AN INTRODUCTION TO POLITICAL LEADERSHIP


Democratic Socialism I




A Study in Thought

sa065



by





Marius Heuff

Chapter 1

Content

We live in a state of continuous strife.
When reflecting makes us more anxious.
The rapid flow of time.
Ambitious people are more susceptible to disappointments.
A look at the professional specialist.
The difficulties of a career in affluent public life.
Courage and reflectiveness; necessary attributes for the ageing political leader.
Building-up an image.
A school for politicians?
Partisan politics.
An obsession with winning elections.

It takes a moment of reflection to realise, how competitive and combative our nature really is. We are continuously engaged in some sort of contest or strife. We have long-term goals and aspirations, and, we have intermediate and short-term problems to take care of. We are always fighting, but, perhaps, not always in an aggressive manner. We compete with colleagues, adversaries and rivals, either in our local environment, or with more distant "enemies", but, we are often forced to fight defensively. We have to answer a challenge from those, who are younger and more vigorous, and, who look with a measure of envy to our jobs and social positions, including the assets we have built-up with a lot of hard work. Our children and relatives need our support. There are many organisations in the community looking for our time and money. Often, we have a fairly long list of creditors to pay-off at the beginning of each month, and, once a year, or, sometimes, more often, a number of taxes come due; on our income, assets, our property and home, etc., etc.

Life is a continuous struggle. On the one hand, we worry about the security of our job or profession, or, the viability of the business we have built-up, because we know, that there will be no let-up in the demands and the bills, but, on the other hand, if we are still aggressive, young and ambitious, we dream about the goals we want to reach, the position of power or fame we hope to obtain. We dream about the freedom and influence that come with being truly rich, or, at least financially independent.

Perhaps, our ambitions are somewhat less expansive. We just hope, that we will be in line for a promotion, soon, or, that our income will be increased to keep pace with inflation. We hope to recover from an illness or an accident, or, we hope to overcome a weakness. We hope to overcome bad habits, tensions at home, or at work, etc., etc.

When we reach middle age, we often become weary. The years slip by and our energies are rapidly declining. It becomes increasingly difficult each morning to go to work. The pressures from ambitious younger colleagues are mounting. We are getting tired from all the obligations and tensions we are subjected to. We like to sit-back and think for a while, but, many of us who have tried this, experience, to our surprise, that we only get more anxious and restless from an attempt to re-evaluate the situation.

The moment we relax and think, we see, that the situation could easily get worse. It is certainly easier for the situation to get worse than to get better. We have already tried many of the remedies that are available to reduce the pressures and tensions of modern, affluent life. We have already reduced our social and financial obligations. We have given-up our most ambitious dreams and wishes. We find ourselves in a tolerable routine, where the bills are manageable. We have learned to say "no", more often. The tensions at home are bearable, as long as no sudden changes upset the family routine.

Yes, we have noted, that we have become a creature of habit. Our routine is comforting. We complain the same complaints to the same people, every week. We tell ourselves the same little wisdoms about life and society, and, we tell ourselves, that we are lucky to be as well-off as we are. We see the same people, again and again, and, we are getting older, fast. Some of our friends have already had their first heart attack or other serious illness. We know, that it is going to be our turn, sooner or later. Yet, in spite of the fact, that we have a job, some entertainment, reasonable relationships with our family and the people at work, there is sometimes a flash of insight, or, rather, a strange feeling, that time is slipping by quickly, and, that we will have to leave this reasonably comfortable existence, all too soon; just like everyone else.

We have the feeling, that we have stagnated. We have the feeling, that we really do not understand anything about life, the people around us, our children and our spouse. We feel, that we do not understand much of the society we live in. At least, our grasp does not seem to be any better than when we started our career in society, perhaps, twenty or thirty years ago. We still remember, vividly, how far removed the greying middle-aged generations looked, then. How close they looked to being dead, or, at least, being of little importance to us, who belonged to the vigorous and younger generations. This older generation has now disappeared from view, and, we have become the greying, milddle-aged generation ourselves, and, in our place have come ambitious and vigorous youngsters, who hardly pay any attention to us.

Such a flash of realisation about the rapid flow of time and the limited time-span of our individual existence, makes us uncomfortable, and, we tend to suppress these reflective moments as unsettling experiences that come with old-age. We should not pay attention to these unsettling thoughts, we think. Yet, these reflective moments exist for a purpose, because they tell us something; they nudge us, first gently and quietly, but, then, more forcefully and painfully, to assess and re-asses the situation of our existence.

What have we done with our lives? Have we done well? What does it mean to have done well? Does it mean just to have gone to work, bring a pay-cheque home, to have brought-up a family, to have coped with the numerous, ever-recurring payments; with the pressures and obligations that have come from all sides? What have we really accomplished?

Perhaps, we can look back upon a somewhat happy period in this organisation or that, when we had a little influence, for a while; when we were given the responsibility to organise some sort of activity or objective. However, after a few years, we had to give it up; it cost too much time, and, there were other things to do. Now, it seems far in the past, and, who still remembers, what we did for the community or the organisation we worked for?

It seems ironic, that, those of us, who have accomplished the most, studied a great deal, worked the hardest and had the most far-reaching ambitions, are often caught by a feeling of entrapment and a sense of having missed opportunities for happiness, insight and understanding. Perhaps, ambitious and sensitive people are more prone to reflective moments, but, it seems also fair to say, that, those of us, who do reach reasonably "high" levels of achievement in society, are most intensely subjected to competitive pressures.

The happy-go-lucky fellow who drifts from job to job, who works when he has to work, spends his money as fast as he gets it, this person is not subjected to continuous obligations and pressures, because he avoids most of them. He does not get involved in civic organisations or the rigors of existence in sub-urbia, with its many competitive displays of earnings and spending powers.

Certainly, the conscientious worker will have a family. He pays his rent and his dues, and, he will have to endure his share of frustrations and disappointments. He will look at the professionals, bureaucrats and business people with a mixture of envy and fear, as he thinks back at the time, that he let the opportunities slip-by for further schooling, for a more permanent position with a promising business enterprise, as well as his chances for advancement on the social hierarchy.

If a worker gets sick, and, if he has relied on his physical strength to make a living, getting older is a painful process. Now, with powerful trade-unions, good social legislation and humane provisions for sickness, disability and unemployment, the problems of getting older for most workers in the socially more advanced societies, have become considerably easier compared to just a few generations ago.

Let us look, for a moment, at the professional, who has often worked very hard through his adolescence and early maturity to reach a high level of skill and expertise in his chosen field; be it a field of artistic competence or technical prowess. He has often started his family late. The high level of specialisation makes him more vulnerable to the need of having to rely on costly services from other people, and, he is also vulnerable to exploitation and deceit, because he has lived, so often, in a sheltered world of his own.

The competitive pressures are fierce. Anxieties are always present. Moments of success fade quickly, and, success is often tinged with a somewhat bitter taste of compromise, as the professional realises, that his own criteria of excellence and those of his audience or clientele, (who, after all, foots the bill and determines his degree of succes and publicity), are often quite different. For example, if a classical musician wants to survive and make a living, he has to be flashy and flamboyant, and, he has to impress the public and the critics with a dazzling virtuosity. This will sell tickets and records, and the music-making, often, suffers somewhat. Certainly, no musician who is musically ignorant, can make it, but, in order to capture the imagination of the people, the musician has to play what the public wants to hear, and, the people want to be impressed, more so, than they are willing to listen, carefully, and study, diligently, in order to appreciate a finely shaded musical passage, or a beautiful harmonic progression.

The professional who seeks a career in public life, knows, better than anyone else, how difficult it is in a confused and somewhat chaotic, affluent society, to bring the people a sensible program of political development; a program that has a genuine chance to correct some of the most obvious deficiencies in society or the nation. If a political leader has to seek every four or five years a renewed mandate from the people, he has to convince them to vote for him again. He may try to explain to the people the many political problems, the complex issues, as well as the remedies he and his Party are proposing. In particular, the ageing politician must, at times, feel weary and tired from this constant effort to put a view-point across. He must get tired from the contradictory and often blatant egocentric demands and pressures his constituents place upon him; from the sniping and the dubious tactics his political adversaries use to discredit him in the eyes of the electorate.

The politician is aware, perhaps, more than any other person, of the constant strife and fighting that goes-on in society; between individuals, and, in particular between groups of people. The only way a politician succeeds in getting elected to a position of public prominence, is to jump into the fray. Our political leaders like this sort of activity, of course, and, they are suited to this kind of existence, because their leadership instincts include a healthy dose of combativeness. However, I hope, that, even, the middle-aged political leader will experience a moment of reflection, now and then, whenever he takes the time, and brings-up the courage, to face a few difficult questions.

With such a strong emphasis on political fighting and in-fighting, and, with the art of politics so obsessively concentrated on the question how to capture the votes of the people, the essence of good leadership is easily lost, and the tasks of educating and inspiring a confused and egocentric electorate are easily neglected. In an era of mass-media communications and a highly developed art of advertising, the emphasis has shifted, completely, from an attempt to capture the hearts and minds of the voter with a soundly reasoned argument, to a technique of persuasion and impression. How can we build-up the image of the candidate, so that he or she "looks a winner", is attractive and appealing to the average voter? How can we get the people to notice the candidate and remember him or her long enough to mark the ballot in the right place?

It is not surprising, therefore, that the modern politician has become an "image person", much more versatile in advertising and selling techniques than in the art of discussing the nature and requirements for a healthy and viable social organisation. The philosopher has disappeared, if he was, ever, really present in political life, and, he has been replaced by the ad-man, who is a wizzard at dreaming-up catchy slogans, and, who knows, how to package and present his "product"; the attractive image of a political winner.

After more than a generation of continuous bombardment by advertising, affluent people are developing some immunity, and, perhaps, even a certain "allergy" to all these advertisement techniques, but, the advertising professionals have not discovered this, as yet, and, of course, they do not want to discover it either, because it would jeopardise their own livelyhood. They rather seek, frantically, to replace a somewhat tired advertising gimmick with a new one, so that the attention of the people can be captured, once again.

Then, there is another major problem for the modern politician. There is really no "school" for him or her to go to. Studying political science at a university is no guarantee at all, that the individual will be able to pursue a career as a politician, and those, who are able to capture the imagination and trust of the people for one reason or another, are often ill-prepared to grasp the complexities of social and political problems within their society. They receive, then, a "crash course" in the politics and strategy of their Party. They may be assigned a particular field for study, and, if they are talented and remain a popular political figure with their constituents, they have a chance to become the Party's official spokes-person on a specific topic of concern.

How many politicians could give an off-the-cuff discussion about the nature and requirements of society? How many can tell you, what the objectives are of political leadership; why a certain policy is desirable; what its advantages and disadvantages are? Certainly, a politician learns quickly to criticise the policies of a rival political Party, and, he also has to learn, how to defend and actively promote the policies, principles and objectives, or "platform", of his own politicial Party.

Have you noted, that politicians of opposing political Parties can not really engage in a debate? They can only re-iterate positions that have been taken before, and, these positions have often been taken for them. They are not at liberty to concede good or bad points in these Party agendas, and, they are not at liberty to discuss, freely, the merits, as well as the disadvantages, that arise from an opponents point of view. Too often, the "debate" between political opponents remains merely a re-statement of well-known positions, and, the only concern for the political debaters is to "come across" to the audience. They are not at all interested in listening to what their opponents have to say, and, they are even less interested in a genuine attempt to bridge the differences between political views or policies. All they want, is to get most of the voters behind them and win the election

.......

Chapter 2

Content

A dialogue about practical political concerns.
An unquestioned egocentric outlook of the electorate.
The organisation needed to win an election.
The bonds of "owed favours".
Dangerous thoughts and reflections.
Political fighters and their bellicose instincts.
The well-developed territorial instincts of political leaders.
Questions about a viable, just and durable society.
Should we throw all image-building aside?
A career in public life "as a hobby".
Perverting the meaning and intentions of public office.
Can a political leader afford to be a philosopher as well?

I am sure, that you would like to come back with a few comments against my statements at the end of the previous chapter. "To win is the name of the game", you will say. "You may have the loftiest and most considerate political program, but, if you can not get people to vote for you, you lose. You can not teach people in an election campaign to become broadly thinking individuals. You have to get their vote on the basis of a few convincing points, and, you have to come across with a clear-cut, hard-hitting speech, showing, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that you will do a better job than your opponents".

"You have to come across. People have to get your message. They should not be distracted by a sloppy appearance, a curious habit, or a confusing impartiality, and, they should certainly not be confused by agreeing to a certain extent with your opponent. If your opponent presents a "slick image", you can not afford to look uncertain by comparison. If your opponent hammers away at a few obvious points of interest to your constituents, you will have to to do the same, and, if your opponent is attacking some of the positions in the policies of your Party, you have to hammer away in the same manner at the weakest points of your opponent's Party-program".

"If you allow yourself to be on the defensive, or, if you try to debate like a university student, you are going to lose a lot of votes. The moment your arguments become too complex, and your voters can not follow your train of thought, they will become suspicious. They will think, that you are an "egg-head", and you will lose them. You have to tailor, carefully, your message and presentation to the audience you face".

