to find a suitable possibility of existence for these large animal life-forms.

We have elaborated these developments before, but, we may summarise them, once again, by saying, that, in behavioural flexibility, the actualised members of a species have been given the possibility, and responsibility, to vary their responses according to the prevailing circumstances. Such a behavioural "fine-tuning" opens the possibility to adapt the behavioural response rapidly, as well as more precisely, during the life-time of an individual organism, but, this faculty requires the ability to retain a record of previous experiences, and learn from them.

In addition, a pattern of successful, non-genetically encoded behavioural responses has to be transmitted from one generation to the next via a process, whereby the younger generation "imitates", or learns from the behaviour-patterns of its parents. At least, as long as these animal life-forms do not have a conscious mode of learning abstract concepts, and, as long as they can not communicate with the help of symbols that represent some sort of an experience or memory-trace, there is no other way to transmit the valuable experiences from one generation to the next, except by a process of imitation.

We have argued, before, that, we see, here, the beginnings of a process of "cultural transmission". However, as always, a possibility of existence is obtained at a certain price, and, the price, here, is a less precisely defined genetic code, because the genetic code is now unable to instruct the individual, precisely, in the required behavioural responses.

The genetic code starts, then, to function as an outline for the behaviour of an actualised member of a behaviourally flexible species. The range of behavioural possibilities is laid-down genetically, but the actual form of a behavioural response to a specific circumstance begins to depend on the epxeriences of the past, the circumstances of the present, together with this complex of learned behaviour that has been taken-over from the parental generation as a "cultural inheritance".

An insect-colony is an example of a social structure of multi-cellular individuals that is largely, but not exclusively, shaped by genetic instructions. These genetic instructions determine the behaviour of the individual members of an insect-colony, but, the species of mankind has found its origins in the evolution of the mammalian species', where individual variability of behaviour has become an essential route by which viability has been secured.

Therefore, the human has being has, not only, a strong biological anlage to group into socially integrated units, but, man is also the epitomy of a development, where the accent of viability has been placed on the ability to make maximum use of the specific circumstances of the moment.

Seen in this light, it is not surprising, that man began to use the prehensile forelimbs, (developed by its ancestors as a genetically encoded adaptation to life in the trees), as a means to manipulate branches and stones, leading to the development of tools and weapons. Man's intelligence is nothing more, and nothing less, than an expression of this reliance upon the possibilities of behavioural fine-tuning.

The development of man's anatomy, and, especially, his central nervous system, reflects his position in the spectrum of life's search for viability. Not endowed with exceptional natural strength, speed or weaponry, man's viability is clearly a result of the ability to make cleverly use of the circumstances; to make use of tools and weapons that are eminently suited to the objectives of the moment, as well as to form bonds of cooperation and mutual trust in order to facilitate the execution of ever more complex tasks.

Later, these same genetic pre-dipositions led to a prodigious development of the ability to communicate. Initially, man learned, by accident or necessity, to re-stimulate sense impressions at will with the techniques of mimicry. A rapid, almost continuous process of mental recall developed, which led to the emergence of conscious awarenesses and, later, abstractions, communicable as symbols of gestures and sound. Here, again, we do not want to repeat these mental images in detail, since we have discussed them before.

We only want to recall, with a summary description, the biological background of the human animal, and, we have seen, so far, the emergence of strong but potentially contradictory impulses of egocentric defensiveness and social integration. We have also discussed man's evolution as a pinnacle of nature's experiment with behavioural flexibility, tool and weapon handling, as well as the exploration of the possibilities of voluntary memory-recall, culminating in the ability to communicate concepts and ideas with the help of largely arbitrary vocal symbols; speech.

.......

Chapter 4

Content

The road from competitive strife towards social inter-dependence.
A trend that goes far back into the evolution of life; multi-cellular symbiosis.
Behavioural flexibility, and the difficulties for regulating further trends towards social integration.
The living organisation; seen as a "funnel" for the dissipation of a suitable energy-gradient.
The mechanisms of "competitive strife".
Competitive strife is a major inhibitor of growth and reproduction.
Cellular predation; phagocytosis.
Animals and plants.
The sexual mode of reproduction.
The search for new and untapped sources of energy.
Possibilities for complementory or symbiotic existence.
The phenomenon of "entropy".
Only a handful of biochemical pathways survived the stage of the biochemical experiment in the primordial protoplasm.
Symbiosis at a multi-cellular level.
The relevance of the concepts of symbiosis and socialisation for our own existence.
Symbiosis, parasitism and predation.
A delicately balanced web of contradictory factors.
The need for a rigid and effective system of controls.
Difficulties with the design of effective regulators for the societies of mankind.
A symbiotic co-existence of genetic and cultural regulator mechanisms.

Let us now go back and trace, a little more slowly, the transition from competitive existence to mutual inter-dependence and social integration. We have pointed-out, that these trends originated long before the emergence of the human species, and, we may, therefore, consider the behavioural characteristics dealing with the transition to a socially integrated existence, to have a clear-cut genetic or biological foundation.

We will also see, that the increasing reliance by the behaviourally flexible species' on a cultural code for the transmission of viable behaviour-patterns, greatly complicates the development of social regulatory mechanisms, in particular, for the societies of mankind.

We have described the essence of a living system as a continuous "funnel" through which a usable or consumable form of energy is being channeled. The possibility for such a funnel to exist is given by the energy-gradient created by the absorption of solar energy in the form of high-energy electron bonds, and, the funnel becomes, therefore, a pathway through which this energy-gradient is being dissipated.

These ideas have been elaborated before, and, they provide a basis for understanding the reasons, why these funnels tend to coalesce into larger and larger systems, since a large funnel or pathway for the dissipation of energy provides a lower level of resistance to the energy-flow compared to a small funnel or pathway. It is, therefore, more efficient and will be favoured.

The concept of a funnel for the dissipation of an energy-gradient lets us visualise the existence of a "field", or a territory of tributaries around this funnel. This territory, together with its energy-content, "feeds" the funnel of energy-dissipation continuously.

We have also discussed the inherent instability of this living funnel, because of the fragility of its internal biochemical reaction-patterns. One of the basic chracteristics of the living system is the need to channel a certain amount of energy, continuously, through itself in order to maintain a pathway for the dissipation of an energy-gradient.

A living system, or funnel, that receives an insufficient energy-flow disintegrates, because it is unable to prevent the occurrence of "entropy", which is a summarising concept for the dispersive trends of its labile and fragile components. If such a dispersion takes place, the funnel disappears, because it dies and disintegrates, and, the biological energy-gradient has then lost one particular pathway for the dissipation of its energy-potential.

However, if a multitude of funnels exist in close proximity, the territories from which they siphon their energies begin to border on each other, and, we are witnessing, then, the emergence of a state of competitive strife. The most efficient funnel siphons an ever-increasing flow of energy through its system, draining-off the energies from an ever-enlarging territory. It may, literally, starve smaller, less efficient systems in the neighbourhood.

We see this type of competitive existence in our forests, as well as in all vegetative systems, where a dense population of "living funnels" compete fiercely for the available energy. The smaller and weaker systems succumb, eventually, as a result of starvation.

From an early stage in the development of life, we see the principles of competitive strife or existence at work, since the reproduceability of the living systems ensures growth in numbers, as well as size, until limiting factors begin to develop. Very quickly, the availability of biological energy, necessary to maintain living existence, becomes the primary, limiting factor.

The solution to the problem of competitive existence may be found in "dispersion", where the living systems fan-out over an ever larger territory, until they reach the limits of their existence possibilities. Limitations may take the form of encountering more difficult or harsher environmental circumstances. The temperature-range may begin to slide outside the limits that can be tolerated. It may become too cold or too hot. It may become too dry, or, the level or concentration of usable energy may become too low.

Another limiting factor may be the fact, that a living system on its way to disperse, may find, that the area is already occupied by other living systems. In short; competition for the available energy-supplies becomes, quickly, a damper on the trend towards uninhibited growth.

A radical change in the behaviour of competing life-forms takes place very early in evolutionary history. Not only, will the level of competition for the available energy-supplies increase to the point, that the smaller and weaker systems disappear, but, the possibility is being explored, and utilised, to use the existence of other living systems as a source of energy or food.

This is the predatory solution to the problem of competitive existence, which manifests itself on a cellular level as the process of "phagocytosis"; the ingestion of a living cell by another cell.

Throughout the realm of living existence, we see these two principles at work; elimination of a competitor by starvation or by ingestion; by competitive strife or predation. The last solution is the essence of the entire animal kingdom, and, we know, now, that all animals have relinquished the capability to synthesise for themselves their organic requirements with the help of the mechanisms of photo-synthesis. Therefore, all animal life, including the human species, is "obligate-predatory" in nature. This means, that an animal has no choice, but to ingest, or eat, another living system, be it vegetable or animal in nature.

The disappearance of some competitors from the scene, either by starvation or predation, allows further growth and reproduction by the survivors, and, upon this ruthless principle of survival of the fittest organism or group of organisms, the evolutionary development of life has been based. The continuous search for existence possibilities, as well as the slow molding of the genetic code, would not have been possible, if subsequent generations of living species' would not have come from a small, successful, surviving fragment of an existing generation.

In particular after the development of the sexual mode of reproduction, we see, that a living system is represented by a spectrum of genetic combinations, and, the survival of a small segment of this spectrum allows for the accentuation and enhancement of those genetic instructions that equip its owner with the best possible chances for survival.

The existence of a number of identical living systems, or funnels of energy-dissipation, in close proximity leads, quickly, to a balance or equilibrium, since the growth in size and number of these dissipating channels is limited by the energies available in the environment. If such a funnel develops new types of energy-utilisation, it may find a whole new area of possibilities for existence, because it may, then, be possible to tap a source that is not subject to competition from other life-forms.

The evolutionary development of living systems is, indeed, centered around this principle of diversification, since we see, not only, that the most successful living systems can siphon-off, more effectively, the "conventional" energy-sources for which it is in competition with countless other living systems, but, often, a possibility of existence is found by tapping a novel source of energy, or, a source of energy that is available in a harsher, less accessible environment.

In a system of competitive existence, (and, sooner or later, the situation always reverts back to a condition, where a number of living systems are competing with each other), a balance or equilibrium is reached. This equilibrium is reached, in part, by a lowering of the energy-supply, and, partly, by the fact, that a certain level of energy-expenditure is needed to ward-off the competitive pressures from neighbouring systems.

