THE ART OF ASKING QUESTIONS







A Study in Thought

sa084



by





Marius Heuff

Chapter 1

Content

A question is a tool for the intellectual worker.
It is exciting to know and understand something.
Questions about questions.
A question may act as a two-edged sword.
The ability to ask incisive questions may make us a leader or an outcast.
Questions may build or destroy certainties.
Cultural regulations that guide, and limit, the tool of inquiry.
Ordinary questions represent a quest for more detail.
Questions about the "quality" of a communication.
The credibility, or "authority", of an author or communicator.
We all have a tendency to be lazy and accept information without much scrutiny.
Relying upon an aura of pre-existing authority or credibility.
All communications must have some sort of relevance.
The limited relevance of autobiographical data.
A relevant communicator must arouse a sense of curiosity or anticipation in the reader or audience.
The relevance of a discussion.
A good grasp over the subject-matter at hand, and, some idea what sort of audience one is writing for.
A philosopher has usually an opportunity to practice and polish his art for a prolonged period of time.
There are many ways of presenting the same basic ideas.
The willingness to strive continuously for precision and perfection.
A writer of philosophical essays is forever trying to stimulate the interest and curiosity of his readers.

A question is a tool for the intellectual worker; not for someone who is lazy, apathetic or willing to accept, without questioning, whatever one is told to do or to believe. It is not an instrument for the dreamer, who likes to squander his time in a reality of his own making. The question, or the inquiry, is a tool for someone, who wants to have a firm grip over reality, and make the best possible use of the present circumstances.

A question is a valuable tool for anyone who likes to think; who is excited about the possibility to know and understand something; who likes to know, where this ability and possibility to know something, came from; who likes to know, what life is all about, and, the first question such an individual may ask me, when reading these opening sentences, is the following; "What, then, precisely, is a question; how does it work; what can it do? What are its limitations, and, what effect does it have upon the precision of our knowledge? What does a question reveal? Can any question be answered, or, will some things remain hidden for us, regardless, what we do, or how many questions we ask?".

When we sit-back for a moment and reflect upon the nature of a question, as well as our ability to formulate and ask a question, we see, that we are dealing with a remarkable "tool". It is a most basic intellectual tool with which we shape and create our beliefs, as well as those notions and ideas, which, eventually, become so trusted and reliable, that we equate them, without further questions, with "The Truth" as it really exists. We often stake a great deal of our security and well-being on the assumption that these beliefs will, indeed, give us the results we expect and need.

On the other hand, we know, that the function of a question goes far beyond a simple refinement or re-shaping of our beliefs. A question acts as a two-edged sword. A pointed or barbed question may be a feared instrument that can expose pomposity, deceit, uncertainty or plain guess-work, but, it may also expose the ignorance of the questioner and the erroneous assumptions that lie at the foundation of a question.

A question may reveal our hostility, skepticism and disloyalty towards someone, or some official institution. It may reveal our doubts about the leadership of our community, and, it may, even, show a disturbing measure of disrespect towards the most sacred beliefs, rituals, attitudes and notions of our social environment and cultural guidelines.

The ability to ask incisive questions, to sort out a mass of conflicting opinions and rumors, and, to formulate the most logical and appealing decisions for further action, may put us in a position of leadership, but, the ability to question, to ponder about what others take for granted, together with the desire to know the reasons for a belief that is accepted without questions by everyone else, may make us an out-cast or a target for suspicion and hostility.

Many people have lost their life, because they dared to question what the community had accepted as an unshakeable, unquestionable, absolute truth. Questions may build our certainties and increase our confidence, but, they can also shake the most solid foundations of our assumptions and beliefs, leaving us bewildered and vulnerable. Relentless questioning may leave us tired and discouraged, asking ourselves timidly, whether there is, then, anything we can believe in; whether or not there are any truths at all, and, if there are no absolute truths, where do we go from here? Or, do we accept the notion, that life is just one big and futile joke, with a large, empty and bottomless hole at the end?

We see, then, that the realm of inquiry, and, in particular, its effects upon the well-being of ourselves and others around us, is as wide as the range of our existential concerns, and, the tool of inquiry, as well as the cultural regulations that guide and limit the use of this tool, are all aspects we should concern ourselves with in our discussion about "the art of asking questions". What, then, is a question?

A question is a special sort of communication, where we invite someone who is telling a story, or stating a fact, or, who is providing us with some sort of information, opinion or rumor, to clarify certain details or apparent contradictions. There are several major areas of concern we may want clarified and elaborated. The primary purpose of most, "average questions", is a request for more details about a particular aspect in the communication that puzzles us.

For example, if the author of a story or a communication tells us something about his experiences and adventures in a far-away country, we may be intrigued by a certain feature, and, we want to hear more about it. We may want to know more about the peoples involved in a particular happening. We may want to know, how it all started, who was involved, what the outcome of it was, where and when it took place, who saw or witnessed the event, who knew about it, what sort of effect or reception the event had, etc., etc.

We see, clearly, that the list of questions we can ask, is nearly endless, and, quickly, any honest story-teller or communicator will have to say, that he does not know the answer to some of these questions. Here, we touch upon another important aspect, because the way a communicator outlines what he knows, or does not know, what he saw, heard or experienced himself, and, what he heard about, read about or was told, gives an important indication to the audience about the "quality" of the report. If someone tells a story, or, if someone communicates an event, an experience or an experiment, but fails to distinguish, clearly, between those aspects that are definitely known and agreed-upon, and those, that are open to speculation and various interpretations, then, the credibility of the author is limited.

True, the credibility, or the "authority", of an author rests, seldom, solely upon the quality of his communication, and, the factor of credibility or authority is almost always determined beforehand; by the position and the reputation of the author. This absolves the audience from the need to be highly critical and to evaluate, carefully, what is being said. We are all somewhat lazy, or, at least, we have a tendency to be lazy, and, if we can accept that a particular statement or bit of information comes from a "highly reliable source", we can relax, and, we can accept the fact at face value, without having to scrutinise the contents carefully, and, without the need to see, whether or not all aspects of a particular communication fit-in well with the way we see and interpret reality.

We see, then, that, any communication could be subjected to further questioning and scrutiny. We could ask about the details of any one particular feature in the communication, but, interwoven with this communication, we experience, and rely upon, a measure of authority and trustworthiness, depending on the stature or reputation of the author or communicator.

Apart from a quest for detail, or a re-assurance about authority and trustworthiness of the communication, we may also concern ourselves with the relevance of a particular fact or event, together with its significance and impact upon the circumstances of our own existence. For example, if someone tells us, in great detail, about his experiences and adventures, we may quickly become bored with all the details, unless the adventures and events have a special significance for us. If not, we fail to see the reason, why we should know or be interested in these details, and, we may urge the communicator to come to the point; to skip the details; to move-on to the next event, or, we may ask the author to put his experiences in a more relevant perspective.

We may ask him his opinion about the overall trends of a society or a community he has been observing. We may want to know, to what extent these people are similar or different from us. We may want to kow, how they have organised themselves; what their leadership structure is like; what sort of religion they follow, or, what kind of social institutions they have; what they do, make, or grow, etc.

In all communications, the communicated facts, events, ideas, opinions or hypotheses and speculations of the communicator, must have some sort of a relevance for the listener or the reader. If this is not the case, he or she may, rightfully, ask the question, why one should bother to listen to the author, or, why one should read someone's books or essays. This is the reason, why a purely autobiographical story has limited value, because the events, happenings and experiences that have made an impression upon the author, may have little significance for someone else, unless the author realises, intuitively, that he or she has to emphasise those features, thoughts, feelings and emotions which can arouse a measure of recognition in the reader.

Actually, we have to qualify this statement, or, rather, we have to amplify it, because, a mere recognition is not sufficient to arouse someone's interest. If someone recognises a familiar thought, attitude, notion, opinion or description of a particular event, the reaction will be; "so what?" In order for a communicator to be "relevant", one must touch in the reader a sense of curiosity or stimulate a process of anticipation. The reader must, somehow, be made alert, and, he must experience a sense of intrigue about what is happening next. Here, we see the importance of "plot-lines", and other techniques in the way a story is presented, in order to arouse the maximum amount of curiosity.

A philosopher who writes essays in the hope, that, some day, a few people will be interested to hear or read what he has, or had, to say, has to make sure, that he presents his ideas as clearly and concisely as possible, and, yet, these thoughts and ideas should represent adequately all the nuances and details they deserve. If these ideas are just common place notions, people will again ask themselves, "so what", and, they will close the book on him, but, if his ideas are quite far removed from the way most people see reality and interpret the world around them, he is, of course, in danger of failing to make contact with the reader. People will look at his writings and struggle through a few pages with complex sentences and difficult words, and, they will ask themselves; "what does it mean? What is he trying to say? It seems rather strange", and, they will, then, also close the book.

The secret of writing philosophical essays is, therefore, first of all, to have a clear idea about the subject one wants to discuss, and, secondly, one has to have a fairly clear idea, what sort of audience one is writing for. Obviously, in every social environment, and, at any particular period of time in the evolution of thoughts and reality perceptions, the level of understanding, as well as the way people look at reality, varies so much, that no-one can write something that will be relevant for everybody at the same time.

A writer of philosophical essays, in particular, when writing and reading such essays is not "in vogue", will have to practice and polish his art for a long time, so that he can use the instrument of language with ease, confidence and precision. Then, he should be willing to write and re-write his ideas countless times, not so much with the purpose to reach a perfect piece of work, but, in recognition of the fact, that, many different ways of formulating the same basic truths or principles may make it, eventually, possible for a reader to understand the ideas in about the same way as they were conceived by the author.

This willingness to strive, continuously, for increased precision, as well as a high level of perfection, applies to all forms of writing or verbal communication, and, it is certainly not limited to the writing of philosophical essays. Story-tellers or novelists have usually an easier time to capture the imagination of the reading public, because, most people find it much easier to identify with well-drawn characters than with precisely defined ideas, and, people are easier "swept-up" by a series of events, happenings, encounters and adventures, compared to the unfolding of complex notions, ideas, speculations and variable interpretations of reality.

Just as a good story-teller will encourage and anticipate critical and sceptical questions from his audience, so is a good philosophical essay-writer forever trying to stimulate the interest and curiosity of his readers. He, too, tries to anticipate and stimulate critical attitudes and incisive questions; not only, questions about further details or further elaborations about a particular idea, but, also, questions about the credibility and authority of the statements that are being advanced. Finally, a philosopher will also have to answer questions about the significance and relevance of his works and ideas.

.......

Chapter 2

Content

There are four major categories of questions.
The quest for detail, or "precision", and, when questioning serves the purpose of feeding the attitude of "hope".
Questions to outline a "range of philosophical concerns".
The desire to see relationships, an overall meaning, or a purpose behind a flow of information.
Questions that are centered around existential significance; "what is the use, or meaning, of this particular information for me?"
When a communication becomes a form of "entertainment".
The relevance of a work of art depends, entirely, on the level of interest it evokes.
Questions related to authority and credibility are the most controversial questions one can ask.
The fine art of "needling".
When a question becomes a challenge to credibility or authority.
Rethorical questions.
In the way we ask a question, we communicate a great deal of information.
The "tone" of a question.
Interrogation and intimidation.
Techniques for determining the reliability of information.
A look at the inter-play between questions and answers in routine contacts.
The evolution of the art of asking questions.
The ability to give names to our awarenesses.
A short review of the emergence of symbolic representations.
A "wave of recognition" arose, when the first successful imitations took place.
A gradual rise of the awareness of imprecision.
When details became verbalisable, many awarenesses could be sharply delineated by shifting, continuously, the focus of attention.
We do not recognise, anymore, a complex situation "as a whole".
The "deja vue" phenomenon; a somewhat primitive and "holistic" way of "apparently recognising" a similar or familiar situation.
A failure to appreciate fine differences.
We need to grasp reality "accurately", in a never-ending search for viability.
Only a few people seem inclined to make use of the possibility to develop a sophisticated perception of reality.
The primary tool for shaping a precise perception of reality is the question.
The birth of the symbolic representation for an act of inquiry.

Let us review the four major categories in which we can classify a large majority of questions, and, we will elaborate on them later, after we have presented them in outline. As we have seen, one important category is the attempt to obtain further details. The quest for further details can itself be classified into two broad sub-varieties. We can request more details for the sake of curiosity; because we want to increase, for one reason or another, the precision of our knowledge.

However the circumstances may not be emotionally neutral, and, the communication may be highly emotional and existentially significant, in particular, if the communication is a message of hope and "good news", or, "good rumors". Such may happen during a period of severe, chronic stress, e.g., when people live under foreign occupation or have been rounded-up into a concentration camp. The message will be seized-upon with great enthousiasm, and, the author of the message will have to repeat, again and again, every detail, as everyone in the audience dwells with a feeling of hope and expectation on the meaning of this tid-bit of information. The communication may be an actual message or exhortation of a respected leader, but, it may also be an event, a small happening, an "omen", or, it may be an elaborate scrutiny of an apparently insignificant event, which has become a focus for the attitude of hope. Then, the communication is "highly charged", and the request for further details is not for the purpose of an intellectual or scientific scrutiny, but to sustain the attitude of hope, which fosters, in turn, an attitude of endurance.

A second large category of questions, could be called the desire for a "philosophical range", or, the quest for an overall perspective. Here the quest for knowledge is focussed upon the relationships with other fields, and, indirectly, upon an overall meaning. In this category, we are dealing, primarily, with a state of emotional neutrality. We are not concerned with understanding more details of a particular aspect, but, we try to fit the communication into the overall framework of our reality perceptions. As long as we remain emotionally more or less neutral, and, as long as we concentrate upon understanding and knowing the relationships of a particular fact or event, we remain in this category of the "philosophical range".

