DIALOGUES III








A Study in Thought

sa073



by





Marius Heuff

Chapter 1

Content

The professor and his "credo".
The victory of reason over fanaticism.
The need to control our fears.
A "bird's eye view" of social phenomena.
The relevance of historical events.
The dedicated teacher.
A debate between people who are "in tune" with each other.
A battle of wits may be good entertainment, but it is seldom illuminating for the topics under discussion.
The rebuttal and comments of the first pupil.
A review, and an element of surprise.
A naive hope and an unfounded enthousiasm?
The contents of a belief are essentially unimportant, whenever we come into the grip of our emotions.
Would a relativistic reality perception be any different?
Questions for relativistic philosophers.
An interesting ripple in the fabric of historical events.
Emphasising an uneasy co-existence.
Listening silently, without interruptions.

"In conclusion", said the professor, as he was finishing his lecture to the handful of devoted pupils, "we should, eventually, see a complete disappearance of fanatic behaviour. In the future, there will be no room for a dogmatic and uncompromising attitude, where only one particular view can be accepted and all others have to be suppressed; often with violence and a ruthless persecution and elimination of anyone, who dares to oppose the "authorities" in power, regardless, whether these authorities represent a religious or an ideological point of view. As we have seen, the combination of a fanatical religious belief and political power is especially deadly for the forces of liberty, exploration and divergence, and, we have seen, throughout history, how massacres were carried-out by political leaders, whenever they sought to stamp-out opposition, heretical beliefs, or people, who happened to belong to a race that was considered an inferior and contaminating influence upon mankind".

"The never-ending series of battles and massacres, together with unbelievable acts of brutal and bestial behaviour, have given many sensitive people of good-will a sense of despair about the viability of mankind. Those, who have been securely nurtured in a protected prosperity and a loving environment, must feel a great deal of aversion and doubt, whenever they are confronted with the ruthless features of man's behaviour. Certainly, there is room for doubt about mankind's long-term viability, whenever we look at the many bloody events of history, and, even, with a strictly objective and scholarly approach to what happened in the past, we can not escape a sense of overwhelming brutality, when we look at the behaviour of man".

"The ruthless and aggressive nature of man comes especially to the fore, whenever a small and powerful grouping has been backed into a corner of despotic tyranny, and is desperately trying to survive by mercilessly executing all those, who are suspected of harbouring feelings of ill-will against it. Soon, the leadership or ruling clique has to suspect everyone who does not belong to this elite, and, even, within its own circles, the practice of terror and tyranny has made each and every individual and sub-grouping, silently suspicious of each other".

"I believe, that there will come an end to such apparently unavoidable violence of man against man. There has to be a more peaceful solution to the problems of a complete polarisation and a battle to the death between antagonistic factions; either within or between social groupings. The root-cause of polarisation is a belief in absolute truths, because such an attitude paralyses our sense of perspective, as well as the ability to see the arguments, attitudes and psychological mechanisms of our opponents. A fanatic attitude and an absolute belief are, so often, based upon a fundamentalist religious reality perception, where, eventually, every killing and each act of warfare is interpreted as the Will of God".

"Such fanatic attitudes and beliefs will, ultimately, give way to a globally acceptable view-point of relativistic truths, characterised, primarily, by the attitude, that all human traits, aspirations, desires and needs are, in essence, similar in every individual, and, that my anxieties and feelings of hostility towards those I do not like or fear, are mirrored by the anxieties, fears and suspicions of my enemies towards me. A profound awareness and a deeply felt experience of this basic relativistic truth should be ale to fuse the warring factions and feuding individuals into a coherent and mutually inter-dependent, even, respectful group of world-citizens, who are, collectively and rationally, searching for the best possible way to find and secure the long-term viability of the human species".

"Here, I have stuck my neck out. After a careful and scientific approach to the history of man and the motivations of the human being, I have taken the liberty to touch upon the still experimental views of a relativistic reality perception, and, I can not help but become overwhelmed by the vistas that open-up with this approach to the realities around and within us. This is the reason, why I have grown so enthousiastic and optimistic, in spite of the fact, that a careful look at history and the forces of logical extrapolation do not provide a solid argument for being optimistic".

"On another occasion, I hope to have the opportunity to discuss more extensively the consequences of looking at history with the theories of a relativistic reality perception in mind. For now, the series of lectures must come to an end, but, as always, I invite each one of you to stay a little longer, so that we get a chance to exchange views. We have worked our way through the subjects outlined in the curriculum. Now, I would like to hear your reactions, and, I would especially like to know, whether or not you have had a chance to familiarise yourself with the ideas of a relativistic reality perception. What do you think about these concepts? Do you share my enthousiasm for them, or do you see reality in a different light?".

"I am also interested to know, whether or not you have had a chance to evaluate the concepts of a relativistic reality perception in the light of the historical facts and interpretations we have discussed in this series of lectures. Certainly, I realise, that these ideas do not apply only to history, because the entire field of awarenesses is affected by them. It leads to a rather novel way of interpreting and classifying our sense impressions, as well as the many phenomena of social inter-actions which we can see taking place in societies of the present and the past".

"In the study of history we take already a "bird's eye view" of social phenomena, partly, because we are only familiar with the outlines of the events within a society. Actually, we have no choice but to concentrate on these outlines, since an extremely detailed analysis of history becomes unwieldy and difficult to grasp. In addition, we know, that a historical "re-creation" of this long-gone reality must have some relevance for us, because, as a rule, we do not feel much affinity with people, who lived a long time ago".

"Anyhow, let me really put an end to my lecture, here, and, let me refrain from slipping into a discussion about the philosophy of history. We have talked about this before, and, after a short recess, I would like to give everyone a chance to respond; to make your own comments and observations, or, ask a few questions; thank you".

The professor smiled and waved briefly, as his pupils broke into a short applause. This, in spite of the fact, that the lectures had always a very informal character because of the fact, that only five pupils attended them regularly. Yet, the professor had always maintained conscientiously a "high professional level of teaching", because he took his job seriously, and he was completely devoted to his work. Often, he taught far more than just history, and, as we saw in his digression into the philosophy of relativistic thought, he liked to draw vast and often controversial fields of concern into a focus of discussion. His pupils were grateful for this, because they felt, that history became so much more relevant to them, if they could see the generations of the past as people, who shared essentially the same experiences, emotions and sensations with the living generations. It also encouraged the pupils to see themselves as merely a short moment in the evolution of human existence.

The pupils happened to be young, healthy and intelligent, with access to a vast store of well-classified knowledge, and, they had the good fortune to be exposed to an excellent teacher. The atmosphere was exciting, and they were all eager to participate in the discussions and debates that would sometimes go-on for hours after the lecture was finished.

Recess was almost over. I could introduce you to the pupils and their professor, but there is little to be gained from knowing their personal characteristics. We all want to know something about the person we are communicating with or reading about. This is logical, and, we have discussed before the motivations for this curiosity. Here, we are only interested in reporting the sharp questioning and the intense debate that develops, whenever people are really "in tune" with each other.

You have probably noticed, that it is not possible to discuss something in fine detail, and invoke precise questioning from your listeners, unless it has been possible to "fine-tune" the minds of the listeners onto the same "wave-length". Too often, a debate deteriorates into a defensive posturing or aggressive skirmishing, where the objective is not a genuine desire to understand each other, and, to clarify or sharpen a particular concept or mental imagery, but, the debate becomes merely a primitive struggle for dominance; a power-play, a "survival of the fittest". By the way, have you noticed, how often the weapon of "wit", sarcasm, the joke, the funny remark, is used in this sort of power-play, in particular, when a discussion is "played-out" in front of an audience?

No, we are not interested in this sort of a skirmishing, regardless, how entertaining a battle of wits or a clash of personalities may become. We are not interested, because it does not contribute anything to the process of understanding the subject of the discussion, and, this is the primary purpose, as well as the evolutionary background, of all forms of conceptual communication. It is not important to know the personalities of the professor and his students, because they are not going to get involved in a clash of personalities, nor are they interested to play-out a "drama" of tensions and confrontations. These people have learned, a long time ago, that the real value of a discussion has to be found in a completely sincere and serious effort to debate honestly; to try to understand each other, and, to ignore any instinctive tendency to hide behind a joke or a subtle shift in the direction of a discussion, whenever one feels, that an argument or a point of view is becoming untenable.

These people are all interested in sharpening a mental imagery, classifying a structure of conceptual relationships, and understanding, deeply, a topic of knowledge or concern. This does not mean, that they are not human, or have no personalities. Of course they have their peculiarities and idiosyncrasies, but, we want to concentrate, here, on what they had to say to each other.

"Sir", began one of the pupils as he stood-up, "I appreciate your concerns about the interminable squabbles and acts of warfare between people and groups of people, and, we share your concerns, whenever we look back upon the somewhat depressing succession of atrocities and disasters that befell the peoples and their societies in historical times. If we look around us, now, in our contemporary societies, the impression is not much better. There is always a fight going-on somewhere; between friends and relatives, between rival political groupings, between groups of people who have different perceptions about problems and priorities. We see nations at war, and, often, ruling elites, military dictatorships, religious fanatics, or political dogmatists, are engaged in open warfare with important segments of their own social environments, as they try, rather desperately, to maintain their position of dominance and power. They have no hesitation to enforce their particular views with the power of the gun, and, frequently, with the terror of torture and executions".

"We share with you the feeling, that it is a gigantic and incomprehensible waste of human life, of possibilities for a dignified and mutually beneficial form of co-existence, and, we deplore, just as you do, the seemingly insolvable problems of people doing each other great harm and injustice. Why does this have to be, we ask, just as the generations before us have asked these questions. They too, have fervently sought for a solution, or, at least, a satisfactory interpretation of this disheartening and depressing aspect of human existence".

"You have discussed with us, many times, the outlines of the great religions and the most important trends of human thought, which centered, always, around the question, why people do battle with each other, whenever they come in close contact. Sooner or later, a situation of conflict arises, and, this situation is, most often, resolved by force, where the weaker party is either slain or defeated in an act of open warfare, or, it is suppressed and enslaved, until grave injustices and a chronic resentment give rise to a revolt.

Not so long ago, we discussed, how the major religions showed a general trend towards a more or less conscious and deliberate explanation of the combative and sinful nature of man. Yet, we have also seen, that each and every religious imagery or philosophical concept, (regardless, how much it was intended to be an example of tolerance and a symbol of compassionate understanding), became, at the same time, a rallying point for hope and resistance against oppression, as well as a nucleus for power and suppression".

"Sir, I am, therefore, frankly surprised by the sudden, somewhat unexpected and emotional enthousiasm for the ideas of a relativistic philosophy. Do you really think, that it is possible for these slippery ideas to succeed, where the major religions of the past and the greatest thinkers in history, have failed?".

"I can not help but feel, that such an enthousiasm and hope is naive and unfounded. Do you remember, how you discussed with us the idea, that all beliefs and conscious awarenesses, are, in essence, a tool to behave as best as we can?".

"Certainly, I realise, that this imagery is shared by the relativistic philosophers, because they have based their concepts on the solid evidence for physical and psychological evolution, which has been so widely substantiated by a large variety of scientific disciplines. In our previous discussions about instinctive and highly emotional behaviour-patterns, you have explained, so clearly, that the arguments and beliefs brought forward in an emotional and existentially significant situation, become quickly "justifications", or rationalisations, for a decision, an attitude or a pattern of behaviour that has already been initiated, and is already in progress".

"Therefore, it does not really matter, what one believes; as soon as an individual has been drawn into an existentially significant situation, especially, a confrontation, the behaviour-pattern becomes more instinctive and emotional, and, the belief structures are then used to justify or rationalise the behaviour that is taking place. This is the reason, why, even, the most exalted ideas, concepts or beliefs of brotherly love and tolerance, as well as obediance to the laws of God and society, can be used, and are being used, to justify a polarisation between people, as well as a series of events leading, invariably, to armed conlict".

