THE THOUGHTS OF A VILLAGE PHILOSOPHER







A Study in Thought

sa061



by





Marius Heuff

Chapter 1

Content

Who, and what is a "village philosopher"?
Why we need to have "broad horizons" in our outlook on life.
Life in the country-site.
A few biographical aspects.
A "lost faith".
The need for a new, morally justified outlook.
Limitations of an irascible personality.

"Why do I call myself a village philosopher?", you ask. Well, I live in a village, and I think of myself as some sort of a philosopher. Yet, you are not satisfied with this answer, because you feel, that it does not make sense to link the incidental characteristic of living in a village with the work, occupation, or pass-time, whatever it may be, of being a "thinking writer"; an individual, who likes to look for the common denominators in life, rather than the accidental specifics. There is, therefore, some sort of contradiction in the term "village philosopher".

"Are you implying, that you think of yourself, merely, as a "local light"; a philosophising individual, with only a limited appeal or range of concerns? Do you see yourself as a locally coloured individual, who is somewhat hesitant about thinking, or aspiring to be relevant, for a much larger audience? Do you call yourself a village philosopher, because you think, that you lack the education, or the sophisticated contacts and manners, that could attract the attention of a much larger audience? Perhaps, you call yourself this way, because you want to emphasise a "down to earth", common-sense approach to problems, and, you hope to show, that the problems that are relevant and apparent in a small community, are not any different than those of the world at large. In this sense, the "simple" outlook of an apparently locally oriented writer to the problems of life and living together, could form a framework for an approach to more widespread problems".

I feel, that I am being cross-examined and held accountable for motivations I am hardly aware of, as well as for the reasons why I called myself the way I did. You are correct in assuming, that, I believe the village to be essentially similar to any other community, and the problems of the village are, in essence, those of the world, at large, but, at the same time, other communities may have problems we do not have, here, and, therefore, we can not afford to neglect problems or concerns that are beyond the sphere of experiences or interests of those, who are entirely "locally oriented".

One can not become a philosopher, not even a "village philosopher", by remaining one's entire life in the village of one's up-bringing. We all have to learn to see beyond the horizons of our immediate concerns and local existence, even, if we do not have any aspirations to become a writer or a thinker, with the hope that, some day, our thoughts may be useful to others.

Most of us belong to a large nation, and, we are being asked to contribute to a society that is much larger than the particular area in which we live or have become familiar with. Unless we learn about a large number of areas of interest and expertise, we will not be able to recognise to what extent the problems of the larger community, the nation, or, even, the international community, resemble the problems we are familiar with in our own particular locale.

Besides, with such a narrow point of view, we will not be able to recognise the fortunate absence of specific problems in our particular area; problems, we could be faced with, and, indeed, so many other communities have to cope with. Therefore, in order to understand the problems of other communities and to appreciate, how lucky we are not to be confronted with such problems, we have to have a knowledge and understanding of a great variety of problems, cultures and ways of life, before it is possible to settle, happily, in a small, un-exciting village that is blessed with the absence of many problems. Those, who have never been away, will never realise, fully, to what extent their village is fortunate.

In order to be successful, or, at least, meaningful as a village philosopher, one has to come from the outside and enter the village as a stranger. One will remain a stranger, to a large extent, for the rest of one's life, enjoying, quietly, the peaceful tranquility, the cleanliness of the air, and the pleasant blend between nature and the small human habitation. It remains somewhat baffling to those, who have strong local roots and never lived anywhere else, why a stranger would settle in their midst, while remaining very much detached from the people and the "events" that are going-on in the village.

I am a village philosopher in this sense, because, I am a stranger and will remain a stranger all my life, while enjoying a number of superficial contacts. The reasons, why I came to the village are simple. I love the quietude and the natural beauty of the land. I like the simple life-style, where an individual does much more for him- or herself than in the city or a sub-urban environment.

In the city we "call upon" a number of people who are selling their services and skills, and, who provide us with those affluent trappings which most of us still consider to be necessities. Besides, a quiet, partly self-sufficent and resourceful life-style in the country-site, is inexpensive, and, it provides an ideal surrounding for early retirement, as well as the opportunity, and the time, to work at an ambitious, long-term and self-imposed project of writing philosophical essays.

These are the main reasons, why I am here in this village, and I can honestly say, that I have never regretted this move. It meant selling our house in the sub-urb, giving-up a professional career, moving the family to this comfortable but unobtrusive home in the village, living modestly from a small investment income, and cutting-out, to a large extent, the costly, fixed expenses that are associated with living and working in a sub-urb.

The property taxes are much lower. We heat the house with wood. We do all the repairs, and, even, major renovations ourselves, and, we look after all the appliances and do most of the repair and maintenance work on the family-car. In short, this is a life-style of frugality; of a willingness to learn about all the instruments and tools that make modern life convenient, enabling us to live comfortably and with plenty of time, while consuming only a fraction of the cash-income required, when living and working in a city.

There is no need to rush to work in the morning, or fight the traffic-jams coming home in the late afternoon. We use the car, only, when necessary, and, because of the absence of public transporation, as well as the habit to buy supplies when on sale, we do need a car, but, we have learned to keep a car much longer than we could before, in particular, since we do not have to use the car every day. In particular in the winter, it is a great privilege to be able to stay home, when the weather is bad and the snow-storms are raging. We do not have to fear the loss of income, or a job, if we can not get to work.

Certainly, living in a relatively harsh climate with a long winter and fairly far from specialised help, requires careful planning, in order to make sure, that we have everything we need to see us through a stretch of bad weather in the winter. Here, you have, in an overall view, the conditions we live under, and, together with a reasonably warm, cosy place to stay, plenty of supplies, a library of books and records, as well as a quiet place to work, it is not surprising, why it becomes relatively easy to think and write, and work on a series of essays.

You want to ask me, why I gave up my career and went to live in a small village? Did I always wanted to write? For a long time, yes, but not always, because it takes time for such a goal to take shape. I certainly felt for a long time, that "something was wrong". I did not believe in anything. I mistrusted everyone, and, certainly, I mistrusted the motivations of our civic and political leaders. I felt, ever more strongly, that, we, ordinary people in affluent, Western societies, were being manipulated from all sides.

We are still being exposed to a continuous barrage of commercial interests that want to part us, as quickly as possible, from our earnings, and, over the years, it became increasingly obvious to me, that the religious interests were doing the same thing. People were, and still are being manipulated, in particular, those, who are still full of good-will. They are unscrupulously manipulated by a variety of political and religious groupings, primarily, to get money. I even lost faith in the honesty of our scientific and professional leaderships, as I saw the ever-present temptation to use a position of prominence and responsibility for personal gain.

True, as a rule, the behaviour of our leaders and prominent citizens is not consciously oriented towards a corrupt use of power, but, the behaviour and motivations of these people were, often, remarkably defensive and strongly oriented towards maintaining a position of power and privilege, in stead of attempting to carry-out, honestly and scrupulously, the obligations of a position of leadership. I expected that leaders would utilise all opportunities to make society a better place to live in, and, to respond, fully, to the trust of the people, who have, after all, placed these leaders in the positions they occupy.

I can not document, with a long series of examples, why I have come to such a conclusion, and, even, if I could or would take the trouble to assemble a series of examples that represent, to me, a corruption of justice and a mockery of our social goals, I am afraid, that many people would see nothing wrong with the examples I give. The real sadness of the situation lies, therefore, in the fact, that, we, in the West, have lost, to a large extend, our ideas about what society should be, and, we have lost the criteria by which to judge, whether or not the behaviour of commercial interests, political leaders and prominent citizens, are beneficial to society.

Perhaps, it is misleading to say, that we have lost these insights or criteria, because we imply, thereby, a need to return to the old-fashioned morality of a bygone era. True, in this bygone era of Christian morals and the virtues of strength and courage, we had a much clearer judgement about right and wrong, and, our societies were, undoubtedly, stronger than they are now, in spite of the fact, that we have a much more sophisticated weaponry at our disposal. Yet, this era has gone, and, it is right that it has gone, because a close scrutiny of moral standards and practices of a Puritan, Christian outlook and reality perception, shows us many hypocrisies and erroneous insights.

We can not go back to the past, and, people, who try to bring-about a moral revival on the basis of Christian values, will only contribute to strife and tensions, because they do not understand, that these values contain many discrepancies and irritating elitist attitudes, which are not acceptable to the large majority of mankind that is not Christian.

Perhaps, the Christian morality could be successful, if it was possible to bring the white minority of mankind back into a pinnacle of power, but, fortunately, this is not likely to be the case. Therefore, a new moral outlook has to emerge; a morality that by-passes white supremacy and Christian righteousness, but, it should not be replaced with another dogma of absolute righteousness. The new morality has to acknowledge the essential equality of all peoples, regardless of race or creed, and these ethical guidelines have to be based on a scientific, biological and relativistic interpretation of our existence.

My feelings of disgust have, therefore, nothing to do with a feeling of being depressed, personally, nor, do they reflect any sort of nostalgia for a past that has disappeared. My disgust and chronically critical attitudes towards nearly everything I come in contact with, are based upon the conviction, that we do not have to behave in such an ignorant and decadent manner. If we would be able to formulate a generally acceptable set of principles of justice, we could eliminate most of the tensions of mistrust and frustration that exist between individuals, groups of people, as well as large and conglomerate nations, and, we would not have to continue these futile attempts to buy happiness or a moment of relaxation with an escalating consumption of materials goods, or soothing drugs.

My feelings of frustration and disgust are based upon the slowly emerging conviction, that we are digging our own graves as Western societies, and, perhaps, as an entire species, because we fail to see a few simple but relatively unpalatable truths. This collective ignorance, which is not any worse than it has been in the past, seems to grow, at least, in my perception of reality, because, as I formulate, more clearly, a logical and acceptable way of looking at reality, I become more irritated by the unwillingness of many people to make an effort to understand, and, to concern themselves with the problems of our times.

Ironically, my critical attitudes and irascibility is interpreted by people in my environment as a sort of unfeeling selfishness, while my attitudes are motivated by the frustration about their lack of concern for anything that falls to some extent outside the horizon of daily concerns. I know, that I do not have the right to grab my fellow citizens by the collar and shake them; ordering them to be more informed, more concerned and more honest. I know, that I would be an intolerable dictator, if I ever would have a large sphere of power or influence. I am too impatient to keep explaining the same principles over and over again, and, even, if people seem, at last, to understand something, and, if they are beginning to agree with the principles I have been teaching, they turn-around the next day and behave as if they had learned nothing.

No, I am not a good teacher, certainly, I am not a good class-room teacher, and, my disposition is too irritable and short-tempered to be persuasive or comforting to others. Many people do not feel comfortable with me, especially, when discussing questions and problems that are of interest to me. Certainly, I understand perfectly well, why this happens. I will cover quickly a vast area of thought I am familiar with, and, the individual I am talking to has often a difficult time grasping this train of thought. Even, if, at long last, one seems to grasp a small fragment of a single principle, I still feel unhappy, because there seems to be little inclination to think further, or to ask more questions.

A talk with me on philosophical questions must be for most people an exhausting experience, and, they are glad when it is over. Of course, I can also have a conversation without getting involved in a philosophical discussion, and, then, people seem to be more at ease.

I know, that I can not blame the people around me, because, why should they want to learn something that has little or no relevance to them? Only, when they come to a perplexing moment in their lives; if they are suddenly confronted with something that transcends the dull and grey existence of their daily concerns, only then, is it possible to see a spark of interest, but, unfortunately, often, such an emotional experience seems to re-kindle an old and nearly forgotten religious imagery, rather than a more intellectual or philosophical insight.

.......

Chapter 2

Content

I am, essentially, happy and content with my existence.
Who will decide the significance of my work?
Criteria for being remembered by future generations.
I am always "doing my best".
Suspicions about the deliberate or un-intentional bias of news-broadcasts.
A dismal picture.
A return to my fascination with the conflict-situation.
Many people have benefitted from the "business of warfare".
Is "terrorism for justice" a justified concept?
Promoting the influence of an informed body of world opinion.
An irascible dreamer.
Relativistic considerations apply, also, to the principles of a relativistic reality perception.
An egocentric philosopher.

I am glad that I do not have to make a living with teaching, because, I know that it would drive me insane. Perhaps, many people would be surprised to learn that I am quite irritable. Many people think, that a philosopher should be the epitomy of a quietly smiling wisdom and an attitude of serenity, and, certainly, a philosopher should not be a cranky misanthrope, who gets angry and impatient with other people and sequesters himself from the rest of the world.

I am not a misanthrope in the sense, that I despise other people, but, it is true that I get tired of them easily. Certainly, I believe that we should be able to control emotions, and I am a firm believer in excercising control over emotions that may lead to a conflict-situation or a situation of injustice. I hope, that the reader understands, clearly, that my frustrations and irritability are short-comings on my part, and they reflect a significant level of stress with the apparently so difficult task to teach something new and strange. Yet, I know very well, that, looking at teaching on a much larger scale, it certainly has been possible to teach people, and, it certainly is true, that mankind has learned a lot, since it began the arduous road of forming complex, conglomerate societies, and developed the art of reading and writing.

I do not really get upset with people, and, I certainly do not want to give the impression, that I allow myself, in any way, to commit an injustice towards them. I know, at least, to some extent, my limitations, and I think, that it is better for me to write, and to let the reader browse through my writings at his or her own pace. At least, the book will not get impatient, and, it will not complain or feel hurt, when it is closed, before the reader has finished the written text.

I like it this way, because I feel, quite strongly, that my writing has to make it on its own merits. If people get bored with it and do not understand it, or, if they find nothing of interest, by all means, let them close the book, and, let them forget these writings. I do not mind that at all, because, after all, the value and meaning of these writings have to be found in the response they bring-about in an audience. If there is no response, there is no life, and, if there is no response for a fairly long time, then, we can be reasonably sure, that these writings will never find any significant degree of viability.

So what? What does it really matter? It does not matter to me, whether or not people want to read my works. Certainly, my ego would be pleasantly stimulated, if I knew, that there was, at least, some sort of audience for my ideas and works, but, what does it really matter? If there is a contribution to be made, then, it will come, because I have the time, as well as the determination, to put everything I have to say, on paper.

Probably, my ideas will be put on paper, not only, once, but many times. At least, I will have the feeling, when I die, that I have done my best, and, if my thoughts have a measure of relevance for others; fine, if not; there is nothing lost except my time and efforts, and, how important are they? Besides, who knows what is going to determine the significance of my work? Each generation will have to determine for itself what it wants from the past; what is relevant, and, what can be forgotten. By that time, we have receded into the past. Everyone of my generation will have faded into the past, and, if anyone of us is remembered by future generations, it means, that, at least, some living members of these future generations have found something in our work or existence that is useful to them, or has given them a profound head-ache.

