THE MANIPULATION AND EXPLOITATION OF EMOTIONS







A Study in Thought

sa049



by





Marius Heuff

Chapter 1

Content

The consequences of "exploiting".
Dangerous manipulations.
Constitutional Guidelines have to regulate our desires to exploit and our abilities to manipulate.
A close look at the mechanisms of manipulating and regulating.
The criteria of justice.
High standards of conduct and competence in performance.
The quality of a "critique".
No need to fear openness.
The balance between rights and obligations.
The freedoms resulting from responsible behaviour-patterns.
Complex side-effects and long-term consequences of our attempts to regulate social mechanisms.

The word exploitation used to have a quality of clever efficiency, because it indicated that someone was able to make good use of an opportunity, given by the present circumstances, but, lately, we have recognised, that we have to be careful when making good use of any opportunity that may arise.

We have been so successful in exploiting opportunities, that the atmosphere and water-systems are full of pollutants. Our lakes are dying, and, we are pumping our petro-chemical resources in ever greater quantities to the surface. Yet, it is true, that man survived by exploiting the opportunities nature provided, but, we must now learn to survive longer, with more dignity and foresight, by controling and regulating this ability to manipulate and exploit everything and everyone in our environment.

One of the lessons we do not seem to have learned as yet, is the awareness, that we have to be equally careful and in control over our impulses, whenever we manipulate and exploit the behaviour-patterns of other people. We used to think, that it was only necessary to manipulate the forces of nature in order to exploit all the resources on earth, but, we have come to the conclusion, that we can reap the greatest profits by manipulating other people, and, especially, by exploiting their emotional reactions.

We have reaped, not only, gigantic commercial profits by stimulating sensual and sexual appetites, (or the emotions of greed, hatred and violence of millions of people), but, some of us have reaped enormous benefits, because we went to war and killed each other; because we had been convinced by clever manipulators that it was our patriotic duty to kill the equally patriotic citizens of another country, just because it was so lofty to fight for the self-centered interests and honour of our nation!

Slowly, we are becoming aware of the dangers of ruthless exploitation, and, we are, finally, developing an awareness of the fall-out and pollution of emotional exploitation. Perhaps, a few of us are beginning to realise, that the ever-rising levels of consumerist expectations are not so healthy after all, in spite of the fact, that these attitudes are sustaining cash-hungry corporations. Perhaps, we are beginning to learn the limitations and harmful consequences associated with an attitude of unbridled exploitation, be it the resources of nature or the resources of man himself. Perhaps, we are beginning to understand, that, longevity is a combination of a controled rate of material consumption, as well as a controled and moderate rate of consumption of our appetites and emotions.

There can be little argument about the fact, that the manner in which mankind is going to use the remainder of our terrestial resources, will have to be described, clearly and precisely, in a Constitution with global jurisdiction, so that we can enjoy, what is left, in an atmosphere of peace, justice and tranquility, and, this is only possible with the implementation of a world-wide contract of essential equality.

There can be no doubt, that, this same Constitution is going to describe, also, the right to be free from emotional enticement or manipulation, as well as the obligation to refrain from manipulating others for the sake of egocentric gain.

You may wonder, how it is possible to regulate the contacts between human beings to such an extent, that we do not arouse each other's emotions, or, at least, that we do not influence unduly each other's behaviour. "If I try to persuade someone to listen to me, or, to agree with me about one thing or another, would I then be subject to suspicion, and, perhaps, prosecution for a criminal offense? How can we avoid influencing each other, and, are most people not in need of receiving leadership and guidance? Is all guidance then suspect? What kind of a horrible witch-hunt are you unleasing, if you suggest, in all seriousness, that it would be unconstitutional to entice or persuade someone? Who is going to judge, if an accusation of this sort has been made?".

"We could find ourselves back in the nightmare of bureaucratic entanglements, arbitrary arrests and vague, unspecified crimes. How are you going to avoid these problems, because you would surely not suggest that such a result is your intention? The more complicated and more specific we make the rules and guidelines for our behaviour, the more likely we are to commit an error and a crime, and, if most of us are not able to lead a life that is completely beyond reproach, we run into the danger, that some people will be singled-out for prosecution, while others are not, leading to incidences of persecution that are a travesty of justice".

I agree with you, that there are serious problems with the goal of freedom from manipulation or enticement. Indeed, we have to think very carefully about all the possible consequences of a guideline, in particular, if such a guideline would be enshrined as a Constitutional Law. It is imperative, that we explore all possible abuses or inadvertent injustices and inequities that may result from a well-intentioned guideline, but, we should not come to the conclusion, that it is then better to abandon all guidelines out of fear that we may create, unintentionally, a situation of injustice, if we bring-in a binding law for human behaviour.

There is no reason to fear, that, careful and honest scrutiny of all the angles and probable results of a law would fail to turn-up the most glaring side-effects, and, then, there is no reason, why a particular guideline should not be tested, before it is permanently enshrined as Constitutional Law. If, after careful study and a prolonged period of testing, a situation of injustice or inadvertent side-effect would still occur, there is always the possibility to amend a law in such a way, that those incidences of injustice are avoided.

However, there is another aspect we should discuss. If we talk about bringing-in guidelines or advocating adherence to a set of guidelines, we only talk, to some extent, about guidelines that are enshrined by law. There will also be a substantial body of customs, notions, attitudes or beliefs that form, together, a system of ethical guidelines, which people are encouraged to follow as a result of their own free will, but, these ethical guidelines are not imposed, by law, upon the members of society.

In the societies of the future, there will still be room for a "free will", as well as a free choice in behaviour, in spite of the fact, that the range of tolerable behaviour will be far more clear-cut than is the case in most of our contemporary, affluent societies. Lastly, in this series of counter-arguments, covering a number of probable objections to the idea of increased precision in constitutional behavioural guidance, we should not forget, that the limitations set on the emotional manipulation and exploitation of people, apply only to incidences of manipulation and exploitation that are carried-out for the sake of a narrow, egocentric gain of the manipulator. This means, that any influence exerted on behalf of the common good or the interests of society as a whole, may be legitimate. Not all acts of patriotism will be wrong or suspect, but, we will scrutinise, in the future, far more carefully, whether or not an act of patriotism goes against the common good of mankind as a whole.

While this definition of the limitations to influence the behaviour of people clearly abolishes the freedom, or the possibility, to indoctrinate people with biased advertising or any kind of deliberately selective presentation of facts, it does not preclude at all the possibility, or, even, the desirability of presenting a series of balanced arguments and view-points. As long as an author or communicator is willing to adhere to high standards of objectivity and completeness, his or her presentation will, not only, satisfy the requirements of the Law, but, the author will gain credibility and admiration for presenting a thorough and exhaustive study about a particular topic or subject.

Sloppiness, commercial or special-interest bias, as well as superficiality in grasp or presentation will be branded as fraudulent or incompetent, but, the well-documented, balanced, informed and broad-ranging study will be encouraged and amired as a valuable contribution to our perception of reality.

You may argue, once again, that it will be difficult to judge what is biased, competent and thorough. You may say to me, that people in a position of power, who may have to judge the quality and competence of a public presentation, may condemn what they do not like, or, what may be perceived as potentially embarrassing to them or the government institutions they represent.

This is true, especially, if the quality of a critical evaluation, as well as the entire process of accusation, judgement and correction, would not be completely open to scrutiny. The mechanisms of judgement should, and will be, just as open to criticism as any public function or presentation, and, this scrutiny is not limited to the members of a specific region or nation. While we demand a high level of quality and competence from anyone who wants to make a public presentation, we demand, also, a very high level of judgement and critique of anyone, who has been given the responsibility to monitor a high level of public competence.

In the recent past, many people had a legitimate fear for arbitrary accusations and arrests, secret trials, as well as the massive powers of an impenetrable and inscrutable bureaucracy, manned by unelected officials. Some contemporary societies still practice secret trials and arrests without warrants, where people can be held for prolonged periods of time without access to legal help or an open hearing in Court. However, let us keep in mind, that the societies of the future will have much clearer and better delineated guidelines for the judgement of their citizens, and, these societies will also have become completely open and transparent, where the right to examine, question and scrutinise everything, including all the decisions, activities and plans of the bureaucracy, is one of the pillars of a satisified sense of justice and a deserved attitude of mutual trust.

Let us not be afraid for a development towards increasingly precise guidelines for our behaviour, but, let us make sure, that possible abuses or situations of injustice arising as unintentional side-effects, have been corrected or prevented by an utterly competent set of Constitutional Guidelines. This is the only way to increase the level of mutual trust, as well as this all-important sense of gratefulness and freedom that comes with a position of security and justice, where people are well enough informed to avoid the pitfalls of ignorance, forgetfulness or complacency.

In the future, most citizens will be aware of the responsibility to make sure, that everyone continues to count the blessings of one's existence, and, to avoid a weakening ignorance, or a crippling egocentricity that exploits the productivity of other people and their willingness to help.

You are probably still not convinced, and, you have a lingering suspicion, that the proposed rules and guidelines for our behaviour will only serve to put us into a straight-jacked, stifling all initiatives, as well as the last remnants of freedom. Again, I will have to agree with you, that it is certainly possible for a profusion of poorly drafted and supervised guidelines to become powerful and abused tools in the hands of a small elite. It will, indeed, require a considerable period of patience, study and testing, in order to ensure, that these guidelines have the desired and intended effects.

Look at existing guidelines in our societies. Each and every one of them can be perverted and become a source of injustice. Your rights to property are intended to reduce friction, thievery, or an open conflict between jealous neighbours. Property rights allowed people to mingle freely and unarmed amongst themselves in the knowledge, that the law will protect them against unlawful attack, but, at the same time, a property right that is unchecked, unbalanced and unsupervised, becomes a tool of abuse in the hands of the clever and the powerful, who amass, quickly, the wealth of the nation, while the rest of society becomes impoverished and enslaved.

Look at the rights of freedom of speech and religion, and, you will see, that these rights have brought, indeed, a measure of freedom of opinion and religious beliefs, but, if unchecked, these same laws may also become a tool in the hands of unscrupulous merchants or elitist and fanatic elements. Each and every law can be abused, and, we always have to study, and monitor, very carefully, the effects of any law or guideline, regardless, how unlikey it seems, that a particular guideline could be perverted.

The laws of universal suffrage, the principle of one human being, one vote, seems to be beyond perversion, but, in practice, we see the ever-present temptation of political candidates to play upon the emotions of the people, and to win their favours and votes with facile promises and superficial solutions. Besides, the access to money determines, increasingly, who is able to present him- or herself as a candidate for public office.

All these side-effects have to be recognised, studied, and, eventually, carefully dealt with. There are no quick and easy solutions to the many problems of living together at close quarters in a large and complex society, just as there are no quick and easy solutions to the problems of satisfactory food production or pest control. In society, as well as in nature, we are dealing with a complex ecological balance of living organisms, and, if we try to influence one particular aspect of this labile balance, either with a chemical substance, or with a lawful regulation, we may create complex and unforeseen changes that will take years to make themselves felt, and, which are, occasionally, beyond control or beyond the possibility of a complete correction.

.......

Chapter 2

Content

Do we need explicit guidelines?
The change from a nomadic to a settled life-style.
The larger the social environment, the greater the need for explicit guidelines.
Judgeing attitudes.
Guidelines for socially constructive behaviour on a global scale.
The universality of rights and obligations.
Issues that appear to be rather esoteric.
A package of natural rights, or birth-rights.
The problems of divergence; a few mechanisms.
Severe congenital defects; medical ethics.
A need for careful and extensive discussions.
Equal opportunities.
Conditions for a "fair game", and a "fair winner".
Separating a game from existential needs.
As yet, there are few similarities between the voluntary agreement to participate in a fair game, and the deadly competitiveness of life in a large and complex society.

Perhaps, you would like to ask me, whether or not we really need a system of guidelines. Why not rely upon our natural instincts and live a life of natural simplicity, in harmony with each other and nature?

While man has repeatedly advocated such a "return to nature" in a mood of romantic nostalgia, especially, when confused and depressed by the seemingly hopeless task of organising a just and efficient society, we also know, from a perfunctory glance at the evolutionary origins of mankind, that it would be an unfortunate illusion to rely upon our "natural instincts".

In other essays, we have reviewed the argument, that man's biological heritage does, indeed, contain some instructions for the social organisation of a small-scale social entity, such as a nomadic community living off the hunting of small game and the harvesting of a natural crop of edible grains, fruits, leaves, nuts or roots. Yet, we also know, that, man ran out of space to live in such a nomadic manner, and, we know, that, man was forced to live in much larger groupings, clustered around the fertile areas that surround the major rivers of the earth. Man had to learn to bridge periods of draught and famine with the help of special techniques, such as the domestication of plants and animals, the irrigation of fields, as well as the conservation and storage of food-supplies.

In addition to the technical demands upon man's ingenuity to provide food and shelter when nature did not, man also learned, that, living together in much larger groups was not as easy as living in a small, nomadic tribe or clan. Disputes were more frequent; one did not know each other as well, and this meant, that a measure of cooperation and mutual trust had to be carefully cultivated, because it did not come "natural", as it would in a small community, where everyone knew each other intimately.

We have described, before, how we visualise these changes towards a more settled life-style to have taken place. We have always maintained, that it is not our intention in these writings to be specific about the actual chronology of social developments. Our intention, here, is, to use some of the findings of modern archeological and anthropological research to speculate about the relationships between the existential pressures man was subjected to, and, the innovative social adaptations that arose as a result of these existential pressures and changing circumstances.

It has become clear, that, at least, in the larger societies, man required an ever greater degree of conscious awareness, as well as the ability to articulate or verbalise, clearly, in order to shape generally valid principles of behaviour. While the focus of concern remained limited to the boundaries of a cultural or political unit, it became gradually apparent, that these general principles of behaviour had to encompass also social groupings that were ethnically diverse and had not been united politically or culturally, and had, therefore, a tendency to be at odds with each other.

We are now beginning to understand, that these principles of behaviour have to take the global community of mankind as its focus of concern, because a narrower focus perpetuates, invariably, a number of situations of injustice. A "localised" solution for a problem of injustice creates, nearly always, a condition of injustice for a group that falls outside the sphere of concern. A focus of concern, that is less than global in its vision or scope, will, inevitably, give rise to significant tensions and strife.

All these aspects have been discussed, and, we are only referring, briefly, to these arguments, in order to lay the foundation for the idea, that we need a comprehensive, global structure of behavioural guidelines.

