Click here for PDF format of this essay

DIALOGUES I







le dialogue englouti






A Study in Thought






sa071



by





Marius Heuff

Chapter 1

Content

Defining a "dialogue".
Synonyms are not identical.
The element of "being serious".
A dialogue may have many shades of meaning.
Why people talk so easily "besides each other".
Placing each other in a frame of reference.
A shift towards the sphere of familiarity of the least knowledgeable partner.
The challenge of exchanging complete and precise information.
Sticking to non-controversial subjects.
The importance of finding a common ground of shared and agreed-upon reality perceptions.
When a debate is "played-out" in front of an audience.
An analysis of relationships; teachers and students.
Standardising the presentation of teaching material.
"Living teachers"; seminar leaders of the class-room.
A look at "the news"; the war of words, or, "propaganda".
An elusive truth.
The science of selecting and reporting contemporary news-events.
Providing a background to what is happening today.
Criteria of objectivity.
The channels of authority.
The news-media; seen as a "tool" in the hands of a democratically elected leadership.

1 Could you define the word "dialogue" for me?
A dialogue is a conversation between people, usually two, but there may be more, and, the conversation is then written-down, or recorded, as an inter-play of the questions and answers between the people involved.

2 You may want to suggest, then, that we should use the word "conversation" rather than the more formal and, perhaps, somewhat pompous word "dialogue", but, I believe, that these words are not entirely synonymous. First of all, if they would be synonymous, why would two different word-symbols have come into use, where one would suffice? As a rule, we can say, that the existence of synonyms does not mean that words with a very similar meaning are, indeed, identical. There is always a shade of difference in the meaning, or "feeling", between words that are classified as synonymous, and, I believe, that a difference also exists between the words "conversation" and "dialogue". A conversation is merely an indication, that, two or more people are talking to each other, but, a dialogue means, that their conversation is serious; that they are engaged in an effort to understand each other; that they are trying to minimise or solve a conflict-situation. It may also mean a serious effort to discuss a "weighty" subject, in particular, those of a religious, scientific or philosophic nature, or, the discussion may center on problems with a moral aspect.

3 t is not really justified to try to outline the content of a dialogue when trying to define it, and, let us, therefore, simply say, that, a dialogue is a serious conversation aimed at solving a problem or reaching a conclusion, while a conversation may also include all sorts of "banter"; lighthearted talk, that is not serious and not particularly goal-directed.

4 Fine, I am willing to go along with this definition; at least, for the time being. What sort of goals do you have in mind?

5 I would like to try a series of "conversations" that are written-out as a dialogue, in which, I hope, an inter-play between questions and answers will develop naturally. However, since my writing is never "lighthearted banter", I believe, that it is justified to call these essays a series of dialogues. I let you ask whatever question you want. Sometimes, or, perhaps, most of the time, the question will be a point you want to raise as a result of my answers, but, at other times, you may want to initiate a discussion on a different topic. Sometimes, I will suggest to you a particular topic, by touching upon an area of concern or field of knowledge, without any further elaboration or final comments. I leave you, then, the option to open a new field of discussion, or, you may continue with one of the main points and questions that arise from what has been said before.

6 If we look at your first question, we see, that it represents an important category, which we will come back to, time and again. Your first question was to define the word "dialogue", and, we see, indeed, that one of the most fruitful and most important categories for discussion is the definition of a word or concept. We have to come to a mutual understanding and agreement about the way we want to use a particular word-symbol, before it is possible to engage in a meaningful dialogue.

7 I believe, that it is natural to have some subjective "input" or interpretation about the meaning of a word, but, this should not lead to the arbitrary use of a word, and, it should not lead to the practice of using a word in a way, or attaching a meaning to it, for which there is already another word-symbol in use. For example, if I would have defined the meaning of the word "dialogue" in such a way, that it would come close to the meaning of the word-symbol "speech", or "language", then, it would be confusing, superfluous, or, even, outright erroneous to expand or contract the meaning of a word to such an extent.

8 However, by emphasising in the word "dialogue" the more serious nature of a conversation between people, a conversation that is worthwhile writing down word for word, then, I feel, we give a justifiable meaning to the word dialogue. Perhaps, most people will agree with this definition, but, others may argue, that it is a rather subjective emphasis, and, they may point to the fact, that the dictionary defines the word "dialogue" somewhat differently from the way I do. Do you think that it is justifiable to define the word dialogue as I have done, here?

9 I have no objection, because it conforms roughly with my ideas about a dialogue. Indeed, the word has a somewhat pompous ring to my ears, and, I know that the dictionary defines "dialogue" as writings in a play or a novel, where the conversation between people is recorded verbatim. In any case, I find it interesting, that you recognise the importance of trying to understand each other as precisely as possible, and, this brings me to the question, why it is so easy for people to talk "besides" each other; to miss the point. Why is it so easy for a discussion or debate to end-up in trivialities or hostilities? Why is it so difficult for most people to debate a point precisely; to understand each other accurately; to argue logically and systematically? Would it not be possible to minimise, to a large extent, our feelings of mistrust and hostility towards each other, if we could communicate more precisely with each other?

10 Now, that is what I would call a "meaty question", because there are many points you have raised, here, and, these points should all be discussed. First of all, let us assume, that there is the technical possibility for people to communicate with each other, in the sense, that they speak the same language. However, just the fact that two people speak the same language, does not necessarily mean, that they have any contact, or, that they can carry-out a meaningful conversation. If two people meet, who are complete strangers to each other, they first have to "place" each other in their respective systems of classification. If I meet a complete stranger, I want to know, where he is from, what his name is. I want to know about his occupation and something about the society he comes from, the people he knows, the reasons for him being here, etc. It is logical, that my partner in the encounter wants to ask, essentially, the same sort of questions about me.

11 It depends, therefore, on the degree of familiarity with each other's surroundings or environment, wether or not we can have a meaningful conversation. If one of the partners of such an encounter between strangers is much more familiar with the circumstances of the other than vice versa, he can ask all sorts of questions, and the conversation shifts, naturally, to the experience-sphere of the partner, who is the least knowledgeable. This is a common occurrence, but, it also indicates a marked inequality in the position of two partners. If the "lower placed" individual feels, that the other is genuinely interested in him, he will open-up and see, at the same time, opportunities for himself in the association with a more knowledgeable partner. On the other hand, he would be wise not to forget, that the other party in this encounter may have goals and aspirations in mind, which entail a degree of exploitation, or, at least, a certain "use" of the lesser partner; if not, why would he be interested in this person?

12 Anyway, let us not get side-tracked by a lot of interesting relationships resulting from unequal relationships during an encounter between strangers, and, we think, here, primarily, about inequalities in the status of knowledge or familiarity, and not necessarily about an inequality on the basis of other social mechanisms, such as differences in the hierarchical status or position of wealth, power, authority and leadership. Let us go back to the assumption, that two people have met and found a sufficient degree of common knowledge, including an adequate mastery over the language, in order to "place each other" fairly accurately. Let us also assume, that there is a rough parity between them, and, that both partners feel to be, in essence, each other's equal. The question is this; can these two people now engage in a useful conversation and exchange information, accurately and precisely?

13 Yes, if they want to do so, they can certainly give each other all sorts of factual details about themselves and their social environments. However, there may not be sufficient trust, and, the amount of information exchanged will be somewhat limited. It will be formulated cautiously and kept, if possible, within non-controversial limits.

14 If two strangers of the same social environment meet each other, it is logical, that they inform each other freely about such facts as their names, where they live, and whom they know, as well as other topics that are generally considered "safe", but, neither of them volunteers immediately his or her opinions about the leadership and its institutions, one's assets or income, or one's goals and ambitions, because the conversation partner may not share the same political or religious views, nor, the means of making a living, or the ambitions and goals.

15 As a matter of fact, the two conversation partners may turn-out to be competitors, or, even, antagonists. There are, therefore, plenty of reasons, why contacts between strangers are kept strictly to "common platitudes"; to the circumstances of the moment, especially, when these circumstances refer to a shared existential significance; such as the weather, the conditions of a journey, or the common aspects of major cities or other national characteristics. Only slowly, more personal opinions and bits of information will be raised as a trial balloon, to see, how the other person reacts. If there is a congruence of opinion, the more personal aspects will be explored further. If not, the contact remains "safe" and superficial.

16 It is logical, that, in such a safe and superficial contact none of the major social, religious or political questions will be discussed, and the conversation remains a conversation and does not become a dialogue. Most of time, however, a meeting is not just a chance-contact between complete strangers, but, it has been brought-about by a shared interest. People get together, because they work in the same place, have the same hobbies or interests, or, they share the same, or, at least, similar political views, or, they belong to the same profession, have been trained in a similar or identical scientific discipline, etc., etc. Then, the contacts can become more precise and much more to the point, because there is a larger basis for contact. Finding a common ground is, therefore, an important step, before a contact or conversation can become a true dialogue.

17 However, you may want to ask, whether the existence of a common ground automatically ensures the likelyhood, that a conversation will become a fruitful and meaningful discussion, or, are other factors playing a role as well? As a secondary question, you could ask, how people can begin to form a common meeting ground, if it is indeed true that a common ground is crucially important in encouraging the possibilities for meaningful contacts and mutual understanding. Do you agree with this sort of inquiry?
Go ahead.
To answer my own question; no, the existence of a common background in experience or other cultural features only creates the possiblility to communicate. Whether or not a true and meaningful communication does take place, depends, primarily, on the attitudes of the partners who are coming into contact with each other. Just like any other encounter between living organisms, the meeting can arouse competitive instincts, especially, when the partners in the encounter do not recognise a clear-cut hierarchical differentiation between them. Then, the meeting will be cautious and suspicious, and, it will, almost certainly, lead to an atmosphere of strife or contest, such as an effort to score points in a debate or to win support from onlookers. The latter factor is important, whenever the debate or conversation is "played-out" in front of an audience.

18 There may be a clear-cut difference in hierarchical position, and, then, the weaker individual may be lectured to, and, usually, just listens with a measure of resentment to what he or she is being told to do or to accept. Occasionally, however, the contact may, indeed, blossom into a complementary and symbiotic relationship, where both sides recognise something of value in the encounter. Here again, the relationships may be nearly equal, such as, when colleagues meet in a scientific or profesional gathering to exchange information, or, when a closely-knit group with specialised interests and obligations is keeping each other informed about the progress of a complex project that is being carried-out by the group as a whole. Then, we see complementary, and, ideally, symbiotic relationships, where both sides recognise the value of communicating with each other. Complementary and symbiotic relationships are likely to flourish under these conditions, but, there is always the possibility that the harmonious atmosphere is punctuated by a flash of rivalry or jealousy, as competitive instincts may flare-up at any time.

19 We see a complementary or symbiotic relationship also between non-equals, such as in a teacher-student relationship. The inequality applies, then, mainly to the level of knowledge and information. Indeed, there is a significant difference in knowledge and insight between teacher and student, but, in a way, the teacher is the equal, or, even, the "servant" of the student, because he or she fulfills a role assigned by society for which the teacher is being paid. The teacher's task is to teach the younger generations the knowledge and skills that form a common cultural heritage in their social environment, and, to facilitate the development of the students into mature and responsible citizens.

20 This does not mean, that there is always a harmonious atmosphere between teachers and students. If teachers become bored and stifled in their initiatives, or, if they feel threatened, they will automatically lose any inspiring qualities they may have had, and, we know, that, without this "spark of inspiration", or the sensation that there is something exciting going-on in the teaching-experience, the possibilities of meaningful teaching are severely limited. Similarly, if the students become bored, or, if they are unable to grasp what they are being taught; if they do not make any effort to learn and understand, or, if they are actively engaged in activities that disrupt the teaching effort, then, relationships will deteriorate into hostilities and suspicions, which, unfortunately, marr, so often, the formal educational years for many youngsters in lax, affluent societies.

21 Fortunately, the technological aids of recording sounds and images, or, "audio-visual techniques", have allowed us to record most basic teaching programs in a way, that makes full use of all the possibilities to illustrate vividly a concept or an idea, and, together with a concerted effort to be extremely lucid and careful in the presentation of the subject-material, the students of the future will be able to determine themselves the speed with which they learn new ideas, because these techniques make it possible, to "play back" the material or vary the tempo of its presentation considerably. Still, we will need "living teachers" to act as seminar-leaders in a class-room, answering questions, emphasising specific aspects, which may not have been satisfactorily grasped by the students in class.

