DIALOGUES II








A Study in Thought

sa072



by





Marius Heuff

Chapter 1

Content

Continuing the dialogue.
Tough questions.
A discussion about personal matters.
The absence of specific quotations or references.
Whom am I writing for?
A grandiose project, and an apparently arrogant attitude.
Getting other people interested in my work.
Further confessions of a lonely writer.
Yes, my aims are pretentious, but I believe that I have something to say that is worthwhile listening to.
An invitation to think.
The meaning of "we see...".
Tear my statements apart, if you can.
The difficult art of generalising correctly.
Generalisations in the field of mathematics.
An intuitive form of recognition; the easy way-out?

I thought that this was a dialogue?

Yes, it is.

I have not been able to get a word in edgewise, because you have been talking, page after page.

My apologies.

It sounds good; as a matter of fact, it sounds too good to be true. Why should I believe you?

You will have to answer such a question yourself.

You spout a lot of ideas, but are you a scientist, a political leader or a diplomat, experienced in all these matters?

No.

Do you have a degree in sociology, philosophy or the political sciences? Have you published books and articles on these matters?

No.

Why do you not quote other writers on these subjects? Have you read them? You have obviously read something, and, your discussions suggest a background in the biological sciences, but, in so many ways you are making sweeping statements, and you are not backing them with substantive proofs, nor with any references. Sometimes, you lose me alltogether, especially, when you switch from cells to animals and human beings, or from politics to history and the nature of our existence. It sounds all rather strange, and, I am asking you, again, why I should listen to you or believe you?

I can not answer this question. You will have to judge for yourself the contents of what I am saying, and, you will have to decide, whether or not it makes sense.

But, who are you? Tell me something about yourself. If I know a little better who you are, what you have studied and what sort of position you occupy or have occupied, I may find it easier to decide, whether or not I should take you seriously.

I am sure, that you would like to know my personal circumstances, and, I know that you are reflecting the feelings and thoughts of many people with your questions. However, I refuse to give any particulars about my background or personality.

Why?

Because I want my work, thoughts and ideas to be judged on their own merit.

Does this mean, that you would refuse all publicity, advertising or personal interviews, if and when a publisher would take the risk of publishing some of your work?

Yes, I would.

You are irrealistic. How do you think people will ever become interested in what you have to say, if you refuse all publicity?

Again, I like my work to be judged on its own merits.

You make it not any easier by talking in generalities and abstractions; by ranging randomly from one subject to another, and by refusing to discuss other writers or to quote specific examples.

I quote a few examples, here and there, but, I try to quote only such examples or observations we all can make, regardless where we are and irrespective of the time-period we happen to live in. In other words; the examples are common, everyday observations, and not specific topics, events or concerns, which happen to interest my generation, or, which have been high-lighted by people and writers in other generations. These examples are of no concern to me, regardless, how well-known they are to the culture I come from.

Is this the reason, why you do not quote any references, writers or books, which may be of use to those readers, who are making a serious effort to see, whether or not your thoughts are worth noting?

Yes. I believe, that it is not necessary to quote other people, or to refer to specific works, because the nature of my work is entirely concerned with drawing large relationships; to paint a large scope or "canvas". I like to draw an imagery of reality that reflects a sensible approach to the problems of our reality experiences. The basic knowledge of the many specialised branches of science, (which I make use of and which should be familiar, or, at least, available to most readers), can be found in a good, up-to-date encyclopedia. This should be supplemented by a keen eye and a reflective inclination about the common experiences of our existence. More is not necessary, and, I am convinced that it is confusing to try to quote specific authors. I am sure, that such a quotation would be quickly out of date, and, it would be, at best, a highly selective or arbitrary choice of the people I happen to have read or come in contact with.

Allright, I will accept this argument, but, by leaving out all quotations, references and other links with a reality of written-down experiences, thoughts and opinions, you make it much more difficult for people to "classify" you; to relate you to a world they know; a world of knowledge and reading they are familiar with. Besides, quoting a published author, especially, if he or she is an "authority", is a great way of establishing or enhancing the credibility of your own work.

Yes, I agree fully with you, but, this is precisely what I do not want.

You do not want people to follow you more easily, or believe you more readily?

I would like people to recognise, that my work is valuable and truthful, but, I want this experience to come-about because of the thoughts, ideas and concepts people are encountering in my works, and not, because they are impressed with the references I have quoted, the extent of the "research" I have done, or the endorsement my work has found from influential circles and critics.

I still think that you are a naive idealist. You know very well, that, by far the majority of people are not able, nor inclined, to judge a work on its own merits. People want to be guided by their critics, and, they want to rely upon the trusted channels of authority, whenever they have to make a decision, whether or not to believe someone, or, how to look at a work of art.

That is true.

So, whom are you writing for?

Perhaps, I write primarily for those, who will have the capability to judge my work on its own merits.

There will not be many.

No, but I do not need many. I feel, that the "fate" of my work does not depend on any particular "technique" of writing. It does not depend on any advertising gimmicks, nor, does it depend on a conformity with contemporary ideas about what constitutes good writing. What matters, really, is the following question; will the course of history be such that these ideas become increasingly more sensible, or, even, necessary, or, will the course of history make my ideas quickly outmoded and out-dated? In the latter case, my concepts and ideas will become superfluous and a curiosity, as the course of history has made completely different ideas relevant. Indeed, the crucial question is this; are my ideas valid and useful when searching for a viable way of looking at reality, and solving the problems of living together in crowded conditions?

I think, that this is a rather grandiose and somewhat arrogant attitude. You ignore the common techniques of gaining a foothold and finding someone, who makes, at least, an effort to have a good look at your work, and, yet, you throw it to the judgement of posterity, assuming, that they will even bother to look, or, be aware of the existence of your writings.

Yes, you have a point. It is true, that I have spurned all the conventional routes to get someone to have a serious look at my work. Until now, my work does not seem very interesting or readable for those to whom I have presented it. Certainly, I have not made a systematic search for the best possible "market" for my work, and, I really believe, that there is no market, and little interest, at the present time. It certainly is not meant to be an easily consumable product for a large audience, and, the experts, who are busily engaged with the many social, political, scientific or philosophical problems I touch upon, are so nestled in their particular social niche and way of interpreting reality, that my work will be too strange and too out of place to even bother looking at.

Have you tried it?

Not seriously, but I have not been encouraged by the responses to the few, tentative attemps which I have made, so far.

This seems a rather half-hearted approach. If you are so convinced about the value of your writing, that you are writing with one eye, and, perhaps, even, two eyes, upon posterity, you should have the courage to push for a realistic appraisal of your work, now. Are you afraid that a truly close and critical look will undermine your confidence in yourself, and, are you, therefore, happier to persist in the illusion, that your contemporaries are too dumb and too un-appreciative to bother with?

Perhaps, you are right. I started out "excercising" my thoughts and writing skills. My objective for writing was, and still is, to put my thoughts on paper, and I am still excercising. I feel, that I am getting better at the art of writing, but, I am indeed working at it in a very isolated position. I do not live in a "writer's circle". I have a few friends I can discuss some of my ideas with, but certainly not to any extent. I am not sure that "academic" people are really more interested or capable of discussing these ideas than the people I know. I grant you, that I have not tried to find "congenial souls" to any extent, but, then, I am not sure, that I really want to discuss all these ideas extensively and exhaustively. I am quite happy to write and to try a variety of approaches to what is, in essence, a recurrent group of problems and concerns.

But, you have not answered my question, whether or not you are afraid that a more extensive exposure to knowledgeable critics will shake your confidence and undermine your determination to continue writing?

Yes, to some extent that is true, because I am not a skilled debater, and, I know, that I may be easily defeated by a clever and aggressive opponent. I certainly have no experience with "playing to an audience", and, I do not doubt the fact, that, someone else, who is skilled at this technique, can ridicule me in public. Of course, I do not like to be ridiculed anymore than anyone else. Also, I am confident enough about the soundness of my ideas and thoughts, to believe, that I can discuss them intelligently in a quiet conversation, but the discussion would probably be "intensely boring" for an audience, and, therefore, I would still be the loser, if I tried to bring these ideas "to the public".

Yet, you are doing the same thing in your writings.

Yes, but, then, I determine the flow of thoughts, and, I have control over what is happening; I can pace myself, and I do not have to stand in front of an audience, trying, time and again, to explain a few basic principles, which most people are totally unfamiliar with or indifferent about.

You feel more comfortable writing than talking?

Not in a small group, but, certainly, I have never contemplated to "lecture" a group of students about the basic ideas I am writing about, nor have I thought about any attempt to persuade my contemporaries that these ideas represent a viable political alternative. I certainly have no capabilities in the political arena; I am too impatient; I detest to "woo" people. (From this point of view I would be better as a "preacher", spewing "fire and brimstone"), and I would tell people a lot of things they certainly would not want to hear, and, which are not accepted from a political candidate. However, I believe, that, eventually, after these ideas have circulated widely amongst the peoples, they will begin to influence the political leaderships of the future, and, I hope, of course, that these concepts and ideas will contribute to a more harmonious human existence.

Here, we are again. Time and again, you seem to set yourself up as a prophet or a teacher, equal to a Buddha or a Christ. This feeling comes through in all your writings, and, it is so unbelievably arrogant and pretentious, that not many people will take you seriously.

I agree, that my work is pretentious, because I present my thoughts, consciously and deliberately, as a system of thoughts and attitudes with the potential to complement the many systems of thoughts and beliefs that have been used, throughout history, as a guide for man's actions and search for survival. Why should I try to hide the meaning or thrust of my philosophy? Is not every philosophy pretentious, by virtue of being a philosophy, because it addresses itself to the major or the most important questions man can be faced with? I make, therefore, no apology for the impression, that it is an attempt to solve man's problems on a global scale. It is meant to give this impression.

Whether or not my work or attitude is "arrogant" is a matter of interpretation. Arrogance is the adoption of an attitude or goal that is judged to be ridiculous, shallow or completely irrealistic. If someone tries to swim the English Channel, but has never swam across a river, then, such an attempt appears "arrogant", because it seems, as if the necessary preparations to make the attempt successful, are totally lacking. In the same way, I hope, people will judge my writings. If the ideas are thrown-out as irrealistic, superficial or outright erroneous, then, the whole structure, or the entire attempt to build a code of natural ethics and a global social organism, will appear "ridiculous", and, the attempt will rightfully be considered as arrogant. However, let us first judge the ideas to see, whether or not they are indeed wrong, shallow or irrealistic; unworthy to build a global society upon. If people can pick these ideas apart, and, if they can expose them as a fraud or a misconception, by all means, close my books and forget that I ever existed. However, this judgement has to be made first, before you can call me and my works, arrogant.

Again, you are inviting people to examine your ideas closely and judge your writings on their own merit?

Precisely.

There is something else that bothers me about the way you write. Quite often you will say; "we see", and then follows a grandiose, sweeping statement, which you do not prove or substantiate at all. This reminds me of a "visionary" or a prophet, who can look into the future, or can see a reality that is closed to us, ordinary mortals. This irritates me, and I think that it irritates other readers as well.

You are quite right. I discuss subjects in a very broad light, and, I precede, indeed, most of my general statements with an introduction such as "we see", etc. However, I would like to say, first of all, that the "we" is not meant to be a "royal we", meaning, in essence, "I". I believe, truly, that all these generalised and often sweeping statements can be recognised by my readers or audience as valid or true. Certainly, the conclusions or summarising and generalising images I use are not based on mystical or exclusive "visionary" insights, but, they are based on generally available and accepted principles of knowledge, primarily, scientific concepts and ideas. It is true, that, often, the statements are conclusions, which I have elaborated and discussed elsewhere, and, if a reader is completely unfamiliar with my writings, it will, indeed, be difficult to "recognise" such summarising statements as valid or familiar. In the first eighteen essays I have made an extensive system of cross references to the many ideas that are discussed, again and again, throughout these eighteen essays, and, if someone makes an effort to study these first eighteen essays carefully, I am convinced that the rest is quite easily readable and understandable. (This system of cross-references has been abandoned.)