As members who are living in some sort of social environment, we all experience the fact, that a part of the energies we have to spend to sustain ourselves, is represented by the hard work we have to carry-out to extract sufficient food-stuffs from our natural envirnment, but, a significant amount of energy is also absorbed by rivalries, strife and other competitive forms of behaviour. It is, therefore, not surprising, that the search for possibilities of existence has stumbled, very early in the history of evolutionary change, (even before the development of the living cell), upon the possibilities of complementary or symbiotic existence.

In other essays, we have discussed, how the evolution of biochemical reaction-patterns depended on the fact, that an energy-dissipating chain-reaction of biochemical events could exist, only, if complementary reaction-patterns were available in close proximity. A chain-reaction depends on a suitable "donor" of the energy-content, as well as on a suitable "recipient", and, we may, indeed, visualise the biochemical pathway as a slope or gradient, composed of several chemical substances, aligned as a chain along which a quantum of energy can "slide" from a higher to a lower level of energy-potential.

As this quantum of energy slides or jumps over a suitable chain of molecules, a variety of other chemical changes may be able to take place, because these chemcial reactions have, then, found a source of energy to actualise their possibilities of existence.

In short, we clearly see in this somewhat abstract imagery of biochemical evolution, that the existence of a certain substance is often dependent upon the existence of another substance in close proximity. Certainly, if all chemical compounds would be identical, such a complementary function would not be possible, but, if the substances are different, the end-product, or "waste-product", of one compound or series of biochemical transformations may act as a source of energy for an adjacent series of transformations.

A biochemical chain-reaction is, therefore, an example of the possibilities of existence that are created by a close approximation of a number of differing substances, compounds, or entities of existence in a symbiotic relationship.

These ideas have all been elaborated before, and, we have argued, that it seems reasonable to consider the existence of a living cell as a self-duplicating, symbiotic unit of biochemical relationships. The continued existence of such a symbiotic and harmonious entity requires a constant flow of energy. In the absence of such a flow of energy, many labile and fragile substances disappear, because they would "run-down" to their lowest possible energy level. This is the essence of the phenomena of cellular entropy. After a critical stage of entropic disorganisation has been reached, the process becomes irreversible and leads to death and dissolution.

It is, therefore, not surprising to see the possibilities of a symbiotic harmony repeat themselves at the level of cellular systems. If certain cells would have somewhat different requirements and functions, they could make use of each other's end-products, and, they could then develop, together, a more viable way of existing, compared to a situation, where they would exist separately and in competition with each other.

Before we can visualise such a tentative exploration of symbiotic relationships between cellular groupings, we have to postulate, either, a rapid evolutionary divergence of a large number of differing cellular mechanisms, or, we must imagine a rather prolonged period of evolution of similar and, therefore, competitive cells, existing under somewhat varying circumstances. Otherwise, we would not be able to explain the required variety of cellular life-forms. Such a variety of cellular life-forms is necessary, before a symbiotic harmonisation of inter-dependent, but slightly different living organisms, could have taken place.

It seems reasonable to visualise, that an enormously complex and vast bed of biochemical existence possibilities existed during the period of biochemical, pre-cellular evolution. Existence possibilities were being tested randomly, but, the remarkable biochemical similarities from one cellular species to the next, points to the conclusion, that, only a handful of biochemical organisation-patterns were able to secure continuity of existence within the enclosure of the cellular protoplasm.

It is very likely, that the early cellular evolution was, indeed, primarily competitive. The vast protoplasmic primordium from which all these cellular units arose, was slowly transformed into a gigantic sea of competing cells. The mechanisms of competitive existence must have promoted the evolution of huge cellular systems, which were more efficient in siphoning-off the energies from their environment. But as always, a large size has, also, its draw-backs, and, its major liability is its rapid dependence on a large flow of energy. Eventually, the blind search for possibilities of existence must have explored pathways to utilise the debris left over by dying or dead cellular systems.

Whatever multitude of evolutionary pathways may have existed at one time, (and I am convinced that we will continue to speculate about these aspects for a long time to come), we may safely conclude, that, at some time during this evolutionary period, the symbiotic form of cellular existence became a successful and viable "way of life", or, pattern of organisation, as we still see in the remarkable penetration of these multi-cellular life-forms into countless ecological possibilities of existence.

As a human being, we represent a remarkably effective, well-organised, stringently controled community of many billions of cells, which have, for the most part, specialised themselves into a variety of specific organ-systems. We have discussed, before, that such multi-cellular organisms invariably compete with each other in a primitive and, often, predatorial manner, but, there is always a tendency to solve the problems associated with competitive existence through the mechanisms of a state of mutual dependence. This trend represents, then, a form of social integration, or a symbiotic way of existing and functioning together. After all, "symbiosis", means, "living together".

Let us come back, for a moment, to energy considerations. We have seen, that it requires an increasingly larger flow of energy to fulfill energy requirements for competitive life-forms that are growing larger and more numerous. This is due, in part, to an increase in the population density, and, in part, energies are absorbed by the rigors of strife. Translated into human terms, we see a rise in tensions, suspicions, as well as acts of hostility. Then, there is the problem, that the trend towards finding security in a large size, increases, dramatically, the energy requirements of these large, living organisms.

The road towards the solution of inter-dependence and symbiosis comes in view on many different occasions. We all know, intuitively, that we would make life a lot easier for ourselves, if we would be able to cooperate with each other; if we could organise our labours in an efficient and coordinated manner; if we could overcome our suspicions, hostilities and tendencies to retreat into a territorial or defensive attitude.

In a way, the fences around our yards, or, the borders of our communities and nations, are a reflection of the need to stake-out a territory from which we draw our sustenance. We have no clear idea, as yet, why we revert, so easily, to a competitive stance and an attitude of mutual suspicion, and, we seem to be totally unable to avoid devastating wars and internal conflicts, often, depriving thousands of people of the right and possibility to exist.

Before we can answer these questions, we have to go back, once again, to the mechanisms of nature, where we see, that, a symbiotic harmony is often a labile and fragile condition of existence. It is, indeed, a balanced system of contradictory forces, and, if anything disrupts this tenuous and labile balance, we see, that a condition of symbiosis slides quickly into a parasitic, or, even, predatory relationship.

A parasitic relationship is a form of inter-dependence, where the benefits of this relationship are heavily weighted in favour of one party, and, in a predatory relationship, one party has been reduced to the role of being a supply of food for the other. It is clear, that such a role is completely at odds with the existential requirements of this party, and the relationship has, therefore, to be "consumed" by a fight; a hunt, a struggle of life and death.

Nevertheless, a predatory relationship is a powerful solution to the problems of competitive strife and increasing population densities. When seen in the light of the stalemate of competitive existence, it becomes clear, that it forms a break-through for this stalemate, because the existential needs of the hunted party disappear, while the cessation of the existence of the prey fulfills, at the same time, the needs of the predator.

There exists a delicately balanced web of factors within a symbiotic relationship. It is not surprising, that such a balance is easily disturbed, unless kept in check by a carefully controled set of regulatory mechanisms. For example, the lytic capabilities of a phagocytosing cell can easily destroy the cell, whenever a break-down in biochemical defense-mechanisms occurs, and, in the multi-cellular individual, we see, clearly, the disastrous effects of neoplastic disease processes, whenever a cell escapes the still poorly understood control-mechanisms that prevent the unbridled growth and reproduction of cells within a multi-cellular organism.

It is clear, therefore, that a condition of symbiosis needs a rigid system of controls in order to keep this fragile balance intact and useful as a viable way of life, and, we can be sure, without knowing the details of such control-mechanisms, that these controls have been encoded in the genetic structure of such a symbiotic system of cellular or biochemical participants.

This genetic encoding takes place during the search for viable possibilities of existence, and, as we have mentioned on many occasions, the rigorous march of evolutionary developments depends on the successful preservation of this code from one generation to the next, as well as on the ability to modify or adapt this code by the mechanisms of "genetic molding", in a never-ending search for more capable life-forms.

The organisation of our cellular communities, (which are, after all, the essence of our physical existence as a human being), has been inherited as a genetic code, and these organisation patterns are, therefore, beyond the range of behavioural flexibility upon which so much of our viability has come to rest. This means, however, that a successful organisation of the human multi-cellular community, together with its complex and inter-dependent specialisations of the various organ communities, is not sufficient, anymore, to ensure viability. The way this cellular community inter-acts with the living and non-living environment has become an increasingly decisive factor in the equation of viability criteria.

Here, we run into problems, because a loosening of genetic instructions for our behaviour-patterns, means, that the genetic code can only indicate an overall range of viable, large-scale social behaviour. Our genetic coding has been influenced by a long series of social experiments in small tribal or kinship groupings, and, the duration of this natural experiment. as well as the large number of small groupings that participated in this experiment with socialisation, has made it possible to encode genetically, at least, to some extent, the viability characteristics of successful social behaviour in small groupings.

However, the level of cooperation and inter-dependence necessary for the larger human societies to become or remain viable, has not been encoded genetically. Viability criteria for these larger, socially integrated entities of human existence can not have been sharpened into the genetic code, because the number of large social systems that have competed for viability, was too small, and, the time-period of evolutionary experimentation was too short, to have influenced the make-up of the genetic code.

As we have argued before, the viability of the larger social structures of the human being are now determined, exclusively, by cultural factors. These are non-genetically transferred patterns of behaviour, attitudes and beliefs, which have shaped civilisations and have led, either to their growth, rise and vitality, or, to their stagnation, decline and demise.

So, here we are; a specialised and highly organised symbiotic community of living cells, but, as individual members of mankind, we represent a community that has relied, increasingly, on behavioural flexibility to secure its existence. This community of cells has only an outline of genetically encoded instructions for its behaviour at the level of large-scale social integration.

.......

Chapter 5

Content

The human being has a tendency to "slide back" from a symbiotic to a parasitic or predatory mode of existence.
A review of the mechanisms of "hierarchical stratification".
The "test-fight", and the emergence of "natural leadership".
A culturally transmitted code of instructions and regulator mechanisms.
Many cultural instructions represent vague, "sub-verbal" communications.
The "sense of justice" relates to a natural hierarchical position, and is based on personal merit and frequent test-fights.
When social units grow larger, the tasks of leadership become more complex.
The limitations of "natural leadership".
An absence of task-differentiations.
Multi-individual structures of leadership.
The energy-balance between "social splitting" and the tolerance of social tensions; a comparison with spontaneous radio-active decay.
Parallels between cellular growth and reproduction, and, the growth and reproduction of small, socially integrated units of complex, behaviourally flexible animals.
Large-scale social integration, resulting from a scarcity of fertile land.
Internal regulatory mechanisms of the multi-cellular individual are genetically shaped and controled.
Regulatory mechanisms for the larger human societies will have to be shaped by the collective will.
Culturally transmitted criteria of viability.
The importance of the sence of justice.
A de-facto recognition of the mechanisms of "essential equality".
A description of the mechanisms at work.
The weakness of a leadership that depends on the support from a privileged elite.
When a leadership becomes defective.
The need for a smooth transition of power from one leadership to another.
When people live together and cooperate because of fear, most collective and individual potentials lay waste.