22 However, we do not want to elaborate, here, on the many aspects involved in teaching, Our main point is to emphasise the fact, that, a common back-gound, such as the common experience of attending a lecture or an artistic presentation, is a good start, and, often, a pre-requisite to get a conversation going between people who are strangers to each other. Whether or not it indeed develops into an interesting, or, even, an exciting dialogue, depends very much on the attitudes and motivations of the people involved in a teaching effort, as well as the circumstances of the moment.

23 In a way, we have hereby answered your secondary question, or, rather, the questions that seemed to arise from the previous discussion. Indeed, enlarging the common background of experience and information is an extremely useful and powerful method to enhance the possibilities for a meaningful contact. The emergence of understanding attitudes between strangers, who are, as a rule, somewhat suspicious of each other, can only take place in the context of a shared reality perception, in particular, if the information about "the other side", which was obtained prior to the encounter, has been coloured by biased reporting.

24 Here, we see, indeed, the major difficulties associated with an effort to enlarge the basis of common experiences for a large number of people. If we look at "the news", in particular, global or international news, we may come to the conclusion, that this "news" should be the same for people all over the world, but, if we make an effort to listen to "the news" as it is presented by societies that are ideologically at odds with each other, we come to the surprising discovery, that the two news broad-casts of the same "world-news" do not even resemble each other.

25 Careful study of the news broad-casting techniques and practices on both sides of an ideologial divide, will show, how each side is, in essence, engaged in "propaganda". Then, the news is selected, presented and shaped in such a way, that it serves the interests of the leadership of a particular society. Only by examining, carefully, the news, opinions and attitudes of societies that are in competition with each other, can we appreciate the deliberate and subconscious bias that pervades all the facts and presentations of the events in the news.

26 Therefore, in spite of the fact, that, most societies are genuinely convinced that they present "the truth", the whole truth and nothing but the truth to their own people, their information is biased, and, it is, often, not very convincing to the members of another social environment, because they do not share a particular view-point or focus of concern. This means, then, that the apparently objective reports about what is happening around us in other societies, as well as in our own, can not serve as a basis for shared or common experiences by people, who are divided by cultural differences, commercial rivalries or political interests.

27 Creating a shared basis of experience to foster a wide contact between diverging peoples is not easy, and, we will have to look to the sciences with their rigid criteria for describing a fact, before we can hope to bring to all peoples of the world, the facts and events of international concern in such a way, that we all can accept these reports as factual accounts, which can, indeed, be trusted to mean what they appear to convey.

28 This is a somewhat lenghty discussion about the background of the art of communicating, but, I wanted to emphasise, how important it is to keep these factors in mind. Only, then, are we able to increase our grasp over the outcome of a communication; whether or not it is going to be fruitful; whether it is a serious attempt to communicate openly and genuinely, or, merely, a front for a belligerent stance and an attitude of opportunism.

29 Yes, that was a rather lengthy response, and, the dialogue was in danger of becoming a monologue, but, I like to take-up the idea, that news-reporting should become more like a science, in order to guarantee the quality of objectivity, and, make it more acceptable as a reliable fact of information, regardless of the political or existential interests of a particular individual or group. This is a lofty ideal, but is it realistic?

30 Certainly, one of the most spectacular features of a scientific discipline is the fact, that people think and interpret a scientific reality in near-identical ways, regardless of the cultural background they come from, but, we also know, that, this is really only possible with the "fundamental sciences", such as physics, chemistry, cosmology or mathematics. As soon as we get into more "subjective" sciences, such as those dealing with the artifacts and cultural manifestations of "man", we see, that this congruence of interpretation and attitude starts to break-down.

31 Indeed, how difficult is it to agree about a "fact", whenever we are dealing with an item of "news"! How are we ever going to handle a continuous flow of happenings and events that has to be reported within hours, if we have to go through an elaborate scientific consultation with each other about the manner in which to report such a news-event? Before we can, even, begin to discuss the facts of an event, we will have to inform ourselves about them, and, therefore, we will need a system of "preliminary reporting" news-worthy events, which are, then, as quickly as possible, shaped into a more definitive and objective form, with background information and a balanced historical perspective, before a news-report can be considered as "final".

32 Where do we get the criteria for objectivity from? How are we going to get a global consensus about the accuracy of a particular happening? Besides, are you not forgetting, that people do not only react and inter-react in an objective fashion, but, that they react and communicate, also, in an emotional, intuitive or subconscious manner? The scientific approach with its accent on rationality and broad agreement is undoubtedly very useful to delineate an impersonal reality that is far removed from our fears, hopes and aspirations, but, the events of the world are always events in which people are taking part, and, very often, we are dealing with conflict-situations, where emotions run high. You have argued yourself, on many occasions, how rational contact is only the tip of an iceberg of much more emotional and intuitive, or, even, subconscious communications, and, we know, that a large number of channels of contact are not "rational" or scientific in nature, but depend on "authority".

33 The most important channels of authority are those of the religious and political institutions of a social environment, and, these channels of comunication are very much under the influence of an authoritative, or, perhaps, even, "authoritarian" leadership. Can we realistically expect our news-media and other mass-communications not to be instruments of our leaders and the dominant segments of society? Are mass-communications not always geared to foster the existential interests of their own society, in stead of forming an objective and scientific approach to all events going-on in the world? Do we not see a parallel, here, where the institutions of society, including those gathering and broad-casting news-events, are just as much a "tool" in the hands of society as our conscious awarenesses and beliefs are tools in the hands of us, individuals; designed to let us formulate the existentially most rewarding behavioural responses?

.......

Chapter 2

Content

A comparison between individual and collective behavioural tools.
A dependence of the human "social organism" on cultural guidelines.
Behavioural adaptations; the function of a competitive struggle.
Evaluating the accuracy and relevance of news-items.
Learning to detect the bias or motivation behind the information we are asked to believe.
An urgent need for intellectual guidance and leadership.
An abuse of intellectual or rational powers.
Rationality, and naturally ethical behaviour.
The price of living in a democratic society is the responsibility to monitor each other's behaviour, including the behaviour of our leaders.
Why a leadership can not be "far ahead" of the electorate.
Dissent has to have a meaningful voice.
Being held responsible for one's opinions.
Dialogues under Constitutional Guidelines.
A sobering look at contemporary societies.
A just approach to the task of securing collective survival.
The dangers of a rigid cultural code.
Opinions can not be stifled by force.
Polarising mechanisms in the social environment.
We are being lulled to sleep by affluent, consumerist dreams.
Let us expose hypocrisy and injustice, wherever we see it.

1 Yes, I think that this is an excellent comparison. We learn a great deal from exploring the behavioural similarities of a social unit and a human being, because both are living organisms. It is useful to see the conscious awarenesses and beliefs of an individual as a behavioural tool, and, we may also begin to consider a well-integrated social entity as a "single organism", with a tentative awareness and a number of specific behavioural goals or aspirations. However, we should not forget, that the human being is a far more coherent and vastly more efficient living organisation than the social environment he belongs to. Many functions that occur "automatically", or below the level of our individual conscious awareness, have to be "verbalised" in society, and, they become, thereby, the focus of a great deal of concern and attention in the social organism.

2 For example, as an individual we are only concerned with obtaining an adequate intake of food, water and air. Our body mechanisms take care of the processing, distribution and stockpiling of food-stuffs and oxygen, as well as the elimination of waste-products and unwanted substances. In society, these mechanisms have to be created by a conscious and deliberate effort of the members, because a "social organism" relies much more on "cultural guidelines", or "created mechanisms", for these essential functions of the living organisation.

3 The organisation of our body is the product of a genetic or biological heritage, and, we have compared, on various occasions, the functions of the genetic and cultural codes. Let us just say, here, that, in the communications between ourselves as members of a social entity, we have to regulate, deliberately and, often, with great difficulties, a variety of processes that occur "naturally", and totally subconsciously, in the physiologial organisation of our own body.

4 However, in spite of the numerous differences that exist between the social organism and a single human being, it remains useful to explore a variety of interesting parallels, and, one of these parallels is the fact, that the "society as a whole", in the form of its government and leadership, as well as overall public sentiments and feelings, also "behaves", and, it shows emotional reactions, such as those of anxiety, existential concern or fear. The social organism, too, shows attitudes of opportunism, expansionism, belligerence or suspicion. It is useful, therefore, to compare the "official" or collective utterings of a society with those of an individual, and, we see, indeed, a continuously varying mixture of facts and opinions, ambitions and fears, manipulations, as well as genuine attempts to come to a measure of understanding and compromise with adversaries.

5 Just like the communications of an individual, those of society contain also a basic truth, by which we mean, that, at least, in part, these communications are factual and can be verified by anyone who likes to do so. For example, if the news-bulletin mentions an explosion in a factory, or the crash of a plane, the meeting of people, or the capture of a city during a war, then, we are dealing, in essence, with factual information, but, we should remind ourselves, that the selection of those facts as news-worthy items out of many others that are also factual happenings, is, already, a judgement reflecting a particular bias or focus of concern.

6 The reporting of "facts" that are events in progress, is, already, a much more subjective "happening", and, the way an event is placed in a historical context, or related to other contemporary events, reveals the outlook of a society or an individual. During a propaganda-war the news becomes laced with a number of hostile, suspicious, or, even, belligerent notions and accusations that do not contribute anything to the process of communication, information or understanding.

7 Acts of belligerence and hostility occur between nations, as well as between various groupings within nations; e.g. between a leadership and a group of dissidents. The reporting of news-items about such conflict-situations depends, in part, on the control over the news-media by the leadership, as well as the commercial and existential interests of the broad-casting enterprises. A large part of the news in affluent countries reflects, indeed, conflicts of interest between population groupings within a nation. These conflicts range from outright civil strife to movements for regional independence, strikes, sabotage, protest marches and acts of terrorism.

8 There is always a curious mixture of force and persuasion at work in any struggle for power or dominance, regardless of the question, whether this struggle takes place between nations, or within a political entity. In addition to this broad category of "strife", there are other facts or events taking place within and between nations, such as financial and economic transactions. All these events give rise to tensions, disappointments and misunderstandings, just as the transactions between individual people doing business with each other, can also be the cause of suspicions and unscrupulous acts of exploitation.

9 Finally, there is this broad category of athletic or sports-events, artistic achievements and scientific accomplishments, which carry a more "personal touch", because, as a rule, an individual, or a small group, is the focus of attention. Here, again, the choice of reporting is often whimsical and reflects the partiality of a group or nation towards particular events or achievements.

10 It would be an important step towards the establishment of a global condition of peace and harmony, if people learn to reflect upon, and analyse, the news-events that are reported to them. It would be helpful, if we all learned to separate the factual information from that, which is propaganda or artificially created "non-news". As a first step in our conscious efforts to evaluate the accuracy and relevance of news-items, I would like to suggest, that we routinely ask ourselves the question; why was this particular happening or event considered to be news-worthy? If we learn to discern, more clearly, the deliberate and subconscious bias of what we are told or asked to believe, we will learn more about the way we behave and function ourselves. We will begin to understand, why it is so difficult for our leaders to behave as "good neighbours" in relation to each other, while we, ordinary citizens, are, usually, more tolerant and open in our dealings with each other.

11 Is the crux of the argument, then, the conclusion, that we all have to become more rational, more scientific, more reflective and inquisitive in our attitudes, before we can live in peace and prosperity, and, before we can live as good neighbours in a world of just social relationships? If this is the case, it seems, that the prospects for peace and justice on a global scale are rather slim, because, I think, that you ask the impossible by expecting a majority of citizens to develop such an independent power of analysis, criticism, observation and judgement. Is not the essence of being "average" the fact, that one wants, and needs, to believe the leaders of one's society, because average citizens want their leaders to do the thinking and decision-making for them?

12 I also like to ask you, how you are going to prevent the faculties of rationality, criticism and analysis from being used as formidable weapons in an intellectual battle? Is not one of the main problems the inevitable temptation for intelligent and clever people to use these capabilities as tools to carve-out a position of power and privilege?

13 Let me answer your last question and observation first. Certainly, intellectual powers are nearly always shamelessly abused for narrow, egcentric goals, but, in the definition of "rational behaviour", I feel, that such a narrow-minded, egocentric course of action has no place. True rational behaviour should show us, in a clear perception of the logic of shared existential requirements, that a shameless abuse of any particular advantage, including an intellectual advantage, is contrary to the needs of harmony and openness. Rational thought shows us, quite clearly, that these attributes of harmony and openness are indispensible, if we want to maintain a condition of social justice. Therefore, the abuse of "rational powers" is contrary to the definition of reasonable, rational and naturally moral or ethical behaviour.