However, this category is linked, to some extent, to the third category, where we are trying to answer the basic, existentially significant question; "what is the use or meaning of this particular information for me?". The answers to such a question may be many and varied, and, the type of questions we ask within this category reveal a great deal of our assumptions, attitudes and orientation. For example, we may be strongly egocentrically oriented, and the basic question will then be; "what is in it for me"? But, most often, we are more sophisticated than that, and, the range of questions we ask center around basic concerns that involve the whole community; "To what extent is this or that knowledge or bit of information going to help us in our efforts to solve the problems we encounter, either as an individual, a family, a small community, or the society at large?".

These questions do not really arise, if the communication is meant to be some form of "entertainment", where the primary objective is to capture the attention and to move an audience to laughter or to tears. The question of usefulness is, then, automatically answered by the judgement that the communication, often elaborated as a stage-presentation or a "play", is "liked". The information-value of a communication may then become irrelevant, in particular, if the play is presented as a fictitious story or a legend. The relevance of a work of art depends, therefore, on the degree of interest it can hold; its wit, its moving force, or, the extent to which the audience can recognise actual events, circumstances or personalities, such as in the presentation of a clever and audacious political or social satire.

The fourth and last category of questions is related to the authority and credibility of a communication or communicator, and, we see, here, a broad range of attitudes and behaviour-patterns, which are predominantly characterised by an atmosphere of competitiveness and strife. Obviously, questions that fall into this last category, are the most dangerous and potentially the most offensive and explosive, as we all know from experience, even, if we often fail to realise, clearly, why certain questions arouse so much suspicion and animosity. Many of us become adept in the fine art of "needling", where questions can reveal a wide range of challenge and scepticism, and, where we are careful not to overstep the boundaries of what is tolerated.

In every social environment, the hierachical relationships of the people are complex, and, they reflect a combination of personal merit and hard work, as well as positions that are based on favouritism and nepotism. Questions that challenge an existing power-structure are then almost as "inflammatory" as an open challenge to someone's position of privilege and authority, and, we should, therefore, not be surprised to see, that such questions generate a great deal of "heat".

If a question reveals a slight doubt about the accuracy of a particular communication, it may be interpreted as a simple quest for more details, but, if the question undermines the assumptions of truth, which are held by the communicator, and, perhaps, by a majority of the audience as well, then, the question may arouse a certain irritability, because the author and the audience ask, intuitively, a question in return; "Do you think that I am lying?". From a slight doubt in the credibility or accuracy of someone's statement, or, in particular, someone's interpretation of a particular fact that has been a topic of discussion, a question may go all the way to a frontal assault, like; "Can you give me one good reason, why I should believe that you are telling the truth?".

Outside these four major categories, we see a number of other "questions", which do not function as a true inquiry. For example, there is the rethorical question, which is really not a question at all, but, rather, an exhortation, or an appeal for support and agreement. In this case, a question is designed to support a particular statement or communication, rather than to invite criticism and scrutiny. Then, there is the question that is used merely as an opener for a conversation; "How are you?", etc.

Undoubtedly, there are questions, that do not fall, clearly, into the four categories we have mentioned above, but, let us now turn our attention to the question, what a question really is; how it arose, and, how it fits-in with the development of language-communication in general. A question is a form of communication, but, unlike other communications, where we tell a story, make a statement, convey information, or state a fact, we are inviting a communicator to give us more information; to continue his story, to elaborate on a statement, or, to give us a background or over-view of the topic under discussion. However, in the way we ask a question, we communicate a great deal of information as well. The "tone" of the question determines, whether or not we reveal an attitude of submission and awe, or, challenge and doubt, about the authority of a communicator. However, a question may also reveal a business-like atmosphere between more or less equal partners, who are interested in communicating a specific subject in a precise and efficient manner.

A question may also be part of an "interrogation", if the person, who has the desired information, is in a position of weakness. If one has been captured as a spy or enemy soldier, or, if one is suspected of having committed or witnessed a crime, the act of questioning may become aggressive. Intimidation may be used to prevent any attempt to hide facts or knowledge, or, the interrogator may scrutinise, closely and aggressively, with a series of trick-questions or cross-references to previous statements and remarks, whether or not the answers and the information given, are complete, coherent and reliable.

In every dialogue, we see, that a question forms an important tool in the exchange of information between people, and it is frequently used to change a topic of conversation. Most of us use questions so routinely, that we hardly realise, how we are continuously engaged in an inter-play between questions and answers, inviting, one moment, information from someone else, while giving information, a moment later.

How did we, as a species, develop the ability to communicate with a rapid flow of words that are usually strung-together as meaningful sentences? This is a fascinating question, and, on previous occasions, we have indulged in a speculative imagery that traces this development from its earliest, evolutionary beginnings. Here, we will only touch, briefly, upon the main ideas, and, let us recall, that, a "conscious image", is a mental image of an experience, an object or an event, to which we have been able to give a name. This ability to give names to our experiences, means, that we can evoke, voluntarily, a large number of memory-traces into a focus of awareness.

Later, concepts and ideas can be recalled by learning the appropriate names. These names or word-symbols must have been taught to us, first, by someone from our cultural environment, in a process of "cultural transfer", or "secondary learning", and, then, we can recall these word-symbols in a dialogue with someone else, or with ourselves. We can recall mental images by uttering their names or representative word-symbols in some sort of a silent dialogue with ourselves, whenever we are alone and are thinking or reminiscing about one thing or another. This ability to give a name to our awarenesses arose in the distant past of human evolution, when a number of anthropoid species' were exploring the potential of "symbolic representation". Our ancestors were particularly successful in these explorations, and, we have become heir to these evolutionary developments.

By accident, or, by necessity, (depending upon our point of view), our ancestors explored, very actively, the ability, as well as the consequences of successful imitations and gesticulations, which could stimulate, ever more frequently and with greater ease, a memory-recall in the audience of onlookers. The recalled mental imagery would correspond closely to the type of mental imagery the "author" of such an act of gesticulation or imitation had in mind, when he began a series of imitative acts. These pre-human animals embarked on a series of elaborate, dance-like, imitative gesticulations, in order to give some sort of expression to the vivid mental imagery that was going through their minds.

A "wave of recognition" was experienced by the audience, and, from this "act of recognition", the ability developed to recall, with a series of gesticulations, imitations and vocalisations, a number of memory-traces or experiences. We have discussed, before, that the importance of this evolutionary trend lies in the fact, that, for the first time in the history of the evolution of life, it was possible for a group of behaviourally flexible animals to re-stimulate, deliberately and within the relative safety of their "home environment", the memory-traces of a series of highly important, existentially significant experiences, such as a dangerous hunt, a narrow escape, the sighting of a prey, the finding of a tool or a weapon, an encounter with another member of the species, etc.

Eventually, the symbols representing a particular memory-trace or experience became "stylised", because, even, a sketchy outline of an imitation became sufficient to recall the appropriate experience into a focus of attention. The memory-traces that were evoked into a focus of attention or awareness by such a complex act of imitation and gesticulations, were representative of a highly complex event or happening, and, only later, was it possible to distinguish between the numerous aspects or details of a recalled event or experience.

The elaboration of details has become a characteristic feature of our modern ability to describe an event or a situation. First, however, these details had to find a separate symbolic representation, before they could be brought, specifically and separately, into a focus of attention.

Look, how many aspects we can name and see in any complex event or situation. This means, that, slowly, numerous details and aspects of an event or experience became verbalised, and, as a result, these events and experiences evolved into much sharper entities of awareness. Now, we have come so far in the evolution and synthesis of a complex reality perception, that we imagine, automatically, the reality of a complex event with the help of numerous separate word-symbols, strung-together into a number of sentences or paragraphs.

We do not "recognise", anymore, a complex situation "as a whole", which was, presumably, the way our ancestors recognised an event. Perhaps, we still see such a "recognition as a whole" in certain exceptional circumstances, such as a "deja vue" phenomenon. This seems to be a somewhat primitive and "holistic" way of recognising, or, rather, of "apparently recognising" a similar situation, because we lack the alertness at the moment we experience a "deja vue", to distinguish, sharply, between those features we have, indeed, experienced before, and those features, which make the recent experience a unique and contemporary one; an experience we never experienced before "exactly as it is happening now".

However, this is an aside. Let us return to the idea, that, initially, our pre-human ancestors learned to re-stimulate complex and existentially significant memory-sequences, which were etched sharply into their memory-banks because of the excitement and the existential significance that were attached to a particular experience. Only later, was it possible to "see" the numerous details of objects and events that were taking place simultaneously, because the many different features and qualities of the various sense-perceptions became verbalised, or, at least, verbalisable, into separately communicable symbols. The reasons for this trend towards an ever greater perception of details, and, an ever more integrated system of coherent reality perceptions, were the same, then, as they are now.

The reason is, of course, that we need to grasp reality as accurately as possible in a never ending search for well-being and survival. If we compare our reality perceptions with those of ancient man, we see, that it is, at least, possible for us to analyse and synthesise a reality perception on a much larger and more sophisticated scale than in the past, but, unfortunately, only a handful of people seem to be inclined to make use of the possibility, and the opportunity, to develop a sophisticated perception of reality.

The tools and methods with which our ancestors, as well as we, ourselves, cultivate the "soil" of our conscious awarenesses and shape the belief-structures in which we orden our sense-impressions, are basically the same. This tool is the question, or, the inquiry. In its most primitive form, the inquiry must have been only a vague notion, that a particular act of mimicry, including the corresponding memory-trace, was not quite clear, or, that it was somewhat ambiguous.

At least, a few of the most perceptive members in the audience would feel, quite correctly, that a particular symbolic representation could refer to more than one memory-trace or experience, and, it is perfectly natural to assume, that such a notion, in particular, if it was stimulated again and again into a vague sense of conscious awareness, would, eventually, find an expression in some sort of act, mimicry or gesticulation. As soon as this act was understood by others to mean an invitation to sharpen the precision of a particular symbolic representation, the symbolic representation of the act of inquiry had been born.

.......

Chapter 3

Content

Attitudes that suppress the tendency to ask questions.
A more sober and less "anthropocentric" interpretation of the faculty of conscious awareness.
Questions and suspicions about the evolutionary imagery of the sciences.
The dissection of a complex problem into many smaller "sub-problems" that can be solved, step by step.
The crossing of a river as an example of complex problem-solving.
Making decisions.
The "hard work" of obtaining reliable answers to a large number of problems.
Followers rely upon other people in an attitude of hope and faith.
A severe loss, when a trusted leader perishes.
Followers may have to become leaders, suddenly and unexpectedly.
A school curriculum that stimulates the faculties of thought and analysis, as well as judgement and practical decision-making.
The attitudes of confidence and self-reliance are based on a feeling of justice and security.
The art of scrutinising the assumptions that lie behind a question.
What questions can reveal.
Using the tools of inquiry to challenge authority.
The difficult problem of pointing-out short-comings in an existing leadership structure, without attacking a position of legitimate authority.
How to attack corruption.
When we accept the status-quo as "the norm".
When we are unable to formulate our goals and questions clearly.
Drifting aimlessly through life.
We always face some sort of problem.
A chronic anxiety about income and job-security.
Relying, increasingly, upon connections to maintain our position in the social environment.
We all remain captive to existential anxieties.
We tend to look to others to solve our problems.
All specialised knowledge and expertise depend on pre-conceived ideas because of the complex nature of specialised expertise.
We have to take a very large portion of "teachings" at face value, without the ability, or time, to scrutinise, in detail, the accuracy or truthfulness of what we have been taught.
A look back from the top.
We may die as ignorant as when we began our professional climb.
The art of reflection may serve the search for a unified view-point and coherent philosophy.

The technique of asking questions has been evolving ever since those early developments of mimicry and gesticulation. We are still increasing the understanding of what we are doing, when we engage in a communication of questions and answers, and, only recently, have we begun to understand, a little better, the nature of conscious awareness.

The feeling or experience of consciousness is still such a mystery to most of us, (who are perceptive and sensitive enough to think about the uniqueness of this ability), that we tend to adopt a reverent attitude of awe towards human existence. Traditionally, man has come to the conclusion, that such a mysterious and powerful ability to be consciously aware, to have a deliberate will, and, to be able to think and anticipate events, was a reflection of the abilities and qualities of the Divine Creator Himself, and, man and his earth must, therefore, have been the center-piece in the many activities of the Divine Creator, who created man as well as everything else he could see around himself.

Now, we have a more "down-to-earth" and less "anthropocentric" interpretation of the ability of concious awareness, but, this entire package of evolutionary concepts and ideas is still not generally known and accepted, and, many perceptive and intelligent people, who have not been thoroughly exposed to scientific concepts, are somewhat suspicious about the apparently arrogant presumptions of the sciences. Many people would like to ask a lot of questions about the sciences, and, in particular, about our contemporary scientific interpretations, before they would be willing to trust the imagery of natural evolution; before they would be able to accept the concepts of evolution as a major organising principle for the interpretation of their realities.

We should, indeed, try to provide everyone with a detached and persuasive imagery about the nature of all existence, including our own, and, especially, with the ideas that let us visualise the emergence of conscious awarenesses. Therefore, it is important to concern ourselves with these ideas, and, it is quite useful to have a sensible, "working hypothesis" about the way conscious awareness, symbolic representations, as well as the abilty to ask a question, came into being.