The background we have sketched in the previous chapters, should provide us with an insight into the requirements for human leadership, and it is not surprising to note, that, cooperation, inter-dependence and symbiotic relationships are also labile points of existence in any type of social organisation of human beings.

Just as symbiosis on a cellular or biochemical level requires precise and detailed instructions, so does the social integration of multi-cellular individuals require precise and stringent guidelines. In contrast to the precise genetic instructions needed for maintaining a symbiotic equilibrium at a cellular level, the socialisation of human beings can not rely upon genetic instructions, but, it has to depend, largely, on culturally transmitted behavioural guidelines. Because culturally transmitted behaviour-patterns attenuate rapidly, even, within one generation, it is not surprising to see, that successful patterns for social cohesion are scarce and short-lived.

Human beings have a tendency to slide from a symbiotic behaviour into parasitic, or, even, predatory reaction-patterns. This type of behaviour is sometimes directed towards members of the same community, because, as soon as an individual fails to recognise the need for a socially responsible way of life, his egocentric instincts will tempt him to take advantage of the people in his environment. This advantage-taking may range from subtle and incipient attitudes of elitism, to a systematic exploitation of the weaker segments of the population, leading to a parasitic dependence of the elite upon the labours of the lower classes.

In a way, we see, once again, that the mechanisms of hierarchical stratification are playing a role, here, and, we should review, briefly, the mechanisms that lie behind hierarchical positioning. We have discussed the basic aspects of competitive existence, as shown in the behaviour-patterns of dispersion and territoriality, but, with the emergence of inter-dependent relationships and a recognition of the need to work together, the density of the population begins to increase, and, consequently, territorial instincts have to be suppressed, at least, to some extent.

In stead of an all-out fight when individuals encroach upon each other's territory, a weaker individual may yield to a stronger one, who then takes over the territories of those who submit to him. In exchange, the stronger individual assumes the role of a leader. He defends the enlarged territory against intruders and protects those, who have submitted their territories.

However, if more than one individual has submitted his territory to a leader, those under the jurisdiction of a leader will experience a measure of competitive strife, and, as a result, a "hierarchy", or order of importance, is established by a series of "test-fights", which is, in essence, a test of character and strength. The leader will always suppress an all-out fight between the members of his grouping, because this could lead to injury and death, but, skirmishes occur frequently. Eventually, the group settles into a fairly stable pattern of behaviour, where each member knows, intuitively or empirically, whom he or she can dominate, and whom he or she has to yield to.

Almost all animal groupings show such a hierarchical stratification, especially, if they have been experimenting with the advantages of cooperative behaviour-patterns, and, even, in the smaller and more primitively organised social units of man, such a hierarchical stratification takes place, largely, beyond the conscious awareness of the members themselves.

The manifestations of hierarchical stratification are extremely varied. We see groupings with a loosely organised and somewhat transient leadership, as well as social units, where a large number of individuals have been stratified into classes. A cultural code of customs, attitudes and beliefs is transmitted from one generation to the next, and, often, this code has been shaped by a series of complex factors, (such as the historical events and contacts of a community), which, eventually determine the character of this social unit, as well as the organisation of its leadership.

We have discussed, on many occasions, the enormously varied cultural aspects of human social environments, and, we have discussed the reasons, why this diversity plays such an important role in the mechanisms of cultural transmission. This diversity is, largely, a result of man's evolutionary history, which has placed an extra-ordinary emphasis on the possibilities, and liabilities, of behavioural flexibility. We have also traced the development of language-communication and belief structures, and, we have concluded, that these trends were logical results of a behavioural mode, whose potential arose from the loosening of the genetic instructions, together with a tolerance for behavioural flexibility.

Man is, therefore, a creature that has come to rely, increasingly, on a culturally transmitted mode or code of behaviour. Because most, if not all these mechanisms seem to play a role beyond or below the level of verbalisable awarenesses, the conscious input from our collective or individual decision-making processes into the cutural code, is still remarkably limited.

During the more complex social environments of the last few thousand years, it has finally dawned on man, that, some of the guidelines regulating the inter-actions between individuals in society have become an essential factor in the search for peaceful co-existence and social harmony. We see, then, a conscious and more deliberate formulation of such guiding principles. These take the form of "laws" conveying a sense of justice to the members and the various sub-groupings of society.

If we follow the earlier processes of socialisation a little more closely, we see, that, quickly, problems arose, whenever a social grouping began to increase its size. The mechanisms of hierarchical stratification became more complex as the membership enlarged, and, therefore, challenges to the leadership became more frequent. The tasks of leadership became more complex and demanding, since an ever greater amount of energy and attention had to be focussed on internal conflicts, test-fights and other points of friction.

There is a limit to the energy and attention a leader can give, and, there is also an important limitation in the powers of grasp and recognition for a leader and his subjects. We have outlined, before, how important the function of recognition is in shaping the institutions of leadership, and, we will, here, only summarise these ideas, briefly.

If we think about it, it becomes obvious, that a successful organisation of a number of competing individuals into a social unit of inter-dependence, depends on the ability of each member to know the characteristics and relative strength of each member, and, it depends, therefore, on the ability of each member to recognise his or her position within the hierarchical order. With an enlarging membership, this task becomes increasingly more difficult and the social structure becomes tense, ready to fragment, just like an atomic nucleus with too many elementary particles is ready to burst asunder in a process of spontaneous radio-active fission.

If there is a relative abundance of unused and unoccupied land around such an expanding social nucleus, the solution to the problem of increasing population pressures is found in a "splitting" of this social nucleus. A new leader emerges, and, he takes a part of the membership with him in his quest to build his own social grouping or "empire", especially, when his leadership ambitions are not satisfied in the existing social unit. Under these circumstances, the energies required to contain tensions and maintain a large social grouping, begins to exceed the energies needed to cope with the challenge of establishing a new social nucleus, from scratch, in a neighbouring territory.

As always, energy relationships seem to determine, to a large extent, what is happening within a living system, and, these mechanisms apply to human societies as well, in spite of the complex and often contradictory motivations that seem to defy, on occasion, the laws of energy-gradients.

Here, we have another, remarkable parallel between the processes of cellular growth and reproduction, on the one hand, and, those of a biologically organised, small social grouping of multi-cellular individuals, on the other.

It is fairly certain, that the major spur towards the establishment of much larger human societies occurred, when a relative scarcity developed of easily inhabited areas, such as fertile river-valleys. The population pressures began to build, since the usual route of social splitting and tribal dispersion became much more difficult. Man had to learn to handle the increasingly complex problems associated with governing a much larger society, and, this challenge to man's capabilities of innovative leadership, paid-off in a remarkable spurt of cultural developments. These developments are grouped-together as the achievements of the "early civilisations" at the beginning of recorded history.

Just as the successful, multi-cellular communities developed a trend towards increasing inter-dependence, so began the larger human societies to develop an increasing inter-dependence of their members. This took the form of an increased specialisation in function, as well as a vast increase in the number of "economic activities", but, it also led to a more elaborate "nervous system" for the leadership institutions in society. These leadership institutions became the governing bodies of a large and complex society, together with their executive branches, the bureaucracies.

We will not elaborate on these parallels, here, because we have done so before, but, we should examine one parallel in some detail. Once a living system develops a large range of behavioural options, as well as the capability to analyse the stimuli and sense impressions of the environment in considerable detail, the organism develops a strong dependence on the functions of careful analysis and accurate evaluation. At the same time, the ability to monitor the effects of a behavioural response becomes also more important, because this ability allows the next phase of an on-going response to be shaped more precisely and appropriately.

Here we have the essence of the function of leadership, and, we understand, now, better, why we, as individual human beings, have to provide efficient leadership to this cellular community, which is, after all, our own organism.

While we rely on biologically shaped mechanisms for the internal regulation of this cellular community, (as well as on innate behaviour-patterns for inter-actions with the environment), we are, nevertheless, becoming aware of the fact, that our overall and long-term viability as a multi-cellular organism depends upon the ability to formulate a conscious, well thought-out and deliberate behavioural response within a large-scale social organisation of many hundreds of millions of human beings.

We give leadership to the entity of our organism, because we shape our behaviour with our will, insights and knowledge, and, in this sense, there is a striking parallel with the input of our collective will, when shaping the communal response of our social environment.

There is, however, also a marked difference, since none of the organisational channels or structures of government are biologically "given" to our society. They are genetically "given" to our organism in the form of a central nervous system. The role of our conscious, collective will is, therefore, of the utmost importance in the construction of the organisational channels of our society; this multi-individual organism of co-existence, which, surreptitiously, begins to take-over the ultimate criteria of viability for each and everyone of us.

While personal leadership for the well-being of our own organism does not have to concern itself with the problems of co-existence between the various cellular communities that make-up our body, social leadership functions have to concern themselves, a great deal, with the reasons for, and the effects of, dispersive and fragmenting trends within society. For this reason, the accent of truly successful social leadership has always been on an accurate, if intuitive, perception of the requirements for internal harmony.

This means, that a successful social leadership has solved, in a pragmatic way, a majority of internal tensions, and, this includes an effective solution for the problems that concern our "sense of justice". This sense of justice has to be satisfied, at least, for a majority of the members in a social unit, and, we should analyse, in more detail, how this sense of justice came-about, and, what means are available to solve the problems which this sense of justice brings with it.

We have to go back, once again, to the transition of a hierarchical system to a system of social organisation that incorporates the ideas of "essential equality". This is, in all aspects, a truly remarkable social transformation, which seems to abandon a sound biological foundation of hierarchical stratification. However, we will come to the conclusion, that, first of all, the mechanisms of essential equality were already fore-shadowed in the mechanisms of inter-dependence within the multi-cellular organism. In addition, the replacement of hierarchical jockeying by a concept of essential equality in matters of existential concerns, is, really, the only way to overcome the severe limitations associated with governing a sizeable social grouping fairly and competently. These limitations remain so obviously a major stumbling block, whenever society remains founded upon biologically given patterns of hierarchical ordening.