"The art of getting elected and getting into a position of political power, is, primarily, a practical effort, where careful study of the public mood and sentiment allows you to formulate a more appealing and larger common denominator than your opponent. If you make use of mistakes, and, if you can avoid making serious mistakes, or getting embroiled into controversies yourself, you are likely to win and be elected to the Parliament, Senate, House of Commons or Representatives, or, whatever political institutions are used in your society. If a sufficient number of your Party-colleagues have been able to get elected in other constituencies, you may be lucky enough to belong to a major, or, perhaps, even, the largest political Party in Parliament".

"Certainly, I agree with you that one can not get elected on appearance only, just as a musician can not get the continued loyalty of his listeners, if he does not give them something of beauty alongside all the dazzle and the brilliance. Nevertheless, the Party-program is a carefully composed document that has been put-together by the most senior and experienced politicians in the Party, and, if you are a new-comer to the game of public life, you study the Party-line, carefully, and you stick with it".

"For the average politician, especially, when he is young and ambitious, there is not much time to become a political philosopher. It requires very hard work to get elected and to be re-elected, again, after a few short years in Office. During the tenure of a seat in Parliament, you have a lot of pressures from people who helped you become elected, and, these pressures and requests are always egocentric in nature. People want something for themselves, or, for the group they represent".

"People do not come and ask you to explain the meaning of society; why society functions and has been organised the way it is. They come for their own particular interests, and, most people seem to subscribe to the idea, that connections with the Party in power, or, with an individual who "has made it", can and should be used to further their own particular objectives".

Society is, in many ways, still a jungle, at least, it appears to be a jungle in the affluent societies, in spite of the fact, that, many of us try, honestly, to let the institutions of society function with impartiality and to the benefit of everyone. In spite of the fact, that we all glibly acknowledge the wisdom of giving every citizen in society an equal vote with which to elect his or her political leadership, we de not seem to find it incongruous to grab as much power as we can by the power of money or work-stoppages; by the pressures of powerful labour-unions, professional lobbies, or other special-interests groupings that have some sort of hold or leverage over the politicians in power.

No politician is elected entirely on his own steam. He needs a political organisation, lots of money, as well as a large number of people who are willing to do a lot of hard work for him or her, and, every politician in the democratic, Western societies, comes, therefore, to Parliament or the House of Representatives, with a certain debt or legacy from his political campaigns.

The power and influence his constituents have over an elected representative are not equal. Those, who have helped the successful candidate with time and money, and whom are well-known to the politician, are inevitably getting a much better hearing than those, who have not done anything special for the elected representative, except, perhaps, cast their vote in support.

Yet, in spite of all the difficulties in getting elected by a popular vote, the tiring rounds of campaigning, the concessions to public taste and whims, the favours owed to "helpers", as well as the continuous infighting between colleagues, or the struggle for power with other political candidates and Parties, we should consider the principle of the democratic right to cast a vote for the politician of our choice, as well as the ability to choose from a real, if limited, political spectrum, to be a valuable and inalienable feature of a healthy society.

In the quiet of the home environment, perhaps, during a moment of reflectiveness, after a long and strenuous period, the politician, like any other professional, may want to think a little about himself; about his goals and objectives, his ambitions and accomplishments, but, he may also reflect a little more broadly. He may wonder, at times, whether or not he really understands and endorses the principles of his Party.

Does he really know, what makes a modern society tick? How close, or, how far away are we from this elusive democratic ideal; a harmonious society, where all citizens exist in a state of dignity, well-being and mutual respect for each other; where a society has calm, benevolent and trusting relationships with other societies. Yet, in spite of these ideals and objectives, what do we see? A seething, frustrated mass of human beings, who are unhappy and complaining, ready to "strike" at each other, or their government institutions, in order to put pressure behind their selfish demands.

In spite of the fact, that, not many people go hungry and few people have to go hungry due to no fault of their own, we see many chronic, severe and serious tensions in the complex and affluent societies. The people are cynical and distrustful. Crime is always on the rise. For a long time, we did not dare to admit to ourselves, that the society was deteriorating, because, we feared, that such an admission would be a self-fulfilling prophecy of doom. This was, and still is, the main reason, why almost all our political leaders in power exhort us, continuously, with the admonition that "we can do it"; "the people are strong, the nation is great", etc., etc.

Our political leaders are living increasingly in a world of their own making. Leaderships become pre-occupied with suspicious attitudes towards each other, and, they are indulging in a futile and wasteful arms-race in order to keep each other at bay. In the mean time, the process of social decay is continuing. The reasons behind this tragedy are becoming more understandable and clearer all the time. They are, in essence, related to the mechanisms of "natural selection" that take place in the selection of the personalities making it "to the top".

Our political leaders are adept at gaining and maintaining a position of power. Each and everyone of them has to have a rather competitive personality in order to make it to the top of a political Party, and, eventually, to the top of the leadership of a nation. They have fought all their lives, with colleagues and opponents, and, as soon as they become the undisputed leader of their nation, they appropriate, proudly and instinctively, the entire territory of their nation "as their own".

Leaders have strong territoral instincts, and, it is, therefore, not surprising, that leaders, in particular, when their nation is fairly large and influential, engage in a nearly continuous game of chess. They watch each other's moves anxiously, and, they calculate, constantly, each other's gains and losses in influence and power. In the mean time, they become less sensitive to the rising tensions of frustration and dissent within their own societies.

Certainly, they care about what is happening in their societies, because, most of them are quite well aware of the fact, that they require the continued support of a majority of people, if they want to remain in power, and, most of them are quite concerned with the performance and future prospects of the economic machinery in their countries. After all, without a healthy economic performance and a good measure of popular support, they are unable to continue their games of chess, and, to excercise the powers of national sovereignty.

The reasons, why political leaders prefer to watch each other's territorial influence and power, rather than address themselves to the myriad of contrasting and contradictory trends within the borders of their own nations, are related to the problem of "familiarity". If a leader sounds a warning about external dangers and launches into a tirade about the suspicious motives and moves of a rival society, they are on familiar terrain, because, this sort of activity corresponds, closely, to what they know best; how to fight. However, if you would ask a political leader to give a dissertation about the nature of society, the nature of the human being, the requirements for fostering an attitude of trust and cooperation, rather than one of bellicosity and suspicion, our political leaders are, by and large, on unfamiliar grounds. At best, they can utter a number of rather facile exhortations and platitudes.

We hope, that those, who aspire to a career in public life, and, who have gone through the initial hurdles and have learned how to become elected and evoke a response of confidence, will use the quietness of a reflective moment to ask themselves; "Who are we"? Why are we such a belligerent creature? How can we design a truly stable, just and beneficial society of essential equality between all peoples? How can we avoid war, chaos, collapse and internal strife? How can we help others to obtain the fundamental requirements of human rights and dignity? How can we transform the attitudes of suspicion and hatred into those of trust and respect?

How can we take some of this tiring combativeness out of public life? How can we begin to talk honestly and intelligently to the people, whom we ask to vote for us? How can we start an honest discussion with those, who are our political rivals, so that we can search for a common ground in a true and honest debate, rather than look, continuously, for political or military gains? What would happen to life in the family-unit, if we would apply the same sort of "image-building" and political tactics to win approval from our children? Would we not immediately be rejected as phony and dangerous "schemers"?

Perhaps, the time has come to throw all this image-building aside. Perhaps, we should just take our chances and present ourselves to the people as we are, and, talk to them, as we would talk to any other intelligent person within the privacy of our home. Perhaps, we should be less concerned with the prospect of being defeated.

It may well be, that a relaxation of our anxieties about being defeated will provide this elusive quality of freshness and sincerity, which the political advertising wizards are so desparately looking for, but, which eludes them, because they are always so concerned with presenting a favourable image, and, with winning at all costs.

Indeed, would it not be ideal, if we could aproach a career in public life as a "hobby"? By this, I mean, that we would not be locked into the anxiety of losing a job, if we were defeated. A career in public life should not be coloured by such existential anxieties, nor, should it depend on the criterium of being independently wealthy. If someone has something to offer; fine, the voters will give him or her a chance to perform in a public function. If one has nothing more to offer, and, if an elected representative would like to "get out of the rat-race", one should be able to relinquish one's post gracefully, without having to worry, where one's income will come from, whether or not one's prestige has been damaged.

Of course, we all agree, that the use of public office to make "connections" and to exploit these connections for personal gain, either during the tenure of office or thereafter, is a travesty of the meaning and intention of public office and political leadership. Yet, how many people are inclined to make use of these possibilities, in particular, when they have devoted the best, most active and vigorous years of their lives to a career in politics?

Let us look, once again, at the greying, middle-aged, sensitive politician, who has spent many years of his life in an idealistic frame of mind for the benefit of the people he served as their representative in Parliament. Let us follow him through a reflective period in his life, as he ponders major decisions because of the changes that are in the wind. He may want to reflect, for a few moments, not only, on his personal fortunes or misfortunes, but, he may also want to re-think the nature of society, the essence of individual existence, as well as the various ideologies or principles of social organisation that have been tried-out in the past and are still being used in the present. He may want to reflect upon this elusive goal of peaceful co-existence, internal harmony, and a widespread sense of justice, dignity and well-being.

.......

Chapter 3

Content

A philosopher, looking at a hypothetical political leader.
Are we one of the species' of natural evolution?
A review of the nature of man.
Animal behaviour.
The origins of behavioural flexibility.
Advantages of a rapid genetic turn-over.
Cerebral recognition mechanisms.
Homo-Sapiens, and the faculty of conscious awareness.
A "working hypothesis", without "documented proofs".
Sharpening mental images through frequent recall.
Recalling memory-traces voluntarily in the safety of the "home environment".

It is remarkable, that the human being has been able to form effective social units; at least, it has been possible to form fairly efficient groupings of people, who can work together, reasonably well, at least, on a small scale. In view of man's belligerent nature, it is remarkable, that man can form durable bonds of affection and cooperation, but, at the same time, if man can form durable bonds in fairly small groupings, why, then, is it so difficult to form bonds of cooperation between a much larger group of people?

If we can be caring on a small scale, why can we not be considerate for each other on a world-wide scale? How is it possible, that the same creature, who can take so lovingly care of his children, family and friends, can go out and kill his opponents and enemies, being convinced, that he "does the right thing", just as he believes that he does the right thing, when he behaves responsibly within the small social unit?

We are a creature full of contrasts, and, we remain a complex and perplexing problem, if we adhere to the iea, that the Lord created us. If we analyse our behaviour with an eye upon the requirements of competitive animals that have been born with a strong instinct to look for food and shelter, for a mate, as well as a brief period of rest and security, then, we have a better chance of making sense out of human behaviour. Indeed, if we look upon man's instinctive behaviour as a pattern that was designed by the forces of natural selection to give man his best chances of survival, then, we have a good chance to unravel the mechanisms of our own existence.

Even in the recent past, the religious reality perceptions were the only comprehensive concepts about man and his world, and, only a religious explanation could give us satisfactory answers. Now, our observations of nature, and, in particular, of those species' that are close to us in evolutionary development, give us another dimension in the perception of human existence. We may not like what we see, and, many people are somewhat taken-aback by the imagery which the concepts of natural evolution and the sciences have given us, but, we will have to consider, seriously, the question, whether or not these images give us a useful insight into the realities of our existence.

In part, this sense of dissatisfaction with evolutionary and scientific concepts arises from the fact, that, man is dethroned from being a creature who occupied a center-stage position in the religious reality perceptions. We occupied center-stage in God's Creation, as well as in God's Attention, but, in the imagery of evolutionary change, we have become a species, one amongst many others, searching for a possibility to exist, and, we have become subjected to the same harsh laws of survival that govern the existence of all other species' of natural evolution.

The other reason, why there is a sense of dissatisfaction with the evolutionary imagery of human existence, is the fact, that, an account of man's physical evolution gives us little insight into the mechanisms of our psychological experiences. Indeed, if we are a species just like the others, where does our ability to think, speak and communicate conceptually, come from? If we are a species just like the others, how come, we can love our fellow human beings. Why do we not always behave like animals and obey the laws of the jungle, and, why do we have such a strong impulse to worship our Creator and believe in the possibility that God can help us?

Indeed, the great difficulty for an evolutionary explanation of human existence lies in the fact, that the irrefutable proof of man's physical evolution still gives us a very incomplete and confusing picture of man's nature, our personality, and, especially, our mental or conceptual abilities. It has always been difficult for a religious reality perception, explaining man as a Creation in the Image of God, to give a satisfactory account of the contradictory and "sinful" nature of man, and, it is still very difficult for the scientific or evolutionary point of view, to explain, why man can be an ethical creature; why the human being wants to worship God, and why we are inclined to believe, so easily, that we have been created in God's Image. Let me add, here, that the religious beliefs have answered the questions and objectives against their explanations far more precisely, than the sciences have dealt with the objections brought against their images and conclusions.