In order to answer the question, why people differ so markedly in the range of questions they may have, we will have to review, briefly, the existential concerns that play a role in our existence. We see, first of all, that questions are asked, primarily, about a specific problem, and, this introduces immediately an immense variety of potential inquiries, since the problems and conditions of existence are so different. In order to solve a specific problem, we have to analyse the components of this problem in such a way, that we can, eventually, design a series of steps to solve the problem we are faced with. In other words; the totality of a problem, (which is a problem because of the fact, that we do not have an immediately apparent solution for it), is "dissected" into smaller parts, or "sub-problems", which have to be "solvable". In this way, we can transform the larger problem, without an apparent solution, to a series of smaller problems, which do have a solution.

If we want to cross a river without a bridge, we will have to solve the problem how to get across. We have to answer the question, what we can use to accomplish this; what we can take with us, and, what would be the best, or, rather, the easiest place to cross the river. It may well be, that, further on, either up-stream or down-stream, the river will be much easier to cross, but, the journey to get there may be difficult, or, we may not have sufficient information to make the decision, whether or not there is, indeed, a much better place to cross the river within a reasonable distance.

Here, we see, together with the ability to analyse and dissect the problem into a number of sub-problems, the importance of authority. If someone in the community knows about such a place, and, in particular, if that individual is an experienced leader, the people will gladly rely on his judgements and decision-making capabilities to get them across. We may state, as a general principle, that the main difference between those, who are leaders, and, those, who are folowers, lies in the willingness with which followers are substituting a measure of decision-making, (the hard work of seeking reliable answers to difficult problems, which have been transformed into a series of practical answers to a number of precise and detailed questions), with an attitude of hope and faith in the capabilities and wisdom of their leaders. This is the reason, why the average person is average, and, why he tends to remain average throughout his life.

Being average may be an advantage, as well as a liability, because the average individual contributes to the cohesion of a small grouping by following the decisions of the leader. However, followers are not capable of solving important problems on their own, if they ever come to be without their trusted leader, and, we see, here, the reason, why a leadership always emerges anew. If a leader perishes, a new leader will come to the fore, because a group of people can rarely function adequately without the authority and decision-making capabilities of a leader.

It is logical, then, that people in a position of leadership and responsibility will be far more active mentally, because their position in society brings to the fore the need to make decisions, or, the giving of advise, and, this requires a clear perception of the problems and possibilities given in any particular situation. However, average people, even those who do not expect to become leaders in the future, still have to excercise their talents of thought and inquiry as much as they can, because, sooner or later, they may find themselves in a position where they have to make decisions. They may find, that they can not run to someone else for help or advice, and, it should, therefore, be a hallmark of a healthy social environment and a far-sighted leadership to include in the school curriculum of its youngsters, a program that stimulates thought and analysis, as well as practical decision-making.

A wide range of familiarity with the problems of existence, as well as a measure of self-reliance, determination, perseverance and endurance, are qualities that prepare the ground for new and innovative leadership to emerge. However, such confident attitudes can only be bred into the youngsters of a social environment, if they can really feel to be part of it; if they can see a future for themselves and their families; if they can ask questions, and verify for themselves, that the rules of society are applied fairly and justly. Otherwise, their attitudes will remain, primarily, egocentric, and they will be unable to identify with the problems of the larger society. Here, again, we see, that the attitudes of confidence and self-reliance, tie-in with a sense of justice and a feeling of security, and, it is worthwhile to emphasise, a little more in detail, why asking a question is so easily interpreted as a challenge, and, why it, often, takes courage to ask the really important questions that are on one's mind.

If an individual restricts himself to the first category in a quest for more details, and, if this request is obviously logical and needed, such questions are easily accepted by the authorities. If the quest for more details is not based on a practical or pragmatic reason, then, the questioner may be looked-at with some puzzlement. If the reasoning behind the question reveals a number of assumptions that are incorrect, a good teacher will gently, but firmly, and without embarrassing the questioner, point-out, where the question was based on erroneous assumptions, and, he will make sure, that other people, or pupils, will learn from this question, because it is likely, that, they, too, may have had the same misconceptions and erroneous asumptions as the individual who asked the question.

If questions reveal a doubt in the fairness or justice of society, they arouse easily irritation, as well as a feeling of alienation, since the people in a position of authority identify, automatically, with the institutions in their society, and, a criticism of "their society", regardless, how veiled or cautiously formulated, may imply a criticism of them as well. People in a position of authority and responsibility become defensive, if the question can be interpreted as a request for the verification of accuracy or credibility, or, if the question challenges a position of authority.

Let us look at the motivations, why people are likely to use the tools of inquiry to challenge authority and credibility, or, to question the justice and fairness of a social event or institution. If the question is based on the concrete knowledge and experience of an injustice, an act of corruption or neglect, inefficiency or incompetence, then, a carefully stated series of facts about a particular incident, together with a carefully shaped series of questions that touch upon the responsibilities of the leadership and its institutions, without pointing an accusing finger at any particular individual, is a far more effective method to obtain a correction, than a wild and emotional accusation that can not be fully substantiated.

Indeed, the task of pointing-out short-comings in an existing power-structure and its bureaucratic channels, requires a great deal of tact and skill, if one wants to avoid the impression, that the question is designed to undermine, embarrass or attack a position of legitimate authority. True, even, if one has strong suspicions, based on indirect evidence, that, indeed, a particular person in a position of power is abusing this position and is behaving corruptly, it is, often, diffcult to get the necessary facts and details in order to activate the proper channels of authority, and, to get them to investigate the allegations and institute the necessary corrective measures. Often, corrupt practices and attitudes are widespread throughout a hierarchy, and it becomes impossible for a government or leadership to castigate or remove a corrupt part, because it is itself ever so slightly tainted by corruption.

However, most of us are not in a position of power, nor, are we interested in exposing possible corruption within the hierachy of the government and its bureaucracy. Most of us take the existing power relationships for granted, and, we become so accustomed to the practice that people in a position of power acquire a few more privileges and assets compared to those who are not in this position, that such practices are accepted as "the norm". Consequently, when we rise to a position of power, we do the same, and, we adhere to the same tacit code of "slight corruption" that condones the usurpation of minor privileges and advantages for one's own use, while frowning-upon any openly corrupt attitudes and practices.

Within this framework of accepting the social and political circumstances as we find them, we formulate the goals and ambitions of our life, and, we see these goals and ambitions clearly reflected in the problems we have, as well as the type of questions we ask. Often, we do not formulate a clear-cut goal or ambition from an early age, and, we will then be unable to formulate any questions clearly. Frequently, we drift somewhat, until we realise, that we will never accomplish anything worthwhile, and, that we will never enjoy a measure of respect from our family and friends, unless we pull ourselves together, work hard and consistently, and, do our utmost to make something of ourselves. As we formulate our goals more precisely, we will, also, improve the ability to ask questions and analyse problems.

However, even, if we do succeed in becoming "someone", such as, e.g., a trusted member of a trade-union or professional organisation, we still face many problems that are not easily solved. As we grow older, the pressures mount. We may have to cope with marital problems or other pressures at home, a dependency on alcohol, tobacco or other drugs, and, there are always obstacles to overcome, barriers to climb, stresses to be dealt with. In short, our lives seem to be a never-ending struggle. We are always caught-up in some sort of a struggle, and, when we look at this phenomenon from a broader perspective, we see, indeed, that we all have a tendency to "rise" in our social environments, until we find a level or position that absorbs all our energies.

In our modern societies, we tend to become pre-occupied with a chronic anxiety about our income, or "cash-flow", which we need to meet the financial and other obligations we have taken-upon ourselves. In all these activities by the successful social climbers in a modern, affluent, Capitalistic society, the orientation remains strongly egocentric, in particular, when we are young and still trying to find our place. When we come into middle-age, we settle into a more or less comfortable routine, and, we come to rely, increasingly, upon our connnections and associations in order to maintain our position in society. We may give the impression, that we have become socially concerned people, and, we may, indeed, concern ourselves more with social issues, but, we never forget to maintain our status in society, in our professional organisation or the community as a whole, because we really do not know, anymore, how to get-along without this social status.

As a member of "the establishment", our questions reveal strong assumptions about the justification of the status-quo, and, we will be the first to react with irritation, scorn or alarm to any question that seems to challenge the status-quo and our comfortable position. The range of our questions has become "conservative", and, our conservative attitudes are ever more apparent in the sort of questions we tolerate from others. The point we want to make, here, is the fact, that, nearly everyone, regardless of the position one occupies in society, remains captive to existential anxieties and concerns. If we are a follower or an average individual, we tend to rely, heavily, on others to solve these existential problems for us. We look to the government or the unions, to professional organisations, politicians and civic institutions to provide us with a sufficient income; to find work for us, and, to solve most of our collective and individual problems.

However, the fact, that we are looking towards others to solve our poblems, does not make us less egocentric. On the contrary, we are angry and militant, or, perhaps, dejected and passive, but, the sphere of concern is still narrowly drawn around our own existence, or, around the social class or group we belong to. If we have risen into a more specialised professional position, or, if we have succeeded in the particular career we have chosen, we learn, better, how to deal with people, and solve some of their poblems for them, usually, for a hefty fee. Nevertheless, we are still pre-occupied with our own existential problems, because we remain exposed to many different pressures and tensions. Even, those of us, who become professionally employed in looking after some aspects of individual and social health, are still submerged in existential problems.

Our professional field and range of contacts is, still, relatively narrow, and, we rely, to a large extent, on pre-conceived notions and ideas, which we have absorbed during our training. Unfortunately, all forms of specialised knowledge and expertise depend, very heavily, on pre-conceived ideas and notions because of the complexity and range of knowledge that has to be absorbed. It becomes, therefore, increasingly apparent, that, very important decisions, be they medical, social, political or military in nature, are taken within a reality perception that is clouded by pre-conceived notions or outright erroneous assumptions, and, it is obvious, that the results of such decisions are going to put us for increasingly disastrous surprises.

It is not surprising, that some of us, in particular, after a long journey to the top, look-back with a certain bewilderment upon this long climb upon the social and professional ladder, and, we ask ourselves why we did it. Was it worthwhile? While we gained security and prestige, we still feel, that we do not understand all that much more than we did before, and, we are more clearly aware of the fact, that there are now more problems and questions than before. We notice to our dismay, that our professional contribution seems to be so insignificant, compared to the immense problems that are tearing into our societies. We become restless and we fear, that we will die as ignorant as when we started this professional climb. Then, a long process of re-evaluation begins, which is interpreted by the social surroundings as "foolhardy" and a waste of time.

Such reflective people feel, perhaps, largely intuitively, that the blinkers on their field of vision and understanding are due to the continuing influence of existential concerns in their own lives, and, eventually, it dawns on them, that, a truly broad perspective about the problems of individual and social existence, can only come, when the hubbub of participating in this professional and social life has been exchanged for a quiet and forgotten existence, somewhere in the country-site, because, only then, is it possible to formulate, slowly, a series of questions and answers, which may lead to a unified point of view and a coherent philosophy of human existence.

.......

Chapter 4

Content

Existential over-tones of the desire to acquire a comprehensive over-view.
The search for "conceptual mastery".
Laying to rest a relentless army of doubts and questions.
Is the tendency to question an inborn affinity?
Everyone has the ability to learn to speak and ask questions.
The ability to use intellectual faculties should be part of a harmonious personality development for every youngster.
Learning, intuitively, when to ask, and, when to keep one's mouth shut, and eyes and ears open.
The art of learning more than is apparent from the overt answers.
The art of posing a series of precise, well-tailored, but gently probing questions that stop short of arousing anger or irritation.
A trustful and confident personality is needed to ask honest and precise questions.
The community has to be comfortable with the practice of asking incisive questions.
Simple life-forms do not "have problems", but react as the result of an "algebraic summation" of contrasting stimuli.
The origins of "aggressive" behaviour-patterns.
An environment with contradictory signals.
The physiology of the nerve-cell.
The behavioural response depends on the balance, and, later, on the spatial organisation of environmental stimuli.
Exploring behavioural possibilities, as well as the role of limitations and restrictions.
Learning always takes place within a framework of "tolerances".
The conscious sphere of reality allows us, frequently, to "avoid getting into trouble" through the faculty of fore-sight.
A review of the function and development of "belief-structures".
Leaving our conscious awareness free to concentrate on sense impressions that can not be categorised easily and constitute, therefore, a "problem".
Developing a "feel" for the situation at hand.
The conscious sphere of reality perceptions and rational responses is only the tip of an ice-berg of inter-actions with our natural and social environments.
A large factor of intuitive decision-making.
The role of an "emotional bias", or filter for our sense impressions.
Learning to live with an imperfect grasp over our realities.

I am certainly aware of the fact, that the motivation to acquire a philosophical broadness of understanding, still has existential over-tones; perhaps, not in the sense, that one hopes to make a living by writing philosophical essays, (such a notion disappears quite quickly, after one experiences that few, if any, people are willing to make a serious effort to look at one's work), but the existential concerns are still there. After all, the search for a broad philosophical understanding is based upon the desire for conceptual and intellectual "mastery"; not in the sense, that such a mastery is used to gain personally, not, even, to impress colleagues or create an aura of prestige and power, but, for the sake of understanding and laying to rest this relentless army of doubts and questions, which keeps coming to the fore, after one has made a life-long practice of scrutinising every reality perception one comes across.

The question arises, then, whether or not the tendency to ask questions is, at least, in part, an inborn quality, like an affinity for music. This is probably true, and, there is, indeed, a marked variability in the inclination to develop the art of questioning, but, let us not forget, that asking questions is an integral part of the genetic endowment of the potential to acquire the skill of conceptual communications, and, we know, now, that every human being has, at least, the potential to learn to speak and communicate with symbols and conceptual abstractions.