Indeed, we may also be remembered because we, or, rather, our activities and the consequences of our existence, are still giving these future generations a head-ache. I often suspect, that, my generation, as well as the other generations of my time, may well be remembered vividly, and with mixed emotions; not, because of our contributions, but, on account of the pollution problems we created; the ecological damage we brought-about, and the scarcities we have caused, as a result of our insane, collective madness of consumerist affluence and nuclear proliferation.

Perhaps, man's history will, indeed, consider our times a period of collective insanity, at least, for this affluent and consuming part of mankind, but, on the other hand, future historians will see, with a greater degree of clarity than we can muster at this time, where the seeds of correction, and the drive towards a saner world, took their origins, and, when these trends began to gather momentum.

When I die, I hope to be able to say to myself, that I have done my best to contribute towards a more informed attitude and a more just society. I hope to be able to contribute to the emergence of a social environment that will be organised on a global scale, according to the principles of essential equality, as well as the obligation to contribute according to capabilities and opportunities. I may not have been successful, but I hope that my work, in spite of its many flaws and short-comings, will, at least, convey the intention of making a genuine and serious effort towards a long-term survival of the human species.

At least, after I have died, people will not say; "He wrote in the hope of getting rich". I certainly did not write with any financial motivation in mind. Perhaps, the motivations that lie behind my somewhat impatient personality will, indeed, reflect a rather zealous, reformist attitude. Certainly, this attitude and orientation may be a hindrance to the acceptance of my work, because such attitudes are often irritating and not taken seriously.

Yet, I am not always impatient. Often, when I am writing and things go well; when I am undisturbed and comfortable, alert and full of ideas, then, I feel on top of the world, and, I think that my writing is clear, patient, careful and flowing, and, I have the feeling, that it is fairly good.

As a general rule, I do not write, when I feel that it is not going well, but, of course, the quality of my writing still fluctuates; at least, it is likely to fluctuate in your judgement, because some of the writings you can identify with more easily than others. I can only say, that I try to maintain a constant quality throughout my work. I never work under pressure; I have no deadlines to meet. I write, whenever I feel like it, but, it is true, that I also discipline myself to think about my work, nearly constantly, in particular, when I am ready to sketch a new essay.

So far, I have not published anything. I have tried a few times to get people interested in my work, but, until now, I have not found anyone, who thinks that my work is readable or of interest. Perhaps, I have not made the right contacts, as yet. True, I work very much in isolation of other people, and, the kind of writing I do, is highly ambitious, quite unusual, and, not very easy to relate to. The chances of finding a readership are, therefore, not very good, and, I should not be surprised, if my work never finds any significant response.

Certainly, it would be disappointing, if such would be the case, but, then, what does it really matter? If it does become relevant to others, it will be read, at some time in the future, and, if history takes a course that by-passes the imagery and ideas which I have had a chance and opportunity to develop, then, my work will be, at best, a curiosity.

I will try, from time to time, to publish a few essays. I will test, occasionally, the waters of public acceptance by submitting a few of them to a number of publishers; to see, whether or not they are of some interest to others, because I am convinced that they have some merit.

If I say, that I live in isolation, or near-isolation, it does not mean, that I am not familiar with what is going-on in the world. I keep informed, especially about contemporary social and political events, but, at the same time, I must confess, that I am often upset by the news-broadcasts. I am not upset by the news itself, as you may think, but, I am often doubtful or puzzled about the methods by which the news has been selected. I am always conscious about a certain bias, or partiality, in the way the news is presented, in particular, when it deals with national or international situations of conflict.

I am upset by the repititious platitudes, as well as the ever-recurring belligerent posturing of leaderships, then, here, then, there, and I am seeing the seeds of conflict and injustice in nearly every settlement or solution that comes to my attention. I am distressed, but, also, intrigued, by the political news from all over the world, and, I feel, that, most of the time, regardless which conflict happens to grab the headlines, the conflict-situation is unnecessary, and, I am convinced, that the suffering and the destruction of life and property are primitive and outmoded attempts to settle a situation of conflict.

The phenomenon of belligerence, as well as the strong temptation of people to adopt hostile or belligerent attitudes, are major concerns to me, while I live in a peaceful and quiet routine, completely forgotten and unnoticed in a little corner of the world. I think about conflicts, their background, the motifs of the peoples involved, their posturing and rethoric, as well as their invariable obedience to the primitive instincts associated with a belligerent stance.

The only difference between an individual and a nation during a situation of conflict, is the fact, that, all the cells of an organism that has decided to engage in a fight, are involved, and will die, if the organism loses and is killed. In a society or nation, we see the politicians and generals declare war. The war machinery is set into action, and, ordinary people are called-upon to fight and die on the battle-fields. Afterwards, generals retire to their headquarters, politicians toast each other around a conference table, while relatives and friends weep over the memories of their dead.

Yet, many, many times, artists, writers and thinkers alike, have tried to portray the futility and insanity of war, but, it does not seem to make much of an impression. Whithin one or two generations, after the devastations of war have become a faded memory, the war has become a heroic legend, and, we see, that the people and their leaders are getting ready, once again, to fight a new war; to defend the honour of their country, or, to "teach someone a lesson".

Now, even, the unimaginable destructiveness and catastrophic results of nuclear and chemical warfare are beginning to be discussed openly in the planning of a military strategy, and, they are used in the rethoric, threats, as well as the contingency plans of many political leaderships. We seem to get ready for warfare, once again, but, for the first time in history, it could be an all-out conflict with nuclear weapons.

The experts have developed a large professional vocabulary of strategic terms, together with their arsenals of nuclear weapons, because we have an ever-enlarging staff, whose task it is to simulate war-conditions on their computers; to study and calculate, advise and plan the strategies of war. Many people are, once again, making a living from the activities of planning and preparing for warfare. Too many people are now dependent for their livelyhood upon the maintenance or replacement of war-machines and their accessory supplies, and, of course, these people do not believe in disarmament, as long as they can make money from the war machinery. These people do not want to hear, or see, the logical objections to an ever escalating arms-race.

Those, who are making a living by preparing for all-out warfrare, are, apparently, oblivious to the simple fact, that their adversaries and enemies will have no choice, but to respond with a similar arms build-up. Mistrust begets mistrust, and, eventually, the huge arsenals of lethal weapons will come into the hands of people, who do not care, whether or not the viability of mankind will be destroyed, for good, together with their own demise.

Given the psychological make-up and instinctive drives of the human being, as we interpret them at the present time, the path of long-term survival has no other alternative than a concerted, and, perhaps, imposed action to destroy nuclear and chemical weapons all over the world. Perhaps, we will see, at some time in the future, the paradox of a terrorist campaign with killings, kidnappings and forced publicity for the purpose of destroying all nuclear and chemical weaponry.

Of course, one would have to find a way to monitor compliance with a world-wide process of destroying nuclear weapons, but, if the political power-struggles, as well as the inflated egos of political leaderships, are unable to secure a voluntary agreement, not just of limiting the number of arms deployed, but, also, of an effective and thorough verification of the destruction of all nuclear weaponry, then, I predict, that, sooner or later, a terrorist organisation will come to the fore, that will reach this objective by virtue of nuclear threats, and the assassinations of prominent political leaders.

I am not condoning violence. My prediction that it is going to happen is certainly not an indication, that I would welcome such an action. I am only saying, that it is inevitable for a small but determined group of people, to find, eventually, a way to pressure governments, all over the world, to do away with their most pernicious weapons.

A far more preferable solution to the problems of weapons disposal, as well as the accumulation of toxic waste, would be an informed public opinion of peoples all over the world, dictating to their political leaderships, that the time has come to look after the security and safety of everyone, and, not just those societies over which they have been given, or assumed, a measure of jurisdiction.

Long before the emergence of an effective body of world opinion, we will have seen an end to the rule of dictatorships; the grab of power by the gun, as well as the placid tolerance of non-democratically elected governments by other nations of the international community. We will have seen an end to, at least, the most blatant examples of disparity, ignorance and brutality, and, we will see, that peoples, all over the world, will be sharing similar perceptions of reality.

After having revealed my impatient and irascible nature, I am coming through, now, as a utopian dreamer, who seems to be confident, that mankind will, indeed, develop into a harmonious, informed and concerned world community, if we are not snuffed-out, accidentally, by the folly of a few generals or politicians.

Perhaps, you will find this somewhat strange, but, really, the reasons for my impatience and critical attitudes towards other people, in particular, towards government bureaucracies, leaderships, and other social institutions, lies in the fact, that, I know, that it is not necessary to have corrupt and ignorant leaders and bureaucrats. We do not have to live, constantly, under the threat of nuclear annihilation, or the overwhelming pressures of impoverishment and pollution.

There is no need for the disparities and injustices we see all around us, but, people have to recognise the fact, that they are sowing the seeds of injustice and disparity, just as they reach the summit of power; as they reach a victory over their adversaries, or, whenever they are at the height of their consumptive habits. We all are contributing to, or, even, causing the problems of injustice and disparity, just at the time, that we revel in a self-righteous satisfaction about having reached our goals.

My impatience and irascibility result from the fact, that I see reality, in particular the reality as it could be, so different from the way other people see reality. Most people do not even concern themselves with the possibility, that there could be many different and legitimate ways of interpreting the same events.

Yet, you may now point towards a contradiction. You may remind me, that, I am getting impatient with people, because they do not see the reality as I see it, and yet, I do not seem to want to accept the way other people see their realities. Why do they have to see the reality the way I do, while I keep insisting, that people should adopt a relativistic point of view in the problems of seeing reality? In other words; you may think, that I am an absolutist in my view-point about a relativistic reality. You think, that the principles of relativity do not apply to my concepts of relativistic thought.

I have clearly indicated, on several occasions, that I do include or apply relativistic considerations to my own ideas about the relativity of truth, but, it is certainly true, that I tend to behave as an absolutist. Just as I preach the concept of emotional control and restraint, so should I try, at least, to practice what I preach, and, I should be more patient with the people around me.

You are absolutely right, and, I will try to live-up more to the ideals, which I, myself, have written about, so many times. Even, if I could find someone, who would understand what I have written, and discuss the many aspects I am interested in, I would, probably, be less irritable, but, then, let us examine, closely, what it means to be surrounded by a circle of understanding friends and admirors. Would I like it, or, would I quickly drive potential admirors away by my irascible personality?

I probably would. First of all, it is irrealistic to expect, that it is easy to find someone with whom one could discuss every aspect of one's thoughts with complete satisfaction. Not only, would such a person have to be completely familiar with my world of thought, but, this individual would also have to be able to present interesting alternatives, as well as have a measure of insight in my personality. This combination is quite unlikely, and, it is far more reasonable to expect, that I may meet someone, who understands, at least, part of my thoughts, but, who will also disagree, quite strongly, with many of my ideas. A discussion may, then, easily become a confrontation of conflicting view-points. Would such a discussion be to my liking? Only partly and temporarily, because I would feel such a battle of arguments to be tiring, and, it would quickly bore me, as we engage in a battle of wits, rather than an effort to understand each other.

Are you getting the impression that I make no effort, whatsoever, to understand someone else? You may come to the conclusion, that I am totally egocentric in my orientation. I have no interest to learn what others think, and, you think, that such an egocentric and introvert attitude towards the thoughts of others, will, not only, be a hindrance in the development of whatever talents I may have, but, it also contributes, significantly, to the fact, that other people will have a difficult time relating to my work.

I have to agree with you, and, I can not deny, that I am highly egocentric in my attitudes, and, that I find it very difficult to read an opinion, a thought, an attitude, or a philosophical discourse, that is entirely different from my own line of thought. Yet, I think, that I am, at least, in outline, well aware of what people have thought in the past, or, what kind of philosophical attitudes and concerns are prevalent, and, what kind of work is going-on at the present time. True, I am not familiar with any of the contemporary trends in detail, and, I have certainly not studied the thoughts and opinions of my contemporaries, but, let us discuss, in broad and overall terms, what people have thought about the essence of their natural environment, themselves and God. Let us discuss what people have thought about these matters throughout the ages, rather than specifically in our own times.

.......

Chapter 3

Content

The difference between thinking and dreaming.
The evolution of symbolic representations.
Common denominators and classifying principles.
The art of asking questions.
Building-blocks for a structure of explanatory relationships.
Limitations of the faculty of memory.
Religious and philosophic-scientific perceptions of reality.
Anthropomorphic force-fields.
A fragile object, floating on a wildly fluctuating sea of possibilities of existence.
Questions of origin.
Can something come from nothing?
The concept of a "Revealed Reality".
The startling, overall conclusion of a scientific interpretation of reality.
The need to accept, often, the scientific imagery "on faith".
An honest chance to get somewhere.

As soon as man learned to manipulate the memory-traces of his sense impressions with gestures and other symbolic representations, he also began to think. Here, we define thinking, simply, as a self-stimulation of mental images. Before man learned, collectively, the techniques of recalling, voluntarily, a particular memory-trace with an act of mimicry, a more or less spontaneous recall of memory imprints would already take place, just like in a dream.

In the awake or alert stage, however, the process of recall is guided by the incoming sense impressions of the moment. These constitute the reality of the present circumstances, and, the process of recall serves, then, the purpose of comparing these incoming sensory data with previous experiences and their memory imprints. In this way, an animal can "recognise" the meaning of its present reality experience, and, it can synthesise an appropriate response.

When early man learned to manipulate these memories with symbolic representations, especially, when everything would be relatively safe and secure, the absence of strong, existentially significant sense impressions would facilitate the more or less spontaneous "emergence" of significant and recent memory imprints.

If these memory imprints became synchronised throughout the small community, (e.g., by watching someone express a spontaneous memory-recall with an act of mimicry), we are on the way of witnessing the birth of conceptual communications, be it in a gesticular rather than a vocal stream of symbolic representations.

A member of a small group that is experimenting with voluntary memory-recall, will experience in his or her own mind a series of memory-recalls, and, it is likely, that memory traces would come to the fore which had recently been depicted in an act of mimicry by someone else.

With the facilitation of mental image-recall and the build-up of a repertoir of symbolically representable awarenesses, the need for a conscious system of classification made itself felt, as we have discussed before, on many occasions. A conscious or mental system of classification requires a search for, and the abstraction of, a series of qualities or common denominators that are able to serve as "classifying principles".

From this beginning, we may trace a development, where, eventually, the reality, as it is experienced by a group, becomes symbolically representable, and, at the same time, it becomes "communicable". Then, such a reality has a tendency to become a coherent picture; a story with cause and effect relationships. Once the development of conscious awareness has progressed to this stage, we can talk about a structured reality, or, a "belief structure", and, we see the possibility emerge of "asking a question".

The art of asking a question is related to the slowly emerging awareness, that there is something wrong, or missing, in the reality image that is available about a particular item or event, and, eventually, this awareness becomes so precise, that an individual is able to formulate a specific question.