14 Your observation, that it is contrary to the natural inclination and capabilities of the "average citizen" to become highly critical and independently analytical, (by-passing, in essence, the leaderhip functions and institutions he relies upon), is well taken. Indeed, it is irrealistic to assume, that, each and every citizen will be able to become a model of rational, objective analysis and judgement. Perhaps, this is not necessary. If it would be possible to ensure, that the leadership functions according to the ideals we outlined above, the lines of authority and communication will, then, be as objective and as beneficial as possible; beneficial, not only, for the well-being of the members of this particular society, but, also, for the members of other societies. Then, the average citizen may, indeed, relax and trust, wholeheartedly, the wisdom and farsightedness, as well as honesty and competence of the leadership and its institutions, and, under such utopian social conditions, few people would have any difficulties trusting their leaders.

15 Why, then, does it seem so difficult to make the leadership behave as a responsible, rational citizen? Who has the power, or, who should have the power to oversee and monitor leadership behaviour? In the democratic franchise, the average citizens are ultimately responsible for the quality of the leaders they choose, and, if the electorate is not fully aware of the qualities that are needed for good leadership, how can we expect the peole to make a wise, or, at least, responsible choice, when electing their political leaders?

16 I apologize for anticipating again the questions you may want to put to me, but, let me finish, briefly, this line of thought, because we have discussed these ideas extensively before. If we allow the members of a society to vote for leadership candidates from a spectrum of political opinion, and, if we abide by the choice of the majority, the leadership will necessarily reflect the wishes and aspirations of this majority. If the majority becomes disillusioned and pre-occupied with a selfish, consumerist orientation, the leadership will reflect the same attitudes, and, even, if it would be possible for a more intelligent candidate to "slip through" and gain a seat in Parliament or a position of leadership, this candidate will be powerless to change the prevailing attitudes. If he or she fails to cater to the selfish mood of the majority, the candidate will certainly lose his or her seat in the next election. Therefore, the average citizen has to be informed and well-motivated, before a democratic system can work well, and, we have discussed, before, why extensive Constitutional Guidelines are necessary to guide the democratic process and secure the cohesion of society.

17 It is always tempting for a strongly nationalistic leadership, or, a political Party that has enjoyed power for a long time, to consider itself "the State"; to consider itself to be essentially irreplaceable, and, to represent the unalterable Constitutional Framework for society. However, we have discussed before, why it always becomes unacceptable to the people, if a specific leadership, or a particular political Party, considers itself as the Constitutional Guarantor of social justice and well-being. Unless the entire population gets a chance to study, think about, discuss and contribute to the formulation of such Constitutional Guidelines, (together with their amendments, as the passage of time requires changes in these Guidelines), there will be, inevitably, a divergence between the people and their leaders. Since there are no natural hierarchical mechanisms to solve these tensions in a large society, and, since the absolute, "infallible" leadership usually fails to monitor the mood of the people accurately and with sensitivity, after a number of decades in power, we see, inevitably, a clash between the peoples and their leaders. Usually, this clash takes the form of a violent revolt, as well as an equally violent suppression of this revolt, but, there are many other manifestations of dissent.

18 Therefore, dissent has to have a meaningful voice, and, this means, that a continuous and open discussion, or dialogue, should take place between the leaders and members of society, as well as between the various groupings within society, but, also, between national or political entities. To regulate this debate or dialogue, we need carefully crafted and strictly adhered-to guidelines to keep the dialogue fair and provide an equal opportunity for all parties to be heard, but, at the same time, the society should have the means to refute and ridicule those opinions it considers ridiculous or dangerous, and, it should be able to punish slanderous attacks and false accusations.

19 I can see no other alternative to a viable and open dialogue between leaders and their peoples, as well as between leaderships and peoples from different societies or regions, but, the dialogue has to take place within a framework of agreed-upon Constitutional Guidelines. This is the only way to prevent the debate from deteriorating into a shouting match, and, it is the only way to keep the attitudes of the people and their leaders focussed upon beneficial, socially responsible, long-term goals, which require long-term planning, vision, as well as a measure of self-discipline. Do you agree with these ideas and concepts?

20 They are lofty and full of interesting aspects, but, I think, that I represent the feelings of many people, if I remain skeptical about the possibilities to realise such far-reaching goals. The way you describe the future society seems to be a very attractive way of resolving the tensions of strife, resentment and conflict, and, indeed, the greatest threat to human survival seems to be man's tendency to fight and destroy everything that has been built-up over a time-span of many generations. However, throughout history, and, also, in our contemporary societies, we see, that there is no shortage of good-willing and idealistic politicians, who start-out with a great deal of zeal and energy in their careers of public life, and, who believe, in all sincerity, that they have found the formula to end all troubles and disputes, once and for all. What is the result of such idealism? Time and again, these people become embittered or listless in a few, short years, and, they end-up contributing to the confusion and corruption, when they try to secure a measure of personal security by acquiring influence, assets, well-paying jobs, or the right kind of "connections".

21 In the affluent, Capitalist societies of today, the economic pressures are so intense and complex; the power and influence of the large corporations are so hidden and beyond the awareness or scrutability of the public, that it is difficult to see, how we can promote a truly effective and open dialogue between the people and their leaders. The people need jobs, or, at least, they need an income, and, by and large, people do not care, how they get it. People do not ask themselves, whether or not they truly deserve the monetary rewards for the jobs they are performing. Politicians need lots of money to keep the people happy and pay for their election promises. Therefore, politicans and the people are always looking towards "the economy" for a solution of their problems. This economic machinery and the wealth of assets is coming increasingly into the hands of large, powerful and somewhat obscure commercial and industrial organisations, and, we, the people, nor, our leaders, have, really, a good grasp over these corporate giants.

22 It seems, that the shared existential interests and needs of these large corporate giants will continue to dictate, or, at least, influence strongly, the life-style of the societies in which they exist. They dominate the communications-media, the consuming habits and expectations of the people, as well as the manoeuverability and power of the social leaderships. Unless there is a radical change in attitudes amongst the peoples of affluent societies, I find it difficult to see, how we can, even, begin to discuss, soberly, the need for global conditions of justice. The only direction of development I can see, is a continuation of the slide into affluent slavery, as well as increasing discrepancies between the poor and the rich. It seems so sad to conclude, that the opportunities for a peaceful change in direction by the Western Democracies seem to be getting less, all the time.

23 Perhaps, large, entrapped segments of the affluent population will sit-back and ask themselves, whether or not it is worth to be driven so relentlessly by their financial obligations. Perhaps, they will begin to see, that it is useless and counter-productive to slave and worry, day in, day out, in order to sustain all these material belongings around them, which they have hardly time to enjoy.

24 As the period of continuous economic expansion is coming to an end for most of the affluent world, the cycle of ever-rising expectations will also have to be broken, perhaps, quite suddenly. Only, if large numbers of people in affluent societies learn to laugh at their consumerist instincts, and begin to see, to what extent, they have become victims of commercial propaganda, only, then, is it possible, that a completely different philosophical wind is going to blow. Such a dramatic change in attitudes may, then, lay the foundations for a more rational and just approach to the problems of securing our collective survival; by an essential equality of living conditions, together with a basic package of rights and obligations, ensuring a dignified existence for everyone, who wants to participate in the benefits and obligations of belonging to society.

25 Well, I have been infected by your enthousiasm, and, we should ask ourselves, whether or not we both have been day-dreaming about a utopian future. Let us get back to reality and explore, a little more in detail, the meaning of dialogue and contacts between people. We see, that, regardless, how hard we try to come to an agreement with others, differences of opinion will persist, in particular, when the members of society are intelligent, inquisitive and educated. Only, if the society is rigid and dull, will the art of conversation and dialogue be poorly developed, and, expressions of diverging opinions or dissent are, then, largely absent.

26 However, we do not want such a rigid society, because the price of uniformity of opinions and beliefs is an extremely dull and apathetic culture, and, we have seen, that such a rigid social environment has no mechanisms to cope with internal or external changes, nor, with the demands for adaptation and renewal. The discrepancies between the official beliefs and guidelines on the one hand, and, the realities of individual and collective experiences on the other, become steadily wider, leading to a momentous revolt, afer the tensions have reached a breaking point. Then, the tensions and behaviour-patterns of a majority break through the rigid exterior of social structures and officially sanctioned beliefs. If not, the rigid society becomes a prey to external attack, because its rigidity and outmoded behaviour has made it, then, vulnerable to a quick, clever and opportunistic take-over.

27 However, if a society contains a large variety of cultural segments and influences, and, if the peoples are allowed a significant degree of freedom of expression, as well as a real choice in the selection of their leaders, we see, quickly, the dangers of a paralysing strife, where squabbling over a myriad of issues, slows-down the process of government and severely jeopardises the requirements for efficiency and decisiveness. On the one hand, we have learned to appreciate the principles of individual freedoms and rights, and, we have seen, how interesting the existence possibilities become, whenever people are encouraged to think, discuss and participate in the tasks that have to be carried-out and the problems that have to be solved. On the other and, it is often difficult to draw the line between an invigorating discussion and a paralysing conflict of opinions and interests.

28 We know, that, opinions and beliefs can not be stifled by force, and, that it is futile to try to do so, but, when do we say, that the processes of divergence of opinion and social fragmentation have gone so far, that the viability of society is seriously undermined?

29 Indeed, this is a crucial question. How do we deal with dissent? When do we call a divergence of opinion, "constructive", and, when do we imply a negative aspect? To some extent, a negative aspect is implied in the word "dissent". There is a sliding scale from an emotionally neutral discussion about a difference in interpretation of a fact or a conclusion, to a difference in approach and emphasis about the way political and social problems should be solved, and, finally, to a deadly, fanatic struggle for power between groups or individuals who consider themselves irreconcilable enemies.

30 The leadership of a society, either, represents the majority, or, it does not, but many, if not most leaderships claim to represent not just a majority, but, even, an overwhelming majority without the ability to prove this claim by the results of truly free and open elections from a spectrum of political candidates with divergent political views. Indeed, a non-democratic leadership reflects, often, the wishes of a significant segment of the population, and, it would be wrong to conclude, that, all leaderships excercising power without being elected by a scrupulously honest and universal voter's choice, have to resort to oppression and violence in order to maintain their status-quo.

31 However, we should not forget, that the lesser developed nations, which do not elect their leadership by a system of universal suffrage, have, nearly always, a powerful elite or upper class, which includes the land-owning and military segments of society. These are the social segments with power, and, the ruling elite has to make sure, that it has, at least, a significant support from these powerful classes in society. The large mass of the poor are without any power. However, slowly, a few intelligent youngsters of the poorer classes become educated and well aware of the staggering social injustices that are being maintained and propagated in the name of a "peaceful status-quo". These youngsters will, then, begin the slow and costly struggle to overthrow an entrenched elite, often, with the help of a socially more liberated country.

32 Once a society has drifted into such a state of polarisation, there seems to be no alternative to a prolonged and deadly armed struggle, which may take years or decades before it is finally successful, often, at the cost of many thousands of lives. If the international community would really care about the plight of the struggling poor and oppressed, we would have seen, a long time ago, that, leaderships, whose countries are polarised between the rich and the poor, were being pressured by international public opinion to improve the lot of their masses. No, we still hide behind the obscene principles of "non-intervention" in each other's affairs. Why? Because we do not want to get involved, and, because, nearly all leaderships are struggling with the problem that they represent, primarily, a powerful elite. The large mass of people is, in essence, considered to be unimportant, in spite of the professed concerns to the contrary, especially, if they do not have effective means for making their political powers felt in a truly democratic franchise.

33 Perhaps, the masses in many countries do not live, anymore, in total poverty and complete ignorance, but, a majority of people still does not really count, as they have been lulled to sleep by affluent, consumerist dreams. Yet, these average ctizens, who count so little in the calculations and deliberations of many leaderships, have the courage and decency to "interfere", or, at least, report, the behaviour of their neighbours to the authorities, whenever they see these neighbours abuse or ill-treat their own children. Yet, our leaders keep silent about the way other leaderships treat their own poor and under-privileged citizens!

