THE LARGER SOCIETY


faith and security in modern times




A Study in Thought

sa080



by





Marius Heuff

Chapter 1

Content

Analysing social complexities according to commonly shared existential denominators.
A society is organised around the requirements for a place to live and work.
The temptation to let fixed costs rise.
A state of affluent near-slavery.
Necessities and luxuries blur in a haze of pressures and demands.
How do we all find work?
Sustaining this all-important momentum; "the economy".
The consumer has to be willing, and able, to consume.
How to measure the productivity of "work".
What is the function and meaning of government?
Hierarchical statification, and a "social contract" of essential equality.
A review of the quality of "behavioural flexibility".
Social integration; a solution to the pressures of competitive strife.
Primary mechanisms of socialisation take place between protoplasmic constituents, as well as between individual cells.
The "secondary socialisation" of the human being.
The inter-play between behavioural flexibility and the mechanisms of social integration.
Test-fights and dominance.
Task-differentiation and the assumption of leadership responsibilities.

Every time, I feel somewhat overwhelmed and confused by the complexity of society and the myriad of events that are taking place around me, I find it useful to remind myself, that every social organisation, including a large and chaotic society of affluence, is based on a number of fairly simple and straightforward mechanisms. For example, let us look, first of all, at the existential needs of a living organism such as ourselves, and, we see a shared need for food, clothing and shelter, as well as entertainment, in order to exist in a reasonable degree of comfort and contentment. Indeed, we see, that society is characterised, foremost, by the fact, that there are everywhere houses or apartment-buildings where people live, and, nearly all the other buildings are a place of work; at least, some people work there, while others, buy things or get things done for them, or, they find a place to rest, eat or entertain themselves.

We see a large number of streets and road-ways, power-lines, telephone-lines and other supply-routes, which bring us a large variety of energy-sources, consumer goods, or, information and other supplies and services we need. We all live, somewhere, and, we find a place to work or "make some money", somewhere, and, this entire jungle of activities we see around us in a busy city, as people move in never-ending streams of private or public vehicles, is an expression of our collective existential needs and wants.

In essence, everyone is going to, or coming from, his or her place of work or home. Sure, there are many other movements of people and vehicles, which fall outside this primary category of traffic, as many people travel extensively, either for pleasure, or for business, but, the point I want to make, here, is the fact, that it makes sense to analyse the apparent complexity of the phenomena of society as a result of our existential needs and wants. In a modern, affluent and urban community, most people work in a place that is not the same as their home, and, we see, then, the streams of traffic, the commuters, the hustle and bustle of the rush-hours, as hundreds of thousands of people are moving between their place of work and their residence.

In addition to the traffic associated with our "work", regardless, how trivial or unproductive this work may appear to us, we also have to buy things, or get a service we need or want, and a significant portion of the traffic and activities of people is related to the process of transferring monies from one person or institution to another. Many people do not own a home, but they "rent", which is a fixed expense we can not do without, and, even, if we have "bought" a home, we have to pay-off a mortgage over many years, which is also a fixed expense and an ever-recurring burden upon our income and spending powers.

In the affluent societies, there is a continuous temptation to spend more and more, and let these fixed costs rise. As a result, our spendable income is "eaten away", or eroded, by the constantly rising portion of "fixed costs"; expenses for services or items we have already consumed, or, which form a part of our life-style.

Most of us who work and live in an urban area, exist, essentially, in a state of near-slavery, in spite of the fact, that we look well-dressed and well-fed. In spite of our affluent looks and life-style, we feel a constant pressure upon us to make sure, that we receive this all-important pay-cheque regularly, because our world would collapse without it. As a result, we all dash-out in the morning, fight the traffic or the congested public means of transportation. We rush in and out of the shopping centers in the evenings, or on our lunch-break, and, we struggle, from month to month, to satisfy the requirements of our lfe-style.

Necessities and luxuries blur in a haze of pressures and demands. Is our car a luxury? Perhaps, but, if it is the only way to get to work and make a living, it becomes an expensive and "consuming" necessity. Are expensive clothes a luxury? Perhaps, but, if we have to face the public professionally, e.g., as a sales-person, our ability to function and make a living depends on presenting a certain image of suave affluence, and, a luxury has again become an apparent necessity; at least, it has become an apparent necessity under the circumstances we find ourselves in.

How do we all find work? Now, with the fact of chronic unemployment, it is becoming clear, that, not everyone is going to find work, and, finding a job is becoming an ever more competitive occupation, requiring often long-term planning and a measure of sacrifice and determination. Even so, it often boggles my mind, to think, where all this money is coming from to sustain "the economy". Obviously, there is a remarkable and complex web of inter-dependent relationships in a modern affluent society, but, in essence, we can find work, because we are all "consumers of work", meaning, that we pay money for work done by others. In a way, then, we work for each other, but, we are not working, anymore, in simple, bilateral personal relationships of barter, where two people agree to exchange an item or a service, but, the exchanges take place in an anonymous web of commercial enterprises, manufacturing an item or providing a service for which people are employed and paid.

However, the system is not "closed", because in the process of working for each other, (be it on a small personal scale where we barter for a fair and equitable exchange, or, in this anonymous web of affluent, commercial relationships), we also "consume" collectively energy and natural resources, which are harvested and mined, extracted and used-up, imposing an ever-increasing burden of pollution and depletion on the terrestial environment.

It is not my intention to sketch a rough outline of all the relevant mechanisms that take place in a large and complex society. Let us only remind ourselves, that, by far the majority of all the phenomena in society, including the houses, government buildings, offices and manufacturing plants, the streets and all the channels of communication, traffic and supply-lines, are there, because we rely on all these services for our ordinary, affluent and urban life-style. If we pause, for a moment, and think about the constant stream of items we buy, use and consume, and, if we think about all the processes that were necessary before the finished product could be in the store, to be bought and paid-for by a consumer, we see, that, indeed, a very lage part of society is busy with a myriad of tasks and functions that have to go into making or providing for the products and services we consume.

We do not want to discuss, here, the question, whether or not we need to consume so many products; whether or not it is wise to consume so many things, or, to become so dependent on all these services and consumable items. Certainly, we are continuously pressured to consume more and more, and, we are constantly enticed to become increasingly dependent upon a large variety of services, because, only, if we are willing, and able, to consume more and more, can other people find work. Only, if the consumer is willing to consume, can businesses exist, and, only, if a vast network of businesses exist, can people find work.

"Fine", you will say, "It would be nice, if, indeed, all people were employed in some sort of truly productive work that would contribute to the well-being or productivity of a nation, but, you know as well as I, that an increasing number of people find "work" in mushrooming bureaucracies that are getting bigger and more inefficient all the time, increasing the strain on the tax-revenues that have to be contributed by businesses and wage-earners. Do we need such a large government bureaucracy? Does it mean, that our government is efficient, or, can we be sure, that a large government will be less efficient than it could be? What is the function and meaning of government? Why are we, ordinary citizens, apparently, so powerless to influence this massive bureaucracy?

Before we answer this question, let us discuss another principle upon which every social organisation is based. Let us discuss the reasons for the emergence of a social unit, and, we should, then, discuss, in more detail, the phenomenon of the "pecking order", or the "hierachical stratification". Let me make it clear, that, a "natural hierarchy" is not something we can consciously create or abolish. The tendency to orden ourselves in a hierarchical order is a biologically given, strongly instinctive behaviour-pattern, and, this instinctive drive still plays a role in our relationships with each other, even, after we have opted consciously for a system of scrupulous equality of opportunities, as well as a reasonably equal standard of living in the form of a "social contract".

Every living organism searches, constantly, for the best possible way to survive, and, as we have discussed many times before, the human species is heir to two important trends or experiments of natural evolution. Rapidly changing circumstances and a relatively slow genetic turn-over from one generation to the next, favoured a search for viability with a flexible mode of behaviour. In a mode of behavioural flexibility, the living or "actualised" members of a species adjust their behaviour to locally and temporarily existing conditions. This trend towards "behavioural flexibility" gave a strong impetus to the recording, classification and subsequent recall of a large number of sense-impressions and experiences. The complex structure of the central nervous system of behaviourally flexible animals is an eloquent testimony to the success, as well as the difficulties that arose in the exploration of this sort of behaviour.

Behavioural flexibility alone was often insufficient to ease the pressures upon the existence of a species, and, another very important trend was developed in the search for viability. This trend preceded the behavioural flexibility of the large species', and, it is represented, already, in the multi-cellular organism itself. We are thinking, here, about the solution of "socially integrated behaviour". Socialisation is an old and tried method in the search of enhanced possibilities of survival, because the evolution of multi-cellular existence would have been impossible, if independently and competitively existing cells would not have been able to suppress their competitive and hostile behaviour-patterns towards each other, and substitute it with a behaviour of mutual inter-dependence, task-differentiation or specialisation in function, as well as the ability to tolerate each other at close range; to the point of a permanent or rather life-long position of physical contact, as we see in the tissues and organ-systems of multi-cellular organisms.

Certainly, this trend did not depend upon a measure of "voluntary choice", as it does in the socialisaton of the human being. We visualise this process of "secondary socialisation" between human beings to have taken place as a result of naturally selective pressures, after the trend of behavioural flexibility had already firmly established itself. In the presence of the force-fields of natural selection, a spectrum of behavioural modes or living organisms is constantly subjected to severe pressures, because only a small fragment of this spectrum of living organisms will survive and give rise to the following generation.

Even the processes of primary or cellular socialisation depended on the mechanisms of natural selection. In areas, where a clustering of cells into some sort of a functional unit was rewarded with an increased rate of survival, eventually, only those cellular strains survived, which allowed themselves to be molded into the unit of a multi-cellular organism. This meant, that the genetic code of these cellular strains had been modified by the mechanisms of natural selection in order to make such "socially integrated" behaviour possible.

The processes of "secondary socialisation", which we can observe in many of the species' capable to adapt to environmental changes by a change in their behaviour, are somewhat different, because, during the development of "behavioural flexibility", the genetic code lost the ability to instruct, precisely, the behaviour of an actualised member of a behaviourally flexible species. The requirements of behavioural flexibility dictated, that the organism should be allowed a certain flexibility, or freedom, in the way it responds to the stimuli in its environment. Yet, even so, early human evolution was taking place in small social groupings of animals which were behaviourally flexible, but, these pre-human animals had "learned", that a measure of cooperation and togetherness enhanced their chances of survival. Territorial and competitive instincts were suppressed, at least, to some extent, and were replaced by a grudging "hierarchical order".

These secondarily socialised animals learned to tolerate each other at close quarters, and, the instinctive drive to do combat with an "intruder" into their personal territory was replaced by a "test-fight", where the stronger individual or personality would "dominate" a weaker one. In stead of leading to an all-out fight to the death, or the hasty flight of the loser in order to save his life, the test-fight in a hierachical order means, that the weaker individual starts to accept the "will", or the dominance, of the stronger individual. In return for the submission of its own will to the stronger party, the weaker individual "seeks protection" from the stronger individual against outside threats.

We see, then, how a small, natural social grouping of flexible animals leads to a hierarchical order, where each member occupies a definite place in this order. Each member knows from test-fight experience, whom he or she can dominate, and, who will dominate him or her. At the same time, we see, that the defense of the territory, as well as the members of the socially integrated group, falls automatically upon the strong and leading members of the small community.

.......

Chapter 2

Content

The main outlines of the human personality are biologically inherited.
Large social units, and the possibility to abuse a position of power.
The loss of social flexibility.
When an elite becomes an exploitative parasite.
Apparently "natural" or normal large-scale social mechanisms are, in essence, a perversion of the purpose of social integration.
There is no genetic blue-print for the organisation of a large social entity.
The evolution of a large-scale social structure.
Cultural adaptations and social mechanisms still lag far behind the requirements of justice and essential equality.
A large-scale social environment loses the quality of transparence.
How to become, and remain, "truly informed".
A limited sphere of identification.
The need to reduce opinions and objectives to strident slogans in order to be heard.
Each contemporary nation has a history of military conquests and defeats.
The incongruence between ethnic and political entities.
The many roots of persistent tensions in social relationships.
In the larger society, a challenge to authority is not accepted as a "natural trend", but is considered to be an act of "treason".
When the test-fight becomes a deadly power-struggle.
Every member has to benefit from belonging to society.
A recent intellectual grasp over the complex phenomena of the large-scale social environment.

As we mentioned, natural selection was able to sharpen into the behaviour-patterns of many species', including species' that were ancestral to the anthropoids, a willingness, or tendency, to orden into a hierarchical stratification, and form, thereby, a primitive, biologically "ordained" social order. At the same time, these species' retained a behaviour of courageous aggressiveness towards the intruder, the enemy, as well as the natural dangers of the habitat. This meant, that, a somewhat contradictory, or, at least, contrasting mixture of behavioural trends and instincts was encouraged by the forces of natural selection, and, we can still recognise this mixture, if we look at the most common and prominent features of human behaviour, regardless of the additional colours, or shades of behaviour, which have been introduced by a wide variety of structures of belief.