Most often, the question merely indicates, that the individual has not grasped a feature of the reality that is being communicated, and, the lack of comprehension is then due to the fact, that it has not been explained or taught adequately, or, the individual may have missed a part of the explanation, or, at least, he may have missed some of the details that have been mentioned. The answers to such a question are relatively easy to provide, and, they require, merely, a patient and understanding approach to the conceptual level of the listener, or student, and his or her ability to absorb a fact or assimilate a concept.

Occasionally, the question that has been formulated by a perceptive student exposes a gap, or an error, in the logical coherence of the reality structure that is being conveyed, and, if the legitimacy of the question is, finally, acknowledged by those, who did not perceive that there was something amiss before, then, a concerted effort may be made to deal with this question. The question assumes, then, a great deal of importance for the small community.

We know, now, that it is relatively easy to raise a series of questions asking for a further explanation of the answers that have been given, and, it is relatively easy to force an individual who is trying to answer these questions, to admit, that the answer to such questions is not known.

However, this type of questioning is, often, felt to be somewhat irritating, partly, because the questioning individual is suspected of trying to "show-up", or expose, a measure of ignorance on the part of the teacher, or the commonly accepted interpretation of a certain subject. However, the irritation is, also, a result of the fact, that the questions are perceived to be meaningless, frivolous or irrelevant, because the questions do not point towards an unsuspected gap, but, merely, to the realm of "given entities", which are themselves not explained, but, serve as the "building-blocks" for the explanation. An explanation is, after all, always, a more logical arrangement of "basic facts", or "building-blocks", of conceptual understanding.

The point we want to make, here, is the fact, that, belief structures have a tendency to become a coherent, or logically connected, series of basic facts and common assumptions, and, we have discussed, on previous occasions, that these coherent belief structures reflect the nature of the way we develop and classify awarenesses, rather than a reality "as it is", independent from human existence.

We are, now, well aware of the fact, that, complex, coherent and detailed belief structures fall within the grasp of a single individual, as long as one can deduct the numerous details of the reality perception via a process of "logical reasoning". If these logical connections are not available, we have to memorise a large number of disjointed features, and, we all know, how limited we are in the ability to remember such a series of poorly coherent facts and awarenesses.

In human history, there are numerous reality perceptions and belief structures that have been developed in response to the need for a coherent and overall perception of reality, and, we note, that, nearly invariably, these belief structures were religious in nature. Until quite recently in the development of human thought, no significant distinction was made between a religious reality perception and a philosophic-scientific perception.

Ever since this division or distinction in reality perceptions has emerged, many attempts have been made to overcome the apparent contradictions between a religious reality perception and a philosophical or scientific interpretation of reality. For the sake of convenience, let us not distinguish, here, between the scientific and philosophic aspects of a reality perception, but, let us merely emphasise, that, the term "science" is reserved for a small, well-defined field of vision that can be explored by a series of investigative tools, while the concept of philosophy is reserved for a broad, synthetic approach to the interpretation of reality, where the fruits of numerous fields of investigation are put-together into a coherent framework of relationships.

The enormous complexity of the numerous fields of scientific reality has made most people who are involved in the analytic aspects of "unraveling" the nature of existence, reluctant to tackle the synthetic aspects, in particular, if these synthetic efforts involve neighbouring fields of science over which the scientist does not possess a measure of expertise.

What, then, is the definition of a religious reality perception, and, how does it differ from the philosophic-scientific form of interpreting reality? All religious reality perceptions share the idea, that the forces of nature are "generated" or caused by the existence of spiritual or divine creatures, which can act "voluntarily", just like the human being can act or initiate a force according to an arbitrary act of his "will". As a result, the existence of all forms of life, as well as all natural and physical forms of existence, are considered to have been "created" by such divine forces, or, in a mono-theistic interpretation of reality, all these diverse items of existence have been created by a single Divine Force, or God.

The multitude of conflicting and contradictory forces man has experienced, or became aware of, led, eventually, to a bewildering variety of spirits, forces, demons or divine creatures, reflecting the contradictory experiences of man in his contacts with nature, especially, when living close to the quickly changing vagaries and fortunes of the natural environment.

Man was baffled in his attempts to make sense out of this quickly varying kaleidoscope of forces, because, one moment, they saved his life, gave him something to eat, or led to a feeling of elation, while, a moment later, this same field of natural forces could pose a severe threat. Man remained essentially incapable of reconciling the beneficial and hostile forces of nature, and, eventually, the responsibility for this incoherence was transferred to the fickleness of spiritual motivations; to uncertain or unknown divine inter-actions and designs, or, to the essential struggle between God and Satan, or Good and Evil.

Later, as man learned to recognise regularly recurring trends and broad cause and effect relationships between the forces that could help or harm him, (depending on the way man exposed himself to these forces), man began to realise, that the orientation of these forces was not necessarily for or against him. He began to realise, that he was, just like the other living organisms, a fragile, temporary object, floating on a wildly fluctuating sea of possibilities of existence.

As the coherence of natural forces was slowly emerging in a logical structure of causes and their effects, the pantheon of contrasting spiritual forces contracted into the far more abstract imagery of a mono-theistic religion, where, somehow, God, and man, shared the responsibility for the vagaries of fortune; for the contrasts and contradictions of Good and Evil; for the existence of all being.

In a way, we are justified to see the large mono-theistic religious beliefs as the last bullwark of a reality perception, that attributes the ultimate cause for the chain of existence, to an act of Conscious Creation by an Omnipotent Intelligence. The logical series of questions; "how does this come-about", or, "where does it come from", regardless of the building-blocks that were used in the explanation, always led to questions about Origin and Creation, as well as the existence of such an Omnipotent Intelligence.

In spite of our highly sophisticated concepts of evolutionary change, explaining the existence of entities by a series of evolutionary transformations rather than consciously created items of existence, we still tend to ask, intuitively, this ultimate question; "Where does all existence come from? Where does the Universe come from. Where does energy come from, etc." It is somewhat ironic, that the religious line of questioning arrives at essentially the same point; "Where does God come from?"

The concept of the eternity of all existence is, therefore, a firm, common ground between the religious and scientific reality perceptions of our contemporary world, because, just as the theologian will consider the question, where God came from, as "irrelevant", (because God "always existed"), so will the scientist reject the analogous question, where matter-energy came from. Matter-energy must always have existed, because the question, where matter-energy came from, implies, that something, (nl. matter-energy), can come from a state, where there was no matter-energy. This notion violates the fundamental nature of matter-energy transformations. The concept that matter-energy always transforms its existence, but can not be destroyed or created out of nothing, has become a corner-stone of the scientific perception of reality.

Many attempts have been made to reconcile the apparently diverging conclusions and interpretations flowing from scientific and religious perceptions of reality. The religous interpretation has always relied, heavily, upon the function of tradition and authority to give credence, or credibility, to its beliefs and claims of Divine Knowledge. The more sophisticated religions have been founded upon the belief, that a number of Sacred Scriptures give a solid, or, even, infallible foundation to their interpretations of the various levels of reality. These Sacred Scriptures, together with the traditions of religious Institutions that have guided and safeguarded these Scriptures, form the basis for a slow adaptation of religious reality perceptions, allowing it to remain relevant for a large number of generations.

Religious belief structures rely, primarily, upon a reality perception that is based upon the "naked senses". In order to grasp a religious reality perception, people do not have to be instructed into the complex world of reality as it unfolds itself, whenever nature is observed with the help of a large variety of scientific instruments. Religious beliefs rely, primarily, upon the reality as it is perceived, without the knowledge of scientific details, but, the culture of a society has a tendency to incorporate, slowly, the most obvious and best known findings of scientific studies and philosophical insights. The cultural heritage of a society becomes, then, a mixture of religious, scientific and philosophic interpretations that are transmitted, from generation to generation, by an Authoritative Tradition.

Often, contrasting interpretations of reality lead to severe tensions and contradictions. As a result of the tendency by divergent groupings in a complex society to interpret traditionally transmitted view-points in their own way, and, as a result of the tendency for younger generations to question whatever they are being taught, we see, not surprisingly, that the reality perception of the larger societies, is never completely coherent or free from contradictions.

The most remarkable feature of scientific thought is the fact, that it comes, time and again, to the startling conclusion, that none of the forces or forms of existence we can observe in nature, show anything like the anthropomorophic orientation and "willed nature" of human beings. Even the existence of life, the innumerable variety of species', as well as the complex physical features of the earth and the Universe, do not require the concept of a Conscious Act of Creation; at least, not, for a scientific method of comprehension and interpretation.

At the same time, we should not forget, that these fundamental conclusions are not easily accessible or acceptable to people, who lack a scientific background. Many people, even those, who have had a good education, and, who have been exposed to the concepts and conclusions of modern science, find it absurd to believe, that a "blind" evolutionary force can explain the existence of a large number of highly complex and beautifully coherent species'.

The reasons, why so many people have great difficulties accepting this imagery of evolutionary change under the influence of an essentially "blind force", are directly related to the fragmented impression that contemporary science makes upon ordinary people. The average citizen has long since lost the ability to follow the reasoning of the sciences, and, he has lost the ability to judge the validity of scientific observations and conclusions for himself. Therefore, the ordinary citizen can only accept the scientific imagery as an act of faith, and, he has to rely upon a trusted authority, in order to believe in the truth of what he is being told. If this imagery is confusing, as well as poorly and incompletely taught, and, if many of the technological consequences of scientific work have become frightening, detrimental, or, even, dangerous for our existence, we should not be surprised to see, that, the scientific imagery is, indeed, greated with a great deal of mistrust and suspicion.

Unfortunately, the beautiful possibilities for a truly coherent and rational interpretation of reality are not easily visible, and, we need, therefore, a philosophical effort to make a contemporary reality perception that has been based upon a modern and scientific imagery, attractive and comprehensible to most people.

However, we can not hope to bring a truthful picture of reality by simplifying the reality to such an extent, that, many features of essential significance are glossed over or conveniently hidden from view. We can never promise people, that it will be easy to understand a comprehensive scientific and evolutionary perception of reality, but, I believe, that people are willing, and interested, to study and learn about these matters, as long as they feel, that they have an honest chance to get somewhere, and, that they will not be deceived, or trapped, by a confusing mass of irrelevant data and incoherent ideas.

.......

Chapter 4

Content

Personal acceptance by God, and the ability to withstand stress.
Mechanisms that fortify belief-structures; the phenomenon of commitment.
The tool of conscious awareness.
Believers of the scientific reality perception.
Technical and philosophical scientists.
Can we demonstrate the presence of a "Creative Will" in the realm of the observable Universe?
The limitations associated with an anthropocentric view-point of created existence.
Existential anxieties of the scientist.
Experimenting with a large variety of interpretations.
The dual role of a belief-structure; explanation and guidance.
Distinguishing between "the natural" and the "super-natural".
The influence of perception and thought upon the structure of our beliefs and the interpretation of our realities.
Social philosophies; Marxism and Free-Enterprise.
A limited congruence between social philosophies and religious beliefs.
A remarkable divergence between religious beliefs and their implementation.

Let us return to a comparison of religious and scientific-philosophic reality perceptions. In addition to the feature, that a Creative Force is ultimately responsible for everything that exists, (an idea that still finds acceptance amongst many scientific workers in the concept of a "Prime Mover"), the attractiveness of the religious reality perception lies, primarily, in the fact, that it offers psychological support during difficult times.

The idea, that man is created by God and has the possibility to find personal acceptance by his Creator, as well as help during the trials and tribulations of his earthly existence, gives a powerful boost to morale and strengthens the ability to withstand stress. We have discussed before, quite extensively, how religious beliefs and attitudes, enhance, not only, the ability to withstand stress, but, also, how these religious beliefs and attitudes may, on occasion, lead to a death-defying fanaticism that creates a tremendous amount of unnecessary stress; not only, for the believer and his dependents, but, for his adversaries as well.

We have discussed, how the emotional investment in the truthfulness of a religious belief, is heightened by a variety of acts that commit an individual, increasingly, to his beliefs. These mechanisms fortify the belief structures to the point, that they become an unassailable bastion of absolute, God-given truths, and, there are many examples, where the commitment to these beliefs has been carried to the ultimate sacrifice of martyrdom. Then, the hero-martyr dies in the reality of his beliefs, apparently completely happy, and, without the slightest doubt about the fact, that he or she is entering Heaven.

In the phenomenon of commitment, we see, clearly, that a belief structure does not function, simply, as a scaffold for an intellectual grasp over our realities, but, a belief structure functions, primarily, as a framework to let us synthesise, with our conscious will, a deliberate and well thought-out behavioural response. The phenomenon of becoming emotionally and existentially committed to a particular point of view, points, unequivocally, to the existential meaning of the faculty of conscious awareness. It is nothing more, and nothing less, than a tool in the formulation of a behavioural response.

Many people will have difficulties accepting the thesis, that our precious capability of conscious awareness, (that, which seems to set us apart, so clearly, from the rest of the animal kingdom), turns-out to be nothing more than a behavioural tool. In particular, those, who adhere to a religious reality perception, will find it preposterous to think, that the act of consciously worshipping God, the one activity that brings us close to God and eternal salvation, has only value as a strength-giving form of behaviour for our earthly existence. The value lies, then, not in the fact, that we worship a Deity who will give us eternal life, but, in the pious act of resigning ourselves to a future that is in God's Hand. Such an attitude of trustful resignation to God's Will gives us a great deal of resilience and peace of mind to endure the stress of the moment.

For many people, it will be nearly impossible to accept this interpretation of the function of religious beliefs, in spite of the fact, that most people do not seem to have a great deal of difficulties interpreting the function of primitive or foreign religions in this manner. Yet, a strong, emotional commitment to a certain way of looking at reality, takes place, also, in those, who adopt a scientific point of view. The long and arduous work of most scientific projects, the constant intercourse with colleagues who all "believe" in the reality of the sciences, as well as the tendency to become dependent upon a position in a specialised social niche, are all factors committing an individual to his particular perception of reality.

We should keep in mind, that, most scientists have a "hybrid" belief structure. At least, this seems to be the case during my time, where the confidence in scientific achievements has been severely undermined by the fragmentation of the scientific reality perception, as well as the technological proliferation of dangerous devices and toxic waste-products. A hybrid belief structure, means, that one is firmly committed to a scientific point of view in so far as one's work is concerned, and, perhaps, also, in so far as the world of science and technology is concerned, but, these scientifically schooled people believe, quite strongly, that the world of science is not able to explain everything that exists, and, that it has certainly failed to explain the nature of man; his society and his destiny.