If you think, that we are going too far, by trying to regulate the emotional inter-actions between people, I would like to remind you, that many customs and laws of historical as well as contemporary societies have already done so, as they acknowledged the dangers of emotional exploitation.

As a rule, customs and laws would not refer directly to the emotional aspects of human behaviour, because our modern interpretations have given us a picture of psychological mechanisms, which was, of course, not available to the generations of the past. Yet, empirically or intuitively, many societies have recognised the importance of regulating or influencing behaviour-patterns, which we would now consider to fall within the zone of emotional responses.

Look, for example, how societies encouraged the behaviour of "fortitude", or "courage", and, how they would frown upon attitudes of egocentric anxiety, such as "cowardice" and "doubt". What about the reactions of anger, rage and fear? Every society has had some notions, ideas, customs or laws regulating these emotional patterns of human behaviour. Look, also, at the phenomenon of deceit, as well as all the emotional reactions that come into play, when someone discovers to have been deceived!

No, there is nothing startling or new about the idea to regulate and influence, through laws, rules and regulations, the emotional reactions of the human being, and, there is nothing new about the idea, that society should protect the human being from short-sighted emotional impulses, and, certainly, from the manipulations and machinations of others.

What is new, is the idea, that we want to broaden these guidelines into a framework that is relevant and applicable on a global scale, because such an idea pre-supposes, on the one hand, a high level of abstraction or generalisation in order to bridge the numerous cultural specifics of different societies, and, on the other hand, it assumes a process of convergence of the common cultural denominators, as we learn to agree about the universality of a set of human rights and obligations, and, perhaps, the universality of a relativistic interpretation of reality.

The growth of emotional exploitation and manipulation in our affluent societies is related, at least, to some extent, to the existence of other regulatory principles, such as those of the right to excercise initiative and carry-out free-enterprise, the right to freedom of speech and opinion, as well as the right or freedom to accumulate assets and own property.

In a sense, it is ironic, that our concerns about the exploitation of emotional behaviour and our desire to delineate, much more clearly, the behavioural tolerances in matters of emotional stimulation and manipulation, are a result of an abuse or side-effect of other behavioural guidelines, which were intended to enhance the sense of justice and trust within the larger societies.

We may as well accept the idea, that we need an ever clearer and more coherent and comprehensive set of guidelines, in order to enhance the level of openness, trust, justice and cooperation between the peoples in society, as well as between the societies of the world, and, we may as well accept the fact, that we have to keep trying to put such a coherent and workable set of guidelines on the table, until we succeed.

Let us not be permanently discouraged by disastrous failures, and, let us never forget to make use of an opportunity to learn from mistakes. Often, divergences of opinion may seem to make any chance for a comprehensive set of agreed-upon guidelines a hopeless affair, until we realise, that the apparent dead-lock is the result of a divergence in the fundamental interpretation of human nature. Time and again, we will be driven back to re-examine the basic assumptions behind our reality perceptions, and, we will see, to our astonishment, that an agreement upon such fundamental and apparently esoteric issues as the perception of reality, will make the construction of a practical scaffold for social guidelines, a relatively easy task.

I know, that we are still a long way from agreeing with each other about the way we have to interpret the existence of nature and ourselves, but, let us try to agree amongst ourselves, how the ideal citizen of the world should behave. Perhaps, we still have to agree amongst ourselves about the need to look upon our social existence on a global scale, transcending national boundaries, as well as the limitations of our cultural horizons.

However, let us examine, whether or not we can agree about the ways a human being should behave in relation to other people, his environment and himself, and, let us, for the time being, not concern ourselves with the question, whether or not it is realistic to expect people to adhere to such an imagery of idealised behaviour-patterns. We will answer the question, whether or not it is possible for a majority of people to adhere to a particular idea, later in this essay. We will discover, somewhat to our surprise, that the answer to the question of practicality is less utopian than we thought.

The main problem will be to sketch a picture of human existence and behaviour that is really thorough, realistic and relativistic in its understanding of human motivations and existential concerns. We have mentioned, on several occasions, that we should be able to agree amongst ourselves about the conditions of human existence, before we talk about any agreement about the way we should behave. As a package of natural or birth-rights, every human being should have sufficient food, shelter and protection to grow-up physically healthy and mentally well educated.

Every child should have had sufficient nourishment to develop into a normal and healthy human being, and, every youngster should have had sufficient parental care, stimulation and protection to have developed the ability to trust and communicate with other people.

True, we do not deny, that, even under the most scrupulously fair and favourable conditions of up-bringing, some children will grow into happy, healthy and well-integrated youngsters, while there seem to be always a few, who have more difficulties. These difficulties may reflect a lack of talent, ability, agility, or, some other characteristic, which makes the youngster feel more vulnerable and defensive.

An intelligent parental and educational environment will recognise these differences in talent and rate of development between youngsters, and, such an environment will be able to pay special attention to those, who need it.

However, there will always be, in any society, a few people, who are physically or mentally handicapped. Mental retardation, as well as a large variety of other birth-defects are, obviously, a fact of life, and no society will ever be completely free from such handicaps. We do not advocate a ruthless "natural" approach to all abnormalities in physique or behaviour. A "natural" or instinctive behavioural reaction of parents and other adults leads amongst animal species', invariably, to the death of abnormally formed or behaving off-spring, because any deviation from a rather narrow, physiological "norm" is rejected by the parents and the members of the small community

On the other hand, it is futile and unjust to try to keep a deformed child alive at all costs. We will have to debate amongst ourselves to what extent it will be practical, and just, to compensate for minor deficiencies or handicaps. While we all should be very careful to understand, fully, the implications of a deliberate practice of "genetic hygiene", together with the pruning of weak or defective members of the gene-pool, we can not afford to let superficial sentimentalities dictate an attitude of thoughtless and indiscriminate efforts to keep all defective children alive, at all costs.

The marvels of medical science and life-support systems make it now possible to keep many severely deformed infants alive. Whether or not such efforts are ethical or justified, is a question that needs a thorough debate. I believe, that it is short-sighted to use any form of major surgery or intensive medical care to keep an infant alive, who is suffering from severe birth defects, unless the threat to its life and normal development is temporary or due to accidental circumstances, and, not due to a severe, inborn or genetic defect.

A more difficult problem arises, when we are dealing with children who can live without a major medical or surgical intervention. They can learn a great deal, in spite of their physical handicap, and, they will become human personalities with normal or near-normal psychological mechanisms. We have to consider, seriously and carefully, the fact, that these children and adults will always have to carry this handicap with them, and, we have to try to visualise what this will do to their quality of life, their chances of finding happiness and becoming useful and integrated members of society.

At the present time, we seem to cope with these problems without too many difficulties, and, perhaps, it will always be this way, if we allow moderate but consistent efforts to help handicapped children and adolescents to reach a measure of independent existence. We should, indeed, refrain from extreme measures to safeguard continued existence after birth, especially, if nature's course of events would indicate a fairly quick demise. This means, that a defective child, who falls ill, should receive all the care a normal child would get, when it would contract the same illness, but, we should refrain from spending extra-ordinary efforts and great sums of money in a desperate and emotional attempt to correct severe genetic defects or other handicaps, that are a severe threat to a normal life-cycle. Of course, there is no need at all for a child to suffer as it lies ill, regardless of the degree of handicap it has been born with. There are adequate medical techniques available to keep children and adults from suffering a great deal of pain or anxiety.

The entire field of "genetic pruning", as well as the guidelines that regulate the level of care and corrective measures given to infants born with a severe handicap, has to be extensively scrutinised, but, it should be possible to come, eventually, to generally acceptable guidelines that are fair, just, practical and applicable to everyone.

Modern medicine, with its numerous gadgets and its highly specialised technological ability to support or to substitute life-sustaining functions, brings to mind the question, how much effort can be spent on certain patients, without running the risk of neglecting other, less spectacular medical duties, and, without running the risk of giving some people a level of preferential care that is not available to everyone.

Since the costs of specialised medical care are soaring and still escalating, we see a real danger, that expert medical care will only be available to the privileged and rich members of society. It is superfluous to emphasise the basic injustice of tying a level of medical care to a level of material wealth, just as we have abandoned the idea, that the package of human rights is only available to those, who have the financial and military means to avail themselves of these privileges, and a few more to boot.

The concepts of essential equality have to include an equality in the standards of health and education, and, this means, that, health-care has to be delivered to all the peoples of society, and, in essence, to the peoples of the world at large. This is a matter of birth-right for which we all are called-upon to contribute to society, each according to talents, capabilities and opportunity.

We come to the conclusion, therefore, that our impulse to help our children and to care for the weak and sick members of our family, may lead to a situation of injustice, unless the consequences of these impulses, which are obviously honourable and valuable, are carefully thought-through and monitored.

There is already broad agreement about the principle, that all healthy, normal human beings should be given the same, or, at least, similar opportunities to develop their talents and personalities, and, to reach a certain level of accomplishment and satisfaction. Yet, we know, that, even, under the most scrupulously honest circumstances of equal opportunity, some will succeed, and some will fail.

At the beginning of a game or an athletic competition, we make sure that each contestant has an exactly equal opportuninty to win, and yet, differences in capabilities, perseverance and motivation will quickly differentiate the field of competitors into winners, losers, and those, who finish somewhere in between. Is this right? Is it wrong? Is it unavoidable? What are we going to do at the end of the game?

Indeed, the circumstances of a fair game are a useful starting point to study the behavioural portrait of man in a desirable frame of mind. We see, that all competitors in a game know, exactly, the rules which will decide who will win, and they know, also, that, anyone, who does not adhere scrupulously to these rules, will be disqualified.

As a result, the winner will, indeed, win because of his or her superior abilities, and, all contestants can accept this as fair. It is crucial to know, that these differentiations during the course of a game reflect, indeed, personal merit, and, that they are not based on deceit, favouritism, or an inherited position of advantage at the start of a game. The point is, that, under these circumstances of scrupulous equality of opportunity at the start, no one will begrudge the winner.

Yet, there are other factors playing a role, here. Anyone, who feels ill-equipped to participate in the event, does not have to do so, and, everyone is free to withdraw or decline an invitation to take part. There is, therefore, an element of "freedom of choice". After the game is over, we honour the winner in various ways, but, it is again important to acknowledge, that, by and large, the winner has no inherent advantage or lasting privileges influencing the position of a contestant in the next game.

There may be prestige, admiration, as well as an aura of fame surrounding the winner, and, he or she becomes an idol for many youngsters who want to equal his or her achievements, but, the living standards, the privileges of health, education and freedoms, or, the obligations to make a contribution to society, do not change significantly as a result of a win in a game.

True, in a society where sports have become a profession, and, often, a "show", financial considerations play an important role, and, we see, how all the existential anxieties of making money and doing well, permeate the professional sports. Unfortunately, these professional sports activities have then ceased to be games of equal opportunity, and, often, they have also ceased to be show-cases for good sportsmanship and admirable attitudes.

Professional sports have nothing to do with the concept of a true game, where a number of people agree, voluntarily, to compete for the fun of it, and, where the consequences of a win or loss can be born with grace and good humour, because everyone knows, and agrees, that the game was fair, that the rules were adhered to, and, that the winner is truly the best man or woman in this partical skill or activity.

As soon as a game becomes a livelyhood, the situation changes dramatically, because in the game of "real life", we can not participate or opt-out as we see fit. We do not know all the rules, and, we certainly do not know, whether or not those, who won, adhered faithfully to the same rules we abided by.

The winner in the games of life, often, gains power and wealth, which means, not only, that the fruits or material gains from a "win" in the game of life, remain for the rest of one`s life, but, these gains are often transferred to the heirs of socially successful people, giving them a privileged starting position. No wonder, that the games of real life are so different from the games of fun, and, few people would agree, that there is any resemblance between them.

I agree, that there are, as yet, few similarities between the voluntary games of friends and the deadly serious competitiveness of life in a large and ruthless society. The question is; would it be feasible, and advantageous, if this semblance would be enhanced, artificially and deliberately, by introducing a set of generally valid guidelines and providing the possibility to verify universal adherence to these guidelines, when living and working through the games of human co-existence?

.......

Chapter 3

Content

Transforming life in society into a fair and open game.
Security from the cradle to the grave?
A tendency to become lazy and parasitic.
Are we justified in believing, that man's egocentric concerns have to be stimulated for the sake of "productivity?"
Mechanisms of childhood behaviour.
The art of being good parents.
The vulnerability of the cultural code.
Differences between a healthy and a detrimental stimulus.
We have to learn from our mistakes.
The satisfaction of giving trust and receiving assistance.
Parallels with social developments.
Youngsters do not have to be spoiled, and leaders do not have to be facile or irresponsible.
The difficulties of making sure, that everyone plays by the rules.
A dependence on privileged circumstances; parasitic practices by rich and poor alike.
A look at the drive and energy of young people.
There will always be some competitive strife and hierarchical jockeying.
Frustrations, and the emergence of bad habits.

Few people would dispute the desirability of a situation, where our existence in society has been transformed into a fair and open game; where we would feel no sense of injustice if we lost, and, where we would know, that our basic security was, in essence, preserved, even, if we failed to do well.

Nevertheless, many people will object to the idea, that it is desirable to give everyone in society full guarantees of security and well-being, because they feel that such guarantees will make people lazy, parasitic and irresponsible. "We need a continuous dose of some existential anxiety in order to work and to live seriously, and, we see, that a security, extending from the cradle to the grave, has a weakening effect upon people, as well as upon society as a whole, because large segments of the population will adopt a "welfare mentality" and do nothing, going along for a free ride upon the backs of a minority that is still working and paying for all these social services".

This is a common and well established opinion, and, this argument appears to be quite valid in many ways, because in affluent societies that have experimented with the ideals of Democratic Socialism, we can point to numerous examples supporting the validity of these conclusions. Let us look at them in more detail, and, let us see, whether or not it is, indeed, inevitable that existential security makes us lazy and exploitative.

Is it really unavoidable, that the majority of a population would sink into a lax and lazy existence of ignorance, hedonistic pursuits and empty egocentric activities, whenever they would be given the chance to stop working and yet receive a basic income? Do we, inevitably, kill the incentive of people to do things for themselves, if most chores of maintaining life in a family-unit or a community are done for them? Do we always have to rely upon the stimulus of being a bit hungry and cold to make us work hard for our own interests, and, perhaps, for the interests of others as well? Are we really justified to say, that man's egocentric concerns and anxieties have to be stimulated to some extent, before man can be productive?