Man still tends to be protective and caring towards the weaker and more submissive members of his group, while he is aggressive, suspicious, and, often, courageous defending his community and attacking his enemies. This is, indeed, the prevalent attitude of those who are dominant, and "in charge of" a small community. The other members of the group show, generally, a willingness, or, even, a need, to submit themselves to the will of the leader; to give loyalty and trust, admiration and devotion to those, who are perceived to be beneficial leaders.

In addition to these predominant trends of the hierarchical differentiation of a small-scale social grouping, we see, also, other trends come to the fore in the relationships between the members. For example, there may be a trend towards an egocentric abuse of a position of privilege and power. In a primitive animal society, (and we assume that pre-human animals and the earliest human groupings shared, essentially, the same biological mechanisms), the leader would be frequently challenged by the stronger members of the younger generation, and, the hierarchical order would, therefore, be constantly "reviewed", at least, instinctively. If a member felt, subconsciously, of course, some "doubts" about the fairness of the position he or she was in, one could test the strength and resolve of those who were just "above" him or her in the hierarchial order. As soon as a test-fight was over, the hierarchical order would adjust itself automatically, depending on the outcome of the test-fight, and we see, here, a curious combination of the principle of "the survival of the fittest" with the beginnings of a primitive social order between complex, behaviourally flexible animals.

It seems reasonable to assume, that, early man behaved in the same manner, and, it is logical to visualise that a leadership position would always be "earned", because a leader, who became "too cautious" or physically unable to maintain his dominant position, would be replaced through the mechanisms of a test-fight. Occasionally, an extra-ordinarily strong individual would have a firm and lasting grip over the leadership position of a small community, and, he would be able to "bully" the others for quite a long time.

Of course, the primitive hierarchical order was not based on such abstract concepts as "individual rights", and, evolutionary recent qualities, such as "love and respect", but, the hierarchical order rested upon a mixture of fear and blind admiration for brute power. However, if such a strong tyrant would fail in his natural obligations to look after his group and defend it properly, the mortality rate of the members would spiral and the viability of the group would eventually be lost. We see, therefore, that brute strength alone in the contest for survival between social groupings, is a weakness, especially, if it becomes divorced from the natural and implicit responsibility to defend the weaker members of a socially integrated grouping.

In the much larger human society, a number of factors arose, which made it much more difficult for abnormal or pathological leadership attitudes and practices to be weeded-out by the mechanisms of natural selection. As we have discussed before, the larger social groupings came into existence because of population pressures, and, this meant, that a small group of the society could not easily brake-away, if it was dissatisfied with a particular situation or position. There was no place to go to, and, a crucial safety factor against the practice of abuse had fallen-away with the emergence of the larger social groupings.

Another factor in the rise of the possibility for practicing tyrannical oppression and exploitation, was the development of the ability to organise a small group of loyal followers. This was made possible by the cultural tools of communication and planning. Such a group of loyal followers would have a monopoly in the access to arms and supplies, and, it would, therefore, occupy an artificially high position in the hierarchy of the society. We see, then, how a natural hierarchical order deteriorates quickly into a situation, where a small, dominant and powerful elite exploits the labours of the average members to such an extent, that the small elite becomes extremely wealthy and has the ability to "buy" protection by hiring "private armies".

In particular, when the ruling elite, the leaders, the warriors and the "priestly classes", (those, who control the tools of communication and the power to influence moods, emotions and opinions), form an alliance, or, at least, a tacit pact of cooperation, we see a stratification of society that becomes quite stable and difficult to challenge. Yet, in a modern interpretation of the need for a fundamental equality in rights and opportunities between all the members of a society, we have to consider such a stratification into social classes as a trend, which is undesirable and archaic, in spite of the fact, that it seems to represent a near-inevitability.

Yet, It seems justified to consider these apparently "natural" trends towards extreme stratification or polarisation of the large society, as a pathological process. In essence, it is an abnormality and an aberration of the original purpose of the trends towards hierarchical ordening and socialisation. We have to remind ourselves, constantly, that there is no genetic blue-print for living and relating to each other in a large-scale social environment, and, the "natural" trends, (always leading to strong tensions of frustration, injustice, misery and suffering), are an expression of the fact, that nature has not been able to develop a set of instinctive, genetically encoded behavioural guidelines for the existence of a healthy, normal and viable social environment of human beings on a large scale.

Let us look, again, for a moment, at the contrasts between a natural, functional and viable, small-scale social grouping, and, the processes we see emerging, time and again, when mankind started to fuse into far larger societies at the beginning of recorded history. We know, now, that this trend towards the large society was a result of the fact, that the nomadic, small-scale social grouping of human beings was endangered by a large number of wandering tribes and a relative scarcity of suitable lands, driving-up the pressures of competitive strife to intolerable levels.

If you think that this is not a valid reason for the emergence of the first great "civiliations", then, please, answer the question, why man had spread so widely over the earth? Man spread over most of the continents, living, often, under extremely harsh and hostile conditions, in particular, when the earth went through the "ice-ages", which are periods of extensive glaciation. Why would people who were living in small, wandering groupings, without any of the technological mastery that is at our disposal now, have wandered so far over the globe, if it was not a result of increasing pressures of crowding and fierce competitive strife?

The slowly rising population of the species of mankind, living a nomadic life-style in small, socially integrated groupings, requiring a large territory, led to frequent contacts, and, inevitably, to a rising level of competitive strife. Would there really have been any other compelling reason for those groupings, who lived in the fertile river-valleys, to band together into ever larger social units? They had to defend their fertile grounds against tribes living at the periphery, who always lived under harsher conditions. The level of competitive strife for the most desirable habitats, must have been rising continuously, as the population density of the human species increased gradually.

However, let us not follow this line of thought any further, but, let us review, quickly, the differences between a small, natural society, and, the larger societies which emerged at the beginning of recorded history. The larger societies evolved their cultural tools in a spectacular manner, also, as a result of the pressures of competitive srife. However, in spite of the fact, that the larger societies made an intense, and, sometimes, desperate search to find a measure of stability and viability, we may justifiably come to the conclusion, that the cultural adaptations and social innovations were still lagging far behind the social requirements of justice and equality. The requirements of social justice and essential equality were, and still are, a "cultural" or conceptual solution to the problems of over-crowding. These conceptual or cultural innovations have come-about as a result of technological mastery and a rapidly expanding world-population.

In the small society, the sense of justice is satisfied by the ability to test the justification of a hierarchical position with a test-fight. Leadership and "fellow-ship", or "follower-ship", is defined with relative ease, because the members all know each other, and the leader knows each member intimately. Tensions and conflicts are settled quickly, partly by a test-fight, partly, by a real, all-out fight, especially, if the sense of justice has been severely strained. In part, the tensions and conflicts are settled by the imposition of a settlement, as the leadership intervenes forcefully, as a judge and keeper of the peace, in order to avoid a serious weakening of the social grouping. The all-out fight is, therefore, quickly replaced by a primitive system of justice, where those, who have been judged as having become a social liability, are cast-out and frequently killed.

The mechanisms of a serious conflict-situation, the process of judgement, and the imposition of a settlement by the leader, are completely transparent events in a small community. Everyone can see and understand what is going-on. Such a small society is open, and the sense of justice is easily restored. There are few lingering frustrations or deep hostilities, and, if there are any, they are known and can be dealt with, before an explosion of violent behaviour occurs. No secret deals and no violations of the hierarchical order take place, such as the elevation of a small, loyal following to an artificially high place of power in return for "military service" and unswerving loyalty, where a small group functions as a body-guard and an instrument to keep "law and order"; to keep the rest of the members "in line".

The methods of tyrannical oppression and exploitation, which are so obviously practiced by a small, powerful elite in a large society, are, therefore, impossible in a small, natural social environment, and, it is justified to consider the emergence of a powerful and dominant elite as an aberration or an abnormality, made possible by the emergence of the large-scale society and the disappearance of the "social break-away" mechanism. These are such crucially important developments that we should clarify them and discuss them in more detail. The fact, that a leadership emerges in a large society is natural, and, it is clear, that there has to be a leadership in order for a large social grouping to become and remain, at least, somewhat viable.

It is also clear, that such a leadership has to have power in order to settle internal disputes and "do justice". We forget, so easily, however, that the small society has natural channels of communication and feed-back between the members and the leadership, which are not present in the larger societies. This flow of communications is constant and transparent in the small-scale social environment. The leader knows all the members and their problems intimately, and, the leader is aware of everything that is going-on. Besides, the hierarchical order is fluid and will change automatically, if a test-fight reverses an established hierarchical pattern. None of these features are present in the much larger society. The leader, or leadership, can not know everyone intimately. The leader or leadership can not settle disputes personally, and a bureaucracy becomes necessary to expand the functions and powers of the leadership.

However, there is a crucial difference between experiencing a situation yourself, and, to be informed or "briefed" by officials. Throughout history, we see, how leaderships of large societies struggle with the problem, how to become, and remain, "truly informed". This failure of the lines of communication between the leadership and the members of a large society, creates pockets of injustice and neglect, feelings of anger and resentment, as well as a defensive attitude by the leadership, which begins to use its powers increasingly to defend itself against a hierarchical challenge.

As a parallel development and an integral part of this process of large-scale social integration, we see, how the beliefs and attitudes of a large number of people are starting to diverge and clash. We, as individual members of a large society, live only partially as members who belong together in such a large social entity, because we share the same government and its bureaucracies. By and large, we actually live in, and identify with, our own small communities of friends and families. We may also identify with the societies of ethnic togetherness, or, the more specialised societies of common and professional interests, such as labour-unions, the members of a Church congregation, or some other religious organisation or neighbourhood association.

Here, we see another important difference between a large and a small social entity. In a small, transparent social environment, where we all know each other, we do not have to shout to be heard. We do not have to band-together in anger and frustration. We feel more at home, because we know each other, and, the leader knows us all, but, in a large society, we drown in a sea of anonymity, and, unless we shout and fight, band-together, march and protest, monopolise the media and reduce our opinions to strident slogans, we will not be heard or noticed.

In a small, natural society, we experience a sense of choice. After all, if we are not satisfied, we can leave. We can seek our satisfaction somewhere else, but, in a large society, we have nowhere to go. No wonder, that a large-scale society is a totally different entity than the small-scale social entity. We are probably justified in stating, that the larger society tends to re-emerge after turmoil and warfare, because a small but vigorous society, which has triumphed or benefitted from a period of confusion and warfare, after the larger society has broken-down, can never resist the temptation to forge another empire. Then, we see the rise of another example, where the aspect of voluntariness disappears from belonging to a social conglomerate.

Each contemporary nation has a history of military conquest, and we do not have to go far into the past to find evidence for this. Certainly, there are always good intellectual and emotional reasons to justify such a conquest, which is often portrayed as a liberation from an oppressor. But, liberating a group of people from an oppressor and annexing it to one's own group in an act of subjugation, often occurs almost simultaneously, and, this sort of liberation may not always be appreciated by the newly liberated people. The point is this; we see, clearly, in the make-up of many large and small nations, how the vagaries of war, as well as the fortunes or misfortunes of strife and combat, have distorted the natural ethnical boundaries of groupings with a long, natural history of belonging together; at least, to some extent. A number of markedly different ethnic groupings are often gathered in an uneasy peace under a single, national roof, while a single ethnic grouping may be splintered or divided over a number of adjacent political entities.

Dominance and oppression are present everywhere, and, these mechanisms reflect the rising tensions of competitive strife resulting from increasing numbers of people, as well as a scarcity of habitable areas and fertile lands. Eventually, the conquered acquiesce after a few generations of tension and frustration, and, they accept the status-quo grudgingly. In spite of the tacit acceptance of a political status-quo, the cultural and ethnical differences between the peoples of a new political entity contribute to the tensions and suspicions that characterise all larger societies, and, ironically, it is just these natural tensions and suspicions between people who have been "thrown-together" by political accident, which allows a small, ruling elite to excercise power by the mechanisms that are so aptly summarised in the saying; "divide and conquer".

In the larger society, a challenge to the authority of a leader is not accepted, anymore, as a natural part of life, as it is in the small, natural society, but, it is considered to be "treason", and, this indicates, how the test-fight of the small natural grouping has been replaced by a deadly power-struggle in the larger society. This power-struggle has all the characteristics of all-out warfare between enemies. It is not surprising, then, that people who live and grow-up in a large-scale social environment, in particular, if they come from a somewhat abused and exploited segment, have a great deal of difficulty recognising the fact, that the social environment is meant to benefit all the members of society. Only recently, have we discovered, in a conscious and intellectual manner, the evolutionary, biological meaning of the social organisation. The idea, that every member has to benefit from a social unit, is a key concept in our task to design a healthy and viable, large-scale social organisation.