34 Certainly, dominance and exploitation by a racial minority over a large, under-privileged majority of another race, is an affront to justice and can not be justified, not, even, by a Christian God with a Calvinistic outlook, but, this does not mean, that all the critics of such a policy of racial segregation and exploitation are themselves good examples of justice and equality. Let us expose hypocrisy and injustice, whenever and wherever we see it, and, let us examine the incidences of internal strife, political killings, persecutions and intimidations, wherever they may take place. Unfortunately, the behaviour of political leaders and influential people does not often reflect a significant level of concern for the problems of poverty and injustice on any scale.

.......

Chapter 3

Content

The limits of constructive dissent.
A mandate to rule, received from an informed electorate.
Short-comings of rule by a revolutionary elite.
The obligation to teach the meaning and mechanisms of Constitutional Guidelines.
Short-comings of affluent, free-enterprise democracies.
A number of questions.
The all-pervasive power of wealth.
Why organised labour is increasingly "out of touch" with the average citizen.
Capitalist democracies suffer from deep divisions in social status and outlook.
Short-comings of Socialist Ideals.
Freely enterprising, politically pluralist democracies, and the problems of inflation and rising public debts.
Contrasts between the ideals of Socialism and the objectives of Free-Enterprise.
People have to have a reasonable chance "to make it", before they are willing to participate in the social "rat-race".
A rising feeling of entrapment and despair.
Capitalist, as well as Socialist Systems have become dependent on a process of steady economic expansion.
A strident dissent, whenever the level of prosperity declines.
Benefits and problems associated with a widely spread "blanket of security".
No social sructure has "eternal life", yet, it has to be reasonably stable.
The need to shape deliberately the guidelines for social mechanisms and inter-actions.
The need to make a contribution, whenever we can.
It is easy to lose sight of the correlation between contribution and remuneration.
Productivity is in danger of being swallowed-up by the obligation to service debts.

1 We are deviating somewhat from our discussion about dissent. Dissent, or an open challenge to an officially sanctioned way of doing things, or looking at reality and the problems that face the community, can only be debated in a constructive manner, if all participants are aware of the fact, that, regardless of the disagreements they may have, they have to work together to preserve the structure and unity of their society. This means, that each participant in a debate will stop short from acting in such a way, that this essential unity is damaged. Because it is very difficult to know when this point has been reached, the participants in a debate or a struggle for political power, will have to agree to abide by a set of ground-rules, or Constitutional Guidelines.

2 One of the most important rules or agreements has to be, that, ultimately, every citizen has an equal right and obligation to participate in the selection of the overall leadership, which will, then, be in power for a specified period of time. Such a democratically elected leadership is given a "mandate to govern". It is given the power to make the final decisions in matters that affect the function and well-being of society. The "opponents", who presented an alternative political choice, and, perhaps, a different set of ideas or political solutions, but, who failed to win a majority of support, will have to agree to limit their opposition to the elected government by "democratic means". This means, that they will be allowed to debate, discuss and question those in power to their heart's content, but, they can not actively resist the decisions of the government, unless supported by a majority vote in Parliament.

3 A successful revolutionary struggle in a country that has been polarised between the rich and the poor, has to adopt, eventually, a truly democratic way of electing its leadership. If it fails to do so, and, if it elevates, arbitrarily, the political ideology of a particular Party as the sole rule of law, it may, initially, have the genuine support of all those, who have benefitted from the liberation of poverty and oppression. However, after a number of decades, or a few generations, this political Party will inevitably become a "ruling elite". Its officials will become complacent and elitist in their behaviour, and, an increasingly larger segment of the population will become alienated from the ruling Party. Its basis of popular support starts to erode; it can not allow "dissent" or disagreement, because the Party policies have been elevated to a status of Absolute Constitutional Law. Regardless, how democratic such a Party tries to be within its own organisation, eventually, a large number of people will become indifferent, disillusioned or hostile to the Party.

4 If there is no framework for an open discussion and verbal dissent, the Party has no choice, but to suppress such "aberrations" of the normal and accepted ideological principles. Dissent, then, has to be considered subversive and seditious, or, evidence of a diseased mind. In the long run, there is no alternative to a system, where, every few years, a true majority of all the peoples in society, and not just those who belong to a politically entrenched Party, are allowed to give their vote to the candidate of their choice.

5 Yet, all citizens in such a democratic society with equal voting rights, have an obligation to become and remain aware of the importance for every citizen and grouping in society to "play by the rules of democracy". It should also be an inalienable obligation of each and every leadership, regardless of the politial views it represents, to uphold the Constitutional Guidelines, to instruct the people in the importance of these Constitutional Guidelines, and, to keep working at improvements and refinements through a careful and guided process of Constitutional Reform.

6 If we emphasise, constantly, the central role of the Constitutional Guidelines, and, if we are, eventually, successful in formulating truly effective and comprehensive rules and regulations, we should be able to avoid these potentially lethal flaws of the democratic system; the paralysis of society by dissent and strife, as well as the stagnation of a democratically elected leadership. Especially vulnerable is a leadership that has been formed by a coalition of political Parties, because such a fragile unit of government can easily be destroyed by stifling and sterile power-struggles, either, in Parliament, or, within the leadership itself.

7 In spite of their claim to democracy, societies that are ruled by a one-Party system, or, where one Party has proclaimed itself to be the only permissible political philosophy, will, sooner or later, experience the need to oppress people and suppress dissent, and, they will find themselves, eventually, in the role of an elitist ruling class, which has lost touch with a majority of the people. We will not even discuss the regimes that obtain power by a military coup d'etat, and, which suppress and stifle dissent, as well as anyone who challenges their position of power. Such societies are, in essence, primitive, and, regardless of the idealistic attitudes and intentions of their rulers, they become an oppressive force, impeding progress towards a greater level of public awareness, education, and the rights and obligations of universal suffrage.

8 Fine, I agree with your lofty idealism, but, if we look at most of the affluent societies that function more or less according to the democratic ideal, (societies, with an adequate level of education and a good standard of living for nearly everyone, universal suffrage and elected leaderships that abide by the rules and make way for another elected leadership if defeated), if we look at these societies, we still see a lot wrong with them. There is a lot of strife and chaos, blatant egocentric attitudes by various groupings and individuals, such as the labour-unions, the professional lobbies, the business-interests, and, in particular, the influence of large multi-national corporations. We see a serious problem of drug and alcohol abuse amongst many people. There is an appalling crime-rate, as well as large ghettos of povery and crime, where the "normal" rules and laws of the land do not seem to apply.

9 There exists a powerful elite of wealthy people, living in a private world with their own entertainment and security arrangements. We see, how politicians are pressured by powerful groups or "lobbies", after they have become elected, and, generally speaking, the rules of justice and the expertise of legal assistance is only available to those, who can afford the high costs. In conclusion, it seems fair to say, that, many nations, which have governed themselves for a period of time according to the rules of democratic elections and Constitutional Guidelines, are still far from truly happy, harmonious, or, even, viable societies. We see, how they shamelessly exploit other nations and support dictatorial regimes, as long as they can benefit from this support. We see, how the commercial interests have poisoned the attitudes of good-will and democratic "fair-play" amongst many affluent citizens, and, we see, how leaderships become increasingly the servants of powerful lobbies, the giant corporations, the huge military-industrial complex, or, the large, powerful and essentially dictatorial unions of organised professionals.

10 Why do we see these developments? Why is there such a high level of frustration, resentment and crime in societies, where the average citizen is well-fed and has access to all the basic necessities? Why is it so difficult to make people feel, that they live in an essentially just society? Are these societies, indeed, democratic societies, or, are the powers of the big lobbies, the wealthy, the professional groupings, the large corporations and labour-unions distorting the democratic functions and ideals of the political leadership to such an extent, that the democratic ideal has, in essence, been destroyed?

11 Are the mass-media so dominated by business and corporate interests, that the minds of the people have been saturated by commercial propaganda, and, have the ordinary people lost, completely, any awareness of the obligations and attitudes necessary to make a democratic society, viable? Are we, indeed, allowing free political discussions in our democratic societies, or, are we only deluding ourselves, when we think to have a "free press" and enjoy a freedom of speech? Are we just as vulnerable to oppression and persecution if we say something that is anathema to the prejudices of public opinion, as those, who dare to dissent with the official doctrines of a totalitarian regime? Are we allowing the freedom to accumulate assets, to destroy the basic equality in opportunities, which was, at least, initially, an inalienable corollary of political equality? In short; what is wrong, and, why are the "free democracies" so unstable and unfree?

12 Yes, I think, that you have touched on many of the pertinent problems that affect the affluent, democratic societies. We see, indeed, time and again, how the power of wealth distorts the fundamental equality of people, which is an inalienable part of the democratic concept, and, we see, therefore, that political influence becomes amplified by the power of wealth. We see, how, even, the application of justice shifts subtly in favour of those who can pay, even, if it is just a reflection of the fact, that the wealthy can pay their fines so much easier than the poor, and, that they can afford to hire the best possible legal experts to argue their interests in Court.

13 We see, indeed, that the power of wealth and the need of corporations to generate a "consumer interest" has influenced greatly, or, even, monopolised, the public media, because, in most cases, these public media need to make a living, and, they have to cater to those interests that are buying advertising space, or "time". Similarly, organised labour is often a forum for powerful, influential, full-time professionals, who are paid well for their expertise in looking after the interests of these large organisations. Too many people make a great deal of money without really earning it, and, most affluent societies are, therefore, riddled with powerful organisations, whose members are only interested in "making money".

14 This brings us to the fundamental problem of the Capitalist democracies. They are split by deep philosophical differences of opinion, reflecting, in essence, the deep divisions in affluence and life-style. As a result, the Democratic Socialist believes, rightly, that the cause of harmony, happiness and justice is best served by guiding the society in such a way, that the least possible divergence occurs between people. Therefore, the accumulation of wealth or assets is "penalised" by a steep, progressive taxation, while those, who lose-out through sickness, unemployment or an unwillingness to work, are increasingly protected from any real hardships by social security. This leads to an "egalitarian" society, where, ideally, people differentiate in their jobs, personalities and modes of employment on the basis of differing talents and inclinations, but, the essential requirements and possibilities of existence remain the same for everyone, especially, for every youngster.

15 These Socialist Ideals have led, at least, in the Capitalist democracies, to a series of severe disadvantages. Often, the initiative to explore new avenues, new technologies, or new economic opportunities, was lack-luster, because of a somewhat hostile relationship between government and business. As a result, governments took-over a myriad of economic as well as administrative functions, and this led to a staggering bureaucracy, which was often highly inefficient, and, also, somewhat corrupt, because it lacked adequate controls, even, more so than the strictly organised Marxist societies.

16 The lack of personal initiatives and entrepreneurial activities led also to a complacency in providing for oneself. Since the State took care of all needs and many wants, many people lost the ability to be alert, frugal and industrious; qualities, wich remain alive only, if there is a certain existential pressure to remind us, that we have to remain vigilant and alert in order to survive.

17 The high costs of social programs and services, as well as the constant efforts to sooth the frustrations and expectations of the electorate, led to fiscally irresponsible attitudes in many Socialist Democracies, which led, in turn, to rising budget-deficits, an increasing burden of public debt, as well as a loss of confidence in the monetary system; "inflation". We have discussed, extensively, the gigantic and widespread effects of inflation, and, we will not repeat the arguments here, except to say, that inflation fuels rising expectations, a chronic sense of frustration and suspicion, and, it completely undermines the attitudes of saving and a frugal life-style.

18 In spite of all these difficulties with the Socialist Ideals, and, especially, with the attempts to implement these objectives in a practical form within an enterprising, Capitalist democracy, we should remind ourselves, that the primary goal of these Socialist Ideals was to bring a greater degree of social justice and essential equality for everyone. The negative side-effects of the implementation of Socialist policies were, in part, technical difficulties that can now be corrected, and, partly, they were the result of an incomplete understanding of human nature, especially, when behaving collectively.

19 We should contrast, briefly, the ideals of Socialism with those of "Free-Enterprise". The philosophy of Free-Enterprise is based on a few, essentially sound assumptions. These assumptions are the following; by and large, people are stimulated to work hard, and make an extra effort, if they are allowed to keep a significant part of the increased assets that result from their efforts. This constitutes, therefore, a direct appeal to egocentric instincts. Free-Enterprise is also based on the idea, that a free and open competitiveness for the consumer's buying power, as well as the free competitiveness between people seeking work, will lead to the best possible product, service or job, for the least amount of money.