My main point is this; I do indeed make many sweeping and generalising statements, and, the fact, that I introduce them with a "we see", means, that I am convinced, that you, or, any other interested reader, can find a measure of recognition in these statements. I am not saying, that "recognition" means, that I expect a full agreement; far from it. I invite and I challenge each one of you to think carefully about these statements, and, if you can, tear them apart; show me, that they are in error, superficial, outmoded or irrelevant. I would love to see you do this, because the primary goal of all my writings is to make you think; not to indoctrinate you in my particular way of looking at reality.

Do you really think, that you can get people interested enough to weigh and dissect carefully all the many statements you make? Especially, the generalised nature of these statements gives me trouble. Sometimes, the statements are so self-evident, that it seems superfluous to talk about them, because, there is no disagreement, and, we all will agree with whatever is self-evident. Many other statements are vague, or, at least, I find it difficult to see, whether or not they are true.

Often, I wished that you would discuss far more practical and specific problems, so that it would be easier to judge, whether you are right or wrong.

True, the art of generalising correctly is not easy, but it is not impossible. It is very difficult to come-up with a generalised statement, because it can be so easily proven wrong. In essence, a generalised statement can never be "proven right". It can only be applied. It gains in value, if more and more specific instances or events seem to follow the generalised rule or concept, but, if there is one clear-cut exception to this rule, the generalised statement loses a great deal of its value, unless it is possible to show, that the exception is only apparent, and, that the discrepancy disappears, if it is looked at, or classified, in a different manner.

Only in mathematics, and, to a lesser extent in physics, has it been possible to formulate general rules or generalised statements about the behaviour of matter and symbols. In particular, in mathematics, generalised statements become the foundation and the guiding principle upon which all relationships are worked-out. Mathematics is, of course a peculiar "science", because its subject-matter is a pure abstraction, or, rather, it consists of purely generalised concepts that exist in our minds as separate, independent entities.

For example, if one and one equals two, we are correct, if we imply a strict identity between "one" and another "one". If we try to apply the statement to one apple and one pear, we see immediately a problem, unless we learn to "generalise" the first "one" and the second "one". We can do this by finding a common denominator of these two entities. We know that both are "fruits". Therefore, we can replace the equation by saying; one fruit and another fruit equals two fruits, and we are back on the right mathematical track.

The art of making generalised statements about the observations of everything we come in contact, regardless, whether we are dealing with realities around or within us, is much more difficult, and, such attempts will necessarily carry a much more "subjective flavour". However, by relying upon the commonly agreed-upon imagery of the sciences and the common denominators we can see in the behaviour and observations of ordinary but observant people, we may be able to make a few statements, which, I believe, could be recognised as valid by most people, who have the same sense-organs as I have, including a somewhat similar "common-sense".

However, I grant you, that these statements do lack "proof", because they can not be proven right. They are formulated, to a large extent, by a process of "intuition", but, I certainly could elaborate most of them "laboriously". However, I have refrained from doing so, because I feel, that the pace of a discussion would then become so slow, and, the ramifications so confusing, that it would be impossible to hold the attention of even the most willing and interested reader. Therefore, I rely upon an intuitive form of "recognition", assuming, that many people will be thinking and observing roughly along the same lines as I do, and, these people may suddenly "recognise" their own thoughts and conclusions as they are reading my work.

It still seems such an "easy way-out" to rely on intuitive mechanisms when arguing a particular point of view. Look at the scientists, and, look, how much effort has gone into proving a statement or substantiating an opinion or an interpretation. Many people work hard, all their lives, in a small, forgotten corner of their particular scientific field, and, still, they may not contribute anything of lasting value, or, the sum-total of their contributions can be summarised in a few sentences. You are making the most sweeping statements, one after the other, and you say, that you do not even make an effort to prove these statements, and, that you rely upon an "intuitive recognition process". I am afraid, that most people will feel "intuitively" a certain aversion for such a method, and will quickly close the book on your writings, condemning them as superficial platitudes or unproven nonsense.

.......

Chapter 2

Content

The functions of authority and publicity.
Evolutionary concepts will have a difficult time.
Religious and scientific images of explanation are both accepted and believed-in on the basis of "authority".
Synthetic efforts within a field of specialised knowledge.
The problems associated with creating and grasping a "multi-disciplinary imagery".
The need to re-assess our efforts.
Approaching the task of comprehending something "from the ground up".
I am writing better all the time.
A blissfully high level of public awareness in the future.
The function of a "philosophy".
Why a philosophical reality perception may make us "poor warriors".
The need for a "natural ethic".
Religious and scientific reality perceptions can be brought under a common roof with a relativistic interpretation of our realities.
How can we prevent the super-powers from destroying the world?
An analysis of implied assumptions.
Nuclear power, and the actions of a "lunatic fringe".
We have to understand our motivations, as well as all other psychological mechanisms.
Learning to be patient and thorough.
The consequences of a synchronised bellicosity.
Ignorance, due to a lack of foresight.
The illusion of a purely defensive stance.
The psychology of an arms-race.
A serious "nuclear accident" that is not fatal for mankind as a whole.
Working towards a stable, sustainable terrestial environment.

I agree with you, that many people may react with ambivalent feelings to my work, in particular, if they approach it with the attitude; "Who is he. I have never heard of him?". Or, they may find it difficult to follow the thoughts that have been expressed. If there is no "recognition" fairly early in the contact between reader and book, it is likely, that people will "close the book", just as we turn-off the radio or television, whenever a particular piece of music or program bores or irritates us.

The type of evaluation I expect my readers to make is, indeed, primarily "artistic", meaning, that, anyone, who comes in contact with these writings, will first have to make an overall, intuitive decision, whether or not the work is worthwhile. If the work is not appealing, I hope, that the reader makes, at least, an effort to find out, why this impression has been obtained. The judgement may be primarily emotional. The work may give the impression of being too pretentious, too vague, too confusing or irritating. It may give the impression, that the statements do not follow each other logically. The discussion may bore people, and, they do not get "anything out of it". Such a conclusion would indicate a general lack of contact, and, the reader does not even get the main thrust of the ideas that are being discussed.

The reaction may be negative, even, if a reader is able to follow the main ideas, because one may disagree, fundamentally, with the concepts of evolution, of science and religion, or, one may disagree with the imagery that lets us see, how we function and think. Scientists may have the feeling, that the mental steps taken are too large and sweeping, and, therefore, the atmosphere of credibility is lacking. They would like to see a more careful and substantiated discussion than I am providing, and, they are, probably, appalled at the absence of any references to specific scientific publications. Scientists may, therefore, dismiss my work as "pseudo-scientific nonsense", or as "science-fiction", while I believe, that all the statements I make have solid scientific foundations.

The reasons for such an evaluation by scientifically schooled people lies, primarily, in the fact, that the scientific reader often fails to make a clear distinction between the analytic and synthetic aspects of science. Certainly, if we are "researching", we are trying to refine a particular area of our scientific imagery, and, these activities require an elaborate arsenal of scientific tools; at least, for most fields of research. Then, the problems that have been formulated, or, the answers that are being looked for, are contained within a very narrow and specific focus of attention. Research is necessary and is of fundamental importance to gather a sufficient number of reliable scientific building-blocks, or "basic data". However, after we have obtained all these data, we want to obtain a more comprehensive imagery with a much broader scope of vision.

The "synthetic efforts" within a scientific discipline are usually carried-out by seasoned senior members of a scientific discipline, and, with the help of laborious quotations and references, these senior members contribute, greatly, to the overall comprehension of their particular field. These are the "text-book writers", and, they fulfill an important synthetic function by making their field accessible for the non-specialist, such as the interested lay-person, the professional student, or the colleagues of related scientific fields.

As we have discussed before, our modern, scientific imagery is fragmented over a great many disciplines, and, we all know, that it is extremely difficult to grasp, comprehensively, more than one field. Yet, in nature, or, rather, in the reality of the existence we are aware of, there is no division into many different specialties. If we look at the many complex tasks a society has to carry-out, such as the integration of economic, educational and social functions, the anticipation of harmful effects of waste-products, short-falls of relied-upon resources, or, the difficulties associated with efforts to make a large group of essentially hostile, antagonistic and suspicious people function as a unit; if we look at all these aspects of living together, it becomes obvious, that many, if not all the important problems we are faced with, can not be grasped within the confines of a single, comfortable, scientific discipline.

This problem has been recognised, and, for a long time, attempts have been made to solve the problems of multi-disciplinary comprehension by creating special "task-forces"; groups of people, who are experts in different fields, come together to discuss or analyse the many factors of such a complex problem. Such "think-tanks" may produce a measure of coordination and a semblance of cohesion to a widely diverging group of scientific specialties, but, I am convinced, that the time has come to ask ourselves, once more, what fundamental options we have in our efforts to interpret reality coherently. In other words, we can not hope to find satisfactory and profound answers by such a task-force approach to complex problems, unless we re-examine the fundamental mechanisms of our own existence, inter-actions and perceptions in the world of today.

Therefore, all my writings are geared, in essence, towards this goal of giving ourselves a clear-cut philosophical base from which we can interpret the many sensations, awarenesses and scientific facts in a coherent manner.

Are you making any head-way with these efforts?

I think I am, and, I think, that my efforts are getting better all the time, but, the final evaluation or judgement is not up to me, but to the many generations, who will, I hope, have a look at my work, and, who have to determine for themselves, whether or not these writings have any value.

You do not feel, that your statements are facile, easily proven wrong or generally accepted platitudes that really do not merit any discussion?

Again, I answer you, that I can not decide this question for you. Each reader will have to make this decision for him- or herself, but, I hope, that, a reader, who is coming to a negative or adversive reaction to my work, will, indeed, make a serious effort "to prove me wrong".

Certainly, there is a very good chance, perhaps, it is even unavoidable, that, in the long run, my thoughts will become out-dated, and, that they will be replaced by a much more comprehensive and satisfactory way of looking at reality, but, I believe, that we still have a long way to go before this is the case. It will be quite a while, yet, before a majority of the living generations will, indeed, scrutinise, with intelligence and understanding, the options of a relativistic reality perception, and, I am convinced, that such a blissfully high level of awareness of a large number of people, will lead to a level of cooperation, peaceful co-existence, as well as a degree of social justice, which is incomprehensible to us, now.

It would then matter very little, whether or not people agree with me, because my exclusive aim is to get people to think and excercise their "evolution-given" powers of rational thought and behaviour. I am not trying to get people to agree with me, but, I believe, of course, that a greater awareness and use of the powers of rational thought and intelligent behaviour will increase the incidences of recognition and agreement with my work.

Do you care, then, how your work will be received?

Of course; I would love it, if people would like it. I am just as human as anyone else, but, I am not surprised or dismayed, if I notice, that people can not "get through" my work, or, if they show a lack of appreciation, because I have realised, that, for many people, it will be difficult to grasp these thoughts and discussions, and, I know, that, for most people, it will remain quite irrelevant what I think or say.

I still believe, however, that, eventually, this type of approach to the perception of reality will become "popular", and, I believe, that this particular effort to restore the functions of philosophy to its traditional meaning, will be useful and will be studied.

What is the traditional function and meaning of a philosophy?

A philosophy is nothing more, and nothing less, than a clear and rational formulation, or description, of the outlines of a reality perception. If we perceive reality, strongly, as a personal reaction or relationship between ourselves and a Creator, who is on our side and helps us to overcome our "enemies", we are behaving religiously and strongly emotionally, or instinctively, and, it is interesting to note, how full of emotions, especially victorious and belligerent emotions, such religious behaviour indeed is. However, if we are more reflective, and, if we look with a measure of skepticism at religious fervor and the rash conclusions of absolute righteousness, as well as the conviction that God is personally assisting us on the battle-fields, then, we are inclined to formulate a more rational and thoughtful perception of reality.

Such a philosophical reality perception may make us "poor warriors", since we become more or less immune to the euphoria of a war-hysteria, as well as the facile belief that the coming battle has already been won, or nearly so. We become immune to the feelings of belligerent righteousness, but, it would be wrong to conclude, that a philosophical attitude would always deteriorate into a clever opportunism and the avoidance of stress.