People with a hybrid belief structure are, in essence, "technical scientists", in the sense, that they are highly trained and capable specialists, who have learned to use a complex and sophisticated technology, but, they are not "philosophical scientists", in the sense, that they are aware of the overall, philosophical and intellectual implications of the scientific point of view; in particular, so far as it concerns the absence of a demonstrable "Creative Will" in the realm of the observable Universe.

To me, this realisation came somewhat as a surprise, because I assumed, that well-known and respected scientists, who have made important contributions to our grasp of reality, would also have been impressed by this most essential feature that is shared by all fields of science; nl. the absence of an anthropomorphic and arbitrary "Force"; a Force, that is so characteristic and essential in all religious belief structures.

Many, if not most, honest and sensitive scientists become over-awed by a sense of humility and unimportance, whenever they realise, how small and insignificant their knowledge and grasp of reality really are. They feel humbled and insignificant, even, in relation to the areas of knowledge and insight that are accessible to man.

In addition, most of these sensitive and intelligent scientists feel, intuitively, that there exists an even much greater reality that is essentially beyond the grasp of human intelligence. It is logical and understandable that they tend to bow their head in reverence to an unknown God, Who, they feel, must exist "somewhere", in order to make this vast, gigantic and unoverseeable reality possible.

Probably, most scientists are sceptical about the concept, that God has made a special covenant with mankind, or, with a special part of mankind. They doubt, that God would have created man as a special, prominent creature, close to Himself, reflecting His own image. It is remarkable to note, that, in the light of this "scientific awe", the imagery of even the most modern, mono-theistic religions seems brazenly naive and self-centered. From the view-point of "scientific awe", it seems preposterous to think, that the species of man, or, a particular tribe or race, has been selected by an anthropomorphic God in some sort of a special contract or relationship. It seems utterly preposterous to think, that God has revealed Himself in a particular set of Scriptures, or, that God became Man in order to sacrifice Himself.

This sort of imagery seems too "literal", and depends too much upon cultural influences. It is too much a reflection of an interpretation of reality, which is completely unaware of the immense vastness of existence outside the sphere of immediate human concerns and experiences; a sphere, which we are now aware of through the cumulative insights of the sciences.

The God of the Scriptures reveals Himself to be too much like man to be really convincing, and, as scientifically schooled people, we are justified to consider, quite seriously, the likelyhood, that man was not created by God in His image, but, that God was created by man, in man's image, and, that the image of God has always been coloured by the realities of man's perceptions, emotions and existential needs.

The religious beliefs of the scientists remain much more hidden, vague and abstract, and, most of the time, the scientist lives in two different worlds that seem to have little contact with each other. Professionally, he lives in the world of science, but, as an ordinary citizen, he is often confused and hesitant. His common-sense and appreciation for the complexities of reality prevent him from supporting the more superficial and obviously anthropomorphic religious beliefs, but, the confusing social and scientific realities make him less prone to probe and look for a philosophic-scientific reality. As soon as he has finished work, he wants to forget the world of science for a while, and, he lives a pragmatic and somewhat dull existence as an ordinary individual, worried about taxes, job security, his family, his home and his possessions.

However, the world of science, or, rather, the world of academia is not dominated by those sensitive scientists, who get a chance to become over-awed by the vastness of the Universe and the insignificance of their own existence. Many fields of scientific endeavour take the human being and his artifacts as the center of their activities, and, it is understandable, that the Universe remains, for them, much more anthropomorphic and anthropocentric.

The scientifically schooled professionals of the humanities and the technological sciences are certainly endowed with a keen intelligence, as well as a great sensitivity for the large range of human artifacts and expressions, and, we see, therefore, a type of science that is broad in its appreciation for human concerns, but, it lacks many of the rigorous cause and effect relationships that make the physical sciences such a beautifully transparent and coherent structure. The sciences of the humanities remain more intuitive and subjective, more governed by feelings and trends, and, we do not seem to find a similar cohesion between the many fields, as we can see between the sciences that describe the nature of our natural environment, rather than the nature of man himself.

It is not surprising to see amongst the intellectuals and scientists of the humanities a much more wide-spread, but, also, more ostentatious experimentation with a variety of religious, pseudo-religious and pseudo-philosophical or pseudo-scientific structures of belief. Here, the world of science merges with a variety of trends and streams of the cultural code, and, the measure of confusion becomes even greater, because, as well-trained and articulate members of society and academia, these people carry a measure of conviction and authority, and, they are often able to present their views, beliefs and opinions, forcefully, with a large and impressive documentation, which is, nevertheless, somewhat arbitrary and selective, reflecting their pre-conceived beliefs and ideas.

Let us come back, for a moment, to the idea, that religious belief structures serve a dual purpose. This duality is merely a recent way of illuminating two different aspects that were always inter-twined in the reality of existence, but, were rarely outlined or differentiated, conceptually. We are thinking, here, about the role of a belief as an intellectual structure of concepts, ideas and reality perceptions on the one hand, and, its role as an "organiser" of attitudes and behavioural responses, on the other.

True, these aspects are, often, not clearly separable, but, we see in the scientific reality perception a clear emphasis on the aspects of perception and intellectual clarity, where it is left to the individual to decide to what extent, and, in what way, this intellectual perspective is going to influence his behaviour. In contrast, the fundamental religious beliefs show a strong accent on obedience and adherence to an explicit set of guidelines and laws. Fundamental religious beliefs also emphasise the need, and obligation, to participate in a variety of rituals that acknowledge and manipulate the natural and super-natural realities of their beliefs, affecting the life and well-being of their community and their environment. Religious beliefs, especially those, which take the Scriptures literally, emphasise intellectual subservience to those Scriptures, and, there is, often, a deliberate tendency to suppress intellectual scrutiny and intense questioning.

Let us emphasise, here, also, the fact, that the distinction between the natural and the super-natural is a relatively recent concept, reflecting the influence of philosophical deliberation and scientific thought. For the tribes of mankind, living before the great Civilisations and the advent of complicated reality perceptions, the cultural and religious beliefs blended harmoniously with the perception of their realities, and, their beliefs and behaviour, their rituals and daily chores, all blended into a smooth inter-action with, and adaptation to, the realities of existence.

There was no distinction between intellectual beliefs and behavioural attitudes, or a natural and a super-natural realm of existence. Now, we have to take into account the known mechanisms of our perceptions, the physiology and anatomy of our existence, as well as the inter-play of our emotions and motivations, before we have any idea, what is real and true, and, under what conditions our perceptions of truth and reality are valid; for others as well as ourselves.

Perhaps, we should consider a number of variants and intermediate belief structures that are more localised and limited in their application. They are more limited in the range of their concerns and social inter-actions. We are thinking, here, about the large variety of smaller religious groupings that have a much narrower circle of followers. These smaller groupings are, often, more exclusive, secretive and complex in their beliefs, and, their appeal is based, at least, to some extent, on a sense of exclusivity and a measure of intellectual prowess. Nevertheless, these exclusive religious sects rely, strongly, on obedience to an unquestioned structure of authority and dogmatic beliefs. As an example, we can point to the "Gnostic Sects", where the knowledge of certain "secret sources" and ritualistic manipulations are believed to give access to God and Eternity.

There are a large number of such exclusive sects, and, they all differ, at least, to some extent. Some emphasise the aspects of obediance and a belief in "The Mystery", others emphasise the intellectual grasp of a certain body of knowledge, but, they all stress the obligation to obey the rules and regulations of the religious community. There are also a large number of "discipleships" that are grouped around the talents and persuasiveness of a particular thinker or teacher, but, most of them disappear with the death of such a charismatic individual.

Let us now consider the pragmatic, or "partial philosophies", designed to organise a society. They are often less complete as a philosophy of indvidual existence, or, as a coherent framework of pyschological mechanisms, playing a role in human inter-actions. We refer to the ideas and ideals of Socialism or Marxism, together with their many variants of centralised economic planning and a strict adherence to a Party philosophy. The societies that are guided by these principles, operate in a manner that is in marked contrast to those, where disparities between groupings and individuals are tolerated on the basis of the lawful accumulation of capital or material assets. In these "free-enterprise" societies, the economic processes are left undisturbed, at least, in theory. The economic mechanisms can, then, find their own, most efficient level of operation through the mechanisms of supply and demand. The balance between supply and demand determines the prices of goods and services, and, these mechanisms make or break the fortunes of many an enterprising individual.

The philosophy of free-enterprise is even more "partial", fragmented and incomplete, compared to those of Socialism or Marxism, but, in the recent past of the Western democracies, the ideas of free-enterprise fitted-in well with the religious assumption of a God-given supremacy of the white race, and the equally God-given right to conquer, colonise and exploit other peoples. This curious combination of expansionist drives and religious justification gave rise to remarkably vigorous, if violent, civilisations, where success was based upon a mix of evangelical zeal, biblical guidelines, hard work, as well as the opportunities of free-enterprise and ruthless exploitation.

These partial or pragmatic philosophies allowed a certain latitude in the practical consequences of religious beliefs, and, we see, therefore, that people could agree amongst themselves about a certain pragmatic social organisation, while adhering to widely diverging religious perceptions.

At the same time, people with similar religious or intellectual beliefs could still differ, quite significantly, in their opinions about how society could or should be organised, and, we see, that this latitude in the social consequences of a religious or intellectual belief-structure, was actually a benefit, rather than a weakness, because it allowed for vigorous debate and a wide spectrum of political opinions, while maintaining a common loyalty to the social entity which was based, to a large extent, upon a shared cultural and religious background.

In contrast, we see no such divergence and latitude for different view-points in the more primitive societies, where the beliefs of society, as well as the way society functioned and was organised, constituted an indivisible whole. These relationships were so "automatic", or self-evident, that they did not even allow for an intellectual awareness about the possibility of such a discrepancy between religious beliefs and social organisation.

Do we want to go back to such simplistic and rigid beliefs? Certainly not, because we all enjoy the freedom that came with a large, complex and sophisticated social environment, but, we have to accept the responsibility to make sure, that we do not tear this fragile social organisation apart in our desire to hold-on to egocentric advantages, and contradictory or mutually exclusive privileges and freedoms.

We see only a limited degree of overlapping, then, between social philosophies and religious beliefs. Within the framework of an agreed-upon, pragmatic social philosophy and organisation, we leave each other the right to choose the religious or intellectual reality perceptions that suit us best, as long as we refrain from infringing upon each other's rights as defined by this pragmatic, common-sense, social philosophy.

It is remarkable to note, that we actually encourage a deliberate separation between religious beliefs and social consequences. We are quite happy to accept this gap between the religious reality perception and the social philosophy, but, at the same time, we have to realise, that we weaken, at least, to some extent, the credibility and validity of a religious creed, as well as the social organisation, if we separate individual reality perceptions and their logical, social consequences. It is not surprising to see, therefore, that intense and fanatic religious sects want to live in separate communities, and, as a rule, they reject, completely, such a separation between religious and social objectives.

.......

Chapter 5

Content

The fanatic and the fundamentalist.
Angry activism and emotional exorcism.
We know, now, that we can shape our own social order and destiny to a large extent.
The philosopher and the scholar.
The "school of life".
It is so easy for an expert to show, where the non-expert is not quite correct in his summary of a particular field of expertise.
I do not have to fear sensitive toes.
Writing from a solitary and financially independent position.
The problem with an absence of "feed-back".
A labour of love, greeted by a monotonous silence.
A "flash of something extra".
Some details about my writing methods and habits.
Why I consider it irrelevant to date my work.
I never hurry.

We should round-off this discussion on belief structures with a brief look at beliefs that emphasise a commitment. Every fanatic or fundamentalist religious organisation falls under this definition, but, also, the revolutionary movement with its zeal for violent change. The latter is invariably banned by the society in which it operates.

The intellectual structure to which one becomes committed as a religious or revolutionary fanatic, is often rather fuzzy and naive, and, it is, almost by definition, unacceptable to a large majority of the members of society. This is the reason, why these people remain isolated individuals or exclusive groupings. If a revolutionary or religious fanatic would have second thoughts and begins to disagree with the philosophy he has become committed to, it is rarely possible to escape the bonds one has placed oneself under. One may have already committed criminal acts, and, if the grouping has been banned, one becomes automatically a fugitive and an outlaw, while the need for discipline and silence requires the revolutionary group, or, any other group that operates outside the law, to execute any member who is in danger of becoming a "traitor".

In contrast to the revolutionary movement, often based on intense frustration and a desire for action, leading to entrapment in a revolutionary or terrorist grouping, there exists the somewhat curious practice of "mysticism", where the accent falls also on commitment and faith. However, the adaptation to injustice and misery is not found in the angry activism of the revolutionary, but, in an attitude of passive resignation, as well as a practice of emotional exorcism, where all desires, instincts and emotional turbulence are blotted-out in a supreme effort of control and will-power. Such a difficult accomplishment may lead to a serene life-style for a few strong-willed people, who may find genuine happiness in such a tour de force of emotional control, but, I believe, that such an effort to control normal emotions and instincts, is not necessary, nor, will it be possible for a great majority of ordinary people.

We do not live, anymore, in an era, where we consider a social order to have been "divinely ordained", and, therefore, to be immutable. In spite of the fact, that our modern, chaotic societies may give the impression that we are helpless pawns in a super-human tragedy, the fact of the matter is, that, a truly collective concern and political will could control political and international tensions, quickly and effectively. We know, now, that we can shape our own social order, as well as our own living conditions and situations of conflict and peace. We create our own situations of conflict, and, if we perish in a holocaust of nuclear conflagration or suffocate in toxic waste, we know, that we have brought-about such a disaster ourselves.

We know, now, that we are responsible for our own destiny, or, rather, we could be the masters over our destiny, if we could bring-up the collective will and insight to guide our societies with far-sighted principles of justice. We are alreay creating the conditions and circumstances of our destiny, but, we perceive them too dimly, as yet, to have any significant control over them, and, we are, by and large, unaware, to what extent our present actions and attitudes determine the conditions of human existence in the near and more distant future.

No, there is no need for a stoic resignation to the inevitable, nor, is there any need for the rigorous suppression of normal emotions and instinctive drives. Yes, we need control, and, above all, we need a clear understanding of the consequences of our individual and collective behaviour-patterns. We need to know, how we sow the seeds of discontent and injustice, whenever we think to have found a clever solution to our problems.

I would like to focus, for a moment, our attention upon the scientific-philosophic over-view, and, I would like to begin with the techniques and background considerations for such an ambitious project. If someone is interested in writing a scholarly review of the currently favoured ways of thinking and behaving, then, of course, a detailed analysis and a thorough familiarity with a number of schools of thought is essential. However, if an individual, like myself, is interested to put-together a synthetic view of reality, then, it is necessary to concentrate upon the sources of information and observation that will make such a synthesis possible. These sources are not the writings of other philosophers who have attempted, in one way or another, to synthesise a coherent perception of reality, but, the source of information and ideas are the sciences themselves.