20 Certainly, Capitalism, or the spoils of free-enterprise, were largely responsible for the gigantic economic expansion and the spectacular technological and scientific achievements that occurred in the past hundred years or so. We have discussed before, how a steadily accelerating economic and industrial expansion could compensate, to some extent, for the damaging effects of monetary devaluation or inflation, as well as the rising expectations of a public that was constantly exposed to the efects of inflation and commercial propaganda. Recently, however, the mechanisms of economic expansion have come to a halt.

21 The main point is this; as long as most people experience a reasonable chance to "make it", to obtain, what they want from a competitive society, fueled by rising expectations and a continuously expanding base of economic activities, such a society will continue to function reasonably well, in spite of the fact, that there is little awareness or insight by a majority of competing "eager beavers", that they will also have to work and contribute actively to keep their societies together. As long as incomes continued to rise and expectations were met satisfactorily, the people bought their consumer goods and paid their taxes, while their elected representatives were given a rather free hand to organise the country and spend the tax-payer's monies.

22 However, as soon as the rate of inflation rose, and, as soon as a slow-down in the economic processes made the people realise that they were trapped in their dreams of affluence, and, that they had to work and worry, every day, while losing ground, steadily, the anger and frustration of the people were beginning to polarise society. The last vestiges of good-will and fair-play disappeared, and most people were not even aware of the reasons, why they were suddenly experiencing a drop in their standard of living.

23 The loosely structured, democratic and Capitalist society has relied, to a large extent, on the egocentric orientation of the avid free-enterpriser to sustain the economic boom, as well as the ever-rising expenditures of governmental institutions. At the same time, governments find themselves vulnerable to paralysing tensions and frustrations. The powerful and the rich get quickly more powerful and richer, as they largely benefit from the inflationary tendencies and the widespread bankruptcies of weaker economic enterprises that have to fold under the pressures. The division between the rich and the poor is accentuated, because the poor find themselves increasingly entrapped in a morass of financial oligations from which there is no escape.

24 We see, therefore, that the Socialistic Ideals, practiced in Capitalist democracies, as well as the shrewd principles of free-enterprise, lead, invariably, to socially unstable situations, in particular, when economic difficulties put an end to ever-rising expectations and tax-revenues.

25 In essence, either system, the Capitalist, Free-enterprise system as well as the Socialist system of essential equality and security, have become dependent upon a steadily rising economic expansion, and, we see, therefore, regardless of the philosophical or political system involved, that, every society faces difficulties and a strident dissent, if, after a period of prosperity, the standard of living begins to fall for a significant part of the population.

26 Is it possible to wed the virtues of the Socialist Ideals and the stimulating effects of the Free-enterprise principles? Is it possible to design a system of Constitutional Guidelines that avoids, or prevents, the major difficulties of either system? Is it possible to combine the essentially egocentric motivations of Free-enterprise with the Social Ideals of sharing our opportunities of existence equally? Is it possible to avoid the disruptive polarisation that is associated with fanatic, unbridled and unconcerned Free-enterprise pursuits, and, is it possible to avoid the paralysing bureaucracy, complacency and laziness that come with a blanket of permanent security?

27 Is it possible to avoid the elitist organisation of Party-faithfuls or the elitist togetherness of wealthy enterpreneurs? Is it possible to have a functional democracy that remains a true democracy, undisturbed by powerful lobbies or the distorting powers of accumulated wealth? Is it possible to conduct open and fair debates and discussions, without the temptation to throw rules and guidelines out the window? How should we ultimately guarantee the powers of the Constitutional Guidelines? When politicians and people are arguing about a Constitutional interpretation, who can settle the dispute and impose, if necessary, a binding settlement?

28 Indeed, it will not be easy to design a social system, that will work, and keeps-on working, year after year, and, generation after generation. Perhaps, it is nonsense to think, that a society or social structure can have "eternal life". No other living organism has been granted eternal life, because the essence of the living organisation is its fragility and temporary existence; it is born, grows, reaches a state of maturity, becomes older and, eventually, slips into a state of decay and death.

29 Yet, just as a living organisation must have a certain measure of viability, before it can become successful enough to exist generation after generation, so should a social structure have, at least, some stability and viability, as well as some usefulness for the members who participate in its structure, otherwise, we can not justifiably speak about the existence of a "social organism".

30 While the comparisons between the living organisation of a single individual and the living organism of a social entity are quite useful to give us an insight into some of the requirements of social cohesion, we should not forget the many differences that exist, also. One of these differences can be seen in the fact, that a viable social structure has to be shaped and created by the collective thoughts and purposeful actions of its members, while the society of cells, forming the body of a single multi-cellular organism, is held-together, controled and developed by rigid chemical mechanisms that have been shaped by a long process of natural selection.

31 Therefore, it should not appear strange, that we have to shape, deliberately and conscientiously, a series of regulations and guidelines for our social environments, in order to secure, first of all, that every member benefits more or less equally from being a member, and, secondly, that all members remain aware of the fact, that, hard work and responsible attitudes are needed to keep these social structures intact. This means, then, that the benefits have to be distributed more or less equally amongst the members as a package of human or civil rights, but, this package of human or civil rights is inextricably linked with a similar package of obligations, where each member is compelled to make a contribution to society.

32 If we do not insist, vigorously, upon the principle, that each and every member of society has to make a contribution that is commensurate with the opportunities and abilities of the individual, we will introduce a situation of injustice. It is customary, in particular, in circles that advocate the ideals of human rights, to see a number of basic freedoms, in particular, the freedom from coercion by the State, as one of the most essential elements of such a package of human rights, but, my question to them is; "How can we keep distributing rights without demanding a payment of contributions?"

33 Indeed, in most instances, we only have to pay our taxes and fulfill our military obligations. Most of the time, we just have to follow and honour the laws of society in order to make the required contribution, but, rarely, do we place sufficient emphasis on the fact, that all achievements and benefits will have to be earned by the sweat and hard work of some people, or some groups in society. Rights and benefits have to be made possible and available by a fairly large number of people, who work hard and contribute steadily to society.

34 It is so easy to lose sight of this essential balance between the worth of a contribution and the remuneration given for it. During a time of rapid inflation, we are all watching, anxiously, the erosion of our buying powers, and, we take for granted, that we fully deserve what we earn. Rarely are we willing to think about, or discuss, the relationships between our productivity, or the quality and efficiency of the job we are doing, on the one hand, and, the financial compensation, which tradition, strikes and other pressures upon society have given us as an income.

35 Over the past several decades, governments and businesses, as well as private individuals in Capitalist societies, have learned, that it may be beneficial to borrow large sums of money and pay them back over a prolonged period of time, in particular, if a continuous inflationary erosion of the value of money, means, that, in essence, much less is paid-back in real value than has been borrowed. This "inflation psychology" has obscured the basic balance between energy and productivity. Ultimately, we will only have, or own, what we have earned or manufactured, and, we see, now, clearly, how easy it is for individuals, or, even, entire societies, to enslave themselves into a situation of financial obligations from which there is no escape, except through default and a declaration of bankruptcy.

36 In spite of the inflationary erosion of the currency, the accumulated debts and their increasing burdens of interest are absorbing, quickly, a major portion of the productivity of a social environment, and, soon, an individual or society learns, the hard way, that, nearly all the products of industry and hard work are being swallowed-up by the obligation to service a debt.

.......

Chapter 4

Content

The Socialist Ideal; implementing essential equality, and contributing according to one's means and opportunities.
Why Socialism has failed in many democratic societies.
Learning to reject facile promises.
Consumption and expenditures have to be under tight Constitutional Controls.
Organising the existential chores of society according to the life-cycle of the individual.
Free-Enterprise principles and mechanisms in a social environment that is based on essential equality.
The importance of encouraging innovative, yet, socially responsible behaviour.
Why we say "yes" and "no" to contemporary Socialism, as well as to contemporary Free-Enterprise.
No monopoly of any kind.
A resurgence of centralist economic planning in the future.
The essential need for social transparence.
Why an elected leadership has to have the final say.
Over-coming fears and suspicions.
Social transparence has to prove, that it is a tool of social justice.
Questions about sovereignty.
An illusion of equality between contemporary nations.
Sovereign States and ethnic groupings.
The instinctive behaviour-patterns of territorial leaders.
The haphazard foundation of a national entity.
Differences between societies and nations.
The importance of explaining our existence from a biological point of view.

1 We will come back to the problems of inflation and debt, as well as many others, when we summarise the essential functions and objectives of our educational systems. Members of societies all over the world will have to be more aware of the consequences of their behaviour, if they want to have a flexible, yet durable, social structure that benefits everyone.

2 We have mentioned two cardinal principles that are part of the Socialist Ideal; a near-equality of the standard of living or level of material consumption, together with a near-equality in opportunities for personal development and equal access to the mechanisms of justice and education. The second Socialist principle embodies the idea, that all benefits and rights have to be earned, ultimately, by hard work, and, that everyone should contribute according to his or her particular opportunities and capabilities. These concepts are, often, somewhat befuddled in Social Democracies, because people do not want to hear about this balance between rights and obligations. Therefore, the political candidate seeking support from his electorate, is going to emphasise all the benefits and none of the obligations, and, he is, therefore, likely to make facile and irrealistic promises.

3 Indeed, Socialism seems to have failed in many Western democratic societies, because it does not have the courage to uphold the basic principles of a sound and just society. It seems to look, primarily, for votes, and, it will promise, just like any other political Party, whatever the electorate wants to hear. Therefore, in designing a viable social structure and precise Constitutional Guidelines, we have to regulate, what political candidates can promise. People have to learn to question and reject facile and unjust promises, but, in addition, we must insist, that the political promises or proposals are within the tolerances of the Constitutional Guidelines. A candidate, who promises an exclusive privilege to a specific group, which is contrary to the principles of sound justice and essential equality, should be reprimanded for irresponsible behaviour, because it means, that, other, less well organised and less vocal groups will become poorer and more disadvantaged as a result.

4 As a summarising concept, we may state, that the level of consumption and pulic expenditures should be tightly controled by future Constitutional Guidelines. No political leadership should be able to create or stimulate consumption as a means to sooth feelings of injustice or silence sources of friction and resentment. In particular, the idea, that it is acceptable to have a large public or private debt, should be completely abandoned. A society or individual should be allowed to borrow, only, to a specified limit, and, the loan should be for a limited period of time. Any debt will have to be re-paid, in total, before a new loan can be arranged. Citizens should be encouraged not to borrow at all, but save and help each other in the accomplishment of large projects, such as building a house or a barn, because some of these projects are beyond the scope and powers of a single individual, or a small family.

5 We have also outlined ideas, how we could make much more efficiently use of the natural life-cycle of an individual, and, we have seen, how young adolescents should be employed in a world-wide system of Civil Task-Forces, where they get an intensive exposure to the various social environments and their problems. These young people in the Civil Task-Force build-up "credit" on which they will depend for the remainder of their lives. In essence, therefore, a young individual will do a lot of hard physical work during his physical prime. This work will benefit countless other people, as he or she travels with the Task-Force from community to community, and, from one country to another, helping in the difficult and back-breaking labour-tasks that have to be accomplished. When the young adult has made his contributions, he or she will benefit, in turn, from the Task-Forces that come after him, as he returns to his community, settles into a quieter life-style, builds a house and raises a family. We have sketched these ideas before, and, we will not elaborate them, here.

6 Let us consider, now, whether or not it is possible to incorporate some of the ideas and principles of Free-Enterprise into an essentially equalised and just society. Is the lure of private enterprise and personal initiative justified, or, do we have to be very suspicious about the lure of an egocentric orientation? Should all activities and enthousiasm come from a full awareness of the ideals of a just society? Indeed, it would be preferable, if people were motivated by the common goals and problems that present themselves, but, we should make a distinction between a hard-core, egocentric lust for wealth and power, where the ultimate objective is to have complete power over others and the freedom to do as one pleases, and, the lure, fascination and excitement we experience, when we are allowed to experiment with a new method of solving a problem, a more efficient way of doing things, or, with another way of looking at reality.

7 Indeed, it is very important, that, we, as a society, always encourage initiatives, improvements, efficiency, or, a new and better way of doing things. It is also important, that we stimulate people into asking questions; why are we doing this or that; why are we believing so and so; what is the meaning of society; what is wrong with giving each other a hand, or providing complementary services? This questioning should not be viewed as the beginnings of a reactionary, Capitalist attitude, as long as the egocentric motivations or personal profits are kept within limits.