However, it is now possible for the sciences to come adequately to grips with these questions as well. Science lets us see, why we have a tendency to fight for our existence, and kill our adversaries and competitors, but, it is a lot more difficult to explain, scientifically, why some people are willing to sacrifice their lives for an idea or a belief. Yet, I am convinced, that it is now possible to trace a plausible picture of man's personality and behavioural characteristics. We have done so, on many occasions, and, we will summarise, only briefly, the highlights of our conclusions.

Man shares with all animal life the ability to move, and, this ability to move has become the reason, why all animal life-forms have given-up the possibility to synthesise their own food requirements from inorganic components with the help of sun-light. Animal life relies upon capturing its "food" from another, living or dead organism. The ability to move gives animals the choice to move towards a situation or circumstance of advantage, and, to move away from a disadvantage; a noxious or harmful and threatening environment.

We still see in man's behaviour, that one of the axes of the human personality evolves around this sliding scale between the poles of aggression and defense. An aggression is a move towards a favourable circumstance, usually food or some other resource. On the opposite side of this sliding scale, we see, how the human being defends itself against adversaries or threatening circumstances.

Defensive behaviour can take two, essentially different patterns. It may be a resistance to the stress that is being imposed, and, this resistance is apparent at the beginning of a stressful situation, when the organism "thinks" that it can easily resist the pressures, or, it may come at the end; as a desperate last stance, when it is not possible anymore to yield or flee from the stressful circumstances.

Yielding to stress may end in a wild flight, and, it represents a defensive response acknowledging the fact, that the pressures have become too great to resist. The process of yielding reduces the stress to which an individual organism is exposed. However, yielding or fleeing has its limits, and, eventually, an animal is "driven into a corner", where the only response available is a desperate last stance, which may pay-off in an unexpected withdrawal by the pursuing animal.

When there is an absence of movement, or, rather, when the organism is not exposed to the stress of a threat, or the lure of an advantage, the "environment" is "neutral" in its meaning for the organism, and, an animal usually falls asleep. As we discussed before, an absence of significant, alerting stimuli from the environment can be replaced by significant stimuli rising-up from the memory banks in a conceptualising individual, and, this is the reason, why a human being can be lying awake as a result of worries or exciting prospects, even, when the environment is completely void of existentially significant stimuli.

We have discussed, on previous occasions, that the behaviour of an organism at the extreme "outer ends" of this sliding scale between aggression and defensiveness, is organised "instinctively", and, by this, we mean, that instinctive behaviour-patterns are "in-born" and are set into motion by the stimuli of the environment.

However, man is heir to a very remarkable evolutionary development. This development finds its roots, probably, just as far back as the origins of animal life and the development of the ability to move. We are thinking, here, about the principle of "behavioural flexibility". All animals have a certain flexibility in the path they take to reach their goal. This goal may be aggressive or defensive in nature, but, we see, that a hunting or fleeing animal is able to jump over obstacles or avoid them with a detour, and, this means, that the motoric behaviour of the animal can be changed in accordance to the particular circumstances or environmental facts, as they happen to exist in a particular situation. The principle of "motoric flexibility" has been elaborated extensively as more complex and capable animals evolved.

As a result of this natural experiment with possibilities of existence, the behaviourally flexible animals have been provided with the ability to adapt their behaviour in accordance with the fluctuating circumstances of the environment in which they live. Many of the larger and complex animals could not adapt genetically to circumstances that fluctuate rapidly, because the "genetic turn-over" from one generation to the next is too slow for this. By giving these flexible animals the possibility to modify their behaviour-patterns extensively, based on past experiences, as well as the exemplary behaviour of their parents, these larger animals could adapt much more rapidly and more precisely to the fluctuating circumstances of their environment.

The type of behavioural flexibility we are talking about, here, far exceeds the simple ability to take an alternative path, when there is an obstruction, because it involves marked changes in the type of food an animal can make use of, or can "recognise". A flexible animal recognises the coming of a winter season and migrates to an area with less harsh circumstances. However, this is a regularly recurring pattern of change, and the behavioural response to such a regularly recuring pattern of change, can become genetically encoded. It requires a memory bank with past experiences, however, to overcome the problems of a sudden and serious drought, a forest fire, or a flood. A behaviourally flexible animal can, then, finely tune its behaviour in accordance with sudden changes in environmental conditions, even, if these changes occur randomly and the behavioural adaptations can not rely on precisely encoded, genetic instructions.

The ability to modify behaviour in accordance with rapidly fluctuating environmental circumstances requires the ability to build-up a repertoir of past experiences. The brain of these flexible animals begins to "record" a large number of experiences, because, then, the animal can "recognise" the significance and meaning of a similar experience, if it comes into contact with an analogous situation.

The brain becomes, not only, capable of recording a large number of experiences, but, these experiences become "classified" into categories of similarities. If an animal experiences a particular sense impression, a number of analogous experiences are evoked into a focus of awareness. The animal recognises a sense impression and becomes, then, at the same time, familiar with the meaning of this incoming sense impression. "It knows", then, what to do, in order to make a satisfactory or appropriate response.

Let us emphasise, here, that this is a "cerebral" form of recognition that has nothing to do with a conscious or verbalisable awareness. This later development of recognising a conscious or verbalisable awareness, is a specifically human capability, and, this faculty is certainly worth discussing, at least, in outline. The development of a "conscious or verbalisable awareness" is a specifically human development, but, we mean by this, that the human species is the only surviving species which developed the ability to represent and re-stimulate, symbolically, a large variety of mental images and sense impressions into a focus of conscious awareness.

It is very likely, that a number of species' were developing along similar lines, but, only the human species, Homo Sapiens, survived. Our close cousins represented by the evolutionary family of the anthropoid apes, may have a rudimentary ability to use and learn symbolic representations, but, it is not a dominant feature of their existence in a natural environment.

During the past million years or so, man's evolutionary history has become dominated by this ability to recall certain memory-traces or experiences with the help of a symbol. This symbol was, initially, a rather elaborate act of mimicry. It became quickly stylised into a flow of gestures, and, it found, eventually, its most rapid expression as a flow of rather arbitrary vocalisations, or sounds. Perhaps, you are wondering how we visualise this "break-through" to have happened, and we should trace it, briefly, here.

We have good reasons to believe, that man was already living in small groups, when this momentous break-through of conscious, symbolic awareness began. Let me emphasise, that the imagery about the evolution of symbolic representation is speculative. We will probably never have "documented evidence" for these ideas, and, let us consider them to be a "working hypothesis", rather than a generally accepted reality.

The crux of the idea is the concept, that, a few of the members of a small group, after the hunt and a good meal, would, on occasion, engage in a spontaneous act of mimicry imitating, with gestures and vocalisations, a large animal, or, something of importance that happened during the day. As the onlookers watched these goings-on, they may suddenly experience a flash of recognition, and, they would, perhaps, chime-in with a fierce dance or an act of gesticulation on their own.

These events of mimicry became increasingly successful in recalling the memory-traces of the highlights of the day, and, most likely, these acts of mimicry would, eventually, recall into a focus of awareness the most important experiences and awarenesses of this small grouping. Probably, these happenings took place, initially, by accident, and, they would, only slowly, increase in importance and frequency, as the small group inherited from their parents and the older generations, a "repertoir" of symbols or "dances".

In a retrospective view from our contemporary vantage-point, where we can oversee in our mind a large period of time, we see a great significance in these developments. The significance lies in the fact, that, those groupings, who were regularly "experimenting" with the processes of image-recall by symbolic means, would learn to "sharpen" the imagery of their most important experiences, and, in particular, they would learn to recall these experiences to a focus of conscious awareness through a voluntary process of imitation and gesticulation. This ability to recall mental images or memory-traces voluntarily, opened the ability to communicate much more specific information than was possible with a communication based on a synchronisation of moods and emotions. One individual could "evoke" a series of mental images by a series of gestures or sounds, and the others could respond in turn by evoking a further series of images that could represent an elaboration of the images recalled initially.

The other important aspect of the ability to represent a memory-trace or sense impression by a gesture or a sound-symbol, lies in the fact, that memories or awarenesses could be recalled in the relative safety of a home environment. We have just mentioned the fact, that the behaviourally flexible animals could only "recognise" an analogous situation and its existential meaning, whenever they encountered such an analogous situation "in real life", but, an analogous situation or reality was always associated with all the dangers and existential significance of a real-life situation. By recalling a memory or experience symbolically, the existential significance of the actual circumstances could be "safe" or "neutral", and, this would give the individual a chance to "reflect" upon this awareness or experience, without having to deal with the existential dangers or excitement of a situation in real life.

.......

Chapter 4

Content

The road towards thought and speech.
The link between a symbol and its content has a tendency to disappear.
The "cultural pool".
Sense impressions, common denominators and abstractions.
Recognising the significance of an event and anticipating its outcome.
The "reflex-arc".
The sensory and motoric sides of the central nervous system.
The sensory and motoric sides of "speech".
Synthesising a behavioural response.
The agony of a difficult choice.
The belief structure interposes itself between the sensory stimulus and the behavioural response.
A community of cells in a state of symbiosis.
The voluntary response is "abstracted" in the concept of "the will".
Is there a truly "free will"?
Controled and loosely associative patterns of thought.
The three instinctive poles of human behaviour.

We have sketched at the end of the previous chapter, the road towards thought and speech. The mechanisms of symbolic representation and recall were originally quite slow, because it required an extensive and fairly accurate act of mimicry, before the relevant memory-traces were recalled for the members, who were watching the "author" perform an act of mimicry. Later, when the members became more familiar with each other's acts of mimicry, a memory-trace could be recalled by a simple gesture, and the speed of memory-recall increased remarkably. As a final refinement of the processes of symbolic representation and memory-recall, the accent of the symbolic representation shifted to a preponderance of sound-symbols, which became, eventually, rather arbitrary vocalisations. These vocalisations had to be "learned", because the naturally existing similarity or "likeness" between symbol and memory-trace, as existed during the initial stages of the art of mimicry and memory-recall, had a tendency to disappear.

Yet, the ability to communicate rapidly with arbitrary sound-symbols, or "speech", was so important, that all those groupings and anthropoid species' that failed to make this crucial step, became extinct or were driven back, deep into the jungles. For this reason, the ability to learn to speak is given as a genetic "anlage", or potential, in each and every member of the human species, but, its development depends upon the right contacts and stimuli a child must receive during the first few years of life. The type of language that is learned, as well as the specific correlations between a vocal symbol and its mental imagery, depend, therefore, on the vocal symbols that are current in the social environment of one's up-bringing.

The repertoir of mental images that can be represented by symbols grew quickly, and, the number of symbols that "had to be learned" became a severe burden. Then, a process took place, which turned-out to be a remarkable parallel to what happened before, when the brain of the behaviourally flexible species' began to classify and categorise an increasing number of sense impressions in order to be able to recognise a large variety of familiar surroundings and events.

We have described, on several occasions, how similar sense impressions have a tendency to become ordened into a group, characterised by a "common denominator". This common denominator is, of course, not a conciously known entity in the cerebral classification mechanisms of the behaviourally flexible animals, but, in the classification of symbolically representable awarenesses, this common denominator becomes, eventually, a consciously known entity, and, we are dealing, then, with an "abstraction".

Eventually, a large number of classifications arose, and the stream of incoming sense impressions could be categorised via the classifying principles of the various groupings or categories of classification. It is important to emphasise, here, that classification on the basis of similarity is not limited to static appearances. Certainly, objects with similarities are classified according to common denominators, but, events, too, become classified according to their common outcome or common features. This opens the possibility for an organism to recognise the significance or meaning of a contemporary event or experience. If an animal can successfully recognise, and classify, events as they are taking place, it can also successfully "anticipate" its course and outcome, providing a significant advantage to the organism.

The ability to anticipate, correctly, the immediate outcome of a familiar and, therefore, recognised event, provides a remarkable existential advantage. We see, how important such an ability is, when carrying-out a hunt, or, when jumping over an obstacle or catching a flying object, etc. Let me again emphasise, that the power of anticipation already existed in the behaviourally flexible animals as a result of the mechanisms of cerebral classification, but, with the parallel system of mental classifications for symbolically representable awarenesses, we see, that the human species developed also a conscious or verbalisable ability to anticipate the outcome of all familiar or recognised events.

This ability leads, ultimately, to the formation of a structure of ideas and concepts forming a more or less coherent unit, and, the steady stream of awarenesses to which the human being is subjected, is then constantly and automatically classified into this structure of conscious or partly conscious awarenesses. Here, we have the outlines of a reality perception, or "belief structure".

It is important to discuss the significance of this conscious reality perception, which is structured according to a more or less coherent framework of beliefs. In the human species, this conscious reality perception plays an important role in determining the behaviour of individual members. Let us recall, first of all, that the basis for all behaviour-patterns is the "reflex-arc"; the registration of a sensory stimulus or more complex "sense impression", and the "executive response", or, the reaction of the organism in response to this sense impression. The executive or "command" side of a behavioural response includes all movements and internal regulatory functions that prepare an organism for a certain form of behaviour.