The answer is; partly, yes, and, partly, no, because in these common questions, which are frequently asked and debated, we portray, clearly, a number of misconceptions, as well as some astute observations about human nature. Let us review them, briefly.

If we see, that parents give their child everything it wants, the child grows-up completely spoiled, unbridled in its demands, whining, whenever it is not immediately satisfied. The attitude of the child becomes parasitic, without knowing, of course, what it is doing, or, why it behaves the way it does, because its thoughtless parents have given it an easy way to exist, without developing or stimulating any other qualities and potentials in this child.

Every life-form, including the human being, will choose the easiest possible form of existence, and, if these conditions are maintained for any length of time, the life-form becomes dependent on them. A child that has been spoiled, is genuinely upset, if it does not get what it wants, because it has come to rely upon its privileged circumstances, and, it has, subconsciously, adapted itself to a life-style, where its wants and needs are taken care of, whenever it whines.

We can not blame the child for behaving in this manner, because it is perfectly natural to depend on an easy way of life to fulfill one's needs, whenever such easy access is constantly being provided by thoughtless and weak parents, or lax and careless social circumstances. We have to place the responsibility for faulty parental care squarely on the shoulders of the parents, or, perhaps, upon the shoulders of its parental generation, because it is quite common, that the parents themselves have been brought-up the wrong way, and, that they have never learned the meaning of discipline and stimulation.

The art of being good parents comes natural to animals relying exclusively on their genetic instructions, because the ruthless mechanisms of natural selection will maintain a narrow range of suitable, genetically encoded patterns of behaviour, but, in the behaviourally flexible species', and, especially, in man, we see, clearly, how the way a child has been brought-up, affects, profoundly, its behaviour and attitudes as a parent, later in life.

A defective personality development, due to a defective up-bringing that has not been corrected by society in the intervening period, will lead to defective parental behaviour, and, defective parental behaviour is likely to have a disastrous effect on the next generation. The cultural code of good and effective parental care is a fragile flower in the bouquet of evolutionary achievements for the species of mankind, and, we see, time and again, how the affluent society lays the seeds for its own decay and destruction by losing the art of good parental care, together with an efficient up-bringing of its off-spring.

In a way, this supports the observations of our previous commentator, who voiced the opinion, that people need some sort of an incentive to look after themselves, and, that they tend to become spoiled, frivolous, demanding and whining members, if they are continuously given something for nothing.

However, if we look at the way a child should be brought-up, we see, that sensible parents protect their young from danger, but, at the same time, sensible parents stimulate their youngsters to develop their capabilities, interests and curiosity. Yet, this stimulation takes place within a sphere of protection. Within an atmosphere of shelter, the youngsters learn to do increasingly more for themselves, while attentive and consistent parental supervision makes sure, that all the needs these youngsters can not provide for themselves, are taken care of.

We see a gradual and unobtrusive relaxation of the limits of tolerance that have been set on the exploratory drives of youngsters. Protection is gradually eased-off, until the child or youngster is hardly aware of the fact, that he or she is still looked after, but, in times of a sudden crisis or disaster, the parents are there to protect him or her from serious harm.

This type of parental attitude and care allows youngsters to develop their skills and talents according to their specific rate of growth and maturation, and, by providing an essentially secure environment, the youngsters are sheltered from the full demands and dangers of real life, as long as they have not reached their optimum state of strength and development.

The youngster can learn from its mistakes, yet, its mistakes are seldom fatal because of this sphere of parental protection and supervision. The child learns to rely increasingly on its own skills and abilities, and yet, it retains an openness and drive to explore new situations or different social circumstances.

Youngsters have an innate tendency to form bonds of mutual trust and reliance, first, with their own parents and siblings, but, later, with other members of society, and these bonds are a "mutual affair", or, a two-way street. Instead of becoming and remaining dependent upon an easy supply of satisfaction or fulfilment of needs, confident youngsters learn the art of giving and supporting others in times of need and distress.

In this way, another dimension is added to the nature of inter-human contacts. This extra dimension to the human personality is developed because of this all-important experience of highly satisfying relationships, resulting from the attitudes and practices of mutual assistance and understanding. This development is so important, and, the personality acquires so much more depth, that we should look with grave concern, and a measure of pity, upon those unfortunate youngsters, who grew-up to become demanding parasites; vulnerable and confused because of their stunted personality; always rejected or looked-down upon with a measure of suspicion and contempt by the more normally formed personalities in their social environment.

Exactly the same developments take place, when members grow-up in a poorly structured society. If a non-understanding and short-sighted leadership gives-in to the temptation to give the people everything they want in return for their vote, the leadership creates a neurotic, parasitic, demanding and whining populace, that behaves, in essence, like a spoiled child.

This is one of the major disasters, that can, and does, take place in societies, where the leadership is chosen "democratically", and, we see, to our surprise, that the Socialist States, which are, as yet, not chosing their leadership directly and at regular intervals by a free, democratic vote, have avoided this pitfall, at least, to some extent, because they have coupled the provision of basic security with a demand for socially constructive attitudes and behaviour-patterns.

The unfortunate side-effect of creating a spoiled and whining populace has given Socialism in the democratic, but freely enterprising societies, a bad name, and, rightfully so, in spite of the fact, that the burdens of leadership show the facile and freely promising political candidates, quickly, how dangerous it is to woo the public with irresponsible commitments. These developments lie at the heart of the problem of inflation and excessive public spending, as we have discussed before, but, here, we want to return to a review of a healthy and normal personality development.

The point is, that a child does not have to become a spoiled and whining youngster, provided, that it receives adequate guidance and intelligent parental support. Neither does a member of society have to become a lazy and parasitic individual, if leaderships would behave intelligently and understand the basic mechanisms of the struggle for survival.

However, we do not create a healthy, happy and active youngster by withdrawing parental care all-together, because a child that has been deprived of parental care and maternal contacts, becomes a frightened, insecure psychopath, unable to trust anyone and incapable of forming normal relationships with other members of the social grouping. It becomes a social cripple and an outcast, which makes its path towards psychopathological behaviour irreversible. These creatures die prematurely, if society is harsh and well-disciplined, but, many psychopathic personalities become dangerous criminals in affluent and lax societies, where such behaviour-patterns are allowed to exist because of neglect, indifference, and inadequate law-enforcement facilities.

Just as it is erroneous to think, that the strongest and fittest youngsters are produced by a harsh or nearly absent level of parental care, so it is erroneous to think, that the strongest and most productive members of society are formed, if the leadership lets nature select the survivors of the economic and social struggle in a ruthless and orderless society.

There must be some sort of security for the orderly growth of a young personality, as well as for the unfolding of the socially integrated behaviour of responsible adults. Such a measure of security exists, indeed, in spite of the fact, that, many ardent supporters of a "survival of the fittest" doctrine tend to overlook it, or fail to acknowledge its existence.

Those, who advocate a ruthless survival mechanism for the creation of independent and strongly willed members of society, forget, that the losers in this game are still expected to obey the laws of society. The argument is, usually, that those, who won, played by the rules, and, that, therefore, those who lose, should continue to play by the rules as well.

A careful analysis of these arguments brings-up the question; whose rules? How do we know, that the winners played, indeed, by the rules, and, what about a fair and equal start for everyone at the beginning of the game? Unless the trend towards an inherited disparity is checked early, and moderated by wise and intelligent leaderships, power and wealth come quickly into the hands of a small ruling elite, which, invariably, bends or shapes the rules of society to fit its own needs.

We have talked about these aspects before, and, it is so clear, that these mechanisms come to the fore, again and again. Yet, the elite does not concern itself with questions of justice or essential equality, because, quickly, the elite, too, becomes like a whining and spoiled child. It, too, comes to depend upon the privileges of wealth and power for its survival. Besides, these privileges are, often, handed-down from generation to generation, and, this means, that a ruling elite, then, does not even have the qualities to amass wealth and power through its own efforts.

No-one would suggest that a parasitic attitude is healthy. It is not healthy in a family, if youngsters become dependent upon an easy and effortless sustenance, neither is it healthy in society. We should see the development towards a dependence upon hand-outs, or inherited privileges, as an abnormality. It is, in essence, a disease process, but, it is usually not all that difficult to see, why these developments took place.

A "welfare mentality" of the poor is certainly an example of a parasitic attitude, but, so is an elite depending upon the maintenance of its privileged position. Neither development should be considered normal or desirable, but, we should recognise the reasons and mechanisms, why a society tends to polarise between the wealthy and the poor.

Parasitic existence, either by the poor, or by the rich, is, in essence, an "easy" form of existence, which requires less intelligence, self-discipline and insight than hard work, cooperative attitudes, and the acquisition of an education. If the latter conditions are fulfilled, members learn to cooperate with each other, because they recognise the advantages of doing so. Then, people cooperate from a position of essential equality and insight, and, not, out of necessity, because they are being dominated and forced to contribute by a superior power.

It is not difficult to see, that an association of equal members, based on a federation of voluntary cooperation and association, has a much higher level of justice and vitality compared to a society, where one segment exploits the others, and becomes, at the same time, dependent upon a perpetuation of a situation of dominance and exploitation.

The incentive to work, to create something, to be independent, at least, in those aspects, where a measure of independence is possible and desirable; the incentive to study and think, to stand on one's own two feet, and yet, be able and willing to help others, when necessary, all these attitudes and developments are beneficial for a social integration of essentially equal members.

We have to discuss, what lies behind such motivations and attitudes. Why should people not always look for a parasitic way of life? Preferably, a parasitic existence of being rich, because, then, one gains power, wealth and the initiative, but, if necessary, a parasitic existence of the poor. Indeed, why would people not adopt the attitudes of parasitic existence, sponging-off others whenever possible, in preference to working hard themselves?

We have to make a good case for the motivation to work hard without the lure of getting rich, otherwise, the traditional, Capitalist view, that man's incentive to work hard, is, basically, an incentive for profit and wealth, will be difficult to refute. I am convinced, that man's motivations to work hard are not simply based upon a blind desire to gather as much material assets as possible, and, then, to sit back and do nothing.

Let us look, once again, at the drive and energy of young people, at least, if they have been fortunate to grow-up under healthy and stimulating conditions. We see, that the primary drive for their activities is not to amass a fortune of material wealth, but to do well, in sports, in the arts, or in any other activity, that has captured their fancy and is valued by their social surroundings.

The motivation for their activities comes from the fact, that they want to be accepted and respected by their peers. This is the most basic drive we see, and, if we are able to establish a smooth balance, early in life, between the aspiration of being accepted and the ability to fulfill the demands that are made upon us in return for a measure of social acceptance, then, we are well on our way to become a well-integrated member of society.

If society has been caught in the illusion, that we all should try to make as much money as we can, and spend it lavishly in a competitive style of ostentatious consumerism, then, that is what we have to do, and will do, in order to feel successful and become socially accepted. And, that is what we want to do, as a member, who is well integrated and accepted into his particular social locale.

In a way, the hierarchical jockeying for position, always continues. We see it in a group of friends, as well as in any social grouping. In the affluent society, the accepted method of jockeying for a position of prestige and influence has become the exhibition of an affluent life-style.

In every complex society, our particular social locale is only a fragment of the overall society, and, we feel, therefore, often, the frustrations and pressures that are exerted upon our particular life-style or social stratum. We often accept, somewhat frivolously, the financial obligations of heavy borrowing, until we realise, that we all are essentially in the same situation. Then, our experiences, emotions and frustrations become synchronised, and, if we happen to grow-up in a powerful elite, we will accept, by and large, the privileges of our position as a birth-right.

Similarly, if we grow-up in a welfare mentality, we can only see the stupidity of working hard, especially, if one can live a similar life-style by doing nothing. Then, the attitudes of parasitism become, almost, a form of pride, and we use this attitude to wring, rather desperately, some sort of grudging respect from our social environment.

Yet, in all these groupings, frustration is a common feature. Even the rich and privileged feel frustrated, in part, because they realise, dimly, that something is wrong and that their position is vulnerable. However, even, the rich are powerless to change much, because their survival is tied to their position and life-style, and, a voluntary abandonment of the privileged position would mean certain death, or, at least, severe impoverishment.

Welfare people also realise, vaguely, that there is something wrong with accepting the fruits of other people to sustain themselves. They are unskilled, looked-down upon, and, their frequent attempts to gain entrance into the labour-force only drive home the fact, that they are the lowest class on the social ladder, despised by nearly everyone else, and, that they lack the strength of character and self-discipline, necessary to break-away from the status-quo.

Just as it is so difficult to change the habits of a youngster after a faulty up-bringing has established a pattern of less desirable traits, so is it very difficult to change, in society, patterns of parasitic dependence, after they have become established and have found a possibility to sustain themselves.

.......

Chapter 4

Content

Emotional inter-actions between parents and children.
Parallels between life in a family and relationships in a larger social context.
A brief review of the human personality.
The zone of emotional near-neutrality.
Ambivalent attitudes, and variable circumstances.
Manipulating and exploiting ambivalent emotions.
The fallacy of a completely unrestrained up-bringing.
Stability; a key factor in healthy relationships.
The progressive damage caused by defective parental care.
Reasons for a stunted personality development.
The disastrous effects of an ambivalent leadership.
Erroneous concepts and neurotic frustrations.
Disease mechanisms in a social environment.
The importance of openness in social inter-actions.
The quiet stability of an average, unobtrusive family.
The irrelevance of egocentric pre-occupations.

We like to zero-in on a few of the emotional mechanisms that play a role in the relationships between children and parents. Of course, the same mechanisms are taking place between human beings in general, and, we will continue to draw parallels between emotional mechanisms within the small social grouping of the family-unit, and the larger society as a whole.

We have discussed, before, the basic structure of the human personality, and, we have seen, that we can consider human behaviour to take place along a sliding scale of emotions. This scale extends on either side of a zone of emotional near-neutrality into a zone that is "positive" or "negative" in character, or, aggressive or defensive in nature. As a somewhat separate existential "pole", or zone, there is the complex of sexually oriented behaviour, but, generally speaking, we can say, that sexual behaviour is an off-shoot of the positive pole or zone, since negative, anxious or defensive behaviour has an inhibitory effect on the mechanisms of sexual arousal.

This short description gives us a rough idea, how to interpret emotional behaviour. As a general rule, we can say, that, any complex organism, such as the human being, behaves more stereo-typed, when its behaviour slides into the "emotional end-zones". In the middle zone of "emotional near-neutrality", human behaviour is strongly influenced by rational fine-tuning, and, it is, therefore quite varied; from moment to moment, as well as from one individual to the next.