"Do you have any reason to believe, that the lofty ideas of a relativistic truth, as well as the hope for an increased tolerance on the basis of relativistic insights, will suffer a different fate? I can see it now; an exclusive and elitist group of relativistic enthousiasts is defending vigorously its philosophic principles, and, if this group is successful and becomes large and powerful, it will, inevitably, use its powers to dominate and enforce its ideological principles, just as any other group has done in the past. How is one going to avoid a clash with those, who are abhorring relativistic thought or a relativistic philosophy, because they have experienced the behavioural realities associated with a fervent and fanatic belief in the absolute righteousness of a relativistic ideology?".

"Perhaps, such a development is unavoidable. Perhaps, there is no way to prevent a successful idea from becoming rigid and dogmatic, and, it may well be an inevitable course of events, that every successful thought or concept will, eventually, be used as a weapon by some people to hold-on to a position of privilege. However, an idea that becomes a tool or a weapon in the hands of an angry individual, or a beleaguered group, is going to make enemies, and, it will be rejected by those, who have suffered as a result of these ideas or concepts. Perhaps, then, it is unavoidble that we will always see a new search, a renewed hope to find, finally, something that is going to solve all the problems in the world, for good. However, I pity the attemps made by the relativistic philosophers, because their ideology is complex, slippery and difficult to grasp. Certainly, these ideas are not easy to understand for the average individual, who has little inclination, and even less talent, to think for himself or follow a tortuous train of thought".

"How are the relativistic philosophers going to cope with the straightforward, dogmatic and God-revealed truths of a Christian or Moslim Faith? Here, the religious teachers and thinkers are able to present clear-cut values, in easily understood terms, and, the whole picture is definitive and explicit. You know, what you have to do; what rules and commands you have to follow. You know, what happens to you when you die; at least, you know, that, you may find pleasure or displeasure in the eyes of the Supreme Being.

How can a slippery philosopy, where all truths and values are placed in a relationship of inter-dependence and complex qualifications, compete with the clear and certain truths of a religious reality perception? Besides, an absolute faith in the divine authority and truthfulness of a religious conviction is such a crucial support, when coping with the stress of battle, hardship or oppression, and, a fanatic belief in the knowledge that God is on your side is such a strong and nearly invincible weapon, that a relativistic philosophy does not have the slightest chance of competing for a place of acceptance or popularity in the minds of average people".

"Sir, I am surprised, because I think that you have been carried-away, momentarily, by a glimpse of beauty, which sparkels, indeed, luringly and intriguingly, from the relativistic reality perceptions, but, after a sober reflection about the practicality of seeing relativistic thought as a substitute for religious fervor, we come to the conclusion, perhaps, sadly so, that these relativistic ideas are doomed from the start. I am convinced that the series of wars, atrocities, killings and persecutions are going to continue, just as they have occurred in the past. After all, are we not just an arbitrary moment in the course of history, and, what gives us the right, or justification, to think, even, for a moment, that we will see a change in the overall trends of human behaviour and human warfare?".

"If the birth of the major religions turns-out to be nothing more than interesting ripples in the fabric of historical happenings and perspectives, would it, then, not be presumptuous and naive to believe in the possibility, that the birth or resurgence of relativistic thought will be a more powerful ripple through the fabric of human events? Man, just like all the other living organisms, has found a possibility to exist in a variety of modes, and, a very important mode of possible existence has always been the ability to engage in battle and create the conditions of survival and increased strength by slaying, or, at least, "neutralising" an adversary".

"Certainly, evolution has explored other modes of existence as well, such as the mode of symbiosis, or the possibilities that are inherent in parasitism. However, it seems unlikely, that mankind will ever fuse into a single, symbiotic organism of harmonic relationships. It seems far more likely, that we will see a persistent, if somewhat uneasy, co-existence of all possible modes of behaviour and social organisations, and, this means, that, some people, in particular, in smaller groupings, may reach remarkable levels of mutually beneficial cooperation, while other groupings will continue to explore the possibilities of combat and the survival of the fittest".

"Sir, I would like to ask you again; do you really believe, that relativistic insights and attitudes will bring-about this atmosphere of peace and understanding amongst the peoples in the world, we all hope for?"

The professon had listened completely motionless but attentively to the oration of the first student. He made no attempt to interrupt the speaker and waited patiently, until he had finished speaking. Now, the professor stood-up and said. "Thank you very much for your comments. I like to congratulate you for expressing your views and opinions so honestly and clearly, and, I think, that your comments deserve a careful analysis and consideration. However, before doing so, I would like to invite the other students to make their views known as well. "Please go ahead", he said, as he nodded to the student, who made an effort to stand-up and begin her oration.

.......

Chapter 2

Content

The second pupil, and her comments.
People want practical answers; not a slippery philosophy.
Evaluating, precisely, the major social systems.
Understanding the mechanisms of polarisation.
No need to elaborate a new and somewhat vague philosophical system.
Let us work with the rich heritage of facts at our disposal.
The third student; somewhat shy and sensitive to beauty.
Doubts about the validity of his initial flash of enthousiasm.
Relativistic thoughts; a pass-time for dreamers?
Is beauty a form of truth?
The strong tendency to make our observations fit our beliefs.
It is difficult to grasp relativistic thoughts at first reading.
Relativistic reality perceptions still have to prove their value.
The fourth student and his interest in the history of thoughts and beliefs.
Can we really "think" ourselves out of the troubles we are in?
The distinction between a reality "as it is", and, "as we believe it to be", is, in essence, irrelevant.
A look back at historical structures of belief, as well as a review of the contemporary scene of predominant beliefs.
The scientific community, and the tendency to form a partly scientific, partly religious structure of beliefs.

"Thank you, Sir", she said, "I must confess, that I am greatly impressed with the questions and counter-arguments of the first speaker. He has focussed our attention on the fact, that such a difficult and slippery concept as the relativity of truth is unlikely to generate a great deal of enthousiasm or influence, and, it seems, therefore, quite justified to doubt the validity of your enthousiasm and expectations about the practical consequences for human relationships, even, if these relativistic principles would gain widespread acceptance".

"If the Great Religions have failed to stop killings and atrocities, why should relativistic thinking be able to do so? If the concept of "love thy enemy" can so easily be changed into a crusade of hatred and persecution of those, who are only "different" in their beliefs, how can we avoid relativistic principles of understanding to become a focal point for elitist rallying, or, a weapon, that is considered to be an invincible, absolute truth?".

"When we look at a broad historical perspective, it is unlikely, that relativistic thought will be so powerful or widespread, that it could function as a weapon or rallying-point. There are many arguments against taking this approach to the perception of reality, especially, if we look at the problems around us. People want answers to very basic questions. Should a society put its faith in free-enterprise, a large measure of individual freedom and initiative, and an economic development based on the forces of supply and demand, or, should the government of a society intervene in the economic activities of its electorate, in order to make sure that everyone has, at least, a minimum standard of living, regardless of the success or failure of those, who participate in the game of free-enterprise and hard work".

"Such questions are being asked by peoples all over the world, and there seems to be no definitive answer or conclusion to decide, whether or not a society, and its peoples, is better served, if the economy is left more or less alone, fueled by the forces of supply and demand and the initiative and ingenuity of its peoples. It is not easy to decide, whether or not a semblance of justice, equality of living standards, and equal opportunities for everyone, have to be safeguarded by a careful and detailed guidance of all economic and social processes taking place in society".

"It seems to me, that these questions have become so important, and yet, they have remained so unanswered, that we see an ever increasing polarisation between the Socialist and centralised economies on the one hand, and those, which pride themselves of having a more or less "pure" system of free-enterprise, where the State "meddles" as little as possible in the affairs of its citizens. It seems, that the advocates or proponents of either system have come to live in a world of their own, and, consequently, it seems nearly impossible to have a meaningful and pointed debate between the two sides".

"Is it not important to try to find a solution to this stalemate and the increasing deterioration of the channels of communication between these antagonistic social systems? The world is becoming polarised, because either side is becoming more fervent and fanatic in its beliefs, and, we may see, soon, a dangerous and, perhaps, disastrous confrontation between these two ideologies, unless we help the processes of understanding and communication between them".

"It seems somewhat futile, and, perhaps, even, a step backwards to lessen the certainty of what we know by adopting a relativistic approach to the perception of reality. I agree, that this theory has beguiling and intriguing features, and, that it may open-up possibilities of comprehension in a very large framework of understanding, but, we do not have the time to think endless thoughts and to muse over the niceties of our reality perceptions, when the world is drifting, ever more closely, towards a conflagration and, perhaps, a nuclear holocaust".

"Let us spend more time and effort delineating the positive and negative features of either approach to social organisation. Let us outline, clearly and systematically, what the assumptions are of either system; what sort of features are desirable, which results and consequences are beneficial for society and the individual, and, above all, let us outline, where each system breaks-down. It is time to outline the limitations and short-comings of both social systems. Let us acknowledge the invigorating and stimulating effects of a touch of existential anxiety, as well as the lure of fulfilling a dream of freedom, wealth and power, but, let us not close our eyes to the many less desirable side-effects that can and do occur, whenever a society of competing individuals has played the game of free-enterprise, rather ruthlessly, for some time".

"Similarly, let us examine, closely, the ideals of Socialism; let us understand its motivations, its historical growth, as well as the ideals of justice and equality that underlie these Socialist philosophies. However, let us not be blind for the less desirable practices of certain groups, who claim to embrace the ideals of Socialism. Let us acknowledge, that, in some Socialist societies, the ideals of brotherly love and mutual respect, of equality in dignity, justice and the standard of living, have been over-shadowed by the primitive and impatient instincts of belligerent class-warfare, as well as the dictatorial imposition of a particular ideology, without allowing all segments of the population, regardless of their allegiance to a ruling Party, a say in the election of political candidates or the expression of divergent opinions and beliefs".

"The polarisation between peoples, groups of people, or, even, entire blocks of nations, revolves, primarily, around social and economic questions, such as; who should determine the level of income or earnings, the level of consumption, or the range of political diversity and divergence of opinion? The choice between a free-enterprise system and a centralised economy is intricately inter-woven with our beliefs about the nature of the human being and his aspirations. Are we, indeed, only motivated to work hard and efficiently, if we have a complete freedom to decide, what we want to be working at, and, if we can keep, at least, a significant portion of our material gains in order to increase our security and freedom to do as we please? Or, is it correct to say, that man's greatest satisfactions and motivations are stimulated, when he can truly believe in the justice of an egalitarian society, where each individual is guaranteed his or her basic standard of living, and will be required to contribute according to one's capabilities and the opportunities of the prevailing circumstances?"

"The beliefs that govern the structure of our social environments, the organisation of the many official and semi-official functions and institutions within society, the insights about our own nature, motivations, drives and aspirations, as well as the conflict between an egocentric orientation to fulfill our primary, existential needs, and, the sobering realisation that an unbridled pursuit of such egocentric or "socio-centric" drives leads to strife and warfare, all these factors are so inter-twined and inter-related, that, here, we face the greatest challenge to our long-term viability. Therefore, it seems to me, that dabbling in the more esoteric consequences of relativistic thought is somewhat of a luxury and an irrelevance, especially, if we are faced with the search for practical answers to pressing and concrete problems".

"I believe, that we do not need yet another, completely different and somewhat vague and complex philosophical system to start answering these questions. Let us work with this rich heritage of facts, which the vast data-banks of our computerised information-centers and libraries can give us, and, let us work hard to find the common grounds and insights that must be there, and must be available to people, who are endowed with a healthy measure of curiosity and common-sense".

She sat down, and, again, the professor rose only briefly to thank her for her contribution and for the clear way she had expressed her concerns. He then gave the floor to the third student, who appeared to be a litte more shy and introvert than the first two students; "Sir", he began, " I want to thank you, first of all, for the time and the infectious enthousiasm you have brought us by giving yourself so completely and wholeheartedly to your work. I too, recognised a sense of beauty and exhilaration, when I came into contact with the ideas of relativistic thought, and, I also felt, just as you expressed at the end of your lecture, that, here, we had a truly great potential for bridgeing the gap of antagonisms and hostilities. Yet, thinking about it and listening to my two colleagues before me, I must confess, that I am also beginning to doubt, whether or not this initial flash of enthousiasm was justified".