This principle of universal social benefit is, not only, an intellectual abstraction, or the outcome of a conscious social contract, but, the principle of benefit goes back to the primary evolutionary origins of the phenomenon of socialisation, because the experiment with social inter-dependence, and the survival of the social unit as a whole, in contrast to individual survival, would never have succeeded, if it did not confer a measure of benefit to all members of a socially integrated grouping.

For those, who are familiar with the phenomena of natural evolution, this statement will be self-evident, and, for those, who are, primarily, interested in contemporary social justice and are impatiently engaged in activities to bring-about a desired social change, I would recommed, that we all look, very carefully, at the experiments of nature, before we design, rashly, a new social order, which results, so often, in a system with its own inherent trends towards oppression and exploitation.

........

Chapter 3

Content

A brief review of what has been discussed.
The dependence of an "elite" on its favourable conditions.
A natural division of chores.
A secondary process of task-differentiation, based on economic or "free-enterprise" activities.
A definition of economic activities.
Differentiations, resulting from economic success.
Mechanisms of supply and demand; the marketing of products and services.
Reasons for the practice of "collective bargaining".
Becoming dependent upon a regular cash-income.
The many aspects of dependence and inter-dependence.
The "logic" of many social events is becoming clear.

We have discussed, briefly, the principles of hierarchical ordening and socialisation, and, we have seen, that socialisation only makes sense, if the benefits of this process are shared, at least, to some extent, by all members. We have seen, that socialisation, or social integration, requires a somewhat contradictory mixture of attitudes, which are mainly aggressive and defensive towards dangers and challengers from the outside, while caring for the weaker members of the group. Leadership requires courage and ferocity towards the alien intruder, firmness and justice towards quarreling and fighting members within the group, and, it requires an attitude of protection towards those without whom a continued existence would be impossible; the women and children.

We have seen, that the change from territoriality to hierarchical stratification is an important preliminary step in the process of socialisation, and, we know, that a functional social organisation gains slowly in importance. It is transformed from a mere togetherness and a shared alarm-response to danger, as we see in a herd or a flock, to a viable, highly integrated unit of behaviour, such as the social community of cells forming together a multi-cellular animal.

The socialisation of the human being is based upon a much more voluntary and tentative form of cooperation, compared to the genetically coded instructions the cells of our body are responding to. Because behaviour can not be precisely programmed in behaviourally flexible animals, the tendency to seek security and an enhanced viability by forming a social unit, will always be dependent, at least, to some extent, upon a "voluntary input", but, as we have seen, the larger the social unit becomes, the less important the factor of "voluntary input" seems to become.

We can only wholeheartedly belong, and contribute to, a social environment, if we feel, that it is to our advantage to do so. If we are under-privileged and exploited, we will not have the feeling, or intuitive judgement, that it is good or beneficial to belong to society. On the contrary; society imposes, then, a hard burden of work and bondage upon us in the form of an exploitative ruling elite. If we belong to this ruling elite, we find it, not only, beneficial to belong to society, but, we depend so much on the existing social order, that we become very defensive and anxious, if anyone dares to question, or challenge, the social order, together with our position of power and privilege in it.

The process of hierarchical ordening introduces, not only, a differentiation in position or status, but, it also leads to a differentiation in the tasks and functions the members of a socially integrated entity have to carry-out. As we discussed, the more dominant and leading members will automatically assume such "leadership functions" as the defense, the organisation of the hunt, the settling of disputes, the planning of journeys and explorations, while the followers do most of the actual hard work. Logically, the women and children, as well as older adults, will do the easier chores around the place of residence. Later, these chores branch-out into an infinite variety of crafts, where tools and weapons are made, such as the utensils for cooking or the tools to prepare the hides, etc.

On previous occasions, we have discussed, more in detail, the processes of task-differentiation or specialisation in function, and, we will remind ourselves, here, only, about the main features. We have made a distinction between differences in function which are an expression of the varying hierarchical positions in society, and, we have discussed the enormously varied differentiation in tasks resulting from so-called "economic" or "free-enterprise" activities. The latter occur as the result of spontaneous acts of cooperation and exchange between essentially equally placed members.

As a matter of definition, "economic activities" are based upon the voluntary exchange of items and services between members who are essentially equal in their position in society, but, we have also seen, that, very soon, these processes of economic task specialisation and inter-dependence lead to a secondary form of hierarchical stratification, based upon the unequal accumulation of wealth. If the products of a certain "manufacturer" are much more sought-after than those of another, the successful manufacturer accumulates, of course, many more goods than the one, who has a hard time making something that is pleasing to someone else. Eventually, the successful manufacturers "expand" by hiring those, who were not so successful. These "workers" will then carry-out a specific job of construction or manufacture under the guidance of the manufacturer. We see, then, how, eventually, a large majority of the members of society do not become independent business people, manufacturing a product or marketing a skill, but, they become "employees", hired to work for an employer, and, often, they have little to offer in the way of skill or dedication.

Yet, it is important to realise, that the offer to work for someone, is part of a marketing process, and, it implies a measure of dependence on the forces of supply and demand. As a matter of fact, the worker or "labourer", offering his time and skills to an employer, starts to depend much more on the pay-cheque from his employer, than the employer depends upon the services of the labourer, and, we all know the history of the trade-union movement, where a successful attempt was made to redress this imbalance in power by a form of "collective bargaining", as well as by the tool of the "strike", or collective work-stoppage. The threat of a collective work-stoppage is then used as a weapon to force the employer to offer a satisfactory wage-contract to the union of workers.

We want to emphasise, here, the point, that, we all, in particular, as wage-earners, employed by a large manufacturer or organisation, become dependent upon a regular cash-income, because we have to rent our accomodation and buy our food. In addition, our move to a city or a suburb, means, that we can do increasingly less for ourselves. We rely upon our cash-income to buy everything we need, including accomodation, transportation, as well as a large number of items which require expensive maintenance. We rely upon the services of a plumber or auto mechanic, the repair-services for our tools and appliances, etc., etc. We have to contribute income- and property-taxes to pay for the many services and facilities we use and share collectively, such as schools, hospitals and medical services, roads, government institutions, public transport, etc. It is easy to see, how quickly we come to rely upon each other, and, it is truly remarkable, how dependent we become in a large and affluent society upon people and organisations we know nothing about.

We rely upon people, institutions and organisations we hardly know by name, and yet, most of these people and institutions that make-up such a large part of society, we do not really trust. Here we are, completely dependent upon people we do not know or trust, just as we often care little about the work we do in our job for a company or a government institution. By and large, we do not give it much thought, that, someone else, completely unknown and indifferent to us, will depend, perhaps with his or her life, upon the work we do.

Indeed, as we look around, the logic of society is beginning to reveal itself. We are a small part, a tiny speck, in this gigantic web of inter-dependencies and task-specialisations, and, we are becoming aware of the primary and seconday hierarchical strata or positions that have formed. We see, on the one hand, the vast strata of society that are, in one way or another, linked with the government and its bureaucracy, and, on the other hand, we see a vast hierarchical order that has evolved as a result of the many and varied "economic activities".

We see a clear-cut economic hierarchy, especially, where society has encouraged or sanctioned the maintenance of a discrepancy between the successful entre-preneurs, professionals, or a land-owning elite, and, the poorer working classes, spending all their income as soon as they receive it. The latter are rapidly becoming the classes of the unemployed or under-employed.

In the more primitive societies where governments are not concerned with, or incapable of, tackling the problems of sharp disparities between the various social strata, these social strata of economic wealth, political power and military power merge into one powerful and stable layer; the ruling and exploitative elite, and, we are back to our contention, that this "natural tendency" for a large, essentially unstructured society to slide into the stability of a powerful and wealthy ruling elite, is, in essence, a diseased form of social existence. These trends represent a pathological or abnormal mechanism, which must necessarily develop as a result of a natural search for a condition of stability, because there are no natural mechanisms or consciously designed safeguards to ensure, that, society remains an organisation benefitting every member, at least, to some extent.

.......

Chapter 4

Content

A close look at the world of "business enterprises".
Specialisations in function, based on hierarchical differences, developed first, but economic differentiations became dominant in the larger societies.
Familiarity makes a task "routine".
Advantages and disadvantages of task-specialisations.
The principles of free economic enterprise.
Differences on the basis of personal ability and motivation.
Economic free-enterprise, and the tendency to destroy a pre-existing status of essential equality.
The competitive struggle for economic survival within a social environment is essentially different from the mechanisms of natural selection and the survival of the fittest.
The next generation does not come, only, from the successful groupings.
A permanent and self-perpetuating division between the rich and the poor.
When society is nothing more than a chaotic pressure-cooker.
Democratic rights are slowing-down the stifling crystallisation of society into a small, wealthy elite, and a large, poor and ignorant majority.
Lubricating a stagnating economy by injecting new capital.
The phenomenon of "inflation".
Anger and frustration, fueled by rapidly rising expectations, as well as a steadily declining value of the currency.
Modern economic and social trends; consequences.
We all are involved in some sort of business deal with other people.
The professional, seen as the owner or manager of a small business-enterprise.
The search for security and power by creating a "monopoly".
The monopoly of a few large commercial concerns that can dictate the price and quality of their products.

If we live in a city of a large, affluent society, we see many activities and transactions around us, which are all "economic" in nature. Indeed, let us look, more in detail, at the nature of a business-enterprise and a business-transaction. The world of the business-enterprise came into being, when a few members in a small community came to the conclusion, that it was easier to make or manufacture one item several times, rather than a variety of items, only once.

Certainly, this same principle had already been applied in the many specialisations in function, which the leadership introduced as part of the effort to make the existential chores of the community easier to accomplish. The tasks and chores of staying alive were, primarily, regulated and initiated by the dominant members or leadership of a small grouping, and, we have discussed, before, that the first phase of the development of task-specialisation took place under the guidance of the social leadership. This development was also based on the experience, that, a complex chore, divided over a number of people in a well-integrated and coordinated manner, would ease the chores of existence, dramatically.

This same experience lies at the heart of "free-enterprise", or the world of business transactions, where members of society, carry-out voluntary exchanges of products or services, without having been organised or regulated by the social leadership.

We are all familiar with the fact, that experience makes a task quickly "routine" and easy to perform, while this same task took a great deal of effort and time, when we tried to accomplish it for the first time. Especially, if we are embarking on something new, and, if we do not have a model to work from, or, if we can not call-upon people who are familiar with the task, to give us a hand, then, we have to "feel our way around", learning, by trial and error, what is the best, most efficient way to accomplish something.

It is very difficult, if not impossible, to develop a great deal of expertise and acquire a sufficient experience about all the things that have to be done or made, in order to provide ourselves with the security we need and the luxuries we want. Even the smaller societies of the past, which used so few tools, consumer items and services compared to us, must have learned, quickly, that it was highly advantageous to split the tasks over a number of people. By concentrating on a small segment of this large spectrum of tasks, it became possible to acquire an important and desirable asset much more quickly. Here, we see the function of "expertise and experience".

The advantage of such a specialisation in function is a greatly eased or lessened burden to accomplish the range of required tasks, but, the price of a specialisation in function is a lessened independence or self-sufficiency, because the exchange of goods and services becomes, then, a vitally important mechanism for the viability of each member, including the society as a whole. If something happens to the mechanisms of exchange, the community of inter-dependent members is seriously in danger, because the development of a remarkable level of specialisation in tasks and functions, means, that it is now more difficult to master, once again, the entire range of needed activities.

Indeed, it seems, that, always, something goes wrong with these mechanisms of exchange or inter-dependence, and, let us, therefore, look at them a little more closely. Let us assume, as we discussed before, that the economic differentiations start, primarily, as a voluntary exchange between more or less equally placed individuals. The differentiations in function resulting from differing positions within the hierarchical order, are not voluntary, but, they have been "imposed" by the leadership, and, it is convenient from a conceptual point of view, to see these mechanisms as essentially different from the free, unregulated, "economic" processes of differentiation. True, it will be difficult to always separate them strictly, as the differentiation of all functions within the smaller social entity was largely guided by the dominant members.

The consequences of free-enterprise, or unregulated economic activities, made themselves felt, especially, during the most recent developments of industrialisation and mechanisation, when the harnessing of an external energy-source made an explosive proliferation of production and manufacturing activities possible. This process is quite rightly called the "Industrial Revolution". When this phase of industrial expansion took place, large societies emerged, where numerous people were more or less equal in status, because they had flocked to the cities after the rise of trade and commerce had replaced, to a large extent, the fragmented and isolated enclaves of social existence, which were so characteristic of a feudal social organisation in the "Middle Ages".

Because we are interested in tracing the differentiations that took place between people as a result of such economic activities, we are justified to take, as a starting point in our model, the essential equality that existed between the citizens, at the beginning of a period of free or unregulated economic activities.