While a superior ability to foresee the forces of stress enables us to avoid most of them, (a behaviour that is naturally viewed as "opportune" by those who are drawn into a conflict-situation), the philosophically inclined individual does not have to be "amoral". As a matter of fact, I have spent a great deal of time and effort outlining the morality of a natural ethic, which could, and would, greatly increase the sense of justice amongst people. Philosophy does not have to be clever opportunism, but, it is, and should be, associated with a clear moral stand and conviction, which provides plenty of opportunity to show courage and fortitude.

By now, it should be clear to anyone, who has read, at least, some of my works, that evolutionary theory does not have to lead to this amoral dictum of ruthless opportunism, embodied in the concept "survival of the fittest". Evolutionary imagery provides us, now, with the foundation for a reality interpretation we all could agree upon, because we have, indeed, a very extensive arsenal of "proofs", or, at least, circumstantial evidence, to back the concept, that we are one of the many species' of life which have evolved as a result of early terrestial conditions.

It would also be erroneous to conclude, that a philosophy, based on scientific imagery and the concepts of natural evolution, would have to be "anti-religious". Certainly, the concepts of an absolute truth, and, those of a personal God taking sides on the battle-fields, will become untenable, but, the philosophy of relativistic thought and behaviour lets us see, quite clearly, when, and how, the beliefs of an absolute truth, absolute righteousness and Divine Exclusivity, play an important role in the struggle for survival, and, why they are part of our more emotional behaviour-patterns. This, in short, is the function of philosophy.

And, you still think that you are not pretentious?

Of course, I am pretentious. You can not discuss a philosophical stance with the attitude, that you are discussing nothing more important than the recipe of a cake-mix. Pretentiousness means, that someone is bringing a measure of conviction, or an attitude of importance, which is perceived to be "hollow" or exaggerated, or, even, an outright fraud. Therefore, scrutinise my works first, and, then, call them pretentious if you wish, and, throw them out, if you feel, that they do not live-up to their promises and expectations. Call them pretentious and throw them out, if you come to the conclusion that my works are nothing more than a gigantic hoax.

Can you answer questions or discuss problems of a more pragmatic nature?

Certainly, try me.

How do we prevent the leaders of super-powers to annihilate us all in a nuclear war?

There is nothing like asking a simple question, is there?

I want a practical answer, now, if you can give me one.

Let us first look at the assumptions behind your question.

What do you mean?

You are implying a number of conditions, or assumptions, in the way you formulated your question.

You are just stalling; perhaps, you do not have any answers.

Yes, there are answers, but, if you expect simple answers to simple questions, you may get a simplistic solution to an interesting problem. One of the most crucial parts of a dialogue between people is to make sure, that the people involved in a discussion, have a clear image of the assumptions upon which a particular question is going to be debated.

I do not understand what you mean with "assumptions". What assumptions are there? We know, that there are now many thousands of nuclear war-heads mounted on missiles, ready to go-off at a moment's notice. Each one of them is far more powerful than the atomic bombs that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan in August 1945. Still, the arms-race is continuing, and, more and more countries are developing a "nuclear capability". Sooner or later, a few lunatics are going to unleash a war on each other with nuclear weapons, and, as happens always in a war, citizens suffer the most. However, even, if only a limited number of the nuclear warheads are detonated, in particular, over a few of the larger cities, the destruction will be so gigantic, that we can not imagine what it means.

It frightens me to see military strategists and politicians talk, as if a nuclear war "can be won". They just do not know, what they are talking about, and, they are so wrapped-up in their computer-toys and war-games, that, once again, we seem to be heading for a major disaster, perhaps, the final disaster from which mankind is never going to recover fully. How are we going to prevent such a happening from taking place?

Precisely, and, in order to answer this all-important, perhaps, the most important question of our times, we will have to analyse, patiently, what we mean; what we think about; what kind of a reality perception and what sort of views and opinions we have, when we ask this question. If we fail to ask ourselves these "background questions", we will never understand, why we can not agree upon the fact, that, the only way to avoid such a catastrophe, is to make sure, that all such weapons are destroyed, and are not made anymore. We have to know, why some people still want to make these weapons and stockpile them in ever greater numbers.

Why are most leaders, once they are in a position of power, opposed to the uni-lateral destruction of these dangerous weapons in their arsenals? Why is it so difficult for these leaders to see, that the cycle of suspicion and mistrust has to be broken, somewhere, before we can start to reduce, and, eventually, eliminate all this weaponry? Are we going to initiate this cycle of reducing the nuclear stockpiles by disarming ourselves uni-laterally; by destroying completely our nuclear arsenals, without insisting that potential rivals are doing the same, or, are we going to rely upon a lengthy and laborious process of negotiations with our adversaries, in order to come to a balanced, bilateral or multi-lateral reduction of the nuclear threat?

These are some of the supplementary questions we have to ask ourselves, but, let us come back upon an analysis of the assumptions that shine through as a basic position or a philosophy in any type of questioning. Unless we learn to be patient and thorough, we are not going to create this broad basis for a consensus, which is so necessary, if we want to translate our views into concrete actions and productive programs. You have already mentioned some of the assumptions, such as the fact, that, frequently, in a war between nations, the citizenry is the main victim, either as conscripted soldiers on the battle-fields, or, as civilians, caught in cross-fire and bombing raids.

We note, that a nation never goes to war with a unanimous consent of the people, and, rarely, a national referendum is held, before the leadership declares war. Certainly, the emotions are so swept-up, and, the attitudes are so polarised, that those, who do not support an impending war-effort, or, who dare to question the reasons or motivations for going to war, are already looked-upon as traitors and may be locked-up. Time and again, a population or a nation is swept-up into a war-hysteria, leading to a mutual re-enforcement of sentiments between the leadership and its followers, and, time and again, thousands upon thousands of young people and innocent citizens are sent into the battle-zones to slaughter each other.

This is especially likely to happen, if the ruling generation, (the generation that is carrying the burdens of leadership and is safeguarding the cultural code), is not aware of the destructiveness of warfare. If they have not experienced a recent war as children, and, if the destructiveness of the most recent war is fading from the memory-pools and cultural arsenals of a social environment, then, the peoples and their leaders are, once again, prone to be swept-up into a euphoria of belligerence and hawkish attitudes.

The reason, why we hear, increasingly, about the strategy of a "limited nuclear war" is related to the fact, that those, who plan this strategy, design the fighting machines and the nuclear weaponry, and, those, who are in positions of high military and political power, are themselves too young and too inexperienced to know about the ravages of a previous war, or, perhaps, they were never really involved in the heat of a war. They can only remember the days of adventure and cameraderie when they were young. The whole excercise of war and military activities, the gigantic momentum of the military-industrial complex with its dependence upon the manufacture of all sorts of weapons and war-materials, becomes, then, an abstract topic for computer predictions, tables and maps, statistics and economic factors, while more and more companies, as well as individuals, become dependent upon the part of the budget that goes to "defense".

Every nation, and every leadership, proclaims, of course, that their weaponry and military preparations are "strictly defensive in nature", and, the citizens want to believe their leaders, in particular, if they enjoy a well-paying job as a result of all these activities. No-one even dares to admit the possibility, that military might may lead to the temptaton of aggressive and opportunistic behaviour, and, no-one wants to admit, that a position of military power, leads, invariably, to pressures of dominance and intimidation upon other member-states of the family of nations.

Yet, this is precisely the reason, why leaderships have such deep suspicions for each other. Each and every political leadership, regardless, whether this nation is a powerful Capitalist or Socialist nation, knows very well, that a neighbour with superior military strength may be tempted to use this power to dominate or exert pressure, just as they, themselves, would be tempted to use the power to dominate, whenever they would be in a position of military superiority. While each leadership proclaims loudly that they only seek "parity" in order to maintain a balance of power, each sides seeks, in reality, a position of advantage or superiority, even, if it is just a slight edge over its competitor or adversary.

Here, you have the psychology of an arms-race, and, the fact, that we see, now, a very costly and potentially earth-destroying arms-race of missiles, bombers and nuclear warheads, is only an accidental consequence of the fact, that man's technological capabilities have suddenly mushroomed into a potential, making it possible, even likely, that human life, and, perhaps, many other species' as well, will perish after an outburst of nuclear warfare. The mechanisms of the arms-race are as old as life itself. Only the horrible conseqences of nuclear warfare and the possibility of a self-inflicted extinction of mankind are new.

Is it unavoidable, then, that we will have a nuclear war, and, that mankind will be exterminated as a result?

A nuclear war will cause very high levels of toxicity and radiation, apart from the climatic changes it may bring, and, it is likely, that there will be an inadequate technological defense against these adverse conditions, because so much of civilisation and technical expertise will have been destroyed.

It is somewhat premature to conclude, that any form of nuclear war will, indeed, lead to the demise of mankind, together with many other life-forms, but, let us not underestimate the disastrous consequences of, even, a limited nuclear exchange. Even, if a fair number of people and social organisations survive the holocaust of a nuclear war, the earth will be badly polluted and scarred, and, severe climatic changes and contamination problems may interfere with the ability of the survivors to feed themselves.

The likelyhood of a nuclear disaster ranges from an accidental nuclear explosion, where a great number of casualties will shake a nation, and, perhaps, many other nations as well, out of an atmosphere of complacency, to an all-out nuclear war, where, in a moment of frenzied and indiscriminate nuclear bombardment, indeed, a major portion of the earth is destroyed. In the latter "scenario", the atmosphere, water-systems and other eco-system of nature will be so badly damaged, that no human survival is possible, even, for people who were not directly hit by nuclear explosions. In between these two extremes lie all sorts of "limited nuclear exchanges", which may cause more damage in a few minutes of warfare than man could inflict upon the earth in all the centuries of its violent existence.

It is very likely, perhaps, even, unavoidable, that man will experience, at least, a nuclear accident, and, probably, a deliberate, if limited, nuclear exchange as well, before effective control measures are developed and implemented. Obviously, the experiences of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are now too far in the past, and, they were not dramatic enough for the leaderships of the super-powers to work, seriously, towards a complete nuclear disarmament. However, there is a reasonable possibility, that a limited nuclear war in the near future will not be fatal to mankind, even, if it may set-back the level of population and technological development for many generations.

Certainly, there is a possibility, that nuclear disarmament on a global scale will come-about without nuclear warfare, or a serious nuclear accident, and, the drive towards global nuclear disarmament may come-about as a result of high toxic waste-levels from industries, including the radio-active pollution from nuclear power-plants. This would be a beneficial development for mankind, but, we may state, without hesitation, that man will have to experience far more dangerous and life-threatening levels of pollution and toxicity than is the case now, before the public awareness of these dangers is sufficiently strong to pressure leaderships into abolishing all nuclear weapons, clean-up all industrial pollution, and provide a stable and sustainable terrrestial environment, where no further burdens of pollution are added.

.......

Chapter 3

Content

Waiting for the pressures of world-opinion to build-up.
Trust, and the race to arm ourselves.
The need to promote trust and transparence.
The desire to protect ourselves from "subverting influences".
A dialogue between super-powers and rival social systems.
Distilling the advantages and short-comings of either system.
Ordinary people know, how to submit their disputes to binding arbitration; they have no choice.
Reaching a global consensus about the way we should live.
There is not enough common ground to have a fruitful dialogue at the present time.
Is uni-lateral nuclear disarmament a viable option?
The peoples of the world have to tell their leaders to eliminate nuclear weapons, as well industrial practices that pollute and damage the environment.
Nuclear war is not inevitable.
A summary of practical steps to avoid the outbreak of nuclear warfare.
The crucial importance of a high level of awareness and concern.
The role of "sabotage", and the democratic "will" of the people.
A fateful chain of killings and revenge-killings.
A sigh of relief, when the bombs failed to go off.