"I am afraid, that this flash of recognition for the potentials that are opened-up by such a novel way of looking at reality, has shown us, primarily, a beguiling and fascinating appearance of beauty and perfection, but, it still remains to be seen, whether or not relativistic thought can make a contribution in a hard-nosed world, where people want practical answers to practical problems. Perhaps, relativistic thought is destined to become the pass-time of dreamers, who have the luxury of plenty of time in their own world of thoughts and fantasies, and, who are sheltered from the real and rough world of strife and competition by an unusual degree of shelter.

Please, do not get me wrong. I am not pre-judgeing the value of relativistic thought. I am not saying, that it is not going to make a significant contribution. I am ambivalent about it. If something attracts me, intuitively or emotionally; if something has a strong appeal of beauty and perfection, I get always a little apprehensive, because I am afraid, that I am being hood-winked by my own feelings. I am afraid, that I am being carried-away by my emotions, and, that, in the end, I will feel deceived, let-down and disillusioned".

"Is beauty some sort of truth? Perhaps, the artists may say confidently "yes" to this question, and, indeed, the definition of art seems to lead us to an equation between the concepts of truth and beauty. However, can we apply the same principles to the field of philosophy or science? Certainly not. In science it is very clear, that a "most beautiful" hypothesis may be proven to be completely wrong, but, interestingly, even, in the field of science, and, really, in all fields of comprehension and human endeavour, we strife for a conceptual structure that is clear, lucid, transparent, symmetrical, with regular features, because, then, it becomes so much easier to grasp it, compared to a conceptual structure that is haphazard, chaotic or arbitrary".

"Even, in the field of conceptual mastery, we tend to sense a feeling or "emotion" of beauty, if it "makes sense"; if it has an internal logic, a consistent design, etc. Let me refrain, here, from going into details about the mechanisms of the perception of beauty. Strangely, I find myself agreeing, here, with the writers of relativistic thought, because their correlations and explanations are so easy to grasp, and, they give me, therefore, a sensation of "being beautiful".

"However, let me come back to the question to what extent we may rely upon a sense of beauty, and, at the same time, we also have to ask ourselves, when we have to be very cautious about such feelings? Certainly, in the field of conceptual synthesis and the structuring of concepts into a framework of beliefs, it is not sufficient to rely upon the feeling, that it "all fits together so well; therefore, it must be true". We can not avoid the long and arduous task of checking and re-checking, whether the specifics of our awarenesses and experiences do indeed fit-in with the structure of a beautiful belief".

"Certainly, I know very well, that we all have a strong tendency to make our observations and experiences fit, even, if there are fairly clear indications, that our systems of classification are showing increasingly cracks and faults. After all, the agreed-upon basic knowledge of any particular scientific discipline has established such a core of agreed-upon facts, because countless people have tested, again and again, the validity of these basic observations and conclusions. I believe, that a philosophy should be treated in the same manner. It is not sufficient to either accept or reject a particular train of thought on the basis of an emotional like or dislike. No, we have to examine and scrutinise a philosophy very carfully, in order to see, whether or not it has features we can agree with, and, where its ideas "go wrong"; at least, where they go wrong in our particular interpretation of this philosophy. Again, we should be able to reason and argue, carefully, where and why we disagree, or, why we agree and accept a particular statement".

"Here, the philosophy of relativistic thought presents a curious problem. The ideas are very much generalised, and they are, obviously, based on a very wide grasp of human knowledge. The generalised statements are very cautious, and, where they are bold and definitive, it turns-out that they are based on solid scientific evidence. Indeed, it is not easy to show a relativistic statement to be "completely wrong". Often, we find, (at least, I get this impression when I am reading relativistic writings), that the initial impression is not the same as the one we get, when we read it again and again. Contradictions or statements that were apparently prone to be "proven wrong", turn-out to make more sense; they seem to become more supported by evidence, and, as we let the whole structure of thought sink into our minds, we get the strange feeling, that an entirely new dimension of thought and perception is opening-up in front of us".

"This is an overwhelming feeling, and, it is asssociated with a strong sense of beauty and perfection, but, as I said before, such a feeling makes me always a little suspicious. Let me say, therefore, that I do not know, what to think of these ideas and concepts of relativistic thought. Unless many ordinary people without a specific schooling in the sciences or philosophies, are able to experience a similar sense of beauty and perfection, I believe, that this philosophy is going to remain a rather elusive, exclusive, as well as a somewhat esoteric pass-time for the "seekers"; those, who have the inclination, and the time, to spend a great deal of time and effort studying the thoughts and opinions of philosophers".

"If relativistic thought remains in such an exclusive atmosphere, I fail to see, how it can make a significant impact on the history of mankind, and, I fail to see, therefore, how relativistic thought can "improve" or enhance the cooperative behaviour of the human being. I have to agree, therefore, with the previous speakers in concluding, that it is unlikely that relativistic thought will have the beneficial results which you so hoped for, professor. I hope, that I will be proven wrong, because mankind would indeed be so much better of, if we learned to see the similarities between our own behaviour and the behaviour of our enemies. Let us hope, that it may come true, but, common-sense and reason should caution us about these hopes, because we may, indeed, be lured, once again, by an image that turns-out to be nothing more than "wishful thoughts".

"Thank you very much", said the professor, "that was an honest mixture of personal reaction and controled thought. You have touched on many interesting aspects we certainly should discuss more in detail, but, let us give the floor, first, to the other two students so that they can get their "opening statement" in.

"Thank you, Sir", said the fourth student. "I am proud and consider it to be a privilege to belong to this group of competent thinkers and philosophers. I too, have had a opportunity to examine the ideas of a relativistic reality perception. However, I can not share with you, either a recognition of beauty or truth, nor can I agree with you, that we see, here, a potental for cooperation and "peaceful co-existence", which is "something new" or greater than anything we have seen before in the history of mankind.

As you know, I am primarily interested in the history of human thoughts and beliefs, and I have to agree with my colleague who spoke first, that it is so unlikely, even, preposterous and arrogant, to believe, that we can "think" ourselves out of the troubles we are in. We have talked about the history of thoughts and beliefs a great deal during the course of these lectures, but, I have the impression, that such a "cool", scientific analysis of the various thoughts and belief structures that have played a role, and still play a role in guiding the lives of human beings, does not do justice to the intensity of the hopes and expectations, which a majority of people experience during their lives".

"Let us not forget, that we have been trained to look at a large variety of phenomena with a detached and emotionally neutral frame of mind. Let us not forget, that, most people would not have a clue, when you try to explain the difference between a reality "as it exists" and the concepts or beliefs they have about it. Most people, perhaps, nearly everyone, "live" their sensations and experiences, and, for these people, it would be meaningless and incomprehensible to distinguish between a reality "as they see it", and the reality "as it really exists".

"We can glibly talk about a large variety of religious beliefs which dominated one or other obscure society in the past, but, it remains a fact, that these beliefs are often very strange for us. We have a difficult time to understand, what these people believed to be true. Such a gap in the reality perceptions between ourselves and the ancient societies we are studying, gives us little affinity for their beliefs, which, then, become a "scientific curiosity"; to be remembered for an examination, or, to be used in a discussion as a tool to demonstrate expertise, or, as a weapon, whenever we want to impress a colleague or silence a critic".

"We forget, that, people in ancient societies, not only, understood in their particular way what they believed to be true, but, they also believed completely in the absolute validity of their beliefs. It is misleading to concentrate on the fact, that, in our particular observations of these beliefs many of the more primitive belief structures are somewhat vague and strange, because we forget, then, that these structures were the result of a long communal effort to construct a scaffold of explanations that would explain, to the best of their knowledge and experiences, the reality as they perceived it and were in continuous contact with".

"We should, indeed, emphasise in our studies about ancient religious ideas and beliefs, the fact, that these images were the result of a need to orden the awarenesses of these ancient peoples into a logically coherent and emotionally satisfying structure of beliefs. As we have discussed before, in the lectures on religion, we know, now, that a particular concept or interpretation of reality must have rceived wide and enthousiastic support, at least, during its formative stages, before it could rise to the prominence of a sacredly held structure of beliefs. These apparently strange and somewhat incomprehensible structures of beliefs were the result of the particular circumstances, vocabulary of concepts and ideas, as well as the specific interpretations of the experiences and force-fields these people were exposed to".

"Yet, the motivation or drive to construct a structure of beliefs that could be grasped in a more or less coherent way as a story or legend, is the same drive we experience, whenever we are confronted with a confusing set of circumstances. We also want to orden our interpretations and experiences, and, as man learned to interpret increasingly larger sections of his experiences and the forces of nature in terms of "regularities", (regular and predictable forces that did not act as arbitrarily or voluntarily as was originally thought), it is logical, that, slowly, the pantheon of gods and spirits contracted to a more or less mono-theistic religious explanation, where all the forms of existence, as well as the various forces or force-fields were related to the existence of one, all-powerful, eternal and unchanging, essentially unfathomable, "Superior Being".

"When we look at the beliefs in contemporary societies, we see, that, a large majority of people still has an essentially religious interpretation of reality. To come to the conclusion that all existence and all forces of nature can be considered to be "predictable", and, that these forces or force-fields can be comprehended by "laws", (or generalised statements that describe these forces and bring them thereby under the control, or, at least, the comprehension of man), remains the exception.

This applies, even, to the scientific community, where, proportionally, a fairly large percentage of people are inclined to abandon religious reality perceptions. Even these people rarely adopt a radical and consistently scientific approach to their interpretations of reality. Certainly, they think and work scientifically in their particular fields of knowledge and expertise, and, they use the concepts and ideas of a scientific reality perception to further the understanding of a particular detail they are working on, but, most scientists, in particular, in our modern times, are experts in only such a narrow and small field of the total area of knowledge and awareness, that they feel overwhelmed and awed by the magnitude of nature, or "reality". It has, therefore, become relatively easy to adopt scientific methods and attitudes so far as their work is concerned, but, in all other fields, these scientifically schooled people feel and react as ordinary people, and, this means, that they behave and think, in essence, religiously".

"It is true, that, people, who are schooled in a particular field of science, and, who have been exposed to a variety of cultures with their diverging beliefs and modes of living, usually, do not have a fanatic belief in one or other religious doctrine or Faith. Their religious thoughts and feelings center, primarily, on the awareness of an overwhelming and gigantic complexity of reality, and, these feelings and impressions are enforced by their own scientific work and their contacts with many different fields of science and knowledge. The complexity and vastness of the scientfic reality makes it plausible, and logical, to accept the existence of a "Superior Being". Scientific people are, therefore, inclined to believe, vaguely, in the existence of a Superior Intelligence, rather than in the complete and unquestionable truthfulness of a Divinely Revealed Reality, as we see in the Scriptures of Christianity or Islam".

.......

Chapter 3

Content

The fourth student continues his comments.
From a pluralistic pantheon of forces to a streamlined monotheistic reality perception.
It is impossible to grasp human behaviour with invariable laws and ultimate predictability.
The existence of the "free will".
Marxism, seen as a "modern religion".
What do I believe, personally?
I hesitate to accept the divinity or absolute authority of any particular Scripture.
The Saints, dying in the certainty of their beliefs; an awe-inspiring event.
The last student; taking-up the theme of religious convictions.
The emotional investment into a Faith.
The reality of a believed-in experience.
Relativism is little more than "common-sense".
A review of modern philosophical efforts.
The philosophy of language and mathematics.
Giving the sciences credit for laying the foundation of a relativistic interpretation of reality.
Contributions by relativistic thought.
I am carried-away by my enthousiasm.
A passionate plea for excercising the faculty of thinking rationally.
The comments of the professor.
Coming back, full circle.

"I do not want to speculate, here, any further, on the overall features and beliefs of people in the scientific community", continued the fourth speaker, "because I know, that my colleague, who still has to make his opening statement, will elaborate extensively on the field of scientific thought. After all, this is his field of expertise and interest. I felt it important to remind ourselves of the undeniable fact, that religious belief structures have been around as long as there have been thinking human beings, and, we should not forget, that all religious beliefs were, and still are, in essence, a communal and rational approach to the problems and questions that arise, whenever a group of people are faced with the task of interpreting reality".