A very young child behaves, initially, almost exclusively in the emotional or instinctive zones, since the absence of existentially significant stimuli leads to a state of sleep. We see little or no influence of any rationality, until a few years have gone by. Then, the child has acquired a repertoir of learned symbols, attitudes and manipulative skills, which it can use, voluntarily and rationally, to choose the most appropriate behavioural response under the circumstances.

The behaviour of the new-born infant is characterised by a set of inborn reflexes. It cries, when something is wrong, or, when it is hungry, and, it falls asleep, when it is content. Over the next few weeks, a few signs of positive emotional behaviour emerge, such as the smile and a number of vocalisations reflecting a state of well-being.

The zone of emotional near-neutrality develops slowly. This is not surprising, because of the large number of acquired and learned tools that have to be used for an effective pattern of behaviour in this zone.

Good, intuitively sound parental behaviour provides a constant sphere of protection during the first few years, without sudden gaps or unexpected changes, but, also without an over-emotional and labile sentimentality. The child is fed regularly, but it is not picked-up each time it cries. It gets attention, but it is not smothered.

It is sad to see, how anxiety and confusion affect the behaviour of the young parents in our chaotic, affluent societies. These parents show, so clearly, their ambiguous feelings and emotional uncertainty towards their own youngsters. One moment, the youngster is smothered and the young parents go into a panic at the slightest hint of stress or disease. The next moment, the baby is dumped with relatives or a baby-sitter, as they are off to pursue their own pleasures.

These ambivalent and unhealthy, essentially immature behaviour-patterns towards their children, transfer an atmosphere of tension and confusion to the child. What a child needs, is a constant environment, with adequate protection, where it can slowly explore its surroundings as the brain starts to collect and categorise the sense impressions of the immediate environment.

In stead, the baby is subjected to unpredictable changes. Sometimes it is coddled and picked-up at the slightest cry or movement, then, it is not picked-up at all for hours on end, or, it is picked-up by a total stranger, in a strange environment, and, all the details of contact and handling are different as well.

As a result, it becomes very difficult for a young child to know, where its protection comes from; which environment represents familiarity and safety; which face will bring the needed care. On the one hand, a child may learn, that it can get everything it wants, including all the time and attention of its confused parents, especially, if these parents show an attitude of guilt for having left the child with strangers. On the other hand, the child also learns, that these parents, who can be manipulated so easily, may be gone again tomorrow, and, that another strange face will be providing a measure of care and attention.

In such a case, the input from the parents is weak and riddled with ambivalent emotions and feelings, and, as a result, there is virtually no positive stimulus coming from them. No limits are being set on the behavioural range of the child, partly, because of guilt, and partly, because of a thoughtless acceptance of contemporary wisdoms exalting the concepts of a "free and unfettered" up-bringing.

The belief, that a child develops its potential and personality best, when it is completely free, is obviously erroneous, because this concept fails to take into account the evolutionary background of learned or acquired behaviour-patterns. The philosophy of a completely free education fails dismally, because it fails to see, that the essence of behavioural flexibility is found in a setting of tolerances or limitations on the behavioural range. This "setting of a limit of tolerances" by the parents or guardians takes the place of a specific set of behavioural instructions from the genetic code, which determined the range of behaviour in the behaviourally less flexible species'.

The crux of sound behavioural flexibility is, therefore, the guidance given by parental supervision and tolerance. Let us not make the mistake to think, that these parents have to be consciously aware of what they are doing. Nature has sharpened, with sufficient clarity, a type of behaviour into the parental generations, which can ensure an optimum range of developmental freedom under reasonable stable conditions. These are genetically encoded instructions, but they can easily be led astray by confused and erroneous cultural guidelines. Stability is the key, here, as well as the fact, that, active and contributing parents have to do other things than just look after their youngsters.

In a natural relationship between parents, and, especially, between a mother and her child, we see all the factors represented that give the child a chance to grow-up into a healthy and well-integrated member of society. As soon as society and its parents are riddled with doubts, anxieties and guilt feelings, or defective and ambivalent attitudes towards having children in the first place, we see the beginnings of this dramatic and disastrous deterioration in the quality of child care and education.

These defects snow-ball into an outright disaster, whenever a large portion of these defectively brought-up children become even worse parents themselves.

Certainly, not all children who grew-up with certain defects in their environment because of parental neglect, instability or ignorance, become defective parents themselves. There is always a small percentage that is intelligent enough to realise, what was wrong in their own childhood, and, they often become successful and stable parents themselves. However, we have to realise, that the occurence of such a happy self-correction is too rare, and, too haphazard an event, to have any significant influence upon the quality of parental guidance and the up-bringing of the next generation as a whole.

The results of such an unstable environment and relationship between the infant, its parents and others looking after it, are nothing short of disastrous. The child learns, quickly, who it can manipulate, and, it becomes a demanding, whining and unpleasant child, in particular, against its own parents. Outsiders will look upon such a youngster with a measure of disapproval or scorn, and, this baffling hostility makes the youngster even more confused and defensive.

The youngster does not learn at all, what is expected from him or her. It remains egocentric, defensive, demanding and manipulative, while its inability to give to others, leaves it somewhat rejected and confused. Here, we have an accumulation of all the factors, that create the worst possible environment for the development of a personality.

A child that grows-up in a stable but firm and consistent environment, learns, from an early age, that it can not demand or push its will through by whining, crying or throwing a tantrum, because it will only be laughed at, or, worse, it will be severely punished if it does not learn to accept "no" for an answer. Yet, such a child is encouraged and stimulated, constantly, to behave "pleasantly", to cooperate, to learn to give, to show initiative, and, to get along with other people. Such a child is not spoiled, and, it knows very well, that it has to curb some of its demands or needs. It also recognises the legitimacy of similar demands and needs in others.

A child becomes, therefore, more confident, because it receives more sympathy and approval from its social environment compared to the spoiled, demanding and manipulative child. In summary; a child growing-up in a healthy, stable social environment, without the emotional ambiguities of tense and neurotic parents, has a much better grip on the realities of life, while the spoiled child experiences a severe handicap because of a defect in its emotional development, which may take years of painstaking reflection to correct.

Let us look at the similarities that exist between a relationship of parents and children on the one hand, and, the leaders and membership of a large society, on the other. If a leadership is seen to be ambivalent in its motivations and intentions, or, if it is confused in its perception of the problems to be solved and tasks to be carried-out, or, if a leadership is defensive and insecure, holding-on to power at all costs, the respect, admiration, or, even, the feelings of genuine love for the leadership will soon disapear.

If political candidates begin to adopt the attitude, that they have to buy the favours of the electorate, they reflect, in an exact parallel, the parent, who tries to buy the affection of a spoiled and fickle child with toys and gifts. We see, that such parents only compound the problems by making the child ever more demanding and manipulative, and, we should not be surprised to see the electorate behave in exactly the same way.

If parents would favour some of their children, or, perhaps one child in particular, what would this do to the attitudes and perceptions of the others? Exactly the same reactions of resentment, mistrust and disgust appear in society, whenever a leadership abandons the principles of scrupulous equality in its relations with the membership.

Just as parents become vulnerable to psychological blackmail, if they fall for an attitude of flattery and favouring one child over another, so is a leadership vulnerable to the same kind of pressures, if it tries to maintain its position by favouring certain people and playing the others against each other.

Fortunately, parents do generally a better job bringing-up their children to be responsible adults, compared to social leaderships bringing-up their members towards responsible citizenship. Certainly, the tasks of a parent are easier, because the human individual has fairly precise genetic instructions for sound parental behaviour, as long as its natural inclinations and insights have not been clouded by erroneous concepts and neurotic frustrations, or, by aberrations and defects in the behaviour of its own parents.

Favouritism affronts the sense of justice, regardless, whether it takes place in a family, or in a much larger social unit, and, favouritism leads to attitudes of resentment and brings opponents together in a spirit of revenge and conspiracy against a common enemy. People, nor children, can understand, nor accept, the arbitrary decisions of favouritism or discrimination, and, it will be our duty to make sure, that the leaders of future generations have a clearer perception of the damage done by such arbitrary changes in human relationships.

An equal opportunity at the start of a game precludes any notion of favouritism, and, so should it be with the games of life.

The entire gamut of emotional reactions is unleashed by an act of injustice or favouritism. We see fear, resentment and anger, as well as jealousy, intrigue and conspiracy. The game is off, and the mechanisms of the jungle have returned, but, we still have to learn to see, that society can not survive for any length of time, if its members return to the primitive behaviour-patterns of cut-throat competitiveness; without any rules, and, without any further considerations for the needs of social coherence.

On the other hand, a stable society, with fair, just and open relationships between the people and its leadership, where everyone can see what is happening, and, where people in a position of privilege are there because they deserve it, in such a society there is confidence, trust, a willingness to work hard and with dedication; there is a sense of quiet pride in accomplishments, as well as a sense of gratitude for the blessings of being alive.

It is so important to have a clear-cut idea about the rules of society; to know, that the rules are stable and impartially applied, and, that everyone adheres to them. Without this knowledge, and, certainly, without the openness to verify a condition of justice; without the principles of equal opportunity, society begins to decay and fragment, as the passions of suspicion, hatred and contempt start to eat-away at the foundations of togetherness and mutual trust.

What is good for healthy family relationships, is also good for healthy social relationships, and, the same mechanisms that tear a family apart will also tear a society to shreds.

In the quiet stability of an unobtrusive, average family, the youngster will have the best opportunity to develop the capabilities of his emotionally neutral zone, and, then, a youngster is likely to be rewarded for a calm, cool and rational approach to problems, as well as a keen eye for the similarities in needs, wants and aspirations between people from many different backgrounds.

Similarly, a calm, stable and moderate leadership will allow the membership to develop its potentials in an emotionally neutral zone of fair competition, and, rationality and fairness in judgement will be the guiding principles regulating human inter-actions.

If a family or society becomes a hot-bed of emotional tensions, manipulations and exploitative practices, it may become a fascinating object for observation or study, but, we have to recognise the grave limitations that are associated with living in an emotionally over-heated environment.

If we live in constant emotional turmoil, we will squander and dissipate our energies in a never-ending round of conflicts, changing alliances and intrigues, and, as a result, we become narrow, egocentric, introvert and irrelevant for ourselves, as well as for outside observers.

An egocentric pre-occupation with our own emotional or social tensions makes us insensitive and useless for other people, who may be watching us with an impatient shrug of the shoulder, and deplore the narrow sphere of our concerns.

Every emotion can be abused and manipulated for a narrow, egocentric purpose, and, let us review some of these mechanisms, whenever other people, or, we, ourselves, manipulate and exploit the mechanisms of emotional arousal.

.......

Chapter 5

Content

The manipulative infant.
An organism will repeat a behaviour-pattern that has been rewarded in the past.
We have to learn, that there are limitations to what we can get.
Rage-reactions and guilt-feelings.
The crux of flexible behaviour.
The value of consistent attitudes.
The use of idle threats in the manipulation of guilt-feelings.
A variety of bad habits.
Vacillating attitudes that are coming home to roost.
The "emotional swindle"; techniques of deception.
A comfortable atmosphere of friends.
People in real life are never caricatures or stereotypes.
The many ways in which we are being manipulated.
Exploitating the sentiments of good-will and patriotism.
A series of questions, and a variety of arguments.
The "common good"; a scrutiny.
Judgeing calmly, and in a broad perspective, the validity of our goals, and, our notions about "national interests".
The value of emotional control.

Already as an infant, we are trying to manipulate our environment, whenever we seek attention with a demanding cry. Of course, we are not aware of what we are doing, and, we are reacting in accordance with inborn patterns of behaviour. The cry is a non-specific manifestation of discomfort, as well as a method to get attention, and, as an infant, we can not distinguish between a genuine need and a search for the pleasure of being picked-up and coddled.

The point is, that the people in our environment, especially, our parents, have to make this distinction. They have to look at us and make sure, that everything is all-right, and, if satisfied that everything is in order, they have to decide, that we, as a baby, should be left to cry, until we fall asleep.

Every organism will repeat a behaviour-pattern, that has been rewarded with a desired result in the past, and, the human being is no exception. If we are picked-up, coddled and fed, each time we cry, you can not blame us for relying, increasingly, upon a behaviour that brings, obviously, all sorts of benefits and desirable results. However, if you let us cry, after we have been looked after, we will ultimately exhaust ourselves and fall-asleep. We learn, then, completely subconsciously, of course, that crying may get us a certain amount of attention, but, that there are limitations to what we can get.

Here, we touch upon a crucial concept, because many behaviour-patterns have a poorly defined point of satiation, and, a continuous, unlimited reward may enforce a particular behaviour-pattern far beyond what is needed for the health and well-being of an organism. Besides, accentuating a pattern of demanding behaviour has serious draw-backs. It is quickly perceived as undesirable or excessive by the social environment, and, often, even, by the parents themselves, and, this stimulates, once again, an attitude of confused ambivalence towards the young child.

The parents may become irritated and tense by the constant whining and crying of a child, and, suddenly, self-control may snap. Anger and frustration are vented in a rage-reaction that may lead to serious harm. Even lesser forms of uncontroled behaviour may cause severe guilt-feelings, leading to ever more erratic attitudes and behaviour-patterns towards the infant, destroying every opportunity to establish a stable routine of comforting and predictable stimuli.

The crux of flexible behaviour is expressed by the concept, that the individual organism seeks the most favourable response or reward for its behaviour, and, it scans, therefore, all the possibilities for such a reward by ranging through the entire gamut of its behavioural repertoir. If it is rewarded by a demanding attitude, then, such an attitude will be re-enforced, and, the inividual becomes, eventually, dependent upon such attitudes and behaviour-patterns.

On the other hand, if the individual organism is rewarded by excercising a measure of restraint in demand, as well as by an initiative in exploring alternative inter-actions, then, these traits will come to the fore, and, if a child, or youngster, experiences the fact, that it can get what it wants by being pleasant, by showing an attitude of affection, or, by reminding its parents about its wishes in a humorous and inoffensive way, such attitudes and practices will also be re-enforced.

Once again, we see the value of consistent behaviour by parents. If the parents say no, or yes, and stick with their decisions, the child learns, quickly, that any further attempts to change the decision of its parents are useless. However, if a child learns, that a parent can be persuaded to change his or her mind by constant pressure, by persuasion, or, by any other trick, then, it will diligently explore all such possibilities, and, the "yes" or "no" of parental decisions loses quickly its face-value.