As long as there is insufficient pressure from world-public opinion upon the leaders of super-powers, we will have to use our time well, while waiting for this pressure to build. I mean this; we will have to build-up a consensus about the way we, human beings, behave and are motivated, and, how we can give each other an adequate level of security and trust, without the ever-present temptation to rely upon a build-up of arms. Indeed, I think, that we have, here, the crux of the problem. If I do not trust my neighbours, and, if there is no reliable "authority" to protect my rights, or to prosecute those who tresspass against me, I have no choice, but to arm myself. If I see my neighbours arm themselves more and more, I will have to do the same.

Of course, it is very difficult to know, precisely, how strong my neighbour is, and, therefore, I like to err on the safe side. As long as I have a slight edge, I feel safe, and, I rarely stop to think about the identical psychological mechanisms of my neighbour. I rarely realise, that he may be afraid of me, just as I am afraid of him. Even, if I think, in all honesty, that I have no aggressive intentions towards my neighbour, I should be able to realise, that he may be just as suspicious about me as I am about him. Perhaps, the history of my forefathers' behaviour has given my neighbour good reasons to be suspicious or afraid.

In short; unless there is a powerful "outside", impartial or objective authority preventing us from fighting, or, at least, preventing us from accumulating an arsenal of weapons, we will not be able to find a lasting security. Certainly, when we are in a "talking mood", we may visit each other, and, we may, both, wholeheartedly, agree, that it is "ridiculous" and wasteful to engage in an arms-race, but, any pact, treaty or agreement to forego an arms-race, is only valid, as long as it is possible to subdue our suspicions.

As long as we believe, that the other party abides by the pact, we may feel secure, but, it is essential to arrange for a system of completely open and honest verification mechanisms, in particular, when there is no powerful arbiter, who can stop a fight and impose a settlement. Without efficient verification, we can not be sure, that the other party is abiding by the agreement. He may be secretly engaging in an arms-race or a modernisation of his weapons, giving him a surreptitious advantage during a conflict.

Any arms-limitation agreement is, therefore, meaningless, unless we build-in mechanisms to preserve trust and transparence. Therefore, a more fundamental, but, just as practical question, is the following; how can we break-through a cycle of suspicions and hostilities between rival nations, in particular, when they are the most powerful nations on earth?

Allright. I agree with your line of thought. Please, go ahead with your discussion.

If there is no willingness by either super-power to come to an understanding or agreement, then, there is very little chance to stop an all-out conflict, or, at least, a continuation of the arms-race. When a long series of hostile acts and belligerent postures has polarised public opinion on either side of a conflict of interests, and, if the people have forgotten, what it really means to be at war, then, the trend towards belligerent events is nearly irreversible, and the situation will become very dangerous, indeed. It will become very dangerous, not only, for those involved in a conflict, but, for all of us, because super-powers have a habit of fighting each other anywhere on earth, preferably on someone else's territory. At all costs, we have to avoid such a polarisation, and, this can be done by promoting an open and honest dialogue.

Not only should there be a dialogue between the leaders of belligerent nations, and, especially, between super-powers, but, there should also be contacts between the peoples, and, we should try to establish an extensive and intensive form of contact between all the major groupings on either side of an ideological divide, or block of military power and economic influence. The goal of extensive popular contacts is often discouraged by leaders. They fear, that the "purity" of an ideology, belief, or way of life, will be "contaminated" by "strange" ideas, revolutionary trends or counter-revolutionary attitudes. As a result, such contacts have a tendency to deteriorate into a propaganda-war, where the official media, on either side, reflect the anxieties of a majority of the people, and, in particular, the suspicions and fears of their leaders.

I would like to see an extensive dialogue between the super-powers about such topics as the advantages and disadvantages of either system. Let us discuss, in detail, the centralised and de-centralised systems of economic development. In other words, let us discuss the arguments for and against centrally planned economies, and, let us compare these systems and arguments with the practices and ideas of societies that rely upon a balance between supply and demand. I like to see a discussion about the ideas of providing social security and essential equality for every member of society, as well as the disruptive and beneficial mechanisms of competitive strife, together with a divergence in the standard of living on the basis of hard work and entrepreneurial success. We should encourage thorough discussions about the question, how a Socialist System of social organisation is going to keep personal initiatives alive. How is it going to ensure an efficient and non-corrupt bureaucracy, as well as a sensitive leadership, in particular, when one political Party assumes total control over society and can only account to itself?

We also have to discuss the problems of a free-enterprise model of social organisation. How are we going to keep a measure of social cohesion intact, if the disparities between the rich and the poor are continuously increasing? How can we ensure, that a democratic vote remains a true reflection of the people's will and aspirations, if the large corporations and wealthy individuals are steadily gaining influence and power? What about crime, the use of drugs, alcoholism, the level of education, etc.? What about the role of trade-unions, as well as other special-interest groupings in society? In short; there are plently of topics that could give rise to a lively, but, potentially fruitful discussion between the proponents of different systems of social organisation, and, there is every reason to believe, that, under the auspices of a another, impartial leadership, such as a group of non-aligned nations, it is possible to engage in useful discussions, that will show, clearly, the advantages and disadvantages of either system.

Such an on-going dialogue would not result quickly in practical solutions, or attitudes of mutual admiration for each other's social system, but, an honest and open evaluation of each side's merits and short-comings may help us a great deal in our efforts to evaluate either system objectively. It is human nature to see, clearly, and with a certain glee, the short-comings and faults of one's adversary, while one's own problems and faults are hidden from view and suppressed from the level of conscious awareness, because they tend to make us uncomfortable, embarrassed and "defensive".

An on-going dialogue about the fundamental aspects of a social organisation may produce, slowly, a more relaxed and open atmosphere, where, gradually, people and their leaders learn to appreciate each other across ideological boundaries. Let us not forget, that it is far easier for ordinary people, in either social system, to appreciate each other, than it is for defensive and possessive leaderships to do so. Leaders are anxious to ensure, that the "common people" remain loyal to the traditions and the ideology of a previous generation. The ordinary people, including the members of super-powers, are far more receptive to the idea, that conflicts should be settled in a judicial or peaceful manner, because ordinary people experience, every day, that they are not allowed to settle a conflict by violent means. Their own leaders impose a settlement, whenever there is a conflict between them, but, who can impose a settlement on the leaderships of super-powers, whenever they are drifting towards a situation of violent confrontation?

It is true, that leaders are continuously conferring with their "advisors", spokesmen for different groupings within society, as well as with their "allies"; the leaderships of friendly or "aligned" nations. We can not equate a belligerent conflict between hot-headed neighbours with a conflict between super-powers, but, let us not forget, that emotions creep-in, nevertheless, even, for cool-headed leaders. Even democratically elected leaders are inclined to make momentous decisions, such as acts of hostility towards other nations, without consulting, extensively, the opinions and attitudes of their own people. They will posture belligerently, especially, if the people like their leader to "act tough" and show strength, but the price of "feeling good" and acting belligerently, may well be the obligation to go to war.

It will not be easy to cool tensions between powerful nations, just as it is difficult to separate two fighting teen-agers, if no-one is strong enough to pull them apart. However, "public opinion" is going to play an ever more important role in the behaviour of leaderships. This means, not only, the opinion of people within their own societies, but, in societies all over the world, because it is becoming increasingly apparent, that the interests of population groupings all over the world are beginning to cross cultural, national and ideological boundaries. Eventually, even super-powers will have to listen to the voice of public opinion, especially, if it is vocal, coherent and on a global scale.

In other words, the key to solving the problems of armed conflict between nations is a sustained effort on the part of concerned citizens all over the world, to try to reach a consensus about the way we want to live together and relate to each other. There has to be an agreement about what is fair and just; what our main problems are, and, what measures have to be taken in the immediate future in order to solve major problems and confrontations.

Too often, we still disagree, completely, about the realities we are confronted with, and, without some sort of consensus about the nature of our reality perceptions, we can not hope to reach permanent solutions to the national and international tensions of our times. We first have to agree philosophically, just as we have to agree practically, otherwise, we will never reach a lasting agreement without misunderstandings.

Before we can agree amongst each other, what our life-style should be, or, how our societies should be organised, we have to face the urgent threats of a nuclear war, radio-active contamination, and other forms of pollution, as well as rising tensions and disparities between people and groups of people. Let me come back, therefore, to my original question, and, let me ask you, how we can reduce the threat of a nuclear war. How can we do this, now, before there is a dialogue between super-powers, which are, so often, only interested in posturing or engaging in a war of words? How can we avoid the threat of a nuclear war? Is uni-lateral nuclear disarmanent a sensible thing to do

The last question is the easiest to answer, because it depends on your interests. If you are "neutral", non-aligned, without any preference for either super-power, and, if you do not want to become a target for nuclear attack by one or the other, then, of course, it makes sense to refuse any deployment of nuclear weaponry on your territory, and, it makes sense to dismantle existing nuclear weaponry as soon as possble. Certainly, no one likes to become a target for a nuclear attack, but, the proponents of a nuclear force will point, inevitably, to the "deterrent value" of such a force.

If you are one of the super-powers, or, if you are strongly aligned with one, it seems very difficult to initiate uni-lateral nuclear disarmament, because you give-up your position of advantage or equality to the other side. Even, if you do not believe that a nuclear war can be won, or, that it is possible to fight a "limited" nuclear war, there is still the argument, that a balance of power prevents either side from grabbing an advantage, whenever such an opportunity would present itself.

If one side is decidedly weaker than the other, the stronger party may not immediately put pressure upon the weaker party, but, it is unavoidable, that the knowledge of being superior in strength, will, sooner or later, lead to a little "bullying", and, sooner or later, a considerable degree of political and military pressure will be exerted to push the weaker party out of an area that is contested by the stronger party.

Is there, then, no other solution for the super-powers than to engage in a spiraling, never-ending arms-race?

Not really, at least, it seems highly unlikely, that either side will go, voluntarily, to a uni-lateral disarmament, unless, perhaps, a nuclear accident has so frightened and shocked the population, that its leaders are being forced to destroy their nuclear weapons. Perhaps, such an example may induce the peoples of the other super-power to do the same, and, indeed, ideally, the concerted pressures of people in all powerful nations may, eventually, compel their governments to engage in truly meaningful, reasonably quick, and completely honest reductions in their nuclear arsenals, as well as other resources of military man-power and hardware.

However, we see, here, how closely an initiative towards a uni-lateral reduction of nuclear arms is coupled with the concept of a balanced, mutual arms-reduction, which is verifiable and honest. The main point is, that, somehow, this infernal attitude of mutual suspicion and secret advantage-taking is replaced by an attitude of trust, where we prefer to take some risks, rather than lose the ability to live.

Indeed, the peoples of the world will have to take the initiative, and, they will have to force their leaders to negotiate, honestly and effectively, a balanced reduction in arms, including nuclear arms. Leaderships will have to make an honest effort to bridge the different points of view about the way society should be organised. Such an agreement would eliminimate the major cause of rivalry and suspicions between leaderships. However, as you mentioned, it does not seem likely, that we can come to such an agreement at this time, and, it is, therefore, necessary to look at practical arrangements and measures.

As a summary, we could give the following practical suggestions. If a country is neutral and outside a "block" of super-power influence, it is certainly prudent never to allow any sort of provocative nuclear weaponry on one's territory. If a nation is committed to one or other block of super-power influence, you, as a citizen in such a nation should do everything you can to get the leaderships of the rival super-powers to engage in meaningful discussions and negotiations.

It is important to keep reminding everyone, that we all lose catastrophically, if, at some time in this disastrous future, a nuclear war would break-out, regardless, how limited or short-lived such a war may be. It will be necessary to make everyone aware of the devastation and contamination that would occur. We should also remind ourselves, that such an event does not have to happen, and, that it is totally erroneous to believe in a fatalistic inevitability about mankind's trend to destroy itself in a nuclear holocaust.

It is undoubtedly very likely, that some sort of nuclear catastrophe is going to happen, but, we should remind ourselves of the fact, that it will be a human decision, or a human error, which will bring such a catastrophe upon us. It will not be "blind fate", or the "will of God", where we imply the existence of a Force that is outside our collective control.

Would you, please, summarise the practical steps we can take towards avoiding a nuclear catastrophe of one sort or another?