"When people have to give meaning and understanding to happenings and experiences, and, when they have to chart a sensible course of action for present problems and future plans, they always need a structure of beliefs. They need a coherent structure of concepts upon which they can rely without further questions. We all need certainties, and, we may "play" with the idea, that all certainty is an illusion, or, that every truth depends on the angle of our point of view, but, we all know, that we need and want certainty, because we can not function without it".

"This, I feel, is the major weakness of any attempt to question the acceptance of unquestioned or dogmatic truths. Sure, we know, intellectually, that believing something to be true is no guarantee, that it really is true, but, since we are convinced that we are right, we are also convinced, that this possibility does not apply to us; at least, not at this particular time".

"If we look at the development of human belief structures on a truly large scale, we see an evolution from a confusing pantheon of forces to a streamlined, monotheistic reality perception, and, eventually, to the idea of a Prime Mover; a Creator, who brought the Universe and its myriad manifestations into existence, but did not interfere, anymore, after the events of creation, because the events reflective people can be aware of seem to take place along increasingly clear and intelligible laws of regularity and pedictability. The ultimate consequence of this line of thought is the conclusion, that there is, indeed, not even a Prime Mover, because the concepts of natural evolution reveal to us, how one form of existence evolves from another".

"Yet, the ideas of predictability and regularity seem far more applicable to the Universe and its myriad of stars and galaxies, than to the behaviour of a human being, where the fact of behavioural flexibility and the subjective experience of the need to come to a voluntary choice, make it impossible to grasp human behaviour with the iron logic of invariable laws and ultimate predictability".

"As my scientific colleague will undoubtedly point-out, there is, even, a scientific trend to deny the existence of a "free will", and, certainly, it seems reasonable to question the concept of a free will; the concept of a free choice between good and evil, between God and Satan, between Heaven and Hell. While we see the imagery and contents of our beliefs change continuously, we do not really see any change in the need for certainty, and, we see no change in the trends towards dogmatism and absolute beliefs. As a matter of fact, the insights of a relativistic reality perception have shown, quite clearly, that we all need certainties, and, that our entire realm of awarenesses remains, in essence, a behavioural tool".

"While I find it difficult to accept such a sweeping and blanket statement, I find it ironic, that the conclusions of relativistic thought seem to indicate their own limitations, and, I have, therefore, no hesitation to pedict that, for the foreseeable future, the societies of man and their social leaderships will continue to be guided by essentially religious or dogmatic perceptions of reality".

"If you allow me a brief sideline, we may, perhaps, interpret Marxism as the most modern of the religions. While it accepts, tacitly, the scientific conclusion, that we have no evidence for a Supreme Being who is concerned with our existential well-being, it is nevertheless a "faith", because it is absolute in its formulations of right and wrong. It has a limited tolerance for dissenting opinions, and, just like any other religion, it becomes a rallying-point to do battle with "the enemy".

Let us, indeed, not forget, that our beliefs are behavioural tools, and, they are especially needed, when we have to muster complete confidence in order to engage in serious battle. If we have to cope with a situation that may spell the difference between life and death, we need certainties and absolute truths, and, as long as there are battles to be fought, relativistic thought will be rejected as ambiguous, confusing, or, even, "treacherous", because it undermines our faith and confidence in the righteousness of our Cause".

"Allright, I will end my speech here, but, grant me a few moments to answer an important question that may come to your minds, if you have followed my thoughts. What do I believe personally? You may want to know, whether or not my predictions and expectations about the continuation of the dominance of religious belief structures and dogmatic behaviour is based on the belief, that philosophical, and, in particular, relativistic reality interpretations, will never be widely popular. Or, do I think, that the religious beliefs, at least, some of them, allow us, indeed, a glimpse of a "revealed reality", which will necessarily remain closed to us, if we try to fathom the reality purely with our own intellectual efforts? This is the essence of modern religious attitudes, is it not? The ultimate answer to the lure of intellectual scrutiny and the persistent attacks by doubts and questions, is the belief, that God has revealed a reality of existence, which we can appreciate, only, if we approach these Sacred Scriptures and Revelations with a humble and reverent frame of mind".

"Here, I would like to echo my colleague who spoke just before me; I do not know, what to believe. I hesitate very much to accept wholeheartedly the divine nature of any particular Scripture, because they are all so prone to dissent or varying interpretations, but, neither can I accept a blanket statement, that all writings, all ideas and concepts, all Scriptures and actions of man are merely "cultural phenomena". So many people seem to have died completely happy and confident about the help they received from their God! I hesitate to say, that, each and everyone of them, even, the most impressive and greatest of the Saints, was merely the victim of an illusion. I am too awed by their behaviour to be able to say this with confidence. Thank you for your attention".

As he sat down, there was a moment of silence as everyone reflected on these last words, and, then, the last of the students stood-up and spoke softly. "I agree with you, my dear friend, that it seems awfully arrogant to say, that, all those people, who sacrificed their lives for their God, and, who seemed unshakable in their Faith and confidence, were all "mistaken" in their beliefs. I honestly believe, that it would be totally erroneous, as well as a misconception of our concepts of relativistic truth, if we said so.

After all, relativistic thought has taught us, that our beliefs are an instrument for our behaviour, and, if we are totally committed in our actions to a certain belief, then, our faith in the truthfulness of this reality will grow constantly. Therefore, it is, indeed, quite justified to say, that the reality for each and everyone of us is contained, or determined, by what we believe to be true. Few of us have such clear and unshakable images about what we believe to be true, because, very few of us had to invest, so strongly, in the truthfulness of a particular imagery. However, if we find ourselves in a situation where we have to make a choice, where the social environment is becoming polarised, or, if our beliefs and attitudes lead to acts that make us an outlaw and a fugitive, then, we, either, believe, fully, that our beliefs are completely right, or, we crumble and give-in to the pressures that want to change our mind".

"Therefore, if a Saint has committed his or her entire life to his or her Faith; to the point that he or she is being persecuted, and, perhaps, to the point of being put to death, then, one must completely believe in the truthfulness of these mental images, because one has sacrificed everything for it, and, one is now going to make the ultimate sacrifice; one's life".

"Not only, does the imagery become stronger and stronger, as it is hardened by acts of complete commitment and Faith, but, we see, also, that these images become a source for inspiration, consolation and resistance. This happens to a degree that seems unbelievable to an outsider. Therefore, our modern psychological insights make it not less awesome to see such acts of a totally committed Faith or belief, but, we know, now, why the faith of a Saint has to be unshakable, and, why a Saint does experience, literally, that the Heavens are opening-up for him, as he finally slips into a blessed unconsciousness after all the unbelievable stress, pain and suffering, which he or she had to endure before death finally came".

"No, we are not saying at all, that the Saint dies in a mistaken belief. He dies in his particular reality, and, this reality is, probably, far more tested, and far more enduring, than our own reality perceptions and beliefs will ever be, because our beliefs and perceptions have not been tested anywhere to the same extent. It is, therefore, completely "real", if the Saint experiences, finally, that God has mercy and is accepting him into the Heavens, as he begins to lose consciousness and starts to lose contact with the world that has caused his death. However, we can say, quite truthfully, that this reality, so unquestionably valid for the Saint, may not have the same validity for me, or, for other people, whose reality experiences and interpretations have developed along different lines".

"Ah, you say to yourself. Finally, we have, here, someone, who is a true relativist, and the professor will be happy to have found a supporter for his hopes and expectations what relativistic thought can do for man and his societies. Not so hasty, my friends. Let us not jump to conclusions, because I am far from completely "won-over" to the cause of relativistic thought. Well, perhaps, I should put it this way. I do not agree with the tacit implication, that relativistic thinking is a totally new way of looking at reality, because, so far as I am concerned, the conclusions of relativistic thought are nothing more than common-sense consequences from our modern psychological insights. Certainly, the relativistic writers have emphasised a much needed accent upon tracing coherent relationships on a truly large scale, and, they have given "old-fashioned" philosophy a new lease on life".

"We have seen a rather peculiar and somewhat specialistic development in the past, where philosophy came to be known as a curious scientific attempt to find an ecological niche somewhere in between the fields of language and mathematics. This, I felt, was not the proper role for philosophy, because, in my opinion, philosophy is, by definition, an attempt to understand, logically and calmly, a vast field of knowledge and its intricate relationships. It may well be, that, a particular exploration of the boundary fields between the languages and the mathematical formulation of strict relationships between concepts and symbols, served a useful purpose, but, it does not really contribute to a broadness of understanding. Interestingly, these efforts seem to have born fruit in the field of designing a "language" to instruct computers, and, to me, it makes sense, that this has become the primary usefulness for such a specialistic philosophy".

"Language, including the symbolic representations of certain abstract and generalised concepts, such as those of mathematics, is a tool of communication. In language, we communicate "as a whole", with our entire personality, and, as we all know, the meaning of most language-symbols is rather variable. In our concepts of numbers and their relationships, we have been able to develop concepts and ideas that are remarkably precisely delineated or defined, and, as a result, the laws of logical reasoning and deduction carry a great deal of weight. Because mathematics is a sphere of "knowledge" that requires no experimental test or verification to analyse a problem or come to a conclusion, except for alternative routes of reasoning, we see, that mathematics remains pure and precisely defined. The mathematical symbols do not represent a more complex reality, such as the concepts and ideas that form the imagery of physics or chemistry".

"I do not want to digress into the philosophy of language and mathematics, because I want to come back on the definition of relativistic thought. In essence, relativistic thought says, that, all our knowledge, all our mental images, as well as all reality perceptions are mental images only. These images have been created by our brain, and, they have been classified and categorised by a combination of physiological and psychological mechanisms. These images are believed-in, to varying degrees, as representing "a truth". These ideas are founded on the insights and mechanisms of natural evolution, as well as the sciences of biology and psychology, and, they are common-sense conclusions and applications of the observations of these sciences. I would like, therefore, to see relativistic thought, merely, as a logical and modern interpretation of our scientific insights".

"I prefer to see the position and value of relativistic thought in such a light, because I feel, that, an over-emphasis on the ideas of relativistic thought gives us the erroneous impression, that it supersedes, somehow, the sciences, as well as the religious interpretations of our reality perceptions. There is a suggestion from several quarters of relativistic thought, that, now, with the help of a relativistic interpretation of reality, it has become possible to bridge the gap between religious and scientific images or beliefs, but, I think that it is more accurate to give the scientific disciplines of the basic sciences, such as physics, chemistry, biology and a host of sub-specialties, the credit for laying the foundation for the concepts of natural evolution".

"True, the ideas of evolution as a philosophical speculation have been around for some time, but, only the myriad of scientific observations have elevated the status of the concepts of evolution from a philosophical speculation to an unassailable scientific fact. Secondly, I would like to give these biological insights, together with a much better and deeper understanding of our physiological and psychological mechanisms, the main credit for opening-up the possibility to see reality perceptions as a "by-product", or, as a "creation" of the human organism".

"Without these scientific contributions, we would still debate the dualism of body and soul, and, it is only the application of rigorous scientific thought and analysis, which has made it possible to consider all the manifestations of human behaviour and conscious thought as a product of an intact organism; with an intact central nervous system, integrated into a social structure, where all the faculties of contact, symbolic representation and conceptual communication have been developed and utilised".

"I know what you want to say. You want to say, that I talk now as a scientist with a good grasp over, and familiarity with, the concepts and ideas that have been illuminated and propagated by relativistic thinkers. Scientists without an exposure to relativistic thought would not talk the way I do. They would still think in terms of an absolute scientific reality, and, the only difference would be, that they have substituted a great deal of "faith" in a divine revelation, with a similar faith in the observations and interpretation of a scientific "revelation". You also want to point-out to me, that the ideas of relativistic reality perceptions were already formulated, before the more complex and coherent ideas of psychology, biology and evolution came to the fore. You want to point-out, that, relativistic writers have been instrumental in bringing-about a much needed synthesis of the sciences, and, that it would be more reasonable to say, that the sciences came only out of a dangerous technological pre-occupation with highly destructive weaponry and gigantic levels of wasteful consumption, when the ideas of relativistic philosophical thought bred new life and insights into the minds of the younger scientific generations".