True, it depends, to a large extent, upon the circumstances of someone's development, as well as upon the type and nature of someone's experiences, whether or not the ability of conceptual abstraction, thought and questioning, is being cultivated. If we happen to grow-up in an environment where communications and interpersonal relationships are primarily emotional in nature, our development will, naturally, remain intellectually somewhat fuzzy. On the other hand, an excessive emphasis by proud parents to stimulate the ability to ask questions and learn intellectually, may easily lead to a somewhat pedantic attitude that is shunned by other children.

Ideally, the abilities of intellectual communication, precision of thought, coherence of beliefs, as well as the ability to refine knowledge with the tools of inquiry, should be part of an overall, harmonious educational curriculum, where a child learns to communicate in an atmosphere of openness and trust. Then, the tools of inquiry and understanding are not abused as a weapon to dominate and intimidate. In this way, a child learns, intuitively, when, and where, the tools of inquiry are helpful and acceptable, and, when, and where, it is preferable to keep one's mouth shut and one's eyes open; where it is best to get-on with the tasks at hand, and make the best of a less than ideal situation.

The art of inquiry depends, therefore, upon our orientation and outlook, but, it also depends upon an intuitive appreciation for the fact, that, too strongly an egocentric, dominating or challenging attitude, only causes friction, and may do more harm than good. An intelligent use of the tool of inquiry is to learn more than is apparent from the overt answers; to note, how an answer is given; what is not said, or, what sort of emphasis is chosen, and, which parts of the question and the implied assumptions, have been ignored. Such a scrutiny adds greatly to an understanding and perception of reality, in particular, the realities of inter-personal relationships.

Just as we reflect in our questions a series of concerns and predominantly existentially oriented motivations, so is the person we question, motivated and oriented in the same manner. We may want to prove this to ourselves and others by evoking in our "adversaries" the response we are looking for with the help of a series of challenging and biting questions, but, we can achieve a much more useful objective of insight and acknowledgement by engaging in a series of precise, well-tailored, but gently probing questions, which stop-short of arousing anger or irritation.

The art of asking questions is, therefore, related to our childhood experiences; whether or not we have encountered a sufficient degree of stimulation to let us use this tool efficiently, but, it also depends on our intuitive, and, perhaps, conscious perception of the similarities in people's existential drives and concerns. We can, therefore, consider the art of asking questions to rest upon three broad foundations; first, there has to be an unfolding of this skill during childhood and adolescence. Secondly, there has to be a sufficient level of harmony in the development of the personality to provide the basis of confidence that is necessary to ask honest and precise questions. Thirdly; there has to be a largely intuitive appreciation for the commonly shared aspects of our egocentric and existential concerns, in order to avoid needless defensiveness and the arousal of anxiety and anger, which inevitably occurs, if the questions become a weapon of aggression.

This short introduction should give us an understanding about the nature and usefulness of the tool of inquiry, and, we should begin to discuss a number of generalised, but, nevertheless, common situations and experiences, where the use of the tool of inquiry may help us to cope better with the situation we find ourselves in. Before we do so, we should remind ourselves, that such an intellectual method to solve problems, and to recognise a difficulty as a problem, (as a conceptually analysable entity), is a culmination of an evolutionary trend that started with behavioural flexibility, and, then, took the road of conscious and verbalisable awareness, which is such a typically human characteristic.

A simple organism, such as a cell, together with most animal life-forms that have not developed a sophisticated and complex pattern of behavioural responses, do not have "problems", because they react in an "algebraic fashion". By this, we mean, that such a life-form distinguishes, primarily, between harmful and beneficial stimuli. Harmful stimuli will be avoided as much as possible, and, if they can not be avoided all-together, a variety of physiological defense mechanisms take place to resist the harmful force as much as possible, or, to minimise their detrimental impact upon the organism.

In contrast, a beneficial stimulus will evoke a movement towards the source of such a stimulus, (at least, in those life-forms endowed with the ability to move), and, this basic response is, later, in the more advanced animal organisms, elaborated into a variety of "ad-gressive" behaviour-patterns, which reflect in the word "aggression", the concept of a "movement towards". However, a life-form may not always "attack an adversary", whenever it carries-out a movement towards a beneficial stimulus, because, such a movement may mean, simply, that the life-fom is trying to prolong its contact with a beneficial environment. This basic pattern of behaviour is already visible at the level of a single cell, and, we still see it reflected in the behaviour of nomadic tribes which follow the migrating herds of animals upon which they depend for their survival.

If the environment sends contradictory signals to a living organism, the positive or beneficial aspects may elicit a positive or advancing response, while the negative stimuli inhibit such an advance. Whether an animal organism, then, advances or retreats, may depend on an "algebraic summation", or, a balance between the positive and negative influences. If the positive stimuli dominate, the organism will advance; if the negative stimuli are in the fore-front, the animal will retreat, and, if there is a near-balance between the contradictory stimuli, the animal becomes confused and uncertain, "not knowing what to do", until the balance of contradictory force-fields gravitates to one side or the other.

We still see these principles operate in the communication between nerve-cells in the central nervous system, where the act of "firing", or discharging a volley of impulses down the axis of a nerve-cell, or "neuron", depends upon the algebraic summation, or balance, of stimulatory and inhibitory influences infringing upon this nerve-cell from neighbouring or connecting cells.

The behavioural response of a living system depends, therefore, on a balance between positive and negative stimuli, and, later, it depends, also, upon the spatial organisation of the many different stimuli that are being perceived. We can still see this pattern in the behaviour of the young child, or the behaviour of somewhat "childish adults", who have never learned to use their more advanced faculties of reasoning and insight to come to a behavioural choice. Such individuals seek, rather randomly, what they "can do", or, what they are allowed to do, and, where they are stopped in their behavioural reactions by restrictions that have been put upon them. These restrictions may be physical limitations of their own organism, as they hurt themselves, or, these people may come-up against physical limitations of the environment, such as a tree they can not climb, a rock they can not lift, or, a dangerous situation from which they can not escape.

Some restrictions on the behaviour of flexible organisms are placed upon them by their social environment, and, children, as well as the adults of each and every behavioually flexible and socially integrated species, will learn, eventually, what sort of behaviour is tolerated and encouraged, and, what is frowned-upon or punished. These restrictions are very important for the learning processes of a developing personality, and, without them, learning becomes defective.

Therefore, no child will grow-up without having hurt himself, but, the intelligent child learns, quickly, how to avoid being hurt. Similarly, no child will grow-up without falling or getting caught in some sort of situation that will make him or her respect the forces that are operative in the environment, and, it will not be possible to develop into well-adjusted children and adolescents, ready to grow into mature and contributing members of society, unless the social environment has shown a clear-cut pattern of guidelines for desirable and viable behaviour, as well as clear-cut limits on what are considered tolerable attitudes and acts of behaviour.

Learning always takes place within a framework of tolerances, or, rather, within a range of variability. This range of variability, or tolerance, delineates what is possible and acceptable, from that, which is impossible and not acceptable, but, the ability to communicate symbolically, gives rise to a new dimension of perceptions. This sphere of the conscious reality perception is super-imposed upon the pragmatic and intuitive framework of guidelines, or the range of tolerable behaviour-patterns, which we have outlined above. It is justified to say, therefore, that the main value of this sphere of conscious reality perceptions lies in the fact, that it allows us, on most occasions, to actually "avoid getting into trouble", because we anticipate, accurately, what to do and what not to do. In this way, we avoid "contact" with the boundaries or limitations that are imposed upon us, either, by the natural environment, our own physical existence, or, by the dictates of the social environment we live in.

This conscious reality perception leads, eventually, to the formulation of a more or less coherent structure of beliefs, and, we have elaborated these ideas extensively before. Here, we want to emphasise the idea, that the existence of a conscious sphere of reality perceptions, together with the conscious interpretation of reality experiences, made possible by a belief-structure, provide the opportunity to analyse the complex and contradictory stimuli from the environment into a system of classifications with a logical coherence.

The process of classification is necessary, even before we can develop a coherent set of beliefs, and, we need a coherent set of beliefs, in order to interpret reality in a sensible way, allowing us to avoid getting into trouble. By classifying and categorising these stimuli into well-ordened, conscious systems of classification, we are able to recognise nearly all of the incoming sense impressions as "familiar", because the moment a sense-impression arrives at our central nervous system, it is automatically classified into a "known" category, provided, of course, that, indeed, it can be fitted into such a familiar category.

The experience of a routine familiarity of nearly all incoming sense impressions leaves us free to concentrate our attention upon those sense-impressions that create "a problem" for us. The problem may be, that we do not quite recognise, what a particular sense-impression represents, because there may be strange, unfamiliar or contradictory features in it. This means, that we get contradictory signals from a particular situation, indicating, partly interesting and potentially beneficial possibilities, but, conveying, at the same time, an element of danger, or potential danger, which prevents us from predicting, accurately, what is going to happen, or, what the exact existential significance is of the sense impression we have to evaluate consciously.

Our conscious awareness, as well as our ability to analyse a situation in a large variety of different qualities, aspects, features and other details, may give us a "feel" for the situation, and, this ability may show us a type of behavioural response or approach that makes maximally use of the beneficial aspects, and minimises or circumvents, at the same time, the features that appear to be dangerous or unattractive. As soon as we have successfully analysed and synthesised a suitable response to a particular situation, we store this particular experience in our memory, and, a subsequent but similar experience may, then, already have a "ring of familiarity", depending upon the level of familiarity we are able to experience.

Here, we see the general outline of the reasons, why, we, as human beings, can make use of our ability to think rationally and examine carefully, in order to find, or deliberately construct, the best possible response under the circumstances. Nevertheless, we know from our discussions and investigations about the nature of human behaviour, the conscious sphere of reality, as well as the rational response of a deliberate and synthesised decision, that we are dealing, here, only, with the tip of an ice-berg, because a large majority of sense-impressions and stimuli do not enter our conscious awareness, and are, therefore, not structured into a conscious reality perception. We know, that there is a very large part of intuitive or "para-conscious" decision-making going-on, and, we also know, that, many evaluations and interpretations of a particular situation, are, not only, influenced by rational analyses and logical deductions, but, they are also strongly influenced and coloured by our emotions.

Such an emotional "colouring" may take the form of a specific "bias" in our interpretations, either, towards the positive, optimistic side, or, towards the negative, defensive side. If we keep in mind the complex structure of the human personality, together with the various levels of interpretation and decision-making that are going-on in our minds, we can begin to discuss, which situations lend themselves to a rational analysis, and, which circumstances seem to be refractory to the processes of analysis and rational questioning.

.......

Chapter 5

Content

Consciousness fades from view, whenever we look back at pre-human evolution.
A stunning development of the capabilities of conscious or verbalisable awareness.
Anxieties, because of our inability to oversee this enormous field of knowledge and technology.
The Renaissance.
Cultural and technological innovations come and go.
A winter of warfare and social upheaval.
A mechanism of natural selection for bringing-about cultural evolution and an enhanced ability to survive?
Ambiguous and contradictory results for every spurt of cultural evolution.
The nature of human existence remains the same.
The cycle of flowering and decay.
Let us try to increase our grasp over reality.
A review of early learning processes.
Finding our way into the social surroundings.
Navigating through a three-dimensional environment.
Rarely do we understand the reasons, why there are curbs placed on our behavioural inclinations.
Nobody develops a perfectly balanced personality.
The vulnerability of transparence.
Making a living with our "image".
There is no benefit in scrutinising something that is generally accepted.
Questions are not helpful, if we do not understand anything of the information we are presented with.
The limitations of specialised knowledge.
The need to match lecture and audience.
How to bridge the gap between an assumed and an actual level of knowledge.
In a psychological crisis, many ideas and certainties seem to be on the brink of collapse.
When the mind is being up-rooted by a large and relentless plow.
A "psychological meta-morphosis".

When we look back at evolutionary history, and take a truly broad and sweeping view of the emergence of man and his civilisations, we see, that, somewhere, in that dim past, man fades into the world of pre-human, anthropoid existence. Conscious awareness fades from view, if we take "consciousness" in the sense of the ability to represent awarenesses with some sort of a symbol. If we consider the contemporary potential for understanding, ranging from sub-atomic particles, the world of atoms and molecules, the living unit of the cell, to the multi-cellular human being and his perceptions of the Universe, we see, indeed, a stunning development of the capabilities of conscious awareness.

Unfortunately, most of us find these intellectual capabilities, together with the fruits of science and technology, rather frightening and confusing, and, in stead of evoking a sense of beauty and gratitude for the possbilities natural evolution has given us, we tend to become anxious and restless, defensive and suspicious, because we can not oversee all the consequences of our manipulative dexterity and the correlations between the various scientific fields. Indeed, we are constantly reminded about the dangers of modern technology, the devastating powers of our weapons and the dangerous pollutants of our industries. In addition, the technological marvels of the mass-media leave us tired and bewildered, because we are constantly preyed upon by the vultures of commercial exploitation.

Is it fair, then, to state, that, each and every spurt of technological and scientific mastery ends in a world of confusion and anxiety, eventually, leading to a reaction of revulsion and a resurgence of more soothing and comforting religious images and practices? Perhaps, we should not go so far as to conclude, that the entire fabric of rational insight, technological innovations or scientific knowledge will be swept-away in a reaction of anger and fear, because we see a vague line of progress in man's development and his ability to become increasingly aware of his surroundings and his own behaviour-patterns.