The development of the concepts of justice and essential equality must rank as one of man's most valuable and far-reaching conceptual creations upon which most of the cultural developments of mankind's civilisations have come to rest. When a society of human beings becomes much larger than the dozen or so members of a natural social unit, the mechanisms of hierarchical positioning become increasingly cumbersome, and, to some extent, meaningless. The differences of the hierarchical positions become slight and insignificant, at least, for a large majority of the members, and, in a stroke of clever, if intuitive, insight, the conclusion suggests itself to abolish the differences in hierarchical status all-together. This can be done through a conscious and collective pact or agreement of essential equality.

Probably, the development towards essential equality in hierarchical position had another source of origin, because it is obvious, that the leadership had to deal with many members on a more or less equal footing, if it wanted to avoid disruptive jealousies and emotions of envy. A practical, or "de facto" recognition of the equality of a large portion of the membership had already taken place in the fairly large groupings of socially integrated human beings, and, this pact of essential equality became, primarily, a recognition of the status-quo.

The sense of justice finds its origin in the subconscious evaluation by an individual of the position he or she occupies in society. If an individual feels, that he is not treated in accordance with his own feelings of self-worth, there will be an emotion of resentment or anger, which may be muted to frustration and despair, whenever it is impossible to change or improve the treatment one is getting.

If an individual is lowered in status because of a punishment, the sense of justice may not have been wounded, because such a punishment may have been accepted as fair and deserved. The same applies to a position of slavery after having been captured during a war. There may be a sense of gratitude, at least, initially, for the fact that life has been spared, but, the following generations, born into a position of slavery, but endowed with a healthy vitality, will feel, increasingly, a sense of injustice about the vagaries of misfortune; of having been born into slavery. Eventually, their sense of justice will be strongly offended, and a rebellious effort will be made to break the bonds of slavery.

The sense of justice may also be affronted when an individual observes, how others increase their position of power and influence by the practice of flattery, bribery or nepotism. One feels, then, intuitively, that an advance in status or privilege is not the result of merit, but, that it is due to an arbitrary favouring of some individuals by the leadership.

Often, a leadership does not even recognise that it practices favouritism, because, so often, the elevation of certain "trusted" individuals into a position of prominence becomes a deliberate contract between the leadership and its loyal followers. This is usually considered "normal practice". This pact benefits, not only, those who are favoured, but, also, the leadership, because it is now surrounded and protected by trusted and, often, armed protegees.

However, anyone in a position of leadership should be able to recognise the essential weakness of a position that has been based on the artificial loyalty of favoured protegees or a privileged elite. Such an artificial bolstering of the leadership position creates widespread resentment and dissent, and, it becomes, eventually, untenable.

While the aggressive confidence and exuberance of a leadership candidate brought a particular personality to its position of prominence, loyalties may change quickly. Challengers are waiting in the wings, looking for a moment of weakness, and, the need to make decisions offends, invariably, some members of society, because some of these decisions will turn-out to have been wrong or to have an undesired or unjust side-effect.

The pressures and tensions of a leadership position in a complex society, sap the energies of even the most vigorous leader, and, it is perfectly natural, that a leader becomes, eventually, defensive. In particular, when there are no provisions for an honourable way to step-down from a leadership position, a tired and frightened leader has, often, no choice, but to entrench himself with an attitude of ruthless intolerance, together with a rule of rigid tyranny, making a change in leadership, eventually, the primary cause for a bloody, internal challenge or revolt.

It is perfectly natural and understandable, but it is not justifiable in view of modern insights, that a leadership is tempted to use its powers to suppress opposition and criticism, because these activities are so easily perceived as subversive or treacherous. We all know, from a glance at history, how the records of the past reveal a horrifying and unimaginable succession of assassinations and intrigues as a result of the lust for power, or, as a result of a frantic search for security by a beleaguered and entrapped leader.

While the concepts of justice and essential equality are certainly one of the most precious innovations of the conscious human mind, we have rarely been able to shape a series of guidelines allowing for the election of a truly representative leadership, and, allowing, at the same time, a smooth and gracious transition of power, as soon as the members have lost confidence in the current leadership.

Too many societies still function at a brutal and primitive level, where the position of leadership is obtained and maintained by force. This makes it inevitable that a leadership will suppress dissent and opposition by brutal means, such as exile, internment or execution.

We do not realise, as yet, that the reasons for being under-developed, backward or poor, are, often, not so much a reflection of economic difficulties, but are more likely the result of a low level of public awareness and a primitive form of social leadership.

How can you expect a society to function well, if large segments of its population are locked-out from the political and economic processes, or, if inter-actions have been frozen into a state of tension and mistrust by an unjust and arbitrary rule? How can you expect people to develop a sense of urgency about the need to cooperate with each other and develop their society, when the next coup d'etat may mean a sudden loss of security, prestige or life? How can we expect people to excercise their powers of reason and fore-sight, if they are continuously living in fear and mistrust?

When people live together and cooperate only out of fear, they live in a primitive, anxious and defensive frame of mind, and, large areas of their psychological and physical potentials lay waste.

.......

Chapter 6

Content

The outlines for a just and durable social leadership.
A short review of topics that have been discussed.
The pitfalls of elitist attitudes when excercising leadership responsibilities.
A firm voice of education, but, we also need efficient mechanisms to let the voices of criticism and dissent be heard.
The need to shape individual behaviour in a social context.
Why it is difficult to distinguish between beneficial and detrimental trends in the individualisation of people.
There is no true freedom without discipline and self-discipline, and there is no social strength without individual freedoms.
A close look at the aspirations for independence.
The difference between righting a wrong of the past, and, an elitist search for privilege, when aspiring for autonomy.
The misconceptions of elitist attitudes.
We all can learn what is right and wrong, and, what are sensible leadership attitudes and decisions.
The need to teach the basic mechanisms of the living organisation.
The mechanisms of socialisation; a solution to the problems of competitive existence.
Some of the problems of "free-enterprise".
The merger of workers into unions, and, the fusion of small businesses into large conglomerates.
Free-enterprise ideas linger-on as a beacon for egocentric dreams and ambitions.
Re-discovering the essential features of the social solution.

So far, we have sketched some of the theoretical background that is necessary to keep in mind, before we can begin to outline our ideas for a durable and just, large-scale social leadership. We have seen, that, even, the basic outline of such a leadership-structure is strongly influenced by the concepts we have about ourselves and our social environment. It is logical, that we can not agree amongst ourselves, what sort of a leadership we should have, if we can not agree about the nature of our existence and the role of our societies.

We have emphasised the idea, that, the grouping-together of human beings in some sort of a social unit, be it small or large, is, in essence, based upon the recognition, that the ease of existence and viability of each member may be enhanced by an attitude of cooperation, specialisation in function, and inter-dependence in existential requirements.

We have also outlined the ever-present temptation for a powerful segment in a large society to exploit and oppress a weaker segment, especially, when the process of social splitting and dispersion into the surrounding territories has become nearly impossible.

Finally, there is the replacement of the hierarchical order by the concept of essential equality. Unfortunately, this is a fragile and labile social condition that slides, with an apparent inevitability, into various forms of class-division or elitist congregation.

We have discussed the fact, that leadership is, in essence, a conscious and deliberate choice of behaviour, centered around the interests of a community. This community may be a cellular organisation such as our own body, and, we have elaborated the functions of leadership we have to perform as individual people, when guiding our own lives. We saw, also, that every social grouping requires leadership, as it searches for the most advantageous response or course of action.

This means, of course, that every leadership may fall into the temptation to consider its own interests, or, the interests of the social segment from which it has come forth, as more important than the interests of other segments of the social unit. However, such a narrowing of the focus of interest bankrupts, immediately, the usefulness and legitimacy of the leadership. These attitudes create tensions of injustice and feelings of alienation, which, eventually, lead to revolt and a reactionary suppression of civil liberties by a beleaguered leadership.

Especially, when leadership positions are obtained by force, or, predominantly by force, the chances that the leadership will be beneficial for the community as a whole, are slim, because such a leadership comes forth from a segment that is, invariably, elitist in its outlook. It is elitist, because it regards itself as the strongest and most important segment of society.

Yet, let us also emphasise the fact, that social unity requires a measure of discipline and law-enforcement. Because the need for social cohesion disappears, so quickly, from the memory and insights of many people, we need a system of education and cultural guidelines, which keeps alive, at least, for a number of successive generations, the reasons, why society was formed in the first place. It should keep alive an appreciation for whatever the society has contributed to the overall viability of each member and each sub-grouping, as well as an appreciation for the direction our fore-fathers wanted society to develop.

This is the cultural or non-genetic transmission of a package of behavioural guidelines, and, this package contains the crux of continuing viability for the larger societies, provided, that this cultural heritage is flexible enough to adapt to changing circumstances and insights, yet, rigid enough to prevent a chaotic fragmentation of society into warring factions.

We have to accept the fact, that there will always be certain limitations for individual behaviour-patterns. There has to be a clear distinction between those trends of individualisation that are nothing more than a short-sighted, egocentric and negative expression of our basic anxieties, (characterised by the temptation to grab power and privileges at the expense of others), and, those individualising trends representing a blooming or unfolding of talents and capabilities. These talents and capabilities are fostered by the security of communal existence, fertilised by an eager and perceptive appreciation or re-interpretation of the meaning of life, and, eventually, if indirectly, these talents and capabilities will make a contribution to the quality of life for everyone.

This distinction is not easy to make, and, every sophisticated and democratic society has to grapple with these problems. On the one hand, we see a bland endorsement of the virtues of human freedoms and rights, (oblivious to the fact, that many individualistic trends are detrimental to the unity of society, as well as the sense of justice for many people), and, on the other hand, we see a fearful suppression of the powers of thought and criticism, in the mistaken belief, that, unquestioned and unchallenged acceptance of cultural and ideological values will lead to a true and enthousiastic understanding of, and support for, the existing cultural and ideological guidelines.

Therefore, this crucial distinction between harmful and beneficial individualising trends has to be made. There can be no true freedom to exploit possibilities of talent and circumstance, unless guided and disciplined to make use of the available opportunities in a socially responsible manner. There can be no healthy society, unless it recognises the stifling influence of dogmatic indoctrination and the suppression of the faculties of criticism and evaluation.

There can not be any valuable long-term goals, unless we learn, individually and communally, that it may be necessary to forego short-term satisfactions. This requires, not only, insight and a clear head, but, also, the will-power to control the drive for immediate gratification.

