THE PHILOSOPHY OF COMMON SENSE








A Study in Thought

sa052



by





Marius Heuff

Chapter 1

Content

Common Sense; sound judgements about common circumstances.
A "down-to-earth" quality.
The rise of the common people.
The dangers of specialist or elitist opinions.
Learning to live with a persistent variability in the meaning of words.
A futile search for precision that is not there.
Language, logic and mathematics.
An academic "niche".
A language for computers.
The special nature of mathematical concepts.
Cerebral and mental systems of classification.
Why one and one equals two.
Abstracting the quality of "quantity".
Why calculated predictions of physical realities require verification.
Reducing mathematical statements to their axiomatic foundations.

Common-Sense is sound judgement, but we also imply in the term "common-sense", that this judgement concerns a large variety of common or ordinary circumstances, and, that most of us could agree with such a judgement, regardless of the specifics of our beliefs or cultural background. Common-sense has a "down-to-earth" quality, where we go back to the basic problems or issues of existence, and, because of this down-to-earth quality, we reach a level of concern, where our problems are essentially similar.

Most cultural environments all over the world have an expression that is similar to the one we use in the English language, and, we see, that, throughout the ages, in many different societies, people have recognised the importance of going back to basic concerns, in particular, after a community has been side-tracked by a divisive and inflammatory dispute amongst its members or a quarrel with a neighbouring society.

The desire or the exhortation to use common-sense implies, not only, an attempt to retreat from a harmful pre-occupation with essentially trivial concerns, but, it is also an attempt, or an admonition, to see a problem in a broader and more honest light. It is an attempt to see, clearly, what the fundamental issues are of our existence; what the consequenes are of an attitude or course of action that fails to take a sound perspective or judgement into account, and, it is, also, an exhortation to become less emotional and see the reasons for common behaviour-patterns on both sides of a conflict-situation.

We are indeed dealing, here, with empirical judgements, because, in common-sense, we do not expect a lengthy or complicated series of arguments about the validity of the statements made or the attitudes adopted. In stead, we see a quick, simple judgement, expressed in colloquial language and everyday concepts, but, the remarkable benefits that come from an attitude of common-sense make it worthwhile to analyse, in detail, the intuitive wisdom and knowledge lying behind these attitudes and judgements of "common-sense".

True, the expression "common-sense" is poorly defined, and, apart from the connotation of "sound judgement by common people", there is not a great deal of precision. The connotation of "common" may have been somewhat condescending in the recent past, but, at the present time, the term "common", and, in particular "common-sense" has gained respectability. This is partly due to the fact, that the commoner has gained in status as a result of our advances in social democracy, and, partly, I feel, the quality of sound, basic or down-to-earth judgmements has become important as a counter-weight against the imbalanced knowledge that is so often associated with too narrow a field of specialisation or concern.

We have discussed, on previous occasions, the short-comings of elitist attitudes, where the commoner was nothing more than a member of the masses; to be exploited by the rich and the powerful. So the rich thought, of course, but, in essence, the rich had to treat the common people in this way, because they had become completely dependent upon the commoner for the maintenance of their affluent and privileged life-style.

We have also recognised the chaotic, frustrating and dangerous fragmentation of knowledge that is likely to result from too great a specialisation, because the judgement of a specialist is, naturally, centered around his specialised field of expertise. However, this point of view may be irrelevant, or, at best, far less important, when seen in a broader perspective. These two factors of broadly shared concerns and a wide range of knowledge give the faculty and concept "common-sense" a remarkable degree of value. Indeed, the possibilities opened-up by a sound, overall judgement are so important, and so hope-giving for the future, that we ought to give this capability and characteristic of human existence a great deal of attention.

Let us not pretend, however, that we can give the meaning or definition of common-sense much more pecision or content than there is at the present time. We have learned to live with the vagueness or variability of concepts, as we find them at the time we live and write. Under the influence of scientific and technological progress, as well as the remarkable possibilities given by mathematical relationships, a trend has developed to search for a perfect precision and clarity of meaning in words.

In spite of the fact, that this search turned-out to be futile, the relationships between concepts, words and sentences were translated into mathematical or pseudo-mathematical relationships. In a way, this search for absolute certainty and precision in words and sentences goes back to the traditions of the past, when the authority of the written word reigned supreme. The art of constructing elaborate proofs or theorems flourished in the scholastic era, when people believed that God had revealed Himself in "The Holy Scriptures", and, as a result, the activities of logical deductions on the basis of precisely defined concepts became a hallmark of the "scholastic tradition".

The most recent search to express language and logic mathematically has been motivated, partly, by existential needs. In the world of academia, just as in the world of business, life becomes a competitive struggle between clever people. The abstract jargon, as well as the abstruse, pseudo-mathematical symbolism that developed as a result of the symbolic representation of relationships between words and sentences, became incomprehensible enough to find a secluded possibility of existence. It served, then, as a "defensive shield", because most other academics could not easily penetrate this jargon in order to ask the pertinent questions of usefulness and relevance. These "logical positivists" were, then, free to pursue their hobbies and write abstruse articles and books for each other, and, they became convincing enough to occupy the chair of philosophy in some universities.

While mathematics had found readily a measure of practical applicability in many branches of science and technology, the results of these theoretical manipulations of linguistic logic remained isolated and a closed book to most people. This specialisation, somewhere between linguistics and mathematics, fitted-in with the general trend of the sciences to find security in specialisation, and, it was supported by the prestige of mathematics and the scientific ideal of exactness.

Only now, are we beginning to realise, how fruitless these efforts have been as a search for philosophical truths and purity of knowledge. Nevertheless, these efforts have found a measure of usefulness in the ability to translate concepts, ideas, intentions and instructions, formulated by psychological mechanisms and expressed in linguistic terms, into a language that is "understood", or applicable, to the manner in which a computer has been designed to function.

The "programming" of a computer requires the translation of a series of instructions. These instructions are given to a computer by human beings who want this computer to carry-out a specific function, but these instructions have to be formulated into a "language" that is "understood" by the computer and instructs the computer to do what is expected of it. Here, the ability to represent logical sequences and coherences of human thought and language by abbreviated symbols became a help in bridging this gap between the human mind and the computing machine.

Before we go back to a discussion about common-sense, let us analyse, in detail, why mathematics is possible, and, why there are useful applications of the logic that lies behind mathematics. We will also see the reasons, why the mathematical application or manipulation of conceptual relationships is based upon an erroneous premise.

When man started to name the events and objects he saw around him, man also began to recognise the fact, that, some objects and events resembled each other a great deal. On previous occasions, we have discussed the fact, that the process of recognition became only possible, because the brain categorises sense-impressions into categories of similarities, and, we have also seen, that this process of categorisation or classification repeated itself, when man began to name objects and events in a conscious manner. These conscious awarenesses took place in addition to the subconscious, non-verbalised functions of "recognition", where a large number of awarenesses are "automatically" classified, beyond or below the level of conscious or verbalisable awareness.

A mental system of classification into categories of similarity in appearance or event became super-imposed on the neurological or cerebral classification systems that lie behind the function of subconscious recognition, and, with the creation of a class of similarities, we soon needed a way to indicate the number or quantity of similarities we had recognised or wanted to name in a specific category. The description of a class of similarities, or items with a similar quality, led to the formulation and symbolic representation of a "common denominator", but, in the quantitative description, we assume, tacitly or explicitly, that we have already succeeded in forming a class or category with a clear-cut and unchallenged common denominator.

From here, we go one step further. When manipulating quantitative symbols, we assume, or imply, that all the items or objects of a particular category are identical, yet, we know from practical experience that no two objects are perfectly similar or identical. In order to avoid this difficulty, we have learned to loosen the quantitative concepts from any particular class or category of existing objects or events, and, we emphasise, tacitly or explicitly, that the concept of "one" remains identical throughout our mental manipulations of quantitative symbols. This makes it possible to say, that one and one is always "two", and, as a result, this concept or abstraction of "two" is just as constant and as precisely delineated as the definition of "one".

Just because we are not dealing, anymore, with the quantititative description of an actual class of existing items, we can create a "convention of perfect identities". These perfect identities allow us to give a sharpness of definition to these abstracted concepts that is never possible in actual reality. We can state, categorically, that one and one is always two, but if we summate one and another item of specific existence, we may always run into the possibility that the result of "two items" is not always identical from one manipulation to the next.

While no-one will argue that one and one is always two in mathematical terms, one apple and another make two apples, but, it does not always mean that one apple is identical to another apple, or, that two apples are perfectly identical to another two apples.

Only after we loosen the concept of a numerical value, or a specific quantity, from a practical reality, can we obtain the purity and precision that makes all these complex mathematical relationships meaningful and valid. Every time we apply these conceptual elaborations to a practical reality by measuring quantitatively a physical entity, we see, that these mathematical predictions and manipulations are approximations only.

Certainly, these approximations are extremely useful, and, the fact, that large areas of physical existence lend themselves very well to quantitative measurement and manipulative predictions, confirms the value of the conceptual structures we have created and call collectively "mathematics".

Fortunately, scientists investigating the reality of physical existence have learned to use cautiously the extrapolations and predictions made possible by mathematical calculations. They have realised, that these mathematical manipulations are useful tools, but, not necessarily the infallible prophet of an absolute truth. Their mathematical calculations and predictions were often in variance with a measured reality, and, this awareness led to the sound practice to verify every calculated prediction with an actual measurement or experiment.

Similarly, physicists have learned to grasp physical realities, whenever possible, in mathematical relationships that reflect empirically determined constants or relationships, and, they do not describe the physical reality on the basis of theoretical calculations, which "must" be right on the basis of logical deductions.

It is exactly this emphasis on practical verification and the somewat sceptical attitudes towards logical predictions and conclusions, which have been responsible for the remarkable progress of the sciences. Only in the "science?" of mathematics is actual verification not possible, and not necessary, because the usefulness of a mathematical relationship will ultimately depend on the practical applications it can find. The validity of a mathematical conclusion depends upon rigorous debate and scrutiny, and, in the final analysis, it depends on the agreement emerging amongst a number of influential authorities.

Yet, let us see, why it is possible for a number of experts to agree, after extensive discussions, that a certain proposition or mathematical relationship is valid. Let us see, what sort of mental acitivities lie behind this process of mathematical thought. It is clear, that the philosophy of mathematics is based upon a number of definitions or "axioms". These are statements that have to be accepted as "truths", and can not be "proven" to be true. They are the "building-blocks", or indivisible entities, upon which the entire structure of mathematical relationships has been based. These axioms or definitions also describe certain ground rules upon which the validity of logical deductions has come to rest.

For example, these axioms describe or assume the perfect identity of every conceptual entity when used or applied in one situation after another, and, the requirements of precision exclude the assumption that a mathematical definition can be partly true. This means, that the statement; one plus one equals two, has to be correct under all circumstances, and, it excludes the concept that it may not be true under certain conditions. It also means, that the answer has to be two, and can not represent something else as well.

We notice that mathematical statements can always be deduced from, or related to, the axiomatic statements by showing, that, in essence, the mathematical statement is identical to the axiomatic definitions. If we say that three times two is six, we are saying, in essence, that we can add two plus two plus two, which is six, by definition, because one plus one is two, and the following additions of one each, are called; three, four, five, six, etc.

This is, of course, an extremely simple example, where we can relate the mathematical statement to an axiomatic definition, but, when we look closely at mathematical arguments, proofs or deductions, we come to the conclusion, that, in essence, a similar technique is followed, whenever someone tries to convince an audience about the validity of a particular mathematical relationship.

.......

Chapter 2

Content

The "purity" of mathematical symbols.
"Logic", in terms of physiological and psychological concepts.
Categories of similarities; not identities.
We are always surprised by an underlying complexity.
Inter-actions with a "real" environment, versus inter-actions with abstract concepts.
An illusion of reality, created by the powers of predictability and manipulability.
Mathematics; seen a valuable tool to grasp reality.
Limitations of the quantitative approach to the grasp over reality.
The many aspects of experiencing sensations and making observations.
Most of our concepts are not sharply delineated.
The function of "agreement" in conceptual communications.
Concentrating on the range of meaning of a word or concept.
A computer needs "exact" or un-ambiguous instructions.
Why concepts and ideas vary from one person to the next, and from one culture to another.
The first axioma in the philosophy of Common Sense.
Defining the concept of "a fair share".

It may appear rather bold to equate all quantitative manipulations to one simple proof; nl., that the mathematical statement is synonymous to that, which has been agreed-upon in the relevant axiomata, and, it seems even bolder to state, that all axiomata in mathematics are designed to give a measure of absolute validity to mathematical symbols and their manipulations.

We should emphasise, again, that the abstraction of the concept of a number makes this number "pure" in content and meaning, and, let us recall the fact, that, all numerical and indetermined quantitative units of the same sign are completely identical to each other. However, if we think about the way we think, recognise and classify sense-impressions, we see, that "logic" means, physiologically and psychologically, that the recognition of a sense-impression as belonging to a particular category, precludes this sense-impression from belonging, also, to another category with contradictory features.

Yet, we know, and we are continuously reminded about the fact, that it is very difficult to form "perfect" categories. We know from experience, that there are always minor, and, hopefully, unimportant differences between the members of the same category, and, we also know, that we, often, run into difficulties, when trying to classify a certain sense-impression or observation.

How often do we not have difficulties fitting a certain sense-impression into a particular category? Often, the difficulties are so great, that we do not know, where a certain impression or observation belongs. We do not know what to do with it. We do not know its existential importance or meaning, and, occasionally, the sense-impression is so strange, that we do not recognise it at all, and, we can not even put a provisional name on it.

Yet, in the art of mathematics, we avoid all these problems by deliberately assuming, or stating, the perfect identity and complete comprehension of each numerical value or mathematical symbol. In contrast with the observation of an entity of real existence, we know the meaning of a numerical value exactly, because we have created this concept as an abstraction, and, we have deliberately agreed with each other, that the concept of one means one, and one only; nothing else. There is, therefore, no need, and no possibility, to "verify" empirically the meaning of our mathematical axiomas, because they are mental abstractions with an artificial, but precisely determined content or meaning.

On the other hand, if we look at, even, the simplest and apparently most indivisible and identical units of physical existence, we know, that we will be surprised, time and again, by an underlying complexity, shattering our hopes of finding complete understanding and identity from one unit to the next.

This practical experience is the main reason, why we come to the conclusion that our mental images of reality are always "approximations" only, and, because we have no idea how close or how far away we are in our mental imagery from a universal or "absolute" reality, we even drop the idea, that our mental imagery is, in one way or another, an approximation of a true, absolute reality. We say, then, that this mental imagery, which we form as a result of our inter-actions with the environment, is nothing more than a specifically human function or creation helping us in our search for mastery and manipulability over this environment.