If we look at the most recent up-surge in the development of knowledge and technology, which started a few centuries ago with the period roughly indicated by the "Renaissance", we see, that, one of the features making a re-birth of thought and observation possible, was the re-discovery of a rich heritage from Greco-Roman times, and, similarly, the modern spurt of scientific flowering is associated with a remarkable reconstruction of man's pre-historic past, as we can see in the wealth of modern archeological discoveries.

Nevertheless, even, within this period of growth since the Renaissance, we see an alternating emphasis upon rationality and emotionality. Man has still not learned to live with rational thought and scientific development for any length of time, because man, invariably, uses the fruits of rational thought and scientific development for a blatantly egocentric and instinctive desire to dominate. If we look at the entire field of recorded history in a summary over-view, we get the impression, that every spurt of cultural development stagnates and crumbles, quite quickly, and, a great majority of the inventions that took place, are lost again; perhaps, not permanently, as future researchers may be able to revive them as a concept, or a fragment of knowledge, that has found relevance during their own times. Yet, many developments and technological innovations fall by the way-side, and are neglected, at least, for a prolonged period of time, until the circumstances and ideas of people change, again, and make it possible for a new focus of interest to revive ancient knowledge and expertise.

Just as nature produces each season an abundance of flowers, leaves and other temporary forms of life, only, to die again as the winter sets-in, so is each period of flowering of the human mind, or, rather, each period, where the potential for knowledge and technology is actively explored, characterised by a great profusion of human creations, which will nearly all disappear, again, during the "winter" of the next period of war-fare and social upheaval.

Perhaps, we are justified to see, here, a regular pattern of trial and error, (very much in line with the general methods of exploring possibilities of living existence by the forces of natural selection), and, we may become, then, less defensive and confused, as we look at the upheavals and rapidly changing circumstances of our own time. It also becomes clearer, why the exploration of new scientific insights leads to technological developments that can always be used, either, as a destructive weapon, or, as a tool to better the lot of millions of people.

Every application of a tool can be oriented towards egocentric gain, in a defensive or aggressive posturing that may, eventually, bring destruction to the peoples and their environment, or, it may be used in an atmosphere of trust and good-will, letting us exist in freedom, dignity and a high level of insight and understanding.

This ambigous and dualistic result of every spurt of cultural and technological development is, of course, a result of the fact, that human nature does not really change at all, regardless of the level of insight and cultural development. We can always be provoked into an attitude of defensiveness or aggressive opportunism, whenever the circumstances are ripe, and, we will use, then, whatever tools and weapons are at our disposal. In the stone-age, the tools were a rock and a stick, and, it took a considerable efort to destroy someone else, but, now, a few lunatics, isolated in what they believe to be an adequate shelter against a nuclear attack, may push the buttons to set the inter-continental ballistic missiles, with their nuclear warheads, on their way to destroy the earth, as well as millions upon millions of people, who fought desperately, but, in vain, to stop these lunatics from gaining access to these destructive powers.

The mechanisms that lead to the crumbling of a civilisation, after a spurt of cultural development, are always the same, but, the effects are becoming much more devastating, and, perhaps, permanent. We will come back, later, to the questions, what we can do about this trend; whether or not, we, the millions upon millions of ordinary citizens who do not want war, can do something to prevent a nuclear holocaust. Let us consider, here, whether these historical trends of a brief spurt of civilisation with a flowering of numerous cultural artifacts, followed by decay and the flowering of a new center of civilisation, somewhere else, finds a parallel in the existence of an individual personality. Let us see, whether or not such a comparison helps us to clarify these unsettling trends, including this apparently unnecessary but inevitable resurgence of suffering and chaos, after a social environment has gone through a period of growth and well-being. After all, the behaviour of a socially integrated entity is, in essence, rooted in the behaviour of individual human beings.

Most of us will be able to agree, that our own existence seems to be characterised by periods of development, punctuated by a series of crises or set-backs. These crises and set-backs may be partly the result of our own mistakes and ill-advised actions, and, they are, in part, the result of events in our environment over which we have little control. When we are young, we seem to learn fast. We learn something new, every day, especially, if we are lucky to have been born, normally formed and in a state of good health, where we have been fully endowed with a normal range of genetic potentials, and, where we were lucky to have been born into a family that provides this curiously satisfying mix of protection and stimulation, which is so necessary for a balanced, early development.

However, difficulties and disappointments are never far from the surface, and, as soon as we become too confident, we get a slap on the wrist, as the people in our environment feel somewhat irritated by our rapid development, and, perhaps, somewhat privileged position. Most of us are not hurt to the extent, that we withdraw completely in ourselves, and, we learn a smooth give-and-take, where we develop, largely intuitively, a good feel for what sort of behaviour is tolerated, while providing, still, a good chance to develop ourselves.

This process of "finding our way into society" is somewhat analogous to this complex set of motoric reactions we develop, as we learn to "navigate" through our three-dimensional environment. Eventually, we know, intuitively, but, quite precisely, how to integrate the contraction of our muscles and the movements of our skeleton, in order to move, swiftly and surely, through the space we live in.

We are, indeed, lucky, if most of our behaviour-patterns are shaped in such a way, that we learn to integrate them fully and harmoniously with the social environment we live in, but, most of us, growing-up in a complex social environment, are subjected to somewhat confusing and contradictory directives. Eventually, we know, what we can "get-away with", and, we know, which behaviour-patterns we have to suppress or hide, because they are frowned-upon and are not tolerated by those around us. Rarely do we understand, fully, the reasons, why there are curbs placed on our behavioural instincts and desires, in particular, if the guidelines of social behaviour and ethical concerns have lost sight of the simple truth, that people in a socially integrated environment have to curb egocentric attitudes and desires in order to accomodate each other's rights and ambitions.

In our complex and affluent societies, no-one grows-up with a perfectly balanced personality, where all the essential drives are harmoniously developed; without unresolved tensions or conflicts between drives and social dictates. Such a well-developed personality would be unusually transparent, and, therefore, quite vulnerable. Inevitably, then, we all have a certain "facade", where we project an acceptable, but not quite accurate or honest image towards the people around us. As we grow older, we become, usually, more confident, and the image takes-on more "character", as we feel more secure and dare to show more of the features we hid before, and felt somewhat uncomfortable about. Besides, the sort of image or appearance we project, depends, to a large extent, upon the role we play in society. We may want to project an image of authority, knowledge, competence, leadership or compassionate concern, or, we may want to become popular, amicable and "suave", especially, if we make a living with our "image".

The point we want to emphasise, here, is the fact, that there are many behavioural impulses during our contacts with other people, which have to be controled or regulated. We may actively subdue certain trends by banning them from our conscious awareness in a sort of "neurotic suppression", and, we often need the help of religious principles and moral guidelines in order to steer a course through life, which is acceptable to the society we live in. Once we have accepted such guidelines, any attempt to scrutinise the basic judgements of good and evil will only encounter a hostile incomprehension and a reaction of suspicion, because these are "unquestionably accepted truths", and, we see no benefit at all by scrutinising or questioning them.

Then, there is another large category, where questions do not seem to be helpful. This happens, when we have no comprehension at all about a particular field of knowledge. If we lack a familiarity with the basic principles or ideas behind a certain field of knowledge, we lack the ability to understand any of the observations or problems we are confronted with. If I do not know anything about the way my automobile works, I can only helplessly open the hood and stare at the engine. I would, then, lack the basic knowledge to analyse the functions of the vehicle, or the many systems that comprise an automobile, and, I even lack the ability to give a precise account of the way the car failed, whenever a mechanic or a passer-by offers his assistance.

In a specialised society, we all make use of a large number of tools and appliances, and the technological expertise, as well as the basic scientific ideas that lie behind these tools, are, most often, unknown to us. We can, therefore, not make a diagnosis, when something goes wrong, nor can we do something about it. Even, if we have some idea, how an appliance or tool works, we often lack sufficient knowledge about a particular design to allow us to look at the tool or device in detail, analyse its various components, or, trace the flow of an electrical current through a circuit or wiring-diagram. Then, we are lost, and, we can not formulate even the basic, practical questions to let us get a handle on the problem. This represents a practical reality-experience in a large part of our modern way of life, because our knowledge and insight are often insufficient to make a connection with a particular aspect of reality we are in contact with.

If we listen to a lecture on something we know nothing about, there is a great discrepancy between the level of understanding assumed by the lecturer, and an individual member of the audience. The lecture becomes meaningless, because I can not even follow what the speaker is talking about. To ask questions is meaningless, because I would not know, where to begin, and, it would also reveal to the lecturer, and the rest of the audience, that I do not understand anything of what is being said, and, they would come to the conclusion, that I should not really be attending this lecture.

Certainly, the answer to such a problem is not a "quiet disappearance" in the anonymity of the audience, because one does not make any progress this way. It should be possible, as a result of adequate schooling, to bridge such a gap between one's knowledge and the level of knowledge assumed to be present. It should be part of everyone's basic training to understand these mechanisms of a potential gap between our level of knowledge, and the level that is assumed to be present, and, we have to learn to look-up information, concepts or ideas in a basic text-book or encyclopedia, in order to bridge this gap reasonably quickly. Of course, the schooling program should be such, that admission to a particular course or lecture ensures the possession of an adequate back-ground knowledge.

We have discussed before, that, many, if not most people, will always require some sort of guidance and input from their political, religious or scientific leaders, and, a well-integrated and intelligent citizen should develop a sufficient knowledge about a subject to enable him or her to follow and understand, what the leader or lecturer is talking about, and, it should be possible to acquire a level of knowledge that allows us to scrutinise the accuracy, credibility or bias of any communication.

If people go through a crisis-period, a lot of ideas, knowledge and certainties seem to be teetering on the brink of collapse. It is, as if the mind is being up-rooted by a large and relentless plow, tearing-up the roots of many certainties and bringing to light a lot of rocks and other infertile structures that laid buried under the soil. Our belief-structures crumble; our behaviour may become erratic; our values change, and we may discard or lose a lot of the gains and developments we made over the past few years. Only time will tell, whether or not such an upheaval was the start of a process of integration on an even higher and more productive plane of existence. Unfortunately, it may well be, that the zenith of one's existence has been reached, and, a slide towards less productive and less well integrated levels of existence has begun.

Questions are always associated with some sort of up-heaval or "psychological meta-morphosis". On the one hand, we are compelled to review, often with a persistent feeling of anxiety, why a particular crisis is happening to us, but, on the other hand, we often seem to make no progress with our thoughts and questions. We seem to be going around in circles, blindly, trapped in a situation that is largely of our own making, and, one of the reasons, why we are not able to get-ahead with our questions, is the fact, that there are still many beliefs and attitudes which we have not fully scrutinised. We are afraid to tear-up the last roots and vestiges of our certainties, because our entire reality perception threatens to collapse into one huge mass of chaos and confusion.

.......

Chapter 6

Content

Being careful with our zeal for tearing-up the vestiges of certainty.
Physicians may destroy a patient with their enthousiasm to investigate and apply a radical form of treatment.
We should not destroy more than we can build-up again.
The death of a social entity, or cultural code, can be peaceful.
Restructuring a personality by a thorough psycho-analysis is suitable for adolescents and young adults.
A personality, as well as a cultural code, are doomed to failure, if they lack the flexibility to adapt to changing circumstances.
The importance of a thorough education early in life.
People, who dabble in psychological insights, are, so often, pedantic and ignorant bores.
Developing a sobering and useful insight into secondarily acquired structures of knowledge, is not easy.
The pride associated with a serious learning effort.
When we need to display knowledge.
Dealing with a sequestered area of knowledge or information.
When an expert succeeds in "intimidating" his social surroundings.
The problem of "pseudo-knowledge".
Making a living with teaching or applying knowledge.
Has the notion of making a contribution to society become obsolete?
When we have committed ourselves to a cause or status-quo that is far from just and beneficial to the social environment.
Religious beliefs and attitudes have a tendency to become a "prized asset", or private property, and will be vigorously defended against criticisms and dissenters.
Knowledge and belief may become an end in themselves, rather than a tool for understanding and insight.
A look at the atittudes and motivations of "war-mongerers".
Peace without justice is nothing more than a "holding action", where the status-quo is temporarily maintained.
A facile facade, reducing complex realities to a series of slogans.
A number of exhortations.
We do not want our politicians and military leaders to have bomb-free shelters or nuclear hide-outs, where they can survive, while we perish.
We do not mistrust our adversaries as much as they do.
Uni-lateral nuclear and chemical disarmament.

Perhaps, it is just as well, that we do not tear-up, recklessly, the last vestiges of certainty, even, if we suspect that these certainties are not any better than those we have already discarded. There is no purpose in breaking-down everything, if we are not going to survive such "radical surgery". Just as physicians have to be careful not to destroy a patient in their enthousiasm to apply a radical therapy to an illness, so do we have to be careful to make sure, that the re-construction of out-dated reality interpretations and the confusing, anxiety-provoking chaos of chronic doubts and unanswerable questions, are not going to be more devastating than the existence of imperfect certainties.

Just as a seriously ill patient with an essentially incurable disease benefits much more from intelligent and supportive measures, than from an all-out attempt to combat the disease process, so do we have to recognise, that, in many instances, a personality is too old and too fragile to allow a drastic re-structuring of its beliefs and manner of coping with stresses and problems. If a variety of neurotic suppressions and tendencies have allowed an individual to reach a point in life that is well into the stage of maturity, then, there is little to be gained from an effort to re-structure such a personality. Sure, the neurotic trends and dependencies are hampering, to some extent, the insights and functions of the personality, but, if the situation and the circumstances are fairly stable, it is unwise, and futile, to try to change well-established neurotic mechanisms.