This fundamental corner-stone for the build-up of neurological functions, the "reflex-arc", with its sensory stimulus and motoric response, remains visible in all animal behaviour, even, in the behaviour of the human being, in spite of the fact, that this basic reflex-arc has been modified and elaborated, almost, beyond recognition. The sensory or "receiving" side has been developed into a large complex of general and special sensory capabilities, such as the general sensory functions of touch, pain, pressure and sense of position, as well as the specialised senses of sight, hearing, smell and equilibrium. The "executive side" is a highly complex and beautifully coordinated complex of responses, primarily motoric functions, and, we only have to look at a figure-skater or an instrumentalist to realise, how refined and coordinated motoric behaviour can be.

We should not be surprised to see, therefore, that the central nervous system is also divided into regions that take care of, either, the sensory, or, the motoric side of our behaviour. A large part of the brain can indeed be classified according to the basic characteristics of the reflex-arc, and, these areas are, therefore, clearly concerned with, either the sensory, or the motoric side of our behavioural response.

Speech, for example, has also a sensory and a motoric side. The motoric side is better known and better localised because of the spectacular results of "speechlessness", or "aphasia", which may occur in isolation of other neurological defects, if a select area of the brain has been damaged or is temporarily paralysed. However, there are also several areas of the brain that are primarily involved with understanding speech, and, together, these areas form, therefore, the sensory side of the reflex-arc of speech.

In the behaviourally flexible animals, the normally rigid connection between sensory impulse and behavioural response, is gradually loosened, and, this is the reason, why this feature is called "behavioural flexibility". The sense impressions are, now, first "processed", before they are reacted to. They are classified and compared with previously received and categorised impressions, and, this allows the animal to respond much more finely, or appropriately, to a set of circumstances.

The behaviour becomes much more flexible and adaptable, (within a genetically specified range, of course), and, this range of flexibility in the behavioural response allows the animal to make use of possibilities which it could not make use of before, when its behaviour was precisely programmed by the genetic code. The conditions and circumstances for a particular possibility for adaptation, would, then, have to persist for a number of generations, before the forces of natural selection would be able to design a genetic instruction, that could actualise the appropriate behavioural responses in an animal organism with such a modified and adapted genetic code.

Behavioural flexibility is, therefore, an "evolutionary short-cut", where the genetic code "withdraws" from the responsibility to instruct the organism, in detail, about its behavioural responses. In stead, the organism is given the opportunity to "learn" from the circumstances. It is given the opportunity to learn from past experiences, as well as from the behaviour of other members of the group, in particular, its parents.

As we have discussed, the human species is an example, par excellence, of the evolutionary road of behavioural flexibility, and, we should review, briefly, the advantages as well as the disadvantages that arise from the solution of behavioural flexibility in this never ending search for viability. Indeed, let us not forget, that, the survival of the individual or the group is the ultimate goal of all evolutionary changes and experiments.

The demands upon the abilities of an individual organism with behavioural flexibility are greatly increased, because the organism has to "synthesise" a response. The response does not come anymore "automatically", but, the sense impressions have to be evaluated, compared and judged on their importance, and, the behavioural response has to be carefully composed on many occasions. Even, before we see the development of a conscious or verbalisable belief structure in the human species, these mechanisms of behavioural flexibility already played a significant role in the behaviour of animals with the ability to learn from past experiences.

Certainly, behaviourally flexible animals without the ability to verbalise their awarenesses, are not consciously aware of the need to make a deliberate choice on the basis of past experiences. They "experience" this need, and, sometimes, they experience the agony of having to make a difficult choice, but, they can not think or talk about it with other members of the group, as human beings can.

Therefore, all the behaviourally flexible animals resemble each other in the way they respond to learned experiences. Experiences are processed and classified by the brain in a "physiological manner"; in a way that depends on their cerebral functions and, indirectly, on their genetic instructions. The members of a species will categorise, therefore, similar experiences in roughly the same manner, and, we are justified in saying, that the behavioural responses for the flexible animals are "specific" for a certain species.

However, if we look at the human being, we see, that this "species specificity" has been lost; at least, to a large extent. The human being reacts in its most basic and instinctive patterns very much like any other member of the species, but, as soon as we reach a level of behaviour that is less instinctive, we see a great variety of behavioural responses arise. The reason for this diversity is the belief structure; this structure of more or less coherent, more or less verbalisable beliefs, which determines, to a large exent, how we perceive and interpret the realities around us.

The "reality" for non-human, behaviourally flexible species' is determined by the structure and function of their brain, as well as, to some extent, the content of their past experiences, but, if these past experiences are comparable between the members of a species, we see, that the behavioural responses to contemporary stimuli, are also comparable. In the human being, we see, that belief structures between individuals or groupings may vary greatly, in particular, if we compare "cultures" that are widely different from one another. This is the reason, why similar experiences of human beings, who are born and brought-up under widely diverging social and cultural circumstances, will be interpreted and reacted to in very different ways.

The "belief structure" interposes itself in the reflex-arc of sensory stimulus and motoric response, and, the more our behaviour is "synthesised", (or further removed from an instinctive response), the more it is influenced by the way we see and interpret the conscious realities of our existence and experiences.

Because of the fact, that, many sense impressions are a mix of contrasting and contradictory impulses, we have a difficult task at hand, which is partly conscious and partly intuitive. The task we face, is to categorise these contradictory sense impressions properly. There are always positive as well as negative features, or aspects, to any complex situation, and, the contrasting nature of our sense impressions applies, not only, to the "external" environment, but, also, to the myriad of impulses and monitoring signals we receive from our internal environment, mostly beyond the level of conscious awarenesses.

We are, after all, a community of cells, living in a state of symbiosis. As we follow the evolution from the single cell to the multi-cellular organism, we get a "feeling" for the principles of operation that form the basis for an on-going search for better and more widely ranging possibilities of existence. However, let us refrain from entering, here, upon these rather theoretical discussions. Let us just recall, that the multi-cellular organism is a tightly-knit unit of cells, which has found, through the long and tortuous history of evolutionary change, a possibility to exist in the viability of a particular organism. This organism is, in turn, a member of a specific, still living species.

We know, that such a community of cells has to have extremely stringent and complex regulatory mechanisms in order to control the relationships of inter-dependence between them. We also need a coordinated response of this society of cells "as a whole", as we see in the need of the multi-cellular organism to inter-act adequately with its environment.

We know, still, very little about the many regulatory mechanisms that operate within our own body, and, which determine the cohesion, as well as the flexibility of this body. We are a little more aware of the responses which this community of cells as a whole requires, because, as we have discussed, in the behaviourally flexible animals, more and more of these responses of the society of cells have to be "synthesised", or deliberately formulated, by the community of cells as a whole. After all, this is the essence of the individual's existence as a behaviourally flexible organism. In the human species, this need, or awareness of the need to come to a synthesised, voluntary or deliberate response, is "abstracted and conceptualised" in the concept of "the will".

We should refrain, here, from the temptation to launch into a detailed discussion about the "will", and, the question, whether or not man has a "free will". Let us just repeat the conclusions which we have discussed more extensively elsewhere. There can be no doubt, that we all experience the sensation, as well as the need, to come to voluntary decisions, at least, whenever it is difficult to come to a "routine" or automatic response.

Whether or not our deliberations are, to some extent, predictable, is another question, and, if we want to discuss the theological concept of "predestination" and the absence of a true "free will", we would have to discuss, not only, the entire field of religious and scientific reality perceptions, but, also, the concepts of time and change. For our purpose, here, we can state, without any hesitation, that our sensation of having to come to a behavioural choice, is the conscious "proof" of having inherited the trend of behavioural flexibility.

The processes that lie behind a conscious or deliberate evaluation of conscious awarenesses, can be used to define the process of thought. Thought is a process that is interposed, just like the conscious belief structure, between the "afferent" or sensory side of our behaviour, and the "efferent" or motoric side. We can also distinguish in the process of thought itself, afferent and efferent aspects. We see, that, thought can be described as a continuous fluctuation between a review of judgement processes, where we review, on the one hand, our "perceptions", or sense impressions, and, on the other hand, we carry-out an imaginary action in our mind, and we monitor the projected consequenes of these actions. In a way, we are carrying-out a "test-run" of our behaviour, and, the "computer of our mind" tries to gauge the results of this test-run. If we see difficulties, we modify our imagined behavioural response, and, we try again.

Certainly, our thoughts can also represent a much less structured "idling" of the mind, where images "flash-by" the focus of awareness and attention in a barely comprehensible sequence, and, we call this quick succession of images a "form of loose associations".

It is tempting to delve deeper into each one of these aspects, which we are touching upon, here, in quick succession, but, we should not forget the main purpose of this essay; nl., to give the reader with a background in public life a quick review of the essential outlines of man and his society. Before we come to the social aspects of man's existence, let us first round-off the outlines of man's personality as an individual. We have discussed the most basic axis of aggressiveness and defensiveness, which we see already in the earliest forms of animal life. We have also discussed man as an heir to the evolutionary trend of behavioural flexibility.

The instinctive basis of human behaviour means, that man has, in essence, three distinct "poles" of biologically determined behaviour-patterns. These are the instincts of aggression and defense, as well as the somewhat isolated pole of sexuality. We will not discuss this last pole any further. Let us just remind ourselves, that, all species' perpetuating their existence by a sexual mode of reproduction, must have a strong sexual drive or instinct to induce the members to engage in such reproductive behaviour, because, without it, the link between the generations would be broken.

.......

Chapter 5

Content

An absence of alerting stimuli.
Sleep and curiosity.
Emotions, and the zone of emotional neutrality.
Living in a composite imagery of the present, the past and the future.
Various orientations.
Success and competitive strife.
Competitive dispersion; cellular behaviour-patterns.
Territoriality.
Natural selection.
The differentiations of predation, parasitism and symbiosis.
Animal and vegetative life-forms.
Even the vegetarian has to "kill life" in order to exist.

Man, as well as all other animals, can exist in a state, where there is a nearly complete absence of alerting stimuli or impulses. Most animals will fall-asleep under these conditions, but, because man has also a complex structure of long- and short-term goals and aspirations, this zone of emotional near-neutrality is often used as a departure for the "drive" of "curiosity", which, indeed, starts-out as a condition of emotional neutrality, but, it can acquire existential significance quickly, depending upon the experiences encountered during our activities of curious explorations.

We have discussed, on previous occasions, why it seems justified to classify all behaviour that is coloured, to some extent, by instinctive drives, as "emotional". Emotions are the sensations that accompany the behavioural responses that are "significant" for our existence, and, we can verbalise, to some extent, these feelings and sensations. All stimuli that are significant for our existence arouse feelings that are coloured by a combination of the various existential poles we have mentioned. As a corollary, we can also exist in a state or frame of mind, where we are aware of a nearly complete absence of any emotional colouration, and, we can define this zone as "emotionally neutral".

If we want to engage in scientific activities or observations, or, if we want to be objective and impartial, we try, deliberately, to maintain ourselves in a state of emotional neutrality or near-neutrality, because it is, often, very difficult to be completely free from all emotions and feelings of existential arousal.

We do not have to emphasise, here, the value of a state of emotional near-neutrality. Not only, is this entire structure of scientific reality perceptions and technological mastery based upon the achievements of people who have been working in an emotionally neutral frame of mind, but, all the benefits of rationality, as well as considerate and careful mediation in a conflict-situation, are made possible, only, by emotional neutrality, or near-neutrality.

We have also seen, that the sharpest focus of awareness, as well as the most careful evaluations come from mental activities that are emotionally neutral, and, these emotionally neutral activities represent, often, the best possibility to solve the problems created by contradictory impulses. If our environmental situation gives us a confusing mix of positive and negative, beneficial and threatening features, we may, indeed, become fearful and confused, because we do not know, what to do, but, a sharp and careful, relaxed and deliberate analysis may show us, eventually, a way forward to make a finely tuned, appropriate and confident response.

In addition to the ever-present occurrence of existentially significant events, which may be positive or negative in nature and elicit an aggressive or defensive response, (but are, more often, confused rather than clear-cut in their significance), we should recall, once more, that we live, continuously, in a composite imagery of the past, the present and the future.

Because of the fact, that we are a conscious and behaviourally flexible organism, we can only recognise a contemporary sense impression, if we can compare it to an analogous memory-trace. Our past is, therefore, at least, in part, continuously evoked by the present, but, since we are always dealing with the recognition of events as well as objects, we are also anticipating, to some extent, the immediate outcome of an event on the basis that we have recognised this event as "familiar". These mechanisms form the basis for the idea, that we do not live in a succession of moments, from now, to now to now, but, we live in a curious mixture of the past, the present and the future, all at the same time.

The human being in particular, lives in a widely expanded composite imagery of the past, the present and the future, because man can remember a much larger fragment of the past with the help of his mental belief structures and symbolic techniques, compared to any other animal. In addition, no other animal has anything like the long-term goals and ambitions, or the long-term expectations of the human being. However, let us hasten to add, that such a profusion of long-term expectations can easily be a liability and a handicap, rather than an advantage or a pleasure.