The main point, here, is the realisation, that there is an essential difference in our relationships with a "real environment", (as we experience in every science, as well as in all inter-actions with people or the natural environment), and, the inter-actions with abstract, pure and completely determined mathematical symbols or numerical values, which we have abstracted or created for various reasons.

In part, the reasons for inter-acting with abstract mathematical concepts are practical, because we know, that, in certain fields of our reality perception we can refine this reality, to a remarkable extent, by a quantitative as well as a qualitative description or analysis. In part, the manipulation of mathematical relationships, together with the exploration of logical possibilities of conceptual existence, appeal to our fantasy and our sense of curiosity and mastery.

Unfortunately, a pre-occupation with the virtuosity of handling mathematical concepts, and, the occasionally surprisingly predictive results of measurement and calculation, have led to an intuitive feeling, that the reality expressed by mathematical manipulations is, somehow, more pure and more certain than the realities we gain access to by our primary sense-impressions.

It is true, that the tools of calculation and measurement have refined, in many ways, our reality perceptions, and, that they have allowed us to build-up a far more comprehensive picture of reality than would have been possible without the tools of quantitative measurement and calculation. However, we should not forget, that these tools by themselves are only abstractions, and have been deliberately severed from any link with an objective or perceptable reality. This is the essential meaning of the axiomas and definitions that govern the existence and nature of mathematical concepts.

It is, therefore, totally erroneous to conclude, that mathematics or quantitative symbols reflect any sort of reality. Their peculiar qualities have been created by a process of abstraction, and, they have earned their usefulness as tools. The internal validity of mathematical statements rests on a rigorous process of deduction, where it is shown, that the statement is, in essence, identical to the axiomas that have been agreed-upon.

The mathematical description of physical happenings shows, always, that, in reality, the event or the situation is far more complex than has been foreseen and described, and, it is clear, that the quantitative description is an approximation only, even, if, indeed, it is often a very useful approximation.

Yet, a sensible application of quantitative tools allows us to see correlations and details of existence, which would otherwise escape our attention or powers of observation. In addition, the intellectual tools of measurement and calculation have provided us with the technological basis to construct a great variety of instruments that enlarge the range of our sense-impressions to fields we never even expected to exist.

Attempts to describe reality quantitatively, as well as qualitatively, have become an integral part of our efforts to master and manipulate our environment, but, let us abandon the unfounded hope, that we can penetrate the secrets of wisdom with mathematical formulae, and, let us drop the notion that these manipulations reveal us something of an "eternal truth". We will treasure all useful tools, whether they are intellectual abstractions or mechanical devices, but, let us acknowledge, that we can not always apply the methods of measurement and calculation with success.

The short-comings of quantitative measurements come to the fore, whenever we are trying to capture sensations and emotions, and, as a rule, the descriptions of the mechanisms of the living organisation have been somewhat refractory to quantitative measurements. I am standing on a large, sandy beach, strewn with pebbles and rocks, and the surf is breaking a short distance in front of me. A strong breeze is blowing in from the sea and the sun shines brightly. I feel good and I enjoy immensely the feeling of this strong wind flowing through my hair and my clothes. The rythm of the breaking waves is a thoroughly relaxing experience.

I could try to quantitate the circumstances and observervations by measuring the height, frequency or wave-length of the waves, or the strength of the wind. I could measure the distance which a toppled wave is traveling up the beach, or, I could measure the pull and depth of the under-tow, as it recedes before the next breaking wave. I could measure the rate of change or the magnitude of the tides; I could measure the rocks, the pebbles and thousands of other, discernible items and events, but none of these manipulations would convey the beauty, the strength and the impressiveness of the scenery. None of these measurements would begin to describe my thoughts, feelings, emotions and impressions, as I stand there, watching the wind and the sea play upon the coastline; an event and experience that must be as old as the dawn of man's conscious awareness.

It is not difficult to show, that, in the majority of our reality perceptions, the quantitative techniques are unimportant, and, sometimes, even completely useless. Inappropriate attempts to use quantitative measurements give us only an annoying feeling of irrelevance. Besides, the same spot, the same scenery and the same circumstances may be reacted-to in many different ways. Some of these ways may be specialised observations that may, indeed, make use of quantitative descriptions. If I am standing at the beach with the specific purpose to count the number of waves in a given time, or the number of birds flying by, then, the application of quantitative techniques becomes suddenly relevant, but if I stand there, soaking-up the fresh atmosphere while I am pondering how to solve a problem in my writing, I am hardly aware of any specific details, and any thought about counting waves, birds or pebbles is completely foreign and irrelevant to me; at least, at this particular moment.

Most of the time, the appreciation or perception of a particular reality does not make use of quantitative descriptions, and, often, our qualitative descriptions are incomplete, vague or arbitrary, because we may emphasise all sorts of associated feelings and thoughts, mingled with the specific reality perceptions of the environment, or the situation we happen to be in.

The point is, that, as a result of the vagueness of many feelings and sensations, most of our concepts and symbols are not sharply delineated, and, we have to accept the fact, that we use many over-lapping concepts and ideas when communicating with each other. Many concepts and ideas are nearly synonymous, but not identical. The degree of precision and overlap varies from symbol to symbol, from abstraction to abstraction, and from concept to concept.

It would be nice, if we could get rid of all this variability, and, it would be a help, if we could agree precisely amongst ourselves, what we exactly mean when we use a certain word. However, we can not force such an agreement by an arbitrary agreement amongst a few colleagues, and, we notice, that every discussion, trying to come to a more precise agreement, is doomed to failure. Often, we notice, that the variability is even greater than we thought, and, we notice, also, that any particular focus of meaning is an arbitrary choice. We notice, that other people can argue as convincingly in favour of a slightly different focus of meaning.

It is more useful to become familiar with the range of meaning for most commonly used words and concepts, and, we are much further ahead, if we learn to understand, why a certain individual or community tends to interpret a symbol in a certain way. Certainly, this is far more complicated than manipulating a strict and universally accepted meaning, (such as is possible with numerical values), but, we know, now, that we can not force anyone else to accept our particular interpretation. If we try to do so, we create only resentment, and, we will rightly be accused of being high-handed and ignorant.

We have already hinted at some of the motivations that lie behind the efforts to create a mathematical precision in the relationships between language symbols. We see, here, a reflection of the high prestige of the exact sciences, resulting from their spectacular successes over the past century. The physical sciences, as well as many fields of technology, were made possible by the quantitative techniques of measuring, metering and calculating, and, it was hoped, that similar techniques would rescue the remnants of philosophical endeavour from complete oblivion.

Modern mathematical techniques were applied to old scholastic methods, as well as the structure of language itself, and, indeed, this sort of activity has acquired a limited viability amongst academics, who have found something to discuss, teach, write-about and hold seminars over, and, it also provided the "raison d'etre" for an academic position. Certainly, I know, that I mix, here, existential motivations with historical trends, but, in an overall perspective, we can not isolate the existential and subconscious motivations from those that have been more explicitly formulated and accepted.

Yet, it would be a mistake to consider these abstract explorations of language with logic and mathematical formulae as completely useless, even, if the fruits are somewhat unexpected and do not correspond to initial expectations. As we mentioned, the mathematical formulation of language relationships has found a useful application in the techniques of computer programming, where a computer has to be instructed in a language it can "understand". We have to translate human instructions in such a way, that the meaning and intentions are summarised in mathematical relationships, because the computer is, after all, a machine that carries-out computations of one sort or another. The efforts to bridge psychological mechanisms with computational techniques led to a resemblance with such philosophical efforts as the "mathematization" of language.

Let us acknowledge, however, that this computer language is strictly a tool, and this tool has nothing to do with wisdom and knowledge, and, let us acknowledge, also, that this application of logic is, indeed, the only positive result that could have come from these endeavours. The logical and mathematical treatment of language helped us to avoid unnecessary ambiguities, and, these efforts were, therefore, well suited to function as a basis for the development of a language to instruct computers, but these efforts can not lead to a clarification or uncovering of essential truths and insights.

It would be far more useful to explore, in detail, how the interpretation of a number of key concepts and ideas varies from individual to individual, and from one community to the next. For example, we could explore, how the concepts of reality, human being, freedom, responsibility, obligation, democracy, well-being, justice, individual, soul, eternity or God, change and vary from group to group, from belief to belief, and from one person to the next.

If we really could get an accurate comparison and insight, how someone else, or, how a different group of people looked at these concepts, we would be a lot wiser, in particular, if we could refrain from arguing and disagreeing with each other, before we have even understood where the essential differences in interpretation came from. How much easier would it be to communicate with each other, in particular across cultural and ideological boundaries, if we would have a clear picture of the differences in interpretation from idea to idea, or concept to concept!

We have to learn to go beyond a mere translation of words, and, we have to be able to understand another human being from the point of view, or the cultural currency, in which this person works and lives. While such a goal requires a lot of effort, the dividends will be numerous, provided, that we agree amongst ourselves, from the start, to solve problems by discussions and communications, rather than by force.

Time and again, we will be tempted to use the short-cut of a forceful imposition of our particular point of view, whenever we become impatient and have the means to impose our will, but, let us remind ourselves, that we will, eventually, be dominated or exploited by someone else, if we give-in to the temptation to dominate and exploit whenever we see an opportunity to do so.

We assume, therefore, as a first axioma in the philosophy of common-sense, that we all agree about the wisdom to settle disputes and conflicts by communication, negotiation and compromise. The first axiom of a philosophy of common-sense includes the statement, that, each and every conflict-situation can be solved, if we agree about the principles of essential equality and justice.

If I do not want anymore than my fair share, and, if my opponent does not want anymore than his fair share, then, we should be able to come to an agreement about the concept of "a fair share".

True, we are often highly emotional about the meaning of what we consider to be fair and just, and, we should not be surprised to see our opponent also in the grip of strong emotions. After all, we are both human beings. However, with proper mediation and expert communications, it is possible to subdue emotional feelings, and, to review the history of the conflict and to generate an attitude of good-will towards each other.

Here, we would like to concentrate upon the aspects of communication, and, let us examine how we can improve the channels of contact. Let us review, briefly, what language is; how it develops, and, how the meaning of a concept is slowly delineated and sharpened during a process of dialogue. We will review the reasons behind cultural and linguistic diversity, and, we will discuss the main reasons for conflict and strife.

We will then re-iterate the reasons, why the violent solutions to a situation of conflict are becoming less and less satisfactory, and, even, dangerous for mankind as a whole. Finally, we should return to a discussion of methods, attitudes and activities which can help us in our efforts to build a framework of mutual understanding and global dialogue.

The guiding principles and the basic mechanisms that lie behind this structure of global understanding and cooperation form together; the philosophy of common-sense

.......

Chapter 3

Content

A review of communications in higher animals.
Synchronising a mood, or a state of alertness.
The role of natural selection in shaping communicative abilities.
Intellectual or conceptual transfer-mechanisms, super-imposed on a synchronisation of moods and attitudes.
The recall of a memory-trace.
A review of early human developments.
Why we have to classify symbolically representable awarenesses.
The emergence of a "common denominator".
Our awarenesses are largely "event oriented".
Memories are similar, but not identical, even, if the same event has been witnessed.
A case of "cerebral economy".
A closer look at the concept of a "mental image".
Visual aspects dominate, but are not exclusive in the formation of a mental image.
Many mental images have a largely abstract content.
Building-up a detailed imagery by sequential scanning.
Attention, and the factor of existential significance.
Most likely, events were earlier a focus of attention than objects.
Our memory-banks retain only what is important.
Concepts, ideas, memory-traces, and our mental imagery.
A lengthy and time-consuming search for clarity of thought.

We know, that highly evolved animals can communicate with a variety of vocalisations and other patterns of behaviour. Such a communication may result in a synchronisation of the state of mental alertness or "mood". This happens, e.g. when a herd of animals is alerted to danger, or, a male and female are preparing to mate. In both examples, the behaviour-patterns, and, presumably, the associated feelings or moods are becoming synchronised in order to facilitate a specific function; e.g. the escape from danger or a sexual encounter. The synchronisation of behaviour-patterns secures a better chance of survival, because an alert and responsive herd will lose less members to its predators, while a successful mating behaviour is, of course, essential to secure continuation of the species.

In the socially integrated animals that are closely related to man, we see a remarkable variety of communications, fore-shadowing the kaleidoscopic spectrum of variations in mood and behaviour of the human being. The main point we want to emphasise, here, is the fact, that these communications are designed, by nature, to synchronise, or bring into harmony, the moods or emotions of the members of a small community, because there are marked existential advantages to a state, where the receptiveness to a particular set of stimuli has been synchronised.

The human being developed within an anthropoid context, and, we assume, that the methods of communication were, essentially, those of the anthropoids. They consisted of vocalisations and gesticulations, synchronising or harmonising the behaviour of the members of a small grouping in such a way, that they were able to carry-out a task collectively. This led to an improved chance for survival. Indeed, the criterium of survival is important to keep in mind, because we are on solid ground when we state, that, in the evolution of life, only those behavioural and physiological characteristics are developed which give the group or individual an advantage over its competitors.

Effective communication patterns were sharpened by the mechanisms of natural selection into the behaviour patterns of the socially integrated animals because of the existential advantages these communications brought with them. The synchronised forms of communication preceded, by far, the development of symbolic representations, or conscious abstractions, and, we should, therefore, not limit a discussion of the mechanisms of communication to the transfer of abstract ideas or verbalised concepts.

We can be sure, that, the members of early social groupings did not have any awareness of the fact that they were communicating, just as they were not consciously aware of any particular situation or experience, because we are reviewing, here, a stage of evolutionary development, where the ability to recall a memory-trace, voluntarily, had not been developed as yet. We know, that these socially organised and highly developed animals could not put a name on their experiences, in spite of the fact, that their cerebral classification mechanisms had already been well developed.

It seems reasonable to consider as a specific development "en route" to the evolution of the human species, the accidental, (or inevitable?), discovery of the ability to recall a memory-trace through the mechanisms of gesticulation and imitation. We have speculated, before, how the rather precarious existence of our ancestors at the edge of the forests and the savannahs, necessitated an intelligent and flexible way of cooperation in the hunt, and, probably, also, in matters of defense.

It is likely, that, early in the evolution of mankind a division of chores took places. The stronger males would forage further away from "home" and hunt for food or attack competitors, while the older and weaker individuals, as well as women and children would be engaged in the gathering of edible plants, roots and berries, closer to home, and would take care of a variety of other "domestic chores".

This division in tasks between the members of a small community led to the need to exchange experiences, and, we see, here, a powerful and constant stimulus at work for the communication of rather specific happenings and events. This led, initially, to the ability to recall memory-traces with the help of gesticulative mimicry, and, later, to the transfer of factual and conceptual information.

Obviously, memory-recall was initially limited to those, who had actually experienced a particular situation or experience, and, we have speculated, how a wave of recognition must have spread through the audience, if one of them would have been extra-ordinarily successful and vivid in his mimicry of this particular shared experience.