"Yes, I agree with you, if you want to say this, but, as always, I feel, that we, just like the generations before us, are still too much inclined to see a certain magic and mystery in the symbols of relativistic thought. I would like to argue the point, that the sciences have now absorbed, not only, the relativistic thoughts and ideas of our thinkers and writers, but, our level of scientific understanding has already developed to the point, where the religious belief structures have become incorporated into them, and, these religious belief structures have become, therefore, somewhat superfluous as structures of belief or as guidance-patterns for the organisation of our behaviour".

"Now, you will accuse me of being just as optimistic and irrealistic as the professor, because, you will say to me; if there was any evidence to support your contention, that a calm, emotionally neutral, scientific reality interpretation with a relativistic flavour would, indeed, be "sweeping the world" and replacing the behavioural tools of fanatic and dogmatic beliefs, how come, that we do not see a major reduction in the level of combat, strife and stress?".

"You are right. I am being carried-away by my enthousiasm, and, I have probably been more deeply touched by the ideas and concepts of relativistic thought than I realised. We certainly do not have, as yet, a world-wide acceptance of relativistic or scientific ideas, and, the objections I have heard from my colleagues and previous speakers about the complexity and the relative inaccessibility of relativistic thought, also apply to the sciences themselves. It is true, that the sciences have become so vast, so un-overseeable, and, so difficult and complex, as well as specialised in their concepts and vocabulary, that we see, now, a very curious situation; nl., the sciences and their concepts are taught via exactly the same mechanisms that governed the transfer of religious or cultural images and values".

"In our contemporary social environments, the sciences have to be taught by an authoritative but lucid account of "how it is", and, almost the entire vocabulary and conceptual imagery of the scientific reality perceptions has to be believed "on authority", just like the religious concepts use to be. However, there is an important difference. All the scientific images, in particular, if they are taught well, and with scrupulous honesty and accuracy, can be "proven", or, at least, they can be made plausible by a long series of arguments, observations and experiments, while the religious imagery remains a "proof" according to the "testimony" of a believer, or the Scriptures of a writer, or a series of writers, long since deceased. I feel confident, therefore, that, eventually, a sufficient number of human minds will be able to appreciate the scrutability and repeatability of scientific observations and experiences, and, I hope, with some trepidation, that it will, indeed, be possible for a large number of ordinary people to assimilate a sufficient level of knowledge and insight about psychological and biological phenomena, to make them susceptible to the idea, that all beliefs and reality images are, in essence, a behavioural tool, designed to help us survive, either, now, or, in the future; either, collectively, or, individually".

The last of the students had finished his speech and he sat down. The professor rose again and began by thanking his students for their thoughtful and well-organised comments, and, he remarked upon the irony, that the last speaker seemed to have come back, full circle, to the concluding remarks of himself, when he ended his lecture with the hope that a more rational, scientific and relativistic attitude to our perceptions and motivations would take the edge off our combativeness, and, that such an attitude would be helpful in creating a globally satisfactory level of human existence and social justice. Then, he went on and said;

.......

Chapter 4

Content

The professor apologizes.
A plea for rational behaviour.
"Your comments have strengthened my "faith" in the possibilities of a relativistic perception of reality".
A review of the students' comments.
The roots of relativistic thought have been visible throughout history.
How easy is it for an unshakable truth to become a mere illusion!
A philosophical, synthesising approach is somewhat uncomfortable for someone trained in hard, competitive work.
Future historians will see smoothly evolving patterns of thought.
No sudden break in the flow of historical developments.
A broad sweep over the concepts of religion, philosophy and science.
A perception based on the "naked senses".
Logical reasoning has always been an important factor in every religious reality perception.
Christianity's longevity is based on a happy fusion between philosophy and religion.
Challenges to the Christian reality perception.
Evolution; the most recent and, perhaps, most serious challenge.
Scientific interpretations never "prove" the absence of a Superior Being.
Scientists, becoming scientific technicians or "experts".
The logic of the rise of relativistic thought.
A relativistic approach has many practical consequences.
We have outlived our dependence on charity.
Essential equality is a matter of justice; not, good-will or charity.

"I would like to apologize for my somewhat emotional and superficial dreams and hopes for a better world under the guidance of a relativistic philosophy. It certainly was a deeply felt and honest "exclamation mark", but, I want to offer my apologies for it, because I should have learned, by now, that such an emotional appeal and a somewhat superficial utterance of wishful thoughts is not going to be of much value. It leaves itself wide open to intellectual criticisms, as you all have demonstrated so well".

"Certainly, an emotional approach could be persuasive for many people, who do not have well developed critical faculties, but, we do not want to encourage a persuasiveness that is based on emotional synchrony, do we? We have discussed the mechanisms of persuasion before, and, we have seen, that the oldest, and, perhaps, most powerful form of persuasion is, still, the generation of an emotional resonance, where people respond in synchrony to a beguiling play upon their sentiments by a clever orator or demagogue".

"Yet, we also know, how dangerous such a method of persuasion is, because the "consensus" may not last any longer than the mood of mass-euphoria, and, the lack of an intellectual background for the reasons, why an individual has been persuaded to think or act in a certain manner, makes it an instrument that can be manipulated by clever, but, perhaps, unscrupulous leaders. Besides, if we do not really know, why we act or believe the way we do, we do not, even, display a semblance of rational thought, which is associated with the art of rationalising an already chosen course of behaviour".

"Indeed, we have discussed, many times, the virtues of coming to a well-founded and well thought-out behavioural choice in a frame of mind that is emotionally more or less neutral, but, we are also realistic enough to appreciate, that we all may succumb, once in a while, to a more emotional outburst of enthousiasm, anger or despair, as I demonstrated so vividly at the end of my lecture".

"I have listened, carefully, to all your comments, and, I agree with most or nearly all of them, but, strangely enough, I feel, that your criticisms and comments have strengthened rather than weakened my faith in, and enthousiasm for, the possibilities of a more relativistic approach to the interpretation of our reality perceptions. The reason for my optimism and strengthened "faith" in the usefulness and persuasiveness of a relativistic attitude lies in the fact, that, you all have been touched by it, in spite of the very legitimate reservations you have expressed".

"For example, I agree wholeheartedly with my first critic, who pointed-out, that it would be naive and illogical to expect a rather dramatic change in the course of human history, just because a few ideas may find a rather widespread recognition and resonance. Let us assume, for a moment, that the relativistic approach does find a measure of acceptance that is, at the present time, beyond our wildest dreams. It still will appear to future historians as a movement, whose roots were discernible long before it finally "took off" and managed to influence human thought and behaviour; at least, it managed to influence human thought and behaviour, to some extent, and, over a limited period of time".

"It is certainly true, that the roots of a relativistic approach have been visible, here and there, throughout history, in particular, when sensible and reflective people observed, how everything changes, and, how each and every belief, opinion or attitude may find a value today, but could be gone tomorrow. However, our last speaker pointed-out, very clearly, that, indeed, the most recent roots of relativistic thought and interpretation have come from the sciences, in particular, the insights of psychology and biology, which gave us, finally, after much philosophical speculation, a sound and firm scientific basis for the ideas and concepts of natural evolution. These sciences have given us the knowledge and insight, how the human mind functions; what consciousness is; how we come into being as a living organism, and how, in large outlines, the gene-pool or the human species evolved from this gigantic terrestial experiment with the living organisation of matter".

"These images show us, to what extent the experience of an absolute and unshakable truth has become an illusion. It is certainly true, that, relativistic thought and the philosophy of a relativistic approach to our reality perceptions is nothing more than a common-sense application and conclusion of the psychological sciences, as well as the insights of biological knowledge and the general concepts of natural evolution".

"However, I like to point-out, that the various sciences, including those of psychology and biology, were slow to emphasise the importance and gigantic implications of their own scientific conclusions, in particular, so far as the concepts of essence, existence and human destiny were concerned. In short; I feel, quite strongly, that it is justified to emphasise, how these sciences became absorbed in the arduous tasks of sorting-out the "hard facts" from the unproven notions. Their scientists became so accustomed to a detailed analytical approach, that they neglected, to a large extent, to take note of the philosophical implications of their own findings. Actually, they even scorned these notions, and they closed their eyes for attempts to wring a broad philosophical meaning from the scientific findings of many fields, including their own".

"Certainly, a philosophical, synthesising approach is somewhat uncomfortable to anyone, who has been trained in a life of long, hard and competitive work; who has been trained to be extremely cautious about any conclusions or sweeping statements. The "art" of boldly synthesising a large number of generalised statements or ideas, which are not even supported with evidence but are left to a somewhat artistic and intuitive process of recognition and evaluation, is abhorrent to the rigorous scientific mind, and, it is, therefore, not surprising, that the art of philosophy, in particular, the art of philosophising in relativistic concepts, arose outside the universities and was initiated, as has been so often the case in the past, by the somewhat lonely and eccentric individual, who doggedly pursued his ideas, because he believed in them and had the time to do so".

"Therefore, if you want to emphasise the concept, that a relativistic interpretation of our realities is a logical result of modern, scientific insights, and, that modern science is nothing more than the fruit of careful and emotionally controled observations, then, I have no serious arguments with you. If you want to argue the point, that, for this reason, the roots of a relativistic philosophy go back as far as the contemplative, reflective capabilities of a somewhat sophisticated and emotionally controled mind, then, I have, once again, no serious objections".

"It is obvious, then, that the roots of a philosophy of relativistic reality perceptions are quite old, and, that, essentially, the same ideas, at least, in a partial or incomplete form, have been advanced, long before the term "relativism" came into use. Future historians will see, therefore, a smoothly flowing and evolving pattern of human thought, and, it is for us difficult, if not impossible, to guess, how future historians will assess the significance of our times, as well as the importance of ideas and concepts which a particular generation has considered "highly significant", or, even "epochal" in scope and potential influence. This means, that any concept that there will be a "sudden break" in the flow of historical developments, is, indeed, a misconception, and, if I have given this impression in my "epilogue", then, I would like to emphasise, once more, that such an impression is erroneous and a short-coming of my ability to express myself".

Will relativistic thought, or any philosophical idea or concept, ever rival the influence and power of the concepts that are propagated by the great monotheistic religions? On the face of it, this question seems destined to be answered by a simple "no", because, nowhere in history, do we see a philosophy ever as influential and as strong a behavioural regulator or organiser, as a strong, dogmatic religion, and, we have rarely witnessed the same success and dogmatic fanaticism, as we saw in the fundamentalist concepts and behaviour-patterns of the two major modern religions; Christianity and Islam".

However, if we look a little more closely at this question, as well as the assumptions that let us place a religion and a philosophy as mutually exclusive alternatives, we come to the conclusion, that it is erroneous to make such a facile distinction between religious and philosophic structures of belief. Let us review, very briefly, and in a broad sweep, the evolution of the concepts of religion, philosophy and science. I do not pretend to give, here, an accurate account of these words as they developed their meaning and came into use, but, I like to emphasise, first of all, that all the beliefs and explanations of the peoples in ancient times, and, even, during many of the more recent civilisations, were, in essence, "religious" in nature".

"There was no distincion between a religion, a science or a philosophy. Man's reality perceptions were nearly completely determined by sensations and experiences that could be obtained with the "bare senses". This meant, that, without the amplification or enlargement, made possible by special instruments, such as a microscope, a telescope or a variety of measuring instruments, man came, naturally, to the conclusion, that the many forces he experienced, were "willed" forces, just like the willed force he himself could exert upon his environment. The "world view" of a society or civilisation, regardless, how restricted or primitive in our judgement, became a structure of forces which was held together by the logic of a story, or the cohesion of a series of events. These events and stories were transmitted from one generation to the next as a legend, and, they were verbally, and, later, scripturally transmitted from generation to generation. Slowly, these stories became more complex and involved, and, they lost, perhaps, somewhat of their logic, in particular, when societies or communities with differing legends would fuse or come into close contact with each other".