The same applies to an ageing society, where the elan vital has largely disappeared, and the members cling, precariously, to out-moded ideas and practices. It is not possible to rejuvenate such a society with sweeping and drastic reforms of the existing cultural code. Such a society will, eventually, disappear, and its structures, beliefs and practices will be absorbed by a larger, more vigorous cultural code. The death of a society or cultural code can be peaceful, just as the death of an individual may be without a struggle, if one has resigned oneself to the inevitability of death. People in an old and somewhat stultified social environment may relinquish the old traditions and beliefs without much of a struggle, in particular, if the younger generation is educated in a new philosophy. The older generations will quickly fade from the scene, and their beliefs and traditions will, then, have become a part of history.

Re-structuring a personality by a thorough psycho-analysis and a sustained effort to synthesise a more effective pattern of behaviour, is an approach, that is suitable for adolescents and young adults, and, the main purpose of such an active re-structuring of a personality, is to make this individual more acceptable to society. A faulty personality development leads to a stagnation in social progress, because the individual lacks the ability to adapt and become compatible with the social surroundings. As we know, a personality, as well as a cultural code, is doomed to failure, if it lacks the flexibility to adapt to changing circumstances.

As we mentioned in our opening sentences, intellectual scrutiny and sharp questioning are the hallmarks of vigour and energy, but, these activities are not attractive to those, who are complacent or weary of old-age. If we learn to use the tools of inquiry in our younger years, and, if we learn to handle these tools with skill and imagination, the level of understanding and awareness will be remarkable, and, with understanding and insight comes, also, this all-important feature of adaptability.

It is especially important that we are being taught, in school, how to analyse the functions and mechanisms of the human personality, because, if we become familiar with the many mechanisms that play a role in our own emotions and instinctive behaviour-patterns, we will be able to recognise and verbalise, much better, the feelings, sensations and emotions we are subjected to, and, because we can analyse and verbalise these feelings and emotions, we should be able to recognise the similarities between our own personality and the behavioural mechanisms and existential concerns of other people.

However, such an ideal level of insight is not easy to come-by, and, we should ask ourselves, why, so often, people, who are dabbling in psychological insights, seem to be pedantic and ignorant bores, projecting an image of artificiality and neurotic pre-occupation with their own personality. Why do they project, so rarely, the image of an honest and broadly understanding personality, who looks with a measure of self-effacing humor upon himself and his problems? The reason is, that the process of secondary learning, such as the conceptual transfer of the complex mechanisms of a human personality, or the complex inter-actions that take place between people, such as, e.g. the dictates of a religious belief or a military strategy, are "secondarily acquired" systems of thought and knowledge, and, they become, not only, a tool with which to analyse and manipulate the appropriate sphere of reality, but, they become, also, an objective in themselves.

For example, many of these complex conceptual structures take years to master, and, naturally, they require a significant effort. Therefore, they become an object of pride and display, where the complex structure of knowledge, together with all the ideas, theories or strategies that make-up such a structure, are used to impress one's colleagues, and to secure a position in society. Expertise is always used to earn a living, and, it acquires, nearly always, an egocentric flavour, especially, if the social environment has not learned the importance of separating the existential need to earn a living from the contributions to be made to society.

As a result of the need to display knowledge, the realities one deals with in these learned complexes, remain so "unreal", so far removed from one's sphere of actual experiences, that the content of the reality-sphere that is represented by such a body of learned or secondarily acquired knowledge, remains an abstract structure that is not supported by personal experiences, and, as a result, it does not fit-in with the overall sphere of existential realities.

This is the reason, why someone, who has learned, by secondary conceptual transfer, to use some of the terminology of the fields of psychology and psycho-analysis, displays in this use not so much a genuine insight into his own or someone else's psychological dynamics, but, it is used as an object of display. Knowledge is, then, used to show that one is informed, up-to-date with current thinking; that one has earned a degree or diploma, and, in this way, the individual tries to impress his surroundings and justify his position in society. If the expert succeeds in "intimidating" his social surrounding, he gets a measure of respect and authority in return.

Such knowledge is, in essence, a pseudo-knowledge. It is poorly integrated and digested knowledge, and, it may easily be used to justify a measure of indulgence, or self-pity. A "good excuse" has been found for trends, tendencies and desires, which used to evoke a measure of guilt or unease as a result of social disapproval. Pseudo-knowledge may be used to focus the attention of outsiders upon one's personality and problems, and, it satisfies, thereby, a primitive desire for attention. Such pseudo-knowledge can be used to perpetuate or justify a neurotic dependence upon other people, or, upon drugs, etc. In short, we see, that such a body of acquired or learned knowledge is, often, used for a variety of existental needs, largely beyond the conscious awareness of the manipulator, and, it is rarely used for the purpose it was intended for; to acquire a broadened level of understanding about oneself and one's environment. Indeed, all forms of knowledge are primarily used for egocentric and existential purposes, rather than as a tool for understanding and cooperation.

We have discussed, on previous occasions, how our schools and universities in the affluent West, now "train" people for the explicit purpose of "making a living", and, this means, that one's professional work is placed, almost entirely, in the function of one's own interests. This is the reason, why the idea of making a contribution to society takes second, or, even, last place in the many professional functions that are carried-out in society. In a competitive, Capitalist society of affluence, the accent is shifting, ever more openly, to an egocentric orientation of the use of knowledge, prestige, expertise, or power of any sort. We all have to make a living, and, if our pay-master is an all-powerful government-department, we have little choice, but to work for our superiors in the way they want us to work.

This is one of the reasons, why so many scientists are involved in the research and development of a variety of weapon-systems, because the political leadership is always governed by the instincts of sovereignty and suspicion, and, they invariably put their faith in the security of military power. The same sort of captivity applies to the professional soldier. In exchange for a life of relative ease and security, protected and pampered by the State, or an elite which has the power and the wealth to maintain their position with the help of an essentially private army, a professional soldier loses the ability to make any sort of moral judgement about the Cause he is sent to fight for, and, even, if he realises, at one time or another, that he is fighting for the wrong cause, and, that he is contributing to injustice and oppression, he has no choice, anymore, and, he has to go-on fighting in order to survive.

There are many instances in life, where we are tempted to choose an easy or attractive road, only to find-out, later, that we have committed ourselves to a cause or a status-quo, that is far from just and beneficial for society. Then, we are powerless to change, and, we are compelled to contribute, actively, to the misery and oppression of countless other people, either, in our own society, or, in foreign nations.

What about our religious beliefs? Are we, indeed, following the dictates of our religion, or, do we tend to use these religious beliefs as a code to clique-together in exclusive prejudice; to exert power and discriminate against those, who believe differently? How often has man not killed in the name of his God, or, for the sake of his religion, even, if his Faith explicitly states, that one should love one's enemies?

How often did national pride not dictate a good, clean "Christian War" to defend the virtues of the Faith and our cultural heritage? In other words; religious beliefs and attitudes become a prized asset or property, and, a proud and vigorous society will defend this property, just as it defends all its interests, especially, if anyone, or any other social environment, dares to mount a challenge against these interests. Here again, we see an example, where a sophisticated knowledge or belief becomes an end in itself, rather than a tool of understanding and insight.

Last, but not least, we see the same mechanisms play a role in the minds of our military strategists; the generals, admirals and chiefs of staff, who plan the next war on their computers, and play their war-games, day in, day out. They are destroying, in their plans, then this, then that part of the world. They get so used to the idea, that a war will devastate large parts of their own country, as well as the territories of their allies and enemies, that, for the sake of an illusion of victory, it seems irrelevant to them, whether or not hundreds of millions of people die in a nuclear holocaust. This loss of reality, or loss of contact between computer simulation and actual reality, is one of the most serious problems we face today.

To every outsider, these planning and strategy sessions seem totally unreal, until one finally realises, in horror, that these military "automata" are, indeed, seriously planning to fight a nuclear war. Finally, it starts to dawn on us, average citizens, that we have created a run-away monster, where a small but extremely powerful segment of men and women have brainwashed themselves to the extent, that they are seriously considering to fight a nuclear war.

Certainly, our Presidents, Prime Ministers and other political leaders keep re-assuring us, and, perhaps, themselves, that all these preparations for war are necessary to keep the peace, and prevent a nuclear war. They try to convince us, that this relentless planning to fight a nuclear war, together with the build-up of weapons and missile systems, are necessary to prevent such a disaster from taking place. Both super-powers like to pride themselves on the fact, that their military build-up and the relentless, costly arms-race, has "kept the peace" for a much longer time than in the pre-nuclear era of modern Europe.

It seems likely, that, both super-powers are locking themselves into a military and strategic stalemate, and, that the struggle between Socialism and Capitalism will be fought ideologically, and, perhaps, with "conventional" military weaponry, in local conflicts. Nevertheless, the methods of armed subversion and guerilla warfare are, in a way, novel adaptations to the possibilities of fighting a war from the inside against a hated oppressor.

A small minority of concerned citizens is taking to the streets in demonstrations against nuclear weapons, but, these peace demonstrations deteriorate quickly to a somewhat superficial activism, where the political problems are reduced to simple slogans. If we analyse the motivations of the peace-marchers, we see, that a somewhat egocentric anxiety for their own safety is the prime motivating factor for their behaviour, and peace-marchers still fail to see, by and large, that the quest for peace has to be irrevocably linked to the quest for justice. Peace without justice is nothing more than a "holding action", where the status-quo is temporarily maintained.

The point we want to make, here, is the fact, that, all knowledge, science and technology, including psychological insights and religious beliefs, as well as our anxieties and yearnings for peace, can be used and abused for short-sighted, essentially egocentric objectives that contribute little to true peace and justice. However, insights can lead us, also, to truly broad and understanding attitudes; by recognising, time and again, that all our anxieties, concerns and egocentric motivations are shared by others around us, including those we fear the most.

Unless we learn to use knowledge and insights for the socially beneficial objective of understanding and cooperating with those who compete with us, we will not get anywhere, and, we are then using the tools of inquiry rather inefficiently. Let us find solutions that are broad and just, and, let us avoid the temptation to substitute the arduous task of composing a coherent answer to the many problems we face, with a facile facade of activism, or a method of thinking that reduces the complex realities to a series of simplistic slogans.

Let us ask those, who display a measure of psychological insight, a number of pointed question, in order to see, what they really understand. Let us ask religious believers and their leaders, how it is possible to kill and love your enemies at the same time. Let us ask them, how it is possible, that an all-loving God could have created, knowingly, a creature that would will fall into Original Sin. Let us challenge their beliefs with the evidence and insights of evolutionary mechanisms, but, let us do this gently, and not with the intention to score an intellectual victory, but, let us be motivated by our conviction that we have something to contribute and share with them.

Let us teach our scientists and professionals, that they are responsible for their actions, and, that they should consider it a privilege to contribute to the common good of society and mankind, rather than prepare for Armageddon. We, average citizens, who foot the bill for all these professional experts, we should realise, that we have to give our scientists and professional people a foundation of existential security, so that there is no need for them to worry, constantly, about their financial needs, and, it will then be possible to blunt those egocentric tendencies to use their expertise for their own immediate benefit.

Let us tell our politicians and military strategists, that we do not want them to have bomb-free shelters, or nuclear hide-outs, where they can survive, while the rest of us will perish during a nuclear war. Let us tell them, that we do not mistrust our adversaries as much as they do, and, let us tell them, that we want all those dangerous nuclear, chemical and bacteriological weapons to be destroyed, because we want to live, and, we are willing to take the gamble of a uni-lateral disarmament.

The reasoning behind uni-lateral nuclear and chemical disarmament is quite simple. We believe, that no cause is worth total destruction and annihilation. Besides, the chances for a nuclear or other attack by our enemies, is much less, after we have disarmed. We are both racing towards a position of superiority, but, the real enemy is not this society with a different ideology and a different way of life, but, the real enemy is this pernicious instinct of suspicion, which can, and, perhaps, will, destroy us all in a gigantic act of mutual suicide.

We should not forget that an act of courage, such as uni-lateral nuclear disarmament, will cause irresistible pressures upon the leadership of our enemies to do the same, provided, of course, that the peoples throughout the world know what is happening.

.......

Chapter 7

Content

Any type of nuclear war-fare is utter folly.
The problems of war and international tensions come back to the mechanisms of existential requirements and the emotions of anxiety and suspicion.
The dangers associated with entrenched positions of power.
The rich and the powerful have the means to shield themselves from the devastations of warfare.
When we side with the elite.
A pernicious dream.
Throughout history, leaders have been willing to risk utter devastation of their societies.
How to halt and reverse the trends towards polarisation.
The ideals of Socialism, and the dreams of Capitalism, are part and parcel of every personality.
Taking the risk of placing our "trust" consciously.
The mechanisms of a judicial settlement.
Why is it so difficult for the nations of the world to orden themselves into a civilised community of nations?
Hasty attempts to break-through a competitive stalemate may reduce the world to ashes.
The route of fostering a deliberate, informed and conscious choice by people from all over the world.
The massive momentum of a globally organised "collective will".
Standardising systems of government and social organisation.
Curbing the powers of special-interest groupings.
We will have to learn to "speak the same language" all over the world.
Transferring, gradually, more powers to a supra-national, elected body of representatives.
The problems of sabotage.
Recognising, clearly, the problems associated with a Socialist Paradise and a Capitalist Day-Dream.
We need the spur of some existental anxiety to make us aware of the blessings of a social contract of essential equality.
Differentiation on the basis of personal merit is unavoidable, and is actually needed and desirable.
Making sure, that every youngster has an equal and equitable opportunity to succeed.
There are many existing organisations that can give us a valuable clue, how to organise a viable globally integrated society.
Facing-up to the truly difficult choices.
The socialisation of the living organisation arose, long before the emergence of mankind.
Liberating energies that became locked-up during a state of competitive strife.
How can we persuade successful and powerful people to abandon the drive towards all-out combat, whenever they feel threatened?
We have to provide the successful and powerful segments of society with reasonable and potentially acceptable alternatives.
We squander, so often, the opportunity to persuade the privileged elite about the justice and beauty of a social contract of essential equality.