There is no viable human existence without a great deal of self-discipline, a large number of behavioural guidelines, as well as a sustained and honest effort to maintain, and cautiously modify, those cultural guidelines that seem to provide a solid foundation for the survival of the societies of mankind.

The principles of essential equality, as well as the right to provide an equal input to, and receive an equal treatment from, the leadership, is the cause of a great deal of anxiety to established leadership institutions and the dominant segments of society, because aspirations for a greater degree of say, or autonomy, by various powerful sub-groupings in society, is, so often, interpreted as "subversive".

Certainly, if the main motivation of a powerful sub-grouping clamoring for autonomy or independence, would be a narrow, egocentric elitism, wanting to keep the natural resources for itself and refusing to share its wealth with the rest of society, then, we have a dangerous and unjust tendency to separatism on our hands. However, if the desire for autonomy goes back to a historically understandable feeling of having been treated unjustly, then, such a trend is reasonable, and, it may be justified to give such a region or ethnic grouping a great deal of self-rule, so that its people may become equal partners in a truly just federation.

Let us not be afraid, when many traditional political units begin to break-up, because we may see, only, the surfacing of tensions that have been around for a long time, and, we may be witnessing an equalisation of peoples and ethnic groupings, as well as a restoration of the sense of justice, and, not necessarily, an elitist form of separatism.

If we do not believe in the principles of equality in justice, opportunity and standards of living for everyone, we will, of course, subscribe to an elitist form of government, tacitly identifying ourselves with the segment of society from which the leadership should come. However any elitist leadership, regardless, how altruistically motivated, is based on a gross misconception. It is based on the misconception, that there are certain people or groups of people within society, who could be trained to become superior leaders, to the exclusion of other people or groupings within the social environment.

The scientific concepts about the omni- or pluri-potentiality of each normal and healthy human infant, shows us, clearly, that the variability in talent is often slight and insignificant, while the accidents of encounter and personal history determine, to a large extent, the outline of a human personality.

We all have some qualities that may be called-upon as a leadership duty, and, there is no doubt, that we all can be sufficiently educated to make a few sensible decisions about what is right or wrong; what is beneficial, and, what is harmful to ourselves or other people.

Fortunately, most people are eager and willing to learn and believe what their leaders tell them, and, they can, therefore, be guided towards an attitude of high moral principles and self-discipline, but, they can also be goaded, by unscrupulous merchants of excitement and pleasure, or, by narrow-minded and deceitful leaders, to think only about themselves; or, to embark upon an ill-advised adventure that leads towards a path of reckless social and individual decline.

If the people of modern, affluent societies are selfish and hedonistic, confused and anxious pleasure-seekers, we have to place the responsibility for such a deterioration of public attitudes squarely upon the inadequacy of our leadership institutions, because they have allowed society and its members to drift into such an unhealthy way of life.

As soon as we recognise the fact, that the purpose of socialisation is to substitute the mechanisms of competitive strife with cooperation, inter-dependence and task specialisation, we will also come to the conclusion, that the philosophical principles of an unbridled free-enterprise system are destructive and incompatible with the existence of a healthy social unit.

The theory of free-enterprise is based on the assumption, that a free and open competition between individuals marketing a commodity, a service or a skill, will lead to the most economical and best quality product. In theory, this may hold true for the initial phases of the free-enterprise mechanisms, but this system leads quickly to imbalances and divergences between people and differentiates them into classes of wealth, power and privilege.

Those, who are less successful, will quickly become dependent upon, and enslaved to, those, who are more successful, and, if a society allows the accumulation of capital and property into the hands of a few groups or individuals, society will, quickly, fragment into a small, powerful and ruling elite, exploiting the labours and efforts of an impoverished majority.

We do not have to look far back into history to see what happened, when the theory of free-enterprise was applied. Look at the working conditions at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. It became soon apparent, that the power of the individual worker when negotiating a price for his labours, was no match for the powers of the industrialist. The individual worker became, quickly, dependent on a regular cash-income as he moved to the cities, while the industrialist could easily replace a worker unwilling or unable to work under the conditions determined by the employer.

Free competition between the workers, meant, that there were always others, who were eager to work. The first crack in the theory of free-enterprise occurred, when the workers had no choice but to band together in unions, forming organisations that could bargain, collectively, with the industrial employer, because this was the only way to match, at least, to some extent, the powers of the freely enterprising industrialist.

The second crack in the theory of free-enterprise came, when the large industrial enterprises began to choke and weed-out the smaller firms, in a perfect parallel of nature's ruthless process of competitive strife and the elimination of the weaker members.

With the concentration of industrial and marketing powers into the hands of a few, large industrial conglomerates, the practical reality of a truly free-enterprise system has been virtually destroyed. These ideas linger-on as a beacon of egocentric hope and ambition, feeding selfish expectations in the vigorous members of an affluent society.

We still do not recognise the fundamental contradictions that are inherent in a concept that sees society, on the one hand, as a healthy social unit, and, on the other, as an arena for ruthlessly competing human beings.

Our modern, Capitalistic, pseudo free-enterprise societies are a good example of what happens, when a social philosophy loses sight of the fundamental reasons, why a society exists in the first place. These societies are an illuminating, but tragic, example of the processes of internal decay and fragmentation, caused, largely, by a faulty philosophy and the harmful concentration of political power, wealth and military might in the hands of special-interests groups.

These modern, affluent, Capitalist societies are a perfect example of the corrupting influence of large commercial interests, which have, for decades, now, monopolised the mass-media with a message of short-sighted, hedonistic consumerism, as well as the virtues of a narrow, egocentric gratification of desires and pleasures. Yet, these affluent, hedonistic and consumerist societies linger-on and continue to exist, because their ideological rivals and alternatives, the Socialist models of social organisation, have their own specific difficulties and serious short-comings.

.......

Chapter 7

Content

A compromise between the ideals of Socialism and the objectives of Free-enterprise.
Is it possible to keep a society together, while tolerating fierce dissent or free-enterprise initiatives?
A careful balance between the needs of the many, and those of the individual.
Insights into commonly shared existential needs may provide a solid basis for the mechanisms of inter-dependence.
Maintaining an attitude of trust and openness.
Success does not have to be measured in wealth, power or affluence.
It is an admission of utter failure in our efforts to create a just society, if we take power away from the leadership and give it to enterprising individuals.
It is also an admission of failure, if we cope with dissent and frustration by force and exile, or a suppression of the freedom of speech.
The value of thinking, questioning and criticising, while searching for a viable way of life in essential equality and justice.
The relativity of truth.
No freedoms without responsibilities and restrictions, and, no viable social unit without the freedoms of criticism and dissent.
An ideology is weak, if it can not refute its critics with sound arguments.
The role of Contitutional Guidelines.
The potential for evolving into a social entity with global dimensions.

We will not be able to develop a truly just and viable society with a competent and efficient leadership structure, as long as we do not recognise the fundamentally fragmenting effects of an economic system that has been based upon the philosophy of free-enterprise. Yet, neither should we jump, unthinkingly, on the band-wagon of centrally regulated economies, because they, too, have failed to recognise important features of social and individual human existence.

The doctrines of Socialism still look, by and large, with a great deal of suspicion and mistrust upon the manifestations of individualisation and dissent, especially, when questions and concepts challenge the official, absolute truths of Marxist doctrines.

You may wonder, whether it is possible to bring-about a fusion, or a compromise, between the rival models of Socialism and Free-enterprise. You may wonder, how it is possible to leave a measure of freedom of thought and action to the members of society, and yet, avoid the apparently unavoidable effects of class-division and social fragmentation.

You may wonder, how it is possible to keep a society together and develop, confidently, a sense of direction, without suppressing dissent and forcefully "re-educating" those, who "err" and stray from the official social doctrines. You may wonder, how it is possible to avoid an elitist grouping of the ideological faithfull, whenever a society adheres so strictly to rigid conceptual guidelines.

Certainly, there will always be difficulties that have to be solved. There will always be a need to re-think the value of our directives and goals, but, there is no reason to believe, that we have to fail in our efforts to construct a widely persuasive image of human existence; an imagery that transcends any existing cultural or ideological structure.

There is good reason to believe, that the solution to the problems of designing a durable social system, as well as a competent and beneficial leadership, will come from a careful balance between the needs of individual members, and, the needs of the community as a whole.

There is good reason to believe, that an insight into the shared biological drives to live and unfold potentials, can povide a basis for cooperation and inter-dependence on a basis of essential equality. There is every reason to believe, that we will, eventually, recognise the fact, that any attempt to take advantage of others, destroys this vital atmosphere of trust and good-will.

There are good reasons to acknowledge the energy-dynamics of living existence, and, to recognise, that, every position of privilege and advantage becomes, eventually, a source of injustice, because it means, that others will have to do with less.

Why would it not be possible to apply our drive to excel and develop our potentials to the tasks and challenges of responsible leadership, rather than the accumulation of wealth and power? Why should success have to mean a sumptuous standard of living, rather than a sense of gratitude or admiration for a task that has been competently executed for the sake of communal well-being?

It is a gross error to believe, that success has to be measured in wealth and assets, since this drive is, in the final analysis, a perversion of the normal drive to become a well accepted and respected member of society. The drive to acquire the powers of personal wealth is, in essence, the result of a long-standing indoctrination in the belief, that society is a battleground for competitive strife. This attitude is, essentially, anti-social, because it contributes to the polarisation and fragmentation of society.

Why should it be the privilege of a small group of merchants to determine, what we consume, how we spend our resources, or, how we pollute our environment? Why should we allow ourselves to be enslaved by our consumerist instincts, which have been stimulated by the commercial interests of wealthy, free-enterprising people? The rate of consumption, the standard of living, the level of education, the fruits of our labours, the security of our existence, the quality of our environment, as well as the attitudes of trust and cooperation, are all matters of concern to the society as a whole, and, they are, therefore, the primary concern of an overall, polititical leadership.

Social leadership has to concern itself with the interests of all members, collectively and individually, and, it is not sufficient to dismiss the idea of an all-embracing political leadership by pointing-out the many inadequacies of our contemporary governing bureaucracies. We are certainly not going to solve the problems of collective viability by giving ever more powers to large economic enterprises in the hope, that they will wipe-out unemployment and provide sufficient tax-revenues.

We admit failure as a society, if we turn-away from our leadership structures and give more powers to the forces of free-enterprise, because we are, then, accelerating the processes of social decay and fragmentation. It is also an admission of failure, if we hide defensively behind an elitist attitude of ideological righteousness, because we will understand progressively less of the forces of dissent and frustration.