Other people's attempts to come to a synthetic point of view may be quite interesting, especially, for those who are interested in a scholarly review of these efforts, but, I have to know the contemporary summaries of a large number of scientific fields, an over-view of human history, as well as a keen eye for what is going-on in the societies of today; in my own own surroundings, as well as in the world at large. The source for an artistic inspiration is, rarely, another expression of art, but life itself, and, as we all know, the effort of a philosophical synthesis is, essentially, artistic in nature.

True, in art there is a strong linkage between one artist and another; stronger than between philosophers. The reason is, partly, that artists are usually working to make a living, and, that the "mode" of working, or the method of expression, be it music, the visual arts or literature, is formed, at least, in part, by a certain "school", which has given the artist the technical resources to give form to an idea, and, at the same time, to give the forces of inspiration a free reign to test a variety of possibilities of expression.

A thinker is a more solitary figure, in spite of the fact, that philosophers, too, tend to be clustered around a "school of thought". In my case, I am certainly a lonely thinker, without any contacts or lines of communication to people, who may be writing along similar lines. Yet, my work is, primarily, a revival of a method of philosophy that has been abandoned since the beginning of this century. In a way, my work embodies the old-fashioned and traditional style of generalised philosophy, which entails a careful search for a meaningful summary, including a valid, generalised description of our realities, encompassing a large field of knowledge.

We have discussed, before, the many good reasons, why a busy and hard working scientist has no inclination to venture upon the hazardous road of summarising a broad, philosophical point of view, and generalise about a field that does not belong to his domain. Rightfully, he is hesitant and somewhat anxious to avoid over-stepping the boundaries of his field of expertise, because he knows, how suspicious and defensive he himself becomes, if someone else, in particular, a non-expert, dares to step into his territory.

The suspicions and feelings of hostility unleash a torrent of criticism and scorn, and, it is so easy for the expert to show, where the non-expert is not quite correct in his particular summary. Yet, what are the consequences of such a mutually enforced defensiveness as the scientific workers fortify themselves in their academic niches?

An overall synthesis of knowledge and insight, and, especially, correlations that deal boldly with the nature, the origin and destiny of man and his society, require the services of a non-specialist; a general philosopher, who can tread lightly, and, without fear of losing a position of prestige and power. I can afford to tread lightly over such a large field, because nobody will pay attention to me, at least, not at the present time, and, since I am not working under the protection or guidance of a particular university or school of thought, I do not have to fear to step on sensitive toes. At least, if I step on them, and I will probably step on many of them, I step on toes I do not know, and, I do not owe any allegiance to the owners of these sensitive toes.

The beauty of a solitary and financially independent position is the fact, that I can write exactly as I please, without any restrictions, except my own criticisms. Certainly, there may be serious problems associated with such a large measure of freedom. My writing may become undisciplined, or, it may reflect too personal a point of view. A solitary position means, also, that one has to work without any significant "feed-back". Too personal a point of view will cause a lack of relevance, and, the lack of a stimulus, a publisher wanting a manuscript to be finished by a certain date, means, that the writing requires a great deal of self-imposed discipline, as well as the establishment of a regular, daily routine.

Let us look, for a moment, at the concept of "feed-back", and, let us examine, what role it plays in the formation or completion of a work of art. Is it really as significant as we think it is?

It depends on what form of art we are talking about. Certain art-forms, in particular, the performing arts, require a nearly constant feed-back in order to know, whether or not the artists are reaching their audience. Here, again, we see quite a difference between performing artists who rely a great deal upon a "mass-hypnosis", as we see in some popular types of music, and, those musicians, who possess a solid basis of professional skills. The hypnotic rock group relies, heavily, upon a mass-synchronisation of the mood through a monotonous droning of exremely loud sound, supported with all sorts of visual effects. Compare this type of performance with the efforts of a mature, classical musician, who is sure of his mastery and, who is also confident that he knows and understands the works he is going to play. Such a musician can give an entirely satisfactory performance in the quietude of a recording studio, without the support of an excited audience.

The possibility to re-take a segment that did not go entirely to the satisfaction of the critical artist, together with the cooperation between the performer and the recording technicians, may give rise to a beautiful document of music making, which will come across as a genuine form of art, every time a serious listener puts such a record on a turn-table and enjoys the perfect presentation of a loved masterpiece.

Sure, there is some sort of a "long-term" feed-back, here. If the recording appeals to only a few people, usually, because the music is less well-known and not due to a flawed or eccentric performance, it wil fairly quickly fade from the catalogues of the record companies, but, the point is, that such a mature master of a performing art does not have to hear a standing ovation every time a piece of music has been played.

The same applies to a writer as well, but, we see, again, marked differences. If the writer has to make a living, he has to satisfy his publisher and his audience. These are the people who buy his product, and, the comedy writer, the journalist, the novelist, and others who deal with a fast-changing news-item or fashionable trend, require constant feed-back in order to remain "in touch".

Since the writing of philosophical essays is, nearly always, a labour of love by a writer who can afford the time to think and write at his own pace, there is no immediate need for a feed-back, because the writer will continue to write, even, if he can not find anyone who likes his work. Of course, if the real motivation behind this labour of love is a secret desire to become popular or famous, the absence of a response will work as a marked depressant, and, even, the writer, who has eventually resigned himself to the idea that he will never know, whether or not someone else will like his work enough to make a genuine effort to comprehend it, even, to him, the absence of a response and the monotonous silence with which his discourses and dialogues are treated, works as a cold shower.

Can you blame the man, then, for becoming a somewhat stubborn eccentric, laying out grandiose projects that are going to take-up the remainder of his life-span? He approaches his desk each morning with the renewed intention to write to the best of his abilities. Each day, he starts again, and he wants to give his best, yet, he also knows, that, too cramped an effort to be "great", may become an obsession that could hamper the spontaneity of his thoughts.

Therefore, can you imagine the lonely philosopher going to his desk, each morning, with a rather curious mixture of somewhat contradictory moods and attitudes. On the one hand, he has a serious intention to do his best, yet, he is also trying to be relaxed and himself, as he composes in his mind the outlines of a discussion. He takes his work seriously and will never knowingly write "junk", because he knows, that it only creates more work later-on, because he has to cut-out the weak parts, when the time has come to review and re-write the material that has been sketched before.

The hobby philosopher; the indiviual, who has planned an early retirement in a frugal, near self-sufficient life-style, can not expect to find easily a response from the public, because he is too far out of touch with the fashionable trends of thought and behaviour. Slowly, the hobby writer learns to write, and, he sees a definite improvement in his efforts from year to year. The thoughts come easier, and, they are written-down more clearly. The grasp becomes firmer over the complex material he thinks and writes about.

Certainly, ideas are repeated, again and again, but, each time, the ideas are presented a little differently; a little more varied, and, almost every day, the writer is rewarded with a remarkable experience. Nearly every day, there is this "flash of something extra"; an idea, a comparison, a small variant, a correlation, that springs into place during the act of writing, giving the sketch or, rather, the fragment that is being drafted or worked-out, this extra quality of vitality.

At least, that is the case with me, but, I agree, that these are, probably, very subjective experiences. As I read my work over, much later, (and, often, a year or more lapses between sketching and "working out"), I am not aware, anymore, where these flashes occurred. The long time-period between the sketch and the "finalising" of the text, allows me to treat these work as if someone else had written them.

Often, I have forgotten the sketch to the point, that I have no recollection what I discussed, nor, do I remember what analyses, comparisons, correlations or side-lines of thought went through my mind, when I wrote the thing. Therefore, I can approach it with a measure of objectivity, in spite of the fact, that I recognise, of course, the ideas.

During the period of finalising the text, I begin by typing-out a first draft of my hand-written sketch. At the same time, I divide the sketch into short chapters, and, I place a short summary in front of the text of each chapter. As a rule, these summaries are repeated at the end of the entire sketch. Before this first type-written draft takes place, I have, of course, re-read the text carefully, and, I have re-written sentences and sections extensively. I may, then, leave it again for quite a while, because I may spend several months bringing a series of ten, or, even, more sketches up to this particular point of the first type-written draft.

Then, depending on my impressions on re-reading the type-written draft, I may make more changes, or, I may feel, that I can start typing a final draft. Most of my work has been "polished" in this way over a number of years, and, I think, that it is accurate to say, that there has always been a considerable period of time, often years, between the first draft and the final text. Some sketches have been extensively re-written, but, most of the time, the overall structure of the sketch is left intact, and, the process of refinement is, indeed, geared, nearly exclusively, to smooth-out gaps and jumps in my train of thoughts.

These gaps and jumps occurred during the sketching of the first hand-written sketch, because I concentrate, then, entirely on getting the rough outlines on paper, without concerning myself much about grammar, details, or, a smoothly flowing line of thought. For this reason, I rarely date the sketch or the completed work, because I can not see any meaning in doing so. However, I number my works chronologically, and, I also work them out chronologically. You can be sure, that these sketches have been written and worked-out in the order in which they have been numbered.

Yet, even this has really only meaning as a method of work, because I like to give myself tasks. For example, I first jot-down a series of titles, Every time I think about a sketch in its broadest outlines, I try to summarise it in a simple title, perhaps, with a sub-title, and, I write these titles and sub-titles down. Then, I number these titles and place them at the head of sixty-five empty but lined pages. I have found this format convenient. It gives me plenty of "elbow room" to let my fantasy and imagination play with a variety of associations, correlations and side-lines, while it is short enough to make me come back, again and gain, upon the main theme. My sketches are, therefore, often written as a loose "rondo". Certainly, I may change the title afterwards, if I feel that the sketch is not properly represented by the title, or, if I have written a somewhat different sketch from the one I intended to write, when I wrote the title down.

I may give myself a period of about two or three months to sketch a number of sketches. Sometimes, I can do one in three or four days, sometimes, it takes me two weeks or longer to complete one. If it takes me much more than a week to write a sketch, I have usually been interrupted by other tasks, or, I have taken a few days to recollect my thoughts. Sometimes, I have, indeed, "struggled" with an entire essay, from beginning to end.

After a period of sketching, I may go back to previous work, and, I may bring a number of sketches to the level of a first or second type-written draft. As I become more experienced at doing things "right" from the beginning, I hope, that I can type the final draft after only two type-written drafts, but, so far, I have not reached this stage.

I never hurry, because, after all, nobody is waiting to read my works, but, at the same time, I like to work in blocks of a few months at the time, in which I want to complete a definite task, and, so far, these habits and methods seem to work well for me. (The reader, please, realise, that this text was written before I acquired my first computer in 1983, an Atari 800XL, which simplified the task of editing and re-writing text to a most remarkable extent.)

.......

Chapter 6

Content

An essay is a discussion; not a lecture.
The "data" of statements, view-points, postulates and questions.
Comparisons with a composition of classical music.
Playing with ideas and concepts.
My "Credo".
I am, at heart, a teacher and a preacher.
A Faith of Common-Sense, Good-Will and Trust.
Why are there no specific references?
A sparing use of examples.
The "art" of making useful generalised statements.
Let us not return to empty rethoric, or arm-chair philosophising.
The difficulties of "proving" generalised statements.
An emphasis on large-scale structures of coherence.
How do we derive a sense of truth or reality?
The relativity of truth.
The possibilities for behavioural guidelines, based on a "natural ethic" of evolutionary insights.

The previous chapter gives you some insight into the mechanics of my writing, but, it still does not explain much about the intentions and objectives that lie behind these essays. Perhaps, it would be helpful, also for myself, to define the purpose of my essays, and, to outline the objectives I have in mind.

I like to define an essay as a discussion. It is not really a lecture, because we understand under the term "lecture", the presentation of a specific field of knowledge. Such a presentation is, usually, in the form of a summary; a synthesised over-view of a fairly large part of agreed-upon knowledge, and, such a lecture serves to familiarise the student of a particular field with the findings, the works and goals, objectives and difficulties, that are faced by those who are working in this field.

A lecture is, therefore, crammed with data; as an over-view of work done by numerous people, or, as a review of one's own research. A lecture has a rather formal outline, starting with an introduction, the presentation of a number of data, the discussion, concentrating on the significance and the correlation of the data presented, concluded by a short summary.

The essay, at least, so far as my efforts are concerned, is much less formal, and, it does not consist of an introduction or the presentation of a number of data. In a way, "data" are introduced in the form of statements, view-points, postulates or questions, and, the core of the essay is the discussion. Here, these "data" are handled and manipulated, compared and associated with other ideas, thoughts and concepts, very much like the notes of a musical scale are juggled, rythmically and harmonically, by a composer, looking for a meaningful piece of music, that, somehow, by some sort of magic of intriguing harmonic, melodic or rythmic innovations, becomes an object of interest to the listener.

The comparison of my essays with a musical composition is more than just a passing idea, or an incidental observation. I have always felt, that there are remarkable possibilities for creating an interesting piece of writing, if it would be possible to "juggle ideas" and look for fascinating or interesting "conceptual harmonies", just like a composer juggles and plays with notes. Of course, the rules of harmony in music become the rules of logical coherence in a symphony of ideas, and, the variety of harmonic colours between composers can be compared to the variety of reality perceptions between writers.

I love to play with ideas and concepts. I like to look at them from different angles, as well as in a variety of contexts. What seemed to be clear-cut and invariable, becomes changeable and dependent upon the angle of vision. Far from considering such activities mere play and a pass-time, I believe, that it is essential for our survival, as well as our efforts to understand each other and to give each other a measure of dignity and respect, to learn to see reality in a flexible manner, with an ever-varying or changing perspective.

Throughout history, man has tried to bring an absolute truth with the sword and a heavy-handed approach of absolute righteousness, but, these attitudes and tactics have rarely succeeded in bringing harmony on a local scale, let alone globally. Yes, we have been able to establish an empire, here and there, now and then, and, we have learned a variety of techniques, and we have gained a few insights, but, we have also paid a heavy toll in misery, oppression and bloodshed.

True, there will always be a need to enforce a generally agreed-upon set of fair rules and institutionalised guidelines, which ensure the highest possible level of justice and essential equality under the circumstances. There will always be people trying to gain an egocentric advantage, and, there are always people who are so frustrated and impatient, that they do not want to abide by the rules and decisions of representative and wise governments.

I believe, that it is possible to persuade everyone on earth about the beauty that flows from an informed, just, transparent and equalised society, and, I also believe, that it is possible to unite a majority of people, from all over the world, into a sensible philosophy of fairly applied rights and responsibilities.

A large majority of people is able, and willing, to listen to reason. These people can give their trust to others, and, they are capable of patiently working towards a gradual improvement in the living conditions of themselves and their dependents. Only a small minority of people will continue to abuse, or fight, the principles of justice for an egocentric, narrow-minded position of privilege, but, we have to be able to give people a large measure of trust and confidence, and we have to be able and willing to listen, genuinely, to their grievances, before they are willing to abandon themselves to a just society.