We assume, that the separation of the members of a community was flexible, and, that many of those who remained "home", would be able to recognise a particular experience as it was being portrayed or re-enacted by a primitive dance around the "camp fire". (Probably, it is not correct to asume, that the mastery of fire preceded the mastery of symbolic abstractions and language communications). Let us just say, that the evolution of language communication has been an on-going process which started in a dim and distant past, well before the mastery of fire, but, it probably continued to evolve at an accelerated pace, as the technological mastery of man increased. At some time during the evolution of man's mastery, the manipulation of fire must have been added to his skills, especially, when man spread himself out over a large part of the globe and was forced to cope with the severe climatic changes of the "ice-ages".

The ability to re-stimulate a memory-trace by an act of mimicry, gesticulation or vocalisation forms the basis for the specific human ability to manipulate memory-traces with the help of a series of arbitrary symbols. This virtuosity in recalling memory-traces outside the physiological stimulus, or the actual reality of an analogous situation, led to a rapidly enlarging repertoir of commonly shared experiences, which could now be recalled, at will, by most members of the community.

The technique of recall required, at first, an elaborate re-enactment, but, it became later a set of stylised gesticulations and vocalisations. We have discussed, how such a rapidly enlarging repertoir of symbolically representable memory-traces would quickly require a classification system on its own, and, how such a mental classification system was preceded by the "cerebral classification system", with its ability to recognise subconsciously or physiologically, rather than consciously. We also know, that the grouping-together of a series of similar but not identical experiences or memory-traces led, eventually, to the development of a conscious awareness of these common qualities or common denominators tying a particular group of awarenesses together.

This process of becoming aware of common denominators in our experiences, shows the first step towards the mechanisms of "abstraction", and, we should, therefore, not be surprised to see, that, nearly all symbols or words in a modern language reflect many stages or phases of abstraction. We abstract, not only, the common denominators of objects, but, also, of events, and, indeed, our awarenesses are largely "event oriented", because, as a rule, events are more important than objects. We assume, that the most important experiences were the first to find a symbolic representation, and, we characterise the essence of conscious awareness as the ability to represent symbolically a series of common events, situations and objects.

Since the actual experiences and memory-traces of the members of society are similar, but not identical, we see, that there is always a certain discrepancy in the content or intensity of a memory-recall between the members of the audience. This fact comes still so clearly to the fore, when we observe the mechanisms of rapport and understanding between an author and his audience.

As the number of symbolically represented awarenesses increases, we see, not only, a need to classify similar experiences into a single category, but, there is also a need to outline the sharpness of meaning, because this makes it possible to distinguish one member of a category from another.

By delineating, as precisely as possible, the meaning of a certain symbol, the variation in interpretation, or, the variation between the mental images that have been recalled, is reduced. Categories become more precise, and, there is, then, also a trend to eliminate distinctions that are not essential. The search for definition and precision is, therefore, an inevitable result of the need to excercise a mental or cerebral "economy", which manifests itself, as soon as the technique of symbolic representation shows its usefulness.

This course of events seems logical, but, it is, of course, hypothetical, because it is likely, that we will never be able to reconstruct, exactly, how the techniques of symbolic representation arose and spread. We have accentuated in our speculations, here, the intellectual and conceptual nature of these symbolic representations, their subsequent categorisation and the abstraction of common denominators, but, we should not forget, that this type of intellectual communication became super-imposed upon the more primitive communications through mental or emotional synchrony, which were already a well-established part of the human biological heritage.

Let us analyse, for a moment, more in detail, the concept of a "mental image". We have used these ideas throughout our writings, but, we have never implied a photographic or purely visual aspect in the concept of "mental imagery". Since the word "image" indicates a visual experience, it is important to describe, here, what we exactly mean with this term.

The presence of thoughts and awarenesses is linked to a state of consciousness, and, if we are conscious, we are awake and have, usually, our eyes open. It is, therefore, logical, that we emphasise the presence of visual sense-impressions when we are awake, because, most of the time, the visual sense dominates the spectrum of our sense-impressions.

The mechanisms of recalling memory-traces may be "idling", and, they may come to the fore in a largely haphazard fashion, e.g., when we are dreaming, but, we know, that our sense of reality and logic is absent during the dreaming stage of mental activities, and, we are concentrating, here, upon the mental imagery associated with the perception of our realities in an alert relationship with our environment.

Our visual sense impressions blend with auditory, tactile, olfactory and other perceptions in order to give us a constant stream of stimuli, representing the environment in which we exist, and, with which we have to inter-act, but, at the same time, we are consciously aware of only a small fraction of this stream of on-going sense-impressions.

Let us consider, here, only the visual sense-impressions. At all times, we receive a highly complex, richly varied and detailed picture of our environment, but, our attention and sharpest focus of attention is limited to a very small part of this total "field of vision". We automatically select a certain area of this visual spectrum for close attention and scrutiny, and, if there are a number of important aspects in these visual sense-impressions, we rapidly move the focus of attention from one aspect to the next, and, we synthesise an overall meaning and comprehension, which we can bring under words or describe; at least, to some extent.

However, let us emphasise the fact, that the visual sense-impression is, almost never, a static, photographic image. There is always an element of happening or change. Sometimes, the element of change is nearly absent, as we contemplate, leisurely, a beautiful landscape, where the slowly changing cloud formations or the movements of leafs and grasses in the wind are the only elements of change. Yet, we may state, unequivocally, that the element of change is never completely absent whenever we look at a reality, and, frequently, a specific element of change becomes the focus of our attention.

We know, as we have discussed before, that the focus of our attention is, primarily, determined by the existential significance of a particular event or object. We are a "behaving organism", constantly in action, and, our main areas of concern are, biologically speaking, our safety and survival, our supply of food and water, and the urge to procreate.

These three pillars of concern determine the triangle of our biological heritage, and, they are happenings or events involving changes over a period of time. It is not surprising, therefore, that we are aware of events or happenings as much as we are aware of objects.

Actually, events are, usually, far more important than objects. Look at the significance of the hunt, the escape, or the fight, and, almost certainly, objects were initially an integral part of the overall experience of an event. Only later, when we developed the ability to perceive consciously, and abstract conceptually more details of a situation or an event, only, then, became it possible to be aware of non-changing or static items of existence, such as a stone, a tree, or any other common object which played an important part in the daily lives of our human ancestors.

We still notice in our language, as well as in the sphere of visual awarenesses, that a happening, an action, or an event, is, frequently, more important than any static aspect of existence. In our language, there are many words indicating some sort of action or event, and, we only have to look at all the verbs, as well as the words derived from them, to convince ourselves of the central place events occupy in our sphere of conscious and subconscious awarenesses. Many other words besides verbs also indicate some kind of an event.

Almost all the details of a visual image we are receiving at a particular moment, go unnoticed, because they are of less importance. This is the reason, why it is so difficult to remember, even, major features of a recent reality perception, unless these features have been the subject of conscious scrutiny.

Who can remember all the houses along a road, even, if we pass them daily for years on end? We have never paid attention to anyone of these houses, unless our attention was drawn by a specific feature that was interesting. A particularly beautiful or ugly house may have caught our attention, or a particular spot may stand-out in our memory as the result of a specific event, e.g. an accident, a fire, etc.

It is important, therefore, to outline the differences between a mental image in the sense of an idea or concept, and, a mental image that relates to a number of specific, visual details, with or without an element of change.

Our memory faculties try to avoid recording anything that our organism does not find important. Many, if not all the features that are present in a particular sense-impression are potentially available for scrutiny in a focus of attention, and, they may be recorded as a specific feature in our memory-banks, but, unless there is a compelling reason to do so, our brain has no inclination, whatsoever, to record anything we do not consider to be really important.

Sometimes, this sense of importance does not depend upon our own experiences and convictions, but, it has been activated by a desire or the need to please parents and superiors. Social pressures and circumstances dictate, therefore, to some extent, what we learn and retain, but, we all know, that there is no better way to learn than from our own experiences. Only, if we can decide ourselves, what is important and what is unimportant, only, then, are we able to learn quickly and efficiently.

The same mechanisms apply to this large field of learning that is transferred as "secondary knowledge". In many ways, we can not experience, directly, the truth or validity of something we are being taught in school, but, if we do not understand, intellectually, the coherence of the subject we are being taught, or, if we fail to discover any sense or meaning in the subject of instruction, we experience a marked resistance of our brain to absorb this essentially foreign and irrelevant material.

Yet, to come back upon the mental imagery of our concepts and ideas; it is remarkable, that the visual aspects of these concepts are not nearly as important as the dominance of our sense of vision in the stream of contemporary sense-impressions. As a matter of fact, our mental images are, often, complex abstractions and stream-lined or stylised in their visual content. Our language symbols seldom indicate "images". If we want to describe a specific image, we need a long string of adjectives, comparisons and qualifiers to reconstruct a more or less complete visual image and clothe it with details. Even so, we notice, that, nearly all non-essential visual details are left blank; to be filled in by the audience, according to their own memories and experiences.

A concept or idea may, eventually, become symbolised by a single word or a short expression, if its relevance has been widely acknowledged. This contraction of symbolic representations reflects the very limited focus of attention we have. We know, that we can be sharply aware of only one feature at the time, or, at least, a very limited number of features, and, the mechanisms of concept formation and symbolic representation reflect this fact of mental physiology.

The concepts that are represented by single symbols are all quite simple in their structure and detail, even, if they lack, most of the time, a clear-cut definition of meaning. (It is clear, that we mean by "concepts", here, only, those structures, which have found representation in a single word, and, we are not referring to the more complex ideas that require many sentences or pages to be described.)

Even so, a long and elaborate attempt to describe more complex concepts and ideas, reflects, most of the time, an attempt to clarify or delineate meaning, and, it is not primarily an effort to describe a complex construction, where a mental framework has been built-up with a variety of rather simple concepts. Yet, both aspects play a role in any discussion, and, we see, often, that the vagueness or relative newness of an idea requires a lengthy and time-consuming search for clarity of thought and persuasiveness of expression, before the author can be satisfied, that he has expressed himself clearly, and, that he has been able to build-up a coherent structure of thought. If he comes, finally, to the happy conclusion that he has succeeded, there is still no guarantee, that his work is interesting or persuasive to others.

Nearly all the words we use have a long history of development. We can trace, to some extent, how a word originated, and, how its meaning has been changed, or taken-over by different cultures, but, we have really no idea about an earlier and, perhaps, even, more important development. What we are interested in, here, is not the origin of a specific word-symbol in use, but, we want to know, or, at least speculate, how the concepts behind a specific word-symbol arose. We want to know, how it differentiated from a more vaguely and more encompassing concept. We want to know, how vague and variable a concept may still be, or, what specific meaning or accent it has acquired at this particular moment of its development.

.......

Chapter 4

Content

Tracing an outline of conceptual developments.
Our contemporary memory-traces are full of abstractions.
Animal recognition mechanisms.
Variations around a common denominator.
A review of the mechanisms of "symbolic representation".
The role of "attributes" and "qualifying statements".
A close look at the functions of language communications.
We use the cultural and conceptual "currency" of the society we grew-up in or live in.
Why communications in a complex society become difficult.
The cohesive "cement" of a common cultural core.
Mechanisms of social decay.
Existential requirements and their influence upon reality perceptions.
A brief review of animal evolution.
Three cardinal existential concerns; food, security and sex.
Early belief structures, and the role of emotions and instinctive drives.
We often confuse "cool rationality" with morally superior behaviour.
Rational and emotional behaviour-patterns.
The remarkable influence of existential concerns.

We can trace, at least, in theory, the beginnings of concept-formation from the mechanisms of memory-recall. Memory-recall was, initially, brought-about by an act of imitation or mimicry, and, later, by a stylised gesture or vocalisation. It is difficult for us to imagine a memory-trace that does not contain conceptual abstractions, as well as primary sense-impressions, because our sphere of conscious awarenesses and thoughts depends, so heavily, upon the stimulation of ideas and concepts we haved learned and taken-over from our cultural environment.

Yet, in order to trace a plausible image of conceptual development, we have to assume, that, animals do not have the ability to form concepts, because they do not have the ability to recall a memory-trace with the help of a symbolic representation. A highly flexible mammal can recognise many circumstances, events, as well as objects, but, this recognition takes place, only, if the memory-trace is re-stimulated by an analogous, real-life experience. The incoming sense-impressions are then classified according to a totally subconscious, cerebral mechanism that allows the animal to react appropriately. Nevertheless, the animal is unable to "name" or consciously abstract any of the happenings as conscious awarenesses.

The human being has become so dependent upon this ability to "name" or symbolically represent a variety of awarenesses, that we can not think or talk about the process of recognition, without being conscious of the fact, that, the recognition of an event or object includes putting a name or label upon it. As a matter of fact, if we recognise a familiar object or situation without the ability to find the appropriate word, we feel, that we have failed in our efforts to recognise this event or item properly.

It is likely, that the act of mimicry or imitation would, initially, recall an entire scene or sequence of events; e.g. the most exciting happening on a recent hunt. The act of mimicry sets into motion the memory-sequence, but, the details of this sequence vary from person to person. These variations may be so wide, that it is somewhat surprising to see, that a common denominator could come to the fore, and, we are fairly certain, that this common denominator represented an outstanding feature that caught the attention and concern of everyone in the group. For example, if a member was killed or wounded, or had a narrow escape, this fact in the sequence of events would serve as the common focal point, or, if the leaders had finally secured a good feed after a lean period, such a happening would also serve as the outstanding feature and the most meaningful aspect of an entire sequence of events.

It is clear, then, that the significance of an event becomes the central point of attention, but, this focal point may have only very scanty visual details. Later, the event may become much richer in consciously remembered detail, once man had learned to distinguish between a large variety of awarenesses. The conscious awareness of details, together with the ability to recall them, emerged as a result of further abstractions, or other features that became a focus for attention, at one time or another. Only, then, was it possible for a mental image with conscious, verbalisable features to assume a variety of visual details.

However, we are not that far, as yet, in our efforts to trace the development of symbolic representations. So far, we have only described a plausible first step in the long and complex process of symbolisation. The development of a common focus of concern or attention seems to be a necessary event in order to explain the rise of conscious awarenesses. It is, indeed, likely, that the members of a small community would recognise essentially the same "main feature", or main focus of concern, whenever a particular event was re-enacted and recalled from memory. By varying the mimicry, the author or gesticulator could focus the attention of the audience on different aspects of essentially the same memory-trace. In this way, a large variety of symbolic representations could have developed rather quickly, and, equally quickly, the need arose for a system of classification that was centered around a group of similarities with a common denominator.