True, there are always differences in abilities, motivations, as well as the factors of lucky circumstances, conspiring to drive people apart, but, the point we want to make is this; if the range of manufacturing or the provision of services is divided over a number of people, or, a number of small groupings starting-out on an equal footing, some will be more successful than others. Quickly, a secondary hierarchy will develop, reflecting the different rates of success between people who are participating in these economic processes. Let us not repeat, in detail, these mechanisms, which we have discussed so extensively on various occasions, and, I assume, that the reader is more or less familiar with the concepts of a secondary differentiation in social status, taking place as a result of economic mechanisms and specialisations in function. Here, we want to concentrate on the effects of this secondary differentiation, as it starts to colour the outlook, as well as the living conditions of the people involved.

Let us assume, that this process of economic enterprise starts as "a hobby"; as a pass-time which creates a lot of fun and excitement, but does not alter the existential pressures or position of the people involved. The atmosphere is, then, like a game. At the end of the game, some have gathered-in almost all the spoils, while others have lost. Next game, everyone starts, again, on an equal footing, and, it is possible to take a loss lightly, because, next time, there is a good chance, that someone else will be the winner. However, if the game becomes continuous, and, if the spoils are real accumulations of wealth, power and prestige, there is no return to a position of equality.

If a society adopts the attitude, that, someone's living standard, standard of wealth and power, and, ultimately, one's level of health, security, education and well-being, are going to depend upon the success or failure of one's participation in the game of economic differentiation, we see, that a deadly serious element of competiveness has been introduced. Ironically, what started-out as an innovation to ease each other's burdens by task-differentiation and specialisation in function, creating an enhanced viability, but, also, an increasing inter-dependence for the members of a socially integrated grouping, ends-up as a ruthless competitive struggle, destroying the sense of cohesion that made this process of "free-enterprise" possible in the first place.

Many people still believe, that free-enterprise attitudes and activities will benefit the social environment. How is this possible? You may want to give the answers, here, because it is likely, that you are familiar with the usual arguments. It sharpens the instinct for survival, you will say. It means, that people will work hard and bring a good quality product on the market for a reasonable price, and, we all, as consumers, will profit from these competitive practices. Yes, this may initially be the case, but, soon, only a few competitors survive. The others have lost everything. They are bankrupt, and, apart from the hardship this failure brings with it, (in essence, undeserved, because those, who lost-out, worked just as hard and tried just as persistently as those who succeeded), those, who failed, still have to find a niche in society. In contrast with the ruthless principles of survival of the fittest in the process of natural selection, those, who lose-out in society, still live and have children, and, they have to be fed, if they can not find the means to make a living.

This means, that the competitive struggle for economic survival within society does not create a small surviving segment of more or less equally placed survivors from whom, exclusively, the next generation is going to come, but, competitive struggle, means, a differentiation into classes, where a small elite survives as a powerful, dominant and wealthy segment of society, while a great majority becomes poor, oppressed and enslaved to the rich. However, this poor majority also takes part in the processes of pro-creation, and the off-spring of those, who lost-out in the competitive struggle, do not have the same chances and opportunities compared to the children of the elite.

We see, therefore, that a free-enterprise competitiveness between the members of society, leads, quickly, to a permanent and self-perpetuating division between the rich and the poor. This happens, whenever the absence of proper social leadership, or adequate social guidelines, perpetuates, through the laws of property and inheritance, a rigid stratification of society, with the exploitation of the poor majority by a dominant, wealthy and powerful elite.

If society is nothing more than a chaotic, pressure-cooker, where everyone fights for himself, then, even, without any principles of free-enterprise, we see, that a small powerful and wealthy elite emerges, which enslaves and oppresses a large majority of working poor, because this elite will automatically formulate the laws and guidelines of society in their favour.

In spite of the fact, that the elite is numerically in a minority position, a clever use of power, as well as the ability to hire a loyal and armed following or private army, is sufficient to make it very difficult for the poor the "rise up" against their oppressors, in particular, if the ruling elite is ruthless enough to eliminate by execution and assassination every potential leader and rebel from such an oppressed majority.

The large and affluent societies of today have, by and large, managed to escape an early, stifling crystallisation of society into a small powerful and wealthy elite, and a large, poor, oppressed and ignorant majority. The leaderships of the large and affluent societies have learned about the dangers of such a slide into an extreme polarisation between the rich and the poor, and, through a variety of measures, such as democratic elections and Constitutonal Guidelines, progressive taxation and a fair application of far-sighted laws and a re-distribution of the national wealth, it has been possible, until now, to enlarge, continuously, the segment of the population that has a chance to make a decent living and live a good, healthy and relatively free life.

Because of these compensatory and equalising mechanisms, a fairly large number of competitors remained in the race, giving a semblance of justification to the principles of free-enterprise. However, as we have discussed before, these societies came to rely, increasingly, upon the mechanisms of a continued economic expansion. This tempted leaderships, and their governments, to advocate a technique of financial "lubrication", by injection an additional supply of money, whenever the economy tended to stagnate. These practices led, logically, to the phenomena of "inflation", which is represented by a chronically devaluating currency and a spiral of rising expectations.

This means, that, those democratic societies which were, indeed, able to spread the material benefits of society over most of their members, came to rely, increasingly, on territorial or economic expansion, in order to keep this economic momentum going, and, to soothe the tensions of anger and frustration. The tensions of anger and frustration were fueled, largely, by rapidly rising expectations, as well as a steadily declining value of the currency in which the wage-earner was being paid.

Recently, the period of economic and territorial expansion has come to an end throughout most of the "affluent West", and, it has not been possible to satisfy the angry demands of many divergent groups within society. Pressures are rising, including the competitive pressures between business-ventures. This resulted in an acceleration of mergers and bankruptcies, as well as the growth of a few, extremely large and powerful corporate structures with multi-national dimensions.

The appearance of free-enterprise and a fair competition is still there, but it is likely to become merely a facade. This appearance of honest competitiveness motivates a large number of hopeful and ambitious people to work hard, but, the real power and wealth is now in the hands of a few large corporations, a small, wealthy elite which owns and manages these large corporations, together with a small political and military elite.

We see a remarkable range of conditions and circumstances resulting from free-enterprise activities and the partially successful attempts to slow-down the polarisation between rich and poor. It seems a good idea, here, to review this large spectrum of social conditions in a general over-view, so that we may get a "feel" for the all-pervasive atmosphere and attitudes created by the ubiquitous presence of business-enterprises and their dealings and transactions.

We all are involved in some sort of a business-transaction with other people, regardless of the fact, whether we know it or not. Most of us would probably reserve the term "business deal" to the more conventional imagery, where two people agree, after hard bargaining, upon a price for an item to be exchanged, but, if we look at ourselves, coming out of school with a still limited skill and knowledge, we see, that we have to try to interest someone else in "giving us a job " in exchange for our efforts and labours. This is, in essence, a business-transaction. If we have more to offer as a skilled tradesman, or, as an experienced professional, the range of positions open to us, will increase dramatically, provided, our specialisation is not too narrow. Whether or not we get a job, depends, not only, on the availability of a work opportunity, but, also, on a personal evaluation; whether or not we make a good impression on our prospective employer; whether or not we have good references, connections or friends, who can "give us a hand" when competing with others for the same job-opportunity.

As a tradesman or professional, we may work for someone else, and we are, then, "employed". Or, we may decide to offer our services directly to the public, and, we become, in essence, a small, self-employed business-enterprise. We still have to make a business deal, however, because we have to do a satisfactory job at a reasonable price for our clients, otherwise, people will prefer to deal with our competitors.

In this sphere of the "small business enterprise" of the professional or skilled tradesman, the principles of free-enterprise seem to work best, because the public has, usually, a genuine choice between a number of competing craftsmen or tradesmen, and, they can therefore "shop around". However, the tradesmen and other small businesses come quickly to the conclusion, that the competition for clients will become too fierce and weakening, if there are too many enterprises competing for clients. They will then start to undercut each other to the point, that no-one can make a decent living.

Even, before we saw the emergence of labour-unions at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, craftsmen, tradesmen and professionals grouped together in "guilds". This was done to ensure a monopoly over the number of people practicing a trade, and, partly, to set a standard of excellence in the work or service provided. These guilds had to respond to demands for internal discipline, as well as demands for a guarantee of quality or competence, because problems with falling standards of workmanship or competence arise quickly, whenever the effects of free competition are cut-short in a monopoly situation. A monopoly position has been held, for a long time, by such professionals as doctors and lawyers, and, this practice is spreading to many other professionals and trades-people.

Certainly, such a monopoly tends to undercut the advantages of the free-enterprise system, but, if the competitive pressures between competing tradesmen or professionals are so severe, that most of them are unable to make a living, we see a dangerous trend towards ruthless commercialism and unscrupulous practices, which are not in the interest of the public. If we are dealing with an extremely fierce competition between business-enterprises, we see, that the public, is, eventually, faced with the monopoly of a few, large commercial concerns, which can dictate the level of prices and the quality of their products to the members of the social environment.

.......

Chapter 5

Content

Vulnerable citizens.
The need for an incentive to work hard.
Self-discipline, and the need to keep a sense of responsibility alive.
The need to remain aware and vigilant.
Corporate dinosaurs.
The concept of a "military-industrial complex".
The government is a partner in this triangle of power.
A deplorable lack of transparence.
When a job depends on the willingness to accept the status-quo, and, to refrain from asking questions.
Vulnerabilities are everywhere.
The freedoms of ordinary workers.
Managers and owners.
Owning business assets, real estate, or tracts of land, are attractive safeguards against inflation.
The trend towards "public ownership".
We all find ourselves entangled somewhere.
We all have become dependent upon "the system".
Taking a cold, objective look at what is happening.

If we take the time to shop around before buying something, we have usually a chance to buy at an attractive price, but, we have to be able to wait, until a "good buy" comes around. If we buy, only, when we need something right away, or, if we do not have the opportunity to buy ahead, our existential needs are much more vulnerable to exploitation. We become, then, easily victims of unscrupulous and exploitative merchants, unless the society has enacted laws and regulations to protect those, who are vulnerable or in trouble. The availability of such laws and regulatory institutions, protecting the members of society, is a good indication of the level of justice, compassion and fairness operating in a society. If a hard-working, saving individual can be wiped-out, financially, by a lengthy illness or an unfortunate accident, then, society is essentially primitive, unstructured and basically unjust, regardless of the fact, that it may be powerful and dominant on the scene of international affairs.

I know, that, many people will argue with me and point-out, that we need a certain level of anxiety to work hard and look-out for ourselves. You will point-out that the Socialist societies, which decided to provide their members with security from the cradle to the grave, often stagnated into a vast and unwieldy bureaucracy, where initiative and insight were stifled and people would drift their entire life through society, never really knowing, how to work innovatively and flexibly.

I agree with you that this may happen, and, it requires a fair amount of self-discpline, as well as the imposition of obligations and a program of stringent indocrination to keep a sense of responsibility alive and make the people contribute to the common good. Ironically, we, who are used to live in a competitive but much more free society, see those attempts to indoctrinate and impose obligations, as a curb on essential freedoms, but, we forget that a society, which has slackened, deliberately, the experience of existential pressures and anxieties, has to teach and correct its members, constantly, in order to avoid a dangerous level of complacency.

However, let us return to the world of business in the large affluent and Capitalistic societies. In the last few decades, we have seen the emergence of a number of gigantic "living structures"; the corporate dinosaurs. These large business conglomerates tend to be involved with the exploitation of natural resources, as well as the manufacture of the more complex and sophisticated tools and machines, such as computers, cars, air-craft, military hardware, etc. We see, that, most, if not all the essential services and goods we use, such as natural resources, foods, as well as a large number of consumer items and complex tools, are under the control of these large, multi-national corporations, leading to the concept of a "military-industrial complex", and, we can now add the government as a partner in this triangle of power.

Unfortunately, it is difficult to get an accurate and complete picture of this complex structure of power because of the exclusivity and secrecy that surrounds most of the activities of the military-industrial-government complex. We can not get an accurate picture of the powers affecting society, nor do we know much about the assets controled by these large, multi-national corporations, or the powers and influence excercised by a large government bureaucracy. Often, we can not find out, who is in charge, who makes the decisions, or, what is going-on. We, ordinary citizens are living in the shadow of these gigantic corporate and bureaucuratic structures, and, we are completely powerless to influence them.

We do not even understand and know most of these large organisational structures in our social environment. Details are carefully hidden, and, few facts are available. We do not know what these corporations own, who works for them, what kind of salaries are being paid, or, how much taxes they contribute. We know nothing about their financial transactions or channels of power, which have such a large but hidden influence upon the political leaders of our social environment; leaders, who are supposed to govern society for the benefit of us all.

These large, mysterious, powerful, but hidden corporate and bureaucratic structures cast erratic and frightening shadows in our societies, and, nearly all of us are involved with them, in one way or another. Many have found employment in such a corporate dinosaur, and, we are, then, lost in a vast, vague and opaque hierarchy, where we quickly learn, that our job depends, not only, on our skill and dedication, but, also, on our willingnesss to accept a status-quo; to refrain from asking questions about things, we are told, do not concern us. In short; we have to become a good "corporate or bureaucratic citizen", by carefully avoiding to irritate or challenge those who are our superiors, and, at the same time, we apply the same techniques of icy silence and subtle resistance to the challenges and inquiries we face from people, who are under us in the corporate hierarchy or bureaucratic ladder.