When the social units became more complex, and, when the powers of reasoning, recording and observation became greatly enlarged, it was noted, that many of these forces showed a regularity, a periodicity or causal relationships, and, slowly, larger and larger areas of the natural force-fields were grasped in terms of cause and effect, or, by the predictability of a regular periodicity. As we have discussed before, eventually, the field of "willed" or anthropomorphic forces contracted to the concept of a single, all-powerful God, or Superior Being, and, all other manifestations of force and existence were, then, interpreted as a logical result of the fact, that such a Superior Being did exist, and had brought the many beings and forces into a state of existence".

"We see, then, that logical reasoning, the connection between events and happenings in the form of a series of logical and predictable causes or regularities, plays an increasingly important role in the overall, explanatory systems of religious interpretation, as well as in explaining the nature and existence of the thinking, reflecting and suffering human being himself. The activity of logical reasoning has, therefore, always played a major part in every major religion, but, we have become accustomed to call the logical thoughts and approaches to the matters that concern the explanation of reality, the "philosophical" methods of perceiving reality. The aspects of a religion that are, primarily, concerned with emotional attitudes and practices, such as the attitude of reverence and awe for authority or religious truths, or, the practice of trying to influence the events and willed forces by acts of sacrifice, atonement, prayer, etc., have come to dominate the imagery of our minds, whenever we talk about religious attitudes, beliefs and practices.

Let us not forget, however, that in the major religions of the world, and, perhaps, foremost in the religion of Christianity, a happy fusion between philosophy and religious beliefs has always played a major role in making a particular religion a dominant and powerfully persuasive influence, even, if such a power was limited in time as well as in geographical extent. We only have to think about the contributions made by the "Church Fathers"; those great thinkers and theologians, who made Christianity into a reality perception that was considered, for centuries, to be the ultimate, unchangeable and divinely revealed truth, which all of mankind would, eventually, be exposed to and believe in".

"Slowly, the Christian reality perception became so complex, that, many people specialised in a particular field of theological knowledge and concern, and, the realisation dawned, that knowledge was a vast and rapidly accumulating treasure of divinely revealed realities, be it through the study of the Scriptures, the utterings of the Saints, or the writings of ancient civilisations. This made the birth of the monastic libraries and institutions of learning, completely logical, and, even, inevitable".

"Again, I do not pretend to give you, here, a historical over-view. All I want to do is to remind ourselves, that philosophy arose, primarily, from an overall religious perception of reality, and, only in the last few centuries of human existence, can we see a concerted effort to change from an attitude and practice of "arm-chair" philosophising, (based, in essence, on a knowledge of scriptures and history), to a rigorous study of the phenomena we can see and observe around us. The dissatisfaction with the vagueness, and, often, meaningless speculations of the philosophers, gave rise to the birth of the sciences, where people went out, looked, studied and observed, and wrote-down their findings, in detail, as "data".

"Certainly, several times before in recorded history did the scientific attitude already flourish, at least, for a while, but, as long as man could only study nature with his "naked senses", (which he had done, already, so many times before), the observations and conclusions would inevitably revert to a religious frame of explanations. The reasons why this did not happen, when science gradually emerged in the most recent resurgence of the scientific methodology and technology, was due to a combination of two factors".

"Because of the philosophical activities of our fore-fathers and Church Fathers, Christianity had developed a very precise and well-defined concept about the world, the earth, God, mankind and the place of the earth in the plan of God's Creation. The fact, that the earth was centrally placed in this Divine Order was, tacitly, but, daily, confirmed by the fact, that all the heavenly bodies encircled the earth. The birth of modern technology, and, in particular, the optical lens, made it possible to observe much more closely and accurately the movements of the heavenly bodies, and, we are now familiar with the enormous tensions that arose, when direct observations led to a nearly irrefutable evidence for the fact, that the earth was not the center of the Universe. This conclusion undermined the entire concept, and authority, of the Christian reality perception, and, we know, how difficult it was for the Church to accept, finally, these uncomfortable findings of direct scientific observation, and, how difficult it was for the Church to integrate these findings into the imagery of the Faith".

"Perhaps, it is reasonable to say, that the Christian reality perception never completely recovered from this blow, because the sciences and their observations started to scrutinise and question, increasingly, the basic tenets upon which the Christian belief structures were based. We saw a cautious, careful, but persistent attack upon the concept of divine accuracy of the Scriptures, and, since the last century, we have seen the slow emergence of another, enormous challenge to one of the most essential tenets of Christianity. Actually, this challenge applies, not only, to Christianity, but touches the heart of all religious beliefs, because the one principal reason, why the concept of an all-powerful God remained completely acceptable, and, even, unchallenged for such a long time, was the fact, that man did not have any other alternative to the belief, that the myriad of existence forms were created and shaped by an intelligent, willed and Superior Force".

"Now, the concepts of evolution are undermining, even, these fundamental reasons for believing in the existence of such a Superior Being. No wonder, that the Church, as well as everyone, who had adopted a religious belief structure, found it very difficult to integrate harmoniously, sensibly and clearly, the concepts of natural evolution with those of the existence of God, the Saviour, or God, the Mover".

"However, let us return to the objectve of this short review. I hope that we have placed, once more, the concepts of religion, philosophy and science into a clear perspective. This shows us, then, that the essence of a religious reality perception is the belief, that, ultimately, the existence of all we see and experience, can only make sense, if we consider it to be the handiwork of a Superior Being or Intelligence. The crux of the scientific conclusion, in particular, when we look at the overall implications of the theory of natural evolution, lies in the fact, that, indeed, we do not need to postulate the existence of a Superior Intelligence in order to explain all the diverse phenomena we can see around us".

"Certainly, the sciences never say, or, never "prove", that such a Superior Being does not exist. Scientifc conclusions seem to lead us to the belief, that there are, probably, a myriad of intelligent forms of life throughout the Universe, and, many of them are, probably, vastly superior to our's. However, so far, we have no conclusive evidence that such intelligent life-forms exist. Besides, even, if there are other forms of Intelligence in the Universe, we have no clear-cut evidence to believe that such forms of Intelligence will be a form of living eixstence we are familiar with. This brings us to the other, crucially important scientific conclusion; nl., the concept that the existence of intelligence is, indeed, a form of behaviour, and is linked to the existence of a living organism".

"This conclusion contradicts, very strongly, the nearly unanimous religious assumption, nl., that intelligence can exist apart and independently from any sort of physical, living organisation. Indeed, it is a truly remarkable and audacious conclusion of the sciences, or, rather, of the overall scientific reality perception, to state, that there is no evidence at all for a voluntary, willed, anthropomorphic force, such as we can exert ourselves as a living, intact, intelligent human being. We have discussed the fact, that, this conclusion is so audacious and strange, and yet, so inevitable, that most scientists do not even subscribe to this view, which is one of the most essential and fundamental conclusions of scientific insight".

"We have seen, that the vast field of the sciences has become so fragmented and un-overseeable, that most scientists have become "scientific technicians", or "experts". This means, that they only react and behave scientifically, whenever they are acting in their capacity as an expert in one field or another, but, science does not function for them as a fundamental philosophy, capable of influencing them in a truly significant manner".

"This points, at the same time, to the modern definition of philosophy; at least, it points to the role and function of philosophy as it should be; nl., a profound influence upon our outlook and reality perceptions, and not, as a specialised niche of knowledge or expertise. At the beginning of the modern scientific era, there was an abundance of philosophical speculation and a paucity of direct observations. Because of the fortuitous development of instruments that allowed a much wider field of vision, as well as a more accurate quantitative measurement than was possible with the naked senses, it was logical, that there developed a strong movement away from philosophical speculation.

Philosophical speculation has a tendency to become quickly erroneous and sterile, if its conclusions are not supported by direct evidence, but, now, we have an overwhelming abundance of scientific observations, and, one of our major problems is what to do with it. How can we integrate these data into a workable and overseeable structure of logical cohesion?".

"This is the reason, why it was so eminently logical, and timely, that the relativistic philosophers emerged at the time they did. At that time, the confusion of modern affluence and chaos, as well as the threat of uncontroled technological and economic developments, became a frightening nightmare for sensitive and thoughtful people all over the world. Indeed, these attempts to formulate a coherent relativistic philosophy have still not found a wide audience, and, we have not quite overcome, as yet, our prejudices against generalised statements and bold, sweeping, philosophical arguments. This is understandable, because, most of us acknowledge, at least, intuitively, that a bold and sweeping set of generalised statements can make an already confused situation worse, especially, if these generalisations turn-out to be erroneous or misleading half-truths".

"We should, therefore, not be surprised to find a great deal of resistance to such attempts, but, on the other hand, we should examine, very carefully, what a philosopher has to say, if he dares to engage in such a bold approach to the perception of reality. A philosophical or generalised statement is quickly proven "wrong", by showing exceptions to the generalised rule. If it is not possible to do so, the evaluation becomes more difficult, because it is more difficult to find convincing arguments that a particular generalisation is "right". We may be "put-off" by a tone of writing, or a series of opinions, because we "do not like them". These opinions or conclusions may irritate us, or, they may contradict commonly accepted values and unquestioned truths. If such is the case, the rejection will be unwarranted, and, the challenge will remain, because the philosopher keeps haunting his readers as he says, in essence; "Go on, prove me wrong, if you can. I invite you to think about and discuss these topics and opinions as extensively as you can".

"I do not want to give the impression, that the relativistic philosophers were always "completely right" in what they said. Of course not, and, it will be inevitable, that, sooner or later, several important aspects of their philosophies will be replaced by a way of thinking that is superior, more accurate, or more sharply delineated, but, I do feel, that the relativistic philosophy is a much needed effort and stimulus to get us back to a comprehensive look at reality, and, somewhat ironically, I believe, that the relativistic approach and study of reality perceptions is also needed, before we can satisfactorily deal with the many "practical" questions that arise, whenever we want to make the world a better place to live in".

"The reasons for this conclusion are quite simple. It may sound utterly pragmatic, or practical, to concentrate in our questions and problems on such matters, as, how to give each human being a decent minimum standard of existence, or, how to correct the gigantic misery of hunger, disease, poverty and despair. Why is it so difficult to spread the wealth of the world a little more evenly amongst the members of mankind? Why is it so difficult to prevent wars? Why do we see always a return to oppression and persecutions, to executions and assassinations? Why does injustice always seem to triumph in the end, even, if the people have been able to "liberate" themselves from an oppressor or a ruling and exploitative elite?".

"I sympathise with our second speaker, who brought-out the need for an approach to these practical problems, and, who questioned the wisdom of spending so much time and effort analysing the more esoteric questions of a philosophical nature, which concern themselves with the ways we believe, and, the manner in which we perceive and interpret reality. Yet, the question we should ask ourselves is this; Can we really hope to find satisfactory and definitive answers to these pragmatic questions, if we do not have a foundation of knowledge and agreement for the nature of man and the purpose of society?".

"Let us look, for a moment, what happens, when people of good-will in a position of power and leadership, try to resolve some of these problems by getting together, talking about it, and trying to draw-up an agenda for specific negotiations about specific problems. We see, that, indeed, agreement, or any effort to "help out" from the more prosperous and powerful nations, depends on a feeling or emotion of "good-will", but, it is not based on a shared set of principles and ideas that regulate the relationships between people. Just as the relationships between the classes within a society depended, in the past, on good-will and charity, so are the relationships between the rich and the poor nations still governed by attitudes of good-will and acts of charity, if these attitudes of charity and good-will have not been obscured by blatant self-interests".

"During the last century, we have seen a remarkable development of the ideas of essential equality in opportunity and standards of living for each human being. An increasing number of nations are bringing these principles into a state of reality for their own populations, and, it is about time, that we see a similar development in the relationships between nations. Then, the poorer nations do not have to hold-out their hands, but, they can negotiate a gradual change in relationships, based on generally acceptable norms of a decent human existence".

"How difficult was it for most nations to implement this agreement or contract of essential social equality within their national boundaries, and, how difficult will it be for such a contract to take shape on a global scale, regulating the relationships between the sovereign but increasingly integrated nations of the world!".

.......