Non-essential differences disappear as a focus of awareness, and, the symbolic representation begins to represent a whole class of similar awarenesses, until slight variations of the symbolic representations were added as variants to the basic symbol, indicating the individual members of a particular group of awarenesses. It seems reasonable to visualise, that the mechanisms of symbolic contraction and individual elaboration were taking place simultaneously, as similarities were grouped-together under a common denominator, while, at the same time, individual members of this group could be indicated by additional symbols.

This is the way, we think, a mental classification system developed, because arbitrary symbols for a number of related awarenesses would be more difficult to remember and would violate the need for the central nervous system to use its memory reservoir economically. It is inevitable, that groups of awarenesses sharing a common denominator would find a common symbolic representation, while, at the same time, slight variations, or "attributes", would bring-about a recall of a particular member within this group.

In a further development, these specific attributes could themselves become a focus of attention, in particular, if the attributes were commonly used or known features that were being grouped-together into a class of similarities. Then, a similar process of differentiation or individualisation would take place for the attributes or features that have been grouped-together into categories of similarity under a common denominator, which would then represent a "secondary abstraction".

Let us emphasise, once again, that we do not visualise these attributes to be merely descriptive, adding ever more detail to a static mental picture. As we have discussed, the main features, as well as the attributes themselves, could very well represent actions or happenings; events and relationships that were important to know and understand. Most attributes, (the word attribute is here used in a broader sense than the strict linguistic definition) represent, therefore, primarily, a form of "qualifying information", or, they are indications that enhance the ability to comprehend what is going on and give a clearer meaning to the entire event. Qualifying attributes sharpen, therefore, the overall meaning or comprehensibility of a situation, and, this process is different, if somewhat similar, to the process of sharpening a primary visual image.

We learn a lot from looking carefully at our language, and, in particular, at the way our sentences are constructed. We see, that the words or word-groups used in a sentence state a principle fact or happening, which is then elaborated with details that make the main subject of action or concern, more meaningful. The sentence indicates, who is involved in an action or activity; to whom it is directed; what the action is all about; who or what participates in the action; when and where it took place, or, the sentence may indicate, that it could or should take place under a variety of special conditions and circumstances. Each of these qualitative attributes or clarifying qualifiers may be further specified with additional information, conditions, etc.

While we have no clear idea, how man evolved this remarkable ability to abstract numerous concepts and ideas from the incalculable number of observations people have made throughout the ages, we can get, at least, an overall idea, how we communicate with each other, and, how we interpret, or "visualise", what we say, hear or read with the help of a series of more or less related mental images.

It is not my intention, here, to dwell on the specific concepts that form a part of our mental imagery. It is sufficient for our purpose to emphasise, that we use a cultural or conceptual "currency", which is in use in the society we grew-up in, or live in. We all have absorbed an essential core or part of this cultural heritage, yet, we all vary in the depth and skill with which we use the cultural tools of language communications.

We also vary in our interests and ambitions, and, it is not surprising to see, especially, in a complex and specialised society, that people tend to live and think in terms of the specialised area they have entered into after their primary education. If our social and political leaders of the society at large neglect to ensure, that the entire population absorbs an adequate and comparable fragment of the cultural core, communications between specialties or ethnic groupings become quite difficult. A difficult communication leads always to suspicions, strife and mis-understandings, and then, the overall society has to cope with disruptive tensions, internal frictions and acts of hostility.

A previously fairly coherent social structure can decay and will fall-apart, if the binding "cement" of the common cultural core and the common interests that were the reason for the existence of society in the first place, have been lost or have become irrelevant to the majority of a new generation. This is a process we see painfully frequently all around us, but, let us not forget, that the opposite mechanisms are also possible, and, that mechanisms of rejuvenation and strengthening may be taking place, nearly simultaneously and independently from the processes of decay.

We may see, how groups of people are beginning to seek closer and more frequent contacts, in particular, when the external circumstances become more threatening or harsher. Then, it becomes intuitively clear to many people, that they can improve their chances for survival by seeking closer contact and cooperation with each other. This process may take numerous forms and is constantly visible, in spite of the fact, that the overall trend of a large society may be towards decay.

The dissolution of relationships, as well as the tentative search for new, more viable relationships, are the main reason for an ever-changing "social scenery". Our interpretation of these phenomena may be confusing and frightening, and, depending upon the filter of our mood, we may emphasise the processes of decay, or, the trends of synthesis and rejuvenation. We should see both, and, we should learn to place all these contradictory trends and developments into a proper perspective. This will prevent us from swinging wildly in our moods and emotions, and, it helps us to obtain a clear and precise view of complex phenomena.

I would like to concentrate, now, upon one particular aspect that plays an important role in the form and content of this constellation of mental images, which is collectively designated as a "perception of reality". We should consider, in detail, the role played by our existential requirements upon the development of our reality perceptions. An analysis of these factors will help us a great deal in our efforts to understand human behaviour, including our own hidden or subconscious motivations.

From the earliest beginnings of the living organisation, we see, at least, in the mobile forms of life, a spatial as well as a chemical component in the reaction to harmful and beneficial stimuli. Mobility, or motility, was a characteristic that became accentuated because of the advantages associated with the ability to prolong the exposure to a set of favourable circumstances, and, to avoid those that were threatening or harmful.

This adaptation was so successful, that it served as the essential division between plant and animal life. The animal life-forms exploited mobility as a means of securing their food- or energy-supplies, but, in the process, it became necessary to abandon the capabilities of photo-synthesis. Probably, this abandonment was both necessary and advantageous.

Initially, a measure of mobility was compatible with photo-synthesis, as we see at the uni-cellular level of life, but, when life-forms became larger and more complex, the surface area necessary for an adequate level of photo-synthesis required the development of "leafs" or leaf-like structures. Multi-cellular animals required an ever more efficient mobility to secure sufficient food to sustain themselves, but, mobility and leafs do not go well together. These developments became, therefore, completely incompatible with each other, and, all animal life became, necessarily, parasitic or predatory in nature, and started to rely upon the use and destruction of other life-forms, animals as well as plants.

It is not difficult to see, that, all animal behaviour revolves around three cardinal existential concerns; food, security and sex. These three corner-stones determine, in ever varying shades and combinations, the behaviour of animal organisms, but, it has always been difficult for man to acknowledge, that, he too, belongs to this same foundation of animal life.

Man's subjective experiences, his awarenesses and conceptualisations, his emotions and sensations of beauty, his widely ranging moods and perceptions, from anger to tenderness, as well as his concerns ranging from the trivial to the love of God, have always made it difficult for man to accept the idea, that, we too, are a product of natural evolution.

Even after many of us were forced to accept the unassailable evidence, that the human species had, at least, physically evolved from the anthropoid species', we tended to hold-on to the idea, that man's awarenesses, his ability to speak and think, his ability to love and feel tenderness, were the result of a "divine spark", or a particular relationship between the Creator and (a part of) mankind.

Indeed, by the time man started to think and reflect rather profoundly and intensely, the evolution of his mental powers and the versatility of his behaviour led him to construct belief structures that visualised a kinship with the gods of his imagination, rather than with the poor anthropoid cousins, who had been left far behind in evolutionary development, and were driven back deep into the jungles to escape the savage onslaught by man.

We have discussed, many times before, that it was logical, even, inescapable, for early man to interpret the forces of nature according to his own abilities and characteristics. We know quite well, now, the ramifications of these belief structures, as well as the extent to which man created anthropomorphic reality perceptions, including a pantheon of gods and spirits, reflecting, in many ways, the emotions and experiences of human beings and their complex inter-actions with each other and the natural surroundings.

While it will not be difficult for most of us to recognise the wide-spread influence upon our beliefs by this tendency towards anthropomorphic interpretations of reality experiences, we still do not have a firm grasp over the influence of our existential concerns upon these reality perceptions. Little do we know, or realise, how important our existential needs, drives and concerns are in shaping this quality of conviction and righteousness in our beliefs, or, in molding and shaping the attitudes of aggressive confidence, or fearful defensiveness, which are so much a part of the behaviour-patterns inspired by our beliefs.

These existential concerns are clearly visible, whenever we look at the range of our emotional behaviour-patterns. It is a fact of life, that our emotions center around the most important concerns of our existence, and, this is the reason, why we have come to interpret our emotional behaviour as the psychological equivalent of the more primitive and genetically transmitted patterns of behaviour.

Because of these corner-stones of existential concerns that are fitted into a web of emotional behaviour-patterns, we consider emotions and instincts to reflect the biological heritage of human existence. In contrast, rational behaviour tends to control and "finely tune" our behaviour in a zone of emotional near-neutrality, because, in many instances, our behaviour would be insufficiently differentiated, if we would rely upon emotional behaviour alone, when shaping our responses to the environment.

However, this does not mean at all, that rational or finely tuned behaviour implies a less egocentric orientation. We often make this mistake, and, we tend to confuse "cool rationality" with morally superior behaviour, but, this does not have to be the case at all, as we all know, when we look upon the many instances, where we have been deceived by a cool and calculated manipulation that was designed to benefit the manipulator, but neglected, completely, our concerns and interests.

Rational behaviour is the ability to make numerous observations, extrapolations and deductions in a zone that is emotionally more or less neutral, and, we know, that such activities, when carried-out diligently and with perseverance, may give us a remarkable mastery over our natural environment.

Science and technology are good examples of the fruits of rational and persistent behaviour, but, the insight and mastery over our own behaviour, in particular, on a large, collective scale, has not been so successful, as yet. We are beginning to realise, now, that our major obstacles are not scientific or technological problems, but, we are coming to the conclusion, that the gravest threat to our existence comes from disastrous psychological explosions and unbearable tensions between human beings. These tensions are, often, a result of collective ignorance, mis-understandings, exploitations, injustices and severely defective structures of beliefs.

We may begin to improve our insights, and lessen the tensions between individual people and social groupings, by analysing the role of our existential concerns or instinctive drives upon our beliefs and behaviour-patterns. Let us look at the broad categories of our reality perceptions, reflecting activities such as the search for certainty, truth, beauty, peace and happiness, or well-being.

A second group or category of activities that are influenced by existential concerns, involves, primarily, our functions of judgement. Let us review, how our judgements of good and evil, right and wrong, superior or inferior, are strongly influenced by subconscious existential concerns. Finally, there is this vast area of behavioural responses, reflecting a decision that has come-about as a result of our interpretations and judgements. We should not be surprised to see, that our behavioural acts and decisions are also strongly influenced by considerations of existential importance. As a matter of fact, we will see, that, very few, if any, behavioural or mental activities are not influenced or guided by existential concerns.

.......

Chapter 5

Content

We want to be certain.
We have to deal with many baffling and frightening phenomena.
Urgent answers to urgent questions.
Many different interpretations of the Holy Scriptures; questions.
Why it may be useless, or, even, dangerous to drift into a mood of unbridled questioning.
Looking back at the certainties of our forefathers.
We are heirs to their efforts, and, we belong to the privileged segment of mankind that is alive and well.
The past lives in our conscious awareness only, if it has some meaning for us.
A search for meaning in the experience of suffering and death.
A fundamentalist Faith gives hard and fast answers.
Certainty and Beauty.
We have to rely upon structures of beliefs; mental images we do not question.
A common, biological heritage with a tendency to form social bonds.
How can we talk about "absolute realities"?
Religious, nor scientific reality perceptions, reveal an Absolute Truth.
Everything evolves.
The relativity of the judgement of truthfulness.

We want to be certain. Not only, do we need certainty about many routine tasks, but, we also want to be sure, how to respond to each and every question we may ask ourselves. Obviously, we need to be sure, where things are; what structures can support our weight, what we may eat and drink without getting sick, where we can move with safety, what dangers face us, and, how we can obtain sufficient food and shelter to keep ourselves and our dependents in good health.

However, we are confronted with many baffling and frightening phenomena. We may get sick; we see relatives and friends die; some die after an illness or accident; some are old, others are young, barely out of their infancy or childhood. Our leaders, parents or guardians may suddenly suffer a fatal accident; our security and comfortable routine may be interrupted by an outbreak of war, or, we may witness a society being torn-apart by internal dissent and strife, resentment and corruption. What seemed to be certain, may, suddenly, disappear in a morass of confusion and chaos, and, our most trusted support may be gone in a flash.

Friends, we thought we could rely upon, may turn-out to be cowards, and, we are probably less aware of the fact, that we may have failed our friends, too, in one way or another. Every individual, who has, at least, some awareness of the vulnerability of existence, will reflect, now and then, upon this fragile existence; upon one's security, or, the apparent lack of it; the transience of human relationships, as well as the inevitability of death. Every human being will be forced to think about these matters, from time to time, because we all are reminded, at one time or another, about the fragile nature of our existence, as we fall ill or are involved in an accident.

We need answers to our questions. We need to know, why we have to suffer and die, why we have to go through wars, and, why, after years of hard work, our security and belongings can be wiped-out by a wave of violence and destruction. We want to know, why friends may disappoint us, why we may be abandoned suddenly, why we may experience emotions of panic, fright and cowardice.

We want to know, where we came from. How we were formed in the womb of our mother. We have to know something about the origins of moods and emotions, and, we have to know, why we may change from a friendly, compassionate creature to a madman, consumed by a rage of violence and hatred, destroying everything in our path.

We want to know, what happens when we die. What is it like to be dead? Are we, indeed, completely gone, or, do we exist in some strange, shadowy way? What can we believe of the many stories we hear? Some realities seem to be accepted by everyone in nearly the same manner, and, we will automatically accept these explanations as unquestionable truths, at least, initially. But, what about the many opinions, stories or variations we encounter? Some believe this, others that, and, if we are unusually reflective, we will find ourselves also questioning and pondering what everyone else accepts as true.

How is it possible, that there are many different interpretations of the Holy Scriptures? Why are there so many different religious denominations? Why is it so difficult to find-out, with absolute certainty, what God meant, when He revealed Himself and some of the Eternal Divine Truths in the writings of the Bible? Even, those of you, who do not live in a Christian culture, will find that many similar questions apply to your Faith as well.

How was the first man or woman made? Did God create all living species', or, is it true, that life developed from life-less matter as the result of a series of fortunate circumstances during the early stages of the earth`s existence? Is the story of Evolution not just as great a mystery as the story of Genesis? Is the imagery of Evolution any more believable than the imagery of Creation? What can I believe? Whom can I believe? Why do I have this insatiable urge to find a truth in which I can believe absolutely, totally, and without further questions? Why do I search for this absolute truth, and, why does it give me a feeling of great happiness and joy, if I find such a truth? Why do I want to lay all questioning to rest and relax, peacefully, in a tranquil feeling of contentment?

Fortunately, most of us are not constantly consumed by such a large number of questions, because the difficulties finding certainty and the speed with which questions may arise, would drive us insane. Most of us will shake ourselves loose from such a reflective mood, because we are somewhat afraid for all these questions. We certainly become somewhat fearful, if we notice, that such a questioning mood can disturb those aspects, which, we thought, we were sure of.