Very few of the more successful professionals or business people are not "incorporated" into some sort of a hierarchy, and, most of us, who work in a large, corporate or bureaucratic structure, know very well, that we spend a great deal of time and effort defending our positions and preparing the way for an advancement. Even those, who are much more independent as owners of a small business-enterprise, and, who do not have to answer directly to superiors, or "clock" when coming to work, are quite well aware, how small their influence really is. We, independently minded workers, we are so easily affected by the winds of change, and, we are often at the mercy of changing public interests and consumerist trends.

As a worker, somewhere near the bottom of a large hierarchy, we may envy or admire the powers and freedoms that come with top executive positions, but, those, who have made it to the top will smile at the notion, that these positions carry a great deal of freedom and power. On the contrary, they will argue that the freedoms of those, who are just ordinary workers, are much greater.

Ordinary workers do not have to carry their problems with them to their homes. Their tasks are simple and well-defined, and, their responsibilities are minimal. As long as they do their job reasonably well, their position is secure, unless, of course, there is a large, re-structuring of the entire government-department or business-corporation. Ordinary workers have less responsibilities and less chronic problems to concern themselves with, and, perhaps, it is sometimes the top executive, who, in a moment of weariness, may envy the simple life-style and the well defined tasks of the ordinary worker. He certainly will not feel a great sense of elation at the power he has. Certainly, he has powers, and, he has been given the task and responsibility to make important decisions. Even with the best possible preparation, it is impossible to be sure about the outcome of many decisions, and, if the results are a disappointment, the top executive has to take the blame.

The leaders of corporate or governmental institutions experience the feeling, that they are a small cog in a series of events over which they have little control, just like the ordinary citizen. Perhaps, the appearance of power and freedoms, luxuries and privileges, is indeed somewhat over-rated by the ordinary worker, as he looks to the top of the social ladder.

We should make an important distinction between a top-executive, (either in a corporate or a government bureaucracy), who has been given the task to "manage" a large institution, and, the owner of a business enterprise. The executive just gets a salary, and, as a rule, quite a substantial salary, and he enjoys certainly a number of privileges and incentives, which are usually not available to the members lower on the hierarchical ladder, but he pays for this position of responsibility in the form of chronic, and, sometimes, severe stress.

On the other hand, we see individuals, who manage or lead a much smaller but private business-enterprise, where ownership and the managerial position have not been separated. Here, we see people, who are, indeed, more powerful and more free, in particular, if they have a healthy business, which could be sold for a good price to a competitor or other large business conglomerate. These people have a large structure of financial security, because they are much more sheltered from the inflationary erosion of their assets, compared to the small investor, who has a modest sum in bonds, or, in his savings account. The security of the owner or major shareholder in a successful business-venture is quite considerable, and exceeds, by far, the mere "working executive", who earns a good salary as long as he performs his duties satisfactorily, but, who has little to fall-back on, whenever the circumstances change and he falls out of favour.

In our modern, affluent societies, the owner of a large, but still "private" business, (in particular, if it is involved in an essential sector, such as energy or food), has, perhaps, the greatest financial power and the highest level of financial security, because his assets are, in essence, protected from inflationary erosion, provided the business is managed well, and, if the business-enterprise is an important provider of jobs, it will often be treated favourably by local or regional politicians. They will be inclined to provide tax-concessions or outright grants, because such a business-concern creates employment opportunities, and, this is a great help for a politician who wants to gain, or retain, the favours of the electorate.

Owning great tracts of land or real estate, has become less attractive, because it is much more "visible", and, it is more likely to be taxed heavily. The true value of a privately owned business is often not established until it is sold, and, usually, it will make their owners millionaires, many times over. It provides a comfortable cushion of financial security for many members of the family, for generations to come.

However, the trend in most societies is towards "public ownership" of the larger, more important business-ventures. This avoids the problems associated with the emergence of extremely wealthy and powerful business families, and, it also provides an avenue for a lifting of the veil of financial secrecy; at least, to some extent, because a publicly owned corporation has to have public meetings for its shareholders and issue quarterly reports.

We have to progress a great deal further upon the road of public ownership, as well as the full disclosure of everything that is going-on within and between large corporations. As we have discussed before, a gradual increase in control over these large corporate dinosaurs by the public or the political leadership of a nation, together with an effective, transparent management of these corporate and bureaucratic structures, is in the best interest of all people. These are goals which still have to be widely accepted philosophically, before they can become a political objective .

We all find ourselves in a variety of entanglements. At the place of work, we have to guard against a loss of power and influence by carefully following the bureaucratic and corporate rules. These relationships make us all defensive, and, we are hampered in our ability to observe, clearly, and think logically about all these relationships around us. Even, if we are relatively independent from these large structures as the owner of a small business-venture, a trades-person or a professional, it does not take long to realise, that we are still, only, a very small and often power-less cog in the large organisations that govern and regulate our trade or profession.

Even as a consumer or a pensioner, we depend on these bureaucratic structures, because, often, we are paid from the general revenues of a social environment or the earnings of a corporation. As a collector of the interest on our own saving-bonds or securities, we still depend on the working people and the activities of business-ventures to earn the money that is paid-out as interest on borrowed capital.

Regardless, where we exist in these large, affluent societies, we are entangled, in one way or another, with these corporate and bureaucratic structures, and our security depends, often, on a careful maintenance of the status-quo. Here, we touch on the crux of modern, affluent life. We all have become dependent on a fairly substantial financial income, and, our work as a common labourer, a professional, an executive, or the owner of a business-venture, is, in essence, geared to the objective of securing a regular income. This income makes it possible for us to live, because, as we have seen, we have become so dependent upon "the system", that we can do virtually nothing for ourselves, and, we have to pay many other people for the services and goods we need.

Because our livelyhood and standard of living have become so dependent upon a regular cash-income, we have all become vulnerable. We all have become dependent, not only, upon a continuation of the status-quo, but, also, on a gradually rising level of affluence and consumption. Because we are so vulnerable and so dependent, our anxieties are easily aroused, and our thoughts and analyses are clouded with hopeful or fearful expectations, and, yet, if we want to safeguard our existence for a prolonged period of time, we have to be able to take a cold, hard and objective look at what is happening. We have to be able to analyse where we are heading, and, what the ultimate consequences are of a continuation of existing trends.

.......

Chapter 6

Content

The "economic momentum".
Consumption and "peace of mind".
Enhancing the feelings of security and certainty.
The drive to arm ourselves.
The civil law-suit, seen as a substitute for armed conflict.
Giving-up arms in return for the promise of fair and impartial judgement and law-enforcement.
The protection of legally acquired private property.
Preventing fraud and theft.
Social security; a protection against illness, loss of employment, and other set-backs.
Sensible living and spending habits can only be stimulated, if people can count on a steady buying power of their income and savings.
The threat of gradual impoverishment.
The rich, isolating themselves from the social turmoil around them.
Who benefits from inflation?
Who profits from chronic anxieties?
Pointing a spiteful finger at a scapegoat.
The peddlers of a religious salvation.
People pay a high price to have their conscience relieved.
The need to cool-off a contemporary hot-bed of anxieties and hostilities.
A self-fulfilling prophecy of Apocalyptic Doom.
When fanatical religious attitudes are doomed to subside.
A rare and audacious perception of reality.
The hybrid belief-structure.
The logic of seeing ourselves as a mediocre form of intelligence.
The comforting feeling of having God on our side.
The ambiguous results of science and technology.

We have discussed the aspects of economic entanglement before, and, we have talked about this all-important "economic momentum". We have concluded, that the trends towards ever faster rates of consumption and rising expectations will have to come to a halt. Here, we want to concentrate, for a moment, on aspects of consumption that are related to a status of "peace of mind". We can divide this area into two broad categories. There is, first of all, a large field of items and services, attitudes and beliefs, which enhance our sense of security. The other category is made-up by items of use or attitudes that make us "forget" the lack of security we may be experiencing, and, we are thinking, then, about the practice of taking drugs and alcohol, or, of seeking an escape in entertainment or other hobbies, as well as a variety of beliefs, attitudes or opinions, which alter the perception of the reality to which we are exposed, and have a tendency to deny the realities of our primary awarenesses.

Let us concentrate in the remainder of this essay on a variety of mechanisms designed to enhance our security, or, rather, our feelings of security and certainty. We will leave the world of "escape" and entertainment for another occasion, because it is a large enough subject to warrant a discussion on its own, in spite of the fact, that we can legitimately consider it a branch of the world of "business".

The world of security, either real or imagined, may be either a "physical" or military security for ourselves, or the community we belong to, or, we may "arm" ourselves with a belief or opinion, which makes us feel more secure psychologically, such as the belief, that our enemies can not harm us or will be destroyed by God.

Traditionally, the leadership of society took upon itself the responsibility to provide for the safety and security of the members under its care, and, we still see in the functions of the army and the police, how the leadership provides for the external and internal security of the social environment. If a society is functioning reasonably well, we have, as a rule, a fairly good system of security, where we are capable of keeping intruders away from our territories and natural resources, and, there is also a satisfactory level of internal security, where the State will prosecute those individuals who commit criminal offences against other citizens, or against the institutions of society. The citizens are, then, willing to settle disputes amongst themselves in a Court of Law by a civil law-suit, if one party feels wronged by the behaviour of another without an incidence of obvious criminal behaviour.

In order to suppress the tendency to take the law into their own hands, citizens are encouraged, and, frequently, compelled to give-up their weapons, and, a society that is able to curtail the possession of fire-arms, will see fewer violent crimes. In a healthy society, by far the majority of people will feel, that they can trust the mechanisms of judgement and law-enforcement, and, they feel, that, in essence, a situation of justice is being maintained. This does not mean, that they do not have criticisms, but, on balance, they are able to agree that justice is being done, and, that most people get a fair deal.

An important aspect of security is the protection of private property, as well as the prevention of fraud and theft. This requires a definition of the right to possess legally acquired assets. We have discussed, on previous occasions, the difficulties associated with a system, where this right to property has virtually no limits, and, we have discussed the need for measures to prevent the accumulation of too much wealth and power into the hands of a privileged few. Measures such as a progressive taxation, where the higher incomes are taxed proportionally heavier than the lower ones, a fair and just tax upon wealth and assets, without exceptions and loop-holes, and, on occasion, a subsidy on such basic necessities as food and clothing, may be necessary to sustain an adequate living standard for the poorer segments of society. Security, in particular, "social security" also includes "free services" for many essential needs, such as health-care, legal assistance, as well as a variety of institutions that enhance the well-being of the ordinary citizen and, especially, its younger generations.

As a part of a just system of financial security and a protection of the value of wages and salaries, it is necessary, that the value of the national currency is maintained. Sensible living and spending habits can only be stimulated, if the people can count on a steady buying-power of their income and savings. We have argued, on previous occasions, that it is a primary responsibility of governments to abolish inflation and to guarantee the buying-power of the earnings of the workers. We have seen, how this can be done, and, we know, now, why a stable currency, as well as a stable income and price-level for the basic necessities, will take-away this militant and strident demand for increasing wage-levels.

This militancy is partly stimulated by the notion, that, we, ordinary workers, have a "right" to increase the standard of consumption, year by year, but, frequently, the erosion of the value of money is so devastating, that the militant attitudes are generated by a genuine fear of slipping and sliding into a state of poverty, in particular, since people experience the fact, that prices and expenses for the basic necessities, are steadily rising. Governments are frequently in the fore-front of a rise in expenses for the ordinary workers, because they always try to increase their revenues by increasing taxes, or finding new items and services to tax.

A large, affluent society is, nearly always, somewhat chaotic, in particular, after people have experienced the fact, that it is impossible to keep relying on this economic momentum for a continuous expansion of their income and spending habits. Now, we all face the threat of a gradual impoverishment, while we suspect, and fear, that some people are secretly profiting from the chaos, the inflation, the price rises and the anxieties we see all around us.

Indeed, many people do benefit. Increasing suspicions and hostilities between peoples make it lucrative for entrepreneurs to manufacture and sell all sorts of alarm-systems, even, weapons, locks, secret hide-outs, bomb-shelters, food-caches, etc., etc. All these items are geared to isolate the well-to-do from the social turmoil around them. Many people in the affluent societies are, indeed, preparing to defend themselves and their way of life in the face of increasing social chaos.

As we have discussed before, inflation tends to benefit the merchants, the rich, and the government. Inflation, means, that, people find it senseless to save, and, a society, or government that has pinned its hopes on a continuing economic expansion, does not want people to save, because it wants the people to spend everything they have got. As usual, the poor and the gullible are following, blindly, such foolish advice, and they are, indeed, helping to sustain this economic momentum that benefits, increasingly, only the rich and their governments.