There is one more crucially important axis in the personality of man. This is the axis that runs between the orientations of egocentricity and altruism. This axis determines, whether the human being makes his decisions entirely from "the self", or, takes the well-being of others into account as well. Upon this axis rests the entire structure of socially integrated behaviour-patterns, (the "social instincts"), as well as the possibility of being guided by others in our behavioural decisions. This axis determines, whether we operate in an attitude of trust and good-will, or, in an atmosphere of suspicion and fear. This axis determines, whether we like or dislike, love or despise, and, it forms the basis for this structure of ethical and cultural guidelines, which becomes such a dominating characteristic of human behaviour.

Obviously, this is a most important axis to understand, because it rounds-off the human personality into a social being, and, let us, therefore, start with a brief review of the factors and mechanisms that favour or hamper a trend towards "socially integrated behaviour".

We have to go far back into the history of evolution, and, we have to visualise in our mind a stage of development, where, finally, after a long period of biochemical transformations, somewhere in this vast protoplasmic primordium which we have described before, the single cell "buds-off", and finds a possibility to perpetuate itself by growth and cellular division. As we have metioned in more extensive discussions on this subject, it is unlikely, that this process of cellular evolution took place "all of a sudden", and, we have summarised the many reasons for accepting a more gradual and complicated image of evolutionary change.

For our purpose, here, we want to focus the attention upon the consequences resulting from the fact, that healthy cells are continuously growing and multiplying. As long as the environment produces an unlimited supply of energy and building-blocks, these processes take place at an "exponential rate", where each cell, after it has come into existence from the division of a "parent cell", starts a life of growth and reproduction.

It does not take long to realise, that, very soon, the increase in the number of cells is, indeed, enormous, since the number doubles with each generation. This doubling of the population happens, at least, in theory, under conditions with an unlimited supply of suitable energy, building-blocks and space. Quickly, an entire ocean would be over-run by cells, because we have good evidence to believe, that the origin of the cell took place in the more shallow, luke-warm zones of the oceans, where there were large amounts of solar energy and biochemical building-blocks.

What happens? The growing cells diffuse over the entire area that is suitable to sustain them, first passively, and, later, actively, with the help of propulsive mechanisms. This process is called; "competitive dispersion". Because the cells are idential to each other in their metabolic needs and waste-products, they all need a "territory" to sustain their food and energy requirements, as well as a place to "dump" their waste-products.

The cells are in competition with each other, and, as long as there exists "unoccupied territory", the cells continue to spread over a larger and larger area. Regardless, how large this territory is, soon, the available territory will have been occupied, and the "growth pressures" of the multiplying cells start to increase, together with the density of the population. Then, there evolves a trend towards diffusion into less suitable, harsher and more hostile territories.

Both trends, of increased population densities and being driven into less suitable environments, make it difficult for the cells to fulfill their needs, and, the activities of competing with each other, means, that those cells, which are just a little better and stronger in their ability to gather food and push their waste and weight around, gain in strength, while those cells that experience even a slight disadvantage, become weaker. The difference in strength and viability increases, and, quickly, a certain percentage of the cells that come into existence, find it impossible to compete successfully and die.

It is important to realise, that, initially, the differences between a cell that is going to survive and reproduce, and, a cell that is not going to make it, are minimal, and, even, the slightest disadvantage, injury or weakening from whatever cause, will take this cell out of the competitive rat-race. The cell dies, it disintegrates, and, its death is beneficial for the other cells; not only, because it removes itself as a competitor or "consumer" from the scene, leaving more energy and building-blocks for the other cells, but, the remnants of its disintegrating body become valuable food- and energy-sources for the surviving cells.

The reasons, why a living cell disintegrates after death are linked to the concepts of the living structure. The protoplasm of the living cell has often been described as a "nest" of contrasting biochemical chain-reactions, requiring a certain minimum intake of energy and building-blocks, in order to repair and counter-act their internal tensions and tendencies to revert to a random and chaotic "bag" of biochemical substances. Once this minimum requirement can not be met, anymore, as a result of a severely competitive environment, the cell dies. It disintegrates and provides a dual beneficial function for the other cells; by giving more room and energy to the other life-forms, and, by becoming a source of food or energy itself, as it decays and spills its organic components into the environment.

We have touched, here, upon a fundamenal biological process, and, we have to grasp these basic facts, because they lie at the foundation of all the processes of the living organisation. These "facts of life" determine the behavioural mechanisms of living organisms throughout the entire spectrum of life, including the human being. However, let us not make the mistake of assuming, that this ruthless competitiveness is all there is to the biological imagery of life. Let us not think, that we understand life fully, if we understand this basic and undeniable aspect of "competitive strife".

Competitive dispersion, and the claiming of a territory in the environment is indeed the basic mechanism, whereby similar or identical organisms, especially, the members of a single species, find their ability to exist, grow and reproduce. However, in the complex organisms, many other mechanisms start to play an ever more important role. Even, in the realm of uni-cellular life, the consequences of severe competitive pressures have led to remarkable innovations, which we have to review, briefly.

We have seen, that, slight differences in capability may spell the difference between life and death, and, this means, that such a slight difference becomes accentuated in successive generations. If, e.g. a desirable trait or slightly superior ability is initially present in only a few percent of the population, this percentage will increase dramatically over the next few generations, because the off-spring of the cells with a desirable trait have a much better chance to survive and perpetuate this trait, compared to cells that do not have this particular advantage or capability. However, other cells may have another slight advantage, which may also become more dominant or predominant, as the processes of natural selection favour these differences in function and constitution as a means to develop a slight edge in the struggle for survival.

The result of these mechanisms is a trend towards differentiation, and, we see, indeed, how there are numerous uni-cellular species' in existence. All these species' have found some sort of beneficial trait or mechanism in the struggle for survival. Some have become "fierce predators", able to kill other cells and use their body as a source of food. However, the life of a predator is arduous and energy intensive, and, this intense need for a high energy-intake is a liability, and, therefore, a weakness.

Cells with the faculty of mobility, or "motility", become, as a rule, cells that live off other cells; either, as outright predators, killing those cells they live off, or, as scavengers, living off cells that have died from other causes, or, they become "parasites", living off their hosts without killing them. Parasitic existence implies a relationship that is a disadvantage to "the host", but, as a rule, this disadvantage is not fatal.

Cells without the ability of movement retain, as a rule, the ability of photo-synthesis, which is the ability to synthesise their organic requirements, and, indirectly, all kinds of organic molecules. This synthesis takes place from the basic building-blocks of carbon-dioxide and water, present everywhere, using the sun's radiant energy as their energy-source. This capability to photo-synthesise their own food requirements and complex building-blocks, makes them independent from other living organisms. However, photo-synthesis requires a fairly large surface area, and the multi-cellular life-forms of plants and trees that depend on photo-synthesis, are all quite vulnerable to predation by the numerous animal life-forms that have come to depend on their existence.

As a matter of fact, the entire animal kingdom, of uni-cellular as well as multi-cellular life-forms, "hunts" and eats other life-forms, and, its existence became only possible because of the fact, that the "plant kingdom" established itself throughout the world, on land as well as in the seas. All animal life-forms are "obligate predators", meaning, that they have to kill life in order to sustain themselves.

It really matters very little from a philosophical point of view, whether the life that is taken as a source of food belongs to a plant or another animal. Because plant-life is "more foreign" to us and does not show the same kind of resistance to stress and being killed, compared to animal life-forms, we have a somewhat superficial tendency to shy-away from killing animal life, especially, mammalian life, while we have little hesitation to eat vegetables and other living structures. The vegetarian may refuse categorically to eat meat, because "he does not want to kill life", but, he forgets that he eats and kills, not only, living plants, but, he also swallows and kills thousands of bacteria with each bite of food, and, he crushes countless small insects and other life-forms with each step he takes in the fields.

.......

Chapter 6

Content

A review of the mode of symbiotic existence.
Extinction, and an irrevocable loss of the genetic code.
Mechanisms of differentiation and inter-dependence.
Opening-up "new territories", or "ecological possibilities of existence".
Regulatory requirements for the symbiotic form of existence.
A symbiotic parallel in the social organisation of behaviourally flexible animals, including human beings.
Advantages of a "social solution" to the problems of competitive strife.
Difficulties for the mechanisms of socialisation in behaviourally flexible organisms.
A brief review of the "hierarchical order".
Social organisation in "herd animals".
A gradual attenuation of territorial instincts.
Advantages and difficulties with living under a hierarchical order.
The qualities of natural leadership.
Socialisation through territorial fusion is very similar to the mechanisms of an incomplete break-away from an enlarging family-unit.

There is one other form of existence that has been explored by animal- and plant-life alike, and, it has become the foundation for the development of the larger, multi-cellular organisms. This is the process of "symbiosis". In a way, we can describe symbiosis as the "social solution" to the pressures of competitive strife, where predation is the "combative solution" to these same pressures.

Throughout the evolution of the living organisation, the multi-cellular species' show a gradual increase in the complexity and sophistication of their design. However, there are many different accents of development, and, each species has evolved a number of special capabilities upon which its survival rests. Many species', now extinct, must have existed as transitional life-forms between those that still exist, but, many of these transitional species' were not very successful, and existed only for a short period of time.

These transitional species' were subject to rapid environmental changes, and the pressures of natural selection caused a "frantic search" for a measure of "stability and viability", but, they lost-out and their genetic codes have disappeared. We lack, therefore, a continuous record of the transitional forms between uni-cellular and multi-cellular life, but there are tantalising examples of intermediary life-forms in the evolution of multi-cellular life still in existence. We are thinking, here, about the slime-mold and the sponge.

I am not a biologist, and, I only want to emphasise the fact, that symbiosis is a form of existence, where cells, or, rather, groups of cells, begin to become "inter-dependent". The factor of competitive strife is, then, lessened, because these groups become slightly different in their requirements, and, therefore, they do not compete, anymore, "head-on" for the same items, such as food, building-blocks or sources of energy. Sometimes, a life-form can make use of the "waste-products", manufactured by another cell, and the "cleansing effect" of the removal of an unwanted product is actually beneficial. If such an advantage exists more or less equally for both sides, we call the relationship a form of symbiosis. Certainly, the total flow of energy has to increase, because the total number of cells is much greater compared to a situation of competitive dispersion, where the cells spread themselves out over a large territory.

This brings us to the most important aspect, or "existential reason", for the viability of a system of symbiotic inter-dependencies. The "cooperation", or, the combination of cells with somewhat differing functions and requirements into a functional unit, may be far more effective in extracting the energy or food-stuffs from the environment, compared to the activities of individual and competitive cells, trying to "harvest" the same available resources.

If, e.g. a large number of cells spread themselves out in an act of competitive dispersion, then, this territory is entirely in the service of yielding a particular, usable form of energy, or metabolic requirement, for this particular type of cell. If a group of symbiotically living cells can obtain a form of energy from a territory which could not be extracted by individual cells, we see, that the competitive aspects between these two life-forms fall-away.

A whole new territory opens-up for the symbiotic colony of cells, or, the multi-cellular entity. This "territory" is not available to the individual cells, and, therefore, it is not subjected to the same pressures of competitive strife. A somewhat similar line of reasoning applies to the possibilities of a "defensive existence", emphasising the aspect of a communal defense against a challenge, rather than the communal ability to explore a new territory or energy-supply.

The ability to extract a usable form of energy, where a single cell or a less complex and less sophisticated community can not, is the main reason behind the evolutionary drive towards increasingly complex organisations of life, and, this increased ability to "extract a food-value" applies, not only, to the natural environment, but, also, to the increased efficiency of predatory activities.

It is important to note, that, a multi-cellular organism consists of a strictly regulated, extremely coherent, and highly inter-dependent, colony of cells, which has become completely dependent upon each other's functions and continued existence, but, a species of such multi-cellular organisms shows, again, exactly the same phenomenon of competitive dispersion between its members, because these "communities of cells" are similar, or, even, identical in their needs "as a whole". They are, therefore. strict competitors for each other, unless a somewhat similar process of mutual inter-dependence takes place between these multi-cellular entities or individuals.

Indeed, we see, that the process of symbiosis or socialisation may repeat itself, and, if we look at some of the insect-colonies, it is interesting to note, that, each insect is a colony of symbiotically living cells, and each insect-colony is a group of symbiotically living insects. However, the behaviourally flexible animals have also explored the road of mutual inter-dependence as a viable alternative to the route of ruthless competitive strife. In a way, the same principles apply; by cooperating and "pooling together" slightly different skills, a group of individual organisms can become far more successful in "extracting" an available food- or energy-source, compared to each member acting on its own.

This principle is clearly demonstrated in the hunt, where many, if not most of the larger mammals were completely beyond the reach of the individual anthropoids, looking cautiously from the edge of the forests over the great plains. However, a group of anthropoids working together, whenever a measure of cooperation and flexible behaviour in tool and weapon handling had been developed, could hunt some of these mammals successfully, adding another dimension to their supply of food. This enlarged the existence possibilities for these anthropoids, or pre-human groupings, to a remarkable extent.