We know, that we can easily ask hundreds of questions without finding certain answers, and, many will come to the tacit or intuitive conclusion, that it is useless, even, dangerous, to let ourselves drift into such a morass of questions and doubts. Practical problems have to be solved; work has to be done, and, we are better of doing our chores, rather than stirring-up strange thoughts and nagging doubts.

We have a tendency to go back to the certainties of our forefathers and our culture. After all, the older generations went through life before us. In many ways, their life was just as difficult as our's, and, they faced the same problems. Let us see, how they answered these problems, and, many people find, suddenly, a renewed relevance and meaning in the religious rituals and symbols of their Faith.

What had become routine and shallow, has suddenly acquired depth and meaning. Each generation re-discovers, in this way, old truths that had worn thin and became platitudes by a process of familiarity and thoughtless repetition. But, the re-discovered truths have often been slightly altered and subtly adapted to changed circumstances, because history never repeats itself exactly the same way.

Religious leaders, philosophers and artists have expressed, throughout the history of human awareness, the ever-recurring themes of concern and doubt, and, they all have tried, each according to their own areas of interest and time of existence, to give thoughtful answers. We are heirs to their efforts, and, we still belong to this privileged segment of mankind that is now alive and well. We are studying and sampling, in varying moods of amazement and irritation, their products and efforts, their master-pieces and monumental errors.

Yet, let us look, not only, at the form and content of the writings and other pieces of art that have come our way. Let us also try to answer some of the more difficult questions. Let us ask ourselves, whether or not it is possible for us to see some of the motivations lying behind these gigantic efforts, as well as the stubborn dedication that went into each master-piece; be it philosophy or literature, art or religion, music or architecture.

Perhaps, it is strange to group-together religion, philosophy and art, but, if we look at the motivations of the people who gave us the great master-pieces of human achievement, we see, that they all shared an invincible desire to utter a truth, or, to search for an honest way of looking at ourselves. They searched for a genuine and unadulterated piece of beauty and common-sense.

After all, human beings wrote the gospels, as well as all the master-pieces of literature, philosophy and music, and, the fact, that we still consider these artifacts or products to be "master-pieces", means, that they still have something to say to us. As a matter of fact; everything we still learn about the past, what we admire or abhor from the past, all this lives in our conscious awareness, because it has some sort of meaning for us, be it in a positive or a negative sense.

The past and its products can only exist, because, we, the living generations, derive some sort of benefit or enjoyment from knowing and learning about this past. The past lives, only, because it is existentially important to us. The history of man, the vagaries of the numerous human societies and the many individuals who have existed at one time or another, interest us, only, because, in one way or another, we can relate to these people, as well as the way they thought, lived and fought, worked and died.

We admire the search for meaning in suffering and death, and, we are moved by the beauty of all those efforts that tried to conquer the instincts of violence and aggression with the attitudes of humility and compassion. We want to believe in a just God, who will punish the sinners and restore the faithful to eternal happiness, because without such a belief, our struggles against injustice and oppression seem hopeless and overwhelming.

We want to believe, that God created man in His own image, and, that man spoiled a perfect relationship by greed and stupidity, because it paints a portrait of man that allows us to answer the question, why there is evil, suffering, greed, destruction and death, and, it allows us to atone for our wrong-doings and adopt a philosophy of steadfastness and compassionate concern, as we patiently trust God's promise to reward those, who have remained faithful to His Word and Commandments. We want to believe in Christ, because it gives us strength and perseverance to endure our enemies, and, in times of prosperity, it gives us a chance to get together in the Church of the Righteous.

A fundamentalist Faith gives hard and fast answers about all these difficult questions and paralysing doubts we have mentioned above. Then, with a fundamentalist conviction, we know the riddle of birth and death. We know about this Final Judgement and Resurrection. We have an idea about the reasons, why man behaves the way he does, and, we know the origins of everything that exists. Every religion has tried to answer these broad, philosophical questions, and, every religion has answered with a meta-physical perception of reality that can take many different forms.

The difference between a philosophy and a religion is, often, the simple fact, that in a religion, the questions are answered with certainty and divine authority, while in a philosophy, the excercise of logic and the search for a truth are, often, elevated to a "virtue of doubt", and, the attitude of "not knowing the answer" may become a religion in itself.

Do we really have to elaborate any further on the idea, that the search for Certainty is motivated by existential needs? We can not be happy, nor, can we adopt, convincingly, a decisive pattern of behaviour, if we are not sure about the answers to many fundamental questions. Certainly, in every level of observation, from the philosophical to the practical, it is necessary to come to a convincing, steadfast and decisive behavioural response, and, this is the reason, why we want and need certainty.

To find this certainty after a great struggle and a long search, gives us confidence and a sense of security, and, the emotion of happiness may, on occasion, become so strong and powerful, that we experience a sensation of beauty that moves us to tears. Or, we experiene a trance-like state with such a powerful persuasiveness, that we think to have seen God, to have grasped an Eternal Truth, or, to have experienced a form of "Cosmic Consciousness".

We need certainty, before we can rely upon our beliefs, and, we need our beliefs in order to come to sound decisions. Our belief structures function as a system of reference for the judgement of incoming sense-impressions and reality perceptions, and, we need our beliefs, also, to judge the possible consequences of our behavioural actions in the near future.

After we have recognised and classified a reality perception, we determine, nearly automatically, what it means for us, and, if the reality perception is meaningful, it may set a behaviour-pattern into motion, which can be classified into one of the main existential categories we described above.

Before we carry-out a behavioural reaction, we calculate, mostly intuitively, what the consequences of a behavioural act may be. We project our behavioural responses as a possible "scenario", and, we analyse, what the consequences of this scenario would be. In order to carry-out this process efficiently, we have to be able to rely upon well-established belief structures, and, we see, that our behaviour is guided by judgement patterns regulating our attitudes and responses from moment to moment.

We need these judgement patterns, especially, in our contacts with other people, for our decisions with a moral implication, as well as for a sense of social justice. These categories are difficult to measure exactly or accurately, and, we rely heavily upon intuitive, fairly constant patterns of judgement, which are sometimes judged to be "pre-judicial" by others, especially, if they are not well balanced or reasonable. We use these reference systems to judge, what is good and bad, what is right and wrong, and, we use similar references in our efforts to judge, what is superior or inferior; what is desirable or undesirable, worthwhile, or to be avoided.

In these attitudes, we show a great deal of our real beliefs, in spite of the fact, that our attitudes often do not correspond with our professed beliefs. We can be sure, that our attitudes reflect, more closely, what we really believe than our professed convictions, because we are often cautious in the formulation of our beliefs, in order not to offend a dominant social or religious authority.

Our attitudes are often coloured by a degree of conformism, or a measure of moderation, which we adopt as a defensive attitude against unwanted hostilities and suspicions. In short, our conscious and intuitive beliefs and opinions, judgement-patterns and behavioural reactions, they all are centered around our existential concerns. We believe, behave and judge, primarily, to stay-out of trouble, to enhance our security, to obtain our food, or a mate, to gain the support or admiration of our fellow members, to carry-out tasks and responsibilities to the best of our ability.

Even our acts of charity, as well as our attitudes of good-will and compassion are primarily responses that have been rewarded with an increase in security and social acceptance, in spite of the fact, that these rewards are so intuitive or subconscious, that we are not clear about the motivations behind such charitable or socially acceptable acts of behaviour.

Moral behaviour is, in essence, a collection of drives, emotions and consciously adopted patterns of behaviour, which evolved because they enhanced the viability of a group, and, indirectly, the viability of the individual. We may also come to the conclusion, that, all conscious awarenesses and verbalisable or communicable symbolic representations were qualities or capabilities that evolved because of communal and individual existential needs. We see, then, that the awareness of being alive, of being a human being and being enticed into a behaviour of curiosity; we see, that all these activities are a product of a living species and have only meaning when considered in the light of existential requirements.

How, then, can we, even, talk about absolute realities? How can we really believe, that the contents of our beliefs are anything more than existential aids? How can we, even, come to the conclusion, that our mental imagery and our concepts or ideas are shadowy reflections of an absolute or external reality?

All these conclusions have no solid foundation, because we can only conclude, that a mental image is a reflection of another reality, if we know this reality to some extent. If we know only the image, we do not know the absolute. We may try to convince ourselves, that we can construct or re-construct, discover or uncover, a glimpse of this absolute reality by a variety of means and methods, but, in essence, we come always to the conclusion, that such a glimpse is nothing more than a human idea; a human way of conceiving or imagining a particular, potential reality.

It seems utterly fruitless to pursue the search for an absolute reality, but, it is highly worthwhile to explore the possibilities of agreement and communication, which are implied or opened-up by a consensus about our biological nature and the biological origins of our awareness processes. Let us pursue, first, the religious perceptions of reality, and, let us see, whether or not we can support, intellectually, these reality perceptions in the light of modern archeological discoveries.

If we come to the conclusion, that our religious perceptions of reality have not discovered an absolute truth after all, let us not throw these perceptions and interpretations away in an emotion of anger or disappointment, nor, should we reject the scientific evidence against these religious beliefs in a reaction of fearful defensivenenss against doubt or "evil temptation".

Let us study, carefully and diligently, what it all means. If the religious reality images turn-out to be less than an asolute truth, let us ask ourselves and our scientific colleagues the question, why so many people could believe, wholeheartedly, in this religious imagery. How could it be possible, that so many people died a martyr's death for the sake of their beliefs, if these beliefs were erroneous? How can we be certain, that the scientific reality images are any more real or truthful than the religious imagery we have been compelled to disregard under the weight of scientific thought and scrutiny? Can science guarantee us, that the ideas and concepts of modern science will not be outdated a few generations hence?

As a matter of fact, one of the few certainties we seem to have, is the knowledge, that, indeed, scientific concepts are continuously changing and evolving, and, that it would be foolish to accept them as absolute truths. Let us ask our scientific experts, where science gives us the guidelines for moral and social behaviour, or do they advocate an attitude, where all moral conclusions and guidelines have been mathematically proven to be "unfounded"?

The religious imagery may come through as fragmented and contradictory, but, can we really believe that the scientific imagery comes through any clearer? Many of us will laugh at the idea, that the sciences have given us any practical insights into the nature of the human being or his societies, and, most of us will agree, that, few, if any, scientific theories or applications have solved the problems of injustice and resentment, waste and pollution, war and destruction.

No, let us take a hard look at both sides. Let us really ask ourselves, carefully, to what extent we can believe or accept the sciences as well as the religions, and, let us ask ourselves, first of all, how it is possible, that we know something in the first place.

What is knowing, reasoning or thinking? What is certainty, conviction or beauty? What is good and evil, right and wrong, death and life? Only by reflecting upon the mechanisms of human awareness and the development of belief structures, can we feel a sense of justification for the concepts of existential requirements and the relativity of all truth, whenever we are considering the questions of reality and illusion.

.......

Chapter 6

Content

Common-sense ideas are widely acceptable and recognisable as "useful truths".
We have to know something about the structure of our personality.
The fallacy of unbridled freedoms.
A review of viable parental attitudes and practices.
Social decay is foreshadowed in the loss of parental qualities.
Emotions are not the highest forms of human behaviour.
Human attitudes do not seem to change much in a wide historical perspective.
The strong, instinctive drive to solve tensions with violent means.
The concept of "Origial Sin", and the evolutionary imagery of conglomerate or socially integrated existence.
The potentials of rational evaluation and behavioural fine-tuning.
A shared biological heritage, and its impact upon a globally acceptable imagery of man.
Differentiating between shared features and unique characteristics.
Both sides invoke the blessings of the same God, on the eve of a battle.
Common Sense is the first casualty of a war-psychosis.

Let us assume, at this point in our discussion about the philosophy of common-sense, that you, my dear reader, have indeed been able to appreciate the concepts of a relativity of truth, as well as the existential foundation of all our reality perceptions. Can we avoid the erroneous conclusion, that all certainty has now been destroyed, and, that it is, therefore, not worth thinking about anything at all, because there is nothing we can be sure of?

Indeed, we still have to prove, or, at least, we have to make it plausible, that we can construct a useful and widely acceptable structure of common-sense ideas and conclusions, and, we still have to make it clear, that, such a structure can function as a solid and enduring foundation for the organisation of social and individual existence. Let us first examine, what effects relativistic insights may have upon our attitudes and emotions.

The recognition, that our personality consists of a basic structure of emotive or instinctive drives, together with a super-imposed, more finely-tuned and consciously chosen pattern of rational behaviour, is very important, because it brings into perspective the relationships between emotional and rational behaviour-patterns. If we are uncertain about the structural make-up of our personality, we are uncertain about our evaluations. We do not even know, then, what traits we should encourage and value, and, which features of our personality need guidance or restraint.

When people live in a period of freedom and affluence, especially, after an episode of terror and tyranny, (which is such a common occurrence during a war-effort), it is understandable, that the sensations of freedom and individuality are glorified, but, if we do not have a clear concept about the role of our behavioural fine-tuning, we are likely to glorify our desire for freedom without realising, that, unbridled freedom is egocentric and unhealthy, as well as detrimental to the conditions of justice and the attitudes of mutual respect.

Abundant freedom in education and the unfolding of the young personality is, often, considered to be a normal result of affluence and healthy circumstances, but, it is nevertheless an error, if we fail to see the need to give our children firm guidance. A close look at the higher mammals will show us, clearly, that their youngsters are exploring all sorts of behavioural possibilities within the range of their physiological limitations, as well as within the range of tolerances set by parents and other adults in a particular community. Without the limitations set by parents and other adults, the youngsters would quickly suffer an accident, perhaps, a fatal one, because their own experiences are still insufficient to guide them through the hazards of existence.

Similarly, we see in the development of the human youngster, that, it, too, has to be taught to accept limitations in its wishes and desires. A child has to learn, that it can not get everything it wants, and, it has to learn to accept, graciously, these limitations in exchange for acceptance, or, even, an attitude of affection from its parents and peers.

Unbridled attention and complete freedom lead to an egocentric and undisciplined personality, who will be irritating and useless to society. Certainly, we should have eyes for the differences in talent and motivation that exist between children, but, there is no healthier attitude than to show a child affection as well as firmness. Let us abandon these preposterous attempts to rear children with a psychological instruction booklet in the hand. It is time, that we learn to trust, once again, our natural parental instincts, but, it is also important, that we learn to be completely open and honest with ourselves and our youngsters.

We shirk our parental responsibilities, if we abandon our children frequently to the care of others, either, for the sake of an extra financial income, or, for recreational reasons, but, there are, of course, situations, where we have no choice, but to let others look after our children, at least, from time to time.

Our egocentric, undisciplined and ambivalent attitudes towards each other and our children has undermined our natural abilities to be good parents, and, especially, in the affluent societies, a disastrously large proportion of parents is confused in its attitudes, and weak when dealing with their off-spring.