Let us try to sketch a leadership structure that is based upon an understanding of the relativity of truth, the common bonds of our biological heritage, as well as the delicate balance between individual and communal interests. These three factors are so important to give each member and sub-grouping a sense of belonging, as well as an incentive to be trustful and cooperative.

I am convinced, that the primary responsibility of leadership and good citizenship has to be the task of maintaining and adapting the "cultural code". This code represents a set of concepts, customs and attitudes, which provides an insight into the reasons for our existence, as well as the mechanisms of viability, for individuals and social groupings alike. We have to teach, convey, or, even, indoctrinate ourselves, and our children, to the point, that we know what rights and responsibilities we have as citizens of our society, and, as actualised members of the species of mankind.

I do not want to suggest, that we all have to believe the same or act the same, but, I am convinced, that it is necessary to have a core of agreement and understanding amongst ourselves. I do not suggest, for one moment, that the formulation and teaching of a cultural core of conceptual and behavioural guidelines has to stifle thought, questioning, or, even, dissent; on the contrary, as a central part of teaching a viable cultural core, we should emphasise the value of thoughts, questions and criticisms, and, we should always encourage debate and a serious exchange of ideas.

This is the only way we can begin to understand ourselves and our environment. We do not, and can not, understand an idea, unless we learn to examine it, digest it, test it, criticise and discuss it. Neither do we learn, nor do we understand, if we get the impression, that our teachers do not want to listen to our evaluations, objections, questions or criticisms.

The central core of a viable cultural heritage will have to include a well thought-out view of man's origins and behavioural characteristics, and, in my view, it is inescapable, that we come to a relativistic interpretation of the truth. It is unavoidable, that, eventually, our thoughts and beliefs will be recognised as a commonly and communally constructed tool for the guidance of our behaviour; based on the biological constants of our existence; forged, tested and molded by the cultural possibilities of our social environment.

We are not going to remove the tensions of competitive strife all-together from society or individual existence, and, we will certainly not be able to manage these tensions efficiently or confidently, if we interpret our egocentric anxieties as "sinful" or "reactionary". Neither are we going to solve the tensions of co-existence at close quarters, by promising every member an illusory utopia of unlimited individual rights, an unbridled freedom of enterprise, or, a complete freedom to slander and accuse as we see fit.

Certainly, it should never be necessary to correct or suppress ideas or thoughts with force, violence or imprisonment, since such actions violate, not only, essential rights of individual existence, but, these archaic practices also lend credence to erroneous ideas. Every society should have the intellectual and emotional resources to combat ideas that are perceived to be erroneous or detrimental, with the tools of debate and logical argument.

An ideology would, indeed, be very weak, if it is unable to refute an erroneous argument convincingly and decisively. Whenever an apparently alien and frightening idea does find a surprising level of response or resonance, the society and its leadership will do well to examine, carefully, the merits of what appears so wrong, yet so appealing.

Nevertheless, a society and its leadership have to be vigilant, watching carefully for attitudes of laxity and unconcern, whenever errors and injustices begin to creep into the social metabolism. Eventually, we have to define our beliefs and attitudes as a range of tolerances within which we may experiment and search for the most viable mode of existence. This approach would mirror, closely, the methods of the genetic code, where the exploration of a range of possibilities has also been set by the limits of genetic variability and compatibility.

There will always be a search for refinement in the adataptive response to prevailing circumstances, and, the tools of ideas and attitudes are part of such an adaptative response, because we have to cope with ever-changing, and, probably, ever more difficult circumstances of existence.

Leadership means, the excercise of crafting a careful behavioural choice, in order to satisfy long-term viability objectives, as well as the well-being of individuals and social units that exist at the present time.

Leadership decisions will have to be guided by a set of guidelines that determine the tolerance or variability of social development. This range of tolerable variability will be set by Constitutional Guidelines, which will formulate, not only, guidelines for maintaining a sense of social justice and efficient leadership institutions, but, they should, eventually, guide every aspect of human life.

We will, eventually, have Constitutional Guidelines that regulate all aspects of human existence, such as living standards, economic developments, fiscal policies, the structure and growth of bureaucracies, the extent of public input into elections and on-going decision-making processes.

The tasks and responsibilities that will, eventually, be placed upon the leadership, the Constitution, as well as the governing structures and the electorate itself, will be gigantic, and, we should outline some ideas to make sure, that such tasks are carried-out efficiently, fairly and, above all, openly.

We live in an era of mistrust and suspicion, and, many of us will find it difficult to believe, that it is possible to construct such sweeping and all-encompassing, governing and regulatory mechanisms. Many of us have no idea, how a governing body and its bureaucracy could ever be so efficient, that it could carry-out all these functions to the satisfaction of nearly everyone.

We have outlined, on previous occasions, how such an objective can be accomplished, and, we will, here, only briefly summarise these lines of thought. First of all, let us agree, that, eventually, all these aspects of communal and individual concern have to be dealt with efficiently, in order for society to remain a viable unit. No multi-cellular organism has ever survived for any length of time, unless it developed a clear-cut and efficient method of coordinating the activities of its cellular members.

In the world of animal existence, the requirement of obtaining a suitable energy-source became the foundation for a set of complex and skilled behavioural activities, and, a central nervous system was developed by the mechanisms of natural selection in order to secure the ability of executing beautifully coordinated movements and efficient behavioural responses.

We have traced, before, the many fruitful insights we can obtain from examining the capabilities of a central nervous system, but, we also have to take into account the many differences between the nervous system of an animal organism and the bureaucratic channels of a human society. Unless we keep these differences and similarities clearly in mind, it will be difficult to translate observations and interpretations successfully to the task of organising socially integrated human existence on a global scale.

.......

Chapter 8

Content

Learning from the lean and efficient leadership structures of multi-national corporations.
Close parallels with the central nervous system.
Computerised information, assisted by a number of audio-visual techniques for an efficient display of information.
The possibilities for education, decision-making and insight are still beyond our comprehension.
There is no need to fear the instruments of computerised knowledge and information.
Transparence; the ability to document a fact, and dispell rumors and suspicions.
The availability of a continuously up-dated profile of our societies, as well as the world around us.
The importance of reliable summarising, classifying and generalising techniques for maintaining a grasp over reality.
Monitoring the effects of our actions and decisions.
No fear for transparence, as long as it is a two-way street.
Mutual trust can only survive and thrive in an atmosphere of complete openness and access to all information.
Looking for the existence of a bias or prejudice.
There will inevitably be shifts in interpretation as circumstances change.
Openness and insight will help us to recognise circumstances, when we are likely to harm, inadvertently, the interests or sensitivities of other people.
Many potentials for individual development are made possible by a stable and large-scale social environment.
Shelter and stimulation in early life are needed for the unfolding of potentials.
Specialised existence possibilities only "make sense" in a stable, sophisticated and differentiated society.
Feeling comfortable with a large measure of freedom and responsibility.
Defining the limits of individual freedom and variability.
The social solution will continue to unfold, until we have become a healthy, stable society with global dimensions.

There is another example, where we can examine the features of an efficient leadership with competent channels of communication. This example is, perhaps, somewhat more accessible than the structure of a central nervous system.

The existential pressures upon large, multi-national corporations has led to the evolution of highly streamlined organisations or "organisms", which have been taking advantage of the rapidly developing computer technology to provide themselves with an accurate and comprehensive picture of the events and information necessary to make viable decisions.

This computerised body of information has proven to be very helpful in monitoring the effects of the executive decisions of large business-concerns, including the performance of affiliated or competitive organisations. Few people realise, as yet, how closely the structural organisation of the leadership and bureaucratic channels of these business conglomerates mirror the functions of the central nervous system of a complex animal.

When we think about it, it seems logical to see such parallels, since both are, in essence, "organically" developed structures that responded to similar pressures and force-fields. The multi-cellular organism and the large business-concern are shaped by the same evolutionary pressures and principles of competitive existence; nl., the survival of the strongest and most efficient organism or organisation.

While we have often pointed-out the harmful and disruptive effects caused by the existence of such powerful, autocratic and nearly independent commercial interests, we should not hesitate to examine the reasons for their success, and apply their techniques of government and bureaucratic structuring to the governing bodies of society as a whole.

Indeed, let us examine, what the effects would be, if we had at our disposal a computerised body of information about all the natural and human resources within our social environment, as well as the natural and human resources of the many societies that exist all over the globe. Let us think about the consequences, whenever this information would be available to each and everyone of us, including those, who have been charged with the responsibility to make decisions affecting us all.

Computerised information, assisted by a variety of audio-visual techniques, provides us, for the first time in history, with the opportunity to have an overall picture of our human realities at our finger-tips.

Certainly, a great deal of care and thought will have to go into the programming, classification, categorisation and summarising processes with which we equip such a computerised network of information. This task will be a major concern for many people throughout the world, and, we will have to regulate, with a carefully crafted set of Constitutional Guidelines, the manner in which these computer programs are organised, in order to ensure complete, accurate, reliable and well-balanced information gathering and retrieval.

The possibilities for public education, for the decision-making processes at every level of social inter-actions, as well as for individual development and the satisfaction of the sense of justice, are still largely beyond our contemporary grasp, but, even, a cursory examination of these possibilities will show undreamt of opportunities for the creation of a viable, just and harmonious society, together with a sensible, yet individualised life-style.

We have discussed, on previous occasions, the gigantic importance of the availability of complete, accurate and well-digested data-banks of information for all sorts of leadership decisions, and, we have pointed to a clear parallel with the central nervous system, where the accurate and finely tuned response of a highly developed multi-cellular oganism, such as the human being, depends, also, on the ability of this organism to abstract a relevant and complete picture of the surrounding realities.

With the availability of computerised information, we add another dimension to our capabilities of sensing and comprehending our environment. Rather than having to rely, entirely, on the primary sense-impressions of our own organism, together with the traditional methods of cultural transfer, (such as the verbal, written or aural and visual systems of communication), computerised information places, instantaneously and continuously, a picture of a large, communal, or, even, global reality at our disposal. This would be impossible without the technology of the computer.

We do not have to fear this instrument for the classification and display of information, and, let us examine, logically and without emotional bias, the functions and capabilities of the computer. We will come to the conclusion, that it is nothing more than a giant storage and sorting box for bits of information. These bits of information have to be placed in this box by people, but, it is true, that, to some extent, the scanning and gathering of information can also be done by computerised instruments without a human input.