8 Let us encourage entrepreneurial ingenuity, innovative approaches, as well as extensive intellectual questioning and scrutiny, but, let us also recognise, when a successful entrepreneur is gaining much more wealth and power than is needed for his personal development and the satisfaction of a sense of achievement. Let us recognise, when the accumulation of wealth and power becomes detrimental to the society and the people around him. In summary; free-enterprise, yes; certainly, a free-enterprise of the mind, but, not the free-enterprise that leads to empires of wealth and power, a division of the peoples into classes with widely diverging standards of living, or, a free-enterprise that leads to powerful corporations and multi-national giants.

9 Socialism, yes, in particular a Socialism that emphasises equal opportunity, equal benefits for all the members, as well as the basic securities that belong to being a member of society, but, not a Socialism that promises only to take from the wealthy and give to the masses, or, a Socialism that would recklessly increase public expenditures and debts. In particular, we say "no" to the practice of Socialism, or any political ideology, that contributes by its fiscal policies to the devaluation of a currency. Inflation can and should be abolished completely, because inflation is nothing more than legalised robbery, where each and every contract between employer and employee is undermined by the steadily declining value of the monetary compensation that has been negotiated.

10 We certainly say "no" to a Socialism that appeals to revolutionary fervor, or to the elitism of the working classes. We say "no" to a Socialism that stifles discussion and inquiry, and, that is afraid of dissent, but, we fully endorse a Socialist Ideal, making sure that all members and groups benefit in a more or less equal manner from belonging to society. We certainly say "no" to any political Party that elevates its particular doctrines or ideology to an immutable Constitution. We say "no" to any Party, that refuses open political debate or intellectual disagreement, because it just is not viable to suppress dissent and intellectual scrutiny. We want a society, where each and every member, regardless of one's political views, has an equal say in selecting the leadership of society, but, we also say "no" to a "democracy", where the elected representatives are severely pressured and influenced by powerful lobbies and special-interest groupings.

11 Let the democratic societies of the Capitalist West not assume lightly, that they possess the ultimate form of government, and, that their democratic systems are flaw-less, and, let the societies that have recently liberated themselves from a tyrannical upper crust and neo-colonialist exploitation, not believe, that their revolutionary successes and their political, social and economic advancements will automatically ensure justice for everyone. It is important to be vigilant against the replacement of one dictatorship with another, or, of one system of injustices with another, equally unjust system of government.

12 Together, nations of the world, we will have to discuss, openly and probingly, to what extent national leaderships can, indeed, claim to be representing all the peoples of their respective societies, and, if we are sure they do, we should refuse to recognise any leadership that does not fully represent their own people. With such a concerted international effort we can achieve, without bloodshed and far more efficiently, the same goals for which many revolutionaries are now fighting and dying. Besides, let us not forget; if we allow the revolutionary overthrow of a dictatorship, we see, that, those, who fought so hard and have sacrificed so much, are going to refuse to share power with those who watched from the side-lines, and, we condone or encourage, then, tacitly, the emergence of a revolutionary elite.

13 We say "no" to free-enterprise, if it wants to set prices and wages entirely through the forces of supply and demand. Perhaps, this system is justified for a few luxury items, where there is no existential significance to their possession, but, many products we consume, or services we rely upon, are essential to our well-being, or to our sense of happiness. We are well aware, now, of the undesirable consequences, if we leave large groups of entrepreneurs and corporate interests free to create an atmosphere of frantic consumerism; where people are enticed to enslave themselves financially; where precious natural resources are consumed and largely wasted, and, where the cumulative effects of toxic and noxious waste-products and dangerous pollutants are posing a serious threat to our environment.

14 The question, what we consume, how much we consume, and, whether or not we all are provided with a basic standard of living, are such important questions, that society as a whole has to make decisions about them. The time has gone, that we could consider our resources inexhaustible, or, the environment a limitless dump for unwanted waste-products. The time has gone, that the forces of supply and demand could introduce a measure of affluence for all, and provide an efficient method for producing needed items.

15 We have argued before, how the market forces of supply and demand introduce, quickly, inequities and inequalities, because many of the weaker members of society become rapidly dependent upon a certain item or service, without the ability to provide a similarly valuable item or service in return. This process of dependence makes them weak and vulnerable to exploitation. If we say "no" to the free-enterprise system of determining prices, we also say "no" to the forces of collective bargaining for determining wage-levels, nor, do we agree with the rather arbitrary and monopolisitic way of fixing fees by many "professional groupings".

16 The entire field of economic planning, including decisions about affordable levels of consumption, prices and wages, should, indeed, be a general social responsibility, and, these responsibilities should be handled by the competent bureaucracy of a centralised government. In spite of the fact, that, many of the existing examples of a centrally planned economy are plagued by formidable problems, such as bureaucratic inefficiencies, mistakes and bungling, we believe, that it is possible, with the help of computer technology, to gather sufficiently accurate information to make the technique of central planning work, and work well. We should, then, be rid of the problems of inflation, because a centrally planned government should always work with a balanced budget, and, it should avoid any significant accumulation of debts. The people will not be saddled with the nearly interminable task of trying to pay-off a large debt, and, there will be a much greater correlation between productivity and an affordable level of consumption.

17 We have discussed these aspects before, and, we have seen, how society will have to become far more transparent than is possible, now, for the Capitalistic, free-enterpise societies, as well as for the dogmatic, Socialist Democracies. However, we should emphasise, once again, that intellectual discussion and debate, even, dissent and the vigorous championing of alternative view-points and ways of doing things, are to be encouraged, as long as all participants acknowledge, that discussions and disagreements should be kept within bounds and should not lead to hostilities or damage communal interests and institutions.

18 The elected leadership has the final say in all decisions that fall within its jurisdiction, but, after the mandate has run its course, the leadership should go to the people and ask for a renewed mandate; from all the people, and not just Party-members, and, it should make-way for another leadership, if it does not succeed in winning the support from a majority of the voters.

19 Allright, I understand the main thrust of your ideas. You feel, probably, quite rightly, that a central planning of detailed economic activities, including wages, prices and standards of living and consumption, will be possible with the help of a tightly organised and monitored society, where the myriad of necessary data are gathered and processed by computers, and, where all citizens have the same rights and the same level of access to all sorts of information about each other's assets, incomes, activities, even plans and opinions.

20 You realise, I hope, that it will be a long road, before we can convince people, that such a high level of transparence will be to their benefit. In an atmosphere of exploitation and mistrust, most people will recoil from such ideas, because they fear, that they will be threatened and abused, if they have to disclose all these particulars about themselves. In a society that is widely tinged by somewhat corrupt attitudes and unethical practices, most people would strongly resist such a drive towards universal openness and transparence, because they all have something to hide.

21 Anyhow, let me grant you, that it should be possible with a slow, methodical, evolutionary approach, to work towards a greater degree of openness in society, as well as a greater degree of expertise in the art of making justified, centrally planned and detailed decisions about all the daily activities that take place in a large and complex society. If we institute such a slow and deliberate program of social reforms, it may be possible to overcome the fear and hesitation of affluent citizens to cooperate with a program of increased social transparence. We have to prove, that social transparence will serve the cause of social justice for every-one, and, that it will not become a tool for persecution by government officials or influential organisations.

22 I would like to ask you a few questions, because there are many features about the development towards a greater degree of viability and transparence that are not very clear. You talk, rather glibly, about "societies", without clearly specifying, whether or not you mean "sovereign nations". Perhaps, you should elaborate the concepts of society and community, as well as those of a nation or sovereign entity. It seems, at least, to me, that the existence of a "sovereign nation", at the present time, represents, so often, a somewhat haphazard result of the accidents of history; the vagaries of fortune; the end-result of a long series of conquests and defeats, and, for this reason, we see, that, some larger nations are made-up of numerous communities with different ethnic and cultural groupings which happen to be dominated, or, at least, brought-together under an overall political leadership that has the power, (mostly military power), to ensure the unity or togetherness of this nation.

23 Certainly, it is possible that a wise and benevolent leadership may, indeed, gain a significant measure of support from a majority of the various ethnic groupings, strengthening the federation of societies or States under the overall leadership of the "sovereign nation" as a whole. However, if the vagaries of history, as well as the opinion or support of other nations is in favour of the "independence" of a small nation, we see the curious fact, that, some national entities are so small, so forlorn and so without any realistic means of a true independence, and, yet, they are required to support costly government institutions, and, they have to take their place as "equals" amongst nations that are a thousand times more populous, more powerful and more viable.

24 Because of these discrepancies, and, because of the fact, that each and every nation depends for its size and population on its past record of conquests and defeats, it seems reasonable to conclude, that a "nation" is too arbitrary a unit to be meaningful as a "social unit". Certainly, in a large majority of cases, there is a good correlation, between the size and form of the nation, and the ethnic groupings that form this nation. However, the large nations have often different groupings that are just as far apart from each other as the ethnic differences between peoples in sovereign and independent States, and, there is, therefore, no logical reason, why such larger nations should not fall-apart along more natural, ethnic lines and form a series of "independent countries". Nor is there any reason, why sovereign and independent nations with large ethnic differences could not fuse into a Federated State.

25 Yet, human nature, and, in particular, the strong territorial instincts of our leaders prevent any self-respecting leadership from even considering such apparently logical arguments. Each and every leadership will consider it an absolute right, as well as an unquestionable truth, that the entire territory under its effective influence, or jurisdiction, belongs to the nation as a whole. These leaderships consider themselves to have, therefore, the moral right and solemn duty to defend the integrity of their nation, either, against "separatism" from groupings within their national unit, or, against the "territorial ambitions" of other leaders, who are enthralled by the prospect of enlarging their jurisdiction.

26 Along these same lines of argument, it is utterly ridiculous to see "independent nations", or largely autonomous regions, which have a population of only a few hundred thousand people. Most cities in the larger countries have far more inhabitants than such an autonomous region, and, it seems incongruous, that, sometimes, a few hundred thousand people are merely the inhabitants of one of the suburbs of a large city, and, on other occasions, constitute a "sovereign nation" with all the trappings of government and a seat in the United Nations.

27 While it certainly appeals to the pride and feelings of self-importance of those who are rulers and leaders within such small but sovereign nations, we see, in actual practice, that the peoples are rarely well-off as a result of their independence. As a matter of fact, it is fair to state, that the standard of living for the people in most of these small, forlorn, but sovereign nations, is not as good as for those, who live in the larger nations. In particular, when we look at such facilities as medical, educational or juridical care, as well as the question of human rights, we see, that, many of these small nations are merely the play-ground of international politics and multi-national corporations, who are catering to the heady feelings of power enjoyed by a small but dominant elite.

28 Indeed, a nation reflects, primarily, the past fortunes and misfortunes of the various social groupings which have been in contact and in conflict with each other. Societies, or natural social groupings of people, who share a cultural pool of notions and ideas, common historical events, as well as a common ethnic origin, are, often, not sovereign. If they are lucky, they form, together with a few other ethnic groupings, a relatively stable and harmonious country, but, if the accidents of history have been less favourable, they are dominated by another social grouping. They may be discriminated against, or, at least, they may feel that they are being discriminated against, or, they have been divided between neighbouring States, each segment under the heel of another ethnic majority.

29 It is, therefore, impossible to equate the concept of "society" with that of a "nation", and, we should be aware of the fact, that, many social groupings, societies or ethnic and cultural groupings have variable and often difficult relationships with each other. As a result, we can not give sharp definitions, exact boundaries, or clear-cut outlines for the living organisation of a society. The "social organism" resembles a "syncytium", where the cells are so closely adherent to each other, that, in many places, their cellular boundaries have disappeared. Then, it become impossible to say, where one cell begins or the other ends.

30 Precisely. This is a good example, and, I tend to agree wholeheartedly with your distinction between the functional unit of a society, and the rather haphazard social conglomerate of a nation. I also agree with the observations you have made about the accidents of history determining a nation's size and composition. However, let us keep in mind, that it is difficult for the average reader, who is not familiar with the many images of the biological sciences, to see the analogy between societies of human beings and the cellular syncytium. I believe, that it will be increasingly important, in the future, to see ourselves, (not only, our individual existence, but, also, our collective or social existence), as a biological phenomenon, and, if we, as average members, want to understand ourselves and our societies in a truly comprehensive manner, we will have to become familiar with this basic biological imagery of the sciences, which will certainly become an important and relevant subject for a general educational curriculum.