First, we can all learn, as much as we can, about the consequences of a serious nuclear accident, or a deliberate nuclear explosion, and, we can form organisations, all over the world, to spread the facts about nuclear warfare and the use of nuclear reactors. However, let us be careful to paint a truthful and balanced picture. There is little to be gained by agitating indiscriminately against all careful use of atomic power, because we would close our eyes to the energy-needs of many societies, as well as other benefits that may come from the cautious use of a sophisticated and potentially dangerous technology.

Let us insist, that the authorities, who are determining energy policies and running nuclear power-stations, find definitive answers to the problems of radio-active waste, and, that they are competent to cope, efficiently, with minor and major accidents. Let us avoid dumping waste in a way that only postpones the burden of finding a permanent solution, because we will then create gigantic dumps of highly dangerous and toxic substances, which may pose an intolerable threat and burden to the generations of the future, especially, if these future generations have already been weakened by a nuclear tragedy and the loss of technological expertise.

Let us think, carefully, about the meaning of fighting a nuclear war, and, let us chastise or impeach any leadership, or group, which seriously advocates the use of nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, leaders have a tendency to use any weapon at their disposal, whenever they feel threatened, and, we have to make sure, that the people can see and scrutinise, at all times, what their leaders are doing, planning or thinking about.

There should be, therefore, a continuous pressure from the peoples in all major social environments to make their societies more transparent, and, to make their leaderships more accountable. At the same time, the average individual has to be far more educated, concerned and broadly informed than he is now. This is a utopian dream you say? Let me assure you, that the crux of survival will, indeed, lie in the quality of the broad concerns and comprehensive knowledge, which the peoples of the future will be able to muster. If people remain isolated in enclaves, battling each other to the death, man, or, at least, a very large part of humanity, will, indeed, perish, but, if the future generations learn, in time, that it is not necessary to perish in a holocaust of chaos and nuclear warfare, it may be possible to give mankind an extended lease on life.

You keep coming back to the need for a very high level of concern, awareness and education, and, I thought that we agreed that we have to institute more practical and more easily obtainable goals to avoid a nuclear tragedy?

Yes, this is true, but, it is very important to realise, that all practical measures we can think of, will have to be coordinated and given credence by a program of teaching and education, as well as the collection and distribution of honest and balanced information. Otherwise, all the pragmatic ideas and measures deteriorate into weapons of propaganda, which are useless for an honest dialogue.

What about using sabotage as a means to stop a nuclear warhead from detonating, or a nuclear power-plant from operating? Would sabotage not be permissible under extremely dangerous and threatening conditions?

Perhaps, but let us consider for a moment the word "sabotage". It means, that a small and hidden, unknown group, or, even, a few people, are trying to stop a function of society that is open, and, which has, usually, been instituted with the consent of a majority of the people. For example, if a society has decided to build a nuclear reactor, we have every right in the world to scrutinise and criticise this decision, and, we have the right to demand satisfactory answers to pertinent questions about waste-disposal, safety, etc. However, we do not have the right to sabotage or to obstruct the will of the majority by secret, violent and, by definition, non-democratic means. We certainly can protest loudly, and, we can keep a debate going, but, it is contrary to the rules of a democracy to sabotage a nuclear power-plant, as long as the establishment of this plant has the backing of a majority of the people.

However, this may not be the case, and, certainly in the event of a nuclear war, the public will not have been consulted in the form of a referendum. The people will not have been asked, whether or not the use of nuclear weapons was justified. Those in charge, including the military personnnel, who are carrying-out the actual orders of launching or detonating a nuclear device, will, then, carry the awesome responsibility of deciding, whether or not it is in accordance with their conscience to obey such a fateful order. Then, outright refusal would be an act of high courage, but, probably a futile one, because the rebellious officer would be quickly executed and replaced by someone, who is willing to carry-out the order. Therefore, sabotage on a very large scale, and, on both sides of the conflict, may be the only way to stop a group of lunatics in a position of power, to go to nuclear war with each other. Sabotage, in this context, could be an effective weapon to neutralise the unimaginable destructiveness of this modern weaponry, and, such an act of sabotage may save mankind from extinction.

Because modern weaponry is getting increasingly more complicated and costly, technological limits, as well as budget considerations, will already provide an effective mechanism to slow-down the military establishments in their never-ending drive to obtain "better" and more destructive weapons. In addition, I hope, that the military personnel on both sides of a conflict will have the foresight, and the courage, to disable the nuclear warheads, before they can be launched and initiate this fateful chain-reaction of killings and revenge-killing. Because of the complex and sophisticated nature of modern weaponry, it will be relatively easy to "hide" a deliberate act of sabotage under the guise of a "technical failure".

After their bombs have failed to go off, let the military and political leaders try to find out, why their toys failed to do their catastrophic work. I bet, that most people will utter a sigh of relief, that the war-heads failed, and, I am sure, that the people will, then, turn in anger to those lunatics, who tried to blow-up the world.

......

Chapter 4

Content

The tactics of violence; an unavoidable strategy, as long as severely unjust situations persist.
The need to come to a global consensus about the definitions of decent behaviour.
Terrorism; fanatic dedication or ruthless opportunism?
A situation of justice has to be re-enforced, and any infractions scrutinised decisively.
Injustice can not be cured "half-way".
A shameful silence of the international community towards oppressive regimes.
The level of public awareness is rising rapidly.
A careful distinction between what we need and what we want.
People will always have a tendency to diverge in attitudes, beliefs and life-style.
Polarising mechanisms.
Back to a few personal comments.
The luxury to be able to write exactly as I please.
The need for self-discipline.
Contradictory motivations.
I like to stick to what I know best.
The relevance of my work is a judgement that lies outside my jurisdiction.
I do not tolerate stress well; a shy and introvert personality.
Tensions that motivate a writer.
The essay; a comfortable format for the expression of my thoughts.
Reading all my works; a courageous and time-consuming project.
The essentially synthetic nature of my work.

If sabotage is justified in such an extreme case as you described, is nuclear blackmail, then, also justified under certain conditions? For example, if the disparities between the rich and the poor linger-on for generations, impatient groups may be able to steal a nuclear device and they may, eventually, hold a nation or a number of nations to ransom by threatening to blow-up a major city, unless these wealthy enclaves give-in to the demand for a massive transfer of wealth from the rich to the poor. Is such a course of action justified?

The question, whether or not such actions are justified, is, probably, irrelevant, because, sooner or later, an attempt at nuclear blackmail will be made. The question of nuclear blackmail ties-in with the already common practice of carrying-out a violent act in the name of a "just cause". Most of the hyjackings, hostage-taking incidents, political killings, and other acts of violence are carried-out by groups of people, who are utterly convinced, that their actions are totally justified, and, they will often sacrifice their own lives during an act of violence. Is it justifed? From their point of view, yes; it is not only justified, but, their religious beliefs tell them, that it is their sacred duty to do so, and, terrorist groupings of the future, who may be able to extend their practices to the techniques of nuclear blackmail, will feel the same way. Therefore, the problem of terrorism, or, any act of violence committed by a small but fanatically dedicated group, can only be solved, if we learn to create a code of ethics and a system of judgement that is acceptable to a majority of people in societies all over the world. There has to be a code of ethics that transcends cultural boundaries and religious beliefs.

Certainly, it is irrealistic to believe, that, everyone on earth can be made to think and feel the same way about what is right and wrong. However, just as the sciences have been successful in creating a measure of agreement about the fundamental facts and truths of a number of scientific disciplines, so should it be possible to design a system of social organisation and impartial judgements, which is acceptable to all sound and sensible people, regardless of the type of society and cultural environment they live in. So far, we have not accomplished this goal to any extent. What we consider to be virtues in our system of social organisation, may be frowned-upon by others, and, vice versa. Therefore, there is no agreed-upon structure of "decent behaviour", or, rather, there are no standardised norms of acceptable social behaviour-patterns. What I believe to be normal and decent is often interpreted by my adversaries as an attempt to hold-on to an undeserved position of privilege or advantage, yet, what is seen as honourable and desirable by my adversaries, is rejected by me and my social surroundings as "evil".

In an atmosphere of fundamental contrasts in the judgement of good and evil, we will have to accept the fact, that terrorism is going to flourish, because, if the status-quo is maintained as a "God-given" right by one side, and, if this same status-quo is interpreted as brutal suppression by the other side, no dialogue is possible. There can only be a violent struggle. If this struggle is on a small scale, such as urban or rural guerilla warfare, we tend to call it "terrorism", condemning, automatically and without understanding, the barbarous acts of violence committed by fanatically dedicated people.

I am not condoning such acts, but, unless we understand the motivations and psychological mechanisms behind these acts of terror and fanatic dedication, we are not going to solve the problem. One thing we can be sure of. If violent acts of terrorism are carried-out, a small, dedicated group has a very strong motivation to do so, and, this motivation can not be there, unless these people are completely convinced, that they are right. The problems of terrorism and warfare, including the nuclear arms-race, are, therefore, always based on the basic perceptions of reality, as well as the mechanisms that lie behind our sense of justice.

Are acts of terrorism always based upon a fanatic dedication and a wounded sense of justice?
I believe, that, nearly all terrorist acts, certainly those with a political motive, do occur, whenever the conclusion has been reached that there is no other alternative to correct a perceived injustice, but, on occasion, it may be a ruthless attempt to intimidate, if intimidation by acts of terrorism leads to desired results.

As we have discussed before, the great wisdom of a democratic society lies in the fact, that it provides an outlet for emotional tensions, and, it provides, thereby, the mechanisms for a release of frustrations, dissent and feelings of injustice, while a dictatorial regime can only harshly suppress its opponents and critics, inviting, thereby, acts of violence, terrorism and assassinations.

Certainly, there is another category of terrorism, which emerges when all law and order breaks-down. This is the terrorism of ruthless opportunism, where those with power use it in a brutal way to secure positions of advantage, privilege, influence or power. Yet, I believe, that this sort of terrorism is short-lived, because, quickly, even, in a non-democratic society, one group will emerge as the most powerful and becomes, thereby, the new leadership, imposing its own brand of "law and order" upon society. If such a brand of law and order is rife with injustices, it invites again strong, dedicated and fanatic resistance, and, we are back to the first, essentially political and certainly the most important category of terrorist activity, which is, in essence, a declaration of war against a major power, who is perceived to be unjust and has failed to respond to non-violent demands.

If terrorism depends upon the fact that some groups of people are strongly dissatisfied or feel to have been wronged, it seems inevitable, that terrorism will be with us for a long time to come.

Yes, I think so. Of course, in a "stable" society, where there is a firm control by the authorities, small pockets of injustice may still be present, but, people lack the energy, the will, the drive, or the means, to translate their frustration and anger into acts of terrorism. Let us not forget, that, an act of terrorism is a last resort, because it requires, often, the utmost in sacrifice; the loss of one's own life. If the situation of injustice is crippling and life-threatening, the energies of the people may be sapped to such an extent, that, apathy and resignation calms the feelings of anger and frustration. However, if the next generation grows-up in slightly more favourable conditions, their increased vitality may burst into acts of violence. It is ironic, therefore, that a slight, or, even, a significant improvement in a situation of injustice may, actually, precipitate acts of violence, and, it rarely leads to a lasting sense of gratitude for the fact that conditions have impoved.

Is it then impossible to "correct" an injustice only "half-way"? According to your reasoning, we, either, restore the situation of justice fully, with a total dissolution of the conditions of injustice, or, we have to suppress a frustrated, rebellious segment of the population to the point, that it lacks the energy and means to put-up any sort of armed or violent resistance.

Yes, this is correct, and, we still see, very clearly, how "official regimes" in certain countries, especially, if they have gone through revolutionary or military coups d'etat, are persecuting their opponents and critics to the point, that everyone suspected of being against the regime, is quickly "executed", or murdered. This, of course, is the only "permanent" solution to dissent, if one does not take into account the fact, that, for every enemy slain, ten silent enemies are made, who would make use of any opportunity to get rid of such a brutal and ruthless regime. Yet, the international community is frequently silent, and, hardly a comment is being made, when these executions or "purges" take place. Many regimes, which are considered to be "legitimate" by other nations, are merely members of a ruling elite, suppressing, without mercy, large segments of their own society. Many countries still have regimes that exploit and dominate their populations, and, they create more situations of injustice than they solve.