The play of mental images in these discussions, which I call essays or sketches by want of a better name, have, therefore, a serious and moral purpose, because, at heart, I am a teacher and a preacher. I am not a teacher of specific religious values, but, a teacher of the possibilities given to us in our existence as a member of the human species. I am a preacher, not of religious dogmas, values or view-points, but, a preacher of moral attitudes and beneficial inter-relationships that are possible with a measure of insight, a dose of common-sense, and an attitude of good-will and mutual trust.

Certainly, I do not deny, for one moment, that I am a moralist, and, I do not make any excuses for mixing the art of writing and thinking, with the desire to foster more responsible and tolerant attitudes amongst the peoples of the world.

You may want to ask me about this curious absence of specific references to other people, countries, time-periods, historical events or other writers, thinkers and individuals. Perhaps, you feel, that these writings remain somewhat vague because of this constant referral to general ideas and concepts, rather than specific events and examples. You have probably noticed, that I use examples sparingly, and, if examples are used, they are examples of a general nature nearly everyone can be familiar with from personal experience.

Yes, this observation is quite correct, and, it fits-in with the overall purpose of my writings, which is to emphasise the common denominators of our existence. I like to emphasise the overall awarenesses, especially, the aspects in our reality perceptions which we all share, or could share, if we wanted to. Besides, if I talk about the less desirable trends of opportunism and corruption, of oppression and egocentricity, of inertia and incompetence, I again want to emphasise the "trait", the characteristic, rather than the specific individual or the event. I like to emphasise the fact, that we all share this tendency and temptation to revert to such a "short-cut", whenever we see an opportunity to obtain a position of advantage.

Even the referrals to historical events are always made in a general manner. If I state, that, "we can see from our historical records that it does not take long for a healthy and vigorous society to become expansionistic in its behaviour", I do not have to refer to specific examples, because, regardless of the time-period we look at, the phenomenon of a rise of a social nucleus is, sooner or later, associated with a drive to enlarge the sphere of influence or dominance.

I think, that it is not difficult for most readers to recognise the validity of my statements and conclusions, but, those, who do not believe my conclusions will look in vain for an elaborate proof or summary of the sources of information upon which such a general statement or conclusion has been based.

It is probably important to delve a little deeper into the philosophy and art of making generalised statements. The art, as I like to call it, of making a useful generalised statement, is, generally speaking, mistrusted during my time. We still are very much aware of the fact, that generalised statements can so easily be proven wrong, in particular, when they are somewhat pedantic extrapolations of thought and logic, which have not been checked against an empirical observation or experimental evidence. We rightly admire and credit the scientific methodology for cutting-out a lot of foolish philosophising by replacing a long-winded argument with a simple check against reality.

I am certainly not advocating a return to empty rethoric, or wild fantasising in an arm-chair, without making the effort to see, whether or not the conclusions that have been reached after a lengthy discussion, have any basis or foundation in a tangible reality. I do not want this kind of generalising, and, I do not think that I am guilty of such a wild and unsupported flight of ideas.

I believe, that, each and every statement I make, is carefully though-out, and, I believe that each statement represents a way of looking at reality that could be substantiated, if one would want to make the laborious effort to trace the origins and developments of most of these conclusions and statements. I admit, that I do not do this, and, indeed, I would find it very difficult to "prove" most of my statements, because most of these statements and conclusions have been formulated by a somewhat intuitive or sub-conscious process.

I certainly acknowledge, that, many generalisations are "controversial", and, I know, that other people may have difficulties seeing the validity of many of these conclusions. I certainly agree with the prediction, that some of my statements will turn-out to be outright "wrong", because they have been based on concepts that turned-out to be erroneous. However, I believe, that I can not be accused of writing "pseudo-scientfic nonsense" or "science-fiction", where I constantly extrapolate a quasi-understood scientific principle into a fantastic array of irrealistic mental images.

I believe, that I have a firm grasp over the fundamental principles of many scientific areas, but, I am the first one to admit, that I am not an expert in any one of them, and, that I am not familiar with many details, trends of research, or names of people, who are well-known in these fields. Again, this is not important to me. I like to work with the fundamental ideas of a large number of fields, and, I like to weave these ideas and principles into a broadly coherent canvas, where the structural patterns and pictorial details of the conceptual framework keep crossing the boundaries of many scientific specialties.

These large structures of coherence are, therefore, not easily visible to a scientific expert, and, even, if one would see them, at least, to some extent, one may not pay any attention to them, or, one may not find any relevance in doing so. However, I hope, that the experts of the many fields I cross in my philosophical travels, will at least acknowledge the fundamental correctness of my generalised statements, because, then, the structure may acquire a measure of overall validity, if the building-blocks do not have to be discarded as outdated or erroneous.

With the technique of summarising in a generalised manner, I use the fundamental imagery of many areas of observation to paint a much broader canvas, or field of vision, than we are accustomed to. Under the pressures of mastering a complicated investigative techique, scientific researchers had to narrow, increasingly, the field of scientific vision, in order to be able to grasp the complexities involved, and, in order to be able to find the time, and acquire the expertise, to work at one or other specific detail. The philosopher works in exactly the opposite direction. The philosopher discards more and more of the details as unimportant for his particular purpose. He looks, always, for common denominators or generalised principles, and, he finds that he can encompass, in this way, a much greater territory or field of awareness, than would be possible if he armed himself with the same detailed knowledge as the scientist.

The art of the philosopher is, therefore, to find useful and essentially correct summarising and generalising principles, and, it is his task to see, how these summarising principles or ideas, taken from a great many different areas, relate to each other, and, how they "look alike", when we look at them from far-away. We may then determine, e.g., whether or not the principles of evolutionary change between non-living and living systems show significant parallels; whether or not we can visualise the Universe as a constantly oscillating system, oscillating between a state that is predominantly radiant or expanding in nature, and, a state that is predominantly contracting and inter-locking, in the form of "matter-energy". As a philosopher, we may also explore the idea, whether or not the principles of the evolution of life can be related to our individual behaviour-patterns, as well as the subjective emotional experiences of a thinking, verbalising organism.

One of the most important results we can obtain from a wide-ranging and generalising discussion, is the awareness, how, and, under what sort of cicumstances, we derive a sense of truth or reality. We know, now, at least, something about the way we develop an image of reality, and, we also know, how fragile this sense of reality is, and, how haphazard the circumstances are that make us consider one mental image or another as representing an "absolute truth".

The sense of relativity in truth is partly based upon the vague feeling, that there are too many contradictions in what people believe to be absolutely true. Then, it seems unlikely, that any conlusion of truth can be considered to be "absolute" or eternally valid. However, the sense of a relativity of truth can now be based upon a clear understanding of the mechanisms and factors that influence the perception and interpretation of our sense impressions, and, we are also more familiar in our modern times, with a large number of stress factors that tend to destroy our grasp over reality.

The principles behind a relativity of truth, as well as the possibilities for sharing the same kind of imagery on the basis of our anatomical and psychological similarities, also let us discuss, quite usefully, the relationships and differences between scientific and religious ways of formulating a reality perception. In addition, this sort of philosophising gives us a basis to unravel, at least, some of the principles of our behaviour, and, it also opens-up a variety of possibilities to build upon these shared biological foundations and create a viable social structure that includes a just and commonly acceptable set of behavioural guidelines.

Certainly, in these discussions, we do not merely abstract general principles from a variety of scientific fields of vision, but, we also try to find a rational alternative to the mechanisms of conflict, as well as a scientific, biological foundation for the construction of a viable, large-scale social framework, together with a set of useful natural, ethical guidelines.

It is my impression, that we have merely scratched the surface of the possibilities that open-up, whenever we rest ethical behaviour-patterns on a sound understanding of our evolutionary background, rather than upon a belief in a divinely revealed social order, or a God-given image of Absolute Reality.

.......

Chapter 7

Content

Classical philosophical topics.
A time-consuming process of re-working essays.
Sketching and "working-out".
Writing the sketch in long-hand.
Admiration finds its origins in the eye of the beholder.
A widened definition of the artistic creation.
Art and communication.
Communications are possible through "mood synchronisation" and "factual transfer".
A purely intellectual communication is not possible.
Art and conceptual transfer have a common origin.
Our modern dexterity in communicating with language symbols.
The art and technique of "telling an interesting story".

You will have noted, that these essays follow the common topics of philosophical discussions, because they touch upon the nature of matter, the Universe and life, the essence of being human, the concept of God, the nature of our perceptions, the cultural code, as well as the nature of beliefs and convictions, and the art of living together at close quarters.

There are the questions of social structuring, the relation between individual and society, and, of course, this all-important topic of ethical or moral guidelines for the relationships and inter-actions between people. They are all there, and, so far as the range of topics is concerned, I believe, that I qualify as a general philosopher. Whether or not I am a useful and readable philosopher, time will tell, and, it is really futile for me to speculate, whether or not my writings will ever be of use to other people.

I should concern myself with the objectives I have set for myself, and, I should worry about the quality of my work; whether or not my essays correspond to my intentions; whether or not they are clear and lucid, free from rethoric or fuzzy imagery. Of course, at times, they will reflect a somewhat unimaginative stretch of thinking, and, sometimes, they may be less than perfectly clear, because my thoughts may have been somewhat clouded at the time, and, I failed to correct such a lapse on subsequent reading.

To be able to spot lapses in clarity and cohesion, or, to detect a weakness in the construction of my essays, requires a long time-interval between "work-outs". Such a long time-interval is indeed beneficial, because it is, then, possible to judge the work more or less as an objective reader, rather than as a writer. Soon, I am busy, reworking sentences, filling in gaps, or smoothing-out discontinuities, clarifying ideas, and simplifying the expression. Therefore, the re-writing, or, re-working of an essay is time-consuming. While I have never timed myself when working-out a sketch, I guess, that, at least, three or four times as many hours are spent working-up a sketch to the final draft, compared to the first, hand-written outline.

Do I have a preference for sketching or working-out? Sketching is, definitely, more exciting, but, also, more tiring, and, I am more subject to mood-swings, when sketching, compared to correcting and shaping the final product. The reason is, probably, that the work of finishing or finalising the text is not so demanding. It is not so demanding in the sense, that I do not have to grasp for a large structure of ideas, nor, do I have to look for a suitable way to bring a series of complex of thoughts into words.

Working-out is a process of looking at sentences, words or paragraphs, rather than the sketch as a whole. Therefore, I can work longer at finishing than sketching. During sketching, I am more prone to doubt the value of my work and the scope of my abilities; I am worried, whether or not I am dull and repeating myself; whether or not I am on the right track, etc., etc. When finishing, I become more confident, that the text is readable and worth someone else's attention.

For this reason, I make a number of carbon copies of the final draft, so that I can send-away a copy without losing the final draft, if anything would happen to the manuscript. As a rule, the final draft is quite close to the previous draft, because I concentrate, then, on typing neatly, but, invariably, here and there, a word or a part of a sentence will be changed as I stumble across an improvement.

I like to keep such changes to a minimum, however, because I have found that my judgement may be erroneous, since I am largely concentrating on accurate typing. I try to limit changes to things that are obviously wrong, and, which I overlooked before.

Why do I not type during the first draft? I can not think and type very well at the same time, and, I have gotten into the habit of writing my first sketch in long-hand. The fact, that my writing is a lot slower than my thoughts, gives me an opportunity to restrict or regulate the flow of thoughts somewhat, but, often, I am trying so hard to capture an idea, that I concern myself little with grammar, spelling or syntax during the process of sketching.

I keep all the drafts, partly, as a gesture to my vanity, because I hate to throw-out anything I have worked-on, except, when I discard a draft all-together. If I decide to use the sketch and work-out the draft, I keep all the drafts together, except for the final version. This allows me to always retrace, if I want to, the growth and changes that have taken place in a particular essay. The papers accumulate rather quickly, this way, and they are, eventually, bundled into large binders.

Recently, the technology of type-writing and editing has changed dramatically with the introduction of the personal computer and a variety of word-processing programs. This allows a writer to sketch and edit a text, before printing it, and, especially, the fact, that a text, once typed, can be recalled from a storage-disc, means, that it does not have to be typed and re-typed, as was the case whith an ordinary type-writer. I still like to sketch the first draft in long-hand, but then, when I begin the task of working-out a sketch, I put it on the computer, and, I store the text on a magnetic disc. Since I have some doubts about the durability of magnetically recorded signals, I usually print the text, after I have decided that I am going to let a particular essay rest for a while.

Now, I have gotten used to the computer and the word-processing techniques, and, I would not be able to work, anymore without, them. Certainly, the time required for typing has been dramatically reduced, and it is, therefore, much easier to produce a cleanly typed and well-edited text. In the future, I may even begin to sketch on the computer, because I have become quite proficient at typing on the computer, and, I have also noticed that my hand-writing has become somewhat strained, because my arm has a tendency to cramp-up.

In the last part of this somewhat personal and rambling survey of my writing habits, I like to discuss the issue or concept of "inspiration". We all wonder, from time to time, about the manner in which a work of art comes into being, and, I assume, that, most of us have felt this sense of wonder and awe, especially, when we have come to know a work of art intimately, and have developed a great deal of affection and admiration for it. Just as we seem to reach the height of our understanding and appreciation for a work of art, we question, most intensely, what kind of person had the good fortune to bring this work into being, and, we wonder how he or she "did it".

However, our admiration and sense of wonder, as well as our questions about the personality of the "creator" are only, in part, related to the mystery of the artistic creation. The problems we have in answering these questions, thoroughly and seriously, lie just as much in the field of interpretation or appreciation, as they lie in the creation of a work of art.

What makes us, at times, grow in the appreciation of a work of art? Often, a considerable period of time is necessary in which we slowly discover more and more about a work of art. Why is a work of art, initially, often meaningless to us, even, those works that are highly acclaimed by our society, and, which are more or less "forced" upon us during our formative years? What happens, when some people become sensitive to the beauty, skill and expressiveness of a particular work of art? Why are some people much more inclined to appreciate art than others?

Let us acknowledge, here, that our definition of art may be somewhat narrow and exclusive, and, that we tend to exclude many of the more transient and fashionable forms of art from our definition, which emphasises, as a rule, a more traditional or "cultural" form of art. What is the essence of art appreciation, and, what is art? How do we define art? What do we include, or, what should we include, in the definition of art? Do we see a sharply outlined field, or, does it merge, gradually and imperceptibly, with areas of human endeavour we do not associate with art at all?

Perhaps, we are justified to begin an attempt at defining art with the statement, that all art is a form of communication, but, it is clear, that we have to define the concept of "communication" as well, because the form of contact and communication that takes place between people in the act of appreciating art, is different, and, it goes much further, than a mere conceptual transfer. We also know, that art can not take the place of factual or conceptual communications, and, we are compelled to look into the concepts and mechanisms of communications, as well as the various ways in which they take place.