Similarly, if parents are using idle threats in order to make a child behave, we see, quickly, that such behaviour loses all credibility. There is nothing more ignorant than to try to make a child behave with idle or meaningless threats, because, often, a flippant use, or abuse, of threats puts the parent in the position of becoming a liar or a weakling. These are very poor examples of parental guidance or behaviour, and, these type of parental responses are bound to undermine any respect or affection a child may have for its parents.

We should discuss another technique, commonly used by weak and ignorant parents in an effort to control their children. We are thinking, here, about the manipulation of guilt feelings. This technique is often used, especially, by weak and somewhat neurotic mothers, when trying to control their rebellious, teenage children. By playing upon the emotions of guilt for having hurt or offended their mother and father, these parents try to manipulate the behaviour of their children, but, they forget that it is their own inability or ineptitude to control their children in earlier years, which has given rise to the common spectacle in undisciplined societies, that teenage children are virtually beyond the control of their parents.

All the bad habits, the weak and vacillating attitudes from earlier years, the inconsistencies and cover-ups, the dishonesties and confusion, the ambivalence and ignorance of the parents come back to haunt them, especially, when they have to deal with inquisitive and rebellious adolescents. Certainly, it is not easy to know in a confused society, how to handle your children, but a measure of honesty and insight will go a long way to showing, where things went wrong in the past.

We have seen, then, how children will, invariably, manipulate their parents and their social environment, if such a behaviour has been rewarded in the past, and, we see, how parents are tempted to manipulate the emotions of fear and guilt by the use of idle threats or theatrical scenes, when children grow a little older.

However, children also learn to influence each other's behaviour, and, the methods used reach all the way from brute force and threats of violence, to the contract of a voluntary exchange; from deceitful promises and flattery, to the surreptitious removal of property; theft. True, we can not consider the act of stealing itself as a form of emotional manipulation or coercion, but, frequently, a pseudo-consent has been reached or obtained by false pretenses, deceit or promises that have not been kept. This, in a sense, is also a practice of emotional manipulation, or, the "swindle".

Perhaps, we should high-light a few more practices that could be considered examples of an "emotional swindle". There is, for example, a widely used trick to gain acceptance, or sympathy, by a "sob story"; an exaggerated account of hardship or misfortune; of fate, or, the treacherous behaviour of other people. Some people develop a real virtuosity in manipulating the feelings and sentiments of others in a ruthless and nearly psychopathic attempt to profit from their sense of sympathy and compassion.

This, of couse, is an example of parasitic behaviour. True, such an attitude must have been rewarded during childhood, and, it is not really the fault of the individual, who has learned, subconsciously, to make use of this mechanism of emotional sympathy in order to fulfill its wishes or needs. As a rule, however, such childeren grow-up to become weak and neurotic adults, who live-off their ability to manipulate emotions, and, they have a tendency to live a life of near perpetual parasitism on the good-willing sentiments of their unsuspecting victims.

Yet, we should make it clear, that, many people do not use their talents in a completely callous, scheming or calculating manner. Often, manipulative people remain pleasant and sensitive, giving in return for what they ask subconsciously, and, most of them are not fully aware of the mechanisms that take place. They like to dwell in a comforting atmosphere of like-minded friends, who understand each other's needs and wants.

As always, in nature, as well as in human behaviour, we see all sorts of gradations and mixtures, and, while it may be helpful to picture a fairly sharp portrait of a particular motivation or a specific type of personality, we should not forget, that, in actual encounters with existing people, we never see such a sharply etched and "pure" example of a particular category of behaviour.

We all know, how we can be led-astray by our emotions. We know about the power of sexual attraction which can be exploited for blackmail or extortion, and, we know, how all sorts of impetuous behaviour may be held against us. It may be used to make us feel guilty, and, such impetuous behaviour may make us a will-less prey in the hands of unscrupulous manipulators. We know, how fear and threats may drive us into the clutches of criminals; how we can be exploited and extorted, whenever the laws of society are incapable of protecting us.

We know, how greed, the instinct for acquisition, as well as a sumptuous life-style, make us vulnerable to loan-sharks or money-lenders, who are so keen to lend us their money for a high price. We know, how easy it is to be enticed to spend more than we have saved or earned, and, how easy it is to sell ourselves into virtual slavery by taking upon ourselves the burdens of a large mortgage or other substantial debts.

We know, that our sentiments of good-will can be exploited by people, who are in the fore-front of all sorts of charitable activities and community affairs. Who has not experienced the pressures of guilt feelings, whenever we refused to contribute substantially, in money or time, to one worthy cause or another? We are always subjected to pressures that are designed to arouse our emotions; from the advertisements on television, to sleezy magazines and movies; from the consumerist lure of the shops, to the pressures from social leaders or the exhortations of the clergy.

Even our national leaderships get into the act of manipulating our emotions and feelings, whenever they perceive some sort of a "national crisis", and, in particular, when our national pride and belligerent attitudes have been aroused. Our national leaders and the clergy are, then, in the fore-front of manipulative behaviour, as they exhort us to fulfill our patriotic duties, and to take-up arms to destroy another country with its equally patriotic citizens, who have also taken-up arms to defend the honour and pride of their fatherland as a result of the exhortations of their leaders.

We can be exploited, and, we are being exploited, every day of our lives, but, you probably object to lumping together the exhortations of our spiritual and political leaders, with those of the clever merchants. "Surely, you are not serious, when you suggest, that we should consider these emotional influences to be on the same plane, or, belonging to the same category? Surely, you would not want to suggest, that all these influences are exploitative or detrimental in nature? If all these influences are to be frowned-upon, how can we expect anyone to adhere to moral guidelines? Do we not have to exhort and pressure people a little, before they behave ethically and conform to the rules?".

"How can we educate people, if we do not put a little pressure upon them to learn? We have to make it socially desirable to do well in school, to learn something, to pass examinations, otherwise, no-one will make any effort. We have to point-out to people the national interests and the violations against our sovereignty, national pride and cultural heritage, which have been perpetrated by our enemies, before we can expect the common people to fight for their country".

"How can you throw-out all these influences upon our sentiments and emotions as "dubious manipulations"? What do you think, then, of a moving story, portrayed in a novel or a movie? Is this unlawful or distasteful emotional meddling? Do people not communicate with each other, primarily, on an emotional level, before they can communicate intellectually? You have said so yourself, and, now, you seem to contradict your own statements!".

"People can not avoid influencing each other emotionally, and, while we have to recognise the dangers of some forms of ruthless emotional exploitation, it would be irrealistic and improper to suggest, that all emotional inter-actions between people should cease. Perhaps, we should make a clear distinction between those manipulations carried-out solely with the motivation of egocentric gain for an individual or a private group, like an enterprise, and, those manipulations, which are necessary to defend our country and maintain our unity and strength as a nation or as an individual".

Allright, let us explore the validity of these arguments, and, let us see, whether we can, indeed, make a clear and non-controversial distinction between harmful and beneficial manipulations of emotions. So far, we seem to agree, that all deliberate and calculated manipulations of our emotions for the sake of egocentric gain, be it the financial gain of a company or individual, represent an activity that has to be scrutinised carefully, and, we agree that such an activity has to be regulated, in order to preserve or restore a situation of justice and prevent incidence of exploitation.

I am already quite pleased with such an agreement, because it gives us a good basis to start from, if we want to discuss the rules and regulations that will have to exist, in future societies, for the sake of creating and maintaining a situation of justice on a global scale.

From an intellectual point of view, it is interesting to discuss, in detail, to what extent we should encourage, or condone, any form of emotional manipulation, if the objective is the "common good" for society. The problem is not so much to decide, whether or not it is right to encourage each other, emotionally, to strive for and work for this goal of the "common good", as it is to agree about the validity of this goal of the "common good", or, the validity and justification of the goals of "national pride" or "national interest".

Our leaders are so anxious to make us believe in these goals. They do not want us to question, or scrutinise, these goals, and, they want us to support them to the point, that we all shout, in unison, our undying support for these goals, as well as the leaders who are propagating them.

This will give our leaders a chance to send us to war, and, history will repeat itself, then, again and again, as the gullible, good-willing, patriotic citizens obediently go to war to kill and wound each other on the battle-fields, while their leaders will discuss, later, the armistice or political settlement in the congenial atmosphere of a conference room.

This is what we have to scrutinise, before we can argue about the goals of the "common good". If the common good of our nations is nothing more than the exploitation of another nation, or, the exploitation of a segment of our own population, or a thoughtless and hasty exploitation of natural resources, or, a blind pride and emotional fervor in favour of independence and autonomy, or, an emotional reaction to a perceived insult, then, we may have to consider the national interests and the objectives of our leaders, as erroneous, short-sighted and egocentric or "socio-centric" in nature.

Therefore, the objection against manipulations of our emotions to make us all support actively the goals of the "common good", is not based on the objection against the principle of emotional manipulation for the sake of a true "common good", as well as on the inevitable side-effects of being swept into an emotional, nationalistic fervor. This leads, always, to an inability to judge, calmly, and with a broad perspective, the validity and justification of the goals and definitions we are being asked to support.

How easy is it to be goaded into a fervent attitude of patriotism that may be judged, in a historical perspective, as one more example of blind stupidity and unnecessary warfare? I am dead against such emotional manipulations, and, I am completely in favour of teaching our children, above all, the art and technique of emotional restraint.

Understand me well; I specify, here, the term "restraint", and not "suppression". Emotional suppression is practiced, largely, because of an emotion of fear; the fear, that emotional resonances or feelings will make us lose control. Emotional suppression leads, eventually, to a weak and neurotic personality, but, emotional control or restraint is based upon a realistic appraisal and acknowledgement of our emotional make-up.

Emotional control does not deny the existence of any one particular emotion, but, the attitudes of emotional control, restraint or self-discipline acknowledge, in practice, an easily verifiable truth; nl., that we respond better, more finely tuned, and, more in harmony with our environment, whenever we make an effort to keep our behavioural range within the limits of the zone of emotional neutrality, or rational control.

.......

Chapter 6

Content

The manipulations of a gifted artist or leader.
People want to be "swept-off their feet"; at least, occasionally.
The difference between making a genuine gift, and taking an unfair advantage.
How closely does the public resemble a spoiled and fickle child?
The wisdom to bide one's time.
The crucial importance of the sense of beauty.
Education should be based on the recognition of beauty and relevance.
Recognising a truth.
A nostalgic view of an idealised form of teaching.
We have been deeply disappointed.
The dangers of a non-ethical ecstasy.
We have to be careful with each and every emotion.
A more sensible perception of the role of science and technology.

Let us come back to the question, whether we should avoid all manipulations or exploitations of emotional reactions, or, does a gifted leader and a talented artist have to play, out of necessity, upon the emotions of people, because the people ask for it; yes, demand it? Indeed, people want to be swept-off their feet, at least, once in a while, and, how can we maintain the point of view, that all emotional abandonment is unhealthy, weakening, dangerous or undesirable?

The answer lies, again, in the motivations behind an act of emotional manipulation. There is a world of difference between the intention to influence people in such a way, that the manipulator is able to profit from a change in behaviour, and, the attempt to make people laugh, cry or identify with the characters of a story, or the up-lifting examples of courageous behaviour in real life.

Here, we see the difference between a genuine artist and a gifted leader, bringing an up-lifting experience to their respective audiences, and, the clever manipulator, who tries to sell a product with slick advertising and psychological gimmickery, or the egocentric leader, who is seeking popular support for personal gain.

The gifted artist and inspiring political leader give something of themselves, and, occasionally, the people respond with a nearly ecstatic enthousiasm and subconscious gratitude for this gift, in spite of the fact, that few people recognise what is happening, and, most of them would be unable to bring under words the reasons, why they are moved by the artistry of a gifted performer, or, the inspiring leadership of a truly concerned and benevolent leader.

The merchants of egocentric profit, as well as those who are hungry for power or fame, only try to exploit the appetites and needs of the people for their own gain. Unfortunately, people are often led astray, because they lack the ability to analyse, precisely, the motivations of those who are trying to influence them.

People are often swayed in one direction or another, and, they are sentimental enough to fall for worn cliches and facile promises, but, never for long. The public is always restless, always ready to divert its attention to something else, and, even, the true artist and the genuine leader are only able to capture the attention of the public for short periods of time. Soon, the people want something else, something more exciting, and, it is remarkable, how closely the public resembles a fickle and somewhat spoiled child, in particular, during periods of relative prosperity and easy living conditions.

Yet, let us also sound a note of caution about the contributions of gifted leaders and artists, because, even, gifted artists and genuinely concerned political leaders are human beings, and, they come to depend on the continuing support from their admirers and followers, and, inevitably, sooner or later, disappointments arise in the relationships between artistic or political leaders, and their followers.

Disappointments arise on both sides, because it is impossible to satisfy the ever-rising expectations of a devoted and hungry public, and, it is equally impossible to expect complete understanding for the artistry or the leadership that has been given.

There will always be disappointments, and, even, the best leaders and the most devoted artists will suffer the consequences of a fickle attention, shallow criticisms, as well as an unwarranted restlessness or vague complacency, as the public continues its search for excitement and entertainment, together with a new focus for its attention, admiration and emotional needs.

No wonder, good-willing leaders and hard-working artists have become prematurely grey because of frustration and anxiety, until they learned, intuitively or consciously, to play it cool; to bide their time; to restrain their emotional intercourse with the public. They remain devoted to their artistic ideals, or their political goals, and, they know, that the public will come back to them, whenever the time is ripe.

Indeed, the sensation of beauty, or, the recognition of something valuable, is, probably, one of the most satisfying and constructive emotional experiences we can have, and, genuine artistry and inspired leadership depend on this recognition of beauty, rather than on the ability, or the intention, to manipulate public opinion or taste. This sensation of beauty, the recognition of something valuable, the act of giving to the people rather than taking an advantage or money, lie at the root of true artistry and leadership. They also are the foundation for an inspiring and up-lifting educational experience.

If education is not based on the goal, or ideal, that pupils should, eventually, experience some sort of a recognition of value, the objective to educate will miss its targets. I am not suggesting, that it is easy to elevate the profession of teaching to such an exalted level that pupils faint in admiration for their teacher, or shed tears over the beautiful things they are learning.

The recognition of beauty, truth or relevance in learning and teaching may be experienced and expressed on a far more subdued level, quite in keeping with the ideals of a controled emotionality. Nevertheless, I believe, that it is possible for every youngster, as well as every adult, to be moved by the experience of recognising a truth or a relevant experience.