Nevertheless, we, human beings, have to create the classifying and categorising functions of this box, and, it is irrational and erroneous to assign mysterious or uncontrollable functions to this machine or tool. Certainly, it is possible to rely too much, and too fast, on such a tool, and, then, the consequences may be unforeseen, or, even, disastrous, but, when analysing, what went wrong, we always come to the conclusion, that, we, the human designers and users of the computer, made mistakes, and, that we did not have a clear idea what the computer could do, or, what we wanted it to do.

A computer allows us to form, quickly, a mental image about a large, well-organised body of information, but the information and correlations a computer can give us, depend, of course, on the way the computer has been built and programmed.

In order to avoid the computer from becoming an instrument of unfair advantage-taking, we have to design and implement a rigorous principle of universal access to this vast body of information that will eventually be stored in a global network of computerised data-centers. If we would not insist upon such a universal access to all information, some members would abuse the information for egocentric purposes, and, the ability to hide certain manipulations or transactions, would mean, that other members would have a difficult time detecting or halting such practices.

It is difficult to escape the conclusion, that, eventually, all inter-human transactions, especially, those with some relevance for other people, have to be transparent. This means, that, all socially significant transactions should, not only, be scrutable as they are taking place, but, some sort of a record will be made to preserve the possibility of scrutiny at a later date.

This means, that, anyone, who suspects dealings that are contrary to the guidelines of complete fairness, would be able to check immediately, whether or not these suspicions are justified. If such an individual would find, that, indeed, certain happenings are taking place, or have taken place, which are contrary to the Constitutional Guidelines, one would be in a position to document and substantiate these events, before making a public accusation.

We could, then, have a complete and continuously up-dated profile of our societies, including all economic activities, resource levels, incidences of pollution, as well as all sorts of happenings and events with a social significance. For the first time in history, our leaderships and bureaucracies, as well as each interested member of the public, could be looking at the totality of the world as a whole, and, they would be able to develop a mental picture that is based on the integration of a large number of facts, rather than on a large number of assumptions and unquestioned judgements or prejudices.

It is obvious, that a global over-view of what is happening in the world, would require major generalisations in order for the information to remain digestible by a single individual, but, at any time, an individual could focus upon a particular aspect, just as we can focus our attention, now, upon a detailed feature of our reality perceptions, whenever our attention has been aroused by a specific observation or sense-impression.

Obviously, any one individual will be able to absorb, only, a small fraction of the available data and events, and, it is, therefore, essential, that the summarising or generalising and selecting mechanisms are carefully constructed, in order to ensure, that the reality perceptions evoked by these computerised techniques, remain valid and balanced, regardless of the fraction of information that has been presented or absorbed.

Philosophical concepts and interpretations about the meaning of reality, as well as the manner in which reality is being perceived, will begin to play a role in the way we select, program or classify the enormously vast quantities of data that will be fed into this network of computerised information centers. At the same time, computerised feed-back information will be important for our leadership institutions and governing bodies, in order to monitor the effects of their administrative and legislative decisions, but, it will also be of interest to any student of current affairs, to see, how the governing mechanisms are performing.

In addition to the possibility, and necessity, to form a comprehensive reality picture of our terrestial resources and environmental or ecological changes, we should also have a complete profile and inventory of the human resource. Do not be frightened by the idea, that we all will have a profile of our existence, assets, our actions, and, even, our personality in the memory-banks of a computer, available to each and everyone at the touch of a button. Why should we object to be known, or, at least, potentially known to countless other human beings, if we have nothing to be ashamed of?

If our actions or intentions are not anti-social; if our assets are honestly obtained; if we are conducting our lives with respect and understanding for the Constitutional Guidelines of our society, we have nothing to fear.

Besides, if, for one reason or another, we are afraid that someone else may not be playing by the same rules of fair-play, we only have to ask the computer for a complete profile of the individual or group in question, and, we should be able to obtain an accurate and up-to-date reality-image of this individual or group. This computer-based profile of the realities about an individual or a group of people will show us, that, either our notions were wrong, or, they will document our suspicions with concrete facts and evidence.

Mutual trust can only flourish and remain a viable attitude, if we have at our disposal adequate and reliable means to verify, that our attitude of trust is indeed justified. Then, there will be no need to fear or be suspicious, because the facts of reality are there for all of us to examine.

Certainly, there may be difficulties or differences in interpretation. A certain set of data may be interpreted differently by different people, but, then, we should, almost always, be able to resolve such differences of opinion or interpretation by examining additional data.

The foremost assumption of all these arguments and extrapolations of the possibilities of computerised information gathering and retrieval, is, of course, the assumption, that the information in the computer is completely reliable, and, that it gives us the best possible reality perception under the circumstances. We need, indeed, very stringent safeguards against intentionally biased programming, but, by ensuring, that the programming and the processes of information selection are themselves completely open to scrutiny, it should, indeed, be possible to prevent, almost completely, any deliberate or intentional bias or manipulation of the programming processes.

An un-intentional bias, resulting from currently popular or accepted modes of interpretation, is, of course, much more difficult to prevent, and, such a bias is, in essence, unavoidable, since the judgement of there being such a bias, will be a retrospective one. On the one hand, we may argue, that we always will have to accept the fact, that a currently accepted reality perception may be rejected or transformed in the future, but, on the other hand, it should be possible to guard against wild and irrational swings in interpretation; by emphasising, constantly, a scrupulous adherence to the examination of sense-data or observations according to strict criteria of objectivity, and, by examining the transformations in perception, which can be observed whenever we look at the history of a reality perception.

Even so, we will have to acknowledge, that a certain shift in emphasis or interpretation will be unavoidable as time goes by, and, as circumstances and conditions change. It is, therefore, important, that we provide our computerised systems of information with ways and means for a slow and orderly transformation of the basic reality perceptions of ourselves and our environment. In other words, we have to anticipate in the creation of these networks of information gathering and retrieval systems, that the basic interpretations of reality, and, consequently, the methods of programming and classification, may slowly change. Therefore, we should not rely, entirely, upon a current philosophy to interpret our realities, but, we should allow for a deliberate and well thought-out method to alter the most fundamental aspects of perceiving reality, reflecting a true appreciation for the requirements of evolutionary adaptation.

With this philosophical qualification out of the way, we should return to a consideration of the practical aspects and consequences, which would or could arise as a result of the availability of such a vast, global system of computerised information. Obviously, the entire complex of cultural transmission would come to rely heavily on such a system, and, the important question of trying to keep a viable cultural self-image alive, may be solved by the educational possibilities that are given by such a system.

There is another important and beneficial side-effect from such a vastly increased availability of information. By enlarging, greatly, the scope of vision, knowledge and understanding, it is logical to expect, that we will also develop a much better awareness of each other's existential needs; that we will recognise our common, biological heritage, and, at the same time, we may also develop an appreciation for, and understanding of, our own existential needs and anxieties, which are, on the one hand, a legitimate expression of this common biological heritage, but, these needs and anxieties may contribute, unwittingly, to tensions of conflict and injustice.

In other words; in addition to the naturally developed ability to see, and feel, when we have been treated unjustly by others, such a vastly enlarged scope of information and vision may lead us to develop, also, the capability to recognise, when and where our actions and attitudes cause an injustice to others.

Certainly, we will have to learn to live with a great deal of transparence and openness in our lives, and, some cherished ideas about privacy and individual rights may have to be abandoned. Yet, we should make it clear, that this system of transparence also guarantees individual rights, as well as the many possibilities for individualised development.

Perhaps, we should round-off this discussion about leadership with the role and rights of each individual member in society, and, we hope to make it clear, in a future essay, that the opportunities for an effective development of many potentials are given to each individual member as a gift by a stable and tolerant society.

Let us make sure, that we can allay the fears we all feel towards an over-powering and monolithic government, and, let us show, that, on the contrary, a human being could develop his or her potentials never as fully and as securely as within the shelter and protection given by a truly understanding, open, just and informed social environment.

Do we not see, here, a parallel with the stable and healthy family, where protection, encouragement and understanding give youngsters their best possible chance to develop a multitude of abilities? Certainly, youngsters have to learn, also, to overcome a certain number of difficulties, and, we know, that the factor of motivation is rarely developed to its maximum potential, as long as the road to achievement remains easy.

Yet, in particular in the early stages of development, optimum conditions of security and stimulation are necessary to set into motion the developmental sequences that transform a potential into an actual reality, and, here, we see another remarkable parallel; this time with nature, where we observe, that the development of a fertilised egg-cell or embryo requires a period of maximum shelter and stability, in order to transform the potentials of organic existence into an actual reality.

There are other examples, where individual differentiation and mutual inter-dependence have flourished as a result of a communal security developed during a process of socialisation. We only have to look at the remarkable differentiation of entire cellular communities into specialised organ-systems within the security and cohesion of the multi-cellular organisation of an individual. Those existence possibilities of a specialised and differentiated nature would be meaningless, and impossible, without the security of belonging to a multi-cellular unit.

We can see many other examples of a reciprocal relationship between social security and specialisation in function. In the early human societies the social unit provided the security and possibility for task-differentiation, and, with it, the potential for individualised divergence.

Certainly, the mere fact that tasks became specialised and people became inter-dependent as a result of an increasing reliance upon each other's activities, does not mean, that people necessarily began to diverge in their beliefs, attitudes or aspirations. The first result of an increased reliance upon each other's activities was an intensification in the level of contact, and, with it, the emergence of a more elaborate communal pool of verbalisable awarenesses.

In this way, a community of successfully inter-dependent human beings creates the cultural and conceptual vocabulary that allows, later, an ever more sophisticated level of conceptual awareness, as well as an increased measure of individual differentiation.

As the cultural pool grows in size and complexity, it is logical, that the portion each member of society absorbs from this cultural pool, becomes only a fraction of the totally available pool of concepts. With this process of "partial cultural absorption", we see the possibilities emerge for individual differentiation, since it becomes now likely, that people begin to absorb or assimilate slightly different fragments from this cultural pool.

We should not forget, that, those of us, who have a strongly developed appreciation for individual differentiation, tend to glorify such a process of individualisation, because we feel comfortable with this quality of individual freedom. We often feel slightly elitist in our confident mastery over the cultural and conceptual awarenesses of our society, and, we tend to emphasise the virtues of individual variability, while minimising the possible disruptive effects such a trend towards individual variability may bring-about for the community as a whole.

Indeed, we see, quite clearly, that highly successful, small-scale social groupings, with strongly inter-dependent members, have a colourful and often elaborate culture, but, the existential pressures may be strong and persistent enough to preserve a high level of conformity in the behaviour and attitudes of the members of such a grouping.