The governments benefit, not only, from a spending spree of the ordinary consumers, but, inflation helps to lower the real burden of the debts incurred by governments. On the oher hand, the debts incurred by ordinary consumers are rarely beneficial to them, because they do not have the power to demand the best possible re-payment terms from the financial institutions they borrowed from. Finally, affluence benefits the State, because a rising level of income of its citizens and business-enterprises, pushes them into progressively higher tax-brackets, and the government gets more revenues.

There are other merchants and entrepreneurs who profit from the chronic tensions and anxieties within society. There are the "quick fortune" artists, who promise instant wealth and freedom from all the financial problems and pressures. There are those, who try to peddle an easy solution to the problems of society by pointing a spiteful finger at a scapegoat. There is the world of entertainment, offering a very large variety of stimuli, all designed to make us forget our troubles and tensions for a moment, but, in essence, all these commercial forms of entertainment want us to spend more money, in order to forget, for a moment, that we already have not enough money to live in a state of health, free from worries.

We see a variety of radical political solutions being promoted, promising an instant cure of the social ills by a swing to the right or the left, and, finally, we should have a look at the merchants of religious salvation, who exploit the cultural legacy of a society, as well as the anxieties of the people, by promising people "Heavenly Salvation" in return for their worldly possessions.

The peddlers of a religious salvation have certainly been good pupils of the suave advertising industry, and, they, too, have discovered how to unlock people's wallets. In particular, those people, who feel uncomfortable in associating themselves with a major and well-established Church, are being given an opportunity to rid themselves of their guilt feelings. However, people pay a high price to have their conscience unburdened, and, in return for a belief, that they still can find salvation and acceptance by the Lord, watching religion on television, they are constantly prodded to donate their monies for one reason or another.

While these practices affront many people who have found a great deal of satisfaction in belonging to a major Christian Denomination, it is not sufficient to merely scorn at this phenomenon, and, then, shrug our shoulders. The power and influence of the merchants of religion on the mass-media, is still rising, and, we have to understand the reasons, why it is possible for them to influence and move so many people; to the point, that people are willing to pay relatively large sums of money. Unless we have a good understanding of the emotions and psychological mechanisms at work, we will not be able to do much about this phenomenon, and, we can only watch, silently and in frustration, how these clever but extremely powerful and professional merchants of a soothed conscience and happy feelings, profit from, and shamelessly exploit, the rising tides of anxiety and despair.

Let us not forget, that their success is an indication of the failure of the large social environment, together with the institutions that try to govern society along the more traditional lines. Unless we are able to cool-down this contemporary hot-bed of existential anxieties and mutual hostilities in the affluent societies, we have to watch, helplessly, the destructive work of fanatic religious attitudes, polarising society, once again, into a chosen elite and a large crowd of sinners and out-casts.

Unless we learn to get a grip on the mechanisms of fanatic beliefs and devastating polarisation, we may well see a nuclear crusade against "the Devil" and his many henchmen, which will ultimately lead to an extinction of the whole human race. Unless we understand, what is going-on, the prophecies of the Apocalypse may well be self-fulfilling, leading to a nuclear conflict, brought-on by fanatic believers in a primitive and fundamentalist religious Creed. Once they are well on their way to unleasing a nuclear war, it will be impossible to stop them. We will have to stop them, now, by removing the anxieties and injustices they feed-upon.

If we can restore a sense of justice throughout society, fanatic religious attitudes are doomed to subside. In order to develop a good grasp over these phenomena, we have to remind ourselves, that the human being develops a belief structure in which he ordens and classifies all his experiences. We have discussed, before, how we visualise these belief structures to have evolved, and, how the emergence of a belief structure is an inevitable result of the evolution of the ability to represent awarenesses and memory-traces with the help of symbols, gestures or sounds.

We have seen, how quickly, a large variety of symbolic representations emerges within a small, evolving community of human beings, and, we know, now, why these symbols and symbolic representations require a structure of logical or apparently coherent relationships. We remind ourselves, that a belief-structure, tying-together a large range of awarenesses in a system of spiritual or demonic forces, is quite "logical" to a social environment which has no other inputs. We are now heir to the input of a large variety of sophisticated and skilled observations from the sciences, and, it is, therefore, logical, that those, who are familiar with these scientific images, interpret reality differently.

It was quite natural, and justified, for these early human communities to put-together a story, or a legend, "explaining" the situation in which the community found itself. Just because these beliefs and reality interpretations have now been super-seded by other, more complex and more sophisticated interpretations of reality, does not detract at all from the logic of these early belief-structures. We have defined, on previous occasions, religion, or, rather, religious reality interpretations, as all those explanatory belief-structures, which assign a "willed" or anthorpomorphic force to the origins of the events and phenomena man is able to experience.

We have also discussed the fact, that a "pure" scientific reality perception is, not only, rare, but audacious, as well as somewhat illogical, because it assumes, that we are nowhere in contact with a willed or creative force like our own, with its curious ability of a deliberately willed act of conscious creation, or, conscious destruction. The reasons, why it is possible to come to such an audacious conclusion are complex and require an intimate knowledge of the evolution of life, as well as the evolution of the Universe, the stars and the galaxies, together with the oscillatory exchanges that are taking place between the orbital and radiant forms of energy.

Many scientists shy-away from the final step to declare, that, indeed, so far, there is no evidence at all for the existence of a Divine Creative Force behind the existence of ourselves, or, the matter and energy that lies at the heart of all existence. Most scientists have, prudently, come to the conclusion, that, perhaps, within their own field of knowledge and expertise, they do not see any evidence for God's handiwork, because they can explain all the phenomena and events in rational principles of causes and their effects, or, as a result of the properties and qualities of the subtances and force-fields that can be seen and measured. However, this field of personal expertise and knowledge is so small, and, the sensitive scientist is so strongly aware of the fact, that he knows so little about this totality of knowable reality, that his feelings and sense of awe let him come to the conclusion, that, somewhere, somehow, a Creator must have been responsible for the totality of all existence.

A vague appreciation for the logic, or likelyhood, that man will have to acknowledge the existence of a God, somewhere, at some time, is an expression of this fundamental religious feeling that lives in us all. It seems so preposterous to think, that we can grasp in logical cause and effect relationships all forms of existence, in particular, the highly contradictory and confusing trends and behaviour-patterns of the human being. It appears far more logical to see ourselves as a mediocre, or, perhaps, even, lowly form of intelligence, while many other, far superior forms of intelligence exist, somewhere in this vast expanse of the Universe, or beyond.

We should not forget, that, indeed, it is somewhat illogical to come to this final, audacious conclusion, that, so far, we have no conclusive evidence for the existence of God, and, we have to acknowledge, that such an attitude is emotionally difficult and unsatisfactory. It gives us a sense of unwarranted exclusivity, and, it deprives us from the comforting notion that, not only, God exists, but, that we may have God on our side whenever we are engaged in a battle with our enemies.

We see, therefore, that a religious reality interpretation is, not only, a very natural way to interpret reality, but, it is also an important method to bolster our confidence and resolve, whenever we have to fight for our survival in a situation of life and death. This is one of the main reasons, why the scientific reality perception remains such an elusive philosophy with a very limited influence upon the lives of ordinary people. At least, its influence is limited so far as its philosophy is concerned.

Technically, or technologically, science has a very great influence upon many, if not most peoples, but, since these effects are so contradictory and ambiguous, we see, that the philosophical influence remains limited by an emotional rejection of many of the fruits of science. This ambiguous attitude in relation to the results of science and technology is another reason, why scientists and scientifically schooled people are reluctant to accept the full consequences of the scientific imagery, which they have assimilated during their schooling.

.......

Chapter 7

Content

Scriptures; a Divine Revelation?
Feeling guilty about our doubts.
Being confronted with a call from the Lord Himself.
Man creates the image of God according to his perceptions and expectations.
Common bonds of religious reality perceptions.
Magic and ritual manipulations are logical attempts to influence a super-natural reality.
The appeal of the Christian Faith.
Giving meaning to suffering.
Transforming a situation of ultimate despair and defeat into an invincible triumph for God.
Christianity provides an opportunity to marshall combative instincts for the glory of God.
Prosperity is a natural enemy for the Christian Faith.
Fortunately, for Christianity, prosperity is usually short-lived.
The dubious benefits of a religious revival; it gives hope and confidence, but, it also advocates simplistic solutions.
We need science and technology to survive in a complex world.
A fervent belief and an unshakable conviction become always a rallying-point and a battle-cry.
It is becoming increasingly difficult to retreat to a safe haven that is adequately sheltered from turmoil and warfare.
Religious fundamentalists, and the fundamentalists of the Social Dogma have many attitudes and practices in common.
Will we see the entire globe polarise into two gigantic camps?
The instinct of survival makes us work ceaselessly, in order to avoid a dangerous confrontation.

There is a great difference between a feeling of awe and wonderment for the complexity of all existence, (ranging from the world of the atom to the unimaginable vastness of the Universe, or the mysteries of human existence and the mechanisms of conscious awareness), and, the acceptance of a set of documents or Scriptures as a literal, or near-literal, Revelation of God's existence and plans for mankind. Yet, we see, clearly, that most people are subjected to a certain pull or pressure, in particular, since the religious reality perceptions, together with the acceptance of such Scriptures as a Divine Revelation, are a common cultural heritage in nearly every society.

It is easy to feel somewhat guilty about our hesitation to believe or accept these Scriptures as God's Revelation, while we feel a strong inclination to accept the existence of God on the basis of our feelings of insignificance and non-knowing, or, on the basis of our sense of awe and wonderment. Therefore, if some people know, how to bring a suave and convincing message of Life and Salvation to a troubled conscience and a clouded grasp over reality, such a message will find, at least, a measure of acceptance by most of us.

After all, we are confronted, here, not merely with the call and appeal from a human advertiser, but, we may well be confronted with a call from the Lord Himself. The power of authority is enormous, in particular, when the religious advertisor bases his appeal, strictly, on a series of quotations and explanations from these traditionally accepted and Divinely Revealed Scriptures. Even for those, who find it difficult to believe, that the Scriptures are literally the Word of God, and, who find it even more difficult to believe in a particular interpretation as the "absolute truth", it is still nearly impossible to come to the radical and heretical conclusion, that these Scriptures are nothing more, and nothing less, than a serious attempt of people and communities in the past, to make sense out of the confusing reality perceptions they were confronted with. We may still be touched by their efforts and their beautiful attempts to give a sense of meaning to the sufferings of man, as well as to soften the emotions of hatred, fear and combativeness, but, if we are able to analyse, carefully and objectively, the historical development of these religious beliefs, we see, clearly, how "naturally human" these beliefs really are.

It is, indeed, literally true, that man creates his God according to his own perceptions and expectations, and, it is ironic, but understandable, that, in doing so, man, invariably, believes to have been created by his God, and, to have received some sort of divine help, privilege, an insight or a covenant, to support him in his struggles for survival when confronted with harsh environmental conditions, or, with the vagaries of fortune and misfortune, as well as the scourge of warfare with hostile and incomprehensible enemies.

Whatever the contents of a belief structure may be, we can see a few general principles that are common to all these widely divergent religious reality perceptions. Man sees himself always as a creature of the gods to whom he is subordinated. In the monotheistic religions the concept of a single God, or Superior Deity, comes strongly to the fore, and, man struggles during his existence on earth as a result of the super-natural struggle between God and Satan. This struggle is an embodiment of the beneficial and the harmful forces that surround man and determine, to a large extent, his fate. Because there are always conflicting, but extremely powerful forces at work, man can only survive, if he placates the hostile forces and wins-over the beneficial forces to his side. Man's religious reality perceptions lead, therefore, quite naturally, to an intricate pattern of magical manipulations and ritualistic attitudes, which are designed to influence the forces of the spiritual world to which man is subjugated.

Before the dramatic success of man's ability to manipulate the natural forces around him with the powers of careful observations, reasoned deductions, and the clever use of tools and devices, the accent of man's manipulations fell, naturally, in the sphere of magic and ritual. Again, let me emphasise, that we miss an opportunity for truly understanding the logic and importance of these magical manipulations and interpretations of the surrounding realities, if we call it glibly "superstition". True, these belief structures have lost their value for us, but, let those of us, who are inclined to scorn all beliefs that are not based upon a, for them, Divinely Revealed Truth, realise, that, not so far in the future, the belief in a Divine Christian Revelation may also be considered a "superstition".

The monotheistic religions, including the religion of Christianity, are a logical evolution from the more ancient beliefs of the members of mankind. While its expansion and acceptance reflect, in part, the vagaries of fortune and war, it would never have spread the way it did, if the Christian concepts and beliefs did not have fundamental qualities which made them extremely attractive. Let us look at these qualities from the point of view of an outsider, and, let us state these qualities in psychological concepts, rather than judge, whether or not the tenets of the Christian Faith are "true or false".

If we concentrate on the Faith of Christianity, we see, that it is very appealing to those who are poor and oppressed, because it exalts the status of oppression, poverty and suffering, as a preliminary "cleansing" or preparation of the soul, before it can find acceptance by God. By giving meaning to suffering, it gives dignity to a state of poverty and oppression, and, it becomes, therefore, the most powerful antidote to a feeling of despair.