How can we prevent a nuclear holocaust, or a war with chemical and bacteriological weapons? Can we be sure, that the safeguards against an accidental launch of these war-heads are fool-proof? How can we be sure, that these weapons will never be used? How do we really know, what it means to be subjected to a nuclear attack? How do we know, that it is, indeed, possible for a country to survive or recover from a nuclear war?

Many people believe, that any sort of nuclear war, even, a "limited" one, is utter folly and a disaster for mankind. The question arises; if so many people believe, that we should destroy all these weapons, how come, that it is so diffcult to convince the political and military leaders to go along with this desire? How do we refute the argument, that a nuclear deterrent preserves "peace", or, at least, a status-quo?

Let us analyse these questions, and, let us see, how we can design an approach, and bring-about a frame of mind, that has a chance to defuse this pernicious and feverish pitch of suspicious attitudes. Indeed, we will come to the conclusion, that the solution to the arms-race, the question of a nuclear deterrent, as well as the question of war and international tensions, comes back, again and again, to the mechanisms of existential requirements, and the emotions of anxiety and suspicion.

The most practical and immediately apparent answer to the question, how to avoid nuclear war, or an accidental nuclear explosion, is to destroy all these dangerous weapons, but, the question, how to convince a sufficient number of people to go-along with a movement towards a complete nuclear disarmament, is not so easily answered. We have to answer the question, how we can convince people in positions of power, privilege and leadership, to give-up a defensive shield of dooms-day weaponry. The fear of those, who have most to lose from a drastic change in the organisation and power-structure of a society, is centered around the question, how it is possible to resist the pressures of blackmail and intimidation, without an adequate military shield that includes nuclear weapons.

Regardless, how destructive and suicidal the weaponry appears to be, it seems, that, people in a position of power and privilege prefer to perish in a frenzy of destruction, rather than capitulate to their arch-enemies. Besides, let us not forget, that the rich and the powerful have the means to shield themselves from the devastations of warfare, including nuclear warfare, while we, ordinary citizens, will be powerless and helpless onlookers and victims, whenever such a war breaks-out.

Let us not forget the simple fact, that the rich and the poor, the privileged and the disadvantaged, can never have the same friends and enemies. As long as most of us still have something to lose from a revolutionary overthrow of our government, we tend to side with the elite, and, we tend to believe their rethoric about democracy, free-enterprise and Christian values. As long as the poor and the oppressed are in the minority, they will be neglected and ignored by a majority of those, who still cling to the hope, that they will become rich and successful, some day. As long as this dream persists, we will not see any significant movement towards a rejuvenation of Socialist principles and ideals in the Capitalist democracies, and, these societies will continue to deteriorate, untill a great majority of the people have sunk into a morass of poverty and oppression.

Throughout history, we see, that, leaders have been willing to risk the utter devastation of their social environment, if they believed, that they were fighting for their survival, and, there is good reason to believe, that the Capitalist elite, which has come to power in most free-enterprise democracies, will adopt similar attitudes. It is likely, therefore, that the Capitalist elite will suspend the process of democratic representation, as soon as their societies have become so polarised, that a majority has become poor and identifies with the oppressed.

The question we face is, therefore, the following. Is it possible, that this trend towards a further polarisation between the rich and the poor in the affluent, Capitalist democracies, can be halted or reversed? Is it still possible for the Socialist ideals to re-assert themselves, and to seek an ideological compromise with the Socialist countries that are ruled by a dogmatic Communist Party, which does not tolerate any political diversity? As long as Socialism under Communist rule remains as dogmatic and inflexible as it is today, there seems little chance for a true compromise between the contradictory but common aspirations of the human being.

These aspirations can be summarised as two, generalised, but contradictory trends, which are a feature of every personality; on the one hand, we see the ideals of Socialism, where we yearn for a life of security, dignity and equality of opportunities for us all, and, on the other hand, we see the dreams of Capitalism, which are characterised by the wish to be free, to live the way we want to live, and experiment with a variety of economic and intellectual activities, including vigorous debate and political diversity.

Perhaps, then, we can re-phrase the problems of getting a safer world to live in, by asking ourselves the question, how we can persuade a man, who is ready to defend his property and his values to the death, to accept an alternative, that will replace an apparently irreconcilable conflict of interests, with a measure of cooperation and a willingness to take the risks of "trust".

You may want to point-out, here, that it has become rare, in most civilised societies, for the members to settle their "irreconcilable differences" in a violent manner. You may want to point towards the many mechanisms, that have been developed to solve such conflicts of interest, and, of course, the judicial system is an eminent representative of the goal of preventing a dispute, conflict or criminal act from deteriorating into a lethal feud. In stead of condoning an arms-race, civilised leaderships have taken-away the arms from their citizens, and, they have set-up a fair and impartial, competent and thorough judicial system, where every dispute is scrutinised, judged and settled according to explicit rules and guidelines that have been enshrined as the laws of society.

Why is it so difficult for the nations of the world to orden themselves into a civilised social order? Why do their "sovereign" leaderships find it so difficult to give-up their sovereignty, and accept a legitimate and generally acceptable authority to carry-out a competent act of arbitration or judicial settlement? Why do these leaderships always have to take the law into their own hands, in order to settle a conflict of interest?

It certainly would be an ideal solution, if, we, the people, would be able to take-away the arms from our leaders and make them accept, in turn, a process of international arbitration. But, how is such a gigantic change in attitude going to come-about? We have seen, that citizens within a nation are "forced" to abide by the law, and, as "civilised people" we have become used to the idea to settle disputes by arbitration. However, leaders of sovereign nations do not recognise any power "above themselves", and, they will not, and can not, accept any international body as a judge or arbiter with powers to impose a settlement.

If it would be possible for one powerful nation to quickly control and dominate the entire world, and impose its will upon all combatants, even, if they were large nations, then, we could, indeed, see the emergence of a global society. However, there are two major reasons, why such a development seems totally undesirable under the present circumstances. First of all, there is the unalterable fact, that the existing super-powers have such large nuclear arsenals, that, any attempt to over-power will lead surely to a nuclear holocaust, which mankind is unlikely to survive. In stead of ushering-in a benevolent and peaceful period of global harmony, such a primitive attempt to break-through the existing competitive stalemate, would reduce the world to ashes.

The other major reason, why the "natural" solution for the emergence of a unified social order and a competent leadership on a global scale, is doomed to failure, is the fact, that it would be impossible for a small ruling or military elite to impose its will upon the many peoples and societies of the world, even, if a single nation could dominate them for some time.

There seems to be no alternative, therefore, to the idea, that such a global social order has to be the result of a deliberate, informed and conscious choice of a majority of the members of mankind. Only through the massive momentum of a collective "global will", is it possible to create the necessary bureaucratic machinery, and excercise a smooth, representative, fair and just global leadership; a leadership, that has the power to maintain justice and social order in every social environment, as well as the ability to impose a fair and competent judicial settlement in any dispute between nations or large ethnic groupings.

What sort of developments and trends can we foresee, if, indeed, an articulate, collective will is going to make itself felt all over the world, representing the voice of you and me, as well as countless other people, who prefer life in harmony and compromise over a death of fanatic defensiveness or selfrighteous aggression? First of all, the collective "Popular Will" has to be able to secure a fairly uniform system of government for most of the larger societies. A truly democratic and representative, elected leadership should be guided by a competent and comprehensive set of Constitutional Guidelines. Secondly, the elected governments should control all special-interest groupings, such as the military, the rich and the privileged, especially, in societies that are still allowing a fairly large disparity to exist between the various segments of the social environment.

Before we can see a true cooperation in essential equality and mutual respect, the leadership-institutions and the Constitutional Guidelines will have to be standardised all over the world, and, public opinion will have to guide the national leaderships in their attitudes towards each other. As a result of such a democratisation and standardisation of the social and educational institutions of society, it will become much easier to discuss international problems, as well as other matters of concern, because we will, then, "speak, essentially, the same language".

Such a trend towards a standardised Constitutional Rule throughout the major nations of the world, should already minimise the risk of a nuclear war, as a greater degree of control is excercised by the people over their leaderships and the military establishments. Then, it should be much easier to negotiate honestly balanced reductions in armaments, since the argument of a deterrent remains valid at any level of balanced military strength. Finally, the conscious will of the people may be able to transfer, slowly, but steadily, a greater degree of power to an independent and supra-national, globally elected body of representatives, like a United Nations with real powers to arbitrate and impose a settlement.

Unfortunately, it is not very likely, that such a beneficial "scenario" is going to unfold in the near future, because I do not expect a comprehensive and articulate popular voice to emerge, until we have had a few close calls with accidental nuclear disasters or intentional nuclear exchanges. Only, then, if people have been shocked, repeatedly, into the realisation, that, next time, it may be too late, and, that, next time, the up-heaval may be so great, that we will have lost the ability to make a full recovery from our self-inflicted wounds, only, then, will we see the voice of logic, moderation and a rationality come to the fore, and compel national leaderships to change course towards a more sensible and viable form of behaviour.

What are we going to do, when we see a rapidly developing trend towards a nuclear confrontation? Are we justified to sabotage the manufacture, deployment or firing of these dooms-day devices? It seems reasonable to argue, that such an act of sabotage will, eventually, be hailed as a courageous act, which gave mankind another breathing-space and another chance to meditate upon its foolish and self-destructive trends, even, if the act of sabotage will be condemned at the time it took place. It is certainly a last, desperate measure to try to stop an act, that may well spell the end of human existence, but, the problem with an act of sabotage is the unpredictability that is associated with such an act. It is not too difficult to imagine, how an attempt to stop the firing of a nuclear missile, may lead to the accidental firing and detonation of a war-head because of the confusion in the chain of commands, necessary to initiate a launch, while the "official" command to fire and start a nuclear war, had not been given as yet.

Besides, an act of sabotage will always be "undemocratic", as it is, by definition, an act of violence, where a small minority imposes its will upon the majority. If an act of sabotage is carried-out against a government that is not representative of the will of the people, it is, of course, much easier to justify it. However, under the democratic ideal, we bind ourselves to accept the will of the majority, even, if we think, that the majority is making a serious mistake, and, we have to think, very carefully, before we condone any acts of sabotage against the will of a legitimately elected government.

The ultimate solutions to the problems of living together in society, have to be found in a genuinely democratic rule. This means, that a society that has become polarised between the rich and the poor, can never be a model for the societies of the future. Yet, at the same time, we have to express serious doubts about the wisdom of a revolutionary elite, which is poised to impose a lofty social ideal on a majority of the population, regardless, how idealistic its policies and philosophies are.

Unless the people can genuinely choose what sort of leadership they want to have, and, unless they can decide what sort of social security they want their governments to provide, we see, that a majority of the people becomes complacent after only a few short generations in a "Socialist Paradise". Inevitably, the Socialist ideals sour, and, they become meaningless and are taken for granted, if the people have no political choice, and, if they have no opportunity to experience a measure of divergence between the successful and the lazy members of the social environment.

If people can not see for themselves, what the fruits of Capitalism are; what it means to live in poverty and deprivation, they will always be blinded by the glamour of wealth and irresponsible freedoms. We need the spur of some existential anxiety to make us aware of the blessings of a "social contract of essential equality", and, this means, that a measure of disparity will have to take place between the members, even, within a just and socially concerned society. However, let us make sure, that, everyone has an equal start, and, let us make sure, that the fruits of hard work, frugal attitudes and intelligent behaviour can not be transferred to the off-spring of successful parents, except in the form of a desirable example. At the same time, let us make sure, that the off-spring of those, who did less well in the game of social success, are not penalised for the failures of their parents.

I am convinced, that, a careful scrutiny of the many organisations of life, including our own biological organisation, will give us valuable clues, how to organise a global society with the ability to remain stable and viable for a long time to come. The most fundamental question that always comes to the fore, is the following; do we seek security by fortifying and defending a privileged status-quo against the attacks of competitors, or, do we seek security in a deliberate contract of essential equality, where we relinquish a position of privilege in exchange for an iron-clad guarantee of scrupulous equality?

It would be erroneous to think, that this choice is a typically modern, human choice, requiring the abilities of philosophical insight and sophisticated knowledge, because, in essence, it is the same choice, that was made by the living oganisation, when it started to explore the possibilities given by the symbiosis of biochemical reactions in the unit of the living cell, or, the symbiotic harmonies of the cells in the multi-cellular organisation; or, the socalisation of multi-cellular individuals in the socially integrated groupings of behaviourally flexible animals.

True, we can not speak of a "conscious choice" in these circumstances, because the "choice" was a blind exploration of possibilities of existence, where life-forms, or living organisations, exploring possibilities of existence in a mode cooperative behaviour, would find an enhanced degree of viability, compared to those that remained locked into a state of competitive strife. As a rule, a major break-through into a great variety of more complex living organisations, took place after a successful mode of symbiosis had been found. The living cell would not exist, today, if a particular configuration of symbiotically existing biochemical reaction-patterns would not have found the possibility to perpetuate itself in the symbiotic harmony of the living cell.