As always, it helps to see these questions and answers in an evolutionary light. Most animals can communicate with each other, but, communications take place, primarily, and, perhaps, exclusively, between the members of the same species, and, they are obviously in the service of biological needs. Animals living together, be it as a flock, a herd, or some sort of social integration, have developed communications that alert the members, especially, when there is a danger, a mate, or food.

Within the flock, the herd, or a socially integrated grouping of animals, an extensive program of communications exists to initiate and facilitate the often complex and somewhat hazardous behaviour necessary to fulfill the various biological needs. Indeed, the range of pre-symbolic communications is limited to the raising of an alert, the indication of food, as well as the behaviour of mating, corresponding, closely, with the existential triangle of concerns; security, food and pro-creation.

The communication signals are a combination of vocalisations and a stereotyped pattern of behaviour, which function as a signal to arouse in other animals a stereotyped, instinctive, behavioural response. In the human species, these instinctive, behavioural responses are associated with a verbalisable or consciously expressed feeling or sensation, which we can call a mood or an emotion, depending on the duration and degree of differentiation that is associated with such a "state of feeling".

It is, probably, justified to say, that a "mood" is less differentiated and longer lasting than an emotion, which is fleeting and can be elicited by, or is a response to, a more precise and specific stimulus. We will refrain, here, from reviewing the basic outline of the human personality, and, let us therefore, state, simply, that the communications that have been developed by a variety of animal life-forms, prior to the specific evolution of the human species, are all "emotional" in nature, or, rather, they are "mood synchronisers". Here, a behaviourally stereotyped response to an existentially significant situation is evoked or elicited, and, we have seen that these behavioural responses always center around this all-important existential triangle; security, food and sex.

The concepts of an emotion, mood or mood-synchronisation, are, of course, human super-impositions, because we indicate, here, a specific human capability to abstract these feelings as separate, verbalisable items of awareness. This capability is part of the specifically human way of communicating with the help of symbolic representations, and, so far as we know, no other species on earth has explored, or developed, these capabilities and potentials to any significant extent.

Therefore, none of the animal communications have the ability to evoke a verbalisable concept, and, an animal can not name a mood, a feeling or an emotion, nor can it name any of its awarenesses, but, we can safely assume, that, highly developed and behaviourally flexible animals are subject to the same, or, at least, very similar feelings as ourselves, even, without the ability to abstract these awarenesses and name them.

We, human beings, still communicate, to a large extent, on this sub-verbal or sub-conscious level of mood-synchronisations, in spite of the fact, that human communications have reached such a high level of complexity, as well as such an inextricable inter-twining with a symbolic or verbalisable method of communication, that we can not imagine, anymore, what it would be like to communicate in a mode that has no conceptual or symbolic aspects at all.

In many ways, the concept of communication has emphasised the intellectual or conceptual content to such an extent, that, we try, deliberately, to exclude "emotional", or "subjective" factors from such a communication. Certainly, in the field of science, as well as all other fields of "information transfer", we try to minimise, suppress or ignore the vague overtones of moods, emotions, personal idiosyncracies or discrepancies in understanding, because they may give rise to mis-understandings, irritations and frictions. Yet, we know, that we can not really engage in a pure "intellectual" communication, without any overtones or influences of a "mood-stimulating" nature, just as we can not experience pure "mood-communications", totally void of any verbalisable or conceptual content.

It is important to keep in mind, that our communications take place on such a sliding scale; from the nearly purely emotional to the nearly purely intellectual aspects of communicating, and, we may see, perhaps, as examples of these extremes, the mass-hypnosis of a rock-concert and the somewhat dull discussion of a subtle, intellectual observation.

It seems useful to acknowledge, that the art-form can range between the same extremes, in spite of the fact, that, many people will disagree with the designation of a rock-concert as a form of art, or, the intellectual discussion of a subtle observation as an artistic communication.

Yet, if we want to limit the concept of art to a more narrow framework, we run into the difficulty of having to set rather arbitrary limits to the concept of art. It is useful to emphasise that art is a form of communication. This form of communication can not be grasped in its essence, or its totality, by a set of intellectual or conceptual abstractions, nor, can a sub-verbal, mood-synchronising communication be completely void of verbal or potentially verbalisable elements.

In addition, a review of the wide subject of art shows us, that, the modern, contemporary art-forms are highly specialised fields of endeavour that evolved from a common foundation. It is justified to consider as the common basis for all forms of art, as well as all methods of communications, this remarkable development, far back in the pre-history of early mankind, when an intelligent and gifted member of a small group began to act-out a scene that re-surfaced, spontaneously, into his memory. We see, here, not only, the birth of conceptual awarenesses, but, also, the origin of all the art-forms we know. There is play-acting, dancing, singing, gesticulating or pantomime, including the use of instruments or implements. There are visual techniques, such as drawing, painting or modeling and sculpting, as well as many additional forms of communication that have their roots in the primordial origins of conceptual evolution.

Certainly, there are other roots as well, such as the link between an object of art and an object of use, like a tool or weapon. In every endeavour of the human being, we see the possibility, that an individual may give it this little extra beyond what is absolutely required. This "little extra" may be motivated by the need to give vent to a feeling of joy, exuberance, confidence or sadness.

It is interesting to note, that we only have to go back into the period of recorded history, which is, in essence, only a small segment in the time-span of the evolution of culture, to see, how the now specialised forms of art were still together. The dance, the song, the play-acting, the spoken word, the use of musical and other instruments, as well as the concerns of a moral and religious nature, were often woven into a single spectacle of great importance.

I am not a historian, and, I am certainly not an expert in the history of art. I want to limit myself to an overall discussion of principles. If it is clear, that art and religion were inter-woven until only a few centuries ago, and, if we know, that religion and science shared a similar bond of intellectual comprehension, until very recently, there is no reason to be surprised, when we see that art and science are still linked by many common roots.

One of the roots I find useful to keep in mind as an aid to the classification of these broad fields of human endeavour, is this primordial root of the origins of symbolic representations and language communication. We have discussed, before, how, even, the modern virtuosity of language communication by a rapid flow of arbitrary sound-symbols, still contains a large number of vague connotations and inuendos, in addition to the somewhat more precise definition of the words themselves.

Many words have a core of sharply delineated meaning, but, most words have also a periphery of variable meaning, which is particularly noticeable, if the words are strung together into a sentence, a paragraph, or, even, an entire story. The larger the fragment of verbal communication, the more "personal accents" in meaning and individual characteristics of word-usage are shining through. We know very well, that, many words, sentences, expressions, as well as individual characteristics of a verbal communication, are used in the service of communicating, largely subconsciously and nearly "automatically", the feelings, moods, sentiments and subjective interpretations of the author.

If we concentrate, for a moment, on our contemporary capabilities in verbal or language communications, we see, that we can now express a great variety of intentions and purposes. We can concentrate on obtaining a maximum level of precision and objectivity, as we see in a carefully crafted scientific presentation, or, we can relate our own experiences, feelings, thoughts and recollections of an event or a happening. These thoughts and experiences are primarily of interest to those who shared our experiences, but, they may also be of interest to those, who are not familiar with these events.

In the latter case, we see, that the author has to make a conscious effort to verbalise and communicate general features and circumstances, which he did not have to elaborate, when the audience was familiar with the circumstances of his testimony. This excercise in "telling a story", also teaches an author, that he can guide and steer the emotional response or attention of the audience by the way he presents his story, and, we are all familiar with the art and technique of "telling an interesting story".

If I say that we are all familiar with the fact, that some people have this gift of story telling, I do not mean, that we understand, clearly, what it takes to be a good story-teller. Interestingly, even, the gifted artist, who knows how to keep an audience spell-bound, is often unable to indicate, precisely, the principles of his art. Certainly, he knows a large variety of technical details, which are based upon the experiences of himself and others, who have made a study of the art of story-telling. He can tell you, that he uses a number of "devices"; special ways to introduce happenings or people to the audience, and, he knows, something, about the technique of building-up the tensions of expectation and anticipation. He knows something about the way the personalities or characters have to be drawn or shaded, in order for the audience to know, clearly, with whom to identify as the hero, and, whom to vent their anger and frustration upon.

The author knows something about the way a story has to be paced; how he can exploit his particular talents in embellishments; how he can vary between an accent upon the dramatic, the adventurous, or the comic aspects of a situation. However, in spite of these technical details, it will still be difficult for an attentive listener, or the story-teller himself, to define, precisely, why a story is particularly good, or, why it sometimes seems to be less captivating than it should be.

.......

Chapter 8

Content

The inter-play between an author and his audience.
The significance of a story that is "close to home".
Existential interests, and the factor of authority.
Unbiased and "unbought" opinions from an integer critic.
"Artistic qualities", and the fate of a work of art.
The art of selecting a suitable audience for a presentation.
The crucial "feeling", that a form or art, as well as its presentation or interpretation, is "just right".
The corrupting influence of commercial factors.
Locally and generally valid traits.
Creating problems out of nothing; boredom and ignorance.
The factors of timing and tempo in an artistic presentation.
Good comedy is great art, with a local, as well as a generalised validity and appeal.
Mechanisms of laughter in "the joke".
The power of surprise or an unexpected twist.
All great art reveals an indefinable blend between traditional roots, and an individualised, but skillful presentation.
A loved and admired master-piece is "just right".
The role of the essay as an artistic creation.
A few more personal aspects.

In order to answer the questions we have raised at the end of the previous chapter, we have to approach the art of telling a story from a general and philosophical point of view, and, we should analyse the inter-play between the author and his audience, because there is a constant communication and feed-back taking place between the participants in an artistic event.

As we mentioned, this communication represents an ever-varying mixture of intellectual, conceptual and emotive factors, and, the feed-back from the audience is, generally, a simple laugh, a sign of attention, a sigh, or an expression of identification with the main characters and events. Let us consider, therefore, what features and circumstances must be present, or, what must happen, before an audience will follow a story with attention. We will see, that we can enumerate a great number of features and aspects that are not so clearly visible to either the author or the audience, because both are participants in the artistic event, rather than observers.

Let us first look at the reasons, why a story would be of interest to an audience, and, we note, that the factor of "interest" is linked to the feature of existential significance. This element of significance is the reason, why a story "close to home" is given much more attention than an event of the same magnitude that is happening to another group, in particular, if this group is foreign or unknown to us. We primarily want to know, what is going-on in our own environment, because it may affect our own existence, or the community we live in. This is the reason, why we are interested about what happened to someone we know.

If we look at a local news-paper or news-broadcast, we see, that the news events from "far-away" are presented in outline only, with little evidence for a judgement, or a sense of involvement, and, frequently, the emphasis is placed, squarely, on the question; "How does it affect us?".

If someone is about to tell a story, the nature of the story has determined, already, to a large extent, the attention the audience will pay to this story, in particular, if the author or communicator is recognised as someone who speaks with knowledge and "authority".

These factors; the existential interest of the story, as well as the authority of the communicator, are not considered to be part of the range of artistic qualities, but, we know, that, even, an "artistic story" is influenced by these same mechanisms. In particular, if the audience "knows" the author, a communication may be met with a heightened interest or sense of anticipation, because the reader has something to relate to. There is, then, a tension of antipication, especially, if the reader has found something of value in a previous communication.

If the author is completely unknown, there is no anticipation and there may not be any reason or inclination to pick-up a new book, or listen to a story, unless the reader or potential reader has heard something about the author from someone else. Here, we see the powerful element of advertising at work, because a product can, indeed, be propelled into the focus of public attention, if sufficient money is spent on "publicity".

Ideally, of course, this publicity is generated spontaneously by a communication of informal discussions and personal contacts, or, it is the result of an unbiased and "un-bought" opinion of an integer critic. It is difficult to know, whether or not it is still possible for a new work of art to make it entirely on its own merits, without advertising and without the gimmickery of publicity. People in our affluent societies are so exposed to the loud noises of advertisements, that they may be completely "deaf" to the discrete whimpering of a good book that just sits there, waiting for someone to browse through it.

So far, we have not discussed any "artistic qualities", and, yet, the success or failure of a new work of art, a story, or a communication, seems already to have been decided by the circumstances under which this story, or work of art, is being presented. The publicity and the authority of the author, as well as the advertisement campaign mounted to bring it to the attention of the people, seem to determine its fate, almost entirely.

Let us now consider the factors that are artistic in nature. If an author wants to bring a "fictional story", or, a story that does not affect the audience by virtue of any specific or direct link between the people and events of the story, and, the members of the audience, the author has to introduce, quickly, a number of features that are designed to captivate the audience. The introduction to the story may create strong expectations of an interesting or intriguing development, and, the characters must be sufficiently sharply drawn for the audience to be able to classify or "recognise" them quickly.

The presentation of the basic facts and the principal characters has to be done in a rather brisk tempo, in order for this "rapport" of interest and expectation to be established as soon as possible. After this initial rapport has been established, the author can slow-down the tempo of presentation somewhat, but, at all times, it is necessary to keep the attention of the audience. Unless a modern audience in the affluent societies is saturated with quickly moving happenings, full of excitement, including the stimuli of violence and sex, the audience will be bored, or, it may, even, be totally impossible to establish any sort of rapport.

Audience selection is, therefore, a factor that has to be kept in mind. We, as a communicator, or author, have to address ourselves to a particular audience. Sometimes, the audience is quite large, if the story, and the way it is presented, appeals to a large majority of people. Most of the time, the audience is much more limited, especially, if the qualities and the appeal are not so obvious, or, if the characters and events of a story require careful attention, before they can be grasped. However, an audience that is willing to "work" for the rewards of a somewhat complex form of art, is also rewarded with a much greater variety of features and qualities that may evoke, quite suddenly, a sense of recognition. This recognition is represented by the feeling that the work of art and its presentation is "just right".

Here, we see an interesting possibility for the many and varied ways a story can be presented. It can be presented, simply, in its barest outlines, and, it may be mainly factual, a transfer of information, and the relevance of the story depends, then, upon the intrinsic interest of the story. If the story is fictional, the interest must be captured by a fast-paced action, adventure or intrigue, and, we see, here, large categories of literature that specialise in these features. In our modern, affluent societies, commercial instincts have learned to exploit, quite successfully, the willingness of people to pay for a publication that stimulates the primary instincts of violence and sex, and, then, we are dealing, in essence, with pornography.

A more elevating form of art is the literature that concentrates upon events and reactions of subtle and complex, but, in essence, "real personalities". Some authors have been so successful in this, and, they have been able to trace a portrait of people, circumstances and events that is so "true to life", and so "recognisable" for many different peoples and cultures, that they have become, rightfully, world-renowned and are being read all over the world.