Christianity gave an extra ordinary degree of resilience and resistance to those, who were down-trodden, and, the history of early Christianity contains a large series of magnificent examples, where ordinary people became saints and martyrs, because they were able to transform, with their Christian beliefs, a situation of ultimate despair and defeat into an invincible triumph for God; with an assured entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven. The more pressure and oppression was applied to them, the more resolved they became in their beliefs, and, they were able to bear their sufferings and impending death as a high honour, because they were allowed, in this way, to emulate the death and suffering of their Lord, Jesus Christ.

Even, when the Christian community became strong and powerful, its members found plenty of opportunity to suffer and die for the Lord, because a zealous program of evangelism brought them into contact with many other societies, which were naturally reluctant to accept an alien and, often, incomprehensible Faith. Christianity provided an opportunity to marshall combative instincts for the glory of God, and in its combativeness, Christianity is only rivalled by this other monotheistic religion that became such a spectacular martial success; Islam.

However, prosperity is a natural enemy to the Christian belief structures, as well as the attitudes of religious fervor and piety, because, it is the one condition that undermines the rationality of Christian behaviour. If people live and grow-up in prosperity, all this suffering and dying for the Lord starts to make little sense, and we see, then, how Christianity quickly sinks into a complacent togetherness of the "comfortable elite", while it becomes a strange and incomprehensible structure of beliefs for a generation of affluent consumers.

Fortunately, for Christianity, a situation of prosperity never endures very long. The fortitude and frugality of the fore-fathers, which were the corner-stones for a condition of prosperity, are quickly replaced by narrow nepotism and a savage infighting. Natural treasures and resources are squandered in an opulent life-style, as well as by ill-conceived adventures of one sort or another. Then, chaos and anxiety rise, and the religious beliefs come to the fore, once again, as they point-out, how the people have neglected their religious duties and relaxed their moral fortitude. "God is punishing them now for these sins with the present series of trials and tribulations!".

Seen in this light, you may come to the conclusion, that a resurgence of a faith in the Scriptures and an adherence to the sensible commands of a Christian way of life, can only rejuvenate a society that is becoming chaotic and demoralised. Indeed, on the face of it, a resurgence of Christian values and a Christian morality may be a beneficial and stimulating influence on society, and, it certainly gives countless ordinary people, once again, something to hold-on to; something to believe-in and hope-for. We should not under-estimate the strength of character, the hope and resistance, which a resurgent Faith may give to a large number of people, but, before accepting a religious revival as a blessing for society, we should look at all the aspects we can see.

One of the main features that cast a shadow over the beneficial aspects of a religious revival, is the fact, that, such a revival gives, not only, hope and confidence, but, it also advocates simple and superficial solutions. A resurgence of a simple, fundamentalistic Faith also means, that, millions of people, especially those, who have not had much schooling, or, who have had a fragmentary exposure to the scientific realities, will be encouraged to throw-away as "evil", or irrelevant, this huge body of knowledge upon which so much of our ability to survive in a complex world, rests.

It is logical, that people turn-away in fear and disgust from a technology and science that has given them nuclear weapons, dangerous radio-active waste, nearly insurmountable pollution problems, as well as a chaotic, confused and unhappy social structure. But let us not forget, that these same sciences and technological innovations also made it possible to feed the many billions of people on earth. Sure, there are still major problems in getting the food to the hungry, and, major political obstacles have to be overcome, but, technically, it is possible to feed everyone on earth. Without modern science and agriculture, medical help, sanitation and preventative medical measures, as well as a reasonable level of education, it would be totally impossible for mankind to be as populous as it is.

It would be a tragedy, if the resurgent religious forces in the world, in particular, these militant Christian and Islamic attitudes, would succeed in destroying the fruits of science and technology, and hamper the secular Socialist philosophies in their efforts to bring more equitable living standards to all the peoples in the world. One thing we can be sure of; unbridled religious fervor, be it Christian or Islamic, will certainly not lead to an improvement in the lot of many hundreds of millions of people. Very likely, political domination by religious fundamentalists of major and powerful nations, would lead quickly to "holy wars". The ills of the world, including the "sins" of their own societies, would again be "cured" by the purge of the sword, and, millions of "heretics", unbelievers, infidels and "traitors" would be put to death, all for the glory of the Lord-Allah.

A fervent belief and an unshakable conviction become, always, a rallying-point and a battle-cry, ending in death and destruction. There was a time in the past, that an all-out battle only concerned those, who were involved in the fighting, and, it was possible for the onlookers and bystanders to retreat to a safe distance and let the belligerents "go to it". The survivor would take the spoils, and would be saddled with the task of building from scatch and restore what had been destroyed. Now, it is becoming increasingly difficult to retreat to such a safe distance, and, we all are becoming directly involved in such conflicts, whether we want it or not. If we can not escape the influence-sphere of the combatants, we have to choose for or against them, and, we all know about the miseries and suffering, the atrocities and injustices, that take place whenever a society is becoming polarised between combatants who have sworn death to each other.

Perhaps, you would like to point-out, here, that the tendency towards an absolute truth or Faith, as well as the use of the sword to purge society from dissidents, is not limited to the fundamentalist religious societies. You may point-out that the fanatic believers of the One-Party system under a Marxist Ideology, have also a tendency to dictate to all the people in society, how they should behave, and, that everyone has to agree with the role and function of the ruling Party in the social environment. The authority of the ruling Party is not based on divine revelations or commands, but the power is there, nevertheless, carefully cultivated and maintained with an armed force and a secret police.

Indeed, I agree, that the absolute faith of the religious fundamentalists, as well as those of the Social Dogma, have many attitudes and practices in common, and both use, very successfuly, their Faith, or their Ideology, as a battle-cry and a rallying-point. One thing you can be sure of; societies, governed by such rigid beliefs in what is true and what is false, always need to do battle somewhere. They have to stamp-out infidelity and dissent, somewhere. Absolute truths and fervent beliefs are actually "brothers in arms", but, in stead of fighting together, they always fight each other, because their ideologies or belief structures are, in essence, incompatible.

We may well see the entire globe polarise into two gigantic camps. One camp will adhere to an absolute belief based on a Divine Revelation, and, of course, this camp will have God or Allah on its side, while the other camp, is seen as the realm of Satan, the Antichrist, the Devil. The other side, however, sees itself as the true Social Reformers, duty-bound to free the poor masses from the superstition of their religious beliefs and the imperialistic dominance of their overlords.

How can these two sides ever talk to each other? Well, they can not, and, if the polarisation becomes rigid, then, battle will be inevitable. Since both sides will have an arsenal of weapons, large enough to destroy the world many times over, we, bystanders, have no chance to get out of the way. It is, therefore, the instinct of survival that lets us work, ceaselessly, to avoid such a dangerous polarisation. We have to convince people, that it is suicidal to do battle on such a large scale, especially, with nuclear or chemical weapons, but, if we wait, until the religious fanatics are ready to die in the belief that the Lord is coming, then, it is too late to avoid this ultimate catastrophe.

.......

Chapter 8

Content

We still have some time, and, we have to use it well.
Becoming a little more cautious about putting so much faith in what we believe to be true.
A code of pragmatic agreements, and the freedom to believe what we want.
A strident militancy always lurks in the background of a strong conviction.
Absolute certainties lead to a primitive form of behaviour.
Conscious awareness is merely a behavioural tool to enhance our existence.
A closer look at the resurgence of fundamentalist Christianity.
Radio and television have opened-up a new dimension in Christian Evangelism.
The appeal of a very personal address; minimising the burdens of social obligations.
Television Evangelism is a form of "mysticism" for the average individual.
A totally selfish experience?
The Church-Fathers have always emphasised the ethical obligations of socially oriented religious beliefs and attitudes.
An emphasis on ethical concerns.
A modern emphasis on personal salvation and peace of mind.
Let us always judge religious beliefs on their fruits.
Egocentric and elitist attitudes are seriously damaging our efforts to become socially responsible and responsive people.

Fortunately, we are not threatened, as yet, by such a disastrous development as a nuclear holocaust, but, it will become clear, as time goes by, that we have to put-in a collective effort to avoid such catastrophic tendencies from becoming a reality. We still have a lot to learn about ourselves, as well as the way we formulate our beliefs. If we could agree amongst ourselves to instruct our youngsters in a comprehensive and scientifically sound picture of the human being, including the way he develops and adopts his beliefs, we may be able to promote a great deal of understanding for the dangers that are associated with fanatic beliefs. If we could learn to see, to what extent we use our beliefs as a tool or a weapon in the struggle with our enemies, as well as in our efforts to cope with adverse conditions, we may become a little more cautious about putting so much faith in what we believe to be true.

Certainly, the main condition for abandoning fanatic attitudes will be the experience of universal justice and social well-being, but, in order to bring-about such beneficial social conditions, we will have to work very diligently at the task of convincing people of the value to adopt a rational attitude of careful observation and thought. If we could learn to adopt a little more skepticism about the absolute value or truth of the contents of our beliefs, we may become much more sensitive to the need to see each other as brothers and sisters; not as brothers in arms, but as brothers, who display similar needs and shared instinctive behaviour-patterns in the struggle for survival.

Many societies have already learned and practiced a measure of religious freedom, which acknowledges, at least, tacitly, that it does not matter all that much, what we want to believe, as long as our beliefs do not lead to attitudes and actions that are harmful to other people. In a pragmatic way, we have learned to accept a certain relativity in religious or philosophical truths, but, there is always the danger, in particular, during times of stress and turmoil, that our beliefs lead to hardened and fanatic attitudes.

As long as we can emphasise in our beliefs the aspects that lead to attitudes of tolerance, compassion and understanding for the people around us, these beliefs can make a genuine contribution to the atmosphere of justice, but, as soon a the religious beliefs become a vehicle for exclusivity, for a polarisation between "we and they", they lead to hardened, egocentric attitudes, and, eventually, to a cry for battle. A strident militancy always lurks in the background of a strong conviction, and this applies to religious, as well as non-religious beliefs of an absolute nature.

"Of course", you will say, "we need certainty. We need the strength of our convictions in times of stress and turmoil. When a situation is becoming difficult, making decisions becomes painful. The need to make a decision provokes anxieties and doubts, because a wrong choice may mean the difference between life and death. How can we be firm and stick to our decisions, and, how can we be consistent in our attitudes, if we do not believe, strongly and without any doubts, in the truth and validity of the things we believe in? It is perfectly natural to behave this way, and, it proves, indeed, that our Faith, our convictions and ideology are an essential behavioural tool to face the struggles and difficulties of our existence".

Ironically, then, the more we believe in the absolute Truth of our beliefs, and the more fanatic we react, the stronger our behaviour is guided by primitive and instinctive forces. It is clear, then, more than ever before, that we use our beliefs as a behavioural tool; at least, such is the case in the eyes and judgement of a rational observer.

On the other hand, the more we think about this vast array of scientific images that show us the mechanisms of natural evolution, the nature of life, as well as the nature of matter-energy, the more we come to the conclusion, that our beliefs are by-products of our existential requirements. We see, indeed, that our belief-structures are, not only, tools in the struggle for survival, but, the whole faculty of conscious awareness is nothing more, and nothing less, than a behavioural, existential tool. Yet, by adopting such a relativistic interpretation of reality, including the realities of our origins and motivations, we suddenly find, that we can all share these ideas and images, regardless of our religious heritage or our cultural differences, because all the observations and conclusions upon which these insights are based, can be verified by anyone, who has the inclination and the opportunity to do so.

Let us go back for a final look at the resurgence of fundamentalist Christianity. Let us look, especially, at people, who specialise in packaging an attractive and persuasive program on television, extracting a fortune from a gullible and sentimental public. If a Church establishes itself in a community, it usually reflects the beliefs and thoughts, as well as the problems and concerns of this community, and, if it is successful, it participates actively in the cultural and religious heritage of the social environment. Even the regular, orthodox community-churches need financial contributions for their existence, and, like any other "business", they have expenses to meet. because they are almost always involved in charitable work, where poor and sick people are being helped. All these activities have to be paid-for, and, as a rule, the expenses, the activities and contributions are "in balance"

A reasonable burden is placed on the community, and, the community receives, as a rule, "good value for money", as dedicated men an women often labour long and hard in a selfless attitude of helping others. Through their Church, and, by assisting and helping in charitable work, many, if not most responsible citizens of good-will have a chance to contribute with work or money, and, often, with both, to the good of their society. Certainly, a community can be "split" along religious lines, if competing denominations are vying for the same public, or, if the population becomes permanently split into warring Christian factions by the mechanisms of "religious inheritance".

However, the widespread communications that have been made possible by radio and television, have opened-up a new dimension in Christian Evangelism. The accent shifted from a function in the community, where it took part in the events, the disputes and the problems of this community, to a commercial presentation of a product that will "sell well", and has to be attractive.