.......

Chapter 5

Content

A spectrum of view-points and options.
Entropy in the social organism; a comparison with the force-fields of the cellular protoplasm.
Mechanisms of decay.
The sexual mode of reproduction, and the forces of natural selection.
Genetic and cultural codes.
Anxiety and dissent.
Learning to unravel the mechanisms of a dispute.
Mechanisms of adaptation.
The weakening of a social structure through serious disagreements.
Strikes are an affront to the principle of democratic representation.
A democracy has to be sensitive to many different moods and opinions.
The concept of settling labour disputes by judicial means.
Reviewing the role of the Constitution.
Good, solid, scientific discipline.
The value of a scientific presentation.
Honest thinkers will always encourage an intense scrutiny of their concepts and proposals.
Measuring the facts of social realities.
Politics and bureaucracies.
We still lack a core of agreed-upon knowledge about the realities of socially integrated existence.
Essentially just regulatory mechanisms will encourage the unfolding of a wide variety of individual talents and ideas.
No freedoms without limitations, and, no privileges without obligations.
The fine line between a fruitful, invigorating discussion, and a slide into paralysis and confusion.

1 We will not trace the imagery of the biological sciences in detail, because we have done so in the past, and, we want to concentrate, here, on one particular aspect. It seems worthwhile to narrow our discussion in the final part of this essay, on the role of discussion, disagreement, dissent and the spectrum of view-points and choices, and, to review their influence as tools in the evolution of a social environment.

2 If we compare society and its myriad of internal relationships, actions and transactions with the cellular protoplasm and the numerous molecular substances that act and react with each other, we come to the conclusion, that a social organism is just as much subjected to the forces of wear and tear, or entropy, as those of the cellular protoplasm. Just as the protoplasmic molecular structures are labile, always ready to react one way or another, so are the members of society a conglomerate of eagerly reacting, even, volatile individuals, who have the ability to react or behave in various ways.

3 We assume, that a complex field of electro-static, chemical and other physical potentials is responsible for guiding and fueling the metabolic processes of the cell, and, we know, that it takes a continuous influx of energy to keep these cellular mechanisms intact. If there is a lack of food, energy or suitable building-blocks; if there is an undue accumulation of toxic or noxious waste-products, or, if the cellular protoplasm comes into contact with poisonous substances that block an essential reaction, or, if it is subjected to chemical, thermal or physical stresses that disrupt the function and structure of the protoplasm, then, the cell will be severely damaged, often, beyond repair. Once this critical stage has been reached, the coordinating forces have lost control, and, a large number of potentially harmful and destructive substances are released from their confined quarters or protective caskets. The cell disintegrates quickly in a process of decay.

4 This decay is, partly, the result of such "liberated" but dangerous substances as "autolytic enzymes". It is, partly, due to the invasion of chemicals from the environment, which can now penetrate a membrane that can not actively select, anymore, the beneficial substances. In part, this process of decay is a reflection of the fact, that, most chemical and biochemical potentials and processes revert to a random, and, thereby, destructive process, if they are not guided and checked anymore by the regulatory and coordinating force-fields within a cell. This reversion to a process of random distribution, as well as the "running-down" of biochemical sequences to their lowest levels of energy, (since they are not replenished any longer by an influx of newly synthesised or manufactured materials), is called "entropy", and, these mechanisms contribute to the complex decay processes that always take place, whenever a living organisation has lost the ability to retain its structural and functional integrity, and has, therefore, "died".

5 I believe, that it is useful to keep his imagery from the biological sciences in mind, whenever we look at the phenomena of a social organism, because we can see many useful parallels that may help us understand, and grasp, what is happening around us and within us. However, in order to have a truly broad basis for comparison, we should also revive, or evoke, another biological imagery into our conscious awareness; an image we have discussed before as well.

6 We have seen, how the sexual mode of reproduction produces, in each generation, a "spectrum" of actualised members, where the individual members of the species are similar but not identical. They are similar enough to be able to mate with each other, but they all have somewhat different potentials and characteristics. If a species is subjected to severe existential pressures, there will be a very high mortality rate for each generation, but, this means, that the next generation will come entirely from the most successful segment of the previous generation. This allows a reasonably quick penetration of the beneficial genetic traits throughout the following generations, while those traits that are a hindrance to survival, are quickly weeded-out. This mechanism of natural selection provides, therefore, a measure of flexibility or adaptability for the species. If all members would be identical, natural selection could not "select" or advance the more beneficial traits and weed-out the useless genes, and, we have discussed the reasons, why the sexual mode of reproduction, together with the subsequent spectrum of capabilities, spread throughout a living generation, have become key concepts in the interpretation of natural evolution.

7 These ideas and mechanisms are also mirrored in the adaptation of a society and its cultural code. We have discussed these ideas before, but we want to review them, briefly, and, we should bring the mechanisms of discussion and dissent into the focus of a "spectrum" or range of behavioural possibilities. Perhaps, we can show, that, a similar process of natural selection, acting upon a variety of options and view-points, may enhance the viability of a society, in particular, since the social organism also has to adapt to continuously changing external and internal circumstances.

8 Most of us will recognise the logic, that a society with an active and open discussion of problems and issues, will have an easier time to adjust to changing circumstances, compared to a society that is ruled by rigid concepts and strict guidelines. Perhaps, we can, even, develop a "feeling" for the interesting similarities between the changing constitution of a gene-pool, (whenever a species is busily adapting itself), and the changing cutural pool of a society that is evolving, rapidly, under the pressures of changing conditions.

9 However, these intuitive recognition patterns remain vague, because we do not see any practical benefit from the awareness of such a comparison between the cultural pool of society, and the gene-pool of a species. Besides, the occurrence of argument and dissent evokes, quickly, serious anxieties, where we take sides and condemn certain view-points as erroneous or "evil". If we are not involved in a particular argument, we quickly tire from listening to the interminable squabbling, and, we lose interest. If we are involved, we can not avoid being drawn into the conflict, and, it becomes a highly charged emotional experience, where the vague realisation that we are part of a society evolving into a more viable structure by the processes of competing opinions and ideas, fades quickly into the background.

10 Perhaps, then, we should not lose interest, but, bring-up the energy to observe keenly, whenever a verbal fight is going-on. The fact, that we are not involved should give us the opportunity to make a detailed study of the flow of arguments, as well as the behavioural postures and attitudes of those involved. Perhaps, it is possible to extract useful concepts and ideas from the parallels between the gene-pool and the cultural pool, and, perhaps, it is possible to formulate critera of natural selection that apply equally well to an evolving species and an evolving social unit.

11 If a species is evolving, there are severe existential pressures upon a succession of living generations, and, the pressures have to be severe enough to exclude the lesser viable members from the processes of reproduction, otherwise, the desirable genetic traits can not start to dominate in the following generations. However, the pressures can not be so severe, that an insufficient number of members survive to reproduce successfully. In the latter case, the population starts to decline dramatically; the scope of the evolutionary experiment begins to decline, and, the species is likely to perish all-together. Then, it will have become "extinct", and, we are beginning to appreciate, how often such an ultimate disaster for the existence possibilities of a species has taken place, and is still taking place.

12 Similarly, if a single cell begins to adapt to changing circumstances, the pressures have to be severe and constant enough for the organism to make a definite response into a particular direction. If the pressures are extremely severe, the organism can not yield or adapt; it has to flee for its life, or, it has to put-up a desperate "last stance", which, almost invariably, ends in death.

13 If a society wants to adapt successfully to changing circumstances and persistent internal or external pressures, these pressures will have to be persistent enough to induce a clear-cut adaptative response. If the pressures are modest, localised, or not very persistent, the society can not, and will not, make any effort to change. A minor irritation or challenge will simply be suppressed or ignored. If the challenges and pressures are continuously changing, a society becomes confused, and, it can not find an adequate response. It has to be able to find a root or common cause in the fluctuating pressures and challenges, and, it has to be able to respond to those root-causes effectively. If the internal or external pressures are severe and sudden, the social organism becomes confused and paralysed, and, if the pressures are extreme, the society will fall-apart into warring factions, or, it will be quickly taken-over by an "outside predator".

14 Therefore, if the dissent within society takes the form of powerful sub-groupings striking at the heart of society by work-stoppages or other acts of sabotage, such a society is severely "weakened". It may gain some time by meekly giving-in to the power exerted by these sub-groupings, but, such a policy is the beginning of the end. Justice disappears. The regulatory mechanisms vanish, and, society becomes a forum for the egocentric power-play of its most influential groupings, sliding, invariably, towards chaos and belligerence.

15 The practice of "industrial actions", or strikes and work-stoppages against society, are dangerous, and, they are, in essence, a perversion of democratic principles. In the past, the work-stoppage against the industrial employer was necessary to compensate the workers for the rapidly increasing size and power of the industrial employer. We have argued these points before, and we will not elaborate them. However, the collective bargaining process with the employer of the State is essentially different from the private industrial concern. If a government is truly representative of the people, elected by the people, then, the strike against society by a powerful sub-grouping is an act of treason, because it goes against the democratic principle.

16 A truly responsible and sensitive government of the people and elected by the people, should also be capable, competent and sensitive enough to avoid the accumulation of severe tensions and frustrations amongst the people, regardless of the question, whether or not these pockets of frustration and resentment are due to a real or imagined injustice, and, regardless, whether these tensions are developing amongst powerful sub-groupings, or the smaller and so easily ignored and forgotten minorities.

17 Strikes against society are an immoral and egocentric way of adjusting to problems, but, we should also acknowledge, that most affluent societies have grown so quickly, and, they have become so complex and confusing, that the leaderships and their bureaucracies are unable to grasp the many problems and tensions that exist in these chaotic social environments. In the future, disputes between labour and management will be settled in a Court of Justice, just as all other disputes that can not be settled voluntarily, or "out of Court", are settled by a competent judicial process, and not by acts of violence or intimidation.

18 Certainly, the judicial system will have to be greatly expanded by a specialised branch dealing with labour disputes, and, the Constitutional Guidelines will have to specify rules for these relationships. Only then can the Constitution guide the people involved, including those, who have the responsibility to investigate and judge such a dispute between employers and employees.

19 We have mentioned, that political programs, or "platforms", should also be guided by Constitutional Guidelines, in order to make sure, that political behaviour does not become erratic, confusing or irresponsible, whenever different leaderships with different political ideas are following each other after an electoral victory. Just as a living organism can not be expected to do well, if its behavioural responses change radically from one moment to the next, so should the direction of leadership, and, in particular, the overall social, economic and fiscal policies of a society, not be subjected to complete reversals.

20 We have reviewed the reasons, why it is imperative, that the Constitution controls the accumulation of debts for people and their social environments alike, because we have seen the disastrous impoverishment and enslavement resulting from an irresponsible and reckless acceptance of financial obligations. Similarly, political promises or policy implementations should never be allowed to distort the basic guidelines of justice and equality, and, I am convinced, that, within the limits of tolerance set by Constitutional Guidelines, political leaders, thinkers and advisors will find plenty of room to argue, discuss and differ with each other, and, they still will be able to capture the attention and imagination of the voters.

21 Just as a generation of a species shows a spectrum of possibilities and capabilities, given by the range of variability of its genetic code, so is the social organisation and function variable within the limits set by the Constitutional Code.

22 If we keep these principles in mind, we begin to see a clear avenue for guiding discussions and dissent into channels that are beneficial and constructive. Perhaps, we should take a good look, once again, at the accurate, controled, and non-emotional discussion between a number of senior and secure scientists, who, in an atmosphere of mutual respect for each other's capabilities, are nevertheless engaged in a tough, honest and, above all, precise discussion about a particular point of interpretation within their scientfic field of concern. One of the characteristics of a good, solid scientific discipline is the fact, that such a field of science has a basic core of agreed-upon ideas and concepts, in which new observations and the finer details of a particular aspect can be fitted.