Even, nations that have taken the road towards democratic rule, are often perpetrating injustices by neglect and incompetence, adding to the burdens of misery and poverty. If we realise, how much injustice is still around, and, how little attention is being paid to many inhumane living conditions, we will be surprised to see so few acts of terrorism and violence. Indeed, many groupings are still hardly aware of the level of injustice to which they are subjected, and have been subjected for generations. As the situation of injustice begins to improve on a global scale, we will see, that the increased awareness and vitality of such under-privileged and chronically oppressed groupings will give rise to a dramatic increase in the level of violence directed against the wealthy and dominant elites.

This does not sound very encouraging.

Well, look at it this way. It means, that the level of awareness is rapidly rising, and, it means, also, that more and more people are formulating rather precise ideas about the conditions a human being is entitled to live under. It indicates a rapidly rising level of education, but, also, of expectations, and, it is, therefore, essential to curb the lure of unbridled consumerism, which is so openly flaunted by the affluent nations, and, which is still so widely endorsed by many facile and thoughtless politicians as a panacea for all sorts of social problems.

The guidelines of a natural ethic, as well as a sense of justice on a global scale, will have to make a careful distinction between the basic necessities all human beings should be entitled to, and, a few, cautious luxuries we should be able to spread, equally, all over the world, in order to sweeten the austerity of basic existence with a few pleasures and appreciated extras.

Again, I feel, that you are sliding towards a utopian dream, because I can not visualise, how it is possible to give every human being on earth a minimum standard of existence or consumption. Neither can I visualise, how it is possible to avoid a divergence between those, who are successful, clever and ambitious, and, those, who are dull, complacent or lazy. Besides, if you "give" a sustenance away to the poor, you create only an ever larger population that is depending on a hand-out, while a few eager and industrious people will have to shoulder the burdens of productivity with their work.

I have devoted a great deal of time in my writing to discussing just these questions and problems, and, I assure you, that it is not only possible, but necessary, to obtain a measure of essential equality and a minimum standard of globally accepted human rights. There are major problems with either one of the two main approaches to large-scale social organisation in use today. Socialism, in particular, as it is practiced in pluralist, free-enterprise societies, deteriorates, quickly, into unbridled political promises; a give-away, without an adequate emphasis on the need to contribute, leading to severe inflation, massive public debts and chronic discontent, frustration and undisciplined behaviour. On the other hand, unbridled free-enterprise destroys the democratic principles also, because it leads, quickly, to the accumulation of power and wealth into the hands of a ruling elite, while "the masses" become increasingly enslaved, in spite of some half-hearted attempts to slow-down these trends towards divergence and stratification. We have discussed these problems and mechanisms extensively before, and, I would like to refer you to these writings, if you are interested in abandoning your disbeliefs and preconceived ideas, which are, unfortunately, still so widely prevalent amongst the affluent people on earth.

Allright, I will not press you, here, for a more detailed explanation, and, I will take-up the challenge to study your work. Are you getting somewhat impatient with my questioning?

You are right. I have an impatient and temperamental nature. I find it difficult to keep repeating the same ideas over and over again, in particular, if I have to express, repeatedly, the same ideas in a conversation. Certainly, in my writings, I tend to discuss the same topics also, over and over, but, I can vary the approach somewhat.

If I try to discuss my ideas with people, who are completely unfamiliar with them, and, who are generally not inclined to think about these problems for themselves, I find myself explaining the same basic principles and objectives, time and again, and, I find myself answering the same questions, over and over. Therefore, I am bored to tears with discussing these aspects with the people around me, and, I live too isolated for a varied contact with a crowd of intelligent and inquisitive students. Besides, even, if I would be teaching at a university, I would not be allowed to teach so personal a view or interpretation of reality, and, this would mean, that the university students I come in contact with, would still be unfamiliar with my works, and I would be back to discussing and answering the same basic topics and questions. No, I can afford the luxury to write entirely as a hobby, because I am financially independent in the modest and frugal life-style my family and I have adopted some years ago. The price is a measure of isolation, but, on the other hand, I have lots of time, as well as a regular routine that is remarkably free from stress. This allows we to write, better and better, at least, in my own judgement.

Why are you not seeking more contact with people wo can evaluate your work, and, why are you not making more of an effort to get, at least, some of your work published?

I have set myself a goal, which is still a number of years away from completion, and, for the time being, I want to excercise my thinking and writing skills. Even, if the time has come, when I would feel that some of my work is worth to be read by the public at large, I will still have serious doubts, whether or not my work will be of interest to anyone else. It is probably too sweeping and too personal an approach to find any affinity in the minds of others; at least, I get the impression that none of my writings and thoughts have generated any sort of spark of recognition in other people. I have made a few attempts to have my work evaluated, but, they have all failed, and, the fact, that none of the people around me is able or willing to dive deeply into these works, does not make me very optimistic about the chances of finding a more favourable response from a larger readership.

And yet, you are convinced, that it is worthwhile to write. You are continuing to write one essay after the other, and, you are also convinced that your work is going to be highly valued by some generations in the future. I would call this a strange mixture of optimism and audacious pretentiousness.

I write with pleasure. I truly like to write, because I have the complete freedom to write what I want to say, and, I even like the idea that no-one is looking over my shoulder to see what I am doing. The people around me have now some idea what I am writing about. They have seen, that I am quite content with the way I live, and, they feel, rightly, that it is a rather inexpensive hobby to fill my leisure-time. I do not blame them at all for not being interested in what I have to say, because I would probably feel embarrassed and become irritated, if people would start to take note of me already.

You are crazy. You mean to say, that you are happy that no-one is taking you seriously, and, that no-one is making any effort to see what you have to say? Besides, you seem to imply, that you would feel embarrassed and irritated, if this recognition would be finally on its way? You certainly would not make it easy for a publisher to "advertise" your work, if you shun all publiclity and all personal contacts with your audience.

True, it sounds crazy and contradictory, because I certainly consider myself a thinker and a teacher, and, it would please me a great deal, if my work would begin to find recognition. What I mean is this. I would like my work to find its way in the world entirely on its own merits. I do not want it to be advertised, but, I like it to "spread naturally", by word of mouth. I certainly would have no objection, if other people want to discuss my work in public, or in writing, but, I do not want to be involved in this process. I have said what I wanted to say, and, I do not feel any need to add to it.

Besides, I know, that I do not express myself as well in a public conversation as I do in writing. Why should I expose myself to a situation of stress? I would contribute nothing, except, perhaps, a "personal touch" for those, who are naturally curious about the personality that lies behind these works. I can appreciate this curiosity, but, I feel that it is much more valuable to "know me" by studying my works. Some day, I will write an autobiography, and I will reveal sufficient details about my particular personality to make it possible for a reader to have a rather complete picture. However, the arduous task of reading, studying and evaluating my work is entirely beyond my jurisdiction or concern. This is a task for you, my readers, and, I can not help you anymore than by suggesting, that you read me as completely as possible.

What relevance I have for you, is for you to decide. While I am alive, I will probably continue to write and think, and the results may well be a rather voluminous output with a fairly marked repetitiveness. I doubt very much, that I will ever participate in public debates or panel-discussions. I will probably not even participate in small group discussions or interviews, but, if a measure of public interest develops when I am still alive, I will certainly follow it. If important questions or view-points come to the fore, which, I feel, I have not adequately dealt with, I will certainly grab my pen and start writing another essay.

Thank you for this glimpse into your feelings about your own work. I still find it somewhat difficult to comprehend, why you would shun publicity so completely. Are you afraid of making a bad impression, or, are you bothered by the stress of a public appearance? You must be an extremely shy and introvert personality, in spite of a somewhat irascible and unapproachable exterior.

Yes, you are right. I dislike stress intensely, and, I have a low stress-tolerance. I like a challenge, but I want to be able to choose, at all times, the level of stress I am exposing myself to. Certainly, I do not like to make a "bad" impression, and, I certainly do not want to disappoint myself, or my readers, with unnecessary public appearances. I will not rule-out, categorically, all public appearances, but I will have to be convinced that they serve a genuine purpose, and, that they are making a genuine contribution. They should not just be an advertising gimmick or a promotional tour.

It is true, that I am a shy and introvert personality, and, in particular during my younger years, I was a rather neurotic child, but, then, without these traits, as well as a strongly developed reflective tendency, I would never have become what I am. I "drifted" into being a thinker, a writer or a philosopher, because these forms of existence were never "goals". I found myself thinking and reflecting, and, I found myself disagreeing, intensely, with the opinions and views around me, until these tensions became so strong, that I had to start writing-down my ideas. Essentially, I am still motivated by this tension. I feel always a strong tension between the common, fashionable opinions around me, and my own ideas. This is one of the main reasons, why I retired early, withdrew to the country-site, and started to live a frugal but comfortable and productive life.

I enjoy immensely the freedom I have, and I can spend days on end just pottering around, doing a few chores around the house, listening to my classical records and thinking about the topic I want to discuss in my next essay. I could not have a better life.

And you do not miss the contacts with those you may be able to discuss your ideas with?

Yes, it would be nice to find such people, but I am not sure, that they exist. Do you think that the academicians, the "intelligentia", the writing or reading public, the publishers, critics, other thinkers or essay-writers would be eager to take note of my writings? I doubt it very much. In a way, I have more contact with ordinary people, who are able and willing to use a healthy dose of common-sense, in spite of the fact, that I can only scratch the surface, when discussing some of the topics of my essays with them.

If you think, that your type of writing has so little chance of finding a response, why do you not try to write in a way that may be more acceptable to the critics and intellectuals of your society?

I feel quite comfortable with the format I have chosen. The essay is just about the right length for the scope of the discussion that is implied by the title, and, if I find that I have a lot more to say than can be contained in sixty-five hand-written pages, it is relatively easy to extend the discussion over two or three volumes. If you look at my work, you will see, that there is often a grouping of two or three essays, forming a more or less coherent unit. Of course, all the works are related to each other, and, I hope, that some of the more courageous readers, with lots of time, will, eventually, embark upon the task of reading all my essays in a numerical order, which is, at the same time, the chronological order in which they came into being.

If you imply with your question, that I should write in an entirely different style, such as fiction, a short story, or something along these lines, I can categorically say, that I do not have the slightest inclination to do so, and, if I would attempt to become more "popular" or acceptable by changing my writing-style, I am sure, that it would result in a disastrous "flop". Perhaps, you are suggesting, that I should write more "scholarly", with an extensive series of references, quotations, an impressive bibliography and extensive "foot-notes". Here again, at the present time, at least, I do not believe, that my type of writing is suitable for such an approach. I am not writing scholarly essays, which are, traditionally, a comprehensive review of what other people have done or said. I am a thinker and an artist, and, I employ essentially artistic techniques in my efforts to put my thoughts into words. Besides, I would not have the facilities to do extensive research and write scholarly essays. I am not close to an academic and fully equipped library or research facility, and, my reading is limited to encyclopedia articles or summarising books in my own library. This type of personal library is much more in keeping with my objective to trace an overall picture of coherence, rather than a scientifically researched and interesting over-view of human reality perceptions.

The whole approach of writing in generalisations is so taboo, so "anathema", so despised and looked-down upon, that I can not see anyone make an effort to take my work seriously. The specific detail, the practical observation, as well as the quick solution, are still so unquestionably admired, that my work will appear to most people as incomprehensible, irrelevant and completely old-fashioned.

Even politically, my views are running counter to the trends of today. We see, at the present time, a resurgence of conservative and fundamentalist attitudes, primarily, as a result of the generally unfavourable consequences of a social management that has led to high levels of inflation, chronic tensions and frustrations, a militant attitude of the more powerful groupings in society, as well as a total disregard for the concepts of a true productivity and a fair income distribution. We will first have to go through this cycle of resurgent conservatism, fundamentalist beliefs, and attitudes of an absolute righteousness, leading to rapidly rising tensions, polarisations and a large number of armed conflicts within and between social groupings. After that, my works may have a chance, as a general wave of reflection and a desire to re-think our attitudes and views may make large numbers of people receptive to a more relativistic approach in the perception of their realities.