Indeed, the accent shifts, then, towards a very personal address, where the emphasis is placed on a special bond between you, the viewer, and the Lord. The individual viewers, in the privacy of their living room, have to be "moved", and, this is accomplished by presenting on the screen a highly charming and persuasive individual, who can convince, time and again, that the loneliness and confusion, the depressive anxieties and the doubts of the viewer, can be overcome by subscribing to a simple faith in Jesus Christ, the Saviour.

The evangelistic message becomes, slowly, more selfish and egocentric, because the problems of the inter-personal relationships between people, the ethics of what is right and wrong, the problems of living together, as well as the awareness that our attitudes may be just as harmful as those of the people we despise or hate, all these ethical considerations are taking a back seat. In a way, we may compare television Evangelism with the egocentricity and non-ethical religious yearnings of those, who search for their Salvation and "Beatific Vision" in the Gnostic and Mystic Cults, which are such a persistent by-product of a fervent Christian Faith. In a way, television Evangelism is a form of "mysticism" for the average individual, who reaches his or her "ecstasy" by being "moved to tears", rather than by the more arduous, intellectual and physical excercises that are required to move a community of critical, but, essentially religious people, towards a sustained attitude of good-will.

Religion shifts from a cultural regulator, helping to smooth difficulties in relationships between people, to a personal emotion of happiness, where we are encouraged to believe, that we are "saved", as long as we believe in the Lord, Jesus Christ, and, as long as we send our donations, as instructed. Television Evangelism bothers us little, or not at all, with things we do not want to hear or think about, because, as soon as we become irritated, or, if our anxieties and guilt-feelings are aroused rather than soothed, we feel cheated by the program, and, we turn the set off.

Just as we view all programs and look at all books in the privacy of our homes from a totally eogcentric point of view, so becomes television Evangelism a totally selfish experience. We look at television, listen to the radio, or read a book, as long as it gives us what we want; as long as it holds our attention, and, as soon as it brings troublesome questions or feelings into a focus of awareness, most of us are inclined to turn the set off.

Christian theologians, as well as the "Fathers of the Church" always emphasised the communal nature of a true religious belief and attitude. The primary objective of a religous belief is not to make us feel good, happy or mystically elated. The primary goal of a religious reality perception is to make us behave in a socially acceptable and beneficial manner. This means, that a religious belief should emphasise and encourage a concern for others, but, in our modern times, we need a sphere of concern that encompasses the entire globe, and, not just our local social environment or a well-defined religious community. At a time, when the community of the large social environment has become such a vast, un-overseeable, large, frightening and confusing conglomerate of people, it is logical, that we look for ways to combat these feelings of fear, loneliness and hopelessness. We turn to our television sets to be entertained, to forget our troubles, to be absorbed into something that is exciting or moving, and, television Evangelism has learned, very effectively, how to capture the attention of the viewer; how to play upon the emotions of fear and hope, and, how to capitalise on the willingness of people to buy an "insurance policy" that gives them peace of mind.

Is this not what television Evangelism is all about? It sells us God's Word as an insurance policy for going to Heaven. As long as we believe that we listen to God's Word when we listen to the preacher; as long as we feel good and secure, we are glad to give our donations, especially, because it is such an easy and painless way to find acceptance in the eyes of the Lord.

What about the motivations of those, who are engaged in television Evangelism? I am convinced, that a majority of people, and, certainly those who testify on the screen, genuinely believe, that they are true and honest Christians, saving souls by their testimony. At the same time, I am convinced, that "the professionals", those who are "regulars" and lead the program, attract around them a large following of people, who try to make a living off all the money that is pouring in. Even the main "actors" will be impressed by the enormous wealth and power that is gathering at their feet, while they are preaching the Word of God. Subtly, and almost imperceptibly, the attitudes of concern for people may slide from a genuine desire to spread the Gospel, to a desire to keep a successful enterprise growing; of course, all to the glory of God.

Is this wrong, you may ask? Yes, I think, that it is, not only, wrong, but dangerous. As long as religious beliefs foster attitudes of tolerance and brotherly love, religion is a highly valuable, and, perhaps, even, indispensible part of human culture. Certainly, as long as it has not been possible to reduce the level of injustice and misfortune to such an extent, that a majority of people will be able to remain calm and rational, we need the hope and confidence of a religious belief and commitment.

However, as soon as religious beliefs and practices play upon the emotions of hatred and belligerence, or, on the non-ethical and egocentric feelings of personal bliss and exaltation, religious practices, especially, when propagated so powerfully over the mass-media, become a menace to the atitudes of tolerance and mutual understanding.

Let us always judge a religion on its fruits; if it fosters tolerance and understanding, fine, but, if it fosters hatred, intolerance, belligerence or insensitivity, sentimentality and elitist exclusivity, we should seriously question the right of people to advocate and spread such attitudes under the principle of religious freedoms, or, the pretext of bringing the Gospel to the world. We can not ignore the great harm that may be done to the attitudes of people, especially, in our modern times, because egocentric, introvert and elitist attitudes are seriously damaging our efforts to become socially responsible people, who are concerned with the well-being of every member of mankind, and not just with the well-being of those, who have been chosen as "God's children".

.......

Summary

1. Analysing social complexities according to commonly shared existential denominators.
   A society is organised around the requirements for a place to live and work.
   The temptation to let fixed costs rise.
   A state of affluent near-slavery.
   Necessities and luxuries blur in a haze of pressures and demands.
   How do we all find work?
   Sustaining this all-important momentum; "the economy".
   The consumer has to be willing, and able, to consume.
   How to measure the productivity of "work".
   What is the function and meaning of government?
   Hierarchical statification, and a "social contract" of essential equality.
   A review of the quality of "behavioural flexibility".
   Social integration; a solution to the pressures of competitive strife.
   Primary mechanisms of socialisation take place between protoplasmic constituents, as well as between individual cells.
   The "secondary socialisation" of the human being.
   The inter-play between behavioural flexibility and the mechanisms of social integration.
   Test-fights and dominance.
   Task-differentiation and the assumption of leadership responsibilities.
   
   
   
2. The main outlines of the human personality are biologically inherited.
   Large social units, and the possibility to abuse a position of power.
   The loss of social flexibility.
   When an elite becomes an exploitative parasite.
   Apparently "natural" or normal large-scale social mechanisms are, in essence, a perversion of the purpose of social integration.
   There is no genetic blue-print for the organisation of a large social entity.
   The evolution of a large-scale social structure.
   Cultural adaptations and social mechanisms still lag far behind the requirements of justice and essential equality.
   A large-scale social environment loses the quality of transparence.
   How to become, and remain, "truly informed".
   A limited sphere of identification.
   The need to reduce opinions and objectives to strident slogans in order to be heard.
   Each contemporary nation has a history of military conquests and defeats.
   The incongruence between ethnic and political entities.
   The many roots of persistent tensions in social relationships.
   In the larger society, a challenge to authority is not accepted as a "natural trend", but is considered to be an act of "treason".
   When the test-fight becomes a deadly power-struggle.
   Every member has to benefit from belonging to society.
   A recent intellectual grasp over the complex phenomena of the large-scale social environment.
   
   
   
3. A brief review of what has been discussed.
   The dependence of an "elite" on its favourable conditions.
   A natural division of chores.
   A secondary process of task-differentiation, based on economic or "free-enterprise" activities.
   A definition of economic activities.
   Differentiations, resulting from economic success.
   Mechanisms of supply and demand; the marketing of products and services.
   Reasons for the practice of "collective bargaining".
   Becoming dependent upon a regular cash-income.
   The many aspects of dependence and inter-dependence.
   The "logic" of many social events is becoming clear.
   
   
   
4. A close look at the world of "business enterprises".
   Specialisations in function, based on hierarchical differences, developed first, but economic differentiations became dominant in the larger societies.
   Familiarity makes a task "routine".
   Advantages and disadvantages of task-specialisations.
   The principles of free economic enterprise.
   Differences on the basis of personal ability and motivation.
   Economic free-enterprise, and the tendency to destroy a pre-existing status of essential equality.
   The competitive struggle for economic survival within a social environment is essentially different from the mechanisms of natural selection and the survival of the fittest.
   The next generation does not come, only, from the successful groupings.
   A permanent and self-perpetuating division between the rich and the poor.
   When society is nothing more than a chaotic pressure-cooker.
   Democratic rights are slowing-down the stifling crystallisation of society into a small, wealthy elite, and a large, poor and ignorant majority.
   Lubricating a stagnating economy by injecting new capital.
   The phenomenon of "inflation".
   Anger and frustration, fueled by rapidly rising expectations, as well as a steadily declining value of the currency.
   Modern economic and social trends; consequences.
   We all are involved in some sort of business deal with other people.
   The professional, seen as the owner or manager of a small business-enterprise.
   The search for security and power by creating a "monopoly".
   The monopoly of a few large commercial concerns that can dictate the price and quality of their products.
   
   
   
5. Vulnerable citizens.
   The need for an incentive to work hard.
   Self-discipline, and the need to keep a sense of responsibility alive.
   The need to remain aware and vigilant.
   Corporate dinosaurs.
   The concept of a "military-industrial complex".
   The government is a partner in this triangle of power.
   A deplorable lack of transparence.
   When a job depends on the willingness to accept the status-quo, and, to refrain from asking questions.
   Vulnerabilities are everywhere.
   The freedoms of ordinary workers.
   Managers and owners.
   Owning business assets, real estate, or tracts of land, are attractive safeguards against inflation.
   The trend towards "public ownership".
   We all find ourselves entangled somewhere.
   We all have become dependent upon "the system".
   Taking a cold, objective look at what is happening.
   
   
   
6. The "economic momentum".
   Consumption and "peace of mind".
   Enhancing the feelings of security and certainty.
   The drive to arm ourselves.
   The civil law-suit, seen as a substitute for armed conflict.
   Giving-up arms in return for the promise of fair and impartial judgement and law-enforcement.
   The protection of legally acquired private property.
   Preventing fraud and theft.
   Social security; a protection against illness, loss of employment, and other set-backs.
   Sensible living and spending habits can only be stimulated, if people can count on a steady buying power of their income and savings.
   The threat of gradual impoverishment.
   The rich, isolating themselves from the social turmoil around them.
   Who benefits from inflation?
   Who profits from chronic anxieties?
   Pointing a spiteful finger at a scapegoat.
   The peddlers of a religious salvation.
   People pay a high price to have their conscience relieved.
   The need to cool-off a contemporary hot-bed of anxieties and hostilities.
   A self-fulfilling prophecy of Apocalyptic Doom.
   When fanatical religious attitudes are doomed to subside.
   A rare and audacious perception of reality.
   The hybrid belief-structure.
   The logic of seeing ourselves as a mediocre form of intelligence.
   The comforting feeling of having God on our side.
   The ambiguous results of science and technology.
   
   
   
7. Scriptures; a Divine Revelation?
   Feeling guilty about our doubts.
   Being confronted with a call from the Lord Himself.
   Man creates the image of God according to his perceptions and expectations.
   Common bonds of religious reality perceptions.
   Magic and ritual manipulations are logical attempts to influence a super-natural reality.
   The appeal of the Christian Faith.
   Giving meaning to suffering.
   Transforming a situation of ultimate despair and defeat into an invincible triumph for God.
   Christianity provides an opportunity to marshall combative instincts for the glory of God.
   Prosperity is a natural enemy for the Christian Faith.
   Fortunately, for Christianity, prosperity is usually short-lived.
   The dubious benefits of a religious revival; it gives hope and confidence, but, it also advocates simplistic solutions.
   We need science and technology to survive in a complex world.
   A fervent belief and an unshakable conviction become always a rallying-point and a battle-cry.
   It is becoming increasingly difficult to retreat to a safe haven that is adequately sheltered from turmoil and warfare.
   Religious fundamentalists, and the fundamentalists of the Social Dogma have many attitudes and practices in common.
   Will we see the entire globe polarise into two gigantic camps?
   The instinct of survival makes us work ceaselessly, in order to avoid a dangerous confrontation.
   
   
   
8. We still have some time, and, we have to use it well.
   Becoming a little more cautious about putting so much faith in what we believe to be true.
   A code of pragmatic agreements, and the freedom to believe what we want.
   A strident militancy always lurks in the background of a strong conviction.
   Absolute certainties lead to a primitive form of behaviour.
   Conscious awareness is merely a behavioural tool to enhance our existence.
   A closer look at the resurgence of fundamentalist Christianity.
   Radio and television have opened-up a new dimension in Christian Evangelism.
   The appeal of a very personal address; minimising the burdens of social obligations.
   Television Evangelism is a form of "mysticism" for the average individual.
   A totally selfish experience?
   The Church-Fathers have always emphasised the ethical obligations of socially oriented religious beliefs and attitudes.
   An emphasis on ethical concerns.
   A modern emphasis on personal salvation and peace of mind.
   Let us always judge religious beliefs on their fruits.
   Egocentric and elitist attitudes are seriously damaging our efforts to become socially responsible and responsive people.

.......