However, the dramatisation and characterisation can also be much more "locally valid", as we see in a pre-occupation of our contemporary societies with the decadent practices and concerns of people, the triviality of purpose, as well as the weaknesses of character, such as the introvert, egocentric attitudes of people who create problems out of nothing, primarily, because of boredom and ignorance. While an accent upon "modern tensions" may be appealing to a large audience of average but rather dull-witted, affluent people, the characterisation of these affluent people and their problems makes a somewhat sickly and annoying impression upon many others, who have not been trapped in the foolishness of an affluent, consumerist life-style.

Affluent people lack, to a large extent, the broad interests, the "real" dramatic or tragic experiences with which a large part of mankind can identify. Affluent dreamers are, usually, neurotic and self-centered. They are a disgrace of triviality and egocentricity, and, I believe, that they will not create a lasting artistic value, in spite of the fact, that, some of the best artistic projects may escape oblivion and may become an object of curiosity for future generations, as they try to grasp our life-style and pre-occupation with the entrapments of affluent consumerism.

The concerns of timing and tempo, the creation of an air of expectation, as well as the maintenance of an atmosphere of anticipation, fast-paced action, or dramatic tension, together with the pre-occupations of the readership, all these factors give us, already, a fairly good insight into the reasons, why a certain story may hold our attention, or, why it may fail to do so and bore us.

Let us say a few words, now, about this very special presentation, called "comedy". In a way, it is much easier to define the essence of a dramatic or serious presentation, than it is to define, why, sometimes, the audience can be made to laugh, rather than cry, when identifying with a hero or heroine. What is comedy? What makes a presentation funny? Why do we laugh, if we understand it, and, why is the punch-line of a funny situation or story so sensitive to the art of perfect timing?

Yes, good comedy is great art, but, because we seem to vary even more in what we think is funny, comedy has a greater tendency than dramatic art to have a local or regional appeal or value. Here again, we should qualify this statement somewhat, because it all depends upon the type of comedy we are thinking about. If a satire pokes fun at a local situation, then, of course, the humor will be lost on someone, who does not know this local situation, but, if comedy makes fun of general personal characteristics, such as pomposity, greed, unscrupulous behaviour and other "weaknesses" of the human character, then, comedy may be appreciated widely throughout a variety of cultures, in particular, if it is done well, and, if the various cultures agree about the desirable and undesirable characteristics of human behaviour.

What happens in a comic sitation, or a funny story, a joke, a play on words, etc.? There are many different forms of comedy, or "funny stories", but, the essence of something that suddenly provokes laughter from an audience, is a clever and skillful play with our expectations. The art of good comedy is always characterised by the fact, that, in a quick tempo, a certain mood or expectation is created, which, then, in the punch-line or the "resolution" to this tension or expectation, is suddenly dissolved or released. This sudden release gives us the irresistible urge to laugh.

Indeed, a laugh is often a subconscous "sigh of relief", but, we are not so much relieved from a severe dramatic tension, but, we are suddenly taken by surprise, by an unexpected twist, or, we suddenly recognise during the carricaturisation in a comic situation; "yes, but this is not possible", and we laugh. Or, we may be provoked to laugh and giggle, when we suddenly recognise something a "little risky". It may be a little risky according to our sexual mores, or, it may be a little risky as it pokes fun of serious religious and political institutions and their authorities. Or, we may suddenly recognise the relative validity of something we associate, usually, with a highly serious business. Here, in particular, a quick, highly accurate and clever characterisation makes or brakes the presentation of a comic situation.

Then, we may see, how, occasionally, even, the most polished comic, who has perfected his timing and knows his audience, can still fumble. In particular, if the "set-up" to a punch-line is lightning quick, often, accomplished in a few seconds, the slightest hitch, means, that the "set-up" of the desired tension or expectation has not been created, and, then, the punch-line fizzles, because the audience has not been adequately prepared to receive, and understand, the punch-line as it was supposed to.

The unexpected twist, (after proper introduction and the generation of a particular expectation), as well as the sudden deflation of a tension or the sudden recognition that something is not as important or as serious as we think, is the basis for comedy. It requires a high degree of intuitive and practiced skills to become an expert comedian, just as it takes talent, skill and study to become an expert, serious actor.

The unexpected twist, as well as the careful preparation to create maximum impact, are the hall-mark of good comedy, but, all serious art, (and comedy is certainly a serious form of art), requires a measure of the unexpected and the novel in order to blend the familiar with the expected. All great art has this indefinable blend between the traditional roots and an exceptional, individualised skill and expertise. A personal contribution of the artist makes it "stand out", and gives the presentation or a work of art this special quality of excitement. Only occasionally, and, after many years of ceaseless effort, does it become possible to blend the new and the old to such an extent, that the result can be recognised as a true master-piece.

Of course, what will be judged a master-piece varies from one generation to the next, and, not all master-pieces of the past have the same relevance for us today. Therefore, there are many more great works of art than we know and appreciate today, and, we are back, again, to this essential dialogue between the artist and his audience. If such a dialogue becomes successful, and, if the artist has been able to produce a work that is meaningful and "nearly perfect", the audience may, slowly, become more and more attached to it, and, the occasional individual will experience this rare flash of extreme happiness, when one realises, that the expression of this loved and admired master-piece, is "just right".

Then, the ideal we are looking for merges with the ideal we see or recognise in a particular work of art, and, this fusion between the ideal "as we like it to be", and, "as we have found it", is the basis for a strong, emotional surge of feelings, which we can describe as a sensation of beauty, happiness, or, even, ecstasy. However, the word "ecstasy" has rather strong mystical connotations. The experiences of a mystical happiness are also based on the fusion between a sought and found ideal, and the mechanisms are essentially similar. In a mystical exaltation, however, this fusion is often facilitated, somewhat artificially, by a deliberate attempt to suppress critical faculties; either, by severe stress or fatigue, or, by drugs. These feelings may arise, then, more or less spontaneously, without the need for the persuasiveness of a great work of art.

You may want to ask, where the art of an analysis, a discussion or a scientific presentation fits into the overall picture of a communication. As we have discussed before, the scientific presentation forms one extreme end of the spectrum of communicating, because this type of communication excludes deliberately, as much as possible, emotional factors, moods, or elements with a personal relevance, and, the focus of relevance is entirely determined by the topic and nature of the scientific field itself.

This, at least, is the ideal, yet, we all know, that it is much more pleasant to listen to a presentation that is brought clearly, swiftly, and, with a measure of humor, where the relative importance of the scientific detail that is being presented, is brought into a subconscious perspective.

Often, emotional factors come into play, because a dispute may arise over the validity of the data presented, and, the whole objective of a scientific presentation, or a piece of research, may have been a reaction to someone else's presentation, and, it may represent an attempt to prove or disprove someone else's data and interpretations. Emotions and existential anxieties can easily be aroused, even, amongst scientists, and, it is understandable that this is the case, because they work and live in a strongly competitive world and their positions are, often, far from secure.

How does the discussion or the essay fit into the scheme of artistic endeavours? I have often mentioned, that I like to see myself as an artist, and, I believe, that the synthesis of a broad, philosophical canvas, or field of vision, is, indeed, an activity that is strongly intuitive. Because of this strong element of intuition, or sub-conscious guidance and motivation, in the activity of generalising philosophically, it seems justified to speak of an artistic effort. Certainly, the genuine philosopher tries to capture a broad reality that has relevance for a lot more people than just himself, but his efforts, the way he synthesises this broad reality perception, as well as the way he brings it or presents it in his writings and discussions, are highly personal, and, they often show this blend between the familiar and the new, because, after all, such an intuitive discussion reveals, in essence, a personal way of seeing a specific aspect of reality.

Just like an artist, the essayist hopes, that, eventually, a number of people will be interested enough to follow his presentations, and, he hopes that they will be able to recognise, where the presentation follows commonly accepted reality perceptions, and, where it suddenly reveals a personal twist; an unexpected coloration or correlation. Hopefully, these unexpected twists and colours will make the discussion interesting for someone else, but, if the blend between the old and the new is too far weighted towards the new and the unusual, it becomes very difficult for someone else to relate to the presentation, and, it becomes a struggle, when trying to follow it. Then, of course, the effort has failed, at least, so far as this particular reader is concerned, and the book will be closed, not to be opened again.

It is frustrating to know, that this is happening to me, and, that the people around me do not read my work, because they find it not interesting enough to make the effort to follow a philosophical train of thought. This creates a tension, and, if a writer is continuously and chronically frustrated in his attempts to find someone, who is capable and willing to have a good look at his work and offer informed comments, the frustrations may settle as a crust of irascibility, as well as a tendency to withdraw from contacts with other people. Then, the writer has to rely upon himself, as well as his faith in his work, because he knows, that it is good. He knows, that he has something to say, and, he knows, that, at some time in the future, at least, a few people will study and appreciate his works, but he may not be around to witness such a happy event.

Yet, the sense of frustration and irascibility is really a superficial and external crust, which shields a much deeper sense of tranquility and contentment. The writer knows, that it is completely unimportant, whether or not he finds someone, who likes his work at this time. He knows, also, that an early success may actually impede his further development as an artist and a thinker. The philosopher values nothing more than the opportunity to write, and, he appreciates the relaxed living conditions that make it possible to think and write.

So what, if no-one likes it? There is always the possibility, that someone will like it, later, and, there is every day this opportunity to try again, and, to write as well as you can. In essence, I am a happy and satisfied person. I enjoy every day, and, I try to make good use of it. In essence, I am confident, that my work is genuine, and, that I have something to say. What does it really matter, whether or not it will become a focus of attention, study or enjoyment? Long after I am gone, the possibility is there for another human being to grasp some of these thoughts, and, to judge, whether or not these thoughts are useful, relevant, or, even, beautiful. Then, they will be the thoughts of the living reader, re-created by this individual from a lifeless stream of symbols, written a long time ago.

.......

Summary

1. Who, and what is a "village philosopher"?
   Why we need to have "broad horizons" in our outlook on life.
   Life in the country-site.
   A few biographical aspects.
   A "lost faith".
   The need for a new, morally justified outlook.
   Limitations of an irascible personality.
   
   
   
2. I am, essentially, happy and content with my existence.
   Who will decide the significance of my work?
   Criteria for being remembered by future generations.
   I am always "doing my best".
   Suspicions about the deliberate or un-intentional bias of news-broadcasts.
   A dismal picture.
   A return to my fascination with the conflict-situation.
   Many people have benefitted from the "business of warfare".
   Is "terrorism for justice" a justified concept?
   Promoting the influence of an informed body of world opinion.
   An irascible dreamer.
   Relativistic considerations apply, also, to the principles of a relativistic reality perception.
   An egocentric philosopher.
   
   
   
3. The difference between thinking and dreaming.
   The evolution of symbolic representations.
   Common denominators and classifying principles.
   The art of asking questions.
   Building-blocks for a structure of explanatory relationships.
   Limitations of the faculty of memory.
   Religious and philosophic-scientific perceptions of reality.
   Anthropomorphic force-fields.
   A fragile object, floating on a wildly fluctuating sea of possibilities of existence.
   Questions of origin.
   Can something come from nothing?
   The concept of a "Revealed Reality".
   The startling, overall conclusion of a scientific interpretation of reality.
   The need to accept, often, the scientific imagery "on faith".
   An honest chance to get somewhere.
   
   
   
4. Personal acceptance by God, and the ability to withstand stress.
   Mechanisms that fortify belief-structures; the phenomenon of commitment.
   The tool of conscious awareness.
   Believers of the scientific reality perception.
   Technical and philosophical scientists.
   Can we demonstrate the presence of a "Creative Will" in the realm of the observable Universe?
   The limitations associated with an anthropocentric view-point of created existence.
   Existential anxieties of the scientist.
   Experimenting with a large variety of interpretations.
   The dual role of a belief-structure; explanation and guidance.
   Distinguishing between "the natural" and the "super-natural".
   The influence of perception and thought upon the structure of our beliefs and the interpretation of our realities.
   Social philosophies; Marxism and Free-Enterprise.
   A limited congruence between social philosophies and religious beliefs.
   A remarkable divergence between religious beliefs and their implementation.
   
   
   
5. The fanatic and the fundamentalist.
   Angry activism and emotional exorcism.
   We know, now, that we can shape our own social order and destiny to a large extent.
   The philosopher and the scholar.
   The "school of life".
   It is so easy for an expert to show, where the non-expert is not quite correct in his summary of a particular field of expertise.
   I do not have to fear sensitive toes.
   Writing from a solitary and financially independent position.
   The problem with an absence of "feed-back".
   A labour of love, greeted by a monotonous silence.
   A "flash of something extra".
   Some details about my writing methods and habits.
   Why I consider it irrelevant to date my work.
   I never hurry.
   
   
   
6. An essay is a discussion; not a lecture.
   The "data" of statements, view-points, postulates and questions.
   Comparisons with a composition of classical music.
   Playing with ideas and concepts.
   My "Credo".
   I am, at heart, a teacher and a preacher.
   A Faith of Common-Sense, Good-Will and Trust.
   Why are there no specific references?
   A sparing use of examples.
   The "art" of making useful generalised statements.
   Let us not return to empty rethoric, or arm-chair philosophising.
   The difficulties of "proving" generalised statements.
   An emphasis on large-scale structures of coherence.
   How do we derive a sense of truth or reality?
   The relativity of truth.
   The possibilities for behavioural guidelines, based on a "natural ethic" of evolutionary insights.
   
   
   
7. Classical philosophical topics.
   A time-consuming process of re-working essays.
   Sketching and "working-out".
   Writing the sketch in long-hand.
   Admiration finds its origins in the eye of the beholder.
   A widened definition of the artistic creation.
   Art and communication.
   Communications are possible through "mood synchronisation" and "factual transfer".
   A purely intellectual communication is not possible.
   Art and conceptual transfer have a common origin.
   Our modern dexterity in communicating with language symbols.
   The art and technique of "telling an interesting story".
   
   
   
8. The inter-play between an author and his audience.
   The significance of a story that is "close to home".
   Existential interests, and the factor of authority.
   Unbiased and "unbought" opinions from an integer critic.
   "Artistic qualities", and the fate of a work of art.
   The art of selecting a suitable audience for a presentation.
   The crucial "feeling", that a form or art, as well as its presentation or interpretation, is "just right".
   The corrupting influence of commercial factors.
   Locally and generally valid traits.
   Creating problems out of nothing; boredom and ignorance.
   The factors of timing and tempo in an artistic presentation.
   Good comedy is great art, with a local, as well as a generalised validity and appeal.
   Mechanisms of laughter in "the joke".
   The power of surprise or an unexpected twist.
   All great art reveals an indefinable blend between traditional roots, and an individualised, but skillful presentation.
   A loved and admired master-piece is "just right".
   The role of the essay as an artistic creation.
   A few more personal aspects.

.......