In order for this to be possible, or likely, we should, first of all, have a fairly good idea, what our youngsters are experiencing, how they are digesting their experiences, and, especially, which areas of their experience-world are most meaningful and relevant to them, at any particular time.

In affluent societies, we are dealing with the problem, that, many, if not most, youngsters are growing-up with confused guidelines and contradictory experiences, and, many teachers are a product of similarly confused circumstances, when they were growing up. Therefore, we should not be surprised to see, that, virtually nothing of the ideals of good teaching has remained intact.

The ultimate goal and objective of inspired teaching has become lost in the confusion of modern, affluent life, and, as a result, teachers, pupils, nor parents, know, or agree, what teaching is all about, or, that it should be one of the most important experiences of a life-time.

Most people think, that the role of teaching and learning is confined to assimilating knowledge and information, allowing a youngster to occupy a niche in the skilled labour-force. Knowledge has become, almost exclusively, a tool to make a living, or gain a fortune, and, such an attitude permeates the universities and colleges as well. Gone are the old-fashioned ideals about the universality of knowledge and wisdom. Gone are the days, that we hoped to find peace, tranquility and satisfaction in learning. Now, we learn to make money, and, we try to find relaxation and pleasure in the activities or items of consumption we pursue with the money we have earned.

I am not surprised, that such a development has taken place, because the knowledge and insights of modern man, as well as his manner of living, have been a fundamental disappointment for many of us. In stead of giving us wisdom, the sciences have given us confusion and a dangerous technology. In stead of giving us peace and tranquility, the sciences have given us the weapons of modern warfare, including those of mass-destruction, as well as the threat of wide-spread pollution.

As a matter of fact, many of us now fear the sciences, and, we only want to deal with a small field, just enough to function in a specialised function, and the remainder of the sciences leaves us cold, because it has no relevance for us. We are suspicious about science, its warring scientists, the relentless use of contradictory evidence, unreliable statistics, and biased, pseudo-scientific arguments. We are tired of science, and, many of us have gone back to the simple faith of a fundamentalist religion.

Unless we regain a firm philosophical grip over the entire field of science, including the sciences of human existence, human behaviour and technological achievements, this trend of alienation from the sciences will continue.

Yet, we should not give-in to despair, as long as there seems to be some time left to make a contribution to the understanding of man, and, I hope, of course, that a few of my readers, who have been patient and remained with me, will experience a glimpse of recognition, as they try to assimilate, faithfully and diligently, the stream of ideas and mental images which I have been recording, for some time, now.

Is it short-sighted to consider the sensation of beauty as a central emotion of our existence? Probably, it is, because we should not forget, that the sensation of beauty may not only be experienced in the recognition of intellectual or intuitive wisdom, but, it may easily slide into a non-ethical experience of a profound personal happiness, which could be a hindrance rather than a help in our efforts to understand other people, or the problems of our surroundings.

Let us be careful not to glorify just any sensation we consider to be "beautiful", or, to accept any kind of happiness, ecstasy or ebullience as a sign of life-sustaining beauty. Like most other concepts, the concept of beauty needs a great deal of refinement and precision, before we are able to give it a deserved place of prominence in the hierarchy of valuable experiences.

For the time being, it seems safer to stick to the previous attitude, where we advocated a firm control over all our emotions, including those of happiness and the experience of beauty. Yet, the idea, that the sense of beauty and gratitude are valuable experiences, and, the fact that these emotions are aroused whenever a generous and gifted person shares his qualities and talents with others, remains a firm principle of value around which we can build a framework for ethical conduct.

Once we regain a more sensible perception of the role and function of science and technology, we should be able to devise a system of education that is less fearful and emotional in its relation to the intellectual and manipulative skills of man. Once we know, again, a little better, what or whom we are, how we function and think, and, how we should live together, it may be easier to teach, once again, a sense of wisdom and prudent conduct, which emphasises the need to cooperate and trust each other, rather than the need to arm ourselves to the teeth. We are arming ourselves to the teeth, not only, as nations who look suspiciously at each other from behind our arsenals of nuclear missiles, but, we also arm ourselves in civilian life with all the weapons of knowledge and information we can get, in order to defeat our competitors on the battle-fields of academia and industry

.......

Chapter 7

Content

The ideal member of society.
The risks of engaging in socially constructive behaviour-patterns.
It is much more difficult to identify with a large society than with a small group.
An urgent need to evolve towards a global society.
Trust can not be based upon pious exhortations, but is the result of a deliberate contract between equals.
Trust has to be earned.
The real value of our technological capabilities.
The switch from consumption to social construction.
Socialism is having a rough time.
The spectre of world-wide domination by Capitalism.
Why Socialist Ideals have been so difficult to implement.
The ability to build an efficient, frugal life-style of near self-sufficiency under a contract of essential equality.
The right place for competitive endeavours.
A comparison with family relationships.
Never fear questions, initiatives, or an alert mind.
Let us be fearful of a sullen, depressed and lethargic spirit.
If man appears lazy, he is, almost always, frustrated and unhappy.
The widespread blame for failure.

Let us try to sketch a portrait of the ideal member of society, with an ideal pattern of socially integrated behaviour, and, let us see, whether or not we have any chance to make such behaviour acceptable, or, even, attractive for the average citizen. Let us see, whether or not the average person can be convinced, primarily by intellectual persuasion, to accept the risks that are undoubtedly associated with good, trusting and generous social behaviour.

If we are looking for a model to take as an example, we do not have to search very far, because a normal family, with healthy relationships between its members and its social environment, provides an abundant inspiration for a portrait of desirable social relationships.

After all, the differences between the relationships in a family-clan and those of a larger social unit, are only a matter of degree, and, these differences are primarily due to differences in the size of the social units involved. Whenever there are relationships of trust and good-will, we feel "kinship" with the other members of a social unit, but, we should not under-estimate the practical difficulties associated with the creation and maintenance of a feeling of kinship between members of a much larger grouping.

We have discussed, before, the idea, that our natural instincts, or, rather, the genetic instructions for our behaviour, fall short, whenever we have to deal with the problems of forming harmonious relationships between a large number of people. We have seen, that the factor of "complexity" plays a crucial role in preventing us from knowing each other intimately, and, we have seen, how important our conscious "will" becomes in shaping a deliberate, well thought-out and scrupulously applied principle of justice and fairness, in order to facilitate smooth relationships between people, who are, in essence, strangers for each other.

We have arrived at a stage in our evolutionary development, where these objectives of large-scale social coherence and trust have become necessities. We have now the technical facilities, as well as the intellectual insights, to make the construction of a viable global society, a reality, and, we know, now, that the development towards this goal is not anymore an ethical or philosophical luxury.

Let us first look at the attitudes necessary for people to fit harmoniously and enthousiastically within a framework of social and economic relationships on a global scale. Foremost, is the attitude of trust. We have to cultivate the ability to trust each other's behaviour, even, if we do not know each other personally, because, without a measure of reliance upon each other's contributions, it will not be possible to create a beneficial web of cohesion and inter-dependence.

We have discussed, many times, that the attitude of trust is a normal capability of every human being, who has grown-up in reasonably normal and healthy family relationships. However, we are beginning to understand, that we can not foster the attitudes of trust with pious wishes and exhortations, whenever they have withered away, and, we know, now, that we are on rather shaky grounds, if we base the attitudes of trust and cooperation on a divine command of neighbourly love.

No, trust is a conscious and deliberate contract, which has to be fulfilled by all partners or participants in a web of inter-dependence, and, it is crucially important to be able to know, verify and convince ourselves, at any time, that our trust is justified; that it is reciprocated, and, that it is not being abused.

Therefore, the logical corollary of an attitude of trust is a complete openness in society. There has to be access to, and availability of, all relevant information, and, everyone has to be able to trust that this information is complete, honest, and as balanced and objective as possible.

Every time we start to think about ways to improve the relationships between human beings, be it within a complex society or on an even larger scale between nations, we always come back to these same cardinal principles of mutual trust and complete transparence, and, we come to the conclusion that there is no short-cut. We have to have mutual trust, and, this trust has to be earned. It has to be cultivated. It has to be given a possibility to exist and endure the disease of suspicion, by building, slowly, but persistently, this open and informed society of global dimensions.

Until recently, we did not have the technical ability to construct such an open society, with total freedom of, and access to, comprehensive information, but, now, we have the technical capabilities to do so. It is time to acknowledge the fact, that the true significance of our technological virtuosity still has to be discovered, because, in a historical perspective, the real importance of our technological evolution will only become apparent, after we have learned to apply these techniques to the construction of a just, durable and transparent social system with a global relevance and a global web of inter-dependencies.

It is time, that we switch our attention from the aspects of consumerism to those of social construction. So far, technology has only produced a vastly increased level of consumption in the affluent pockets of human existence. This level of affluent consumption is far beyond what is needed for a healthy life-style, and, ironically, this abundance of material wealth has led, primarily, to chaos, frustration and pollution.

The other dubious result of technology has been the construction of ever more lethal and devastating weaponry, and, it is not surprising, that many people feel very uncomfortable with the direction and results of technological "progress". Let us, indeed, transfer the thrust of technological development towards the building and construction of efficient government channels. Let us get a grip over these bureaucracies, which are, so often, stagnant pools of inertia, inefficiency and petty jealousies and anxieties.

Unless we learn to control the government bureaucracies of complex, conglomerate societies, and, unless we learn to teach our leaders, how to get a firm grip over all the mechanisms of government and bureaucratic institutions, we will sink into an ever deeper chaos of paralysing frustrations. Unless we learn, quickly, how to make our government machineries instruments of an open and efficient public administration, we are in danger of losing, through chaos, strife and warfare, the technological base we are going to need to create truly efficient government bureaucracies on a global scale.

Already, we see a disturbing, if somewhat ironic development in several large societies, based on the principles of a guided economy in stead of the principles of free-enterprise and private profit. There is a gradual recognition and admission of the fact, that centralised economic planning can seldom equal the efficiency of private enterprise, and, as a result, central economic planning and the Socialist Doctrines are under pressure.

This would, indeed, be an unfortunate triumph for the free-enterprise philosophy, because the principles of Socialism are just, and are the only way to achieve a measure of equality and justice on a global scale. It would be tragic to see the entire world united under free-enterprise, because it would resemble one of those under-developed, Capitalist countries, where a small elite owns everything and rules the rest of the people with an iron fist.

Do you really want to see us enslaved to a global elite that owns all the multi-national corporations, all the world's resources, and all nuclear war-heads and other sophisticated weaponry?

Sure, there will be a great deal of "stability", because a large majority of the world population will be enslaved to a small but clever and powerful elite, and, it will be very difficult to break-through such a strangle-hold, especially, if the elite has made good use of modern communication and information techniques, and has organised an effective army to keep "law and order".

It is sad to see more and more Socialist Societies diverge from their Socialist Ideals and Principles. The reasons for their searching attitudes are diverse. On the one hand, a tacit recognition is taking place, that the doctrines of Socialism are fallible after all, but, on the other hand, these activities seem to represent, also, a desperate attempt to reach, quickly, a measure of affluence and technologial mastery. It seems, that, peoples all over the world are increasingly caught-up in a dream of affluence and consumerism, just as the members of a large and poor family gawk in admiration at a rich uncle, who has just returned from far-away and displays a dazzling array of gadgets and luxuries.

Rather than going back to a philosophy that glorifies egocentric achievement and a ruthless survival of the fittest, let us work hard to make sure, that our leaderships are well informed; that our legislators are well educated and well motivated people, who can plan, collectively, a sane course of just developments. Let us make sure, that our government bureaucracies become lean and efficient channels to carry-out, swiftly and competently, the will of a democratically elected leadership, and represent, thereby, the will of the people.

We do not have to go back to free-enterprise, certainly not to the free-enterprise of the multi-national corporations, but, we have to acknowledge, frankly, that a controled degree of competitiveness is stimulating, and may be beneficial to society, provided, that the extent and effects of competitive efforts are carefully monitored and remain under the control of society and its leadership.

Just as it is fun, and stimulating, to participate in competitive games, so is it fun, and stimulating, to encourage a competitive spirit of accomplishment, provided, that it can be translated into a competent effort to look after a community, to solve its problems, and adopt a life-style of frugal self-sufficiency.

This controled competitiveness and drive to achieve can lead to an informed and intelligent outlook on life, which will be a blessing to society as a whole. We should not fear the attitude of competitiveness, nor, the desire to do really well, but, we should fear the lethal effects of corrupt, complacent and inefficient or ignorant officials and their bureaucracies. These are more deadly to society, than a healthy pride in a decent existence, and a normal desire to show-off a job that has been done well.

We do not expect children of a healthy family to behave like zombies, without initiative, without the desire to fight for justice, essential equality, as well as a good and logical explanation for all the rules, regulations and directives that are in effect, do we? Similarly, the members of a normal and healthy community will be justifiably proud, if they have worked hard to accomplish something. They also know, that this pride may be shown as a good-natured rivalry, but, they also know that it should stop-short of seriously hurting or insulting someone else, or some other grouping.

As children, we squabble from time to time, but, we also know, at least, intuitively, (and we should actively be made aware of this fact), that our security and possibility to exist in healthy circumstances and a measure of freedom, depend on the existence of the attitudes of trust and cooperation in the family we belong to. Any activity that destroys, even unintentionally, socially beneficial attitudes, will ultimately lead to an impoverishment for all the members.

If we, as children, want to know the reasons for the directives of our parents, and, if we object, strongly, to a directive we do not understand; if we feel frustrated, when our parents favour some of our brothers and sisters, why then, would we react any differently in relation to our leaders in the larger society?

If we can understand, ask questions and receive satisfactory and consistent answers that show us, how we are all treated in the same manner, and, that no-one, or, no particular group, receives hidden favours or privileges, then, there is no reason to doubt, that we all will be highly motivated to work together, and, it will be a foregone conclusion that we can solve our problems in a spirit of good-will, cooperation, or, even, enthousiasm.

We should never fear the initiative, the incentive or the drive to be active, to do something well, or to accomplish something worthwhile, but, as a society, and, as a leadership, we will have to make sure, and monitor carefully, that this vitality, this elan vital, this healthy drive and ambition remains channeled in ways that are beneficial to the society, as well as the enterprising individual, and, we have to make sure that these activities do not lead to situations of injustice.

We should fear a sullen, depressed, lethargic and docile spirit, because we can be sure, that there is something seriously wrong with the status-quo.