23 This requires a considerable amount of debate, because the members are, first of all, engaged in a process, where they inform each other of observations and ideas that have been developed within a smaller research-unit. After the members have "learned" about these new ideas and findings in the form of a "scientific presentation", a discussion will follow, where the methods of obtaining the data and the thought processes that led to a particular interpretation, are extensively scrutinised. While this may be a somewhat painful process for the people who have been making a presentation to their colleagues, this process is absolutely necessary, because it is so important to avoid facile or unwarranted conclusions by showing short-comings in the methods of gathering and manipulating data, or, to debate variations in the way these data can be interpreted. If such a scrutinising process leads to a general acceptance of the data, or the new ideas that lie behind them, they will become part of the "basic core" of knowledge of this particular field, and, if the information and conclusions influence the research and thoughts of colleagues and scientific people in related areas, they become ever more important and influential structures of belief and interpretation.

24 As a rule, these scientific discussions are precise, and the presentations are careful, because no-one wants to be ridiculed or exposed as an incompetent scientific worker. Nevertheless, anxieties are easily aroused. Personalities play an enormous role, and, the communication of a senior leader in the field will gain much more readily acceptance compared to the presentation of a new-comer. Therefore, traditional, "cultural" mechanisms, such as the acceptance of information on the basis of authority are unavoidable, but, there is always the possibility for a fascinating new insight to emerge. Scientific thinkers, regardless of their authority and prestige, will encourage such an intensive scrutiny, and, they will shy-away from abusing the authority they have acquired over the years by virtue of their solid and consistent work.

25 When debating social issues, or, when identifying and defining the "facts of a social reality", we can learn a great deal from the scientific methodology. Many politicians, interested citizens, business and community leaders think that they have a good, comprehensive and objective grasp over the facts of social reality, but, in arguing with each other, an observant outsider can notice, quite clearly, that their arguments and presentations seem to "slide past each other", because they are speaking from different perspectives. If we think about it, we come to the conclusion, that there are very few precise measurements available for the "facts of social reality". Certainly, many aspects are difficult to measure, because it is not easy to measure, accurately and meaningfully, the moods, fears and expectations of people, but, then, let us frankly acknowledge that measurable facts are not available.

26 Most of us, including many political leaders, do not even know the extent of the organisational structure of society, nor, the functions of all the government departments, bureaucracies and semi-official institutions. We know very little about their work, what people do in all these government affiliated bureaucracies. We do not know, who sets the guidelines, who regulates their work; who supervises the efficiency and productivity of all these branches and departments of government, which are, officially, "arms" of the leadership, and, yet, these are all measurable facts of a "social reality".

27 Even Parliamentarians, the elected representatives of the people, who get paid for a full-time job, where they look after the needs of society and the people, even the Parliamentarians do not have a clue, how their governments work; where all the decisions and influences come from; what exactly the financial status is of all these institutions. In short; governmental business and political reality remain, at least, in the complex, affluent and democratic societies, a ceaseless struggle between various groups and individuals, who are trying to impress upon the electorate, that they have all the answers and all the cures for the ills of society.

28 Political campaigning is, therefore, not a precise discussion about facts and figures, which everyone can verify, but, it is a carefully orchestrated effort to "create an image" that is appealing to a large part of the electorate. Certainly, as part of this effort to convey the impression that the political candidate knows what he is talking about, we see the frequent and confident quotation of all sorts of statistical information and expert opinions, but, we see, also, that these statistics are often disputed by others, and, we note, that this statistical information has been selected with a certain bias in order to support a pre-conceived notion or conclusion. In particular the technique of quoting expert opinion is, often, a technique of selectively high-lighting certain aspects or facts, which may, then, acquire a different shade of meaning or weight compared to their original context.

29 In summary, we lack the basic core of agreed-upon knowledge about the realities of social existence, and, we need such a core of basic knowledge, in order to talk sensibly and fruitfully with each other about society and its problems. Certainly, scientifically inclined people have made efforts, for a long time, to develop a methodology to measure more precisely a variety of sociological phenomena, but the complexity of society, as well as the lack of access to many sources of information, have made many of these efforts to obtain a more objective description of society, so far, a rather academic and sterile excercise. Still, too often, the laborious and costly research of sociological studies and opinion-polls leads to conclusions that common-sense had already recognised or anticipated, or, we see an artificial simplification of the models of society for the sake of measurement and manipulability, which makes the results rather abstract, and, sometimes, irrelevant.

30 Modern computer techniques open-up, for the first time in history, the possibility to obtain an accurate, complete and up-to-date profile of everything that is happening in society. As we have argued before, this essential openness of all happenings in society, (including many of the facts of individual existence, as well as the deliberations and decisions of the leadership), is necessary, before we can even begin to put-together a relevant and comprehensive picture of society. After we have accomplished such a generally agreed-upon profile of social facts and events, discussions will not slide pointlessly besides each other.

31 Let us return, for a moment, to the idea, that all activities of human behaviour, of leaders, individuals, groupings or leadership institutions, should be carefully regulated and maintained within a certain limit or "tolerance". This tolerance does not have to be so narrow, that, any questioning of the wisdom of official policies or beliefs would be felt as a severe threat, but, neither should the right or privilege of freedom of expression be abused to the point, that the behaviour of social institutions and its members, becomes confused and paralysed.

32 Once a society develops a great deal of confidence in the essential justice of its regulatory mechanisms, as well as its ability to monitor accurately all the significant events, moods and opinions within society, this society can afford to give a great deal of latitude in beliefs and behaviour to its members, and, it certainly can afford to encourage a wide variety of talents to be explored and developed within a framework of wide-ranging, inter-dependent relationships.

33 However, as part of the maintenance of the status of essential justice, the attitudes of exploitation and parasitism can not be tolerated, and, each individual or group has, therefore, the duty to contribute its fair share to society. Parasitism and exploitative practices can and do occur, and, they are particularly prone to develop, if a powerful elite is not supervised and scrutinised constantly, in order to ensure, that it functions according to the obligations and responsibilities which are an inevitable corollary of a position of power and privilege.

34 Parasitic or exploitative attitudes and practices, occur, whenever people are allowed to "wallow" in their freedoms, and, whenever they are allowed to neglect their duties and responsibilities. Each individual has duties and responsibilities, regardless of one`s position in society. Responsibility has to be taught and cultivated from an early age, and, we have to restore the primary aim of our educational systems in the affluent societies; nl., to create informed, responsible and concerned citizens.

35 Anyone, who thinks that it is possible to have freedoms without limitations, or privileges without obligations, and, anyone, who thinks that it is justified to challenge power and authority in every manner possible, is a parasite and a misinformed individual, who is sliding dangerously towards criminal behaviour and pernicious attitudes.

36 The swift punishment of wrong-doing after a competent trial, is, not only, a matter of justice, but, it reflects the vigour and vigilance of society. It is an injustice, when a criminal gets an undue amount of attention and rehabilitation, while the victims are buried and forgotten.

37 The main idea we want to emphasise, here, is the fact, that, freedom, liberty and security for everyone, are a gift, a birth-right and a principle of justice, which are given, equally and without discrimination, to all human beings born into society, but, no society, no leadership, no educational program or belief structure can survive, if it does not know, exactly, where the limitations of freedom and responsibility lie. Nor can any society, group or individual expect a stable social environment, if all forms of dissent, discussion, scrutiny or questioning are ruthlessly and blindly suppressed. In order to know the fine dividing line between fruitful discussion and an invigorating spectrum of opinion, and, a paralsying chaos and confusion, we have to learn to build-up an agreed-upon core of basic knowledge about ourselves and our societies.

.......

Summary

1. Defining a "dialogue".
Synonyms are not identical.
The element of "being serious".
A dialogue may have many shades of meaning.
Why people talk so easily "besides each other".
Placing each other in a frame of reference.
A shift towards the sphere of familiarity of the least knowledgeable partner.
The challenge of exchanging complete and precise information.
Sticking to non-controversial subjects.
The importance of finding a common ground of shared and agreed-upon reality perceptions.
When a debate is "played-out" in front of an audience.
An analysis of relationships; teachers and students.
Standardising the presentation of teaching material.
"Living teachers"; seminar leaders of the class-room.
A look at "the news"; the war of words, or, "propaganda".
An elusive truth.
The science of selecting and reporting contemporary news-events.
Providing a background to what is happening today.
Criteria of objectivity.
The channels of authority.
The news-media; seen as a "tool" in the hands of a democratically elected leadership.

2. A comparison between individual and collective behavioural tools.
A dependence of the human "social organism" on cultural guidelines.
Behavioural adaptations; the function of a competitive struggle.
Evaluating the accuracy and relevance of news-items.
Learning to detect the bias or motivation behind the information we are asked to believe.
An urgent need for intellectual guidance and leadership.
An abuse of intellectual or rational powers.
Rationality, and naturally ethical behaviour.
The price of living in a democratic society is the responsibility to monitor each other's behaviour, including the behaviour of our leaders.
Why a leadership can not be "far ahead" of the electorate.
Dissent has to have a meaningful voice.
Being held responsible for one's opinions.
Dialogues under Constitutional Guidelines.
A sobering look at contemporary societies.
A just approach to the task of securing collective survival.
The dangers of a rigid cultural code.
Opinions can not be stifled by force.
Polarising mechanisms in the social environment.
We are being lulled to sleep by affluent, consumerist dreams.
Let us expose hypocrisy and injustice, wherever we see it.

3. The limits of constructive dissent.
A mandate to rule, received from an informed electorate.
Short-comings of rule by a revolutionary elite.
The obligation to teach the meaning and mechanisms of Constitutional Guidelines.
Short-comings of affluent, free-enterprise democracies.
A number of questions.
The all-pervasive power of wealth.
Why organised labour is increasingly "out of touch" with the average citizen.
Capitalist democracies suffer from deep divisions in social status and outlook.
Short-comings of Socialist Ideals.
Freely enterprising, politically pluralist democracies, and the problems of inflation and rising public debts.
Contrasts between the ideals of Socialism and the objectives of Free-Enterprise.
People have to have a reasonable chance "to make it", before they are willing to participate in the social "rat-race".
A rising feeling of entrapment and despair.
Capitalist, as well as Socialist Systems have become dependent on a process of steady economic expansion.
A strident dissent, whenever the level of prosperity declines.
Benefits and problems associated with a widely spread "blanket of security".
No social sructure has "eternal life", yet, it has to be reasonably stable.
The need to shape deliberately the guidelines for social mechanisms and inter-actions.
The need to make a contribution, whenever we can.
It is easy to lose sight of the correlation between contribution and remuneration.
Productivity is in danger of being swallowed-up by the obligation to service debts.

4. The Socialist Ideal; implementing essential equality, and contributing according to one's means and opportunities.
Why Socialism has failed in many democratic societies.
Learning to reject facile promises.
Consumption and expenditures have to be under tight Constitutional Controls.
Organising the existential chores of society according to the life-cycle of the individual.
Free-Enterprise principles and mechanisms in a social environment that is based on essential equality.
The importance of encouraging innovative, yet, socially responsible behaviour.
Why we say "yes" and "no" to contemporary Socialism, as well as to contemporary Free-Enterprise.
No monopoly of any kind.
A resurgence of centralist economic planning in the future.
The essential need for social transparence.
Why an elected leadership has to have the final say.
Over-coming fears and suspicions.
Social transparence has to prove, that it is a tool of social justice.
Questions about sovereignty.
An illusion of equality between contemporary nations.
Sovereign States and ethnic groupings.
The instinctive behaviour-patterns of territorial leaders.
The haphazard foundation of a national entity.
Differences between societies and nations.
The importance of explaining our existence from a biological point of view.

5. A spectrum of view-points and options.
Entropy in the social organism; a comparison with the force-fields of the cellular protoplasm.
Mechanisms of decay.
The sexual mode of reproduction, and the forces of natural selection.
Genetic and cultural codes.
Anxiety and dissent.
Learning to unravel the mechanisms of a dispute.
Mechanisms of adaptation.
The weakening of a social structure through serious disagreements.
Strikes are an affront to the principle of democratic representation.
A democracy has to be sensitive to many different moods and opinions.
The concept of settling labour disputes by judicial means.
Reviewing the role of the Constitution.
Good, solid, scientific discipline.
The value of a scientific presentation.
Honest thinkers will always encourage an intense scrutiny of their concepts and proposals.
Measuring the facts of social realities.
Politics and bureaucracies.
We still lack a core of agreed-upon knowledge about the realities of socially integrated existence.
Essentially just regulatory mechanisms will encourage the unfolding of a wide variety of individual talents and ideas.
No freedoms without limitations, and, no privileges without obligations.
The fine line between a fruitful, invigorating discussion, and a slide into paralysis and confusion.

.......