Chapter 5

Content

Good-will is an essential element to create, voluntarily, a situation of justice.
When meetings and debates become a public forum for posturing and play-acting.
The difficulties of trying to help.
When the root-causes of poverty, disparity and despair are being sown.
We have to get past the practice and attitude of "charity".
A need to scrutinise the objectives and methods of the political leadership of every society.
Leadership psychology.
When people are compelled to choose sides.
Fighting corruption and exploitation, dominance and oppression, wherever we see it.
The conditions for social success on a global scale.
The slipperiness of a relativistic approach will actually help to create a consensus on a global scale.
Let us avoid considering a beautiful idea as our personal property.
Mechanisms of the sensation of beauty.
Beauty and truth do not necessarily co-incide.
Comments on the perception of the third speaker.
Life becomes empty, if we lose ourselves in isolation.
A final admonition to free-enterprisers and Socialists.
The crux of success is the willingness to evaluate all evidence honestly, and, emotionally as neutral as we can.
Separating scientific attitudes and rational behaviour-patterns from the attitudes of egocentric exploitation and short-sighted opportunism.

"Certainly, it is possible for decent and good-willing people to become genuinely "moved" by the problems of the world", the professor went on, "and, if these people are widely exposed to the misery and injustice, the poverty and sub-human conditions other people have to endure, there is often a surge of enthousiasm for reforms, in particular, when a recent war is still fresh in their memory, or a catastrophe has sobered the people and their leaders to the point, that they are willing to make a genuine effort to reduce existing disparities".

"However, after a period of stagnating economic growth, rising internal tensions, a gradual rise in the level of strife, oppression and human rights violations, then, the prospects for a significant contribution by the forces of good-will, are sharply reduced. We see, then, only interminable arguments about what is right and wrong, as well as a reluctance to give-up any privileges and advantages, because everyone has become defensive, regardless of the level of affluence obtained".

"Meetings become a forum for posturing and play-acting, where a certain public image is carefully created or maintained. There is no chance to break through hardened egocentric attitudes, because, even, if some of the leaders and delegates to a conference, designed to minimise economic disparities, would be genuinely inclined to make a significant gesture towards a new economic world-order, they will have a great deal of difficulties convincing the people "back home", that such efforts are needed. The response of the disadvantaged is, then, usually, an angry reminder about persisting disparities and situations of injustice, and, the pivileged nations refer to their own internal difficulties, together with a cynical reminder, how past foreign aid has done little more than create a dependence on hand-outs, black markets, profiteers, and corrupt officials".

"Indeed, it seems inevitable, that the practical problems of poverty and disparity require an act "from the heart", with a non-political and non-ideological approach, just as a medical team will treat a wounded individual from the battle-field, regarldess of his philosophy, beliefs, racial origins, or the side he was fighting on. I agree, that it is, often, the only way to solve, at least, to some extent an emergency situation, but, unfortunately, we can not solve or prevent problems more permanently, this way, and, we have to look at the underlying reasons and causes for these violent conflicts".

"We have to realise, that the causes of poverty, disparity and despair are sown, not only, if one segment of the world population exploits another, or, if it is more clever in making use of the available resources, but, these factors are also playing a role, if, we, as a privileged, powerful and complacent segment of affluent people, sit-back and relax, unconcerned with the plight of the poor, their mistakes and ignorance, and, especially, their helpless vulnerability to exploitative and tyrannical leaderships".

"I do not deny the need for "emergency help" to overcome the tensions of disparity and poverty, and, I agree that we can not wait, until there is a philosophical consensus on a global scale about the natural ethics of human behaviour. On the other hand, I am convinced, that a continued emphasis on the practical, non-political and non-ideological forms of humanitarian aid will not get us past the stage of charity. What is worse, such an approach lets us sit-back with a feeling of tired complacency, after much hard work has managed to reduce the extent of a particular crisis or catastrophe, at least, to some extent. If we continue to rely upon an approach of good-will and a feeling of decency, we fail to get at the heart of the problems of injustice and disparity, and, we will consider our work more or less "done", as soon as we have softened the impact of a particular problem. True, those engaged in humanitarian work have their hands full, and, they have to work in cooperation with many high-handed and sensitive authorities, and, it is true that these authorities would make the work of aid-workers impossible, if these aid-workers would try to lecture the local leaders on the short-comings and imperfections of their administration".

"However, a League of United Nations; an organsation that is permanently pre-occupied with the conduct of nations in relation to each other, can not ignore these questions any longer, and, we will have to begin questioning each other, seriously, about the way we, as leaders, come into power and hold-on to power.

Is such an approach unreasonable? If we see within our social environment some parents mistreat their children, we feel a strong moral impulse and obligation to "do something about it", or, at least, we want to inform the proper authorities that a situation of abuse may exist. We should adopt, exactly, the same attitudes towards the leaders of other nations and societies, and, we have to expose our own leadership and societies to scrutiny by other leaderships, who may not agree with our philosophy or social organisation".

"Such an approach may not be very comfortable, in particular, if we belong to the leadership, a ruling elite, or an established social class, because we may feel indignant and affronted in our "sovereignty", if foreigners begin to point-out many perceived situations of injustice and short-comings in our social system. Yet, such a willingness to genuinely discuss the various advantages and disadvantages, short-comings and imperfections, or, perhaps, outright situations of injustice, in each other's social system, is necessary, before we can begin to formulate a globally acceptable outline of social organisation for the members of mankind".

"Leaders are naturally reluctant to give-up one iota of their powers, and, because each and every leader has a few embarrassing aspects he or she prefers to hide, a few situations of injustice are likely to exist in every society. It is logical, that none of the leaderships in sovereign States are axious to pry into each other's "private affairs", because they acknowledge, at least, tacitly, the existence of many short-comings in their own leadership practices and social institutions".

"Leaders are notoriously obsessed with power, and, as we have discussed before, too many leaders and leaderships do not reflect a voluntary choice of the entire population, but, they represent merely a small, ruling and powerful elite which has grabbed power by force. This ruling elite uses a major part of the "national economy" to pay its soldiers and keep them happy and loyal with powerful weapons. In essence, they bribe a military elite to remain associated wth the ruling elite, and, we see, therefore, that many military positions are filled by people, who come from the privileged classes of society".

"Even those, who are elected by the people to a position of power and leadership, become easily pre-occupied with maintaining their power, and, they are inclined to protect their high office from any erosion of authority. Leaders, by virtue of the fact, that they seek a position of leadership, have a strongly developed drive to dominate and to hold-on to their positions of power. They seek, constantly, the support from their followers and persuade the people around them to see a situation "their way". This leads, often, to a polarisation of the peoples in the community, especially, if rival leaderships are vying for the attention and favours of the public".

"People are, then, compelled to choose sides, and, if a social environment becomes so strongly polarised between rival power structures, that the opposing factions get into violent confrontations, the pressures upon the ordinary people become often agonising and intolerable, leading to severe hardships and political killings".

"We, ordinary people, are doing all the hard work, and, we remain, by and large, unarmed civilians, while the opposing armies plunder and kill innocent people during their battles. It is about time, that, we, ordinary people, rise-up against these ever-recurring tendencies of polarisation and armed conflict, and, one of the best ways of doing this is to ensure a world-wide discussion of the mechanisms that would force all leaders, as well as all levels of government, including the military establishments, to submit their methods of coming to power and holding-on to power, to international scrutiny".

"Let us fight corruption and exploitation, dominance and oppression, by insisting, that, everyone thinks, seriously, about implementing a globally acceptable Constitution of human rights and obligations. This will guarantee a truly representative political leadership, as well as a military force that remains a loyal instrument of society and its elected leadership".

"I know, I am sliding into one of my pet lectures, and, I do not want to do this. I just want to illustrate and re-iterate, that, yes, emotional and charitable acts of good-will are necessary to deal with crises and emergency situations, but, the ultimate problems of disparity, poverty, oppression, corruption and injustice are inextricably linked to a global philosophy, spelling-out a generally acceptable concept of our existence, needs and aspirations, our rights and obligations, our existence as an individual, as well as a member of society".

"Unless we agree, eventually, upon such a global organisation of mankind, where we stimulate individual interests and ambitions to such an extent that they can be harnassed for the common good, we will never agree about the definition of a just society, and, we will never agree about a package of basic human rights and obligations.

Unless we succeed in overcoming the polarising tendencies between Socialism and Capitalism, we will not be able to agree upon a just world-order. Unless we learn to accept a common hypothesis of human existence, psychological needs and sociological mechanisms, we will never agree upon a package of practical measures, which the world needs, so urgently, in order to become and remain viable. Unless we resolve the basic uncertainties about the interpretation of commonly shared realities, we will never be able to establish a globally acceptable definition of individual and social health".

"You may ask me with some incredulity, whether the slippery philosophy of a relativistic interpretation of reality can give us the necessary certainties for such a global definition, where so many other systems of reality interpretation, with a great deal more authority, have failed. It seems ironical, as well as somewhat contradictory, at least, as a first impression, that a slippery, relativistic approach to reality could provide the basis for a global consensus, especially, where other approaches have failed".

"However, I believe, that it is just because of this slipperiness of the relativistic approach, that such a consensus could become a reality, because the relativistic philosophy is able to exclude the egocentric orientation and existential concerns for anyone particular grouping or individual. This can be done to an extent that is not possible with any of the religious or dogmatic ideological reality perceptions. As we discussed before, a religious or dogmatic philosophy becomes, so easily, a rallying point or a battle-cry to justify an egocentric exploitation in a situation of conflict and confrontation".

Sure, it is possible that the philosophy of relativistic thought also becomes such an "appropriated property" for the interests of a particular elite, but, I believe, that it is far less likely to be used in this manner, because the relativistic approach exposes, so sharply, any tendency to this type of abuse".

"The concepts of a relativistic philosophy are difficult and somewhat alien to those, who are trying to justify an imperialist stance, while those, who are trying to work-out a global philosophy, based on relativistic principles, will be sophisticated enough to expose any tendency towards an elitist appropriation of these ideas. Of course, I may be proven wrong in this, because, who would have thought, that a religion teaching its members to love their enemies and to turn the other cheek, should be a successful instrument for armed crusades and bitter witch-hunts? As we have discussed before, there is always the danger, that a far-sighted, benevolent and "beautiful" idea will be "recognised" and "appropriated" by a specific group, which will, then, defend, vehemently, this beautiful property from attack and desacration. Anyone, who attacks such a beauty or resists its message, is, then, considered to be an instrument of Satan".

"This brings us to the interesting comments made by the third speaker, who pointed out his suspicions towards an emotion of beauty, and, who raised the very important question, whether or not the recognition of beauty can be equated with a truth. At least, he raised the question, under what sort of conditions such an equation is justified. Let us only summarise the relevant ideas, here, briefly, because the mechanisms of the sensation or appreciation of beauty, are complex.

In essence, we experience a sense of beauty, whenever we recognise, suddenly, a certain pattern or structure, be it a work of art, a thought, a view, an idea, or an accomplishment, as something that corresponds, quite closely, to an ideal we had in mind and were searching for. Then, a sort of "fusion-reaction" takes place between the status "as is", and the status, we think, "should be". This fusion liberates an emotional surge, that may bring tears to our eyes, especially, if the surge is strong. Certainly, in the entire field of art-appreciation, the judgement of "truth", or genuineness, depends on such a rather emotional, subjective and intuitive recognition of the fact, that the work of art embodies or represents an ideal in a way we thought it should be, and, we can, then, wholeheartedly identify with such a work of art".

"We try to supplement the intuitive and emotional mechanisms with the ability to analyse, critically, a series of conditions and circumstances, depending on our schooling and familiarity with a particular art-form. However, such "intellectual trimmings" only rationalise the reasons, why we were impressed in the first place, or, why we were offended by a particular art-product".

"However, if we want to know, whether or not a particular scientific observation or conclusion is "correct", it would be dangerous to rely, entirely, on a "feeling" that it is "beautiful"; that it fits so nicely in our structure of concepts and ideas, or, that it appeals, intuitively, to our sense of logic and anticipation. We have to make sure, that there is a significant body of evidence to substantiate the accuracy of a particular scientific conclusion or interpretation, and, if we are dealing with a large, summarising or generalising concept, we have to make sure, that there are no obvious and hard facts of observation contradicting, squarely, the accuracy of a particular statement".