If people become cynical, distrustful, increasingly egocentric, then, we know, that there is a serious problem. Perhaps, these people feel, that they have been deceived, that their trust and hard work has been abused, that another group has openly or secretly benefitted from their efforts. Perhaps, people feel, that they have been robbed by their government, as anyone would in our inflation-ridden societies, where we know, that the value of our savings is steadily being undermined because of irresponsible fiscal policies and the facile promises and commitments of incompetent politicians.

Do we not feel cynical and left-out, if powerful unions of labourers and professionals are able to increase their wages and fees, while others with less power are left behind? Do we not feel frustrated and angered, if we see, that our governments can only react to pressures and crises, but do not seem to have the time, nor the wisdom, to listen to common-sense or a reasonable request without the pressure or threat of a strike?

Would we not quit our job and cease our efforts, if we do not believe that our efforts are making any sense; if we just do the job to receive our pay-cheque? Man is not lazy by nature, but, if he has to do a job that is monotonous, or, void of meaning or accomplishment, it becomes very tiring to struggle every day for eight long hours through an existence that is tedious, or, even, revolting to the faculties of common-sense and the normal ambitions of decent citizens.

If man appears lazy, he is almost always frustrated and unhappy, and, he is not unhappy, because he failed to get more and more and more. This insane acquisitive drive is an expression of frustration. It is an attempt to cope with frustration. Happiness is the knowledge, that the situation is just; that we can trust each other and our leaders; that there is hope to solve the pressing problems of our social environment; that we are not being abused.

Happiness is the ability to become informed, to ask questions, and, to get meaningful answers. We are so wrong and so ignorant about human motivations, if we think, that man can only be stimulated into action by a large financial reward. Anyone, who has made an effort to observe our healthy youngsters, before they have been spoiled by consumerist attitudes, will agree, that a youngster loves to do something he or she really believes in. Their energy and dedication is staggering, and makes any simple theory about financial incentives a cheap fallacy, which some people like to perpetuate to maintain their prejudices of scorn and contempt for "those lazy workers".

The fault does not lie with the workers. It does not lie with the people, but, we have to place the blame squarely on our leaders, if they fail to see, what has to be done in order to create a genuine situation of justice.

After all, this is what they have been elected for. After all, they have taken it upon themselves to lead us. Very well then, lead us, but lead us right, and, begin by understanding, at least, something, about the nature of social integration and the requirements of efficient and honest government.

But then, people, we realise, that our leaders come from amongst ourselves, and, in the final analysis, the responsibility rests with us all. We all have to make a serious effort to understand, what makes a society tick; what attitudes have to be present, before a society can function, and, what sort of conditions and circumstances we have to create, in order to make these attitudes a viable reality.

We will have to educate ourselves in these matters. Only, then, can we help our youngsters understand their social environment, as well as the nature of human existence. From these youngsters, our future leaders will come. These are the people, who have to make sure, that successive generations of mankind create the necessary circumstances and conditions to maintain a situation of global justice and viability for the species of mankind.

.......

Chapter 8

Content

Beneficial regulatory mechanisms are, primarily, positive in nature, and act as an incentive to adopt constructive attitudes.
The mechanisms of stubborn behaviour.
Unsuspected gaps in comprehension.
Behaviour-patterns that have to be restrained and corrected.
Applying ethical principles beyond a familiar cultural sphere.
Breaking through the limitations of a narrow sphere of cultural identification.
Becoming friends with enemies.
An International Judiciary Body.
The need for leaderships to hold and abide by referenda.
A large society can be just as transparent as a good family-unit with the help of modern technology.
A willingness to help others get their fair share.
Restraining our powers of manipulation.
Recognising our dependence upon a situation of privilege.
Better to prevent an unhealthy dependency than correcting it.
The fallacy of the inevitability of war.
A widespread web of shared responsibilities.
It is time to counter-act, effectively, the emotionalism of fanatic beliefs.

So far, we have emphasised, primarily, the positive conditions and stimulating aspects that allow a personality to develop with exuberance and confidence. However, in order to ensure a durable harmony with others, a developing personality also has to learn to control a series of "short-cuts", or, "easy ways out", which are, often, an immediate benefit to the individual, but are, in the long run, detrimental to the conditions of justice and the quality of life.

In other words, every unfolding personality has to abide by a series of instructions that spell-out a series of "don't`s". Bad habits represent, to a large extent, a number of such short-cuts that have been allowed to persist because of negligence by the social environment, or an unusually uncooperative attitude of the individual.

Yet, we should be careful to avoid a facile and unjust characterisation, when a child or adolescent seems to be unreceptive to corrective measures or explanatory instructions. We have to make sure, that the individual understands, fully, what he or she is being told, and, why a particular habit or behaviour is considered undesirable.

If there are unnoticed gaps in comprehension, or, if an individual has had unusually traumatic experiences, the reality perceptions may be quite different from our own, and, our instructions or corrective measures may make little sense. Then, we can not expect to see results, and, if we do not see the usual reactions to our teachings and exhortations, we are obliged to find out, why.

Stubbornness is often based upon misunderstandings, or hidden frustrations and resentments, and, it would be wise to examine, carefully, the history of such a personality, before we neglect such an unattractive character and consider him or her unsuitable as a student or unworthy as a member of society.

A child that has not been damaged, psychologically, will always respond well to sensible and honest guidelines. Have you ever known a healthy and normal family, where the behaviour of its members was not regulated and restricted, at least, in some ways? Deceit, dishonesty, stealing, irresponsible behaviour, unjust accusations or lying, will all be sternly reprimanded and corrected, but, parents of a sensible family always give a well-founded series of arguments and reasons, why such a behaviour is not acceptable. Any behaviour that is deemed unacceptable or undesirable has been condemned on the basis of clear-cut and commonly accepted reasons, and, the same standards of acceptable behaviour are applied to everyone.

The situation is not any different in a larger social unit. Anyone, who thinks that it is right to cheat or mistreat a foreigner in society, because of the fact, that he or she is a stranger, and, because of the fact, that we feel no particular affinity for this person, lays the foundation for hatred and retaliation. Anyone, who thinks that one can mistreat a human being from a foreign culture on the basis that the rules and regulations of ethical conduct do not apply, is a bigot, who will have to learn the hard way, that the stranger does not like unethical behaviour anymore than his next of kin.

Yet, there is a problem, here, because the formulation of ethical behaviour is centered around our own society, our own culture, perhaps, even, our own circle of friends. Our ethical concepts and guidelines always make a clear distinction between those who are our friends, (and to whom, of course, our ethical guidelines apply), and those, who are "outsiders". Perhaps, they are not really personal enemies, but they may be enemies of our social environment, culture or beliefs. Often, these people or ethnic groupings are not even perceived as being on the same footing as ourselves, because they are considered strange and evil creatures, to be despised and hated, because we fear them and do not understand them.

If we review the history of our society and the beliefs of our cultural heritage, as well as the problems our society has faced over a long period of time, then, it becomes logical, why we believe and behave the way we do. However, it becomes also clear, that our most pressing problems center around the limits of our cultural horizon and sphere of concerns, because these limits determine the range of our ethical feelings and responsibilities.

As soon as we learn to see, that we all are human beings with similar needs and aspirations, and, that we all live in some sort of social environment, (where we try to cope with a variety of existential problems, be it with different concepts and beliefs), then, it may be possible to break-through the limitations of a narrow sphere of cultural identification.

As soon as we learn to avoid blaming our enemies for the problems we are facing, we learn to be more responsible and self-disciplined. As soon as we learn to see, that all the cultures, societies and nations are, in essence, members of one single family of mankind, we may acquire some simplified, but logical and profound insights.

If we have already accepted this enlarged sphere of identification, and, if we really act in the way we profess to believe, then, the false accusations of our "enemies", or the problems we have when dealing with other people, are similar to the false accusations and frictions that occur between the members of a family. If we really profess to be able to see each other as members of the family of mankind, we should also learn about each other's aspirations and dreams, about each other's rights of existence, fears and phobias, as well as each other's potential for trust, good-will and cooperation.

We will learn, that it is possible to become good friends with those we thought to be strangers and enemies, and, we have to acknowledge, that we may have contributed to the fears and suspicions of our enemies, because we, too, have indulged in false and facile accusations and half-truths.

It is often nothing more than a bad habit to blame someone else for our short-comings, because it is so easy. If we do it in a normal family-circle, the other members will show us, quickly, how wrong and unjust such an attitude is, but, we have to come ourselves to the insight, that it is the same when accusing, without good grounds, another society or ethnic grouping for the problems we, as a nation or ethnic grouping are experiencing, because there is no-one, as yet, to teach us these insights. The relationships between nations have not evolved that far as yet, because the level of comprehension, and the bonds of togetherness, have not been sufficiently developed to formulate, clearly, a form of ethical behaviour that spans national, ethnic or cultural boundaries, but, we are making progress into the right direction.

We need a truly effective judiciary body that can examine, in great depth and with complete openness, all the arguments and aspects of either side, whenever there is a situation of conflict between social entities. Rather than trying to settle a dispute with the primitive and barbaric methods of warfare, (a task for which the law-abiding and patriotic citizens have to pay with their lives), we should be able to agree with, or, at least, accept, the verdict of a competent international judicial organisation.

If children have a serious dispute, they consult their parents, and, as a rule, they receive a fair and acceptable judgment. If we quarrel as citizens, we let a judge decide, when we can not come to a voluntary settlement. If our leaders start to quarrel with each other, why should we, ordinary ctizens, have to go to war and kill each other? Surely, there must be a better way to settle disputes between leaders and national entities.

Peoples of the world, regardless, how much we trust or admire our leaders, let us insist, that they submit to us, the entire population, any plans they may have to go to war. Let them seek permission for such plans in a national referendum, and, let us make sure, that they promise to do this, before we give them the privilege to be our leaders. Let them guarantee, that they will obey the will of the people as expressed in these referenda. If the people do not want a war, then, there will be no war, regardless, how upset our leaders are about the alleged violations to national pride, or the concerns about national interest and sovereign integrity.

As members of a family and ordinary citizens, we have to learn to control our behaviour and curb our desires and wishes, in order to respect the rights of other members. We will have to behave in the same way in the family of mankind. If we all would behave as we would in our family-circle, we would have little to add to our behavioural repertoir to make the family of mankind a viable global society.

Just as we can ask questions at home, and check, whether or not everyone is treated equally and fairly by our parents, so have our social institutions, as well as our leaders, the obligation to make the relationships between people as transparent as they are in a good family.

The crux of good behaviour, be it in a family, a small social grouping, or, in the society of mankind, is to be informed and know, precisely, what the conditions of justice are all about. We have to know our rights and obligations, in order to share, fairly, in the benefits and burdens of belonging to society. The crux of ethical behaviour is to know what our rights are, and, to be willing to speak-up and fight for what is right, but to refrain from any opportunity to obtain more than our fair share.

Ethical behaviour is represented by a willingness to help others get their fair share; to teach what society and justice is all about, and, to make a genuine effort to correct any situation of injustice, whenever we can, and, whenever we are confronted with such a situation.

As part of our self-discipline, as well as the awareness that we should not obtain anymore than our fair share, we refrain from manipulating people in such a way, that we would gain more than we deserve. If we would be aware of the fact, that a particular enticement, persuasion or presentation of a reality perception would induce a type of behaviour that goes against the interests of a particular individual, we have, not only, the obligation from refraining to take an advantage, but, we have the duty to point-out the reasons, why a particular decision or behaviour-pattern may not be in this person's best interests.

A restraint of the ability to manipulate people's emotions, feelings and behaviour-patterns is an integral part of the framework of ethical conduct, just as we have to restrain our ability to manipulate or extract natural resources at a rate that is contrary to the interests of long-term viability. Any activity may have adverse effects, for the individual, for someone else, or, for society as a whole, and, it will be increasingly important to use our intelligence and manipulative abilities to minimise or avoid harmful effects of one kind or another.

As an inalienable part of our ethical awarenesses, we have a duty to explore, honestly, all the possible consequences of our behaviour, and, to initiate steps, that will, eventually, lead to a global situation of justice. We have to be honest with ourselves and with others, and, we have to have the courage to face, squarely, the gigantic tasks and changes that lie ahead, regardless, how painful some adjustments are going to be.

As a principle of justice, we should all recognise the level of dependence we may develop upon a position of privilege. This dependence is not an adequate excuse to resist changes all-together, but, it is just and fair to allow changes to occur in a smooth and gradual manner, in order to avoid severe hardships and stress, whenever a condition or position of privilege is abolished, too quickly.

Let us always be careful not to substitute one wrong with another in our zealous efforts to correct a perceived situation of injustice. Let us be patient and objective, but, also, honest and persistent, and, let us do whatever has to be done, but, let us do it carefully, with an eye upon the consequences of our actions and a profound understanding of the common reactions against change.

We certainly do not have to condone a stubborn refusal to change or compromise, whenever a privileged minority is confronted with the facts of unjust and undeserved privileges, but, let us understand and appreciate the anxieties and difficulties that will arise during a transition period, whenever a privileged minority agrees to changes, but pleads for time, and an appreciation for the amount of stress these changes will bring.

The quick development of a dependence upon an easy way of existence is one of the reasons, why we have to be careful to prevent such unhealthy dependencies from the beginning. A child that is being spoiled develops, quickly, a dependence upon a status of privilege, and, this dependence develops largely automatically, without any clear awareness of what is happening. The same applies to the dependencies of a social unit of any size.

It is much easier and fairer to prevent such a dependence from developing in the first place, than to correct it, later, with a lot of effort, patience and hardship. Therefore, it is so important to avoid the emergence of a privileged class in society, in particular, if this privileged class has become an inherited structure of differences leading to diverging standards of affluence on the basis of birth, rather than personal merit.

It is much less painful to prevent such a development than to correct it. A correction, as we all know, costs frequently numerous lives and causes unimaginable hardships and suffering, as well as chaos and destruction, as revolutionary warfare wipes-out, once again, a privileged elite.

Many societies have been severely, even, irreparably damaged by such revolutionary convulsions, and, as always, the hard-working peasants and the ordinary people are suffering the most, and understand the least, of the reasons behind civil strife and social upheaval.

A polarisation of society hardens attitudes on both sides. Commitments and pledges are made, and an honourable retreat, or a sensible compromise, becomes very difficult, or, even, impossible. It may seem that forces beyond our will are at work and carry-out the mechanisms of a slide towards a state of war, but, this impression is erroneous, because, after all, we are all responsible for contributing to the process of polarisation by our attitudes and opinions.