The purpose of the "social solution" is, in essence, the same, regardless, whether we look at the frst tentative symbiotic relationships between single cells, the coordination of a single multi-cellular individual, or, the stringently organised and genetically instructed social behaviour of the members of an insect-colony. These examples all share the characteristic, that, "social behaviour", as well as cellular differentiations into inter-dependent organ-systems within a multi-cellular entity, represents an example of genetically encoded, viable behaviour-patterns, which has come to the fore as a result of the forces of natural selection in search of a solution to the tensions and pressures of competitive strife.

For the behaviourally flexible animals, the road towards obtaining the benefits of socialisation is much more difficult, because it is impossible for natural selection to encode, in precise detail, the required patterns of behaviour. We have seen, that the behaviour-patterns of flexible animals are given only as an "overall range", where the details are filled-in by individualised experience and a flexible adaptation to locally existing circumstances. The same principles and problems apply to the evolution of sociallly integrated behaviour of the human being.

Certainly, the increased viability of anthropoid groupings that maintained a measure of cooperation, led to the genetic encoding of a trend for these species' to develop bonds of cooperation, mutual inter-dependence, as well as the ability and willingness to place themselves under the guidance of a "good leader", but, unlike an insect-colony, the genetic code was unable to lay-down precise instructions for successful social behaviour.

The human species has inherited a tendency to manifest certain attitudes of cooperation under certain circumstances, and, these trends are under the control of genetic instructions, but, the question, whether these attitudes result in a workable and acceptable level of social integration, or, perhaps, revert again to the combative solution of competitive strife, depends entirely on local, and, often, incidental circumstances.

Before we can discuss, more in detail, the possibilities, as well as the limitations, of socially integrated behaviour in the human species, we will have to review, first, this fundamental process of the "hierarchical order", which is a fore-runner to social behaviour, and, forms an important link between the practice of "strict territoriality", and the viability that comes with a measure of cooperation. In addition to the process of hierarchical ordening, we will have to discuss the attitudes of, and the mechanisms for, parental care and exemplary behaviour, because these attitudes and relationships form the foundation for this all-important attitude of "trust".

We should, then, be able to round-off this sketch of the personality of the human being and explain, why some people have a tendency to become leaders, while others are more happy and secure in becoming good followers. Finally, we should discuss, in detail, the requirements of good, natural leadership in the small, socially integrated grouping, and, we should compare these requirements with the far more complex leadership structures that are necessary to transform a much larger grouping of human beings into a more or less viable social unit.

The human species developed from a mammalian lineage that had already started on the road towards socialisation, and, our instinctive drives towards forming a social grouping antedate, therefore, the specific characteristics that make us into a distinct species. However, this road towards socialisation by the behaviourally flexible species' is a difficult one, as we mentioned, and, the level of coherence that is possible between the members of a behaviourally flexible species, does not even begin to resemble the coherence and mutual inter-dependence between the cells of a multi-cellular individual, or, the coherence of a multi-individual colony of insects, which can operate with a much more precisely encoded package of behavioural instructions.

Many multi-cellular species' are quite "high-up" on the evolutionary ladder, and, they are, often, quite well specialised for their ecological niche, and, yet, they never developed any significant degree of socialisation. In these species', the adult members stake-out a territory in which they seek to maintain their existence. At least, territoriality is an important phase of their existence, but, it may be temporarily interrupted by a common migration pattern, such as a flock of birds, or a herd of reindeer.

If animals exist for any length of time "side by side" so to speak, we see, that a measure of "respect" for each other's territory softens hostile or suspicious attitudes towards each other, and, a "confrontation" at the edge of the territorial boundaries may not have this ferocious quality, which we associate with the more ruthless competitive struggles we described before. Certainly, over-crowding will drive-up the competitive pressures to a remarkable extent, but, by and large, territoriality functions as a "buffer" for the stimulation of aggressive and defensive instincts.

It is, probably, logical to see a natural willingness to forego territorial claims, at least, temporarily, when, e.g. the approaching winter season introduces the need for a communal trek Southwards, and, the temporary interruption of territorial behaviour requires, at least, an instinctive ability to tolerate other members of the species at close quarters.

When a common threat develops for a number of territorially living animals, it seems reasonable to postulate, that they may seek, once again, temporarily, a closer cooperation, or, at least, a closer mode of existence, especially, if one of them shows a capability to lead others in a common defense or a common search for pastures or feeding-grounds.

Here, in one sentence, we try to capture the essence of what happened over a time-span of, perhaps, thousands of generations, where the dispersive effects of mutual suspicion and competitiveness were overcome, at least, to some extent, by the experience of an enhanced viability that was found in an attitude of cooperation and a united stand against a common threat.

Whatever the exact mechanisms were, it is not unreasonable to expect, that, many different mechanisms and developments led to the common end-result of a "hierarchical order". In this mechanism the instinct of territoriality is gradually changed, or modified, into a drive to dominate those who can be dominated, and, to accept, cautiously, the dominance of those who are stronger. This important behavioural change is the forerunner of the mechanism of social integration, because this attitude allows territories to fuse, and, the members are then able to live together much more closely, resulting in a greater density of the population.

Certainly, these mechanisms constitute a specialisation of behaviour, because, strictly identical animals with identical needs and behaviour-patterns become, now, somewhat "different". Each animal starts to occupy a different position in the hierarchical order, and this position is found by a "test-fight". Just like hens in a chicken-coop will occasionally test each other's strength or dominance, so is the hierarchical order of any grouping tested, from time to time.

Circumstances always change. Younger members are getting stronger and become more demanding. The older ones are trying to hold-on to their positions, but, sooner or later, "old-age" takes its toll, and, an animal has to yield, or is defeated in a serious fight. There are other changes. Casualties take place, new members arrive, and, we see, that the grouping, as well as the hierarchical order, is constantly in a state of flux.

The benefits of the ability to take one's place in a hierarchical order are enormous, but, there is also a serious price to be paid for the ability to control and adapt one's behaviour in a hierarchically ordened grouping. In a natural setting, the hierarchical order, as well as the leadership positions, are always "earned", and, if in doubt, a new test-fight will, either, confirm the established order, or, it will lead to a new order, depending on the outcome of the latest test-fight.

Since there are always differences in strength and capabilities between the members of a species, it is advantageous to have a number of them group together. Not only is the opportunity opened-up to enhance viability by the defense of a common territory, but, the familiarity which develops as a result of "living at close quarters", makes the behaviour of each individual more predictable. The increased intensity of contacts also leads to a greater range of behavioural expressions.

Rather than a simple distinction between a win or a defeat in any sort of confrontation, an animal experiences the ability to dominate and extend its influence over a certain number of individuals, while, at the same time, the member learns to yield, or give-in, to the demands, or the pressures exerted by those, who can dominate this particular individual.

The stronger, more dominant members of the group gain an enlarged territory, and, they also gain the possibility to direct other members in such a way, that their behaviour becomes beneficial to them. As a natural corollary to this dominant position in the hierarchical order, the stronger members, or, perhaps, the one, undisputed leader of the entire group is, now, also "responsible" for the defense of the communal territory, and, he will have to fight-off, quite frequently, a challenge from those, who are close on the hierarchical ladder.

The demands and pressures upon the natural leadership position are severe, but, if met successfully, the natural leader can blossom into a personality of great physical and mental strength, agility and natural wisdom. The leader may, then, behave, instinctively, in such a way, that the territory is as secure as possible, and the group functions, then, as harmoniously as possible, because, under these circumstances, the ease of existence will be most pronounced, and the level of viability will be at its peak.

We see, then, how natural leadership promotes a quality of automatic, or, at least, instinctive wisdom and beneficial patterns of behaviour, because, if the leadership would retreat from its responsibilities as a leader in the defense, or, if it would shirk a challenge or would fail to intervene when there is serious fighting going-on between the members of the group, the viability of such a group suffers, and, this group will be weeded-out by the forces of natural selection. Such a group is, then, either over-run by external threats, or, it disintegrates and falls-apart because of internal bickering.

Let us emphasise, here, that we are discussing natural leadership mechanisms in the earliest phases of the evolution of social behaviour in the flexible animals, and, we are looking at developments in the evolution of behavioural trends, which took place well before the emergence of Homo Sapiens.

The other aspect we want to emphasise and discuss, here, is the hypothesis, that these social groupings may also have evolved around the nucleus of the family, rather than the territorial fusion of a group of neighbouring animals. In a sense, both developments are inter-related, because, even, in animal species' that do not have any significant development of socially integrated behaviour, it is likely, that animals whose territories are close together and border on each other, are also related in kinship.

Therefore, it is probably justified to consider the processes of socialisation and territorial fusion to be very similar to the growth of a family-unit, and the incomplete "break-away" into independent but neighbouring territories by the adult members of such a successful and enlarging family-unit.

.......

Chapter 7

Content

A reduced precision in genetic encoding; the price of behavioural flexibility.
The "learning period", and its many vulnerabilities.
Parental care and responsibilities; the biological "anlage".
An outline of genetic mechanisms and influences.
A remarkably vulnerable and helpless infant.
Physiological limitations, and their influence upon the size of a viable social unit of human beings.
Infants and children thrive in a sphere of trust and protection.
Diseased or abnormal personality developments.
A desirable blend between protective and challenging stimuli.
Difficulties interpreting the subjective significance of a sense impression.
Extending the period of authority beyond the period of physical dominance.
Important qualities of natural leadership, and their link with the parental attitudes of care and concern.
The transition from small-scale to large-scale leadership.
Limitations in the number of items and events we can know.

When nature began to experiment with the possibilities of behavioural flexibility, the genetic code had to relinquish many details of its behavioural instructions for the members of such a flexible species. In addition, the development of behavioural flexibility, meant, that the newly-born generations had to "learn" much more than the new-born off-spring of a species that was endowed with a precise and complete set of behavioural instructions.

The need to learn is a logical and unavoidable consequence of an evolutionary trend that seeks to make its members more sensitive to rapidly fluctuating circumstances, as well as the possibilities that flow from such changes. However, the absence of precise behavioural instructions, coupled with the absence of an anatomical and physiological weaponry, (which is a general characteristic of behaviourally flexible animals), leaves the newborn generations remarkably vulnerable.

The shift towards a placental form of nutrition rather than a fertilised egg that has to be incubated and guarded by the parental generation, provided more mobility and made the mammalian species' less vulnerable, but, they also paid a price for the enhanced gestational security of their off-spring. The process of giving "live birth" was, and still is, more difficult and more dangerous for mother and child compared to laying eggs, and, the newly born off-spring remains vulnerable for a period of many years; at least, in the human species.

The human infant is a good example of the vulnerability that arises from the need for a long learning period. Perhaps, no other species has such a vulnerable off-spring as Homo Sapiens, and, no other species requires as long a period of parental care and supervision. To some extent, this "flexibility" and vulnerability of the human infant is the price we pay for a large range of learning potentials. This large range of learning potentials is inborn in each healthy child, but, it is true, that the "talent" for this range of skills may vary somewhat, and, some skills may be better endowed than others, depending on the genetic anlage of the infant. This vulnerability, as well as the need for a prolonged period of protection, guidance and learning, places a heavy burden of responsibility on the parental generations, and, the quality of parental care is a crucially important factor in the equation that determines the overall viability of a small group.

We see, indeed, that all mammalian species' have been endowed with a strong, but complex instinctive drive to fulfill their parental duties and responsibilities, but, at least, in the anthropoid species', we have good evidence to believe, that the normal expression of an instinct of parental care depends upon the quality of parental care received during infancy and childhood. In other words, the instinctive drive for parental care is shaped and modified by "cultural influences" that have to be received at an appropriate time during the formative years.

The genetic code determines, not only, the anatomical features and physiological functions of the body, but, it determines, also, the somewhat different behaviour-patterns of the male and female members. Certainly, there is no reason to believe, that these behavioural differences correspond to a particular cultural stereotype or generally accepted interpretation, but, it is not realistic, either, to deny the existence of a difference in behavioural "anlage" or inclination.

The intimate bond between mother and child makes the female a natural candidate to take care of the immediate problems and tasks associated with the infant and the dwelling place. The mother will certainly tend to stick around the home, or place of shelter, especially, when the male engages in the hunt. He wanders further away from home and functions as the first line of defense against dangers and intruders.

There is, probably, a genetic anlage for the male to be physically stronger, but, we all know to what extent the range of sexual differences may overlap. However, we will not discuss these features, here, any further, because we have done so before. We only want to emphasise the idea, that the differentiation into male and female, as well as the tendency to form a small-scale social unit, reflects a natural inclination and genetically endowed way of life.

It is also likely, that the hierarchical order finds it origins in these genetically endowed differentiations, because the female, certainly during the later stages of pregnancy, as well as in the first few years of maternal duties, is dependent upon the male for protection and the provision of food; at least, females are likely to be dependent upon these "services", in spite of the fact, that they will protect their family ferociously, whenever a threat arises in the home environment. As a rule, the females will be supplementing the food requirements of the small social unit by gathering nuts, berries and roots from the immediate environment.