Social decay is mirrored, and, perhaps, fore-shadowed in the loss of the natural ability to be good parents. Those people, who still try to be good, conscientious but firm parents, have become exceptions, and their task is made even more difficult by the general attitude of permissiveness that pervades so many of the affluent societies.

At the present time, society seems to glorify emotions as the highest form of human behaviour, totally ignorant of the structure of the human personality or the evolution of the faculty of rational behaviour. Perhaps, one of the reasons for this is the current disappointment with scientific insights. Until recently, we thought, that the sciences were going to give us all the answers and solutions to social ills, as well as to our emotional or intellectual confusion, because the sciences have eroded so many of the intellectual certainties of our Faith.

However, after successfully demonstrating that our religious ideas were often based upon erroneous concepts, the sciences have not been able to give us a series of coherent guidelines for comprehensive intellectual beliefs and moral guidelines. In particular, in the field of the human personality and the mechanisms of social inter-actions, we are confronted with a morass of confusion and contradictory opinions. Add to this the ruthless exploitation of our emotions and appetites by commercial interests, and, it is not difficult to understand, why our affluent societies are teetering on the brink of collapse.

"Where do we go from here?", you will ask. Chaos and tension are inevitably leading to a process of polarisation, and, polarisation means, that people are subjected to ever stronger pressures to adopt clear-cut but rigid beliefs, and, these lead, in turn, to belligerent attitudes and hostilities. Some people go back to a fundamentalist Faith, rejecting, vehemently, everything that deviates from a narrow path of truth; others adopt an equally fundamentalist view-point based upon social or revolutionary dogmas of "the left". Again others, try to find the solution in a rigid attitude of "law and order", where all dissent and opposition to the ruling elite is violently suppressed through a dictatorial power-structure of "the right".

When such polarising mechanisms have taken place, reconciliation and dialogue between the various segments of society become impossible, and the struggle for power and dominance becomes violent. We see, then, a recurrence of human-rights abuses, torture, political assassinations and extra-judicial executions.

One of the most depressing observations confronting every student of history, is the realisation, that the attitudes of human beings do not seem to change much over a time-span of many hundreds, or, even, thousands of years. The circumstances and the players are always different, but the essential mechanisms of rising tensions, mutual distrust, polarisation, hostilities and political assassinations, seem to be an ever-recurring refrain in the saga of human existence, as soon as the sobering effects of a major unheaval have been dissipated.

Can we break-through this vicious cycle? Certainly, we can, but it is not easy, because we are, obviously, dealing with a very strong instinctive pattern of behaviour that seeks the solution of a conflict in a violent confrontation with the elimination of the loser. This is the most primitive solution in the struggle for existence, and, this behavioural trend is part of our biological heritage. We all have a tendency to solve rising tensions with the mechanisms of violent confrontations, because this behaviour-pattern has been genetically encoded in us all.

We can not deny these trends, nor, can we ignore them. In our Christian Faith, we take upon ourselves the responsibility for this "evil streak" in the concept of "Original Sin", but, intellectually, this is such a tour de force, that the equally important concepts of an all-loving, all-kowning God are irrevocably tarnished by this sort of explanation of man's nature.

It is much more advantageous to explore the images of natural evolution, where we see, indeed, that competition and a struggle for existence with the death of the loser, is a prominent feature in the evolution of life. However, it is not the only mechanism, and, perhaps, not even the most important mechanism of natural evolution, in spite of the fact, that the sciences have emphasised this feature in the ruthless struggle for survival.

True, the large, multi-cellular species' are nearly all locked into some sort of combat with each other. We see a struggle for key positions in the hierarchy of a social order, as well as the more deadly struggle in the relationships between predator and prey, where the struggle takes-on another dimension of utter ruthlessness, because the fight between predator and prey is, invariably, weighted in favour of the predator.

However, we still tend to overlook the remarkable symbiotic relationships that make the existence of a multi-cellular organism possible in the first place. We have discussed these aspects many times before, and we will repeat, here, only the outlines. Nevertheless, we should take note of these concepts and ideas, because they are so important, if we really want to alter the thrust of human relationships from a competitive to a symbiotic or cooperative mode.

We are not going to explore, here, the similarities and differences between a multi-cellular organism and a multi-individual human society, but, we want to bring-out, once again, the remarkable fact, that, any organism, be it a multi-cellular individual or a multi-individual society, is structured symbiotically internally, but behaves, nearly always, aggressive and competitive in relation to other memers of its own kind. Human beings are showing a tendency towards cooperation within a small, socially integrated grouping, while they are also strongly competitive in relation to each other, and, we see, that, even human societies show a tendency to cooperate with each other, while their more primitive behavioural instinct is one of suspicion and hostility.

The possibilities of existence for a complex "multi-individual unit" are based upon a strict adherence to the mechanisms of symbiotic relationships between the members of such a unit, regardless, whether they are biochemical molecules, single cells, or human beings. However, the resultant multi-unit organism behaves, once again, at a primitive level, primarily, competitive in relation to other organisms with a similar nature and pattern of behaviour. Only later, much later, after a certain population density of these new multi-units has been reached, do we see the existential need arise to seek an enhanced level of viability through the attitudes of mutual cooperation or symbiosis.

When we look at the human personality, we see also a multitude of diverging and contrasting, primarily egocentrically oriented trends, drives, interests and inclinations, which have to be coordinated into a harmonious unit, before we see the emergence of an efficient and decisive behavioural response of the individual. This coordination of the personality lies in the sphere of our deliberate, conscious existence, the "will", as well as our ability to evaluate, rationally, a composite reality perception and construct a finely tuned response.

It is so clear from a study of our biological and evolutionary background, that our faculties of rational fine-tuning are the crown of our behavioural abilities, and, it is, therefore, a fundamental error to elevate emotional states to the highest forms of human existence and experience. Certainly, the emotions of beauty, happiness, love and excitement are pleasurable, far more pleasurable than the tedious and laborious task of constructing a carefully measured judgement or response.

The experiences of elation, enthousiasm and compassion are highly valuable emotional experiences, but, they constitute, neither, a pinnacle of evolutionary development, nor, a high-point of moral awareness. Our emotions are the more primitive but evolutionary tried and tested behavioural responses which we inherited together with the rest of our biological heritage. Our faculties of finely discriminatory observations, emotional near-neutrality and a reasoned response, are evolutionary "late-comers", which were required to function adequately in our complex social environments. We need them to coordinate the myriad of contradictory and confusing sense-impressions, evaluations and judgements.

Will such an evolutionary view of human existence give us some assistance in the construction of natural ethical guidelines, or, the formulation of a viable organisation of human life on a very large, even, global scale? It certainly does, because we will then be able to recognise, that all human beings are born with the same basic genetic repertoir, and, this means, that, we all are, not only, remarkably similar in our anatomical and physiological characteristics, but, we have also inherited the same package of basic instincts, drives and emotions. We even share, in varying degrees, (just like all other genetically endowed features), the ability to think, speak, behave rationally and feel compassion towards other human beings and other living organisms.

The entire human potential, ranging from a ferocious killer-instinct to a genuine understanding and mellow tolerance of human follies, is given by our genetic or biological heritage, but, we all diverge as we grow-up, because we develop our potentials quite differently, according to accidental circumstances and the vagaries of our personal history. We also absorb different fractions from a wide variety of differing cultures.

It will be much easier to understand ourselves, if we differentiate, clearly, between the features we share with others, and those aspects that make us unique. Then, we learn to see, why ethical feelings and considerations are, so often, limited to a small social grouping, and, why we all share the basic drives that lead, so easily, to serious conflicts and irreconcilable differences of opinion.

If we look carefully, we see, that our certainties of attitude and belief are not based upon the possession of an unassailable truth or a position of justice, but, our certainties are a reflection of our existential needs and commonly shared, basic interests. If our interests come into conflict with the basic existential interests of someone else, or another group, we can be sure, that our belief structures, attitudes and opinions will also clash. Actually, we do not even communicate, or try to communicate, with each other in such a situation of conflict, because our posture and attitudes are belligerent, designed to probe the weaknesses of the opponent and galvanise our own side into an attitude of unquestioning loyalty and patriotism.

If we understand ourselves honestly, in the light of our evolutionary and biological background, we will not have any difficulties to see through the hypocrisy and fallacy of fanatic beliefs and opinions. We will not have any hesitation to recognise this belligerent and defensive posturing for what it really is; either, an all-out attempt to hold-on to a privileged position, or, an all-out attempt to force someone else or another group to abandon a privileged position.

We also see, how the hostilities of one group feeds the suspicions and defensiveness of another, until both sides are locked into an irreversible process of violent conflict, which will only let-up, if sufficient bloodshed, chaos, suffering and destruction have dissipated the energies of the belligerent parties.

Certainly, it is so easy to become convinced, that our position is absolutely right, and, that the position of our adversary absolutely wrong. It is easy for an outsider to understand, why both sides invoke the blessings of the same God, before going on a wild carnage of mutual destruction. Only an outsider will appreciate the lunacy of such inconsistent attitudes and the senselessness of unnecessary warfare, because the belligerent parties have been trapped, completely, by their primitive, emotional instincts.

The belligerent parties have ceased to be thinking human beings, trying to tune their behaviour as precisely as possible to the rapidly varying circumstances. They have become automata, obeying blindly their passions, acting-out precisely, and without any personal initiative or modification, the primitive genetic instructions of a struggle to the death.

Indeed, our primitive behaviour-patterns are strong, and, once they have been aroused in full force, rationality and reasoned thinking have fled from the scene, or, they were the first casualties in the psychosis that comes to the fore as a result of our instinctive desire to fight.

.......

Chapter 7

Content

The fundamental choice of behaviour.
A blood-brotherhood of belligerent instincts.
What we need in order to avoid violent confrontations.
A basis for fruitful negotiations.
The condescending attitude of; "teaching our opponent a lesson".
Allowing mistakes to happen in order to learn from experience.
Young people can be so reckless and stubborn.
The last lesson we can teach our adolescent youngsters.
Teaching a lesson; from one social grouping to another.
How long can we expect an attitude of gratitude to last?
We are not equally endowed.
No nation or national border can be considered "sacrosanct".
Peace, and the attempt to freeze a favourable status-quo.
Justice and essential equality.
A look into the future, when the earth will have been divided into more or less equal Regions.
A fair representation must mean, that political units are roughly equal in size, population density and natural resources.
The problem of individual variability.
The ability to recognise similarities in aspirations and existential needs.
Confusion and stress narrow the sphere of our ethical concerns.
An un-understood and psychologically alien commandment.

A reflection upon our biological origins will make it clear, that we have to make, indeed, this momentous choice, time and again; we either harden our attitudes and positions in a process of progressive polarisation, leading, inevitably, to violent conflict, or, we make a serious and sustained effort to acknowledge each other's legitimate claims and interests, and, we try to work-out a settlement that satisfies the sense of justice on both sides.

An understanding of our biological origins shows us, that the essential features driving us apart into an irrevocable situation of confrontation, are, at the same time, the most fundamental and most uniform characteristics we share with each other. Let us celebrate our blood-brotherhood in the society of belligerent instincts, because we all are members in good standing!

However, the real question is, whether or not a recognition and acknowledgement of our common biological heritage is sufficient to prevent conflict, in particular, since we are dealing with emotional drives, rather than intellectually formulated conclusions and decisions. Indeed, a mere recognition is not sufficient, but, it is a good basis upon which we can build our communications and reality perceptions, and, it is the only way we can develop a globally shared interpretation of human nature. Such a shared reality perception will help us to avoid numerous misunderstandings and unnecessary conflicts.

The main advantage of looking at ourselves from a biological point of view, is the ability to communicate much more precisely with each other, and, at the same time, it improves the chances for an independent party to mediate successfully. A mediator should, then, be able to measure the common grounds and delineate, carefully, to what extent each party has justifiable claims and grievances, and, to what extent, we are dealing with unjustified attitudes of opportunism or greed.

If we agree, in principle, that each party in a conflict situation is entitled to a fair hearing and a fair share in the interests to be divided, we see, that a common biological reality perception and a clear concept about the need to avoid violence or warfare, should lead to fruitful negotiations, because there exists a commonly agreed-upon frame of reference upon which a mediator can rest his judgements.

Certainly, we may be driven by a genuine ideological conviction. We may be moved by a glaring injustice and fight for a more equitable distribution of assets, as well as for a decent standard of living for everyone, but, let us be on our guard for our belligerent instincts, because they make us believe, so easily, that our motivations are idealistic and ideologically beyond question, while, in reality, our attitudes and actions reflect an opportunity to gain.

Let us be very careful, in our enthousiasm to correct injustices, not to cause injustices and sufferings ourselves. How easy is it to suppress, harm or kill other people under the guise of law and order, justice and freedom, or the will of the people! While we proclaim the virtues of popular representation, we may violate in our revolutionary fervor the most basic principles of democratic representation, especially, the basic right to a divergent opinion.

Let us be cool, calm and ruthlessly honest, and, let us examine carefully, at all times, to what extent our judgements, decisions and actions are based on rational principles and careful compromises, and, where we begin to give-in to the lure of force and opportunistic gain.

Let us now look at the specific mechanisms that lie behind the attitude or desire to "teach our opponent a lesson". It is obvious, that this represents a situation of conflict, but, the attitude clearly supposes, that the party who wants to teach the lesson is strong, and, that there is no intention to seriously hurt the weaker party. Is this attitude always to be condemned as condescending, irritating and without justification, or, is it indeed justified to see this forceful attitude as a legitimate educational tool, be it in special and carefully delineated circumstances?

There are, indeed, circumstances, where a lesson has to be taught, such as, for example, by concerned but firm parents, who want to guide their childeren and give them an opportunity to learn from mistakes. However, it should not be associated with any form of revenge or an attitude of anger, and, the lessons to be learned should be carefully measured, so that a maximum of benefit can be derived with little risk of injury.

Obviously, parents can not completey prevent their children from running risks, and, it is better to let children experience, first-hand, the dangers of certain situations, objects or behavioural acts, before they become recklessly involved in even greater dangers. Unfortunately, it is not easy to know, where the right balance lies between protection and the freedom to learn from mistakes, and, parents will always ask themselves, when something has gone wrong, whether they were too protective and too strict, or, too lenient and permissive.

Sometimes, the attitudes of young people seem reckless and stubborn, especially, when they see a chance to escape from parental control, and, no measure of parental guidance, firmness or tolerant understanding is going to change their mind. Then, if they have reached the legal age to be independent, we have no choice but to let them go and let them fend for themselves. The only thing we can do, and should do, is to let them, indeed, fend for themselves. We have to withdraw all support, in particular, financial support, in order to make them fully aware of the consequences of their actions, and, to make them fully aware of the fact, that they can not count on support and help, while ignoring parental advice and guidance.