.......

Chapter 5

Content

Questions about the relativistic approach.
It is difficult to accept such a slippery point of view.
The need for certainty.
Certainties that fall within the sphere of verbalisable awarenesses have a tendency to become "absolute beliefs".
Relying on many certainties that remain below the level of a verbalisable awareness.
Belief structures are, primarily, attempts to explain reality-experiences.
The ambivalent fruits of science.
The essence of the relativistic reality perception is represented by the conclusion, that, neither religion, nor science, portray an absolute truth.
The unifying results of interpretations that have been based on scientific insights of psychological mechanisms.
We will have to learn to live with "facts" that are contrary to what we would like to believe.
An increase in existential security will make it much easier to accept a relativistic interpretation of reality.
The relativistic approach should not become an absolute belief or unquestioned attitude.
The roots of a relativistic reality perception go back far in history.
A curious mixture of irritation and excitement.
Making the initial push towards contact with the public.
Trying to stimulate the ability of thinking independently.
Essays with a hidden form of dialogue.
Why I retired early.
Am I bitter? Not really, because my living conditions are conducive to good work, and I have an abundance of time.

"I know, that you have written frequently and extensively about this "relativistic approach" to reality, but I must confess that my first impressions, so far, are not favourable . You seem to be saying, that reality is nothing more than whatever each one of us happens to believe to be true. Certainly, we share a common cultural core with other people in our social environment, but, this means, only, that we share a common denominator of beliefs or images we believe to represent a truth.

You have emphasised, time and again, how a relativistic approach to the interpretation of our realities makes it possible to see, why people in a situation of conflict keep talking or arguing "besides each other", and you have discussed, how our beliefs and arguments become tools to "rationalise" goals and objectives. I can see these psychological mechanisms, and, I can see a certain value in learning to analyse the behaviour of other people, as well as our own, because it makes us more understanding of our behaviour and that of our enemies. I agree with you, that such an excercise to find common behavioural traits with those, who oppose us, may teach us tolerance and facilitate a smooth integration of contradictory social trends and force-fields".

"However, to say, that this is all we will ever be able to "know"; that we can only see our beliefs as culturally determined images or abstractions of our sense-impressions and secondarily transferred concepts, seems a hopelessly unsatisfactory answer or attitude to our ever-present search for true or unchangeable knowledge. I find it difficult to accept such a bleak and negative attitude, and, I think, that people will always search for a belief, that is a little more definitive and hope-giving, than the concept that reality is merely, whatever we happen to believe in".

I agree, that we all have a very strongly developed tendency to look for more absolute and more "reliable" images of truth, because to accept the notion, that reality, our particular reality, is only something we happen to believe in as a truth, seems to undermine the certainties we so desperately need. However, let us look again at this statement; "our particular reality is that, which we believe to be true", and, you will see, that it is an iron-clad, mathematical equation, because our concept of reality can be defined as all that, which we have given a quality of reality or truthfulness, and the statement becomes, therefore, in essence, nothing more, and nothing less, than a definition of reality.

It does not matter, whether we are a strict believer in a certain religious reality, or an equaly convinced believer in the reality of the sciences. It does not matter, whether we are an avid philosopher, questioning all sorts of reality images at the most inconvenient moments. We all have certain perceptions, which we accept and "believe" to represent an unquestionable reality. If these unquestioned and unquestionable realities fall in the sphere of our verbalisable awarenesses, we call them "beliefs", or structures of mental images we believe to represent a truth. Can you agree with this reasoning?

Yes.

We have also discussed the fact, that many of our reality perceptions fall outside the sphere of the consciously verbalisable mental imagery, such as e.g., all the factors of place, distance and timing that play a role in our motoric adjustments, as we walk, move and behave in relation to our environment. Do you agree with this?

Yes, but, here again, I feel, that you are straying from your relativistic approach.

Just a moment. I have always maintained, that there is in each and everyone of us, regardless of our tendency to question and philosophise, a strong need to accept a core of reality perceptions, which we "automatically" or subconsciously accept as real and truthful, because, if we did not have such a core of reality perceptions that are "certain", we could not function appropriately.

Allright, explain, then, where this relativistic approach to reality plays a role.

It plays a role, when we look at our overall beliefs and interpretations, because these beliefs and interpretations tie-together a complex of verbalisable experiences and reality perceptions, forming a vast and coherent structure of inter-dependent mechanisms. For example, we may, eventually, tie all our experiences together into a structure of beliefs, where we explain the existence of everything we know of, as well as all the forces we encounter or assume to be present, as an act of Creation by God, and, we may elaborate these concepts into a religious structure of beliefs. This may become a more or less coherent interpretation, such as, e.g., the belief, that man was originally created as a "perfect" creature by God, but, that man "sinned", was cast-out from Paradise into misery and mortality, and, now, has a long and arduous task to find God back again. The path back to God may involve many different ways, beliefs, religious practices and concepts, and, we all know, how diverse the belief structures have become, whenever we look at the major religions of the world, together with their many variants.

We may also try to "explain" all these phenomena by finding a satisfactory reality perception from the sciences. We have discussed the difficulties and peculiarities of the sciences. First of all, the scientific imagery seems to become increasingly fragmented and frightening, in particular, if we look at the potentially lethal consequences of certain technological abilities. It is not surprising, therefore, that the sciences and their technological applications are considered to be "evil" and inspired by the Devil; at least, in the minds of those, who have strong religious beliefs and have not been sufficiently exposed to the sciences to understand their possibilities and limitations. Another peculiarity of the scientific approach to reality is the fact, that it seems to exclude the Creative Act of an anthropomorphic God, and, it certaintly does not support the idea of a personal God, who takes sides in a conflict-situation.

Therefore, we may safely say, that the sciences have, so far, been a failure as a solid foundation for a comprehensive philosophy, and, we see, that most people, who are schooled in the sciences, or, who have been exposed extensively to the power and persuasiveness of the scientific imagery, will rely wholly on these scientific images, as long as they are reacting to the realities of a professional field or the exploration of technological possibilities. However, they will revert to essentially religious images and behaviour-patterns, whenever the motivations, destiny and goal-patterns or existential needs of man come into play. Do you agree with this analysis?

Yes, go ahead.

The essence of a relativistic approach lies in the concept, that, neither the religions, nor the scientific imagery is anything more than an attempt to place a large number of awarenesses and experiences in a coherent framework of causes and their effects. We have discussed, many times, that the religious imagery can be defined as the best possible intellectual and emotional synthesis under the circumstances; whenever people tried to verbalise a coherent and satisfactory interpretation of the commonly shared experiences of reality, including the major mile-stones of death, birth, joy and victory, or sorrow and defeat.

It is quite true that man needs, desperately, to believe, that his particular interpretation of reality, or the common reality perceptions and beliefs of the society he lives in, are, indeed, completely and unquestionably true, but, other common experiences and undeniable reality perceptions point-out to us, that we can not rely upon the infallibility of a simple correlation between reality and our perception of it.

Often, a large number of social groupings or individuals are at odds with each other, each believing to possess an absolute truth. Then, it is impossible to believe, that an unquestioned faith in the truth of a particular reality perception can be justified. The complexities of social groupings and their varied belief structures, compel us to see all these beliefs in a relativistic light, and, we have discussed, many times before, how we can bring all these diverging reality perceptions and beliefs into a coherent structure of interpretations, if we apply psychological mechanisms to the interpretation of the varied forms of human behaviour.

In other words; it seems to make a lot of common-sense to interpret beliefs, (the beliefs of a society, as well as the particular beliefs of each individual), in the light of our existential needs. Beliefs or images of reality become, then, not only, a tool to make us behave adequately, but, as we have argued before, the whole phenomenon of conscious awareness becomes, then, also a behavioural tool.

I know, that you have said these things before, but it seems so unsatisfactory to accept the fact, that we can not find or obtain, at least, some sort of a basic, absolute truth.

Yes, it is not easy to accept such a relativistic reality perception, but we will have to learn to live with it, just as we have learned to live with the fact, that we are growing older; that we are going to die, at some time in the future. We also have to live with the fact, that none of our conscious awarenesses or mental faculties are going to survive in an eternal existence.

We will have to learn to live with a lot of "facts", or interpretations of reality, which are contrary to, or different from, the beliefs and realities we would like to believe. We have to learn to see, to what extent our beliefs are coloured by images that are comfortable to us, and, which we want to be true. Unless we learn to strip our beliefs from existential needs, we will only sink into a morass of emotional behaviour-patterns, which find a rationalised support from belief structures that are simply geared to support us in our troubles, or, during an approaching battle.

However, as we learn to find more security in an attitude of cooperation, we will have to develop, also, the sophisticated relativistic reality perceptions, which will encourage us and help us to adopt and maintain such cooperative attitudes. Absolute beliefs can only goad us into doing battle with each other.

Is the relativistic approach to reality, then, primarily, a pragmatic solution, without this sense of a deeper or more fundamental reality perception, which the images of an absolute belief structure seem to give us?

It is certainly very worhtwhile to emphasise the idea, that a relativistic reality perception is not an absolute truth, but, I do believe, that a relativistic approach to reality will, eventually, become much more relevant to a much larger number of people, and over a much longer period of time, than the profusion of religious and absolute beliefs, which have dominated, so far, the history of man.

You are an incurable optimist, are you not?

What do you mean?

While you side-step neatly the question, whether your particular interpretation of reality in the relativistic approach should be considered an absolute reality, you expect it to be, eventually, so widely accepted, that it will take-on all the characteristics of an absolute reality.

I hope not, because, if the relativistic approach becomes so enshrined by veneration and tradition, that it becomes, indeed, an absolute truth, it will also lose its flexibility and adaptability, and, if it can not evolve smoothly under the pressures of the circumstances, it will soon lose its viability. Let me also say a few words about the allegation, that the relativistic approach to reality is "my invention". This is certaintly not the case. If you look through the thoughts of people in historical times, you will see, that, time and again, the idea has surfaced, that all reality is merely a by-product of our mental faculties, in particular, our conscious awareness.

The concept that conscious awarenesses represent a behavioural tool, has been around for a long time, but, I have been in the exceptionally fortunate position to combine the notion, that all forms of belief are, ultimately, a judgement function, (and, that all reality perceptions and interpretations are a phenomenon of the human mind), with the imagery of the biological sciences, as well as the many ideas and observations that point to an evolutionary interpretation of all existence. This imagery, (the coherent ideas of evolution, biology, cellular function and the biochemical and sub-cellular processes that are now more or less "known" to us), is of quite recent origin, and the thinkers of the past who tried to argue that all reality was a function of the mind, were handicapped by the absence, or, nearly complete absence, of biological data and evolutionary insights.

Let us, therefore, not consider the realtivistic reality perception to be an invention of my mind, rather, see me as a link in a long chain of people, who have argued and thought more or less along similar lines. I hope, of course, that my efforts to link the notions of a relativistic truth with the images of evolution, biology and chemistry, will be somewhat useful for others, but, I would not at all be dismayed, if my ideas turn-out to be only a small step in the evolution of relativistic thought.

You amaze me, and, I feel a curious mixture of irritation and excitement. Your unwavering optimism about man's ability to understand and grasp a complex imagery of relativistic perceptions, is infectious, but, at the same time, I feel irritated, because your ambitions are so grandiose, and, your sweeping statements appear to be somewhat arrogant. You have either opened a new dimension in human thought, or, you will go down in history as a "freak"; an arrogant eccentric, who thought that he could bring a new religion or philosophy, rivaling the concepts of the major religions, and sweeping the sciences together in a gigantic structure of relativistic relationships. My intuition keeps telling me, that you must be wrong, and, that your ideas are nothing more than grandiose dreams, which can be exposed and disposed off with a few, well-placed criticism that blow your whole structure apart. Yet, it is not easy to put the finger on errors or shallow statements, and the slipperiness of your thinking is intriguing.