The vulnerability and helplessness of the human infant is, indeed, remarkable. It can do nothing else, but eat and sleep, and, it will cry, when something is wrong. It needs complete protection and care, and, this image of total helplesness is a powerful stimulus to trigger the attitudes of maternal and parental care.

To some extent, the image of helplessness will trigger the instinct of care and help also in other adults, and, as a corollary, these instincts may be triggered by other infants and the younger children of the group, or, perhaps, even, of neighbouring groups. We have postulated, that the drive to help someone who is wounded, sick or old depends on the same mechanisms, but, it is probably safe to assume, that, during these harsh circumstances of early human evolution, very few adult members would die of old-age, and, it was very likely, that, any type of serious accident or illness would inevitably result in death.

Child-birth was always a time of danger for mother and child, and the death of the mother must have been a tragedy, in particular, when several young children still required constant care. Therefore, the family-grouping had to include, probably, a dozen or so adult members, because "a family of two adults", as we like to visualise in our modern concepts of marriage, was almost certainly too vulnerable a unit to survive for any length of time.

The vulnerability of the infant means, that the child goes through a period of blind trust and complete reliance upon its social environment. As it grows older and its skills start to develop, (mostly by a simultaneous ripening of genetically determined talents and the fortuitous existence of adequate stimuli from the immediate social environment), the child becomes gradually more independent. It wants to do more for itself, and, the burden of parental care shifts from providing food and services, to one of watchful guidance and nearly constant instruction; necessary, to keep the dangers of existence within tolerable limits.

Infants and children live, by and large, in an atmosphere of "trust", because they are continuously sheltered, at least, to a large extent. However, they experience the attitudes of care and affection not in a conscious sense, and, they will not develop these qualities themselves, unless sensible parental behaviour makes it clear to them, as soon as they are capable of understanding, that they are "not alone in the world", and, that the continued atmosphere of care and provision depends, also, to a large extent, upon an attitude of cooperation and obediance.

A child has to learn, by constant exposure and example, that there are limits to the gratification of its wants and desires, because there is only a limited natural "brake" on these wants and desires. If a child is given "unbridled" attention, it will soon demand unbridled attention. There are natural limitations to the amount of parental care and attention given because of the presence of other infants and children, as well as the need to take care of other chores. This places a healthy limit on the gratifications and satisfactions an infant can receive, and, we see, in a "natural setting", where parental behaviour is not spoiled by the luxuries of affluence or the psychological confusion of erroneous "expert opinion", that infants and children quickly learn to adapt to these limitations and restrictions.

As the child grows older, it learns, not only, to cooperate with others, and, to obey the strict guidelines or tolerances from its "social surroundings", but, the child behaves with an implicit attitude of trust. His "home environment" is the sphere of reality he trusts and knows, and, he experiences, that it gives him shelter and provides for his needs, but, in contacts with the outside world, as well as in the varying moods and relationships between the members of the group, the child learns to recognise, gradually, where there are dangers to be avoided or feared.

If a child grows-up in an atmosphere that lacks shelter, trust, warmth and protection, its defensive reaction-patterns are becoming far too prominent, and, as a result, the attitudes of openness and trustfulness "wither-away", beyond recognition. Such a child will have great difficulties forming normal relationships. Such "diseased" or pathological conditions are unlikely to occur in the small, natural grouping, because the grouping, nor the infants, would survive these conditions, but, in the much larger, modern social units, youngsters may survive, haphazardly, in spite of severe psychological or material neglect, and, we should not be surprised to see, that such youngsters will regard the "rest of society", outside their own little grouping, as "alien and hostile".

On the oher hand, if a child is spoiled by over-anxious and confused parents, who are often torn by guilt feelings because of their ambivalence towards the child before it was born, it does not learn a consistent set of restraints and tolerances, and, it never learns to cooperate with others or to obey commands. Such a child is equally defective, because it will have great difficulties learning to behave in a socially acceptable manner.

Therefore, too great and too early an exposure to negative or anxiety-provoking stimuli, as well as an insufficient exposure to negative influences or limitations, lead to defective personalities. The defects lie, primarily, in the axis that runs from egocentricity to altruism or concern for others, because, in either instance, the orientation of the child remains fixed upon an egocentric attitude, hampering, to a large extent, the normal variations in attitude and the usual "give-and-take" that characterise a healthy inter-action with other people.

Certainly, not all personality defects are due to these mechanisms. There are probably inborn variations in the level to which a personality will become trustful or defensive, but, it is fair to say, that the personality is developed or determined, to a large extent, by the emotional and psychological experiences it undergoes during the first few years of its life. The reason, why it is so difficult to determine, exactly, what guides the development of a personality, lies in the fact, that it is not just the experience or circumstance that counts, but the way such an experience or circumstance was perceived, or, registered and interpreted by the child. Here, we see large fluctuations, which are nearly impossible to measure or detect, and, these fluctuations in interpretation and registration account for the difficulties we have in deciding, or assessing, the meaning and significance of a particular experience for a child.

It is not difficult to imagine a family-grouping of, perhaps, one or two dozen members. Maybe, the group will span three or four generations, ranging from infants and children, to adolescents and young adults, to the generations of the mature and the "old". It is easy to imagine, how the life-cycles of individual existence bring-about a constant adjustment in the hierarchical order. As children become adolescents and mature adults, they become increasingly important pillars upon which the viability of the group relies. They take their place as hunters and providers, and, they become defenders against outside dangers or hostile groupings.

As the physical capabilities of the older generations start to decline, they will relinquish the ultimate position of power to a younger leader, but, the ever-increasing experiences of the older generations make them valuable to the group, in particular, when the mechanisms of symbolic representation make it possible to record past experiences in a form that can be communicated as "knowledge", or information.

Perhaps, the period of command and authority becomes thereby extended well byond the period of mere physical dominance, in particular, when the cultural tools of the primitive society started to develop the attitudes of awe and reverence for magic symbols and rituals, and, older individuals would become skilled in the art of manipulating these symbols and rituals.

As we mentioned before, if seems justified to see the qualities of good, natural leadership as a corollary, or, as a natural extention of the instinctive drive of parental care. We have seen, how the challenge for a position of dominance and leadership can be facilitated by a more or less "voluntary" submission to a powerful and promising leader, but, such a leadership implies, then, the responsibility to become a courageous defender and a successful provider for the group. These are exactly the qualities a successful parent shows in relation to his or her family, and, because the grouping is probably an extended family in the first place, it seems logical to equate the position of natural leadership of the group with being the "head-parent" of the family-grouping.

By tracing the evolution of leadership from being a "head-parent" in a family-grouping to the overall political leadership of a large social entity, we should be able to formulate clear ideas about the way such a political leadership and its institutions should be structured, and, what sort of conscious political goals and objectives have to be formulated, before this leadership can be considered successful and beneficial for the rapidly enlarging social environment.

In order to understand the enormous changes that take place, when the leadership role evolves from being the "head of a family" to being the "head of a nation", we have to recall, what happens to the hierarchical order and the mechanisms that maintain this order, when the groupings become much larger. Let us by-pass the interesting question, why the groupings became so much larger at the beginning of recorded history. The answers, or, the probable answers to this question have been discussed, and, we have come to the conclusion, that this change towards much larger social groupings was dictated by necessity, just as the larger animals evolved as a necessity, or, as an expression of the search for continued viability.

The enlargement of a grouping well beyond a size that can easily be "overseen" by one individual, created great difficulties. We have seen, that, in a successful hierarchical order, each individual "knows" all the others; at least, to the extent, that one knows, which members are below, and, which are above a specific individual, but, if the grouping becomes much larger, none of the members is able to know all the others. One only knows one's immediate social environment, and the others remain essentially strangers, which are "recognised", to some extent, as belonging to the society because of shared cultural characteristics, such as "language", territory and allegiance to an overall social leadership. However, the intimacy with all the members of a small, closely-knit grouping, which is the crucial characteristic of a family-grouping, has been lost, and, it can not be recaptured, because there are insurmountable limitations to the number of people we can know well in a large social entity.

The head of a family knows each and every member intimately. He knows, what each member can do and where they fit into the hierarchy, and, he can quickly settle disputes with an authoritative judgement that is respected by everyone. He can do this, not only, because he is the undisputed leader of the family-unit, but, also, because his judgement is recognised, at least, intuitively, as fair and knowledgeable. If the number of people in a hierarchy becomes too large, the leader loses the ability to know each member personally, and, certainly, the knowledge becomes superficial, such as the ability to remember a name or a particular circumstance, which, of course, does not even touch, anymore, on the ability to know someone's capabilities, weaknesses or place in a hierarchical order.

.......

Chapter 8

Content

A leader, looking for loyalty and support.
Distortions of the natural hierarchical order.
Language communications laid the foundation for multi-individual leaderships and their governing institutions.
An avalanche of tasks and responsibilities.
The emergence of the judicial settlement.
The remarkable concept of "essential equality".
Cultural guidelines; customs and notions, mores and taboos.
The judgement of good and evil.
Class-divisions of the larger society.
The quality of the judiciary reflects the quality of the social leadership, as well as the sophistication of the society at large.
The emergence of a Parliamentary Democracy.
A devastating urge to fight.
Unbridled warfare will seriously jeopardise the viability of the human species.

The problem of insufficient knowledge about the members of a large social unit has serious consequences, and, the search for a satisfactory solution of this problem has had a profound influence upon the evolution of the leadership, its supporting structures, as well as the social environment itself. First of all, the leadership started to surround itself with "helpers", who were capable, and willing, to share in the tasks and responsibilities, as well as the privileges of leadership, but, this selection of helpers also led to great difficulties. Logically, the leader looked for "loyalty"; for individuals, who were going to help and not challenge him, and, for this reason, the "helpers" were "elevated artificially", by the choice of the leader, to a hierarchical position close to the leader, while those, who were close to him in the natural hierarchy, were often "pushed away", because the leader feared them as potential or actual rivals.

This artificial elevation of the helper was felt as an injustice by those, who were pushed aside, because the natural sense of justice was, after all, based on the intuitive judgement, that one's position in the hierarchical order was "justified" on the basis of personal merit, and, that this position had been obtained and tested by the outcome of a test-fight or a challenge.

The emergence of symbolic representations, as well as the development of the ability to communicate factual information with the help of symbols, opened, not only, the possibiliy to "organise", more or less consciously and deliberately, a leadership structure with many helpers and specialised areas of responsibility, but, it also allowed "cultural traits" to function as a mark of recognition and belonging. The use of a common language became such an important tool in the organisation and function of a social unit, that, those groupings of human beings which failed to develop an extensive communications network and a commonly shared pool of language-symbols, simply did not survive.

It seems safe to state, that, the tools of language and the ability to communicate conceptually laid the foundation for the deliberate construction of a leadership organisation. This leadership structure could then govern, more or less successfully, the much larger society. The leadership required a number of people to help with many, complex tasks, centered around the gathering of relevant information. The leadership had to take this information into account, before it could come to a useful and viable behavioural decision. In order to carry-out the leadership decisions and organise the many communal tasks of defense, food-distribution and the settling of internal disputes, we see a constant elaboration and restructuring of the leadership channels, in order to make these channels adequate and capable of handling the rapidly rising demands.

In order to organise the defense against external threats, as well as to keep unwanted domestic challengers at bay, the leadership learned, quickly, how to build-up and maintain a military structure. We see, here, the emergence of a network of channels, institutions and organisations, collectively called "the bureaucracy". These institutions were, initially, a combination of cultural, religious and civil functions, where people skilled in conceptual communications and symbolic or ritualistic manipulations, became "administrators", as well as religious leaders, who helped to maintain a proper atmosphere of obedience and reverence towards the leadership and its institutions.

Slowly, the various tasks and functions became more specialised. A variety of leadership structures would busy themselves, more or less exclusively, with such matters as defense, food-gathering and distribution, the production of weapons and tools, the settling of disputes, the conduction of rituals and ceremonies. These latter activities gave a visible structure and form to the hopes and fears of the people, as well as the commonly accepted perceptions and interpretations of reality.

Let us single-out, for further discussion, this remarkable innovation of the judicial settlement of a dispute. Now, we take for granted the principle, that all citzens of a social entity should be treated as equals under the law, but, it is not immediately apparent, how fundamental a change in attitude and perception lies behind such a development. As the social environment grew larger, the hierarchical ordening became more complex, and, it became increasingly difficult for individual members to know their position in relation to each other. This "confusion" must have led, many times, to strife and a profound "internal restlessness", which would rapidly escalate as the society became "too large". Such a state of turmoil must have been, on countless occasions, the impulse or immediate cause to "break-away" and start a new social grouping around a new leadership, within an adjacent territory.

Once existential pressures started to mount against such a sequence of events, which was, in essence, an example of "competitive dispersion", other solutions had to be found, in order to make the larger grouping a more stable and viable organisation. It must have been a stroke of genius, when a leadership acknowledged, consciously, for the first time, the possibilities of an "official" or declared statement of equality. What a relief must it have been for such a society, and its members, when the leadership, plagued with the need to settle countless trivial internal disputes centering around the hierarchical order, declared; "You are all equal. Let us stop this foolish squabbling, because I declare, that you are all equal. The leadership will treat every member of society with scrupulous equality".