This is the last lesson we can teach our young adolescencts; to stand totally on their own two feet, and to become fully responsible adults. It would be a mistake to give-in to threats of a complete break with the parental home, which rebellious youngsters may use as a leverage in their efforts to get what they want. We should stand firm, without anger. We should be understanding, without weakness; open for talks, but not for blackmail.

It is difficult for parents to see their youngsters enter such a vulnerable phase in their existence, and the natural trend is to keep bailing them out of trouble. Unfortunately, such a thoughtless support will stunt their growth towards maturity and an attitude of responsibility.

However, when we talk about the desire to "teach someone a lesson", we are usually talking about a different set of circumstances. We are, then, dealing with a confrontation between a superior or stronger power, and, the rebellious, or, apparently rebellious, attitudes of a subordinate individual or group, whose attitudes or actions have irked the dominant party. Here, we have to examine, carefully, the reasons for such an unequal relationship.

It may, indeed, be a nearly parental relationship, where a stronger party has helped, supported and guided a weak and exhausted individual or society. The atmosphere of gratefulness has slowly faded-away by a prolonged sense of affluence, confidence and well-being. Then, the residual vestiges of an unequal relationship may be felt as an irritant, and, slowly, the filial or parental relationship deteriorates into an attitude of resentment, complaint, suspicion and restlessness.

How long can we expect an attitude of gratitude to last? To what extent is the benefactor entitled to "compensation" in the form of services, tributes or loyalty? When is it reasonable to revert to an attitude of cooperation on an equal basis? What were the motivations of the benefactor to help in the beginning of a relationship? All these questions are difficult to answer and may easily lead to diverging, or, even, completely opposite opinions, but, we have to ask ourselves these questions in order to learn to analyse a relationship in great depth.

The feelings of gratitude may have dissipated for a good reason; for example, the younger generations, born from parents who were slaves or occupied a low position in the social hierarchy, will question, why they have to be satisfied with such a lowly position. In particular, if a younger generation is aware of the fallacy of class-divisions, and, if this generation is healthy and inquisitive, the perpetuation of an inferior social position on the basis of the vagaries of birth, will be felt as an injustice, and will create resentment, and, eventually, rebellion.

Similarly, an act of genuine charity and compassionate understanding a victor may have shown toward a conquered and defeated society, may slowly change into a somewhat complacent attitude, especially, if the next generation of conquerors feels it as their natural birth-right to occupy a position of privilege and dominance. Under these conditions, we can always question the legitimacy of the discrepancy in status between two groups or individuals who are reaching a stage of confrontation.

If a large nation bullies a smaller one that is economically and, perhaps, militarily dependent upon its stronger neighbour, we run into the same questions. Should every nation, regardless of its size or population have the same rights as a very large one? We tend to say "yes" in these days, where there is a strong emphasis upon the sanctity of national sovereignty and the inalienable rights of the individual.

We are, rightfully, weary of unbridled expansionism and opportunistic annexations, but, it is debatable, whether or not we can equate the rights of each human being with the rights of a nation. Every nation has a rather haphazard history of conquests and defeats, and the size, shape and location of a particular nation is an accident of history that rarely reflects a conscious choice of the people involved.

Besides, ethnic units are frequently divided over several different neighbouring countries, which leads to an under-representation of such divided ethnic minorities in the leadership of a sovereign nation. As a result, we see ethnic and racial dominance of one group over another, and, the concept of national sovereignty, as well as the right to be considered sovereign, can not be maintained without serious questions and close scrutiny.

We are then back to the question, whether or not a more powerful neighbour is, indeed, entitled to "teach a weaker neighbour a lesson", in particular, when such a neighbour behaves in a hostile manner towards the more powerful party. We can take the question one step further; if the existence of a nation is a haphazard accident of history, and, if the unity of a nation can not be equated with the unity of a human individual, are we then raising, again, the spectre of war, suppression, opportunism and annexation, or, can we indeed guide events and changes of national boundaries in such a way, that everyone's sense of justice is satisfied?

Indeed, we have to answer this question thoroughly, but, we can not arbitrarily stop conflicts, tensions or strife by declaring each and every nation sacrosanct and indivisible. Not only, is this illogical and essentially unjust, because such an attitude does not guarantee that all citizens will be treated fairly by a leadership that happens to be in power. Therefore, we may create a situation of injustice, whenever we try to freeze a particular status-quo in a desperate effort to avoid conflict.

Some nations have dense populations with few resources, others are fabulously rich on acount of a geographical or historical "accident". Justice on a global scale can not be obtained by making haphazardly grown national entities inviolate and sacrosanct; neither can we avoid strife, injustice and bloodshed by declaring, that all intervention in the affairs of another nation is illegal, unjust and immoral.

Justice, equality, together with an honest implementation of the principles of human rights and obligations, can only be achieved, when we make it possible to let our national boundaries blur in favour of carefully constructed and organised "Regions", which are nearly equal in population, natural resources and geographical extent. Only then, is it fair to treat every Region as equal to any other, because, only then, can we be sure, that the citizens of the various Region have the same chances and opportunities to obtain a decent standard of living.

Can the State be firm and punish its citizens without becoming unfair or dictatorial? Certainly, but, let us be very careful to state, that the leadership of such a State must be a truly representative government of the people, and, its judicial institutions must be guided by careful rules and regulations, ensuring each accused a fair hearing and protection from abuse and intimidation. This means, that verbal dissent can only be counter-acted by verbal means, and, it means, that the propagation of an opinion that runs counter to official dogma, can not be persecuted with harassment, intimidation, or the loss of civil privileges and rights.

You may want to ask me the following question; "If we accept the fact, that we are what we are on account of our biological heritage and cultural guidelines, how, then, can we be responsible for widely varying levels of achievement, and, should we encourage or discourage these differences in ability and achievement?" Indeed, do we advocate a uniformity of all people, where we all think and act alike, or, do we advocate a rich differentiation with the apparently inevitable divisions in living standards, classes and privileges?

We advocate neither of these two apparent alternatives. We do not believe, that it is possible for all people to act and think alike, neither do we think, that it is desirable, or necessary, to achieve individual variability by allowing the development of class-divisions. We know, now, that it is possible to encourage widely diverging levels of activity, achievement and interests without necessarily encouraging the seemingly inevitable return of class-divisions, strife, exploitation and injustice, which recur, time and again, whenever a society gives its citizens a free hand in the development of its economic resources and social structures. We have outlined the mechanisms for the maintenance of essential equality before, and we will not repeat them here.

We resemble each other a great deal, especially, just after we have been born and shortly after death, but, in between, we must necessarily develop into widely divergent human beings. While we are born with a virtually identical set of potentials, we can only develop a small fragment of these potentials, and the choice is made, partly deliberately, partly by chance.

The quality of our potentials varies markedly, and, together with the varying cultural pools to which we are being exposed, the variable portion we assimilate from these cultural pools, as well as the varying contacts and opportunities we have been exposed to, we should not be surprised to see, that no two human beings are ever identical. Differentiation in abilities and personalities does not have to mean, however, that we fall, inevitably, into a situation of deadly confrontation.

We would forget our common origins, if we lose the ability to communicate with each other. We also slide into a conflict-situation, if one individual gains, for one reason or another, an extra-ordinary amount of power over another human being. We will fight with each other, if we give-in to the temptation to exploit whenever we can. We can not expect an attitude of opennness and trust to last or come-about, if we deceive and manipulate each other. We will not generate any feelings of good-will, if we think and act only with our own interests in mind.

How can we expect to cooperate with each other, if we are dishonest and try to manipulate the reality perceptions of other people to our advantage? How can we expect people to remain happy, if their instincts of acquisition, violence and sexuality are continuously stimulated for commercial purposes? How can we respect our leaders, if they govern by reacting to crises and by pacifying or favouring the most vocal elements of their electorate? How can we expect the rest of the world to respect us, if we are so pre-occupied with consumptive habits and financial obligations, that we have no time to think about them?

How can we understand different nations and social systems, if our news-media can only report what seems to go wrong; if they focus only on the problems and difficulties, mistakes and short-comings, without ever looking at the overall goals and achievements of these societies? How can we consider foreign nations and different social systems to consist of people with similar needs and aspirations as ourselves, if we look upon them as the personification of evil?

The problem of creating a happy and healthy society lies not in the fact, that we all tend to become somewhat different, with different abilities and interests, but, the problem of social cohesion arises, when we forget that we all have similar aspirations, requirements and feelings of right and wrong. The problem arises, when we forget to see other people as people with similar rights and obligations as ourselves; when we try to dominate or indoctrinate them in the mistaken belief, that we have the truth, and, that they are ignorant.

We generate bitterness and hatred, if we exploit and oppress other people or ethnic minorities, while we reserve our feelings of loyalty and trust for those, who belong to our own social circle. We are inexorably drawn into a deadly confrontation, if we allow the tensions of hatred, injustice and exploitation to rise and squander the opportunities for a negotiated settlement.

But, it does not always have to turn-out this way. Just because we have now a much better idea, what sort of developments and behavioural actions will lead to injustice, exploitation, parasitism, oppression and callousness, we have many more opportunities to spell-out guidelines and behavioural regulators, which can halt the tendency towards social fragmentation and decay.

We know, now, that the problem is, not so much, the decay of moral principles and the disappearance of moral behaviour, but, the tendency to retract the sphere of our concerns to a few trusted people in our immediate environment during times of stress and confusion.

Our sphere of ethical concerns has always been limited to a particular grouping with a specific ethnic and cultural identity. We have never seen the entire human race as one family, even, if our religion or philosophy tried to instill such an attitude of brotherhood in us. The reason for such a limited ability to identify with other people is due to the fact, that, every religion and social philosophy divides mankind into the faithful and the heathen; the patriots and the counter-revolutionaries; the people of God and the infidels.

This division makes it impossible to feel a genuine feeling of kinship with someone who flouts our deepest convictions. How can I love my enemy, if he does not only hate me, but mocks my God as well? Therefore, the commandment "love thy enemies" remains psychologically foreign, and, it can lead, at best, to an attitude of pseudo-humility or pseudo-sympathy for those we can not identify with. The commandment remains essentially un-understood and impossible to follow in its full extent. At best, such an attitude can only be applied to the members of a community we identify with.

.......

Chapter 8

Content

We have a better chance to understand our enemies with the concepts of evolutionary change and natural selection.
We do not have to love those who hate us, but, we should try to understand, why others hate us, and, why we hate others.
Ever-recurring conflicts of interests.
Do we have a special relationship with God?
We are not looking for an ultimate truth; only a "useful truth".
A number of exhortations.
Seeing religious and scientific reality perceptions from a relativistic point of view.
Some questions about a system of natural ethics.
The dissenter, and the careful scrutiny of every criticism that is not easily refuted.
Taking every opinion seriously; if it can not be dismissed convincingly.
Are we expecting too much insight from ordinary people?
It may be utopian, but our aims are not impossible; besides, they may become urgent needs.
Moral behaviour has to be supported by a global social transparence.
A pact of trustful relationships; a deliberate risk.
This good, old, "Common Sense".

I believe, that we have a better chance to understand ourselves, and our enemies, with the concepts of natural evolution than with the commandments of a religious Faith. The concepts of natural evolution make it clear, that we inherit an instinctive, genetically encoded behavioural package including the ability to be consciously aware and communicate factual information with the help of representative symbols. However, the content of our conscious awarenesses falls under the jurisdiction of the cultural code, and, it is therefore not part of this inherited package of behavioural instructions.

Our primary concerns and interests are centered around the essential requirements of our existence. We do not have to love those who hate us, but, we should try to understand, why other people may hate us, and, why we are inclined to hate others. This excercise will be beneficial and sobering, because it will show us, if we are honest, that we are just as responsible for this hatred as our enemies.

If we are honest, we have to come to the conclusion, that we always try to hold-on to a position of privilege, which we often do not really deserve, because we have inherited this position as a result of the good fortune to have been born into a well-to-do family or an affluent society. Let us contemplate, honestly, the following question; do we hate others, because they challenge our position of security, or, because they challenge the unquestioned assumptions and beliefs which give us confidence and peace of mind?

Whenever we are engaged in a conflict of interests, our adversary seems to have just as good a list of reasons, why he is right and we are wrong. At least, this is the conclusion we could come to, if we are willing to listen, honestly, and with understanding to our opponent.

The aggressor is not always wrong, because the target of hatred and aggression may be protecting, with blind egocentricity, a position of undeserved privilege or an unjust advantage. We may talk about our willingness to live in peace, and, we may loudly proclaim our concerns for other people, but, if we are willing to let injustices persist, or, if we are unwilling to listen to the arguments of our challengers, we are just as much responsible for the conflict as the party, who is eventually driven to the use of force.

The crucial point, here, is the ability to communicate, and, to think and talk from a commonly accepted foundation of basic principles. Only if we agree, in essence, about our reality perceptions, our insights into the nature of man, the origin and destiny of mankind, only, then, can we communicate with each other, because, only then, can we describe a conflict-situation, or contemporary reality, in terms both sides can agree-upon.

How can adversaries talk with each other, if one party believes to have a special relationship with God, while the other is nothing more than a heathen? How can we come to a reasoned compromise, if one party takes the position that the other has no right to exist? We can not communicate under these circumstances, and all attempts to do so remain fruitless.

A solution or settlement can then only be imposed, whenever neighbouring nations are more powerful and find it in their interest to do so. Often the imposed settlement is somewhat arbitrary and pleases no-one, because the expertise is lacking to investigate thoroughly, and to settle justly. While an imposed settlement may end hostilities for a while, the basis for true cooperation and mutual understanding remains elusive.

Therefore, it is important to come, first, to a widely acknowledged perception of reality, and, then, it will be possible, even relatively easy, to organise ourselves globally, and give each other an equitable series of rights and obligations. We are not looking for an absolute truth, which we can impose or indoctrinate into millions or billions of people. We are quite happy, if, eventually, a large number of people understand the basic reasons for looking at reality in such a way, that it takes into account our biological and evolutionary origins, as well as our basic, existential requirements.

All we want, is to hear people say; "Yes, this seems an interesting and useful way of looking at reality. Let us see, whether or not we can understand these methods and attitudes better, and, let us see, what the practical consequences will be for us and the people around us".

Let us forget the search for absolute truths, and, let us use our judgements and common-sense to deal with the most important realities we are confronted with. Let us keep trying to put the specialised realities into their proper perspectives, and, let us distill from the myriad of observations and experiences, a number of attitudes, beliefs and goal-patterns that transform us into stable, responsible and rational people, who are willing to contribute to the well-being of others, but, who are, rightfully, resisting every effort to be exploited in one way or another.

Let us resist the temptation to search for absolute certainties with a mathematical precision, outside the field of mathematics itself. Let us, also, resist the shallow prophets of doom and ignorance, who can only see the ridiculous and non-sensical side of human existence. A relativistic reality perception does not preclude the formulation of a useful consensus that may function as a guide for the organisation of a global society.