Perhaps, it takes a longer look, or, a more astute critic to judge your work and ideas. I can only repeat, that it makes a strange and somewhat contradictory impression on me, fascinating and irritating at the same time. Perhaps, this is exactly what you want, because these qualities will attract many people's attention and stimulate them into a prolonged and tenacious effort to prove you wrong. Perhaps, then, the reaction to your work will be exactly as you intended it to be. I have to congratulate you, and, I have to say, that you certainly will enjoy a remarkable degree of success, or, at least, notoriety, in the future. However, you will, sooner or later, have to make this "initial push" so that people know, that your work is around, otherwise, it will not be able to function as a catalyst to generate these contradictory attitudes of fascination and irritation. I know, that you want more time, and, that you are still "playing around", trying-out a variety of ideas and different forms of presentations.

I agree, that the climate is not very favourable, at the present time, to make an effort for this initial push. As you mentioned, your method of discussing a topic in broad outlines and generalisations will not find favour amongst the more influential and academic members of society, and, your insistence, that the validity of your statements has to be recognised, accepted or rejected by a somewhat intuitive method, will also appear strange to most people. For the time being, you should continue to work in the unhurried solitude of your present environment, and, you will have ample time to refine and re-work your ideas to the point, that you will be able to put them irresistibly clear on paper, and, then, the wave of recognition may begin to take place. I have no further questions for you.

Thank you for your remarks and your assessment, which I can fully agree with. I think, that you are quite right, when you say, that my work will create a feeling of irritation in many people, because it is so pretentious and so wide in scope. I hope, indeed, that this irritation will work as a stimulus to really take note of what is being said, in an effort to prove we wrong, but, irritation may also lead to an abandonment of these works. This, of course, would not be helpful, and, it depends, therefore, on the question, whether or not a sufficient number of people will recognise something of value in my work to keep an all-important momentum going. I assure you, that I have not deliberately sought to irritate or provoke people, except, perhaps, in the sense, that I am trying to stimulate a measure of independent thinking.

For the next three or four years, I am indeed going to continue my series of essays without any deliberate effort to get other people to have a serious look at them. Partly, because I feel, that the climate is not ripe, as you said, partly, because I feel, that I am still evolving and developing, and, partly, because I do not feel any need, at the present time, to renew the efforts to find a spark of recognition. Certainly, I do not like to be "rejected" anymore than anyone else, and, it is, therefore, logical to wait, until I have the feeling, that the chances for a spark of recognition have improved.

Perhaps, you would like to ask me, what further evolution or development I foresee in my own work, or, am I going to branch-out into a different field of writing? No, I have no intention to change my program significantly, and, I have outlined a program of work for a number of years. As I may have mentioned before, I have set a goal, where I hope to complete a certain number of essays within a certain time-span. I will vary the form of the discussion somewhat, as I try my hand at a more explicit form of dialogue. However, even, the essays that do not use an explicit form of dialogue, are still written, in essence, as a "hidden dialogue", where arguments and counter-arguments flow, as if they occurred in a dialogue between people.

Thinking is, after all, a dialogue with ourselves, where we scan a variety of options for our behaviour, or, a variety of judgements, opinions and beliefs. The process of logical thought implies a more or less orderly evaluation of a large variety of positive and negative factors. Sometimes, this process of thinking is extended as a dialogue with others, where we exchange impressions, thoughts, opinions and interpretations with each other. At other times, the process of thinking takes place silently, within the mind of a reflecting individual.

To try-out an explicit or a more hidden form of dialogue as a discussion, is, therefore, a logical extention of the traditional discussion in the form of a monologue, but, I am not going to try a discussion with the purpose of bringing to the fore "dramatic tensions" through the inter-action of contrasting or complementary personalities. I know, that my abilities do not lie in this field, and, I am not going to waste my time trying to do something, I know, I have no talent for.

There, I am, again, showing a measure of impatience, stubbornness or irascibility, as I continue doggedly upon a set course, refusing any advice or hints from my environment. Yes, this is to some extent true. I have, for many years, looked forward to the time, that I would be able to live a frugal existence with a measure of financial independence. Now, I have reached this stage, and I am using my time as I see fit, and not as others think I should use my time. There are stil many people around me, who deplore that I gave-up, at quite an early age, and, apparently, in good health, a promising medical career and practice in the specialty of neurosurgery. If I ever get around to write an autobiography, I will comment on these aspects more fully, but, I admit, that it irritates me somewhat, if people indicate to me a certain regret at the fact, that I retired so early from my medical practice, and, that I retired to the country-site, without the social or medical contacts and the significant financial income I enjoyed, when I was still in practice.

Such an attitude irritates me to some extent, because it shows a complete lack of understanding about what motivated me to retire early, and, it also shows a lack of understanding for the trappings and pitfalls of an affluent, suburban life-style, as well as a lack of appreciation for the virtues of a quiet, more or less self-sufficient and frugal life in the country. Of course, I do not even consider, here, the silent implication, that I am "wasting my time with all this foolish writing", while I could get so much more "out of life", or, I could do so much more "good", if I had stayed with my medical practice. This judgement shows a complete lack of faith in the possibility, that I may be doing something worthwhile with my writing and my time.

Most people in my environment have accepted the fact, that I write as a hobby. It is a rather inexpensive hobby, which takes a lot of time and keeps me out of trouble, but, they do not show the slightest inclination to read or think about some of my ideas and concerns. Certainly, most people have some idea what I am writing about, but, because I have failed, so far, to generate the interest and enthousiasm of a publisher, they feel, that it can, therefore, not be of much value. This places the people in my environment squarely in the category of "followers", because they are quite happy to sit-back and follow the judgement and taste of the critics, and, they do not seem to feel any excitement, or any sense of anticipation, at the prospect of reading something that no-one else has ever read before, or, which has not been judged or pre-judged by "the experts".

Am I bitter about this? Not really, because, if I think about it clearly, I realise, that it could not be any different. If some of the people in my environment would have the leadership qualities, as well as the originality, or the guts and confidence, to judge unknown work for themselves, they would not be here, but, they would, probably, be working for a publisher or a magazine. Indeed, at some time in the future, I will have to make a serious effort to find such people; to see, whether or not my work has any appeal or interest to outsiders; to see, whether or not my work can make a contribution to the thoughts of man. In the mean time, I enjoy my isolation, the quietness of my existence, the fact, that no-one looks over my shoulder, and, that I can write anything I want, without fear that someone will be "snooping".

I have mentioned, before, that I detest publicity, and, that I would shy-away from the stress of public appearances. Eventually, I will rest of my writing, after I feel, that I have accomplished what I set-out to do. Most likely, I will die with only my own judgement to go by, whether or not my efforts have been worthwhile.

If I can say to myself, in all honesty, that I have done my best; that I have given my writing all I had; that I have avoided to capture the attention or imagination with trickery and deceit; that I have been completely true to my goals, then, I will be able to die in peace, and with a sense of satisfaction, in spite of the fact, that, even, then, my works may lie on a bookshelf, completely ignored, completely unpublished, fully forgotten, and totally neglected. If I have done my best, it is possible, that some people of the future will feel a degree of affinity with my thoughts, and then, they may be inclined to read me. I am comforting myself with this possibility, and, in the mean time, I am content and confident in my quiet, anonymous life-style.

.......

Summary

1. Continuing the dialogue.
   Tough questions.
   A discussion about personal matters.
   The absence of specific quotations or references.
   Whom am I writing for?
   A grandiose project, and an apparently arrogant attitude.
   Getting other people interested in my work.
   Further confessions of a lonely writer.
   Yes, my aims are pretentious, but I believe that I have something to say that is worthwhile listening to.
   An invitation to think.
   The meaning of "we see...".
   Tear my statements apart, if you can.
   The difficult art of generalising correctly.
   Generalisations in the field of mathematics.
   An intuitive form of recognition; the easy way-out?
   
   
   
2. The functions of authority and publicity.
   Evolutionary concepts will have a difficult time.
   Religious and scientific images of explanation are both accepted and believed-in on the basis of "authority".
   Synthetic efforts within a field of specialised knowledge.
   The problems associated with creating and grasping a "multi-disciplinary imagery".
   The need to re-assess our efforts.
   Approaching the task of comprehending something "from the ground up".
   I am writing better all the time.
   A blissfully high level of public awareness in the future.
   The function of a "philosophy".
   Why a philosophical reality perception may make us "poor warriors".
   The need for a "natural ethic".
   Religious and scientific reality perceptions can be brought under a common roof with a relativistic interpretation of our realities.
   How can we prevent the super-powers from destroying the world?
   An analysis of implied assumptions.
   Nuclear power, and the actions of a "lunatic fringe".
   We have to understand our motivations, as well as all other psychological mechanisms.
   Learning to be patient and thorough.
   The consequences of a synchronised bellicosity.
   Ignorance, due to a lack of foresight.
   The illusion of a purely defensive stance.
   The psychology of an arms-race.
   A serious "nuclear accident" that is not fatal for mankind as a whole.
   Working towards a stable, sustainable terrestial environment.
   
   
   
3. Waiting for the pressures of world-opinion to build-up.
   Trust, and the race to arm ourselves.
   The need to promote trust and transparence.
   The desire to protect ourselves from "subverting influences".
   A dialogue between super-powers and rival social systems.
   Distilling the advantages and short-comings of either system.
   Ordinary people know, how to submit their disputes to binding arbitration; they have no choice.
   Reaching a global consensus about the way we should live.
   There is not enough common ground to have a fruitful dialogue at the present time.
   Is uni-lateral nuclear disarmament a viable option?
   The peoples of the world have to tell their leaders to eliminate nuclear weapons, as well industrial practices that pollute and damage the environment.
   Nuclear war is not inevitable.
   A summary of practical steps to avoid the outbreak of nuclear warfare.
   The crucial importance of a high level of awareness and concern.
   The role of "sabotage", and the democratic "will" of the people.
   A fateful chain of killings and revenge-killings.
   A sigh of relief, when the bombs failed to go off.
   
   
   
4. The tactics of violence; an unavoidable strategy, as long as severely unjust situations persist.
   The need to come to a global consensus about the definitions of decent behaviour.
   Terrorism; fanatic dedication or ruthless opportunism?
   A situation of justice has to be re-enforced, and any infractions scrutinised decisively.
   Injustice can not be cured "half-way".
   A shameful silence of the international community towards oppressive regimes.
   The level of public awareness is rising rapidly.
   A careful distinction between what we need and what we want.
   People will always have a tendency to diverge in attitudes, beliefs and life-style.
   Polarising mechanisms.
   Back to a few personal comments.
   The luxury to be able to write exactly as I please.
   The need for self-discipline.
   Contradictory motivations.
   I like to stick to what I know best.
   The relevance of my work is a judgement that lies outside my jurisdiction.
   I do not tolerate stress well; a shy and introvert personality.
   Tensions that motivate a writer.
   The essay; a comfortable format for the expression of my thoughts.
   Reading all my works; a courageous and time-consuming project.
   The essentially synthetic nature of my work.
   
   
   
5. Questions about the relativistic approach.
   It is difficult to accept such a slippery point of view.
   The need for certainty.
   Certainties that fall within the sphere of verbalisable awarenesses have a tendency to become "absolute beliefs".
   Relying on many certainties that remain below the level of a verbalisable awareness.
   Belief structures are, primarily, attempts to explain reality-experiences.
   The ambivalent fruits of science.
   The essence of the relativistic reality perception is represented by the conclusion, that, neither religion, nor science, portray an absolute truth.
   The unifying results of interpretations that have been based on scientific insights of psychological mechanisms.
   We will have to learn to live with "facts" that are contrary to what we would like to believe.
   An increase in existential security will make it much easier to accept a relativistic interpretation of reality.
   The relativistic approach should not become an absolute belief or unquestioned attitude.
   The roots of a relativistic reality perception go back far in history.
   A curious mixture of irritation and excitement.
   Making the initial push towards contact with the public.
   Trying to stimulate the ability of thinking independently.
   Essays with a hidden form of dialogue.
   Why I retired early.
   Am I bitter? Not really, because my living conditions are conducive to good work, and I have an abundance of time.

.......