Of course, we do not know, in what from such an awareness dawned on an intelligent leadership of the past. Very likely, the solution of accepting a "de facto" equality had already occurred many times before in an intuitive or subconscious manner, and, the conscious formulation of the principle of essential equality under the law, may have been nothing more than a conscious abstraction of a principle that was already in effect, or, it may have been the conscious acceptance of a practice that had already proven, for a long time, its value as a peace-keeper.

The art of settling disputes has been, from the beginning, a highly pragmatic skill that found its authority in precedents and historical examples, as well as divinely sanctioned judgements, rather than in the application of generalised principles and guidelines. These guidelines were, after all, rather sophisticated generalisations about the desirability of certain forms of behaviour, and, such generalisations became only possible, when a sufficiently sophisticated and coherent reality perception had evolved.

Indeed, it took, probably, quite some time, before society, or, rather, its leadership, realised, that it was possible to classify the behaviour of its members into two, essentially opposite or contrasting patterns of behaviour. Eventually, it must have dawned on man, that it was possible to classify the behaviour of rivalry also into categories that were considered beneficial or harmful to the other members in society. Once such a classification of behaviour had found an expression, it should not have taken long for the beneficial category to become "sanctified" by a divine stamp of approval, while those forms of behaviour that were noted to be detrimental to society, became "taboo", or "evil". The process of judgement would, then, shift from an emphasis upon settling rivalries, to settling or judging behavioural conduct in terms of good and evil. Certainly, these aspects remained, and still are, intertwined, and, the separation of the act of judgement into these two basic categories, is primarily designed to help us get a grip on the complexities of human behaviour.

The behaviour of courage and fortitude, of kindness towards the other members and an appropriate degree of obediance of, and reverence towards, the leadership and the behavioural guidelines of society, all these attitudes would, quickly, find favour and would be judged as "good", while cowardice and treachery, lying and stealing, deceit and disobediance, irreverence, together with any challenge to the established authorities, would all be judged as loathesome or threatening behaviour, which had to be punished and eradicated. As soon as man learned to grasp the realities around him in a more or less coherent structure of beliefs, man has lived with the problems of the judgement of good and evil.

A society that was hierarchically structured, would consider it "just", that, those, who were "high-up" on the ladder of the social hierarchy, would be the most privileged, but, once the principles of equality under the law, or, equality in hierarchical positioning, became widely accepted, we see a simpler type of social stratification. There were, of course, the leaders of society with their institutions, as well as a great number of people, who had received special obligations, powers and privileges in exchange for their allegiance to, and efforts on behalf of, the leadership. Then, there was always a group, who had offended society and its leadership in one way or another, and, these people were looked-down upon with a measure of suspicion and contempt, if they were still tolerated in society. And, finally, there was this large group of "average citizens", who, collectively, would carry-out nearly all the chores and maintenance-tasks that were necessary to keep society in a state of good health.

There was always the temptation for the "elite", or the "upper classes", to exploit ordinary citizens, in particular, when the process of "social splitting", or the break-away of a group into an independent "daughter colony", became nearly impossible. As soon as ordinary members lost the freedom to break-away from the yoke of their leadership or a ruling elite, this yoke would become, quickly, an even heavier burden, leading to outright exploitation and oppression.

These practices would, slowly, build-up a feeling of resentment and anger, as the exploited segment of a population became increasingly aware of the injustices that were going-on. This segment of the population would, eventually, reject the "official" perception of reality, which always justified the practices of the upper crust and the conditions of ordinary people, regardless how exploited ordinary people were.

Slowly, the ability to formulate beneficial behavioural guidelines and harmonious relationships improved, and, the idea gained ground, that all citizens, regardless of their position and political powers, should be treated equally under the law. The judiciary became a separate institution with high standards of competence and independence, but, a complete separation between the judiciary and the political leadership remained impossible, because the judiciary was paid for, and appointed by, the leadership institutions, and, these institutions remained firmly under the control of the overall political leadership.

However, public opinion and widely accepted rules of behaviour tended to minimise political interference with the judiciary, and, we can use the level of political interference with the judiciary as a fairly accurate gauge for measuring the quality of political leadership, as well as the level of social justice that has been established within a particular social environment.

It became possible to formulate guidelines for behaviour, which everyone was expected to adhere to, including those, who obtained, in one way or another, access to the overall political leadership. Eventually, such guidelines became enshrined as the legal blue-print of a society in the form of a "Constitution".

The orderly transition of power from one leadership to the next remained an extra-ordinarily difficult problem. As long as the occupation of the seat of power remained the outcome of a power-struggle, Constiutional Guidelines could not rule, or, "over-rule", this type of accession or succession, because there was no force in society to challenge, or, "roll-back", the results of a brutal struggle.

Slowly, the idea gained ground, that the people, especially, those, who were influential local leaders, contributing to the military power and the treasury of the overall political leadership, should have a say in what was going-on. The history of the emergence of a Parliamentary democracy is complex, but, we see, in many societies, at quite widely varying time-periods, the awareness emerge, that, some sort of consensus and accountability was necessary, not only, for the practical problems of daily management, but, also, for the future plans of the leadership, including the way threats and problems should be dealt with, and, eventually, how, and when, a successor should come to power.

We still have not solved these problems completely, because we still see, quite often, a "struggle for power". In many countries, this struggle is a pure test of strength, with a military take-over, political assassinations, the expulsion or banning into exile of a rival who lost, and other forms of ruthlessly oppressing all opposition to a victorious leadership. Yet, even, in societies that have adopted, by and large, the principle of universal suffrage, we see, that the seat of ultimate political power is, often, a hotly contested position, frought with political intrigues, an all-out battle for the confidence of the electorate, fraudulent or intimidating practices at the polling booths, the power and influence of wealth, as well as interminable squabbles between elected representatives in Parliament.

It is so much a part of our nature to fight, and, we like fighting so much, that we have to be reminded, time and again, by the tragedies of defeat, chaos and destruction, that it is preferable to cooperate than to fight. We forget, most of all, that ordinary citizens bear the brunt of a fight. Often, they do not even understand, what the fight is all about. All they know is the fact, that powerful men with machine-guns, rifles, tanks and planes are killing people, destroying homes, villages, crops and life-stock, until there is nothing left and everyone faces starvation and death.

If we look at the readiness with which, even, in our modern times our political leaders are willing to risk the lives, well-being, prosperity and livelyhood of the nation for the sake of "national pride", or, for the sake of safeguarding their own political positions, we can only shake our heads in disbelief and anger. I am convinced, that, future societies, if they have the good fortune to exist in a reasonable state of health and wisdom, will look in amazement at the primitive social structures and the equally primitive emotions and instincts that played such a crucial role in contemporary political events.

I am not suggesting, that our political leaders, today, are more primitive that those of the past, but, I do believe, that the rapid social changes, (resulting from startling developments in science and technology), have left our societies in a far more vulnerable position than they were ever in before. Our technological skills have "advanced", now, to the precarious situation, where a handful of irresponsible and desperate men or women can destroy the earth and kill most of the inhabitants. This has never been possible before, and, this fact of destructive power has placed a crucially important burden of responsibility upon the quality of overall political leadership.

Poor leadership in the past led to the demise of a small group, but, in the overall history of mankind, such a demise was nothing more than the price of natural selection. Now, we have become, de facto, a single organism, and, we are so intertwined and inter-dependent, that, it is unlikely, that one major section of the world population could be wiped-out without affecting, seriously, the viability of all the other peoples. Yet, there is no globally accepted Constitution, and, world public opinion is still too inadequate and ill-defined to guide our political leaders.

Most of our political leaders are still pre-occupied with the primitive concerns of national pride and security, and, they still seem to be willing to concentrate on an arms-race and other short-sighted pre-occupations, while the tensions, frustrations, disparities and injustices between major segments of the world population, are rising steeply.

I hope, that this introduction to the human personality and the social organisation of human beings may function as a nucleus for thought, so that politicial leadership candidates are able to consider the outlines of a successful and durable social organisation, and, I hope, that they will search, persistently and effectively, for useful features in the various social systems that are currently in use.

.......

Summary

1. We live in a state of continuous strife.
   When reflecting makes us more anxious.
   The rapid flow of time.
   Ambitious people are more susceptible to disappointments.
   A look at the professional specialist.
   The difficulties of a career in affluent public life.
   Courage and reflectiveness; necessary attributes for the ageing political leader.
   Building-up an image.
   A school for politicians?
   Partisan politics.
   An obsession with winning elections.
   
   
   
2. A dialogue about practical political concerns.
   An unquestioned egocentric outlook of the electorate.
   The organisation needed to win an election.
   The bonds of "owed favours".
   Dangerous thoughts and reflections.
   Political fighters and their bellicose instincts.
   The well-developed territorial instincts of political leaders.
   Questions about a viable, just and durable society.
   Should we throw all image-building aside?
   A career in public life "as a hobby".
   Perverting the meaning and intentions of public office.
   Can a political leader afford to be a philosopher as well?
   
   
   
3. A philosopher, looking at a hypothetical political leader.
   Are we one of the species' of natural evolution?
   A review of the nature of man.
   Animal behaviour.
   The origins of behavioural flexibility.
   Advantages of a rapid genetic turn-over.
   Cerebral recognition mechanisms.
   Homo-Sapiens, and the faculty of conscious awareness.
   A "working hypothesis", without "documented proofs".
   Sharpening mental images through frequent recall.
   Recalling memory-traces voluntarily in the safety of the "home environment".
   
   
   
4. The road towards thought and speech.
   The link between a symbol and its content has a tendency to disappear.
   The "cultural pool".
   Sense impressions, common denominators and abstractions.
   Recognising the significance of an event and anticipating its outcome.
   The "reflex-arc".
   The sensory and motoric sides of the central nervous system.
   The sensory and motoric sides of "speech".
   Synthesising a behavioural response.
   The agony of a difficult choice.
   The belief structure interposes itself between the sensory stimulus and the behavioural response.
   A community of cells in a state of symbiosis.
   The voluntary response is "abstracted" in the concept of "the will".
   Is there a truly "free will"?
   Controled and loosely associative patterns of thought.
   The three instinctive poles of human behaviour.
   
   
   
5. An absence of alerting stimuli.
   Sleep and curiosity.
   Emotions, and the zone of emotional neutrality.
   Living in a composite imagery of the present, the past and the future.
   Various orientations.
   Success and competitive strife.
   Competitive dispersion; cellular behaviour-patterns.
   Territoriality.
   Natural selection.
   The differentiations of predation, parasitism and symbiosis.
   Animal and vegetative life-forms.
   Even the vegetarian has to "kill life" in order to exist.
   
   
   
6. A review of the mode of symbiotic existence.
   Extinction, and an irrevocable loss of the genetic code.
   Mechanisms of differentiation and inter-dependence.
   Opening-up "new territories", or "ecological possibilities of existence".
   Regulatory requirements for the symbiotic form of existence.
   A symbiotic parallel in the social organisation of behaviourally flexible animals, including human beings.
   Advantages of a "social solution" to the problems of competitive strife.
   Difficulties for the mechanisms of socialisation in behaviourally flexible organisms.
   A brief review of the "hierarchical order".
   Social organisation in "herd animals".
   A gradual attenuation of territorial instincts.
   Advantages and difficulties with living under a hierarchical order.
   The qualities of natural leadership.
   Socialisation through territorial fusion is very similar to the mechanisms of an incomplete break-away from an enlarging family-unit.
   
   
   
7. A reduced precision in genetic encoding; the price of behavioural flexibility.
   The "learning period", and its many vulnerabilities.
   Parental care and responsibilities; the biological "anlage".
   An outline of genetic mechanisms and influences.
   A remarkably vulnerable and helpless infant.
   Physiological limitations, and their influence upon the size of a viable social unit of human beings.
   Infants and children thrive in a sphere of trust and protection.
   Diseased or abnormal personality developments.
   A desirable blend between protective and challenging stimuli.
   Difficulties interpreting the subjective significance of a sense impression.
   Extending the period of authority beyond the period of physical dominance.
   Important qualities of natural leadership, and their link with the parental attitudes of care and concern.
   The transition from small-scale to large-scale leadership.
   Limitations in the number of items and events we can know.
   
   
   
8. A leader, looking for loyalty and support.
   Distortions of the natural hierarchical order.
   Language communications laid the foundation for multi-individual leaderships and their governing institutions.
   An avalanche of tasks and responsibilities.
   The emergence of the judicial settlement.
   The remarkable concept of "essential equality".
   Cultural guidelines; customs and notions, mores and taboos.
   The judgement of good and evil.
   Class-divisions of the larger society.
   The quality of the judiciary reflects the quality of the social leadership, as well as the sophistication of the society at large.
   The emergence of a Parliamentary Democracy.
   A devastating urge to fight.
   Unbridled warfare will seriously jeopardise the viability of the human species.

.......