It makes me sad to hear some people talk, as if it is inevitable, that there will be a major war. Some people still seem to believe, that the gods in the sky determine the course of human actions and decisions. These people still think, that nuclear bombs may start to explode by themselves, and, that those, who pushed the buttons may shrug their shoulders and say; "We could not help it, we just followed orders". Or, "We had to make the decision, because we could not let the enemy take us over".

This is pure nonsense. If our political and military leaders still think, that the glory of their nation, and the pride of our culture, warrant the beginning of a nuclear holocaust, then, they will have to bear the full responsibility for such a self-righteous and suicidal attitude. If our political and military leaders remain products of a culture, where we still see our enemies as the incarnation of Satan, and, where we represent the chosen few of our beloved God, yes, then, it is likely, that these political and military leaders will, eventually, push the buttons of the nuclear holocaust in order to defend the honour of their country, and the glory of their God.

If this happens, people, we are, at least, partly, to blame for not having spoken-up forcefully and convincingly, pointing-out the dangers of narrow and self-righteous beliefs. It is time, peoples of the world, that we control the emotionalism of fanatic and fundamentalistic beliefs, regardless of the creed or Faith that has become the focus of fanatic and fundamental attitudes. These creeds all proclaim, that God is on our side and has chosen us to fight Satan to the death.

.......

Chapter 9

Content

Is the practice of a religious belief an unlawful interference or manipulation of our emotions and other patterns of behaviour?
A discussion of the freedom of speech, opinion and religious beliefs.
Why an argument should only be refuted by a counter-argument.
The differences between a discussion and an attempt to manipulate.
Freedom of association.
When we are demanding a contribution.
The role of widespread monitoring and recording facilities.
The freedom, and duty, to proclaim beliefs and voice opinions.
Fanatic people should not occupy an official position because of their inability to behave impartially.
The "Credo" of the Bill of Rights and Obligations.

Do we have to consider the practice of a religious belief as an unlawful interference in the freedoms of others or an unlawful manipulation of their emotions? We certainly do not want to advocate a return to restrictions on religious beliefs, where people are persecuted for what they believe to be "the truth". However, we have to scrutinise, carefully, the behavioural consequences of fanatic religious beliefs or fervent political convictions, because these behaviour-patterns may infringe, not only, upon human rights of strangers and followers alike, but, a fanatic point of view may also lead to elitist interpretations of reality, where some people or societies are considered to be "evil". Such beliefs may lead to extremely dangerous, or, even, suicidal patterns of behaviour, in particular, if fanatic people gain access to a position of power or high office.

In the final pages of this essay, we should examine the influence of firmly held religious beliefs upon the behaviour of man, and, we will outline the limits of religious freedoms, in spite of the fact, that such a notion may seem a heresy during my time.

Freedom of religion falls under the same category as freedom of speech, or freedom of opinion, and, we have outlined, before, how every member of every society should have a complete freedom to believe, whatever one wants to believe, and, everyone has, not only, the right, but the duty to openly express these opinions.

We have discussed the reasons, why opinions can only be attacked or refuted by counter-arguments. Any form of harassment, or, any curtailment of rights and freedoms is an infringement upon the right to free speech and freedom of opinion or belief, regardless, how foreign or revolting a certain opinion or belief appears to be.

We all should know, how futile it is to, even, try to eradicate an erroneous opinion by force. The use of force would only give this opinion or belief an aura of prestige and credibility, and, therefore, the only effective way to refute an erroneous or revolting opinion, is, to explain, in detail, carefully and patiently, why a particular opinion or belief is erroneous or misleading.

An individual has the perfect right to make his or her views and opinions known, but, this does not give the individual the right to try to manipulate the attitudes and behaviour of other people with anything else than intellectual arguments. One may debate, intellectually, a point of view, but, one many not persuade, by promises or threats, or, by any type of dishonest or deliberate mis-representation of facts and figures.

Anyone may become a follower or disciple of a certain Faith or political movement, and, everyone is free to belong to any kind of legal private grouping. A group of people may discuss or debate anything it wants, but, all debates and activities within private groupings should be just as open to monitoring and scrutiny as every other transaction taking place in society.

Members may join and belong, voluntarily, to these groupings, but there may not be any form of pressure, coercion or threat to keep a member in a group, or, to extract some sort of contribution. The level of contribution that can be asked for, will be a matter for discussion, and, there should be guidelines for the voluntary donations or contributions to such private organisations. Transactions should be open, including the level of contribution made or asked for, and, at any time, the voluntariness of such a contribution may be scrutinised and questioned.

Do not get upset by these ideas. Some of you will undoubtedly get upset, because you may get the feeling, that the State is watching and scrutinising all our activities. Do not forget, that the safeguards and controls, proposed, here, give each and every citizen also the right, and the power, through unconditional access to all information and monitoring facilities, to scrutinise, what the State and its bureaucracies are doing, and, we do not have to fear the possibility of secret State Trials, the muzzling of freedoms of speech or opinion, or, a surreptitious State control over our minds, thoughts and loyalties.

The monitoring processes are designed to make sure, that no-one's rights are being violated, and, such an extensive and truly comprehensive monitoring of everything that is going-on in society, will be the only way to prevent the criminal activities that are now taking place on such an unimaginable scale and magnitude, in so many of our contemporary societies.

The religious believer is completely free to proclaim his beliefs and to live according to them, as long as religious practices do not infringe upon the rights of anyone else. If a religious belief is fanatic, and, if it makes a strong distinction between those, who are the chosen favourites of God, and, those, who are God's enemies and will be condemned to Hell or an eternal state of disgrace, then, it will be logical, that such an individual will be looked upon with a measure of suspicion by those, who do not share these views, because these beliefs may easily lead to actions or attitudes that violate the rights of others, be they followers or outsiders.

This means, that, people with fanatic and fundamentalist beliefs are not likely to find sufficient public support to be admitted to official duties and functions. People will rightly fear, that their beliefs will interfere with the required impartiality in their behaviour, and, a public function and responsibility could be endangered, if such fanatic people were given access to a position of high office and considerable powers.

Any belief that opposes or differs radically from the concepts upon which the social organisations of the future have been based, finds protection under the law of individual rights and freedoms, but, it is to be expected, that these views will create suspicion, or, even, resentment, and, it is logical and justified, that responsible and privileged positions of leadership and official functions will not be available to those, whose beliefs are so clearly opposed to the natural, ethical philosophy of their contemporary societies.

We hope, of course, that the vastly increased levels of education and the satisfied sense of justice for a majority of the electorate, will make a belief in fanatic, narrow and absolutist religious view-points, out-dated and unattractive. If people are not exposed, anymore, to the severe and baffling stresses of inequity and injustice, of man against man, of good against evil, of God against Satan, there will be no need to believe in these radical and fundamentalistic belief structures, because they function, primarily, as a psychological defense against severe stress.

Yet, I believe it to be reasonable, that we ask from those, who are offering themselves as candidates for public office, a certain declaration of allegiance to the principles of our society. Perhaps, we should ask them, before they are sworn into office, whether or not they can wholeheartedly agree with the "Credo" of public service. Perhaps, we will, indeed, see the oath of allegiance shift from an authority to a principle. Perhaps, the Credo should read as follows;

"I, a member of the society of mankind, believe wholeheartedly in the Bill of Rights and Obligations, as defined by our Constitution. I believe, that we all should regard and recognise each other as human beings who share essentially similar needs, wants and aspirations, but, also, similar fears, disappointments and frustrations. I swear to do my best, at all times, to be completely open and honest in my dealings with other members of society, regardless of the position they occupy. I will uphold the laws and guidelines of the Constitution under all circumstances, and, I will try to understand, and correct, every situation of injustice I may be confronted with. If I feel, that I am falling-short of these goals, or, if my energies are fading, I promise to resign my position with honour and without delay".

.......

Summary

1. The consequences of "exploiting".
   Dangerous manipulations.
   Constitutional Guidelines have to regulate our desires to exploit and our abilities to manipulate.
   A close look at the mechanisms of manipulating and regulating.
   The criteria of justice.
   High standards of conduct and competence in performance.
   The quality of a "critique".
   No need to fear openness.
   The balance between rights and obligations.
   The freedoms resulting from responsible behaviour-patterns.
   Complex side-effects and long-term consequences of our attempts to regulate social mechanisms.
   
   
   
2. Do we need explicit guidelines?
   The change from a nomadic to a settled life-style.
   The larger the social environment, the greater the need for explicit guidelines.
   Judgeing attitudes.
   Guidelines for socially constructive behaviour on a global scale.
   The universality of rights and obligations.
   Issues that appear to be rather esoteric.
   A package of natural rights, or birth-rights.
   The problems of divergence; a few mechanisms.
   Severe congenital defects; medical ethics.
   A need for careful and extensive discussions.
   Equal opportunities.
   Conditions for a "fair game", and a "fair winner".
   Separating a game from existential needs.
   As yet, there are few similarities between the voluntary agreement to participate in a fair game, and the deadly competitiveness of life in a large and complex society.
   
   
   
3. Transforming life in society into a fair and open game.
   Security from the cradle to the grave?
   A tendency to become lazy and parasitic.
   Are we justified in believing, that man's egocentric concerns have to be stimulated for the sake of "productivity?"
   Mechanisms of childhood behaviour.
   The art of being good parents.
   The vulnerability of the cultural code.
   Differences between a healthy and a detrimental stimulus.
   We have to learn from our mistakes.
   The satisfaction of giving trust and receiving assistance.
   Parallels with social developments.
   Youngsters do not have to be spoiled, and leaders do not have to be facile or irresponsible.
   The difficulties of making sure, that everyone plays by the rules.
   A dependence on privileged circumstances; parasitic practices by rich and poor alike.
   A look at the drive and energy of young people.
   There will always be some competitive strife and hierarchical jockeying.
   Frustrations, and the emergence of bad habits.
   
   
   
4. Emotional inter-actions between parents and children.
   Parallels between life in a family and relationships in a larger social context.
   A brief review of the human personality.
   The zone of emotional near-neutrality.
   Ambivalent attitudes, and variable circumstances.
   Manipulating and exploiting ambivalent emotions.
   The fallacy of a completely unrestrained up-bringing.
   Stability; a key factor in healthy relationships.
   The progressive damage caused by defective parental care.
   Reasons for a stunted personality development.
   The disastrous effects of an ambivalent leadership.
   Erroneous concepts and neurotic frustrations.
   Disease mechanisms in a social environment.
   The importance of openness in social inter-actions.
   The quiet stability of an average, unobtrusive family.
   The irrelevance of egocentric pre-occupations.
   
   
   
5. The manipulative infant.
   An organism will repeat a behaviour-pattern that has been rewarded in the past.
   We have to learn, that there are limitations to what we can get.
   Rage-reactions and guilt-feelings.
   The crux of flexible behaviour.
   The value of consistent attitudes.
   The use of idle threats in the manipulation of guilt-feelings.
   A variety of bad habits.
   Vacillating attitudes that are coming home to roost.
   The "emotional swindle"; techniques of deception.
   A comfortable atmosphere of friends.
   People in real life are never caricatures or stereotypes.
   The many ways in which we are being manipulated.
   Exploitating the sentiments of good-will and patriotism.
   A series of questions, and a variety of arguments.
   The "common good"; a scrutiny.
   Judgeing calmly, and in a broad perspective, the validity of our goals, and, our notions about "national interests".
   The value of emotional control.
   
   
   
6. The manipulations of a gifted artist or leader.
   People want to be "swept-off their feet"; at least, occasionally.
   The difference between making a genuine gift, and taking an unfair advantage.
   How closely does the public resemble a spoiled and fickle child?
   The wisdom to bide one's time.
   The crucial importance of the sense of beauty.
   Education should be based on the recognition of beauty and relevance.
   Recognising a truth.
   A nostalgic view of an idealised form of teaching.
   We have been deeply disappointed.
   The dangers of a non-ethical ecstasy.
   We have to be careful with each and every emotion.
   A more sensible perception of the role of science and technology.
   
   
   
7. The ideal member of society.
   The risks of engaging in socially constructive behaviour-patterns.
   It is much more difficult to identify with a large society than with a small group.
   An urgent need to evolve towards a global society.
   Trust can not be based upon pious exhortations, but is the result of a deliberate contract between equals.
   Trust has to be earned.
   The real value of our technological capabilities.
   The switch from consumption to social construction.
   Socialism is having a rough time.
   The spectre of world-wide domination by Capitalism.
   Why Socialist Ideals have been so difficult to implement.
   The ability to build an efficient, frugal life-style of near self-sufficiency under a contract of essential equality.
   The right place for competitive endeavours.
   A comparison with family relationships.
   Never fear questions, initiatives, or an alert mind.
   Let us be fearful of a sullen, depressed and lethargic spirit.
   If man appears lazy, he is, almost always, frustrated and unhappy.
   The widespread blame for failure.
   
   
   
8. Beneficial regulatory mechanisms are, primarily, positive in nature, and act as an incentive to adopt constructive attitudes.
   The mechanisms of stubborn behaviour.
   Unsuspected gaps in comprehension.
   Behaviour-patterns that have to be restrained and corrected.
   Applying ethical principles beyond a familiar cultural sphere.
   Breaking through the limitations of a narrow sphere of cultural identification.
   Becoming friends with enemies.
   An International Judiciary Body.
   The need for leaderships to hold and abide by referenda.
   A large society can be just as transparent as a good family-unit with the help of modern technology.
   A willingness to help others get their fair share.
   Restraining our powers of manipulation.
   Recognising our dependence upon a situation of privilege.
   Better to prevent an unhealthy dependency than correcting it.
   The fallacy of the inevitability of war.
   A widespread web of shared responsibilities.
   It is time to counter-act, effectively, the emotionalism of fanatic beliefs.
   
   
   
9. Is the practice of a religious belief an unlawful interference or manipulation of our emotions and other patterns of behaviour?
   A discussion of the freedom of speech, opinion and religious beliefs.
   Why an argument should only be refuted by a counter-argument.
   The differences between a discussion and an attempt to manipulate.
   Freedom of association.
   When we are demanding a contribution.
   The role of widespread monitoring and recording facilities.
   The freedom, and duty, to proclaim beliefs and voice opinions.
   Fanatic people should not occupy an official position because of their inability to behave impartially.
   The "Credo" of the Bill of Rights and Obligations.

.......