"Nevertheless, if we analyse the progress of scientific insights, as well as the reasons why certain hypotheses have been advanced, we see a surprisingly large element of beauty and intuition in the "hunches" a scientist pursues. Sure, he will have to elaborate and prove such a hunch with extensive circumstantial evidence. Yet, even so, arguments for the reality of a particular interpretation are, sometimes, openly based on an argument of beauty, simplicity or symmetry, but, it is true, that, here, logic and the sense of beauty, begin to merge".

"Let us resist the temption to review the relationships between beauty and logic, because, then, we will never be able to finish this session. Let us state, simply, that the sensation of beauty belongs to our most valuable emotions, and, that it plays a large role in guiding the behaviour of sensitive and reflective people, but we should be aware of the fact, that the sensations of beauty merge with those of confidence. However, in the state of "confidence" we see already a much stronger egocentric or existential orientation of our behaviour, and, then, of course, we are vulnerable to the temptation to accept something as truthful or valuable, because it happens to be to our advantage".

"The sensitive and perceptive observations of our third speaker referred to this vague awareness, that a sense of beauty may be "contaminated" by existential drives and concerns, and, that these feelings and sensations may, therefore, lead us astray from a goal of truth. Another aspect he mentioned, was the feeling, that an indulgence in the sense of beauty has a tendency to become egocentric and addictive, because we begin to revel and day-dream in a series of pleasant sensations, which may make us lose a sense of reality and make us more vulnerable to existential pressures. This observation is quite correct. We certainly would not want to advocate an attitude, where people become afraid to be sensitive to their emotions, including the emotion of appreciating beauty, but, neither would we want to repeat the mistake, so often made, that sensations and emotions are considered to be the "highest" form of awareness or consciousness a human being is capable of".

"We have discussed, on other occasions, the fallacy of the concept of an "expanded" or "cosmic" form of conscious awareness. This form of awareness is based on an unwarranted reverence for a state of ecstasy, which is nothing more than an extreme emotional surge. Sometimes, ecstasy is based on an unfounded elevation of the state of mystical exaltation, where certain reality distortions, induced by extreme isolation, fatigue, physical hardships or drugs, are interpreted as divine visions or contacts. Nor, do we want to repeat the mistakes of the era of unbridled consumerism, where people "feasted" on their emotions, sensations, drives and "titillations", until they were nothing more than will-less pawns in the hands of clever psychological and pornographic manipulators".

No, life becomes extremely empty, if we lose ourselves in an egocentric isolation, either, by the unbridled consumptions of sensory stimuli and sensual gratifications, or, by the retreat into an exclusive and egocentric world of mystic exaltation. Life is lived to the fullest, if we remain aware of our individual personality, our characteristics and peculiarities, as well as the need to form trustful relationships with other people, who also have their peculiar characteristics".

"Often, it is difficult to form such relationships of trust, and, these relationships may take many different forms. Yet, we should all remain wide awake. Not only, is everyone inclined, or tempted, to abuse, at one time or another, such a relationship of trust and inter-dependence, but, we have to remain aware of a basic tendency towards social integration in the relationships between ourselves and the people around us. We all need other people, because we know, that our own existence can be much more secure, if we are part of a social organisation, but, we also know, that the stronger and dominant individuals are tempted to exploit their position of power for their own benefit".

"The main point we want to make, here, is the fact, that every social organisation should benefit every member or every sub-grouping belonging to such a social organisation. Free-enterprisers are, therefore, dead-wrong, if they believe, that those, who lost-out in the game of securing an empire of financial success or a fortress of assets, will acquiesce, in perpetuity, to the status-quo, because, very quickly, those, who lost-out and now "work for the rich", feel, that the riches of the rich are, in essence, the result of their hard work".

"Similarly, Socialists are also dead-wrong, if they equate justice and equality with a bland attitude of conformism and an attitude of hostility towards all those who have succeeded, or, if they think, that it is beneficial for people to live on hand-outs, to be able to shirk responsibilities, or, that it is justified to promote the well-being of unionised groups of workers at the expense of other groupings in society. Neither should Socialists believe, that irresponsible fiscal policies will gain them any votes of confidence, or an attitude of thankfulness.

We have outlined all these ideas before, and, I just want to emphasise the idea, that we do not have to make a choice between Socialism and Capitalism. As we know these social systems today, neither of them is perfect, at least, neither of the two systems in use, at the present time, is suitable as a model for the future societies of mankind, but, both can contribute significantly to a durable society of justice, dignity and equal opportunity for everyone".

"Similarly, it is not necessary to make an irreversible choice between a religious, scientific or philosophic reality perception. We have outlined the main elements of the modern distinction between a religious, a philosophical or a scientific point of view. Yet, in essence, it matters little, and the point is completely beyond a definitive settlement of the arguments at this time. It matters very little, whether or not you believe that the scientific interpretation of our reality experiences, indeed, substantiates the belief, that we see nowhere evidence for a "Willed Intelligence; a Superior Being, or a Prime Mover. It matters little, whether or not you believe, that the sum-total of our experiences and thoughts point, inevitably, to the existence of an Omnipotent God. The real crux of our decisions is not this essentially unimportant point, (unimportant, because we can not settle it one way or another). The real crux is an attitude or willingness to evaluate all possible evidence as honestly and as emotionally neutral as we can. Only, then, can we be reasonably sure, that we are forming the best possible belief structures under the circumstances, and, only then can we be reasonably sure, that they will show us the most beneficial behavioural choice for our freely evaluating judgement processes".

"The crux of the matter is to recognise, that the faculty of reasoning, of thinking in a cool, calm and collected manner, to function in a zone of emotional near-neutrality, represents the highest pinnacle in the evolutionary development of behavioural flexibility".

"If we behave highly emotionally, and, if we give-in to the temptation to settle a conflict with the primitive solution of violence, we are behaving, in essence, in a way, that was already explored and utilised by life-forms as far back, and as primitive, as the freely floating, single cell. Similarly, if we seek our solutions in a symbiotic attitude of cooperation and essential equality, we are exploring a mode of existence, which the communities of living cells have explored before us with immense success in the form of multi-cellular organisms".

My plea and hope is, that, indeed, we teach and provide an example of existence, which is firmly rooted in rational and emotionally controled behaviour. Let us expose the abuse of intelligence as a weapon in the hands of clever exploiters, and, I am well aware of the fact, that rationality, science, as well the art of conceptual dexterity, have, so often, been used as a weapon during the game of ruthless dominance. It is time, that we see-through such practices, and condemn them with a sharp and precise exposure of the egocentric motivations that lie behind clever intellectual manipulations and arguments".

"It is also time, that we cleanse the most beautiful fruits of human existence, such as scientific knowledge and rational insights, from the confusing and chaotic by-products of technological mismanagement, which have made scientific tools into dangerous weapons or harmful industrial monstrosities. If we do not succeed to rid the sciences and rational behaviour-patterns from these lethal parasites of egocentric exploitation, future generations may well reject the faculties of rational thought all-together, but, at the same time, they willl also destroy the chances for a prolonged period of fruitful human evolution."

The professor nodded briefly, smiled and walked out of the room.

.......

Summary

1. The professor and his "credo".
   The victory of reason over fanaticism.
   The need to control our fears.
   A "bird's eye view" of social phenomena.
   The relevance of historical events.
   The dedicated teacher.
   A debate between people who are "in tune" with each other.
   A battle of wits may be good entertainment, but it is seldom illuminating for the topics under discussion.
   The rebuttal and comments of the first pupil.
   A review, and an element of surprise.
   A naive hope and an unfounded enthousiasm?
   The contents of a belief are essentially unimportant, whenever we come into the grip of our emotions.
   Would a relativistic reality perception be any different?
   Questions for relativistic philosophers.
   An interesting ripple in the fabric of historical events.
   Emphasising an uneasy co-existence.
   Listening silently, without interruptions.
   
   
   
2. The second pupil, and her comments.
   People want practical answers; not a slippery philosophy.
   Evaluating, precisely, the major social systems.
   Understanding the mechanisms of polarisation.
   No need to elaborate a new and somewhat vague philosophical system.
   Let us work with the rich heritage of facts at our disposal.
   The third student; somewhat shy and sensitive to beauty.
   Doubts about the validity of his initial flash of enthousiasm.
   Relativistic thoughts; a pass-time for dreamers?
   Is beauty a form of truth?
   The strong tendency to make our observations fit our beliefs.
   It is difficult to grasp relativistic thoughts at first reading.
   Relativistic reality perceptions still have to prove their value.
   The fourth student and his interest in the history of thoughts and beliefs.
   Can we really "think" ourselves out of the troubles we are in?
   The distinction between a reality "as it is", and, "as we believe it to be", is, in essence, irrelevant.
   A look back at historical structures of belief, as well as a review of the contemporary scene of predominant beliefs.
   The scientific community, and the tendency to form a partly scientific, partly religious structure of beliefs.
   
   
   
3. The fourth student continues his comments.
   From a pluralistic pantheon of forces to a streamlined monotheistic reality perception.
   It is impossible to grasp human behaviour with invariable laws and ultimate predictability.
   The existence of the "free will".
   Marxism, seen as a "modern religion".
   What do I believe, personally?
   I hesitate to accept the divinity or absolute authority of any particular Scripture.
   The Saints, dying in the certainty of their beliefs; an awe-inspiring event.
   The last student; taking-up the theme of religious convictions.
   The emotional investment into a Faith.
   The reality of a believed-in experience.
   Relativism is little more than "common-sense".
   A review of modern philosophical efforts.
   The philosophy of language and mathematics.
   Giving the sciences credit for laying the foundation of a relativistic interpretation of reality.
   Contributions by relativistic thought.
   I am carried-away by my enthousiasm.
   A passionate plea for excercising the faculty of thinking rationally.
   The comments of the professor.
   Coming back, full circle.
   
   
   
4. The professor apologizes.
   A plea for rational behaviour.
   "Your comments have strengthened my "faith" in the possibilities of a relativistic perception of reality".
   A review of the students' comments.
   The roots of relativistic thought have been visible throughout history.
   How easy is it for an unshakable truth to become a mere illusion!
   A philosophical, synthesising approach is somewhat uncomfortable for someone trained in hard, competitive work.
   Future historians will see smoothly evolving patterns of thought.
   No sudden break in the flow of historical developments.
   A broad sweep over the concepts of religion, philosophy and science.
   A perception based on the "naked senses".
   Logical reasoning has always been an important factor in every religious reality perception.
   Christianity's longevity is based on a happy fusion between philosophy and religion.
   Challenges to the Christian reality perception.
   Evolution; the most recent and, perhaps, most serious challenge.
   Scientific interpretations never "prove" the absence of a Superior Being.
   Scientists, becoming scientific technicians or "experts".
   The logic of the rise of relativistic thought.
   A relativistic approach has many practical consequences.
   We have outlived our dependence on charity.
   Essential equality is a matter of justice; not, good-will or charity.
   
   
   
5. Good-will is an essential element to create, voluntarily, a situation of justice.
   When meetings and debates become a public forum for posturing and play-acting.
   The difficulties of trying to help.
   When the root-causes of poverty, disparity and despair are being sown.
   We have to get past the practice and attitude of "charity".
   A need to scrutinise the objectives and methods of the political leadership of every society.
   Leadership psychology.
   When people are compelled to choose sides.
   Fighting corruption and exploitation, dominance and oppression, wherever we see it.
   The conditions for social success on a global scale.
   The slipperiness of a relativistic approach will actually help to create a consensus on a global scale.
   Let us avoid considering a beautiful idea as our personal property.
   Mechanisms of the sensation of beauty.
   Beauty and truth do not necessarily co-incide.
   Comments on the perception of the third speaker.
   Life becomes empty, if we lose ourselves in isolation.
   A final admonition to free-enterprisers and Socialists.
   The crux of success is the willingness to evaluate all evidence honestly, and, emotionally as neutral as we can.
   Separating scientific activities and rational behaviour-patterns from the attitudes of egocentric exploitation and short-sighted opportunism.

.......