The next break-through of the living organisation occurred, when a large number of cells found a way to live together, but the single cell remained widely distributed and highly successful, and it still persists in conjunction with a great variety of multi-cellular life-forms. In nature, the combative and the symbiotic solution to the problems of competitive stalemate always exist side by side, and, undoubtedly, even, in the human societies of the future, we will see both elements play a role for a long time to come.

It is diffcult to say, precisely, why a particular form of symbiosis became successful. We can only formulate these ideas in a general principle of evolution, where we state, that these life-forms explore, continuously, a large range of existence possibilities in an essentially fluid manner, and, the reason, why a symbiotic form has a chance to evolve and surpass the range given to the individual members, lies in the principle, that a cooperative form of existence liberates a large amount of energy that is "locked-up", or frozen, during a state of competitive strife. We see, here, a clear parallel with the modern arms-race between nations, and, in particular, the super-powers, because it is obvious, how much energy, capital, material resources and potential for human life has become locked-up by such an arms-race.

The last question we should ask ourselves is this; what is necessary to persuade successful people to abandon the instinctive drive towards an all-out combat to the death, if they think, that all is lost, whenever they give-in to the pressures that are put upon them by their competitors? Indeed, the answer lies in the fact, that we have to give these powerful and successful people a genuinely acceptable alternative, and, we have to avoid putting them into a position where they will fight to the death. If we make it clear to our adversaries, that they will be destroyed, if we win, or, that they will be doomed to a life of total misery and hopeless poverty, if they lose the up-coming battle, we only stiffen their resistance to a desperate last stance. Unless we acknowledge, that the art of finding a peaceful solution is based upon the search for a mutually acceptable compromise, we will not be able to avoid battle.

A wealthy and powerful elite can not expect a durable condition of peaceful co-existence, if the poorer segments of society are doomed to live in a perpetual state of poverty and deprivation, because, then, these poorer segments will have nothing to lose from taking-up arms and trying to destroy their oppressors in a desperate revolutionary fight. Similarly, a revolutionary force, which swears eternal damnation to all those, who are in a position of power, wealth and privilege, will only stiffen the resistance of their adversaries to the point, that they hold-on to their privileges at all costs. As a result, the revolutionary elite squanders an opportunity to persuade the privileged elite about the justice and beauty of a viable social contract of essential equality.

.......

Summary

1. A question is a tool for the intellectual worker.
   It is exciting to know and understand something.
   Questions about questions.
   A question may act as a two-edged sword.
   The ability to ask incisive questions may make us a leader or an outcast.
   Questions may build or destroy certainties.
   Cultural regulations that guide, and limit, the tool of inquiry.
   Ordinary questions represent a quest for more detail.
   Questions about the "quality" of a communication.
   The credibility, or "authority", of an author or communicator.
   We all have a tendency to be lazy and accept information without much scrutiny.
   Relying upon an aura of pre-existing authority or credibility.
   All communications must have some sort of relevance.
   The limited relevance of autobiographical data.
   A relevant communicator must arouse a sense of curiosity or anticipation in the reader or audience.
   The relevance of a discussion.
   A good grasp over the subject-matter at hand, and, some idea what sort of audience one is writing for.
   A philosopher has usually an opportunity to practice and polish his art for a prolonged period of time.
   There are many ways of presenting the same basic ideas.
   The willingness to strive continuously for precision and perfection.
   A writer of philosophical essays is forever trying to stimulate the interest and curiosity of his readers.
   
   
   
2. There are four major categories of questions.
   The quest for detail, or "precision", and, when questioning serves the purpose of feeding the attitude of "hope".
   Questions to outline a "range of philosophical concerns".
   The desire to see relationships, an overall meaning, or a purpose behind a flow of information.
   Questions that are centered around existential significance; "what is the use, or meaning, of this particular information for me?"
   When a communication becomes a form of "entertainment".
   The relevance of a work of art depends, entirely, on the level of interest it evokes.
   Questions related to authority and credibility are the most controversial questions one can ask.
   The fine art of "needling".
   When a question becomes a challenge to credibility or authority.
   Rethorical questions.
   In the way we ask a question, we communicate a great deal of information.
   The "tone" of a question.
   Interrogation and intimidation.
   Techniques for determining the reliability of information.
   A look at the inter-play between questions and answers in routine contacts.
   The evolution of the art of asking questions.
   The ability to give names to our awarenesses.
   A short review of the emergence of symbolic representations.
   A "wave of recognition" arose, when the first successful imitations took place.
   A gradual rise of the awareness of imprecision.
   When details became verbalisable, many awarenesses could be sharply delineated by shifting, continuously, the focus of attention.
   We do not recognise, anymore, a complex situation "as a whole".
   The "deja vue" phenomenon; a somewhat primitive and "holistic" way of "apparently recognising" a similar or familiar situation.
   A failure to appreciate fine differences.
   We need to grasp reality "accurately", in a never-ending search for viability.
   Only a few people seem inclined to make use of the possibility to develop a sophisticated perception of reality.
   The primary tool for shaping a precise perception of reality is the question.
   The birth of the symbolic representation for an act of inquiry.
   
   
   
3. Attitudes that suppress the tendency to ask questions.
   A more sober and less "anthropocentric" interpretation of the faculty of conscious awareness.
   Questions and suspicions about the evolutionary imagery of the sciences.
   The dissection of a complex problem into many smaller "sub-problems" that can be solved, step by step.
   The crossing of a river as an example of complex problem-solving.
   Making decisions.
   The "hard work" of obtaining reliable answers to a large number of problems.
   Followers rely upon other people in an attitude of hope and faith.
   A severe loss, when a trusted leader perishes.
   Followers may have to become leaders, suddenly and unexpectedly.
   A school curriculum that stimulates the faculties of thought and analysis, as well as judgement and practical decision-making.
   The attitudes of confidence and self-reliance are based on a feeling of justice and security.
   The art of scrutinising the assumptions that lie behind a question.
   What questions can reveal.
   Using the tools of inquiry to challenge authority.
   The difficult problem of pointing-out short-comings in an existing leadership structure, without attacking a position of legitimate authority.
   How to attack corruption.
   When we accept the status-quo as "the norm".
   When we are unable to formulate our goals and questions clearly.
   Drifting aimlessly through life.
   We always face some sort of problem.
   A chronic anxiety about income and job-security.
   Relying, increasingly, upon connections to maintain our position in the social environment.
   We all remain captive to existential anxieties.
   We tend to look to others to solve our problems.
   All specialised knowledge and expertise depend on pre-conceived ideas because of the complex nature of specialised expertise.
   We have to take a very large portion of "teachings" at face value, without the ability, or time, to scrutinise, in detail, the accuracy or truthfulness of what we have been taught.
   A look back from the top.
   We may die as ignorant as when we began our professional climb.
   The art of reflection may serve the search for a unified view-point and coherent philosophy.
   
   
   
4. Existential over-tones of the desire to acquire a comprehensive over-view.
   The search for "conceptual mastery".
   Laying to rest a relentless army of doubts and questions.
   Is the tendency to question an inborn affinity?
   Everyone has the ability to learn to speak and ask questions.
   The ability to use intellectual faculties should be part of a harmonious personality development for every youngster.
   Learning, intuitively, when to ask, and, when to keep one's mouth shut, and eyes and ears open.
   The art of learning more than is apparent from the overt answers.
   The art of posing a series of precise, well-tailored, but gently probing questions that stop short of arousing anger or irritation.
   A trustful and confident personality is needed to ask honest and precise questions.
   The community has to be comfortable with the practice of asking incisive questions.
   Simple life-forms do not "have problems", but react as the result of an "algebraic summation" of contrasting stimuli.
   The origins of "aggressive" behaviour-patterns.
   An environment with contradictory signals.
   The physiology of the nerve-cell.
   The behavioural response depends on the balance, and, later, on the spatial organisation of environmental stimuli.
   Exploring behavioural possibilities, as well as the role of limitations and restrictions.
   Learning always takes place within a framework of "tolerances".
   The conscious sphere of reality allows us, frequently, to "avoid getting into trouble" through the faculty of fore-sight.
   A review of the function and development of "belief-structures".
   Leaving our conscious awareness free to concentrate on sense impressions that can not be categorised easily and constitute, therefore, a "problem".
   Developing a "feel" for the situation at hand.
   The conscious sphere of reality perceptions and rational responses is only the tip of an ice-berg of inter-actions with our natural and social environments.
   A large factor of intuitive decision-making.
   The role of an "emotional bias", or filter for our sense impressions.
   Learning to live with an imperfect grasp over our realities.
   
   
   
5. Consciousness fades from view, whenever we look back at pre-human evolution.
   A stunning development of the capabilities of conscious or verbalisable awareness.
   Anxieties, because of our inability to oversee this enormous field of knowledge and technology.
   The Renaissance.
   Cultural and technological innovations come and go.
   A winter of warfare and social upheaval.
   A mechanism of natural selection for bringing-about cultural evolution and an enhanced ability to survive?
   Ambiguous and contradictory results for every spurt of cultural evolution.
   The nature of human existence remains the same.
   The cycle of flowering and decay.
   Let us try to increase our grasp over reality.
   A review of early learning processes.
   Finding our way into the social surroundings.
   Navigating through a three-dimensional environment.
   Rarely do we undestand the reasons, why there are curbs placed on our behavioural inclinations.
   Nobody develops a perfectly balanced personality.
   The vulnerability of transparence.
   Making a living with our "image".
   There is no benefit in scrutinising something that is generally accepted.
   Questions are not helpful, if we do not understand anything of the information we are presented with.
   The limitations of specialised knowledge.
   The need to match lecture and audience.
   How to bridge the gap between an assumed and an actual level of knowledge.
   In a psychological crisis, many ideas and certainties seem to be on the brink of collapse.
   When the mind is being up-rooted by a large and relentless plow.
   A "psychological meta-morphosis".
   
   
   
6. Being careful with our zeal for tearing-up the vestiges of certainty.
   Physicians may destroy a patient with their enthousiasm to investigate and apply a radical form of treatment.
   We should not destroy more than we can build-up again.
   The death of a social entity, or cultural code, can be peaceful.
   Restructuring a personality by a thorough psycho-analysis is suitable for adolescents and young adults.
   A personality, as well as a cultural code, are doomed to failure, if they lack the flexibility to adapt to changing circumstances.
   The importance of a thorough education early in life.
   People, who dabble in psychological insights, are, so often, pedantic and ignorant bores.
   Developing a sobering and useful insight into secondarily acquired structures of knowledge, is not easy.
   The pride associated with a serious learning effort.
   When we need to display knowledge.
   Dealing with a sequestered area of knowledge or information.
   When an expert succeeds in "intimidating" his social surroundings.
   The problem of "pseudo-knowledge".
   Making a living with teaching or applying knowledge.
   Has the notion of making a contribution to society become obsolete?
   When we have committed ourselves to a cause or status-quo that is far from just and beneficial to the social environment.
   Religious beliefs and attitudes have a tendency to become a "prized asset", or private property, and will be vigorously defended against criticisms and dissenters.
   Knowledge and belief may become an end in themselves, rather than a tool for understanding and insight.
   A look at the atittudes and motivations of "war-mongerers".
   Peace without justice is nothing more than a "holding action", where the status-quo is temporarily maintained.
   A facile facade, reducing complex realities to a series of slogans.
   A number of exhortations.
   We do not want our politicians and military leaders to have bomb-free shelters or nuclear hide-outs, where they can survive, while we perish.
   We do not mistrust our adversaries as much as they do.
   Uni-lateral nuclear and chemical disarmament.
   
   
   
7. Any type of nuclear war-fare is utter folly.
   The problems of war and international tensions come back to the mechanisms of existential requirements and the emotions of anxiety and suspicion.
   The dangers associated with entrenched positions of power.
   The rich and the powerful have the means to shield themselves from the devastations of warfare.
   When we side with the elite.
   A pernicious dream.
   Throughout history, leaders have been willing to risk utter devastation of their societies.
   How to halt and reverse the trends towards polarisation.
   The ideals of Socialism, and the dreams of Capitalism, are part and parcel of every personality.
   Taking the risk of placing our "trust" consciously.
   The mechanisms of a judicial settlement.
   Why is it so difficult for the nations of the world to orden themselves into a civilised community of nations?
   Hasty attempts to break-through a competitive stalemate may reduce the world to ashes.
   The route of fostering a deliberate, informed and conscious choice by people from all over the world.
   The massive momentum of a globally organised "collective will".
   Standardising systems of government and social organisation.
   Curbing the powers of special-interest groupings.
   We will have to learn to "speak the same language" all over the world.
   Transferring, gradually, more powers to a supra-national, elected body of representatives.
   The problems of sabotage.
   Recognising, clearly, the problems associated with a Socialist Paradise and a Capitalist Day-Dream.
   We need the spur of some existental anxiety to make us aware of the blessings of a social contract of essential equality.
   Differentiation on the basis of personal merit is unavoidable, and is actually needed and desirable.
   Making sure, that every youngster has an equal and equitable opportunity to succeed.
   There are many existing organisations that can give us a valuable clue, how to organise a viable globally integrated society.
   Facing-up to the truly difficult choices.
   The socialisation of the living organisation arose, long before the emergence of mankind.
   Liberating energies that became locked-up during a state of competitive strife.
   How can we persuade successful and powerful people to abandon the drive towards all-out combat, whenever they feel threatened?
   We have to provide the successful and powerful segments of society with reasonable and potentially acceptable alternatives.
   We squander, so often, the opportunity to persuade the privileged elite about the justice and beauty of a social contract of essential equality.

.......