The cultural core is, then, clearly defined, and, the members absorb a nearly identical portion of this cultural core. Individual variability in opinion and interpretation remains limited. There is a strong sense of absolute reality, with a clear-cut division between right and wrong, good and evil.

Only, when such a vigorous society relaxes, after a period of successful growth and mastery over whatever difficulties may have been causing existential pressures, only then, do we see a flowering of individual variability, leading to a remarkable and interesting cultural diversity. This represents, in essence, a spurt of cultural growth, which, often, heralds, at the same time, the onset of the mechanisms of decline and decay.

The greatest challenge of leadership will be to define, where the limits of individual variability are going to lie. We will realise, that this is an empirical judgement, and, that we will have to review these limits continuously, because these limits may vary from time to time, depending upon the circumstances of existence.

We will have to remind ourselves, that the suppression of individual variability may quickly lead to an impoverishment of thought, and, with it, we will experience an impoverishment of our ability to grasp and understand the realities of our existence. On the other hand, an unbridled proliferation of individualistic divergence may lead to the temptation to revert back to egocentric attitudes, and, this increases the tensions of mutual hostility, suspicion and incomprehension, as the fabric of social cohesion is gradually torn-apart.

It is the task of the leadership of each and every community to ponder this range of beneficial and harmful variability in the processes of individual differentiation, watching, carefully, for signs of tensions and feelings of oppression, as well as for signs of elitism and opportunistic egocentricity. Again, the need for a carefully crafted and well thought-out Constitution comes to the fore, in order to guide successive generations, and their leaders, through this difficult maze of intuitive and partially conscious decisions.

Once mutual hostility, suspicion and mistrust are on the rise, we know, that society is decaying, and, we know, that it is difficult to halt this process of decline and fragmentation. We need a vigilant effort to avoid such an insidious and disastrous development. However, let us also watch-out for any attempt by our leadership, or any other segment in society, to galvanise and unite society by directing hostilities towards an external enemy or an internal scapegoat. This is also a sign of weakness and decay, and, these attitudes and activities may do untold harm to others, because, in the final analysis, our efforts to define the functions and objectives of a social unit can not come to rest, until we have incorporated the whole of mankind into a healthy, stable and functioning social entity.

.......

Summary

1. We are leaders, whether we want it or not.
   Leadership, the ultimate instrument of viability.
   We have to choose our leaders carefully.
   The reasons for corrupt practices and egocentric attitudes.
   Collective attitudes of suspicion and mistrust.
   We have to know, who we are.
   The dangers of opportunistic solutions to our problems.
   We all need a lecture, once in a while.
   We all have to make a contribution to collective survival.
   An endless treadmill of self-righteous attitudes.
   How many have died in vain?
   The power of collective reasoning.
   The pitfalls of elitist attitudes.
   We all can become a responsible leader for our thoughts and actions.
   
   
   
2. A short review of the essence of the living organisation.
   The nature of "anxiety".
   A "bias" in the perception of reality.
   Classifying behaviour-patterns on the basis of what is "good" and "evil" for the social environment; a few examples.
   The trend towards social integration; seen as a "yielding" to existential pressures.
   Enlarging the possibilities of existence for all the members of a social entity.
   Cultural evolution is only possible within a social context.
   Our indebtedness to human beings of the past.
   The importance of a cultural heritage.
   The futility of trying to lead with the instruments of force and oppression.
   Each one of us can be a saint or a devil.
   A fortuitous balance of positive and negative influences is necessary to develop into a healthy, well-balanced personality.
   The vitality and importance of the average citizen.
   
   
   
3. The biological energy-gradient.
   Adaptability of the living organisation is based on the fluidity and transience of biochemical reaction-patterns.
   Complex predatorial behaviour-patterns.
   The concept of a gene-pool.
   Tolerances for internal tensions, or thresholds for disruptive events; concepts, applicable to living and non-living systems alike.
   The emergence of goal-directed behaviour.
   The concept of a "free will" or a "a voluntary choice".
   Personal leadership over a conglomerate of contradictory impulses.
   Every member of society has to experience the benefits of "belonging".
   Personal leaderships are ethically further developed than collective leaderships.
   Socialising trends start from scratch, after a successful level of integration has been reached.
   "Fine-tuning" flexible behaviour-patterns.
   Genetic and cultural codes; the insect colony.
   The emergence of early man; a summary description of evolutionary developments.
   
   
   
4. The road from competitive strife towards social inter-dependence.
   A trend that goes far back into the evolution of life; multi-cellular symbiosis.
   Behavioural flexibility, and the difficulties for regulating further trends towards social integration.
   The living organisation; seen as a "funnel" for the dissipation of a suitable energy-gradient.
   The mechanisms of "competitive strife".
   Competitive strife is a major inhibitor of growth and reproduction.
   Cellular predation; phagocytosis.
   Animals and plants.
   The sexual mode of reproduction.
   The search for new and untapped sources of energy.
   Possibilities for complementory or symbiotic existence.
   The phenomenon of "entropy".
   Only a handful of biochemical pathways survived the stage of the biochemical experiment in the primordial protoplasm.
   Symbiosis at a multi-cellular level.
   The relevance of the concepts of symbiosis and socialisation for our own existence.
   Symbiosis, parasitism and predation.
   A delicately balanced web of contradictory factors.
   The need for a rigid and effective system of controls.
   Difficulties with the design of efective regulators for the societies of mankind.
   A symbiotic co-existence of genetic and cultural regulator mechanisms.
   
   
   
5. The human being has a tendency to "slide back" from a symbiotic to a parasitic or predatory mode of existence.
   A review of the mechanisms of "hierarchical stratification".
   The "test-fight", and the emergence of "natural leadership".
   A culturally transmitted code of instructions and regulator mechanisms.
   Many cultural instructions represent vague, "sub-verbal" communications.
   The "sense of justice" relates to a natural hierarchical position, and is based on personal merit and frequent test-fights.
   When social units grow larger, the tasks of leadership become more complex.
   The limitations of "natural leadership".
   An absence of task-differentiations.
   Multi-individual structures of leadership.
   The energy-balance between "social splitting" and the tolerance of social tensions; a comparison with spontaneous radio-active decay.
   Parallels between cellular growth and reproduction, and, the growth and reproduction of small, socially integrated units of complex, behaviourally flexible animals.
   Large-scale social integration, resulting from a scarcity of fertile land.
   Internal regulatory mechanisms of the multi-cellular individual are genetically shaped and controled.
   Regulatory mechanisms for the larger human societies will have to be shaped by the collective will.
   Culturally transmitted criteria of viability.
   The importance of the sence of justice.
   A de-facto recognition of the mechanisms of "essential equality".
   A description of the mechanisms at work.
   The weakness of a leadership that depends on the support from a privileged elite.
   When a leadership becomes defective.
   The need for a smooth transition of power from one leadership to another.
   When people live together and cooperate because of fear, most collective and individual potentials lay waste.
   
   
   
6. The outlines for a just and durable social leadership.
   A short review of topics that have been discussed.
   The pitfalls of elitist attitudes when excercising leadership responsibilities.
   A firm voice of education, but, we also need efficient mechanisms to let the voices of criticism and dissent be heard.
   The need to shape individual behaviour in a social context.
   Why it is difficult to distinguish between beneficial and detrimental trends in the individualisation of people.
   There is no true freedom without discipline and self-discipline, and there is no social strength without individual freedoms.
   A close look at the aspirations for independence.
   The difference between righting a wrong of the past, and, an elitist search for privilege, when aspiring for autonomy.
   The misconceptions of elitist attitudes.
   We all can learn what is right and wrong, and, what are sensible leadership attitudes and decisions.
   The need to teach the basic mechanisms of the living organisation.
   The mechanisms of socialisation; a solution to the problems of competitive existence.
   Some of the problems of "free-enterprise".
   The merger of workers into unions, and, the fusion of small businesses into large conglomerates.
   Free-enterprise ideas linger-on as a beacon for egocentric dreams and ambitions.
   Re-discovering the essential features of the social solution.
   
   
   
7. A compromise between the ideals of Socialism and the objectives of Free-enterprise.
   Is it possible to keep a society together, while tolerating fierce dissent or free-enterprise initiatives?
   A careful balance between the needs of the many, and those of the individual.
   Insights into commonly shared existential needs may provide a solid basis for the mechanisms of inter-dependence.
   Maintaining an attitude of trust and openness.
   Success does not have to be measured in wealth, power or affluence.
   It is an admission of utter failure in our efforts to create a just society, if we take power away from the leadership and give it to enterprising individuals.
   It is also an admission of failure, if we cope with dissent and frustration by force and exile, or a suppression of the freedom of speech.
   The value of thinking, questioning and criticising, while searching for a viable way of life in essential equality and justice.
   The relativity of truth.
   No freedoms without responsibilities and restrictions, and, no viable social unit without the freedoms of criticism and dissent.
   An ideology is weak, if it can not refute its critics with sound arguments.
   The role of Contitutional Guidelines.
   The potential for evolving into a social entity with global dimensions.
   
   
   
8. Learning from the lean and efficient leadership structures of multi-national corporations.
   Close parallels with the central nervous system.
   Computerised information, assisted by a number of audio-visual techniques for an efficient display of information.
   The possibilities for education, decision-making and insight are still beyond our comprehension.
   There is no need to fear the instruments of computerised knowledge and information.
   Transparence; the ability to document a fact, and dispell rumors and suspicions.
   The availability of a continuously up-dated profile of our societies, as well as the world around us.
   The importance of reliable summarising, classifying and generalising techniques for maintaining a grasp over reality.
   Monitoring the effects of our actions and decisions.
   No fear for transparence, as long as it is a two-way street.
   Mutual trust can only survive and thrive in an atmosphere of complete openness and access to all information.
   Looking for the existence of a bias or prejudice.
   There will inevitably be shifts in interpretation as circumstances change.
   Openness and insight will help us to recognise circumstances, when we are likely to harm, inadvertently, the interests or sensitivities of other people.
   Many potentials for individual development are made possible by a stable and large-scale social environment.
   Shelter and stimulation in early life are needed for the unfolding of potentials.
   Specialised existence possibilities only "make sense" in a stable, sophisticated and differentiated society.
   Feeling comfortable with a large measure of freedom and responsibility.
   Defining the limits of individual freedom and variability.
   The social solution will continue to unfold, until we have become a healthy, stable society with global dimensions.

.......