Let us resist, in these chaotic times, the temptation to find certainty, once again, in religious absolutes. Let us not be blind for the follies and fallacies of religious fanaticism and narrow-mindedness. Let us not forget the evil scourge of the fanatic, who kills and destroys for the sake of his God, or his self-righteous certainties. He is the greatest blasphemist on earth, and, he makes the most savage mockery of his God and the principles of justice, but he does not know it.

Religious ways of looking at reality are the oldest, most natural manner of interpreting what we experience as a reality around or within ourselves, and, it seems indeed bold to advocate a way of looking at reality that does not visualise the existence of a Living God. Yet, at no time do we imply in a relativistic interpretation of reality, that God does not exist, or, that we all should come to the conclusion that God does not exist. We only state, that, according to our emotionally neutral observations, we do not have any evidence for the existence of God, nor, do we have to postulate the existence of God, or any other Anthropomorphic Spirit, in order to explain, satisfactorily, the myriad of reality experiences we are, or can be, aware of.

We certainly do not find evidence for the belief, that God influences, directly, the lives of individual human beings, or, that God has made a covenant with a special race or tribe. We find these ideas untenable, and, we hold them responsible for many erroneous and elitist attitudes. The subjective experiences of many believers that they have actually received help, guidance or specific instructions from their God can all be explained on the basis of psychological mechanisms and logical reality interpretations, especially, when we take into account the beliefs in which the sense-impressions of these people have been classified.

We are familiar enough, now, with the psychological mechanisms of the human being, as well as the first-hand experiences from people who claim to have received such personal instructions, to be able to understand the reasons, why people may think this way. Most of the time, we are dealing with people, who are genuinely convinced of the reality and truthfulness of their experiences, and it is rare to find evidence for a deliberate deception.

The psychological tensions of fervent believers are so intense, that the occurrence of a "vision", or a "divine inspiration", is logical, especially, when seen in the light of their beliefs and convictions. However, we do not have to hold-on to this same imagery out of fear, that no other belief structure can give us a moral basis for our personal conduct or social organisation. Actually, the moral principles of most religions, including Christianity, are hampered by this essential division between the believers and the non-believers.

"But", you will object, here, "is the same not true with your attempt to introduce a natural ethical system? What happens, if you have to deal with someone, who makes a mockery of your ideals, or, who tries to destroy a social order that embodies the principles of fairness and justice according to your philosophical convictions? Are you not caught in the same dilemma as the religious believer, who finds it so difficult to love truly the enemy who mocks his Faith?".

Yes, this is true, at least, to some extent, but, a natural ethic based upon evolutionary and relativistic insights does not make a distinction between the faithful and the unbelievers. Everyone is automatically included in the society of mankind, and, everyone receives his or her package of rights and obligations as a matter of birth-right. The beliefs of an individual do not play a role, here. If someone disagrees with the way a natural ethic guides society and the conduct of individuals, this person will be encouraged to study hard and formulate all the criticisms he or she can find. These views will be seriously studied, and, a genuine effort will be made to understand the substance, as well as the motives of the dissenter and his or her dissenting opinions.

It should not be difficult to refute, in depth, with serious and exhaustive counter arguments, all the aspects that have been brought to the fore by a dissenter. But, at the same time, a serious effort will be made to determine, whether or not these criticisms contain a kernel of truth. If this is the case, the justification of certain criticisms will be honestly acknowledged and a plan will be drawn-up to correct short-comings and injustices.

Criticisms may apply to local conditions of injustice or neglect, or they may apply to a theoretical and fundamental point of view. One of the key features of a relativistic perception of reality is its organic nature, implying the need for a continuous revision of interpretations and a renewal of perceptions, as well as a revision of guidelines and judgements.

As long as criticisms remain verbal, the response to them is also verbal, but, when the dissenter begins to interfere with the rights of other people, then, counter-measures will have to be taken because the behaviour transgresses, then, the boundaries of permissible conduct. We have discussed, before, the many aspects of criminal or unethical behaviour, and, we should not repeat these views, here.

A relativistic society is, not only, completely open in its transactions and honest in its intentions, but, it is also firm in its dealings with criminal and pathological elements, because no society can afford to neglect the correction of injustices due to criminal behaviour. To do so would constitute a serious incidence of injustice.

"Well", you may answer me, "I find your intentions laudable, but the whole effort appears to be so hopelessly utopian, that it is difficult to take you serious. How can you ever expect the great majority of mankind to understand such a difficult philosophy as the relativity of truth, and, to live a moral, virtuous and industrious life just because they have become such understanding and responsible citizens? This is too much to expect, and, it is irrealistic to visualise a vigorous and prosperous society without the strict moral sanctions of a fundamentalist religion, or the strict re-enforcement of an absolutist social dogma".

"How can you ever expect people not to make use of opportunities to enrich themselves, if they can do so without penalties? How can you ever expect the clever and innovative people not to make use of those, who are gullible and naive? How can you ever think, that the industrious, hard working people will not gather into clans who feel kinship for each other, while those, who are less successful will feel uncomfortable in their presence? Can you really expect to prevent the fragmentation of society into classes of wealth or privilege? This seems such a universal human trend, that no society has ever been able to arrest these divisive mechanisms completely".

Indeed, these problems are enormous, and, we visualise, here, a level of awareness, as well as a level of intellectual and moral development, that goes far beyond anything we have been capable of, so far. But, I ask you in turn; show me, why this would not be possible? It may be utopian, but it is not impossible. Just because you have not seen it in the past, you think, that it will not be possible in the future?

Let me correct you. You have not seen such an example of well-motivated social integration on a truly large, national or international scale, but, there are many examples, where small communities have reached an extra-ordinary level of harmony because of great insights and high moral standards. Certainly, these were exclusive social units, where the members were carefully selected and trained for their capabilities, responsibilities and loyalties, but, we know, now, why it is so difficult to reach high moral and intellectual standards in the much larger societies. We know, now, that corruption, secrecy and exploitation poison the attitudes of trust and good-will, and, we know, that confusion and biased reporting make it very difficult for the ordinary citizens to know what to believe.

If the leadership of a social unit is corrupt or morally bankrupt, the members are confused, because people need efficient guidance. Most people are quite willing to believe their leaders and to sacrifice for the good of the nation. We see this on numerous occasions, where leaders have been able to galvanise the people into a psychosis of belligerence.

I am not advocating the development of techniques that allow us to galvanise the people into a "psychosis of good-will and neighbourly love", because I prefer people to understand, first of all, what we all need to stay alive. We have to understand what sort of conditions human beings need to live reasonably happy and without too many frustrations.

I prefer to see this system of natural ethics to operate as a deliberate pact or contract of essential equality, rather than on the basis of a clever and carefully maintained emotional synchronisation. A rationally adopted attitude of cooperation allows for debate and evolutionary transformation of the guidelines that lie behind the social mechanisms of cooperation, and, we lose this evolutionary flexibility, if we rely upon emotional synchrony, where certain attitudes are adopted as unquestionable virtues. Ultimately, we make this pact or contract with each other, because we are convinced, that the solution of violent conflict will lead to our down-fall.

I want to make it clear, that the principles of a natural ethic and a social contract stand, or fall, with a clear understanding of human nature. We have to know, and acknowledge, that we all are tempted to make use of short-cuts to immediate gain, but, we can also come honestly to the conclusion, that a much better long-term solution and a much more satisfactory way of existence are found in the principles of sharing, equally, our natural resources, as well as the burdens of belonging to society.

Let us learn to think again, especially, since our rational faculties have been blunted, for a long time, now, by commercial propaganda. Let us learn to reflect and use our good old common-sense. We will see, that we still can make sound judgements, and, that we do not have to be told by advertisements what we want to do; what we like to eat or drink, or, how we have to please the opposite sex. Let us be ourselves, and, let us find the time, again, to think about problems that go beyond our immediate concerns. Let us free ourselves from the banks and finance companies, and, we will discover a whole new way of life.

Probably, not all of you will be converted to a relativistic philosophy of evolutionary and existential principles, but, I fondly wish you all a healthy and happy "Common Sense". (First sketch, Christmas Day 1983).

.......

Summary

1. Common Sense; sound judgements about common circumstances.
   A "down-to-earth" quality.
   The rise of the common people.
   The dangers of specialist or elitist opinions.
   Learning to live with a persistent variability in the meaning of words.
   A futile search for precision that is not there.
   Language, logic and mathematics.
   An academic "niche".
   A language for computers.
   The special nature of mathematical concepts.
   Cerebral and mental systems of classification.
   Why one and one equals two.
   Abstracting the quality of "quantity".
   Why calculated predictions of physical realities require verification.
   Reducing mathematical statements to their axiomatic foundations.
   
   
   
2. The "purity" of mathematical symbols.
   "Logic", in terms of physiological and psychological concepts.
   Categories of similarities; not identities.
   We are always surprised by an underlying complexity.
   Inter-actions with a "real" environment, versus inter-actions with abstract concepts.
   An illusion of reality, created by the powers of predictability and manipulability.
   Mathematics; seen a valuable tool to grasp reality.
   Limitations of the quantitative approach to the grasp over reality.
   The many aspects of experiencing sensations and making observations.
   Most of our concepts are not sharply delineated.
   The function of "agreement" in conceptual communications.
   Concentrating on the range of meaning of a word or concept.
   A computer needs "exact" or un-ambiguous instructions.
   Why concepts and ideas vary from one person to the next, and from one culture to another.
   The first axioma in the philosophy of Common Sense.
   Defining the concept of "a fair share".
   
   
   
3. A review of communications in higher animals.
   Synchronising a mood, or a state of alertness.
   The role of natural selection in shaping communicative abilities.
   Intellectual or conceptual transfer-mechanisms, super-imposed on a synchronisation of moods and attitudes.
   The recall of a memory-trace.
   A review of early human developments.
   Why we have to classify symbolically representable awarenesses.
   The emergence of a "common denominator".
   Our awarenesses are largely "event oriented".
   Memories are similar, but not identical, even, if the same event has been witnessed.
   A case of "cerebral economy".
   A closer look at the concept of a "mental image".
   Visual aspects dominate, but are not exclusive in the formation of a mental image.
   Many mental images have a largely abstract content.
   Building-up a detailed imagery by sequential scanning.
   Attention, and the factor of existential significance.
   Most likely, events were earlier a focus of attention than objects.
   Our memory-banks retain only what is important.
   Concepts, ideas, memory-traces, and our mental imagery.
   A lengthy and time-consuming search for clarity of thought.
   
   
   
4. Tracing an outline of conceptual developments.
   Our contemporary memory-traces are full of abstractions.
   Animal recognition mechanisms.
   Variations around a common denominator.
   A review of the mechanisms of "symbolic representation".
   The role of "attributes" and "qualifying statements".
   A close look at the functions of language communications.
   We use the cultural and conceptual "currency" of the society we grew-up in or live in.
   Why communications in a complex society become difficult.
   The cohesive "cement" of a common cultural core.
   Mechanisms of social decay.
   Existential requirements and their influence upon reality perceptions.
   A brief review of animal evolution.
   Three cardinal existential concerns; food, security and sex.
   Early belief structures, and the role of emotions and instinctive drives.
   We often confuse "cool rationality" with morally superior behaviour.
   Rational and emotional behaviour-patterns.
   The remarkable influence of existential concerns.
   
   
   
5. We want to be certain.
   We have to deal with many baffling and frightening phenomena.
   Urgent answers to urgent questions.
   Many different interpretations of the Holy Scriptures; questions.
   Why it may be useless, or, even, dangerous to drift into a mood of unbridled questioning.
   Looking back at the certainties of our forefathers.
   We are heirs to their efforts, and, we belong to the privileged segment of mankind that is alive and well.
   The past lives in our conscious awareness only, if it has some meaning for us.
   A search for meaning in the experience of suffering and death.
   A fundamentalist Faith gives hard and fast answers.
   Certainty and Beauty.
   We have to rely upon structures of beliefs; mental images we do not question.
   A common, biological heritage with a tendency to form social bonds.
   How can we talk about "absolute realities"?
   Religious, nor scientific reality perceptions, reveal an Absolute Truth.
   Everything evolves.
   The relativity of the judgement of truthfulness.
   
   
   
6. Common-sense ideas are widely acceptable and recognisable as "useful truths"
   We have to know something about the structure of our personality.
   The fallacy of unbridled freedoms.
   A review of viable parental attitudes and practices.
   Social decay is foreshadowed in the loss of parental qualities.
   Emotions are not the highest forms of human behaviour.
   Human attitudes do not seem to change much in a wide historical perspective.
   The strong, instinctive drive to solve tensions with violent means.
   The concept of "Original Sin", and the evolutionary imagery of conglomerate or socially integrated existence.
   The potentials of rational evaluation and behavioural fine-tuning.
   A shared biological heritage, and its impact upon a globally acceptable imagery of man.
   Differentiating between shared features and unique characteristics.
   Both sides invoke the blessings of the same God, on the eve of a battle.
   Common Sense is the first casualty of a war-psychosis.
   
   
   
7. The fundamental choice of behaviour.
   A blood-brotherhood of belligerent instincts.
   What we need in order to avoid violent confrontations.
   A basis for fruitful negotiations.
   The condescending attitude of; "teaching our opponent a lesson".
   Allowing mistakes to happen in order to learn from experience.
   Young people can be so reckless and stubborn.
   The last lesson we can teach our adolescent youngsters.
   Teaching a lesson; from one social grouping to another.
   How long can we expect an attitude of gratitude to last?
   We are not equally endowed.
   No nation or national border can be considered "sacrosanct".
   Peace, and the attempt to freeze a favourable status-quo.
   Justice and essential equality.
   A look into the future, when the earth will have been divided into more or less equal Regions.
   A fair representation must mean, that political units are roughly equal in size, population density and natural resources.
   The problem of individual variability.
   The ability to recognise similarities in aspirations and existential needs.
   Confusion and stress narrow the sphere of our ethical concerns.
   An un-understood and psychologically alien commandment.
   
   
   
8. We have a better chance to understand our enemies with the concepts of evolutionary change and natural selection.
   We do not have to love those who hate us, but, we should try to understand, why others hate us, and, why we hate others.
   Ever-recurring conflicts of interests.
   Do we have a special relationship with God?
   We are not looking for an ultimate truth; only a "useful truth".
   A number of exhortations.
   Seeing religious and scientific reality perceptions from a relativistic point of view.
   Some questions about a system of natural ethics.
   The dissenter, and the careful scrutiny of every criticism that is not easily refuted.
   Taking every opinion seriously; if it can not be dismissed convincingly.
   Are we expecting too much insight from ordinary people?
   It may be utopian, but our aims are not impossible; besides, they may become urgent needs.
   Moral behaviour has to be supported by a global social transparence.
   A pact of trustful relationships; a deliberate risk.
   This good, old, "Common Sense".

.......